The Collusion Delusion: From Russia With Lube?

There are two conflicting themes within this Trump/Russia collusion scandal: 1. Liberals across the land are banking on this investigation ending the reign of President Ass-Clown Hitler, and 2. There’s a ton of smoke, yet no functional smoke detectors in the greater DC area. Check out Sam Harris’s podcast wherein Anne Applebaum equates both Putin and Trump’s tactics to “polluting the information space.” The turd is out there? The truth is becoming ever more subjective these days and, if you’re a Republican, this whole truthiness to murkiness shift is paying off. Nonstop lying apparently comes with a super majority. And if you act now you can get two Supreme Court Judges! It is very odd to me how so many Republican folks are disinterested in the whole Trump-should-probably-hang thing. They want us to stop harassing the president and just let Trump govern. What?! Are you crazy? Oh, right. I have an idea, how about the party of Nixon, Dubya and Trump refrain from commenting for a few election cycles? Dope springs eternal.

Fellow Discordian, Pokey McDooris, is apparently not buying the whole Trump/Putin collusion scandal:

“It’s easy to release enough information to imply anything without proving anything, that’s what seems to be happening here. This Media and the Democratic Party have lost such credibility. But, if some whistleblowers in the intelligence community are really concerned about the Trump and Russian collusion, then release the smoking gun; otherwise move on. If the smoking gun is released then I’m right there with you, like you should have been when Bill Clinton received half a million dollars for speaking fee in Moscow.”

I think you’re projecting again, Pokey, like after a coke & milk-chugging contest. Just when we were starting to find some common ground …it gets all wet and chunky. The media and the democratic party have lost all credibility, namely, because your side’s bullshit is working.

Maybe your statement would make more sense backwards:

Seems worse, but the problem is more Adobe than Apokey. Citing Bill Clinton’s speech to Russia is another diversion, or what I call the “we’re even” maneuver. Trump may need to hang, but Bill Clinton might need a slap on the wrist, so let’s call it even. You also suggest we should just “release the smoking gun, or move on.” Don’t you realize there’s no appetite amongst a super majority to investigate a Republican president?

According to The Beast, there are only seven staffers working on the senate’s investigation (all part-time & none with investigative experience). This seems less credible than the recent Kevin Nunes House debacle. Talk about Congressional oversight.

Hey, can you authorize some overtime Mr. President, so we can get to the bottom of the investigation about you?

What is the cherry on this shit sundae? The White House is now refusing to hand over key documents about Michael Flynn’s Russian connections, here. There is a smoking gun, Pokey, but they’re just waiting for it to stop smoking before ditching it in the Potomac. Let the record show, as the rule of law broke down in this nation, the Discord‘s ‘constitutional scholar’ failed to notice. So you’re saying seven Benghazi investigations are fine, but one independent prosecutor assigned to find out whether Trump should hang is pushing it? Are you too busy on the upcoming eighth installment, Battle Beneath the Planet of Benghazi?

Got Perspective?

Scandal Summary Alert:

  1. Paul Manafort – Trump’s former campaign manager was clearly on the Russian’s payroll and now he’s MIA.
  2. Michael Flynn – Stepped down as Chief Security Adviser for lying about his conversations with Russia and now he’s requesting immunity to “tell his story”.
  3. Carter Page – Another foreign policy adviser is under investigation for dealing directly with Russian intelligence.
  4. Jeff Sessions – Our current Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from presiding over this investigation due to his own wholly undisclosed pre-election meetings with a Russian Ambassador.
  5. Sean Spicer – Lied to the press repeatedly by asserting there was “no contact” between Trump and Russian officials prior to the election.
  6. Vladimir Putin – Has clearly interfered with the U.S. election in an attempt to change its outcome.
  7. Donald Trump – Called everything on this list “fake news” and “total garbage.”

Not reaching a level of interest yet? Should we order some more smoke, Poke? Did anyone in Trump’s band of merry memes collude with Russia? It’s a fair question. One that warrants a real answer. Oh, and the FBI has an open investigation on many of these peeps. Before admitting to their Russian connections every one of them had to be caught red-handed (pardon the pun). If you can’t connect these dots, we’re going to need some bigger dots.

Why would you even want Trump to remain in office any longer? Hasn’t the first 100 years been enough? Hey, let’s investigate both!

If Bill Clinton is found guilty of speaking to Russians for money = Uh, well, nothing he did is actually illegal, so not sure.

If Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia to win the election = He can be impeached and then shot by a firing squad. 

Deal? We can find some appropriate punishment for Bill, if he’s actually guilty of something. How about ten minutes of community service? Oh, as I’m posting this, CNN just announced that Michael Flynn’s speeches to Russia may not have been legal. Oops.

