While I’m Playing Chess, Pokey, You’re Playing Rock, Paper, Other Rock

My friend and blogvesary is at it again, blasting out of my comment section like a sirocco, blazing across the land, into your home, slamming into your website like a supercharged nano-particle of unobtainium! Fine, that’s George Knapp, but my friend probably inspired his opening. Today on Discord Crossfire, Pokey is accusing me of not answering any of his fictional questions. I don’t feel I need to justify my actions, articles, voting record, predictions, or criminal background *cough* …but maybe, just maybe, he should. My friend is still touting the merits of Spygate over Russiagate, aka Obama/Lynch = Guilty and Trump/Cohorts = Innocent. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and amidst this 2019 political landscape, I think anything espoused by a rightwinger now requires a Atlantis-is-ruled-by-sasquatches level of proof. The onus is on you and your ilk to prove your non-stop, nonsensical non-sequiturs. [Retraction: you’re probably right, keep digging and maybe you’ll emerge on the other side of these scandals]. Hollow Birther theory? The Repubtilian agenda?

Upon reading your comments, Pokey, what you’re confused about is how sometimes I’m commenting on future events. While I’m playing chess, you’re busy playing rock, paper, other rock. And I chose ‘other rock’, because you keep falling for that one. So, sure, some of what I do lies clearly in the ‘what ifs’ category and your lies lie clearly in the ‘all lies’ category. Maybe lies is a strong word. What you tend to focus on are tiny little truths that ultimately prove meaningless. Before we get started, let’s not forget two key points republicans are ignoring: we should never have even investigated Russia’s interference into our general election, and the only people the constitution gives the authority to act on the Mueller report is congress, who may never actually see the whole thing. So here’s my first question to you, how is that okay?

Here’s the comment that triggered this jag:

Pokey: You didn’t answer any of the three questions, Zano? No surprise. I’ll give you two more easier ones.

Zano: You’re too kind. I guess at this point, I do put all questions posed by conservatives in the same category as: What was Hillary Clinton streaming on Hulu during Benghazi, and when did Bigfoot know it? Over the last twenty years our Foxeteers have been nothing more than a web of extravagant distractions designed to allow horrible people to keep doing horrible things. Worse still, my friend continues to unwittingly enable them. Besides, you don’t answer any of my questions and I tend to be right about stuff.

Fine, here are my three responses: 1. They didn’t. 2. Who cares?, and 3. Because he was already the subject of the investigation, or at least the predicate.

I am not repeating the questions, but don’t worry, folks, the reason I can offer these flippant responses is this: very soon someone who cares will investigate all of the questions that pertain to the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, both real and imagined …to death …with tax payer dollars …for reasons I will never truly fathom.

Invest Now In Trey Gowdy Action Figures!

Do you think I could do better than our congress and our courts explaining where a fictional narrative into Obama wrongdoing could ultimately lead? Let’s do what we do with all republican witch hunts: wait to see where the lack of evidence leads. I have made my predictions, so what more do you want? Can’t we just wait patiently for you to be wrong again? Kidding, republicans no longer need to find stuff to find stuff. For our conservative friends the end of this investigation into ‘business as usual’ for the Feds will translate as ‘crime of the century’. Why worry about the details when you can just make shit up? Sorry, but I haven’t been following the counter-to-intelligence side of this Russiagate saga as closely. Why, you ask?

Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me… You can’t get fooled again!”

Dubya

Pokey: Here’s a Zano quote (paraphrased): “I said from the beginning, if it is established that Trump worked with the Russians to effect the election, then he should be publicly hanged. And I meant (and still mean) it.”  So, hypothetically, if the real world factual evidence establishes that Obama’s DOJ as directed by Loretta Lynch worked with the FBI to plant spies (like Halper) on Trump’s campaign for political (rather than legally justifiable concerns for national security) reasons, wouldn’t you demand that all the people involved in such treachery to be severely punished for such action? (A simple yes or no question that I’ve never heard answered by a self- proclaimed member or the RESISTANCE).

