R.I.P. Scout26
What would it mean if this information was going to the Clinton campaign?
When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.
I guess if she has a name maybe she's got more info that could make a stronger case for this being a mole but it seems like this is making a pretty big leap based off an assumption. Would they necessarily use a different word (informant?) for someone who was not planted by the FBI?
Is there a difference? Playing word games doesn't make this better. Why would the FBI be establishing an informant within a Presidential Campaign?
Let’s unpack a couple of things, starting with the “spying” allegation. Does “source” exclusively mean someone planted within an organization, or can it mean a member of an organization who decides to inform on it on their own? Strassel assumes the former, but the latter also makes sense. The difference is more than just rhetorical; it’s the difference between planting a spy and reacting to a whistleblower. If the FBI or CIA sent an agent to infiltrate an American political campaign, that would be an unconscionable intrusion into domestic electoral functioning. If, on the other hand, someone who worked on the campaign went to them and passed along information because they felt that serious wrongdoing was afoot, that’s a significantly different situation — still a bit fraught, but not the same thing as spying.
Some people have called Page and/or Papadopoulos “moles”, but that’s really not what it appears they were. The better description is “tools”. Once Stefan Halper dirtied them up, they gave the appearance of being involved in a vast Russian conspiracy.
