Spooks vs Kooks: My Money Is On The Community With The Word ‘Intelligence’ In It

Since my blogvesary only gets his information from Alex Jones’s more conservative uncle, his last article demands more details on the Russia probe. “Objective facts! And only objective facts!” will do, because, as a Benghazi survivor himself, he wants only the straight dope. My Discord diatribes are apparently becoming too opiniony for his keen scientific sensibilities. Fine, but first I have two questions for Mr. McDooris: 1. How do you jump over a gazillion Trump/Russia mistruths without straining anything? and, 2. Does this qualify you for the 2020 summer Olympics in Tokyo?

As for the Russia probe, my friend champions the FBI wrongdoing/counter-narrative. How do you miss all of our president’s related misdeeds only to hone in on the one discrepancy between two FBI spooks? Selective special hearing? The X-File: Fight Our Future?

There are ‘objective facts’ that are important to our republic and then there are ‘objective facts’ added as a diversion.

Exhibit A: Over the course of the last decade it is an ‘objective fact’ that my balls are 2.7cm closer to the Earth’s core than they were in 2008. This may be true, but it is far less important to our national security than the ‘objective fact’ that our president is a penis.

Do you see the difference? (…I used the metric system.)

Wait! I have another one!

Exhibit B: Sometimes ice inexplicably appears in bar urinals and sometimes ICE inexplicably deports my neighbors. Both statements are true. Ice is used in urinals, because sometimes people don’t always flush, and ICE is deporting innocent people, because sometimes people don’t always flush an impeachable turd.

Fine, I’ll stick with the first one.

Republicans forever seek ‘objective facts’ that are less relevant and then, through the magic of confirmation bias and false equivalency, they attempt to thrust them into the spotlight.

“Look! Look! Hillary Clinton handled her emails in the same questionable manner as Colin Powell!”

–John Q. Republican

Wow. I’m sure our mutant grandchildren will wonder why we didn’t spend more time on that shit.

Today, my friend supports the popular counter-narrative that emphasizes rampant partisan wrongdoing in the FBI’s handling of affairs on the lead up to the election (left and right). I do agree there’s a discrepancy between an Andrew McCabe and a James Comey statement

…and thus ends the counter narrative.

If Andrew McCabe did leak information against FBI policy, he should be fired. Oh, wait, I’m being told he’s been fired. I am not obstructing justice, Pokey. Go ahead and have your parallel investigation, you always do. After all, Trump’s parallel dimension requires a parallel investigation. Silly string theory? The findings will likely pale in comparison because Dems cover the big things, while Republicans endeavor to make their points big.

[Viagra Fails joke removed by the editor.]

You’re already getting your investigation, before it was even authorized. The House Intelligence committee spent most of its time on the counter-narrative, which was not their mandate. Slate covered their quest for FBI wrongdoing, while wholly ignoring the original premise. Then we find out today, at the NYT, that the House Intel. committee missed the fact that the “lawyer lady” who met with Trump Jr. in Tweet Tower was actually a Russian spy. Oops.

Essentially conservatives are always saying, let’s shift away from the whole pending constitutional crisis/republic ending thing to cover something that may or may not prove semi-relevant. Yep …my friend Pokey helped elect Donald Trump for this prominent business man’s dedication to the truth. Hey, let’s start a Compulsive Liars For Truth Meetup group!

And now for the Daily Discord’s ‘Snapshot In Time’:

Two FBI spooks uttered a contradictory statement and one’s wife has financial ties to the Clintons.  

VS 

Our pathologically lying president is likely compromised to the Russians and might get us all killed.

 

Do you see the difference?

This week Trump threatened to “seize the Justice Department“, but his plan to muddy the waters by bombarding the media with mistruths, questions, and scandals is clearly working. Who can tell what is important anymore? Certainly not our Republican friends.

Today on Fox we are once again breaking away from our coverage of the pending Constitutional crisis and the brewing revolution to bring you the potential wrongdoings of a retired FBI agent and an unemployed woman who once ran for president.