Zano:  What is the chances Trump is not a national security threat at any given moment? #UnF-ingLikely. I have no idea where normal counter-intelligence ends and where spying begins. I can barely return from the fridge without tripping over the ottoman. I do have infinitely more faith in our spooks than our kooks, thus my predictions. If republicans think it’s true it’s already hitting our comment thread as Dead On Approval.

But, if Spygate reveals that Obama ordered this whole thing for politically motivated reasons, then that’s HUUGE! But it has to be real, not Hannitized for your protection, twisted beyond recognition, hyperbole in the guise of truthiness. I live in fear of even touching that one, because your ilk doesn’t need facts to invoke the death penalty. These days rightwing ‘journalists’ can sell a bag of salt to a slug, but anyone attempting to illegally impact our election, right or left, needs to be brought to justice. But this is a ridiculous question. Why the hell would I protect criminals? I am not a republican. In fact, I am sending you a snapshot of my party affiliation card as to settle this matter.

Pokey: You talk about this ‘Spygate’ narrative as though it were absurd. From the factual evidence that we now possess (and the experiential knowledge that we have about human nature and the corrupting nature of political power), is it not at least reasonably possible that such a scenario actually occurred? It’s a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question I’ve never heard answered by a self-proclaimed member of the RESISTANCE.

Zano: That’s not true! I talk about everything espoused by the right as absurd. Having said that, yes, your scenario is possible, but so is my Royal-Squatch-Atlantis theory, which is gaining credibility in the archeo-comicon community. You see, today all rightwing Foxal nuggets should be filed directly into the ‘absurd bin’ and they can only find their way back into the bad-day-atThe Enquirer level through rigorous peer review.

Pokey: It seems to me that deep down the RESISTANCE is supportive of the FBI, CIA, or IRS being politicized against their political adversaries. I’ve never heard a spokesperson for the RESISTANCE ever demonstrate or express a principled desire that the objective standard of law be equally applied to all (regardless of politics or position). I’ve heard members of the RESISTANCE say that since Trump is a threat they are justified in using any means necessary (lie, cheat, steal, or kill) to stop Trump. I’ve never heard you clearly express such a principled objective standard either. So, here’s your chance, Zano. While keeping my earlier two questions in mind, please clarify your position.

Zano: Look, you always get your meaningless day in court and ‘Spygate’ will be no different. That doesn’t mean I have to wave the pom poms (but I do rock the outfit). I also don’t need to employ the whole ‘by any means necessary’ crap, aka, I don’t have to make shit up. Um, although our Complete Snuffleupagus Remains Discovered In Alaska bit remains unverified, but other than that… Sorry, the rule of law is not something I’m willing to bypass (did you get the image yet?).

As for Trump, follow the money to the crime and then impeach the ass-clown. It’s.Not.That.Difficult. And, sure, libs are upset, but no one outside of rabid comment thread land is considering bending the rules to get him out. What? Are you worried you’re going to get kicked out of their safe space …with prejudice? Whereas you judge liberals on their worst comments across the nationbe it politician, man in the street, or otherwiseI judge republicans on the actions, deeds, and statements of their leaders. Bigly difference.

Assassinating Trump is ridiculous. It would tear this country apart and would galvanize the Deplorables into an unstoppable force (not to mention I’d feel bad for the bullet and its family). With an enraged base the political landscape would further deterioratethink militia with a head injury. Or a now martyred ass-clown with a militia …with a head injury. Sorry, it’s already been a long post, even for me. In the 21st century republican theories can and should be dismissed, outright. Some day that may change …ha, ha, ha. Now that’s funny.

Pokey: You said, “Trump won’t step down even if impeached?” Specifically, what action has Donald Trump taken that is deserving of impeachment?

Zano: Um, IF impeached.

“That depends on what the definition of IF is.”

Cousin It

Sorry, but sometimes amidst 17-some-odd investigations it’s safe to float such a hypothetical. As for the impeachment proceeding: since Russia did meddle in our elections and since it seems our president refuses to acknowledge that fact, let alone protect the next one, he should be removed under the 25th amendment. But I’m a patient man and realize there’s political considerations, aka it will never happen, so we need to wait for the courts in NY, CA and beyond, as well as all the hush money stuff and obstruction stuff to blast out of my comment section like a sirocco, blazing across the land, into… wait, I already did that one.

