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