"Sources Say" There's a New Spin Why the FBI Had to Raid the President's Home Over Some Paperwork:
ThE TrAiToR TrUmP iZ CoNcEaLiNg DoCuMeNtZ aBoUt NuKeZ

Okay.

Okay.

Pull the other one. It has bells on.

This is what you got? This is what you're going with now?

Jimmy Failla
@jimmyfailla

Normally an FBI raid is for a VERY specific item located in a VERY specific place but in this case agents spent 9 hours looking around and didn’t find much of anything. Sounds like Liz Cheney's dad told her Trump had weapons of mass destruction.

Close!

Election Wizard
@ElectionWiz

Funny how the DOJ/FBI is leaking like sieve just hours after AG Garland told the nation about how professional and honorable the Department is.

Wait, the DOJ/FBI is refusing to offer information publicly, and then leaking unsubstantiated claims to friendly Washington Post stenographers who will ask no questions and offer no pushback...?

Does this feel familiar to anyone else? Does it feel, in fact, like rather well-trod ground?

Does it begin to feel, in fact, like a cliche?

Or are we in reruns of season 2 of The Great Trump Hunt?

If anyone believes that spin, raise your hand.

Now take that hand and slap yourself in the back of your head, dum-dum, to teach yourself not to be such a gullible dope all your life.

Here's an exact transcript of the thought processes that went into this lie:

"Hmmm... how do we justify this new warrant on the president... we have to make it sound good... it has to sound really important. It can't be something lame about the fucking National Archives, those bunch of pansies and bookworms.

"Last time we said it was because he was a Russian Agent. Can we say it's about him being a Russian Agent again? No, people won't believe that. The Russian Agent story kind of blew up in our faces. There's only so many times you can go to the Russian Agent well...

"We kind of need it to be bigger than the Russian Agent story. What's bigger than the President being a Russian Agent...?

"Hmm, we might have made a pretty pickle for ourselves with starting right off with the Russian Agent cover story. That's a hard one to top!

"Oh wait, I know what's bigger than the President being a Russian Agent -- what if he's a concealing NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

"No wait, that's stupid -- how could Trump smuggle a nuke out of the White House? And where would he even get one? Unless we can figure out a way to claim he disassembled a nuke and smuggled it out in old Big Mac cartons, this isn't going to work at all...

"But... but we could say he has a document about a nuclear weapon, right...?!

"Right? Right! I mean, shit, US government documents contain a reference to nuclear weapons like every twenty or thirty pages! It's bound to be true, just based on the law of averages! If he's got more than 100 pages of documents, there are probably a solid three or four mentions of nuclear weapons in there!

"So that's it -- we'll say that the president, FORMERLY SUSPECTED OF BEING A RUSSIAN AGENT, IS NOW SUSPECTED OF CONCEALING SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!"

Anyone want to bet against me?

"Sources say."

"Sources say" again, huh?

I seem to remember "sources saying" a lot of things during Russiagate.

Does anyone else remember that?

Matt Taibbi does.

We are Demanded to Forget all the previous Regime lies in this Empire of Lies, so that we can accept the Regime's new lies, but he rebels, and remembers.

Taibbi remembers that the press previously reported that a FISA warrant would never be issued against a presidential candidate without compelling, substantial, crushing evidence undergirding it, and therefore, of course, there must be compelling, substantial, crushing evidence undergirding the FISA warrant.

Everyone else remembers that, right?

Or has the Regime chant -- Forget... Forget... Forget... -- already begun to work its obliviating magic?

The hugeness of the story has become part of its explanation. An action so extreme, we're told by expert after expert, could only be based upon "pulverizing" evidence.

Throughout the Trump years we've seen a numbing pattern of rhetorical slippage in coverage of investigations. The aforementioned Politics Insider story is no different. "Likely" evidence in the headline becomes more profound in the text. An amazing five bylined writers explain:

Regardless of the raid's focus legal experts quickly reached a consensus about it: A pile of evidence must have backed up the warrant authorizing the search.

They then quoted a "former top official in the Justice Department's National Security Division" -- you'll quickly lose track if you try to count the named and unnamed intel spooks appearing in coverage today -- who said, "There's every reason to think that there's a plus factor in the quantum and quantity of evidence that the government already had to support probable cause in this case."