This is what you sound like Pokey:

No one is talking about the implications of our fake scandal! No one! I have not heard one person, not you, not AOC, not Al Gore, not the ghost of JFK, no liberal on this planet is commenting on the latest implications of our fictional narrative!

In the end there are two competing theories Russiagate v Spygate.

Pokey: It’s possible both are true. It’s possible neither are true. It’s possible that one’s true and the other false. It’s possible that we may never gain 100% certainty on either. Right now,  the reasonable likelihood of Trump-Russia involved in some corrupt coordination = 8% and falling. Reasonable likelihood of Obama politicizing DOJ and FBI to spy on Trump = 67.7% and rising.

Zano: Your putting percentages on Foxal nuggets? Really? When has rightwingers been right about 67.7% of anything? Gutsy call. Granted, you are the most correct you’ve been here on the ‘Cord for years and how does that translate for the Russia probe? You are wrong about Trump, wrong about Mueller, wrong about Obama, and wrong about Barr. So you’re 0 for 4, but it’s still about the best we can hope for from the Grand Old Distractions. I will say you have wrong down to a science, if you believed in that.

Post the Russia probe apparently everything is legal now, so good luck with the inquisition. Meanwhile the stuff I think is relevant is finally investigated, and what happens? The results are ‘cleaned’ by a lackey mob-style ‘fixer’, so that we can shift to investigating the investigators. Let’s ignore the impeachment proceeding so we can make more shit up. You know what I call an investigation that netted 27 indictments? Fruitful. You’ve never had one of those and at this rate the republican party never will.

These are distractions so the president can continue to wage war on our rule of law, so he can continue to defend the Betsy DeVoses of the world, and nominate the next Stephen Moore to the Fed. And in the end our former AG Loretta Lynch will be fine, but the rest of the country …not so much.

 

 

(Visited 65 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. 

  17 comments for “While I’m Playing Chess, Pokey, You’re Playing Rock, Paper, Other Rock

  1. paul
    April 18, 2019 at 8:28 AM

    “Yes, your scenario (Obama/Lynch ordered and coordinated FBI spies for political reasons) is possible, but so is my Royal-Squatch-Atlantis theory…”

    This statement of yours flippantly reduces my assertion so that can easily disregard it. I didn’t say “(merely) possible,” I said “reasonably possible.” I even made the statement stronger by introducing it with “from the FACTUAL EVIDENCE that we now possess (and the experiential evidence we have about human nature and the corrupting nature of political political power) isn’t it at least REASONABLY POSSIBLE?”

    That’s all I care about–where does the factual evidence lead? If the factual evidence (have you honestly examined the factual evidence, Zano?) shows that Obama/Lynch directed FBI to spy on Trump campaign for political reasons, then you would demand that all people involved be punished severely.

    For any objective non-biased investigator, the factual evidence (have you examined the factual evidence, Zano?) possessed at this time, would make one very suspicious. If the FBI fully cooperates, It should be easy to establish what actually occurred. Let’s get to the bottom and then all Americans can unite and proceed together for the purpose of justice (rather than mere politics).

    • Mick Zano
      April 18, 2019 at 1:02 PM

      You don’t care about the facts, you want to climb over a pile of corpses to stay focused on the “reasonable possibility” that a known Democrat may have jaywalked in the DC area in 2015. Have.Your.Investigation. I won’t obstruct …that’s the president’s job. Are you following the real news today? What little I have read suggests, quid and quo but no provable pro on collusion (which was what I said), ignorance of the law is fine if you’re a Trumpster, we can’t prove intent to obstruct with a paranoid unstable person in office, and, my favorite, Trump and his people obstructed the obstruction probe which = exoneration. Isn’t the end of a republic fun? Oh, and there are 14 spinoff investigations (the roadmap?). Good luck with those. Another favorite, “Even if the Trump campaign colluded with WikiLeaks, that is not a crime,” William Barr. Ha, ha. We are right back to those lines on collusion and obstruction that I was talking about (all along), and then there’s whatever you were going on about. In the end this will expose a culture of corruption and there will be more heartburn in the form of indictments amidst these other, related inquiries.

