Active Collusion Triggered The Russia Probe And Active Delusion Triggered The Counter-Narrative

In my blogvesary’s last article he offered timelines, fingerprints, tire tracks, 27 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and DNA evidence to add to his mounting evidence that the FBI worked with the Clintons to create an ‘insurance policy’ to dethrone Trump, should ‘Murica ever be reckless enough to elect the ass-clown. Based on mounting evidence, this important ezine has sided with the Russia/collusion narrative and the work of the special counsel. Mr. McDooris’ last post posed only one key question: what was the specific evidence that triggered these dueling narratives? Admittedly, I spaced it …again. Shock Poll: No One Shocked By This. Fine, it was the result of a spontaneous protest triggered by a hateful anti-Muslim video that… oh, sorry, miles away. 

Your last article was supposed to focus on the “what, where, when” details of how each of these competing scandals, both FBI and Trump/Russia, originated. Pokey wants to know if wants and wishes drove these narratives, or cold hard facts:

“Some narratives are built upon the accumulation of facts, while other narratives are first created (independent of fact) and then facts are sought the support the already accepted narrative.”

—Pokey McDooris

My friend did all of this research, but then managed to screw up his own main premise—on both sides of political scandal equation. The Steele Dossier did not trigger the Russia probe, it started months earlier with George Papadopowhatsas. And, the point of high irony is how the Hillary-email scandal was uncovered amidst the 12th hour of testimony during the 27th nonsensical Benghazi hearing.

News Flash: The Hillary email scandal is thereby the definition of a witch hunt.

“Agreed. Zano nailed that shit.”

—Merriam Webster

This point has been made a thousand times, Pokey, in many forms: comment thread, debate, verbal, article, text, and scratch-n-sniff. When will this schtiznik shtickniz? Benghazi was a witch hunt that ended the chances for a Madam President (over a detail that had nothing to do with the original batshit premise of the inquiry). Thanks? So if the impetus behind the investigation is all important to you, why did you go 0 for 2?

Should we create more scandals to improve your score? Pokey-gate?

While you were too busy haunting spooks, the NYT story explained all of this, last year. After a night of drinking, Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopwhatsas, told a an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer (not a joke), how Trump has dirt on Hillary and how damning emails on the Democratic candidate will begin leaking soon. This is widely understood as the conversation that triggered the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference (July of 2016). It implied that Trump had an insider look at either WikiLeaks and/or Russian intel. Christopher Steele starts to compile raw intelligence on ass-clown between June and December of 2016 (originally hired by a Fusion GPS and later HRC). BuzzFeed first published the Dossier in January 2017.

The Zano Rebuttal Timeline:

July 2016: George Papadopwhatsas goes down under with Aussie Named Downer (Damn! I could have used that headline).

December 2016: Steele Dossier completed

Today: …July 2016 comes first.

Since then at least seven incoming Trump campaign peeps were then questioned about their meetings with Russian officials and spies (every one of them, including our sitting Attorney General, lied about these meetings). Meanwhile, the FBI counter narrative was triggered by the desperate need to save this compromised buffoon of a man. End.of.story. Actually, End.Of.Presidency.

I do agree the Steele Dossier may well have played a part in the FISA’s extension. Why, you ask? Because it’s checking out, item by item, in the same way Republican conspiracies never do.

“The Nunes memo admitted that the investigation started with George Papadopoulos, not the dossier.”

—Me to you during a February debate.

“Can you hear me now?”

—That Verizon Wireless guy (now working for Sprint, how Trumpian).

That is not to say that if any wrongdoing is discovered in spookville that I would defend it, but if history is any judge, the findings of any Republican conspiracy theory usually ranges from luke-warm to meh. As for the heart of the counter-narrative: a Clinton friend donates $675,000 to McCabe’s wife’s senate run, in what some believe was a quid pro quo for Comey to change the wording on the report of Hillary email scandal findings. I don’t know if Hillary got her money’s worth, changing two words for the better part of a million bucks? So essentially changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” is where the Benghazi hearing circus ended, which started with “planned attack” vs a “spontaneous” one. And make no mistake, these are the strongest arguments on the right, and they are still pathetic when compared to the implosion of a presidency. On the flipside, most Republicans today are either war criminals or just plain criminals.

