“PROTECTION”: WASHINGTON POST-STYLE

If I didn’t see this I would not have believed that a major newspaper – even the unconditionally Trump-hating Washington Post – would have printed it.

Here are the first two paragraphs of an article it published, written by a Yale faculty member named Asha Rangappa:

President Trump and his allies are outraged at reports that the FBI used an “informant” to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign. “Really bad stuff!” the president tweeted early Friday. Supporters of the White House claim the FBI’s reported tactics were illegal. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has even subpoenaed the Justice Department for information on who the informant might have been; department and FBI officials say public disclosures of this kind could put sources in danger.

But Trump and his backers are wrong about what it means that the FBI reportedly was using a confidential source to gather information early in its investigation of possible campaign ties to Russia. The investigation started out as a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal one. And relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously — perhaps too cautiously — to protect the campaign, not undermine it.

In other words, this genius is telling you – and the Washington Post has no problem publishing – that if there was an FBI informant planted in the Trump campaign, it wasn’t an anti-Trump effort to spy on him, it was a benevolent act, meant to protect him.

Which, of course, has been proven conclusively by the Trump-supporting actions of the FBI since he won, and the text messages between two of its key players, peter strzok and lisa page, extolling Mr. Trump and wishing him well on his victory.  Right, Asha?

It takes a level of Trump hatred far above and beyond the ordinary level to publish utter, complete BS like this.  And, it is clear, the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post has just that.

My congratulations to The Post for proving, again, that, for journalistic integrity, it has dropped to the bottom of the heap.

Tell us, Mr. Bezos:  have you uncovered the name(s) of FBI undercover personnel who were “protecting” Hillary Clinton too?

One last thing:  here is my favorite reader comment, put up by someone using the screen name “greendayer”:

Very interesting that the Post has gone from the denial of existence of the spy to the admission that he exists but it really wasn’t a spy.  

Apparently the name leaked to the Post by the DOJ has credibility forcing the Post to change its tune. 

The Inspector General’s report should be very compelling. So should the attempts to minimize it by the Democrat Party press.

More popcorn needed.

Yep.