      • Mick Zano
        April 19, 2019 at 12:55 PM

        As for those impeachable offenses, asking someone to break the law, aka requesting Kevin McAleenan to end asylum seeking, and then floating a pardon is impeachable. Obstruction of justice to the level exposed by the Special Counsel is impeachable. But this is too much fun, I might even pick up the fiddle soon.

        • pokey
          April 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM

          Impeachment is not a legal issue; it’s a political one. Congress could impeach the president at any time for any reason, so long as they have the votes. Only now, the facade that their desire for impeachment is motivated by higher principles of justice and the protection of American democracy. No, it’s simply political. The Democrats have no principles.

          Hey, I’ve got an idea. Instead of focusing all this attention on the president’s “impeachable” offenses, why not develop a sensible political platform based on issues that are important to a majority of the American people and then elect a reasonable candidate in the primaries to defeat the president in the 2020 election.

          P.S. rumor has it the caravan has not yet petered out. Rumor has it that our current policies encourage men to kidnap children and bring them across the border in order to stay our of jail. It’s documented that last year 1700 children said “that’s not my dad! Help me!” to agents at the border (I wonder how many children were threatened by their captors not to speak out). Many of these children are sold into sexual slavery. Instead of obsessing over the presidents “scandals,” maybe the Democrats could propose practical policies that could help these children.

          I know. That’s just crazy talk. Resume with your impeachment plans.

          • Mick Zano
            April 20, 2019 at 3:58 PM

            No, I agree with that last part! Frum has a great related interview in the Atlantic, If liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will. . We need to address this sooner than later, we just don’t need any help from our more fascist friends, aka the usual.

            As for impeachment, it’s not about votes it’s about alternate realities. You’ll never get republicans to do the right thing; that’s the only thing I’ve come to count on in the 21st. The evidence is irrelevant. It will take one hell of a wake of carnage before the right will even acknowledge it, you included, apparently. I have mixed feelings about impeachment right now. On the one hand, we need all the investigations to run their course so we can hold up a nice list of high crimes and misdemeanors. But, sitting by idly as this level of criminality is allowed to continue to rule our country is also difficult. It’s like acquiescing to the new republic, now with banana flavoring, and there’s real concern it’s already too far gone. On principle, you impeach today, but strategically it’s better to have this nice list first. Tough call.

            • pokey
              April 22, 2019 at 8:05 AM

              “investigations to run their course” Hey Zano, did you here 4 investigations have run their course–that Mueller investigated Trump’s involvement with Russian interference with elections and the prosecutor “could not establish that any member of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian officials in their interference with the 2016 election.”

              To Zano that equals “Trump is a known felon” and “Kavanaugh is a known Sex offender.”

              “Do the right Thing”??? That’s called presumption of innocence and the equal application of law irrelevant of politics.

              P.S. you again gave me no specifics–list of high crimes and misdemeanors, level of criminality

              • Mick Zano
                April 22, 2019 at 2:22 PM

                Yes, our comedians are more insightful than your “journalists”, check it https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/john-oliver-mueller-report-last-week-tonight.html

                • pokey
                  April 25, 2019 at 8:41 PM

                  I checked out this piece. Let me give you a lesson in how news journalists and even comedians lie. This writer quotes Trump from the Mueller report from when Trump first learned that the Special Counsel was appointed–“O my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

                  When we read this quote, we think that Trump is expressing a fear-filled realization that his wrongdoing will be discover. But wait there’s a few important words that were left out of the quote. Here is the quote in the full and proper context–“O my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

                  Now, when we read Mueller quoting Trump in context, we see that it is not Trump fearing that his wrongdoing will be discovered; no, he’s fearing that his presidency will be impeded (as it was and still is). This quote explains and justifies Trump’s frustration. When we read this quote in its proper context, we understand how Trump might lash out, threaten, act in ways that some might describe as “obstructing.”

