Taking A Page From Comey: Zano’s “Grossly Negligent” Article Was Changed To “Extremely Incompetent”

This is in response to Zano’s last political brain fart. When I speak of “objective facts” it is in the context of how a narrative is developed. Coincidently, the purpose of my argument is not to necessarily establish the truth or falseness of a particular narrative, but to establish the “where, why, and how” the narrative was created. Some narratives are built upon the accumulation of facts, while other narratives are first created (independent of fact) and then facts are sought to support the already accepted narrative. I believe the main media covered scandal: Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election is an attempt to support an accepted narrative. Meanwhile, Officials in the FBI and DOJ used their positions to shield Hillary Clinton from indictment is a scandal based on objective facts. After the election these same officials used their positions to delegitimize the Trump presidency.

Important developments involving electronic communications (between FBI, DOJ, and Obama Administration) and the Inspector General’s report on the alleged crimes of Andrew McCabe have recently been made public. These reveal exactly how the “Trump/Russia collusion” narrative developed, and in doing so, these revealed facts to build another narrative–in contrast a fact-based, beefed up to the bones narrative has fueled and nourished the once skeletal conspiratorial intuition of “left-wing bias” into a substantial rallying cry against this now proven “Deep State” tyranny.

The first and most fundamental fact we must all ingest, although a bitter pill for those invested in the “Trump/Russia collusion” narrative, is that electronic communication documents show that no intelligence was used for investigating into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the 2016 election. Let me repeat that, FBI and DOJ text messages and emails show that no intelligence was used to investigate Trump/Russia collusion until after he was elected President.

Let me begin with just a few (of the many) pertinent facts relating to this developing narrative:

March 2, 2015: Hillary Clinton email scandal begins. We now know that President Obama had been communicating with Clinton on her private email account while masking his identity.

March 7, 2015: Terry McAulliffe (Clinton friend and DNC insider) meets with Andrew McCabe and his wife Jill, who soon after announces her run for Senate. At least $675,000 was given to her campaign under the influence and control of McAulliffe.

April 29, 2015: FBI warns McCabe about potential conflict of interest.

June 2015: Trump announces bid for presidency.

July 2015: FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails.

Feb 2, 2016: McCabe becomes the #2 in the FBI and begins overseeing the Clinton email probe.

April 10, 2016: In interview Chris Wallace asks then President Obama, “Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say ‘Hillary Clinton will be treated–as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected?’”
President Obama responds, “I can guarantee that…I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to the FBI directors about pending investigations.”

April, 2016: Clinton campaign begins funding Trump dossier. Clinton campaign and the DNC give money to attorneys, who then pay for the dossier. (this is a campaign finance violation). If this had been disclosed, not only would it have hurt the Clinton campaign, it would have probably prevented the use of the dossier to get FISA warrant on Page (which ultimately led to the Mueller investigation)

Spring, 2016: Christopher Steele is hired by Fusion GPS and Glen Simpson.

May 2, 2016: Trump secures Republican nomination

May 9, 2016: President Obama endorses Hillary Clinton while she is still under criminal investigation.

May, 2016: James Comey begins drafting memo with respect to the proposed conclusion of Clinton investigation. The original memo stated: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was GROSSLY NEGLIGENT with respect to the handling of classified information.” The term ‘gross negligence’ is the legal standard by which Clinton could have been charged with a crime.

May, 2016: It can now be proven that Clinton staffers (Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin) misled FBI on what they knew about Clinton’s email practices. Five Clinton associates, including Mills, are granted immunity, and evidence is destroyed by FBI as part of the immunity deals.

May, 2016: FBI is denied access to DNC servers when investigating whether and how the DNC was allegedly hacked by Russians. (Why would the FBI allow the DNC to deny access? Consider the difference in the way the FBI handled the DNC and the way the FBI handled Trump’s personal lawyer.)

May/June, 2016: FBI agent Strzok is advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server that suggested a possible breach. Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment and no assessment was done (this was James Clapper’s job).

June, 2016: Comey changes a report disclosing emails that could have been compromised between Hillary and then President Obama to emails between Hillary and “a senior government official.”

June 20, 2016: Peter Strzok changes the “grossly negligent” language in the Comey memo to “extremely careless.”

June 27, 2016: Bill Clinton meets Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. Information related to the meeting is leaked. FBI seeks to find the source of the leak. Lynch uses an alias email to communicate with staff to “help craft responses to media requests about the meeting.”

Coincidently, Comey’s original exoneration memo on Clinton emails (written before she was interviewed by Peter Strzok) used the word “grossly negligent” to describe her handling of classified information. The term “gross negligence” is the legal standard for crime in this matter. Later Peter Strzok (yes, the same Peter Strzok who interviewed Clinton while she was NOT under oath) changed the “grossly negligent” phrasing in Comey’s memo to “extremely careless.”

Later in 2016: Strzok texted Linda Page, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected–but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy…”

A week later Brennen met with Harry Reid and (apparently) showed Reid the Dossier. Reid then sent a letter to Comey “requesting an investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.”

