Democrats Always Drag The Conversation Into An Argument About The English Language!

So here we are. Yet another scandal where the Democrats are caught red handed and we end up in a neverending argument over definitions!

Gallons of ink are being wasted and the airwaves are polluted with arguments about whether the FBI informant on the Trump Campeign, Stephan Halper was a “Spy” or a “Confidential Informant”?

Let me turn the question on its head.

Arguing “Halper is a Confidential informant, not a spy,” is the same as arguing “a Mallard is not a duck.”

Let’s put it another way. “Is a duck a Mallard or a Norther Pin Tail?”

A Mallard is a Duck! A Northern Pin Tail is a Duck! They are both Ducks by another name!

Let’s look back at the 1990s, when Democrats dragged us into a never ending argument about whether “oral sex” is the same as “sexual relations.”

In the minds of any cuckolded individual, there is no difference. But by legal definition “oral sex” is not intercourse, therefore it is not “sexual relations.”

By saying “Halper isn’t a “spy’”, Comey dragged us into an argument over legal terms.

If you follow the FBI’s handbook of terms Comey is right (for domestic investigations at least…BUT NOT foreign intelligence investigations. See Post Script).

Halper would be a “Confidential informant” if he was helping the FBI in a domestic intelligence investigation. If the term “spy” is even in the handbook it is likely used to refer to a person conducting espionage on behalf of a foreign entity (Again more in the Post Script).

Where the rubber meets the road, for most of us, a person is a “Confidential Informant” if he is informing FOR YOU. A spy is someone informing AGAINST YOU. Not so the FBI and Democrats in this instance.

The Democrats were flat on their backs when the information about Halper and his activities hit the news BUT by using informational Jiu Jitsu they are on their feet and Republicans are now on the defensive.

Can we please stop wasting time arguing the point? It is time to blow the Democrat’s minds and tell them they are right!

Just say it!

Halper IS/WAS a “Confidential Informant.”

At that point the argument is over. We get back to the argument

“It is WRONG and ILLEGAL for a Democrat Administration to plant a confidential informant into the Republican Party Presidential Campaign without justifiable cause.”

When we get to that question, we get to the question of what justifiable cause the Obama Administration had to conduct surveillance (The FBI term for Spying) on the Trump campaign.

Again, end the argument!

Concede the point!

Halper was a “Confidential Informant.”

Ask the following questions and keep asking!

What probable cause did a Democrat Administration have to collect data on a Republican Presidential campaign?

Once we know that, we can ask:

Did they have Judicial approval in the forms of warrants, subpoenas, etc.?

Did they do the surveillance legally with the proper judicial oversight?

Did they keep political information gathered during the surveillance from going to political officers of the Democrat administration and the Clinton Campaign?

Was any political information gathered used for political purposes?

Finally, What are the DOJ, FBI and Democrats hiding when they keep playing definitional games with the ENGLISH FREAKING LANGUAGE?

P.S.

I am going to violate my own rule here and play the game because I just can’t help myself. After that, I’ll stick to my point from above.

Here is the definition of confidential informant from The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Compliance with the Attorney General’s Investigative Guidelines

According to the Confidential Informant Guidelines, a confidential informant or “CI” is “any individual who provides useful and credible information to a Justice Law Enforcement Agency (JLEA) regarding felonious criminal activities and from whom the JLEA expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future.”154 The Guidelines do not apply to the use of confidential informants in foreign intelligence or foreign counterintelligence investigations or to informants operating outside the United States in connection with extraterritorial criminal investigations (unless the informant is likely to be called to testify in a domestic case).155

Hmm. “Guidelines do not apply to the use of confidential informants in foreign intelligence or foreign counterintelligence investigation?” Wasn’t the “Russian Collusion” investigation conducted as a “Foreign Intelligence Operation?” I wonder what you call a “Confidential Informants” in a “Foreign Intelligence Investigation?”

A “SPY”, maybe?

The post Democrats Always Drag The Conversation Into An Argument About The English Language! appeared first on RedState.