                  In my estimation, that kind of lying is a horrible crime, for it takes a man’s actual words and arranges them in a way that does personal harm to that person.

                  Why do I support Trump–because the Left, the Resistance, flippantly does this kind of thing all the time with no conscience, remorse, or concern for the harm that is done with this kind of lie.

                  • Mick Zano
                    April 25, 2019 at 9:31 PM

                    I agree with that comment, they shouldn’t have focused on that. But a newsperson taking something out of context? I’m still waiting for the rightwing media to say something in context so that they could learn that next trick. Our AG agrees with you, in fact, he ignored all wrongdoing to focus on that same theme. Who needs checks and balances, among friends? Here’s what you’re asking me to do…. When facts and reason fail, and yeah, you always have that one fact you’re hoping will absolve you of a lifetime of poor political choices (see: my zenwrongness theory), but what you’re asking me to do is, well, take Hitler for example. Now in no way do I want to compare your choice for president with Adolf Hitler. Hitler was smart and scored slightly better on the psychological assessments of today. But, if this were the aftermath of WWII, you are asking me to hope that Hitler is found ‘not guilty’ of the holocaust at the Nuremberg trials, because one of the judges discovered that the Fuhrer was never read his Miranda rights. Why would I hope for that? I am not protesting an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, that would be Fuhrertile (sorry), but why make me cheerlead evil? Why vote for today’s GOPstapo? Evil in my opinion is bad. I hope you’re wrong, thankfully your ilk invariably is.

                    • pokey
                      April 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM

                      By pushing this “Trump-Russia Collusion” narrative the Democrats have created this potential tyrant in Trump.

                      It’s easy to maintain rightness with general claims like “Donald Trump is evil.” With a specific claim, we can examine and test that claim to the factual evidence. This particular issue is about the accusation that “Trump illegally coordinated his efforts with the Russians to influence the 2016.” We test that particular accusation against the known factual evidence (especially that evidence provided in the Mueller report) and conclude that that accusation is false. That fact of the Democrats wrongness on this particular point gives Trump much power.

                      That’s why I encouraged the Dems to defeat Trump on policy and principle rather than trying to legally assassinate him. They chose to attempt a legal assassination of Don Corleone, and failed.

                      Now we may ask where that false allegation came from–the Dossier. The Mueller report could not substantiate one controversial claim about Trump being a compromised agent or colluding with Russia. A reasonable assessment of the Dossier brings us to the likely conclusion that the Dossier was filled with Russian disinformation.

                      The more the Democrats try to legally attack Trump (and fail), the more political power they will give him.

                      The Democrats, in particular the Resistance, is to blame for the potential tyrant that we are creating in Trump

                    • Mick Zano
                      April 26, 2019 at 7:07 PM

                      With respects to the Mueller report and beyond, I don’t agree with your assessment of what happened, what is happening, or what will happen. And I understand the Spygate chapter least of all, but only because at any point in Trump’s despicable life a FISA warrant was probably justified, perhaps even in utero. But liberal rage is a very real thing today. I believe it was Nietzsche who said if you gaze long enough into the Twitter feed, the Twitter feed will gaze back at you.

      • pokey
        April 20, 2019 at 8:31 AM

        “Even if the Trump campaign colluded with Wikileaks, that is not a crime.’
        Collusion is not a crime. Good thing for the Clinton campaign who paid a spy to go to Russia and interact with Russian officials to get dirt on Trump. That’s proven case of colluding with the Russians, but it’s not illegal; it’s dirty politics, but they all play that game. The question is–did Trump’s campaign coordinate or conspire with Russian attempts to affect the election. And all four investigations (including Mueler’s) concluded that “No, there is not evidence to establish that assertion.” As far as obstruction is concerned. Since Trump did not coordinate with Russia to influence the elections, then his “attempts to obstruct justice” must be viewed from the context of his innocence of those charges. Since he was being falsely accused and this accusation and investigation was harming his presidency, it could reasonably be assumed that he was attempting to obstruct the slander in order to salvage his presidency. That’s why his comments and actions did not rise to the standard of corrupt intent. If they would have found evidence that he did knowingly coordinate with Russia to effect the election, then his actions could have been viewed from the context of his guilt (like when Clinton deleted her top secret emails) and his actions could have been shown to be obstructing of justice.