Today a poll from The Hill shows that 54% would support Trump’s firing of Mueller. That’s the story. McCabe and Comey may or may have some discrepancy in their accounts, but how does that translate to ending the most important investigation of our lifetime? Mueller does know both of the individuals involved, I suppose. Hmm. If the most untouchable and honorable spook in the last century isn’t good enough to investigate The Donald than who should it be? …someone call Devin Nunes!

Watch the entire Trump phone call on last week’s Fox & Friends and begin to understand your part in our pending demise. This is how a republic ends.

Fine, I never got around to the Russia probe or any ‘objective facts’, but Beer Gardens Matter!  You won this round, McDooris, but this isn’t over! No, wait, I’m being asked to leave… Next time I will stick to ‘objective facts’ as they relate to the three prongs of the Russian investigation. I shouldn’t have to; this shit is in the news every day, but …did I mention what’s happening to my testicles?

 

(Visited 134 times, 1 visits today)

  13 comments for “Spooks vs Kooks: My Money Is On The Community With The Word ‘Intelligence’ In It

  1. pokey
    April 30, 2018 at 2:30 PM

    my article showed two ways a political narrative might develop:
    1) objective facts might lead to a developing narrative; or
    2) a narrative might first be created to lead people to seek for evidence to support the narrative.

    I claim that my narrative–“High ranking members of the justice department acted for political reasons to protect Hillary Clinton from prosecution–is an example of #1, based on these objective facts that first surfaced:
    1) Hillary Clinton deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails which the FBI claimed did not violate the law.
    2) High ranking members of the FBI exchanged text messages speaking of plot to undermine Trump “an insurance policy” in the unlikely case that Trump was elected.
    3) High ranking member(s) of the FBI illegally leaked information related to Clinton investigation to the press and later lied about this under oath.
    4) Attorney General (Loretta Lynch) directed head of FBI (James Comey) to change the wording on press releases to soften the appearance of CLinton wrongdoing (Change “investigation” to “matter”)
    5) Attorney General met with Hillary’s husband in the closing weeks of investigation and did not recuse herself.
    6) Head of the FBI wrote and exoneration letter for Hillary CLinton before she was interviewed.

    On the other hands, Zano, your narrative–“Trump conspired with Russians to steal the election”–did not develop from objective facts. No, it appears that this narrative was created by high ranking members of the justice department, while certain classified information was released to the press to suggest this narrative, and then later evidence was sought (like DOnald Trump jr. met with Russian spy to support the narrative.

    Your article did not address the basis of my position

    • Mick Zano
      April 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM

      Well, like I said in the article, you won. My intro rant in a beer garden became the whole article. Wit happens. It was fun to write and still makes way more sense than your stuff. As for your list here, there’s something to number 3, but the rest boils down to the fact that “no credible prosecuting attorney would move to indict.” I am working on the “objective facts” article for the Russia probe. To not think an investigation into Russian interference, and what part the president may or may not have played, is nothing short of delusional. But good luck with the counter distraction.

      Fine, you always suck me into this shit:
      1) Hillary claims these were personal emails and she didn’t delete them after the FBI request, as a typical republican would, but as “normal daily maintenance as anyone would.” (ABC News). This, like everything else, was blown way out of proportion. It’s why she’s not president. Colin Powell had the same set up and I could care F-ing less.
      2.) Debunked. If agents believed this ass clown of a president was compromised (and many, many do), it’s their duty to protect us. Every adult in the intelligence community recognized the existential threat that is Donald Trump on inauguration day, even if you still don’t.
      3.) This warrants further inquiry, for sure, and will reach ‘meh’ levels of wrongdoing (see every other republican query in the 21st century)
      4.) They get to word these things, comes with the job. If it’s not indictable, this is a high profile case, why wouldn’t they do that?
      5.) Not a meeting, more of a stumbling. Bill should have been escorted off the plane a little sooner. Case not discussed according to all witnesses involved. Wait, maybe there was a Russian spy there.
      6.) If Comey reviewed tens of thousands of emails, found only three that were arguably not properly declassified (two of which were sent to her), why would he need to interview her? This was about the private server set up and what was or was not classified. What was she going to say? That one in question was verbally declassified as I read it? If she were president that could work. ):

      Any results of any investigation into the FBI or the Clintons will pale in comparison to Mueller’s findings. Article coming soon to a Discord blog near you.