Pokey’s timeline is interesting, if you have a minute it’s worth the read. Based on my colleagues’ important investigative reporting, I am prepared to change my position from: “Sure, have your stupid investigation!” to “Fine, have your silly investigation.” But only if the agreed upon PayPal donation arrives by COB tomorrow.

Both sides will have their day in court, and here are the likely results: the counter narrative will end somewhere between ‘no wrongdoing’ and ‘meh’. The result of the Russia probe will end somewhere between ‘impeachment’ and ‘annulment’ [Winslow: or somewhere between Pensacola Federal Prison Camp and Big Sandy United States Prison].

Here’s my own, more detailed timeline to counter the 8,745 word comment-thread Pokey sent me:

  1. 9:00 AM – Ordered one Americano at Firecreek Coffee Company (FCC).
  2. 9:45 AM – Ordered drip coffee to get a free refill (aka, the Zano Maneuver)
  3. 10:20 AM – Slight headache developing from mongo comment from Pokey that I must now somehow convert into an article.
  4. 11:10 AM – Do I have to read this? He still owes me 27-hours of wasted Benghazi research.
  5. 12:00 PM – Firecreek Coffee Company now serves beer! Woot!!!

I look for patterns, make predictions, and then roll it up into an enjoyable tirade, preferably at a beer garden. You did some great investigative reporting …um, except the whole messing up the main premise thing.

The Obama Administration’s official statements in the matter was skewed by a fear that info about Russian meddling might tip the election either way, because all decisions must now be tempered with, what are the crazy people on the right going to think? We are being held hostage by fools. They may not have explored an area of investigation that would likely prove meaningless after the election—not the Russia meddling part, but the possible Trump’s role/collusion part.  I am not endorsing breaking the law, but I would take every legal avenue to dethrone this ass-clown, because folks in the know have identified his ascendancy as a grave threat to the republic. Whether or not they broke the law leaves to be seen, but whether or not Trump broke the law is obvious.

 

(Visited 72 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. 

  13 comments for “Active Collusion Triggered The Russia Probe And Active Delusion Triggered The Counter-Narrative

  1. pokey
    May 11, 2018 at 2:22 PM

    July 2016–Carter Page goes to Moscow. (Page had been under surveillance in 2013)
    July 2016–CIA Director John Brennan starts the “surveillance” process that eventually leads to the Mueller investigation. Brennan passed on information and intelligence to the FBI and encouraged the bureau to act on the information.
    Summer, 2016–U.S. government starts a “counter intelligence” operation based on statements Papodopoulos made (saying that the Russians had dirt on Clinton). Information related to Papodopoulos was provided by Alexander DOwner who also “arranged one of the largest foreign donations” to the CLinton Foundation.

    Again, electronic communication documents show that no intelligence was used to begin the investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

    Summer 2016–Steele learns his research is being jointly subsidized by Clinton campaign and DNC

    AUgust 2016–BRennan briefs Obama on Russia’s intention to aid Trump. Brennan begins giving “intelligence” to Harry Reid and Comey about alleged ties between Russians and Trump campaign.

    After Brennan meets with Harry Reid and allegedly showed him the Dossier, Harry Reid sends a letter to Comey “requesting and investigation into potential collusion between Trump campaign and Russians.”

    NYT reports, Here we go creating our “insurance policy.”

    September 2016–McCabe is made aware of more Clinton emails recovered from Weiner’s laptop (that her emails would appear on his laptop is a clear violation of the law) Neither Abedin, Weiner, nor Clinton are prosecuted. McCAbe delays review of the new discovered emails for several weeks.

    Sept, 2016–Carter PAge leaves Trump campaign.

    Strzok/Lisa PAge text states that President Obama wants to “know everything” the FBI was “doing.”

    Oct. 21, 2016–2nd Comey FIAS request relies on the Steele Dossier (made up the bulk of the application) FBI/DOJ seeks FISA warrant without first seeking to interview him (required by law). Comey later tells Trump in January that the Dossier was unverified. FISA Verification of Accuracy Procedures state that “only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications (FISA) to the Court (FISC).” Comey represented to the FISA court that the Dossier was credible–in part, by citing Yahoo news story on the matter (Comey knew the story was planted by Steele). Comey swore under oath that the Court should consider the Dossier credible evidence–so that the FBI could spy on PAge, even though Page had already left the Trump Campaign. This gave justification to the surveillance of others connected to PAge and Trump. It was not stated that Hillary’s campaign and DNC paid for the dossier.