Let’s say Dubya spoke to Russia and collected some money, or used an unprotected server, or even had some fault in a single embassy attack—which would have been a huge improvement over the dozens he presided over, mind you—I wouldn’t even cover that shit (certainly not endlessly). I tend to focus on those moments when individuals step beyond the usual political shenanigans, like when our president commits war crimes, or lies us into war, or colludes with a foreign power to get elected, or carries out an illegal proxy war with Iran, or breaks into a political opponent’s headquarters …you know, Hannity’s America. I took the liberty of sending you a political scandal identifier kit. Look for it in the mail. It comes with a secret decoder ring! You may want to use it to start decoding stuff.

After forty years of scandals, it comes down to Nixon’s Deep Throat vs Clintons. The rest is semanantics. Sorry.

 

 

(Visited 197 times, 1 visits today)
Mick Zano

Mick Zano

Mick Zano is the Head Comedy Writer and co-founder of The Daily Discord. He is the Captain of team Search Truth Quest and is currently part of the Witness Protection Program. He is being strongly advised to stop talking any further about this, right now, and would like to add that he is in no way affiliated with the Gambinonali crime family. 

  24 comments for “The Collusion Delusion: From Russia With Lube?

  1. pokey
    April 27, 2017 at 8:22 AM

    Not a bad article. I will check out the Sam Harris article and get back with an article.

    For now let me clarify. If Hillary Clinton would have been paid 500,000 dollars by the Russians at the time that her husband was paid that money, she would have broken the law, because she was at that time the Secretary of State, who had the power to give Uranium One (A company mostly owned by Russia) the right to mine Uranium on U.S. soil. And she did use her political clout to help Russia gain such rights.

    I said it before and I’ll say it again–if Trump’s administration is giving Russia the degree of favor that Hillary Clinton gave Russia, then impeachment is in order.

  2. Mick Zano
    April 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM

    I just don’t know why you still care about the Clintons, here, as Frodo once said on Mount Doom, “at the end of all things.” It’s kind of like after Hitler took power going on about “that awful Hindenburg fella.”

  3. pokey
    April 28, 2017 at 8:26 AM

    I care about the Clintons because of the Left’s hypocrisy and to show a standard by which Trump ought to be judged.
    It had been shown that the Clintons obviously received money from the Russian government (or their middle men) and then used their political influence to support policies that benefited Russian at the expense of U.S. national security. If it can be shown that Russia paid the Trump administration (through electoral tampering) in exchange for political favors that benefit Russian at the expense of U.S. security, then Trump ought to be impeached. So far their is no evidence (that I see) of such favors. It would seem that the Syrian attack would imply otherwise.

    I will keep my eyes and ears open though.

    • Mick Zano
      April 28, 2017 at 2:12 PM

      I don’t think either are open. You haven’t made the case. But don’t feel bad, either has anyone else on the right. we will always have our thorough Clinton investigations and the findings are always pretty meh. You can have those, but i want the impeachment, treason, war crime, firing squad shit investigating as well. That doesn’t seem to happen. No investigations into how we were lied into the Iraq war, no one hung for torture, and we may never find out if anyone on team Trump colluded with Russia.

      Double the double standard by 2 and then carry the one… fine, i failed math.

  4. pokey
    April 28, 2017 at 3:21 PM

    Facts:
    1) Bill Clinton was paid 500,000 dollars for his speech in Moscow
    2) The money was traced back to the Russian government
    3) At the time Bill Clinton was paid that money, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State
    4) Within a year, Hillary Clinton actively used her political position to help gain governmental approval for Russian to mine for Uranium on U.S. soil.

    Those are the facts prior to me “making my case.”

    We will probably “never find out if anyone on team Trump colluded with Russian” because nobody on team Trump actually collided with Russia

    • Mick Zano
      April 28, 2017 at 6:44 PM

      Let the record show: as Donald Trump announced his intention to attempt to obliterate the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that our resident Constitutional scholar is still quoting Breitbart.com talking points. Remember when I predicted Trump would ramp up his attack on the judicial branch? In your defense, it was way over a month ago. ABC story here and my prediction before this, here. http://www.dailydiscord.com/?p=10003 If you want have at this next Clinton investigation, be my guest, but it will likely prove as fruitful as all the rest of the bullshit peddled by your side over the decades. Kidding, these meaningless endeavors have proven effective. Whereas the investigations themselves reveal wrongdoings ranging all the way from zero to politics as usual, they have been strong on results. Such tactics have handed a super majority to a group of individuals better served running a convenient store than a country. Your side won an election by smearing a competent woman in an effort to propel the rise of a sociopathic ass-clown. If we don’t get an independent prosecutor on this possible Russia/Collusion thing, or if Donald Trump does manage to marginalize the judicial system in any way, we are obligated as citizens to Storm the Bastille. What… too French? In ‘Murican it means: fuck some shit up. Kidding, your side is waaaay out on front on that endeavor as well.