      • pokey
        May 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM

        So in your opinion, there credible evidence that shows a politcical bias in the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation?

        1) If it were simply normal maintenance, then the Congress and FBI would still have access to them. No, from my understanding the server was professionally washed clean. Check on it and get back to me.

        2) Debunked by who? ou acknowledge that the FBI was hostile to Trump. They are entitled to their opinion, but who elected the FBI boss. Noboby elected them. The President is their boss, whether they like it or not. By the way, their text messages did not begin on inauguration day–check on it, they began during the campaign. They showed a hotility to Trump and an intention to use their positions of power to undermine Trump in the unlikely chance that he won.
        3) The only one that “warrants further inquiry” would not even be an issue if it were not for the “extreme right” news agencies who have screaming about this for over a year. The Inspector General says that the allegation warrant legal consequences. He is the number 2 FBI guy. He could have recused himself, but no. He showed bias in his investigation of Clinton that gives further credibility to all of the the other issues that you claim have been DEBUNKED.
        4) It’s not that he changed the working, it’s that Comey said the (Democratic) Attorney General asked him to change the wording. Comey said he felt uncomfortable, but he changed it anyway.
        5) How do you know? Oh, yeah because that’s what Bill told; just like Hillary told you that she deleted those emails for personal maintenance. Then Why didn’t Lynch recuse herself like all “moderate news-watching” libs believe she did?
        6) Why did she say there were none? It’s just suspicious.

        • Pierce Winslow
          May 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM

          Poke, Trump’s boys were meeting with Russians before Trump had any authorization to negotiate on the country’s behalf (that alone is treason), and the FBI knew it. This was a meeting set up by a guy with direct ties to Putin. They lied about the context, they lied about the attendees, including the presence of a Russian lawyer who turned out to be a Russian agent. The FBI knew it, but they couldn’t come out and say it. So now they’re investigating the potentially criminal acts and the possibility that the president has been compromised. That’s their job. And regardless of what you think about Hillary and the FBI’s handling of the mail thing and political bias, you can’t possibly say that that Hillary is in Putin’s pocket. And, at this point, even if she is it’s irrelevant; she lost the election and is inconsequential.

          • Pokey
            May 2, 2018 at 6:39 PM

            Pierce, it’s possible that your assessment is correct (except for the treason thing, that’s a bit much), but it’s possible that my assessment is correct. My problem with the FBI’s handling of Hillary’s email thing is that the same high-up agents who demonstrated political bias in favor of Hillary are now showing political bias against Trump. Many of those members have found their way to the Special Counsel. The bias goes so deep that it calls into question the context to which the narrative arose. Did the higher ups in the FBI see genuine concerns that led to an investigation or did loyalists advance such a narrative as an attempt to RESIST the Trump presidency?

            If the higher ups in justice department had not politicized the handling of Hillary Clinton–Lorretta Lynch meeting with Bill and refusing to recuse; McCabe having ties to DNC but refusing to recuse; Comey’s bending to the will of Democratic Attorney General and writing exoneration letter in advance–and the record number of intelligence leaks that embarrass Trump– if the Intelligence agents and the Special Counsel had not already shown themselves as biased, I might trust the outcome of an investigation.

            I predict that the Special Counsel will find no illegal behavior between Trump and Russia, but they will have dug deep enough to find a matter whose questioning leads to Trump perjuring himself or some other BS procedural crime.

            • Pierce Winslow
              May 11, 2018 at 9:56 AM

              Actually, the Constitution defines negotiating with a foreign power on behalf of the US when you’re not duly appointed by the government as treason. That’s what got Benedict Arnold into trouble.