    • Mick Zano
      May 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM

      OMG, it’s still happening. I thought that was it ):

  2. pokey
    May 12, 2018 at 1:08 PM

    oct. 28, 2016–nearly a month after McCabe is made aware of Weiner’s laptop, Comey announces reopening the email review. When questioned about his decision, he later said he “was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president…”He goes on to essentially say that if he knew the election would going to be so close, he may not have reopened the email review. (After Hillary’s victory, Comey didn’t want the FBI to “appear” to be partisan in its enforcement of the law.)

    Nov. 6, 2016–Comey informs Congress that Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails. Later in an interview, Comey said that the FBI team told him “we cannot evaluate this material before the election.”

    Nov 9–Trump wins (America wins)

    Nov 2016–Hillary Clinton’s campaign blames Russian interference for her loss, and the narrative is maintained for months.

    90 day renewals–3 times the FBI and DOJ reapplied for a FISA warrant and never updated the Court of their prior misrepresentations and omissions.

    Strzok and Page are promoted to the Special Counsel to oversee the growing investment of their “insurance policy.”

    During this period, (I believe) Lisa Page realizes she has been used by Strzok and McCabe as the “fall girl” and begins to squeal to the Inspector General about how McCabe instructed her to leak the story to the Wall Street Journal.

    May, 2017–McCabe denies leaking for the Wall Street Journal

    July, 2017–McCabe denies again.

    July 2016–Horowitz gets Strzok/Page text messages, proving McCabe constructed Wall Street Journal story and lied to FBI investigation and Inspector General.

    July 18, 2017–Rod Rosenstein is the last official who made a FISA warrant reapplication.

    August 2, 2017–the internal corruption of Strzok, Page, and McCabe is brought to Rosenstein’s attention, yet upon learning to this corruption, Rosenstein does not cease the FISA approved surveillance. He doubles down and continues the FISA extension (just this one last time) into October, 2017, so that he can acquire the needed dirt on Flynn, Papodopoulos, and Manafort.

    That’s all we know so far. There are still masses of subpoenaed text messages that the FBI has so far refused to give to Congress. There are still many redacted messages that the FBI refuses to explain. There are still the many media sites, Democratic loyalists, and anti-Trump resisters who refuse to pull their heads out of the “moderate” news-cycling sand.

    Doe all this prove that Trump did not collude with Russia? No, it’s impossible to prove a negative. Will the Special Counsel discover that Trump committed crimes. I’m sure they will–or bankrupt him and anybody close to him trying. “You show me the person and I’ll show you the crime.” But the facts do show exactly where, why and how the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory arose; and in so doing these facts grow into a now massive narrative to stand next to its crumpling competitor. Let’s not underestimate the danger of those people protected by the now diminished “Trump/Russia conspiracy” narrative. They won’t surrender softly. They do possess great influence (in media, finance, courts, and government) and they threaten the dangerous bite of a once secret pack of plotting lawyers now exposed

    • Mick Zano
      May 12, 2018 at 1:55 PM

      Umm, Trump is too stupid to orchestrate collusion, which is what I have said from day one. But did the Russians reach out to him? Yes. Did ass-clown take the bait? Probably. His only hope is his own incompetence. And Comey’s decision to even mention Weiner’s laptop tipped the election (with friends like him who needs enemas). Fox News even ran with “indictment inevitable” which was a new low for journalism, but it worked. If Obama had said anything about possible russian interference the rightwing media would have been sent into a frenzy. “Obama is lying! He’s trying to tip the election! Investigate this 12 more times!” Unfortunately, today we have to add ‘how will the crazy people spin this’ into every algoryithm. It’s a sad state of affairs. Meeting with Russian spies on the lead up to the election and then lying about it, just isn’t enough for some people. You are also assuming the dossier is false, it is not. And you are assuming the FISA warrant was obtained illegally, it was not. There were clear reasons to investigate Trump, but why bother if he didn’t win the election? That’s what this spook debate all boils down to, doesn’t it. They had their suspicions, they had found some troubling behaviors, but they thought ass-clown would be returning to his shady empire after the election, not usurping our own.