      You focus on that Hindenburg fella, I will focus on this new guy. What’s his name Adolt Schitler?

  5. pokey
    May 1, 2017 at 8:36 AM

    You have refuted none of my facts. The reason they are relevant? Why is the Left so obsessed with “proving” that Trump colluded with Russia, when they were not at all concerned when the known facts showed that their “competent” candidate colluded with Russia? I admit; I can’t prove collusion. It’s possible that Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, would have supported Russia gaining permission to mine for Uranium on U.S. soil even if her husband did not receive 500,00 dollars from the Russian government that same year. Could have been a coincidence.

    Reason tells me that one of three things is occurring here:
    1) Trump made a deal with Russia–if Russia helped get him elected he agreed to enact policies that profited Russian interests.
    2) The people who are illegally releasing classified information about Trump administration connections with Russia are doing so for the political goal of delegitimizing his presidency.
    3) Some combination of the two.
    Anyway, I can assume that the people who are illegally releasing classified information showing Trump administration connections with Russia know the answer to this mystery and can provide us the “smoking gun” if it exists.

    Why don’t they do so?

    I assume it’s because they don’t have it, therefore their goal is to release suggestive information that allows people like Zano to rationalize himself as virtuous in promoting resistance to our democratically elected president by any means (including violently Storming the Bastille) necessary.

    I do admit that I have not yet listened to Sam Harris podcasts–so maybe there is a smoking gun that I am not aware of.

    • Mick Zano
      May 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM

      We will not get to the bottom of this without an independent prosecutor. Both the House and the Senate investigations have proven to be a joke. Your position essentially is, the WH is stonewalling the investigation so there mustn’t be anything to it. Way to go Pokey Mason. Republicans would be best served recusing themselves from all of reality. Ooops, too late. All I am saying is, let’s get an independent prosecutor and see what is there. There’s no way Jeff Sessions can be impartial in this matter. You cant really believe that? At the very least we can get rid of some more of Team Trump, or dare we hope, even ass-clown himself. One day, when I am bored, I will look into this Clinton thing, but I should charge by the hour at this point. I’ve wasted a lot of time on such fruitless endeavors (aka Breitsharts or Foxal Matter). It keeps me from the important things, like Bigfoot to Testify On Benghazi.

      • Mick Zano
        May 1, 2017 at 3:51 PM

        Ok, I read this stupid article. We don’t know a lot, evidence linking this to the Clintons is nonexistent, blah, blah, blah, ut it does seem to look at both sides of the argument, http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/ After reading this, though, my original conclusion ‘to have the Clintons do 10 minutes of community service’ may have been harsh and premature. As we approach WWIII let the record show the right remained… oh, forget it.

        • pokey
          May 4, 2017 at 8:21 AM

          The article that you cited only brings my 4th “fact” into question. Did Hillary Clinton use her political position to help the Russian government gain the right to mine uranium on U.S. soil? The information we have “suggests” that she die, but sInce we did not have a “private investigation” we will probably never know for certain. Do you see where I am going with this Zano?

          By ignoring the suggestive evidence of a Clinton-Russia scandal prior to the election, the Left has lost all credibility to point at the suggestive evidence of Trump-Russia scandal.

          Be honest Zano, if evidence were to arise that cleared Trump of any wrongdoing, you would look for some other “scandal” that would invalidate him. The Left is a concluded verdict looking for a crime.

          • Mick Zano
            May 4, 2017 at 2:42 PM

            Yes, you folks have a 20 year head start. so admittedly we have some catching up to. We can send ass clown home and vote for adults, or fail as a country. The choices have never been clearer.

            • pokey
              May 9, 2017 at 8:32 AM

              Thanks for the honesty. Most on the Left want acknowledge their willingness to lie, cheat, riot, steal, or, dare I say, kill to get their way. The end justifies the means for the Left because they are just sooooooooooooo sure that they are right.

              • Mick Zano
                May 9, 2017 at 5:07 PM

                I insist I am right because I have listened to republicans be wrong for soooooooooo long. Our Founding Fathers insist at some point we do something about tyranny. I’m sure they weren’t into that. All I am saying is that time may well be approaching. The breakdown of the rule of law must have happened while you were holding a Benghazi hearing. oh, and now Trump fired the FBI director right before he was supposed to testify on the Russian collusion thing. Hmmmm. Still need bigger dots? They are currently the size of a class V gas giant, but okay. At what point do the dots get so big that even a republican can understand them?