Politico insisted such an action must have required a magistrate's assent "based upon evidence of a potential crime." CNN wrote how authorities necessarily "had probable grounds to believe a crime had been committed," while the New York Times formulation was that "the F.B.I. would have needed to convince a judge that it had probable cause that a crime had been committed." Social media was full of credentialed observers explaining what must be true. "The affidavit in support of the MAL search warrant must be something else," said Harvard-trained former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Signorelli, one among a heap of hyperventilating names:

[Click here to see a Human Centipede of Twitter Know-Nothings all shitting in each other's mouths]

It's amazing how short our cultural memory has become. Apparently few remember all the other times this exact rhetoric was deployed in the interminable list of other Trump investigations, only to backfire later. Does anyone remember this doozy?

Applications for FISA warrants, Comey said, are often thicker than his wrists, and that thickness represents all the work Justice Department attorneys and FBI agents have to do to convince a judge that such surveillance is appropriate in an investigation.

I remember, Matt!

Or at least I want to remember! But The Regime keeps chanting: Forget... Forget... Forget...

That Washington Post story from April 11, 2017, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump advisor Carter Page," by Devlin Barrett, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous, was one of the key moments in the Trump-Russia scandal. It repeatedly stressed the illustrious credentials of all involved, noting, "any FISA application has to be approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the FBI," before dismounting to the crucial conclusion:

The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Moscow, officials said.

The next day, the New York Times kicked the story forward by citing "a government official" who confirmed that the FISA court had obtained a warrant against Page "based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent."

Within a few days after that, Politics Insider -- the same outlet telling us today about the import of the warrant -- ran a piece by intel community spokescritter Natasha Bertrand called, "We just got a huge sign that the US intelligence community believes the Trump dossier is legitimate." The article deployed the circular logic that drove years of Trump-probe stories. We have evidence of an investigation, therefore the investigation must have evidence:

The FBI reportedly used the explosive, unverified dossier detailing President Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia to bolster its case for a warrant that would allow it to surveil Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser to Trump's campaign. It's a key signal that the FBI had enough confidence in the validity of the document to work to corroborate it and present it in court.

It's impossible to overstate how much mischief and inaccuracy was spread by one Washington Post report about the FISA court approval, which makes it all the more incredible that the paper won the Pulitzer Prize for its Russia coverage.

It's not really incredible, is it?

Militaries have sometimes resorted to hiding their greatest slaughters of innocents... by handing out medals. Hide your greatest catastrophes under a pile of ribbons and awards.

...

Many outlets, like Vox, noted that only the accusers had seen all the evidence, and the mere proles among us had not: "Law enforcement officials and Democrats who've seen the underlying intelligence," they wrote, "emphasize that the dossier allegations were only part of the justification for the Page surveillance." Callum Borchers in the Washington Post went the "FBI must have more" route:

It is wrong to say that this "Western intelligence source," presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently... And it is hard to see how the article could have been a big factor in obtaining a warrant because it contained little, if any, information that the FBI did not already possess or which was not in the public domain.

Lest anyone need reminding about how all of these stories turned out, the Justice Department Inspector General found that "inaccurate information" and a host of other corrupted procedures were used to produce the "probable cause" in Page's FISA warrant. Michael Horowitz, the IG, also found "the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page," and added, for the benefit of commentators like Borchers who insisted the Steele material was not, well, material, that it actually "played a central and essential role in the FBI's... decision to seek the FISA order."

But here we go again. The Regime chants Forget... Forget... Forget... and its courtiers and stenographers are writing the exact same story: They would never have authorized a raid on the president's home without "pulverizing" evidence, therefore, there must have been some truly "pulverizing" evidence.

Top-Level Genius Joe Scarborough -- I mean, he's the guy who landed the shaved she-ape Mitzi Barishnykov or whatever her name is-- just had a guest on to explain the FBI must have had serious evidence backing the warrant, and anyone doubting this is attacking a "non-politicized" agency and "independent law enforcement."

Say, during Russiagate, weren't we also reassured that the judges would demand sufficient evidence before issuing the warrant? Weren't we also assured the FBI was then a non-politicized and independent law enforcement agency?

Forget... Forget... Forget...

So this is all just like Russiagate.

And yet the Russiagaters are not bothered by this at all, and repeat all the same Russiagate laugh lines.

Why? Do they not hear themselves?

Why aren't they bothered at all that this is just exactly like Russiagate?

Let me clue everyone in about something:

David French, AllahPundit, Jake Tapper, Maggie Haberman, Louise Mensch, all the rest of the Russiagate Conspiracists: They've never actually admitted that Russiagate was a conspiracy theory, have they?

Have you ever heard them clearly admit the hoax was concocted?

Or have they just gotten quiet about it, and sought to change the subject?

The latter, right?

Have you ever heard AllahPundit, David French, Jake Tapper, Adam Schiff, Jonah Goldberg, Maggie Haberman, Rachel Maddow, or the rest of the people who peddled these lies admit they peddled these lies? And then demand accountability from the people who infected them with the lies in the first place?

