This is getting more than just a little out of hand. When a U.S. Senator orders a coverup by the media on the dirty little details emerging from ‘Spygate’ then the world has let too much go with out consequence. And when he does it openly, on social media, it’s even more ridiculous. It’s time for Schumer to go.
The Conservative Review has this on that.
First there’s the tweet:
Memo to the press: When you quote the president saying “spygate,” it is only fair to immediately follow that by noting there is absolutely no evidence of a spy being inserted in his campaign. It seems to me, failure to do so is a disservice to your readers, viewers & the country.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 28, 2018
Oh, really, Chuck? Is it really your responsibility to direct the narrative? And if there is no evidence, then maybe you should be directing Mueller to wrap the investigation and present his “findings” to the world. But, I’m guessing that really wouldn’t work out quite the way the left is hoping it would.
First, to quote the great Mark Levin, “the evidence is overwhelming” that there was an informant involved in disseminating intelligence about the Trump campaign to the CIA and the FBI. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported it. The Daily Caller connected the dots and identified Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor with ties to the CIA and the British intelligence agency MI-6, as the “informant.” The argument over whether an “informant” is the same thing as a “spy” is semantics. Halper was tasked by the FBI to meet Trump campaign officials and report any evidence of Russian collusion (there is still no evidence so far). An individual who gathers intelligence and reports it sounds an awful lot like a spy.
Second, who does Chuck Schumer think he is to give orders to the mainstream media? A United States government official has no business giving editorial direction to reporters — and, of course, it’s dishonest direction at that. The fact is — reporters are still supposed to use facts — that Trump’s campaign was surveilled and there was at least one individual, Halper, who approached members of the campaign under false pretenses to gather information to report to the government.
And they point out one more thing:
On what grounds did the Obama administration begin a counterintelligence investigation using “police state tactics” against the Trump campaign? “In the end, it is not about who the spies are. It is about why they were spying,” McCarthy writes.
So, really! Is it appropriate for Chuck Schumer to interact with the public narrative this way, especially since there is evidence to contradict his assertions. I can’t wait for the Mueller investigation to conclude. The fireworks should be spectacular.