      I think should hold your timeline up to the media bias chart I have sent you, more than once. Do any of the worst assertions originate from reliable sources? I think you will find the answer is, no. My predictions stand.

      • pokey
        May 13, 2018 at 1:16 PM

        What have I sent you that is factually inaccurate?

        My point–nobody who listens to only the “moderate” news sources know anything about the Inspector General report. It’s a public report. I seek good information wherever I can find it–I listen to MPR (pretty good liberal radio) but they do not report on the findings or implications of the Inspector Generl’s report. I’ve read Luke Hardings ‘Collusion’– a very informative presentation of shady Trump links to Russia, but nowhere does he mention the obvious bias and deception shown by McCabe, Strzok, Page, and Comey on the lead-up to the “Special Counsel.”

        If the FBI leadership (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Linda Page, etc), Loretta Lynch had not been proven to be politically motivated in the administration of law enforcement, then maybe you could credibly claim to fair and unbiased investigation. This investigation has been compromised from its roots. Any reputable court of law would have throw this case out long ago.

        Look at even the strongest part of the Democrats claim–Russia hacked the DNC emails. In May, 2016 the FBI was denied access to the DNC servers when investigating whether and how DNC was hacked by Russians. Since when does the FBI need to stand down to politicians when investigating an alleged security breach by foreign powers? Why did the FBI allow the DNC to deny access. Now fast forward to how the FBI handled Trump’s personal lawyer. This is Soviet Union shit.

        I have (as well as the Inspector General) proved to you that the FBI leadership a acted with political bias in their investigation of Hillary Clinton. I have also proved to you that the same FBI leadership planted an “insurance policy” in the unlikey event that she lost the election. That same FBI leadership lied and leaked for the purpose of starting the “Special Counsel”. The Special Counsel recruited members of the FBI (Strozk and Page) to contribute to process.

        Picture yourself in a courtroom where the judge, prosecutors, and the police were all buddies, and they had brought witnesses who had shown themselves willing to lie in order to prove your guilt? The week before the trial, the police had raided your lawyers house and audited the bank records of all your closest associates. At that point, I don’t give a shit whether you committed the crime or not. A politically motivated investigation is the highest crime imaginable for it destroys the citizens trust in the legal process itself.

        I’m sure that Comey, Strzok, and McCabe genuinely believe in the righteousness of their ends. They genuinely believe that Donald Trump is a threat to this nation, so its okay to start the “insurance policy” (for the good of our nation) in case he’s elected.Even if he didn’t conspire with the Russians, he at least “colluded” with the Russians. I’m sure he did some shady shit that we can find, right?

        The FBI still refuses to give Congress the majority of the texts and emails that they are asking for. We elected Congress to oversee the powers of the FBI. Has Turmp withheld information that the Special Counsel has asked for? The more of the text messages and emails from FBI leadership that the Congress can pry out of the hands of the FBI, the more the motives of the investigation will be shown to be corrupted to the American people.

        Dirty (politically biased) investigators do not have the moral authority to investigate dirty politicians/businessmen.

        • Mick Zano
          May 13, 2018 at 2:32 PM

          There is no credibility from your side of the aisle, period. If everyone who knows about political stuff and things is ignoring this important time line of yours, well, suffice to say: 1. not bloody likely, and 2. I predicted this might happen: if one side only distorts and lies, what happens when they actually find something? It’s like the boy who cried Blitzer, or something. Don’t worry, this won’t be that time. Again, it comes down to why investigate collusion if it didn’t get him elected? This stuff was happening on the lead up to the election. Let’s hope there are more such insurance polices (legal ones, of course) to take down this incompetent criminal. Did they really cross any lines? Did they really break the law? You have a super majority so we will investigate these important matters. My predictions stand. I’m guessing FBI wrongdoing “meh” and Trump scandal “annulment”. Impeachment won’t suffice with an evangelical creep on deck to replace this sociopathic man-child. It’s some wishful thinking in there, but political hope springs eternal.