        • Mick Zano
          April 20, 2019 at 4:16 PM

          We do know he coordinated, because of all the collusion …which is not a crime stuff, that he and all his peeps lied about …under oath …for real America! But it fell short of the level of conspiracy/crime. Kidding. The investigation was thwarted, as I predicted here . Mueller’s summary ends with, not enough evidence surfaced to prove conspiracy because a number of key individuals either pleaded the fifth, refused to hand over documents/materials, or in the case of our obstructor in chief, refused everything except some written answers deemed “insufficient” by the Mueller team. Why Mueller didn’t push this is the tragedy of our time, next to your voting record, ha, ha. A close second. To channel some Schiff, no paragraph of this 488 page document is okay. You can have your enablers continue to interpret this for you, through Rove colored glasses, but we are coming for the enablers next.

          • pokey
            April 22, 2019 at 8:37 AM

            “The investigation was thwarted”–president could have legally stopped the investigation at any time, he could have invoked executive privilege to deny Special Counsel to White House witnesses. Over a million documents were disclosed including notes on meetings between president and White House counsel.

            The Special Counsel report shows that the president’s frustration wasn’t over a fear of guilt, but rather that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern.

            It is unethical for a prosecutor to speak about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgement about whether there is enough evidence to charge a crime. If there is–the prosecutor indicts; if not then he remains silent.

            The constitutional rights of every American (including the president) forces the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to require the person accused to prove his own innocence.

            In both case of Kavanaugh and Trump–you and the Democrats are assuming these men are guilty (“known sex offender” and “known felon”) and trying to require these men to prove their own innocence.

            It’s more than possible (as a matter of fact the evidence supports their innocence) that both Kavanaugh and Trump have actually been falsely accused of “sexual assault” and “conspiracy/coordination with Russian government.” And the constitution demands that they be treated as though they are innocent of these crimes. You and the Democrats continue violating these men’s constitutional rights.

            • Mick Zano
              April 22, 2019 at 12:35 PM

              Trump lied, Trump’s peeps lied, not occasionally but across the board. It’s pervasive. The investigation found a web of wrongdoing, and the report lays out Trump’s clear felonies in the area of obstruction. Mueller thought people could still read, which was on oversight on his part. And things will become even clearer when the white collar indictments arrive. Don’t worry, I really don’t know if anything will come from any of this. In a functional society, it’s the beginning of the end for this administration, but in 2019 the president is above the law and rightwing media is beyond reason. So while I see this darker and darker portrait coming into focus, you keep hurling the easel off the top of Trump Tower. That could kill a guy on Fifth Avenue! Ha, ha. Don’t worry, your approval ratings won’t budge. I think your problem is this: there are too many lies, too many scandals, and too many high crimes and misdemeanors to track, especially for those hyper-focused on FISA warrants. My takeaway? The rightwing media has proven it can provide ample cover for any and all known republicans, details be damned.

              • pokey
                April 29, 2019 at 8:31 AM

                name one controversial dossier accusation against Trump (Trump compromised to Putin; Trump-Russia collusion) that was verified by the mueller probe.

                Since the FBI knew that the dossier was unverified (Comey told Trump the dossier was “salacious and unverified”), why did they elevate it rather than downplay it?

                • Mick Zano
                  April 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM

                  He colluded and he obstructed, we know this because of all the collusion and obstruction, and now it’s been confirmed by the Mueller probe. Per Mueller report, “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” Benjamin Wittes the Atlantic, “As a criminal matter, this fact pattern seems to me uncomplicated: If true and provable beyond a reasonable doubt, it is unlawful obstruction of justice. Full stop.” But don’t worry, Poke, he’s above the law so it’s all good. Thanks?

Leave a Reply

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