Thursday, May 24

WaPo: "IF the FBI use an 'informant' it was to *protect* Trump, not to go after him"


Actual headline in the totally Trump-hating Washington Post:
IF the FBI used an informant it wasn't to go after Trump; it was to protect him
Seriously.  And of course one day later James Clapper admitted they had indeed placed a "spy" in the Trump campaign.  Of course he quickly stammered that he really hated using that term, and preferred the term "informant."

Oh, yes, certainly.  The word "informant" instead of "spy" changes everything, from "Wow, this looks very nearly criminal" to "Hey, no problem."

And certainly, surely, all dumb deplorables who voted for Trump totally believe the Post's claim that IF the FBI did place...an informant...in the campaign, it was totally to protect Trump.

Uh-huh.  Yep yep yep.  Sure do believe that, libbies.  I mean, it just sounds so logical.  So reasonable.  So believable.  Especially if we conveniently ignore the thousands of emails between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and his mistress saying "We need an insurance policy" against the million-to-one chance of Trump winning--unless "we" take action to block even that tiny possibility.

Yeah.  You bet.

Y'know, I think every single shithead on the Post has been eating their own propaganda for so long that they really believe those of us outside the Beltway are as dumb and gullible as their incessant propaganda says we are.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home