          What do you expect the top of our law enforcement agencies to do when someone who would not pass a basic background check ends up commander in chief? They have a duty to warn. Child protective services should get involved and drop him off at the door of some “shit hole” country.

          • pokey
            May 14, 2018 at 8:34 AM

            “What do you expect the top of our law enforcement agencies to do…” They have a duty to warn…
            Maybe these intelligence agents aren’t really acting for greater good but merely for their own personal power.

            These intelligence agencies have a great advantage over us–they have a long history of disregarding many laws in the name of national security. They have access to sophisticated technologies and large data bases, and they can easily get around rules of privacy. They can use networks of information to pick up rumors and then use that information to perpetuate provocative narratives.

            With the “collusion” narrative we find that that there is no information, document, or hard evidence that does not come from a biased source or someone associated with disinformation.

            Honestly, do these FBI agents really appear to be “whisteblowers” or rather are they”manipulators of contrived information?”

            I acknowledge there to be many concerns with Turmp’s foreign business connections and nepotism. There is a concern for possible tyranny, as there is with all people possessing great power. Honestly, at this point, the investigation into “collusion” only makes Trump stronger (look at the rising poll numbers). People are tired of this, and the more it proceeds, the more dirt is raised about the FBI agents. If the Dems were as smart as they pretend to be, they would face off with him on the issues and defeat him in the public debate. We both know that if the Democrats get control of Congress, they won’t need charges of “collusion” to impeach him.

        • Pierce Winslow
          Pierce Winslow
          May 16, 2018 at 8:35 AM

          The DNC can deny the FBI anything if they are not the subject of a criminal investigation to which access to the servers is directly relevant, enough to get a warrant for evidence in said investigation. That’s probable cause 101 dude. Now, the CIA on the other hand…

          • pokey
            May 17, 2018 at 11:35 AM

            OK, I concede that point. Will you concede my point–that evidence proves that higher ups in the FBI (McCAbe, Strzok, Comey, Linda Page) abused their positions of power for political purposes related to the 2016 election? That is, they worked to protect Clinton from legal liability and worked to harm Trump legally.

            • Mick Zano
              May 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM

              I think most members in the intelligence community identified a threat early, which is there job. i’ll say it again. If anything this is what your narrative reveals. If I, as an FBI agent, am sitting on a pile of mounting evidence that we have a potentially compromised candidate (who most pundits gave only a 5% chance of winning the general election), I’m not sure how they should have handled any pending investigations either. Or announcements to the public on the lead up to an election, which was Obama’s dilemma. Dems have dilemmas, republicans create them. Not that these vague texts are very helpful, but I would also call it an ‘insurance policy’ if the fool somehow got elected, aka the onset of a lawful pursuit of criminal wrongdoing. I just hope they kept up with the monthly payments on this insurance policy so we can send this clown on his way. If the Feds broke the law during this process, we will find out …hopefully during the first, not the 17th investigation. I believe Comey when on Hillary when he said, “no credible prosecuting attorney would attempt to prosecute this.” If laws were broken during the lead up to the election, on either side, i am the last person to defend the spooks. Lone Gunman Lives! But the facts will come out and Trump will be toast and the counter-narrative will likely whither. Again, you are confusing people who were very concerned about a potential criminal commander in chief, and how and when to pursue several disturbing lines of inquiry. Mueller is looking into all of them now and disturbing those revelations will be.

              Here’s what I am willing to concede, if there was no legitimate reason to start surveillance on members of Trump’s team, that is a huge scandal. I don’t think that’s what’s going to be revealed here, but if i’m wrong that’s Yuuuge! as someone would say.

              • pokey
                May 17, 2018 at 3:24 PM

                You make many assumptions that to do not derive from the actual texts we have–not the mention those texts which the FBI refuses to release.

                “legitimate reason to start surveillance on members of Trump’s team.” Thank you for that concession.

                • Mick Zano
                  May 17, 2018 at 8:25 PM

                  You will have your day in court. No really, I am suing you.

                  • pokey
                    May 18, 2018 at 8:20 AM

                    Investigation discovers that the FBI’s “legitimate reason” to start surveillance on Trump campaign was to find legitimate reasons for spying on the Trump campaign.

                    All circles boomerang back to Obama’s State Department.

Leave a Reply

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