I don't know enough facts to have a fully-formed opinion on what to make of the FBI's use of an informant -- identified as a Cambridge prof -- to gather information about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. BUT -- I do know that, from the outset, prepositions matter.
Here's what I mean. If the source was "inside" the campaign, that means he (a) was paid by the campaign or vendor, (b) was publicly affiliated with the campaign, or (c) was affiliated with the campaign privately but in such a way that the campaign claimed his as one of their own
Someone who develops information "about" the campaign but who isn't affiliated with the campaign... is not a source inside the campaign. It's a source, or an informant. There's no snitching. BUT (part II)... think of this scenario...
If an actual "inside" source -- let's say... a consultant or vendor or employee -- believed he witnessed or was privy to potentially illegal behavior and didn't trust his bosses, then going to the FBI would be the correct thing to do... morally, ethically, legally.
Turn it around. Let's say that a Clinton campaign consultant discovered some of the missing e-mails...knew that the FBI was looking for them... wouldn't that consultant have a duty to tell the FBI?
So -- if the FBI developed a suspicion that people inside Trump's campaign (but not Trump itself) were improperly encouraging Russia to use its influence to sabotage the campaign, DURING THE CAMPAIGN, using an informant outside the campaign would be the safest way to attempt to
... develop more information about the potential violation of the law. I could be wrong. (I'm often wrong!) But ... do we have ANY information or indication to suggest that the Cambridge prof was ever "inside" the Trump campaign in any way?