Two days later(Aug. 29, 2016), the New York Times reports the existence of the Reid letter.
The next day, Peter Strzok (yes, the same Peter Strzok who interviewed Clinton) texts Lisa Page, “Here we go.” Sending a link to the Times report titled “Harry Reid cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in U.S. vote and seeks FBI inquiry.”

Throughout all this we must keep in mind that electronic communication documents show that No Intelligence was used for investigation into possible collusion between trump campaign, until after he was elected president.


(Visited 72 times, 1 visits today)
Pokey McDooris

Pokey McDooris

Pokey is The Discord's chief theologian and philosopher. Pokey performs an important function here at The Discord, namely by annoying the living shit out of Zano, whenever he submits something. 

  6 comments for “Taking A Page From Comey: Zano’s “Grossly Negligent” Article Was Changed To “Extremely Incompetent”

  1. Pierce Winslow
    May 11, 2018 at 9:46 AM

    The problem with your logic, here, is that the FBI had information implicating the Trump campaign before the dossier and Reid’s letter. They were already investigating this before the election and before they received the dossier and Harry Reid’s request. The reason that they took the dossier so seriously is that it was corroborated by information they already had from other sources, including some within the Trump campaign (Papadopoulos). The congressional intelligence committees had already been aware of this for months.



  2. pokey
    May 11, 2018 at 9:59 AM

    What information did the FBI have that implicated the Trump campaign before the dossier and Reid’s letter?

    Papodppoulos was overheard in a bar talking about how the Russians had Dirt of Clinton (how ironic).
    Information related to Papodoplous was provided by Alexander Downer who also “arrange one of the largest foreign donations” to the CLinton Foundation.

    Comey and FBI officials conclude in the days before the election that “there was no clear link between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

    FBI and DOJ text messages and emails show that no intelligence was used to investigate TRump/Russia collusion until AFTER Trump was elected PResident

    • Pierce Winslow
      Pierce Winslow
      May 14, 2018 at 8:18 AM

      Read the articles I sited

      • pokey
        May 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM

        Ok, I did read these articles very closely. Thank you.
        It’s odd that the first article, although sympathetic to the “trump-Russia collusion” narrative, states that Simpson’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee “inaccurately conflated what had had been told…” relating the the “the FBI had a ‘walk-in’ whisteblower who was someone in Trump’s orbit.”
        A recent National Review article suggests that Simpson may have been speaking accurately and that the FBI had sent a spy into Trump’s campaign. We’ll have to wait an see for the details, but this seems to suggest that there was a political motive behind the FBI’s action–possibly tracing directly to the Obama administration (my speculation).

        I ask you Pierce, who has been more forthcoming with information–The Trump campaign or the FBI? COngress has only received a fraction of the subpoenaed emails. Why the stonewalling if they have nothing to hide?

        And Andrew Downer, the guy who told about his conversation with Papadoupolis, has deep financial links to the Clinton Foundation.

        I see no information, documents, or hard evidence that does not come from a biased source or someone associated with disinformation.

        • Mick Zano
          May 16, 2018 at 4:31 PM

          Soooo, you’re saying Papadapwhatsas agreed to be wired for the Feds because an Australian, with damning ties to rationality, lied about him? Hmmmm. Don’t knock Clinton donors, start knocking Trump donors. The Feds are stonewalling Nunes, because after ass-clown’s fall, they’re coming for him for his part in trying to keep Trump appraised of an open investigation. Not that Trump was paying attention. There is a “I was too busy watching Fox News to listen’ defense in there somewhere, I suppose. Pleading The Five? Partisanship is everywhere, and unavoidable, it will not change the verdict in this case. You are looking for a totally Trump friendly intelligence which would be… wait, that’s what he’s trying to do.

          • pokeu
            May 17, 2018 at 8:27 AM

            I’m not saying anything about Papadapwhatsas. I’m saying that Simpson told the Senate judiciary committee that a “walk-in” whisteblower” was “in Trump’s orbit.” It seemed like Simpson was referring to somebody else. Who knows. I was simply showing evidence for my suspicions to to article that Pierce had referred me too.

            “The Feds are stonewalling Nunes, because…” See, here’s the problem Zano. There is no justification for the Feds stonewalling Congress. Congress (that is the American people’s representatives) have oversight over the (unelected) Feds.

            “Partisanship is everywhere.” That is the problem and that is unacceptable in the application of law–especially when that law is being applied to professional politicians. The Obama holdovers in the Feds and DOJ have show their partisan driven motives in the application and enforcement of law. They have lost all credibility. Some have lost their jobs. I would like them to go to jail as an example to others in the future who would be tempted to so abuse their positions of power.

            Zano, you seem to be ok with the abuse of power, so long as it serve your political ends.

            My Prediction: Mueller says that they could not find enough evidence to charge Trump with anything with the implication that there was some collusion that they just couldn’t prove. The Dems will settle for making some legal issue about Stormy Daniels, but it won’t stick (see John Edwards precedent).

            In the mid-terms–local Dems will disguise themselves as working-class, family values, (Lamb-like) moderates in order to get control of Congress. Then if they win, they’ll claim a referendum against Trump and move toward impeachment for whatever reason they can come up with.

Leave a Reply to Pierce Winslow Cancel reply

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