Didn't We Recently Tell Kirstjen Nielsen To Go Fuck Herself? WELL, IT'S TIME FOR THE REMIX!
Also? FUCK YOU.
It's gotta suck when you get a new job and there is just SO MUCH TO CATCH UP ON! And if you're a member of the Trump administration, you have the added stress of trying to do a crash course on everything you missed while also putting little babies in jail and lying about it! Boy howdy, and we thought our schedule was busy!
Almost exactly one month ago, we told Kirstjen Nielsen to go fuck herself, because she was just MASSIVELY bullshitting about Russian election inteference, saying technically true facts about how Russia is meddling in our democracy to sow chaos in general, but conveniently ignoring all the intelligence we have that says that in 2016, Russia absolutely 100% positively no fucking question about it picked sides, and the side it picked was Donald Trump. In other words, where patriotic Americans were "I'M WITH HER," Russia was "MAGA MAGA MAGA!" all the way. In other other words, last month Kirstjen Nielsen apparently hadn't gotten around to reading our intelligence community's unanimous assessment that when Russia went to its polling place in November 2016 and got its finger purple like a common voter, IT VOTED FOR TRUMP. Russia was probably even wearing one of those "Trump that bitch!" t-shirts, because Putin hates Hillary Clinton, because she makes him a-skeered.
Well, Nielsen has goddamn gone and done it again, because apparently our gentle encouragement for her to go fuck herself last month didn't remind her to go read the fucking IC's report. At the Aspen Security Forum, Nielsen was asked what happened in 2016, and she said this:
“I haven’t seen any evidence that the attempts to interfere in our election infrastructure was to favor Trump,” DHS… https: //t.co/OW0GN3gEMV
— TicToc by Bloomberg (@TicToc by Bloomberg) 1532013538.0
GRRRRRRRRRRRR DAMMIT WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER?
OK, Secretary Nielsen, Mr. Rogers always said in times of crisis or when you're just being an ignorant ass fool that you should look for the helpers, and Wonkette is a Certified Fucking Helper, so here it is, from the IC report in January of 2017:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
Did you read that, Secretary Nielsen? Here, we'll paste it again, and we are such a helper that if you read all the way to the end, there will be funny picture of a puppy! Do you like puppies? Probably not, since you're a fucking monster who puts babies in baby jails and lies about it:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
LOOK AT THAT PUPPY! IT IS WEARING SUNGLASSES AND WALKING ON ITS HIND LEGS ON A BUNCH OF HUNNERD DOLLAR BILLS, MUCH LIKE THE STACKS UPON STACKS OF HUNNERD DOLLAR BILLS VLADIMIR PUTIN PROBABLY LAUNDERED TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN ORDER TO ENSURE VICTORY!
By the way, that quote from the IC assessment is under a larger heading that reads, "Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election," so don't tie yourself up in knots like your boss Trump, trying to pretend like Putin didn't do that. (Of course, your boss fucking knows Putin did that. He saw the receipts the same month that IC report came out! Also, Putin said he supported Trump in 2016 this very week , in a little press conference the secretary might have seen.)
Fuck it, we're through typing about this shit.
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!
Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please help, by making a donation of MONEY.
And did the interviewer not think that would be an interesting question to ask?
Okay, now that I've watched the video two serious questions:1) Charlottesville?2) What is the value, in this or any context, of her equivocating to the point of refusing to simply use the names of the parties or candidates involved? What audience is she speaking to who whom she thinks demands this sort of faux probity? Or maybe the question is On whose behalf is she equivocating?