1) Alright, got 2 threads to do today I think. The first one, About the Carter Page/Rod Rosenstein NYT article. archive.is/AMCAp Archived for everyone's convenience because fuck your paywall NYT
2) "Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it." What's wrong with that sentence? Come on. Somebody.
3) 3 people familiar with it. Fake News has some of the biggest tells possible. 3 anonymous sources 'familiar' with something, ie, they haven't seen it for themselves. And its ALWAYS 3. Every fucking time.
4) What's the next big tell that something is fake news? When the writers of the article start prognosticating and reading into intentions they couldn't possibly know.
5) "The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent." How do they know that? How are they aware of the intentions behind it?
6) "But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein’s actions in the memo... indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry." Not only are the writers trying to interpret the intentions of the DoJ, but also the House GOP!
7) The third tell? It takes until the third paragraph for the headline to be rendered fucking pointless. "The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant..."
8) "for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."
9) And now for my usual snarky bullshit. "Democrats who have read the document say Republicans have cherry-picked facts to create a misleading and dangerous narrative." First off, Democrats have read it? That's news. Second, all of reality doesn't count as cherry picked facts.
10) "Mr. Trump has long been mistrustful of Mr. Rosenstein.. who appointed the special counsel... and now oversees his investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign and possible obstruction of justice by the president." How many "Trump doesn't like X" stories have been proven bullshit?
11) "Mr. Trump is now again telling associates that he is frustrated with Mr. Rosenstein, according to one official familiar with the conversations." I give this story officially 48 hours tops. Probably as low as 36. Seriously.
12) Funniest part about all this? "But a trip Mr. Page took to Russia in July 2016 while working on Mr. Trump’s campaign caught the bureau’s attention again... began conducting surveillance on him in the fall of 2016, shortly after he left the campaign."
13) All this crap is about surveillance that happened after the guy left the campaign. Let's give the NYT the benefit of the doubt and assume that Rosenstein DID reauthorize surveillance of Page. That would mean the Trump DoJ is actively investigating potential Russian agents.
14) The Trump administration is actively investigating, with a paper trail and everything, if the Russians had agents influencing the elections. All while the left is screaming that it was Trump and Russia who collaborated. Let that sink in for a moment.
15) Got it nice and deep in there? Good. Now, realize: Papasmurfalous is likely to have been a Clinton plant. Carter Page the 'investment banker' is actually an energy lobbyist who has ties to Uranium One thesternfacts.com/carter-page-me…
16) Ties which the left DESPERATELY wants to brand as connections between TRUMP and Russia, not Page/Uranium One/Clinton. So let's say Rosenstein DID reauthorize a warrant against Page. What is he ACTUALLY investigating?
17) Just some food for thought. /end