Big font for this answer:

NO YOU HAVE NOT. YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OR READ THEM DO THAT.

As I say, the most you see them do is get evasive on the point and then try to change the subject. "But what about [this false claim by Trump]!"

They. Never. Admit. That. RussiaGate. Was. Fundamentally. A. Lie.

And here's why:

Partly this is because these people are all disgusting intellectual narcissists who are not in fact very smart and are keenly aware that they are runts pretending to be big dogs.

There are two type of narcissists -- grandiose narcissists, and fragile narcissists.

Grandiose narcissists don't worry too much about their status becaue their narcissism is so great that they always assume they're top dog.

But the fragile narcissists -- the weak narcissists -- the brittle narcissists -- their little narcissistic worlds will come shattering apart if a single crack is allowed in their ego bubbles, so they can never admit fault, ever, and they're always desperately anxious that someone will detect them for the frauds and imposters that they know they are.

And all of these cocksuckers I've named for you are in that camp: Fragile narcissists.

They're not even the good narcissists! They're not even the Top-Drawer Narcissists!

(Like me.)

They're the weakling narcissists, the second-rater narcissists, the poser narcissists.

But the main reason they will never actually admit that Russiagate was a hoax, just something Hillary Clinton made up with the drunken liar and job-seeker Igor Danchenko, is that, despite all of the 100% uncontradicted proof that it was all a fabrication, these strict rationalists and dedicated anti-conspiracy-theorists...

ALL STILL BELIEVE THAT RUSSIAGATE IS TRUE.

What is it that Hemingway, or was it Fitzgerald, said about the poor in America?

There were no poor people in America; there are just millionaires temporarily embarrassed by a lack of funds.

Well, AllahPundit, David French, Jake The Fake Tapper, and the rest of the Russiagate Conspiracy Theory gang -- the same people who are always screaming about QAnon believing in pleasing partisan conspiracy theories, what's that, "WITHOUT EVIDENCE," as Fake Jake Tapper's snarky chyrons say--

They all believe that Russiagate is real and true, just temporarily embarrassed by a lack of evidence.

You cannot get any of these people to actually admit that Russiagate is fake for the same reason you cannot get a cultist to deny his divinity of his master: Because they are True Believers, and it's going to take more than an IG report or a mere lack of "scientific evidence" to disprove their Mighty Faith.

And that is also why they are all still desperate to Get Trump, to get him on anything: Because they believe -- completely illogically, completely irrationally -- that if they can get Trump on some completely unrelated beef, like being in possession of a mere document the National Archives says it wants back, that somehow "rescues" the Russiagate Conspiracy Theory that they know in their heart was true all along, and always will be true.

Has this every happened to you? You have a dream. Something wonderful. You're with the lover of your dreams.

Or you can fly. It's amazing.

I fly a lot. I hate waking up, flightless.

You wake up and none of it was real.

But you want to fly. You want to be with your dream lover.

For the next twenty minutes you begrudge reality and try to wish the dream world into reality.

NeverTrump and the left -- but I repeat myself-- had a nervous breakdown in 2015. They were fed a pleasing lie by Hillary Clinton and her paid operatives in FusionGPS in 2016. This lie helped them cope with their nervous breakdown.

It was all a dream. It was always a fiction.

But it felt so real to them.

And they want it to be real.

These "strict rationalists" -- in their own hyperemotive minds, anyway -- want their pleasing coping fantasy to be real.

They have been attempting to collectively will the fantasy of Russiagate into reality for six fucking years now, and it looks like they will never stop trying.

"NuclearCodeGate" is just the latest attempt to make RussiaGate real.

See this guy, for example.

It was all just a dream... or was it?

If Jake Tapper, AllahPundit, David French, Jonah Goldberg, etc., want to prove me wrong about their mental state and continuing belief that Russiagate Is Real, they can just, for once, forthrightly admit it was a hoax and a lie from the start.

And demand accountability from the people who lied and defrauded the government. And who made them look like pathetic chumps.

But they won't.

They never do.

They've had years to do so, and have always avoided doing so.

Keep the dream alive, fellas.

You strict rationalists, you hyper-empirical anti-conspiracists, you.

ThE TrAiToR TrUmP iZ CoNcEaLiNg DoCuMeNtZ aBoUt NuKeZ&bodytext= Okay. Okay. Pull the other one. It has bells on. This is what you got? This is what you're going with now? Jimmy Failla @jimmyfailla Normally an FBI raid is for a VERY specific item located in a VERY...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 12:00 PM

| Access Comments