Bill Clinton instructed us on the meaning of "is" and "alone" when he was credibly accused of sexual harassment. Now the Obama boys, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey (sounds like a bad law firm) and their spokesmen in the Destroy Trump Media, instruct us on the meaning of "spy" and "informant" to explain why the Obama gang planted an Obama person in the Trump campaign to report to the Obama boys. According to the Obama boys, the person planted in the Trump campaign to report the activities of the Trump campaign was not a spy, but an informant.

Clapper said:

For me, if you're going to use the term "spy," which I never have liked, but let's assume it's a valid term, to me that suggests using intelligence tradecraft, employing an operative who has been formally trained in clandestine collection, someone who's masking their identity or someone who is recruiting and this informant was none of that. So to me the informant is the most benign form of intelligence collection that you can do. And moreover, the important point here is what was the objective? The objective is what were the Russians attempting to do, if anything, to infiltrate and influence a political campaign? That was the objective, not to spy on the campaign, per se.

So because the informant, Stefan Halper, was not formally trained, used his real name, and did not recruit others – and because, most importantly, the informant was trying to find out what the Russians were doing – Halper is not a spy. But if he were a spy, then it would be okay to spy, because the ends justify the means. He is an informant who reports to the Obama boys what he sees and hears at the Trump campaign.

Aside from the absurdity of Clapper's drivel, the use of the informant raises the question of the relationship between the Obama DOJ's applications for the FISA warrants and the Obama FBI's use of an informant or spy in the Trump campaign. Many applications for a warrant rely on information obtained from an informant who provides information based on events and conversations that he saw and heard.

Yet the reports about the FISA warrants show that the basis for the warrants was the Steele dossier, paid for by Hillary and the DNC. Since we now know that the Obama gang used an informant, the absence of any information from Halper, or other informants, to justify the application for the FISA warrants means that the informant did not provide any credible information about Russian "collusion" to be included in the FISA applications. If the informant had any information worth relaying, then you can bet that this information would have been leaked to the New York Times and other news outlets for Mueller's office – and been included in the FISA applications for the warrants.

Moreover, since the Obama DOJ knew that the informant did not provide any credible information about Russian "collusion," this should have been disclosed to the FISA court because the absence of credible information from an informant embedded in the Trump campaign contradicts the unreliable information in the Steele dossier.

It does not matter if we label Halper a spy or an informant. It is a distinction without a difference in this matter. He was placed in the Trump campaign to report to the Obama FBI-DOJ any evidence of Russian "collusion."

Brennan, Clapper, and Comey are arguing whether Halper was a spy or informant to distract from the fact that Halper, and others, did not report any useful information. More importantly, the Obama DOJ failed to disclose to the FISA court that it had an informant inside the Trump campaign who did not report any information to justify a warrant. The absence of such information from the administration's informant contradicts and weakens the reliability and credibility of the Steele dossier as a basis for the warrant.

Simply stated, the informant did not see or hear anything that supports the Russia "collusion" because there was no Russia collusion. The Obama DOJ failed to inform the FISA court of this.