      • pokey
        May 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM

        Back to number 2–this is the heart of the matter. If FBI agents believe Trump was compromised they can justify doing anything to RESIST and undermine his presidency. That’s essentially your position as I see it. SInce every “intelligent adult” recognized the threat of Trump, they could justify doing anything–even using their positions of power to create a narrative suggesting that he conspired with the Russians to steal the election.

        The progressives already know their right and anybody who resists their agenda is, by their nature, dangerous to our democracy.

        Read the Inspector General’s report that none of the “moderate news” stations are reporting. There is more to come–if the truth is permitted to prevail.

        • Mick Zano
          May 1, 2018 at 11:51 AM

          Yeah, going back to number 2 is implied with all republican conspiracy theories. If anyone broke the law in spook land, press charges, have a field day. I am not defending wrongdoing. We always investigate anything that republicans deem investigable, to death, and yet there was never an investigation into the lead up to the war on Iraq, torture, or aspects of the Patriot Act. And now it looks like no investigation into Trump’s money laundering (as it relates to Russia). These investigations on the right are not dangerous to our democracy, but they tend to be irrelevant and a waste of tax payer dollars, at least if history is any judge. But your politicians have proven to be dangerous to our democracy, which is why a RESIST movement has formed and will hopefully flourish.

          • pokey
            May 1, 2018 at 2:55 PM

            The perspective of the RESISTANCE has been that “since we recognize the existential threat that is Donald, we can use any means necessary to derail and undermine his presidency.” That’s what the evidence begins to show. The intelligence community recognizes that Donald Trump is an existential threat, then they justify using their professional positions to present a narrative that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election. Sounds like “Deep State” or a “Swamp.”

            Is Trump an existential threat to our nation or an existential threat to the financial backers of progressive politics?

            • Pierce Winslow
              Pierce Winslow
              May 2, 2018 at 2:59 PM

              Trump has a seemingly endless string of misdeeds going back basically to his birth: cheating his workers, cheating on his wives, bribing public officials, sexually harassing every woman he sees, defrauding customers, inviting the Russians to hack into US computer systems, lying to the government to dodge the draft, lying about his net worth, lying about where his fortune came from, lying about business ties to Russia. He lies about EVERYTHING, even shit that a blind man can see with a cane. He lies about trivial shit like who had more attendees at his inauguration. And he insists his lies are true even when irrefutably proven wrong (he won in the biggest landslide in history?) He tries to sink millions into investigations into things we all know to be bullshit (Voter fraud? 3,000,000 fraudulent votes?) The guy’s so dirty he wouldn’t pass a background check allowing him to go to career day at my daughter’s school, so what’s wrong with the FBI following a trail that starts with members of his campaign (and family) illegally meeting with Russian officials before the election? And if he’s really innocent then why is he doing everything in his power to thwart the investigation? And isn’t that the very definition of obstruction of justice?

              Jus sayin’

              • pokey
                May 2, 2018 at 3:30 PM

                If I were convinced that the FBI and the investigation were acting in a nonpartsian manner, I would be all for it. The recent inspector general report shows that the number 2 man in the FBI was willing to break the law on numerous occasions to protect his political interests. Others are now showing similar willingness when it comes to Trump investigations.

                Tell me Pierce–why am I aware of the questions that the Special Council intends to ask Trump?

                That info wasn’t publically released. These kinds of intelligence leaks are now routine. Don’t these kind of leaks show a political bias?

                • Mick Zano
                  May 2, 2018 at 5:02 PM

                  But you do realize all involved are republicans, right? That alone makes me question their merit as well.

                • Pierce Winslow
                  May 11, 2018 at 9:59 AM

                  Well, here’s the rub: you’re not aware of any questions that the Special Counsel wants to task. The Special Counsel gave the Trump people a list of topics that they want to inquire about. Trump’s lawyers came up with a list of questions that THEY thought that the Special Counsel would ask, and Trump himself leaked those.

Leave a Reply

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