But, more and more information is coming out, specifically, that the Obama administration had placed an informant in the Trump Campaign. We aren’t even going to speculate on what the reaction would have been had the Bush administration placed an informant in the Obama campaign, but we can guess the response would be several degrees more fierce and indignant than the response to the spying on the Trump campaign has been. Well, gosh, they don’t even use the word “spy.” Former CIA Director John Brennan, former NSA director James Clapper, and various folks a bit lower on the organizational flow chart have used words such as “seeking insight,” or “observing”; and they insist on the term “confidential human source” instead of spy. To mangle an old saying, a rose by any other name still might smell bad.
We will do some speculating, and it is pretty much the same thing that we supposed when the Clinton e-mail scandal first broke: the reason Mrs. C. used a private server and deleted those many emails was because they would show that she was trolling for funds for the Foundation, and she didn’t want anyone to find out about it. That makes a lot of sense, and none of the many explanations that Mrs. Clinton or her people have concocted and contrived make much sense.
Please recall that almost all of the top officials of the Obama administration from the President on down, publicly denied that the election was hacked or votes changed, and they all minimized the impact of Russian influence. Even so, “Russiagate” came to be so important after the election, and we suspect the reason was that the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign never expected to lose, and they have been scrambling to keep concealed the sorry truth of their misbehavior.
President Clinton once turned himself, the English language, and our credulity inside out over the definition of the word "is." Mr. Clapper and Mr. Brennan and Mr. Comey are doing the same thing with the definition of the word "spy."