word in your post. Beginning with there being no difference between a spy and an informant, and there being anything unusual about using paid informants in criminal investigations (the FBI does it all the time, common practice, produces evidence that is perfectly admissible in court), moving on to there being no conceivable motivation for the FBI having an informant, given what we now know about Manafort's ties, Papawhathisname, etc - there is at least as much reason to think this is just where an investigation into Russian meddling led the FBI, as there is of anything innately political.

Saying that the WH did not direct the FBI to "spy" on the Trump campaign says nothing at all about Loretta Lynch. I have far more sympathy for Comey and the reasons he gives for his conduct during the campaign (not especially helpful to Hill) than I do for anything Lynch did.

Overarching point - if the Obama admin intended to try to turn the election to Hill, they had a strange way of going about it when it refused to mention anything about the Russian suspicions, because of their stated concerns about seeming to impact the election. O did not publicly remark on it until after the election. Seems incongruous with directing a political spy ring. Same thing with Comey's explanation for why he publicly came out about Hillary - twice, including once right before election day - but never said boo about the Russian investigation, which was already underway. I find his explanation as to why to be perfectly credible, even if his actions may have been questionable (although I think he was in a no-win situation, largely because of Lynch).

You and Trumpies generally being unwilling to accord the FBI in this matter the same presumption of innocence that you accord Trump in the Mueller investigation is all I see. If the IG comes back with anything damning on the FBI, then so be it. Frankly, the same with the Mueller investigation into Trump, if it produced evidence of some conspiracy - and that is not the outcome I want to see.