                • Mick Zano
                  May 10, 2017 at 1:35 AM

                  Maggie Jordan:‏ @MaggieJordanACN · 7h7 hours ago

                  Employees fired by Trump:
                  Sally Yates
                  Preet Bharara
                  James Comey

                  Employees investigating Trump:
                  Sally Yates
                  Preet Bharara
                  James Comey

                  P.S. Order bigger dots for Pokey

                  • pokey
                    May 16, 2017 at 3:23 PM

                    Give me one bit of evidence. When pressed every person who is asked said, “Well we don’t have any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. And when if there was collusion? What would that look like? Putin says, “Mr. Trump we Russians plan on hacking democrats emails and releasing embarrassing info. to the press to help you get elected.”
                    Trump to Putin, “Okay, that sounds good to me.”
                    Is that the collusion you hope to find? I don’t even think thats against the law, unless, Trump promised to give Russians something in exchange, like say rights to mine for Uranium on U.S. soil; then there would be a problem.

                    • Mick Zano
                      May 17, 2017 at 1:23 AM

                      Three words, obstruction of justice. Well, five words if you count the three-words part. If he did this much to hide the fact that he didn’t actually do anything, he’s dumber than I thought. Retraction: there is no way Trump is dumber than I thought.

  6. pokey
    May 17, 2017 at 8:32 AM

    It’s possible, but I’ll make you three different bets.
    1) No independent prosecutor–not gonna happen. Everybody knows that there is nothing objective about an independent prosecutor. His/her job will be to find anything at all the discredits Trump (See Ken Starr).
    2) The Republicans will maintain both houses in the midterms.
    3) Trump will win a 2nd Presidency.

    • Mick Zano
      May 18, 2017 at 12:01 AM

      I will take those bets, my friend! The senate and the house are really rigged for the republicans so there is a chance I could lose number two, but I think the Dems will squeak out one body. As for number 1. meet Mr. Mueller, but what’s really astounding is how you were complicit in this situation–namely helping to elect Trump–and then, as our republic was driven to the very edge of ruin, you didn’t even seem to notice. It really speaks volumes. “I don’t see any collusion.” That’s nice, I don’t see any documents or any cooperation. If you’re taking a page from Carson’s Carnac the Magnificent, you might want to put that book back. Don’t put it in the Trump Library because, with any luck, there won’t be one.

      Oh, and if you’re right about number 3, it won’t matter. There will be nothing left of this country recognizable or worth saving.

  7. pokey
    May 18, 2017 at 8:33 AM

    Well, it took me only a couple of hours to lose the first bet. You were right–the Republicans really are stupid. I’m sure this private counsel will find something, but I doubt they will find Trump-Putin connection that the media has been selling.

    Hypothetically, if the private counsel finds no significant connection between Trump campaign and Russian mischief, will you step back and give Trump a chance to govern, or will you simply look for another way to invalidate his presidency?

    My contention is that the Left didn’t becoming worried about Trump because they saw evidence of an unholy connection with Russia, the Left hated Trump from the get-go and has always been looking for anyway to invalidate him. That’s why I’m so suspicious–though, its possible there really is something insidious going on.

    • Mick Zano
      May 18, 2017 at 8:29 PM

      I am not saying there is collusion directly between Russia and Trump, but not looking into this -with all this smoke- is truly absurd, especially in the context of 7 Benghazi investigations. And as to your second point, no, there is nothing on the right side of the aisle worth a damn. You can’t meet someone halfway who is driving in the wrong direction. Trump has a super majority so he can govern without my blessing, and i will resist. The man is a menace to the free world. He is dangerously incompetent even by republican “standards” and so is the political party that spawned him. I’m kind of hoping for him to hold out long enough to destroy the republican party. A Trump success is one of the worst outcomes, long term. I am writing an article to that effect. I realize that sounds absurd, but it’s nevertheless true.

      • Mick Zano
        May 20, 2017 at 5:26 PM

        If Trump is successful in weakening the scope of the investigation, I am still storming the Bastille. You in? or will you continue to defend Caligula? he was French, right?

  8. Thomas Cooley
    June 9, 2017 at 6:54 PM

    Your made up story is crap. Just another dumbocrat mad because they lost the election. I have not seen or heard any real evidence that Russia did anything. Get over it so our President can do his job

    • Pierce Winslow
      June 28, 2017 at 11:16 AM

      Oh I don’t know. I think that recordings of members of his administration (his relatives actually) having conversations with Russian officials about setting up illegal, covert communications channels using Russian infrastructure is pretty good evidence.

    • Mick Zano
      July 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM

      Let me be clear, the worst thing that could happen is if this ass-clown is allowed to do his job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *