The Durham Report And The Spygate’s Last Gasp

My friend and blogvesary asked me to give his points about Spygate a fairer shake. Sure it’s mostly conspiracy theory scrawled across Glenn Beck’s chalkboard with a pre-sniffed Sharpie, but there is some clear irregularities that can’t be ignored. My friend is reasonable, so over the years he always lays out these red-meat-laden theories and I research them. But this is also why I have such a healthy fear of following him, once again, down the rabid hole. Since they’re typically distractions, I tend to shut them down sooner than traitor. It’s like hearing how the moon landing was faked, then, years later, we go to the moon and there’s a pizza parlor where Hillary is running a child sex ring out of the basement. Yeah, it’s like that… Anything being espoused on Hannity each night seems automatically meritless to me, yet only a Sith deals in absolutes. As for Spygate, why couldn’t the FBI pick an issue, a lie, a white-collar crime, a quid pro quo, a collusive conclusive moment, to make their case? With so much wrongdoing to choose from, how do you not meet the level of a FISA warrant, indefinitely? You had Gotham’s Orange Cheetoh in your crossfire hurricane hairs and you missed. Pokey sent along some questions and some links for review. Two links touched on Obama spying, aka Halper and Misfud, so I worked them into my answers—covertly, of course, without proper FISA permissions. He sent over a Hill link, nice, but here’s a much a better one, here. Why do I have to do your job for you, Poke? His other two sources were The Federalist, uggg, and Wikipedia—which I use too but prefer the Star Wars version, Wookepedia.

“Surveil or surveil not, there is no spy.” Yoda

Let’s start with some of his spy-links, after all for a Spygate, one needs spies.

Stefan Halper and Joseph Misfud are the two main spies supposedly planted in the Trump campaign. The Federalist article tries to paint Halper as a never Trumper for holding a meeting with Madaline Albright and other known never Trumpers. Fact: there’s no such thing as never Trumpers. There are savvy people and republicans, period. Of course, per Vox, even this Halper assessment is flawed:

“Halper is a longtime Republican who never worked for the Trump campaign. The FBI appeared to have asked Halper to make contact with Page and Papadopoulos after it had reason to believe each of these men was in contact with the Russian government.”

That same Federalist article also tries to tie Halper to leaks to the press and possible involvement with the funding of the Steele Dossier and it concludes, in the typical cliff hanger fashion, “One must wonder, then, if Halper was helping in those efforts.” Hmmm, deep thoughts about the deep state. The other name thrown around is Joseph Mifsud, who Papadapwhatsas outed as an FBI informant/double agent bent on bringing down the Trump administration. Per Horowitz:

“The FBI‘s Delta files contain no evidence that Mifsud has ever acted as an FBI CHS and none of the witnesses we interviewed or documents we reviewed had any information to support such an allegation.” Politico

Here’s the main reason the spy portion of Spygate comes up short, Horowitz found that Crossfire Hurricane failed to obtain a surveillance authorization on Papadapwhatsas and, despite a debate, the FBI never seriously considered wiretapping Manafort or Flynn. So only Page was ever wiretapped? If they were really doing scattershot spying to bring down Trump that makes absolutely no sense. So they pick the one goofy guy, the furthest from Trump’s inner circle to spy on? The only one not involved in a bevy of criminal activity? Well played Spygaters, well played. Here’s my theory, if they weren’t so incompetent or fear-driven, the Feds could have made the case to wiretap all of them. Spygate light?

Onward to Pokey’s three questions:


1.) The FBI has refused to release critical information about the early stages of the investigation.

This one is 100% bunk. Everyone outside of Alex-Jonesville is in agreement that the onset of Crossfire Hurricane was justified. This has been reviewed by FBI Director Christopher Wray, Robert Mueller and IG Horowitz, who had full access to everything. You have to distinguish between the initial FISA and the ongoing ones, which are clearly more problematic. Horowitz debunked the theory that the Steele Dossier, Strzok or Page played any role whatsoever in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. We know this because it was opened with Papadapwhatsas a month or so earlier. Per Vox’s coverage of Horowitz:

“Papadopoulos denied any knowledge of Russian outreach to the Trump team, which was a lie: Papadopoulos had drunkenly bragged to an Australian diplomat about Russia offering him ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton back in May, which led to the FBI beginning its counterintelligence investigation in the first place.”

Remember, Horowtiz was under great political pressure to find wrongdoing, but he was forced to conclude the start of this caper was legit and “properly predicated.”

“Page’s visit to Moscow was a matter of public record. The FBI knew about Papadopoulos’s bragging about Russia providing dirt on Clinton, thanks to the Australian government. Given those facts, experts say it would have been irresponsible not to launch a counterintelligence probe that targeted Papadopoulos and Page.” Vox

Poke’s Hill article, 2018, did not know what we know now, mainly, that the Steele Dossier had nothing to do with the initial investigation; this article blames the FBI for not disclosing the Dossier’s Hillary-related origins to the judges. Again, this had nothing to do with the onset of the investigation. As for these more bumble beginnings:

FACT: Russia interfered in our election (per Mueller).

FACT: Russia reached out to numerous Trumpsters to collude (per Mueller).

FACT: Some Trumpsters ended up in the Crossfire Hurricane hairs for talking to Russian agents and then promptly lying to investigators.

This does not explain the extensions in the FISA, which we’ll get to.


2.) No investigator of Trump was ever genuinely suspicious that Trump had “colluded” with Russia.

Why wouldn’t they be suspicious? Sounds absurd. Where are those links and quotes? One theory, those left in the FBI now report to Trump loyalists/fascists, so some may be backpedaling to hang onto their pensions. Whereas I couldn’t find anything to support Pokey’s statement, I did find a lot that contradicts it. Per the Horowitz Report:

“The evidence also showed that FBI officials responsible for and involved in the case opening decisions were unanimous in their belief that, together with the July 2016 release by WikiLeaks of hacked DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails, the Papadopoulos statement described in the FFG [Friendly Foreign Government] information reflected the Russian government’s potential next step to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections.”

“FBI officials were similarly unanimous in their belief that the FFG information represented a threat to national security that warranted further investigation by the FBI. Witnesses told us that they did not recall observing during these discussions any instances or indications of improper motivations or political bias on the part of the participants, including Strzok” (Horowitz Report 349-350).”

As for your ongoing insistence collusion never happened, that’s the dubious conclusion here. The best summary of the Mueller Report comes from this Atlantic article: We still don’t know what happened between Trump and Russia, in which they point out the combination of things that stymied Mueller, et al:

  • Mueller’s narrow approach and limited scope.
  • The DOJ’s protecting sitting president’s from criminality (that clearly hamstrung the investigation from the getgo).
  • How collusion is not a legal thing, so Mueller had to prove criminal conspiracy (a very high Bar).
  • This proved unreachable due to all the blatant obstruction of justice.
  • The promise of pardons for those loyalists.

Trump himself made the best case for collusion by his actions and deeds; he needed no help from the Feds. Our intelligence community investigated his peeps because they knew three things: Russia was interfering with our election; they were reaching out to numerous minions and they seemed to be welcoming all the help from Moscow.

This does leave open the possibility someone higher up insisted the investigation stay open despite a lack of evidence. And where this ends is anyone’s guess. This is the heart of Hannity’s deep state plot and we will learn more under Durham, but my prediction stands: this will not jump in any meaningful way from the FBI to the DNC.


3.) Leaders of the FBI worked with (colluded with) members of the media by illegally leaking to promote a public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion.

On the contrary, it’s been noted how carefully this was handled. According to the NYTs, it stands in “stark contrast” to Comey’s Hillary investigation blunders.

“Not only did agents in that case [Crossfire Hurricane] fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known.”

The FBI investigators are described as hesitant and unwilling to even interview “key Trump associates.” Hmmm. In addition, they report only 5 DOJ officials knew of the details of the operation, when typically over a dozen would be briefed. The same article quotes a twenty-year veteran of the DOJ, Mary McCord,

“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven.”

This matches the conclusion of every other republican inquisitor who looked into this matter. Of course, Durham might have agreed to exaggerate in a way the others weren’t willing to. And that’s my fear.

Andrew McCabe’s leaks are widely understood as a response to a WSJ article on the reopening of the Clinton email probe and how the FBI wanted to appear tough on Clinton, as some sort of damage control. These leaks did hurt Hillary Clinton, not The Donald, and if McCabe indeed lied about them, Hillary should really be miffed. I have always said McCabe had the highest legal jeopardy, but not for the reasons republicans think. Where are these other leaks to hurt Trump?

The perpetuation of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative stems from Trump and his minions’ highly suspicious actions, which range from stunning to disturbing. This president didn’t need any help from the Feds to look guilty in this area. He made his dubious intentions public and, luckily for him, incompetently.


I’m adding this one because this is the only question that requires some splainin’:

4.) Why was the Page FISA warrant extended multiple times on the flimsiest of evidence?

Why did they extend the Carter Page Fisa? Why couldn’t they find more evidence of Trumpian wrongdoing? Most people swilling beer and eating nachos during Rachel Maddow could make a better case. I.Am.That.Person.

This is where Spygate begins and ends, but the Page FISA was clearly a trainwreck. There was little grounds for continued surveillance for nine months beyond the initial 90 day period. This where the Steele Dossier does a play a questionable role. Was it incompetence? Was it coordinated by some nefarious Dem leaning executive? Is it the norm? Does it reach higher-ups or even Obama’s desk? Lindsey Graham wants to know, so we’re all going to find out.

Mueller’s report didn’t vindicate Trump so that’s a wrap and, similarly, Horowitz’s report didn’t vindicate the FBI, so someone call Durham.

See the hypocrisy? Of course not.

I don’t know why my friend has to get so ahead of himself. He can wait for Durham’s results before commenting and avoid a lot of embarrassment. I know why it’s necessary; this is where republicans live, in these crawl spaces between factoids. This is where they hatch all their cockamamie theories, connect the imaginary dots, and act out their profound extortionistique dance. Let’s ignore the man committing crimes in broad daylight and dismantling our republic, so we can bring you some more unanswered questions. The usual.

On the other hand, how could those involved not know such FISA processes would be scrutinized to the highest degree? Nothing was being gleaned from Page, it was a dead-end with little implications for a greater collusion narrative. Why couldn’t they make the case? This is our intelligence community, after all.

Yet Pokey believes there’s only one answer, a secret cabal that ends with Obama. That is one explanation, far fetched and unproven though it may be. More likely, as the Cato Institute suggests, it was a result of confirmation bias, “which ought to sound familiar to anyone who’s studied the history of the intelligence community.” And such mistakes “aren’t peculiar to elections but endemic to intelligence.” You know, my theory, aka business as usual in Dysfunctslvania. Also, Horowitz conducted a broader look at FISA warrants and out of those 29 unrelated warrants reviewed, none of them passed muster either (0 for 30 for those familiar with numbers). My theory, post 9/11 we aired on the side of listening. I remember being against expanding surveillance, yet 100% of the GOP-types seemed down. They only get annoyed, years later, when it’s used to try to prevent obvious national security threats.

During The Hill’s interview with Elie Honing, a NY federal prosecutor, he pointed out the baselessness of Spygate:

“First, all the wiretaps were court-approved. Second, there’s no proof Obama had anything to do with those lawful wiretaps. And third, if we need to get technical (and we don’t because there’s nothing there) treason only applies during a declared war.”

Well, that last part might be true, because as Bugs Bunny used to say, I hope you know, this means war!

My predictions haven’t changed on Spygate:

“As for my ongoing Spygate counter narrative predictions: these will be investigated longer than Benghazi, but will only find procedural, not political wrongdoing. This has changed greatly from my original prediction, years ago, in which I used different gender neutral pronouns.”

Whereas political bias was never found, we need to remember how political prejudice is creeping into every corner of our society as we shift toward collapse. Most of these errors are cognitive bias based and are likely implicit, not explicit. The same implicitness that killed George Floyd, just as long as no procedural irregularities creep in when dealing with, well, creeps.

The only thing Pokey and I can agree on is this, declassify everything involved with Carter Pages’ surveillance is imperative. Who did what and why needs to be clearly explained and procedural anomalies should be punished. Widespread FISA reform seems long overdue. If other wrongdoing is found further up the chain of command, great, let’s hear it. Keep in mind, Pokey, when this hole is finally filled it represents the last corner your coveted scandal might be hiding. Good luck with that.

You have to remember Horowitz was under a lot of pressure to make shit up, and he failed. He failed so spectacularly that Barr needed to investigate, the investigation’s investigation. Meanwhile, Horowitz, that crazy lib, debunked 87% of what Hannity and Pokey have been on about for the last two years.

R.I.P: the bugging of Trump Tower, those spies planted in the Trump campaign, the Steele dossier initiated the probe, Page & Strzok initiated the probe, and more recently unmasking.

Yet Pokey forges ahead for the same reason the Feds did, confirmation bias. But, hey, the sooner we get this behind us, the sooner we can start wiretapping Jared. The son-in-law …the jewelry stores are all COVID-closed.


These days I always like to end these debates with my segment, here’s what’s really happening while my friend is yappin’ about something else:

On Tuesday Pokey asked me, “Why are you so concerned about Barr?”

Since that important inquiry:

1. Donald Ayer, a former DOJ who worked under three presidents, warned how Barr represents, “The biggest threat to the rule of law he has seen in his lifetime.”

2. Over 80% of the graduates of Barr’s own alma mater/law school just demanded his resignation.

3. And moments ago, the NYT released an article that Barr also interfered with the Michael Cohen case, which explains why our president, aka Individual 1, wasn’t tied to the indictment over hush funds paid to a certain porn star.

Oh, and he’s being subpoenaed by the House and there’s more talk of impeachment. But that FISA judge, hasn’t he been seen in or around a known liberal coffee shop, with clear connections to people who have connections to the Clinton Foundation?







(Visited 54 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. 

  6 comments for “The Durham Report And The Spygate’s Last Gasp

  1. Pokey McDores
    July 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM

    You’d make a great Inspector General, Zano.

    1) It’s bunk because everyone is in agreement (appeal to popularity) since Wray, Mueller, and Horowitz (appeal to authority) reviewed it and debunked it.
    “Remember, Horrowitz was under great pressure to find wrongdoing, but he was forced to conclude the start of this caper was legit and “properly predicated.”” WHY DO YOU ASSUME THIS, zano! The evidence shows that “Horrowitz was under great pressure to legitimize the actions of the Investigatory Institutions of which he serves. His job was to acknowledge all of the confirmed public facts while interpreting those facts from the most positive institutional slant possible.” But I will agree with you on this much; regardless of the facts, “he was FORCED TO CONCLUDE the start of this caper was legit and “properly predicated.”” Once again, examine those words you wrote, Zano. Horowitz WAS FORCED TO CONCLUDE.

    If it was all just honest mistakes, then at least one of the 17 (?) FISA abnormalities would have not been harmful to Trump’s campaign or presidency. Show me a nonpolitical FISA abnormality that did not harm Trump’s campaign or presidency. Show me one. Then to claim it was not political is Ridiculous!!!! But Horowitz says….Mueller say.s… Fauci says…Don’t appeal to the experts to learn what to think Go to the facts and learn HOW TO THINK>
    But Zano will believe it, because the experts told him what he wanted to hear.

    You say, “Horowitz debunked the theory that the Steele Dossier, Strzok or Page played any role whatsoever in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.” First point, nobody claims the Steele Dossier played a part in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. I claim the Steele Dossier was essential to gaining the FISA warrant. The first FISA application (without the Dossier) was not approved. When the Dossier was added, the FISA warrant was approved. Second point, a May 27, 2020 article from the Hill describes the irregularities of the Crossfire Hurricane document–“The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.” Horowitz debunked what? Zano, whenever you use the word “debunked,” it is a safe bet that it involves facts that you just refuse to acknowledge. I wish I was paid an hourly rate for the time I’ve spent debunking your debunks. I must say I have become dubious that you are honestly investigating these issues. Peter Strzok’s handwriting is all over Crossfire Hurricane from the very beginning–unless you can show me that the Hill May 27, 2020 article is “debunked.” (1–continued below)

    2) No investigator of Trump was ever genuinely suspicious that Trump had “colluded” with Russia.
    Of course Zano “debunks” my claim by…..get ready for it….the Horrowtiz report claims the unanimous consensus of all FBI investigators involved–without ever giving a specific quote from a particular individual from the cloud of unanimous consensus. I know that Horowitz “debunked” the claim that Strzok had anything to do with the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. But from evidence in Strzok’s text trail, I will assume that Strzok was intimately involved with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as well as the Hillary investigation (what a coincidence). Oh yeah, did you know that Strozk and Page exchanged more than 10,000 text communications on their FBI phones. And they did talk as though they had inside information on Crossfire Hurricane, so maybe the May 27 article in the Hill is correct. I’m going to make the controversial assertion that Peter Strzok was intimately involved with the investigation of Trump-Russia collusion for over 8 months until the Mueller Probe took over. On May 19, 2017–after 8 months of the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion and 2 days after Mueller was named Special Counsel–Strzok texted Page in reference to his consideration of being part of the Special Counsel, “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought if was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because my gut tells me there’s no big there there.”
    That is a very specific quote from a very specific text of two very specific investigators. That’s called EVIDENCE. Out of over 10,000 texts between Strzok and Page show me one specific quote that shows genuine suspicion of Trump. Show me a specific quote from ANY specific direct investigator that shows genuine suspicion of Trump for colluding with Russia. Zano, I give specifics, while you give Attorney Generalizations about “FBI officials” being “Unanimous.” Give me a specific quote from a specific investigator that supports that claim.

    1) (continued) Of course you ignored all of the relevant material. So, the investigation started with Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016. The recent Federalist articles that you watered down actually present facts. They show that earlier in that month (before the start of Crossfire Hurricane) on July 6, 2016 the FBI paid informant (spy) Stephan Halper spoke in Cambridge on “the phenomenon which is Donald Trump’s maverick candidacy.” A write-up on the speech said that Halper “concluded his talk by stating that if the media focuses on Hilary Clinton, she will lose, whereas if they continue to focus on Trump, he will lose.” 4 days later on July 10, 2016, Halper met with Madeline Albright and publicly outspoken Never Trumper Van Weber. But you left out the most important part–Halper’s secretary called and emailed CARTER PAGE and arranged for Cambridge to pay for PAGE’S travel and accommodations (even though PAGE was not a featured speaker). Halper and CARTER PAGE met with Madeline Albright and Weber in a closed door meeting. Zano, why did you mention Halper’s meeting with Albright without mentioning CARTER PAGE–PAGE is the punch line!
    On July 26 (still prior to Crossfire Hurricane), Damian Paletta with the Wall Street Journal texted CARTER PAGE. “We are told you met with Igor Sechin during your recent Moscow trip and discussed energy deals and the possibility of the U.S. Government of lifting sanctions on him and others.” A 2nd text said, “We are also told you recently met with a senior Kremlin official–Divyekin–and he said they have “Solid Komspromat on Cllnton as well as Trump.” (this portion mirrors Steele’s July 19 memorandum). No wait, Zano, I’m confused. If the investigation started with Crossfire Hurricane, then why are paid informants of the FBI meeting with CARTER PAGE at an earlier time? And how is information about PAGE’S alleged meetings with Russians getting released to the media. Are you curious??
    As far as Carter Page and the FISA warrant is concerned–the CIA sent the FBI a letter confirming that Carter Page was working with the CIA on good standing. The FBI did not include this letter in any of the FISA applications.

    Halper met with Papa in September and asked Papa direct questions about Trump Russia contacts all of which Papa denied. a month later a different agent #3 or #4 also met the Papa and Papa denied that anyone on Trump’s campaign knew anything about Russia.
    Mifsud was not arrested for any wrongdoing. He told the FBI that Papa’s Russian meetings were all purely academic. Mifsud’s testimony (exculpatory evidence) was not revealed to Papa’s defense prior to his plea.

    3) Leaders of the FBI worked with (colluded with) media by illegally leaking information to promote a public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion

    I find it difficult to believe that you are not aware of this information.
    Comey’s personal memo informs us that Clapper asked Comey to brief the president on the Dossier. On Jan. 6 2017 Comey briefed the president on the Dossier.
    Jan 8, 2017 Andrew McCabe emailed higher up FBI officials–“Flood is coming! CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story.”
    Jan 10, 2017–CNN breaks the Dossier story.
    It has been discovered that Clapper discussed the Dossier with journalists at CNN and then lied about this discussion.
    Zano, you are really not aware of this. Comey, Clapper, and CNN journalists worked together to release the Dossier so as to present a public perception of legitimate suspicion (even though no FBI agent took the Dossier seriously).
    Zano, you do know that the Dossier has been debunked.

    4) Why was the Page FISA warrant extended numerous times on the flimsiest of evidence? THAT IS NOT MY QUESTION. I WOULD HAVE NEVER ASKED SUCH A QUESTION. Ok I would be very surprised if ever did.

    I have already gone into Page’s background. The FBI knew that Page was on good standing with the CIA. He was set up by Halper before the Crossfire Hurricane investigation even began. Page was the FBI’s way of getting into the Trump campaign. Once they could legally spy on one member, then they could weave their way through the web of that person’s contacts. That’s what happened. The first FISA attempt was rejected, so the FBI used the Dossier even though they knew the Dossier was bunk. And the FBI knew it was “salacious” and “unverified” and politically motivated even as they submitted it as evidence for the very first FISA warrant against Page.

    There you go, Zano. Now you can take the facts that are too clear to be ignored and rearrange them into your buffered narrative so they form into a modified justification for the politicization of the investigative institutions…like every good Deep State apologist is trained to do.

  2. Pokey McDores
    July 5, 2020 at 4:07 PM

    Oh and why Zano is co concerned about William Barr? Donald Ayer and 80% of people from some snooty university don’t like Barr. He’s not popular. That’s Zano’s big reason. You’re not winning me over Zano. Remeber 80% of the people from my alma mater don’t like me. Is popularity a reason? Oh, Barr interfered with the Michael Cohen case–that’s is Left Wing code for “Barr used his legitimate authority to stop politicians from exploiting the Courts.” Oh, and Barr’s been subpoenaed by the House (the same House that wasted millions of dollars impeaching the president for what was it? colluding with Ukraine?) so they can impeach the president again for what this time? Who knows and who cares? The Dems aren’t concerned with truth or justice; they are concerned with gaining power and keeping it. From their own perspective, Dems didn’t need a reason to investigate Trump. Just investigate and make up a reason–the Zanopic Resistors of the world will come to their defense with their Inspector Generalizations to justify any actions they choose. You want to slander Kavanaugh for rape with absolutely not evidence–Zano’s Inspector Generalization’s will justify their actions. Impeach the President? Why not says Zano?–he quid pro quoed so lets overthrow. But then there’s Barr who actually stands for something called truth and justice. Barr actually concerns himself beyond the incremental progression of liberal politics, and so all these people just hate him. Mean Billy Barr. What did Barr do that was so wrong? From what Zano, the only action that is of “concern” is that Barr did “interfere with the Michael Cohen case.” I bet you that if I were to look into the detail of that “atrocity” there would be no big there there.

    Zano, the Left is full of Russian Hot Air

    • Mick Zano
      July 7, 2020 at 10:27 PM

      As for William Barr.
      For this one you have an almost comical summary of events, which is good because this is a comedy site. Let’s change the characters for maximum impact. So a black man moves into the Oval Office and he finds the right AG after firing anyone who wouldn’t do his bidding. He begs for someone to protect him like his old lawyer from the hood. This AG, let’s call him Derrek Older sets to changing sentences for a number of the president’s cronies, reducing sentencing, dropping charges for several associates involved in gang-related activity earlier in the president’s tenor.

      The AG then fires three Federal judges overseeing cases directly involving the president himself, from hush money for hookers, to his shady bank (same as Epstein’s) with all his crooked financial dealings, as well as a third case involving a number of the president’s friends and defenders.
      In his spare time AG Older dismantles the federal compliance office, by threatening and firing whistleblowers, attacking and removing Inspector Generals and replacing these normal hotlines with a phone to the president’s office. An environment of fear replaces the environment of doing the right thing. Anyone who speaks out is gone, or will be sleeping with the fishes.

      I can hear Pokey now, Then how come there’s been less whistleblower complaints lately, Zano!

      Very astute. Meanwhile, the president sets to work firing all people deemed not loyal to him, while AG Older clears the courts of all judges deemed a threat to President Osama.

      This same AG then allows the lawful dispersion of a protest, with tear gas, an hour before curfew, for a photo op. This AG feels this black president can’t be held accountable for any crime while in office and believes the two of them, Osama and Older are like the Wonder Twins, and they represent the highest authority on all criminality in the land, regardless of their actions and deeds. To the backdrop of the president threatening the media, protestors, and liberals Osama holds up a book about the Black Panthers.

      What would you say to that scenario? It’s so different, right?

      I didn’t follow the snooty university professors lead, as you say. I make my predictions the day of, often before anyone else. This is no different, not long after Barr was sworn in, here’s my article. Strangely accurate. Kidding, it’s what I do. While I am out in front, you should get to the back of the bus. No, seriously, with Derrek Older as AG, it’s the law.

  3. Pokey McDores
    July 5, 2020 at 11:50 PM

    And another thing; look how Horowitz presents this: “Papadopolous denied which was a lie–Papadapolous had drunkenly bragged to an Australian diplomat about Russia offering him ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton back in May, which led to the FBI beginning its counterintelligence investigation in the first place.” Nowhere does Horowitz mention that the Australian diplomat is Alexander Downer, who was a former Australian Foreign Minister who had recently secured 25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS (this is documented). How do we know that Downer is not making this up? Who introduced Downer to Papa anyway? Nobody seems interested. Horowitz also makes it appear as thought Papadopolous lied about talking about having dirt on Clinton. Not true. Papadopoulous lied about the TIMING OF WHEN he met with Mifsud. Of course Mifsud, who was never charged by the FBI, told the FBI that Papa was only in Russia for academic purposes.

    As far as Zano’s concerned, there’s nothing to see hear, because Mueller and Horowitz says this is legitimate, it’s legitimate.

    • Mick Zano
      July 7, 2020 at 9:51 PM

      As for spygate
      You make a compelling case for a dysfunctional FBI, but you don’t talk about Horwitz’s wider look at other FISA warrants. He found problems throughout the department, in fact, in every FISA he reviewed–again, predictable stuff. If an investigation into a janitor not cleaning the agency bathroom because he has a grudge against the manager finds that none of the bathrooms in the building are ever cleaned, you have a problem, but not the one you think. What say you on any of that? Nada.

      My friend said, show me one of the 17 FISA mistakes that helped Trump! Uh, when confirmation bias is coming to town, show me one of the other 30 FISA train wrecks reviewed by Horowitz that helped the defendant? I’m going to take a wild stab here and say, zero.

      Here’s what is really happening, while my friend fakes the moon landing, the NSA was greatly expanded under Bush and Obama, so after 9/11 we aired on the side of listening, whether you like that answer or not, thems the facts. Per the NYTs, Horowtiz said, “The FBI followed all policies when it used informants to carry out that work. He also noted “the bureau’s standards were very low.” Hmm, a low threshold to listen, who allowed that?

      Also, from a procedural standpoint everyone on the planet except Trump’s Roy Cohn and my blogvesary believes the initially inquiry to surveil papadapawhatsas was enough to reach this established low bar.

      The Hill: “look at the patterns. It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. So has the unmasking of sensitive and highly protected names by political officials.”
      Again, you cosigned this shit, Poke, I didn’t. If this weren’t allowed, it wouldn’t be allowed.

      You stated “how could it not be political?”:

      1. Politics is going to be present in late stage democracy, with our current level of polarization, period. Is it Obama political? That matters. Does it reach Obama or not?
      2. Whereas you concluded how no one suspected Trump of colluding, I read, per Horowitz, how everyone involved suspected wrongdoing. This jives with everyone with a television set during the campaign. Was your sound on, Poke? Who wouldn’t think this was worth investigating? Can you count those agents on one hand? Your president can’t.

      In his last exchange Pokey is accusing the investigator himself (Horowitz) of lying, because there are no specific quotes from FBI agents stating their suspicions. Oh right, in this environment you’d have to wrestle the microphone out of my hand to throw the president under the bus. Who would volunteer to be quoted? Agent Mulder is the only one who admitted that Trump looked guilty as hell. How do you think he ended up in the basement investigating CHUDs in the first place?

      As for, did you know the dossier was debunked, Zano? Again, because standard operation procedures, otherwise known as what the feds do on the clock, the FISA process doesn’t require every sentence to be verified. It’s not the way it works. In fact, this article explains this nicely: the FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant.

      So some say it’s political and others say it’s a dereliction of duty to ignore. Potato Potaato.

      Only Durham can show how high up in the FBI this goes or beyond. There may be evidence there; I don’t rule that out, but why would I change my predictions on one leak to the press? That’s pretty low. There’s obviously mid-level errors/wrongdoing, but anything else beyond this Clapper leak is conjecture. He will be questioned and have to speak to his actions. Will history look harshly at those who tried to warn us of Trump? That was a joke. The rest seems like business as usual for spooksville, sloppy and horrible though it may be.

      Another Hill (a very conservative publication) Horowitz summary with links:
      “The FBI — rightly — opened counterintelligence investigations into several Trump campaign officials following a litany of Trump World contacts with shady Russian intelligence cutouts; these meetings coincided, naturally, with Moscow’s brazen campaign to swing the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.”

      Attempted weaponization/politicization of our intelligence offices courtesy of our president vs the Durham report will find something that Mueller and Horowtiz couldn’t. Obvious wrongdoing vs a lot of wishful dot connecting. Same as it ever was
      In those 10,000 texts between Strzok and Page where’s the DNC collusion? There’s only a few cryptic exchanges? As for his “no big there, there” quote, yes an admission that, damn, collusion and obstruction sure, but without Manafort and Stones honest testimony conspiracy charges are slim. This was everyone’s fear. It may well be the thing that ends us as a country. Nice insight, Pete.

      Trump says Obama committed treason, but if that’s your only source …good luck with that. This may be or may not be a grand spook conspiracy, but will it end in Obama’s lap? Will Durham connect those dots? Today I am not changing my predictions, but I have ordered some larger dots.

      [Bull Durham joke deemed classified.]

  4. Pokey
    July 8, 2020 at 12:13 AM

    You Assume that there’s obvious wrongdoing. You assume that the investigators are justified. I ask for evidence, and you (and they) show none.

    1)The FISA warrant “irregularities” are a small part of this. If it was simply the 17 FISA irregularities that would be one thing. You again avoided the entire Carter Page picture.
    You mentioned nothing about (paid by FBI) Halper’s meetings with Page PRIOR to Crossfire Hurricane, the press having information on Page PRIOR to the Crossfire Hurricane, and the CIA informing the FBI of Carter Page’s “good standing” working with CIA (I think prior to the FISA warrant.) They new the Dossier was politically paid for opposition research. The FBI knew all of this time and before the first FISA warrant. Recall back in 2017, when people were scrutinizing the FISA warrant, Rod Rosenstein lectured us with condescension, “There’s a lot of talk about FISA applications. Many people I’ve seen talk about it and seem not to recognize that a FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant. In order to get a FISA warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career law enforcement officer who swears the information is true…And if it is wrong, that person is going to face consequences.” OH YEAH? Rosenstein, who signed the fourth FISA warrant, later when the pressure was applied said, “every application I approved appeared to be justified based on the facts it alleged.” And “The FBI was supposed to be following protocols to ensure that every fact was verified.” And Rosenstein went on to say how he “obviously didn’t know there was exculpatory evidence.” Yes, the FBI held exculpatory evidence for the cases against Carter Page, Papadopoous, and Michael Flynn. They withheld evidence which would have changed the results of both the cases of Papadopolouos and Flynn; and they held exculpatory evidence that would have denied the FISA warrants against Carter Page. Zano doesn’t care that investigators withheld exculpatory evidence from Papa and Flynn; as far as he’s concerned these guys got what they deserved. I don’t hear Zano demanding that the FBI agents who committed the same “crimes” as Flynn and Papa (lying to investigators) get their deserved justice. No, he doesn’t; because this isn’t about justice to Zano; just like it wasn’t about justice to the FBI. It’s about politics.
    2) So of the 10,000 texts I only provided a few texts that supported my case. You Democrats (Soviets) always turn it around so that the burden of proof is on the accused. OK, I’ll accept the burden of proof. You’re right. There’s only a few texts that talk about an “insurance policy” and “we’ll stop him,” and “there’s no big there there.” Show me ONE that suggests genuine suspicion; ONE out of 10,000!
    3) You gloss over the Clapper leak (“he’ll be questioned” you say. Oooh…that will show him) like it’s one guy just made a mistake; it didn’t have any connection to the FBI investigation or the FBI’s personal and political biases. Zano, Clapper’s actions demonstrate conspiracy; doesn’t it? Clapper told Comey to go tell the newly elected president of the U.S. about the Dossier. Comey told the President about the Dossier and then reported back to Clapper who then spoke with (illegally leaked to) journalists about the President being briefed on the Dossier. McCabe was in the loop as he emailed higher ups in the FBI. And then the journalists reported about the President being briefed on the Dossier making it a legitimate story and a legitimate investigation. And that’s HOW the Trump Russia Collusion narrative was conjured in people’s minds so that people like you could be conditioned to ASSUME investigative legitimacy. You say all the time–“If there’s smoke there must be fire.” Yeah the smoke was from this conspiracy of Comey, Clapper, the FBI, and CNN. When Turmp saw the hot air Russian narrative inflating, he knew Comey was a traitor (this brings us to understanding why Trump asked Comey about his loyalty; doesn’t it?). Eventually Trump fired Comey, and that gave people like yourself, the Dems, and the Pansy Never-Trumper Republicans, who’ve all been puffin on the Russian hot air narrative, the reason to demand a Special Counsel, even though the investigators admitted at that time that “there’s no big there there.” In other words it wasn’t ever about justice; it was about politics. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. And it’s what Barr is saying; which is why you and the Dems hate Barr. Because he tells the truth and will do everything in his power to bring justice to those who abused their power. Don’t you want McCabe, Clapper, Comey and everyone else who lied to investigators to keep the facts of their conspiracy hidden? But you don’t want justice. You wanted those abusive of power-that-be to succeed; you still support those abusive powers who are still actively working to the detriment of Trump’s presidency. That’s why this conversation has not essentially changed regardless of how many facts prove conspiratorial abuse of power; cause deep down, you don’t care. You don’t care about the unfairness in the case of Papadopolous; exculpatory evidence? Alexander Downer lied? Who cares? Papadopolous jail time serves the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, so good news he went to jail regardless of the facts. They set up Flynn, held back exculpatory evidence? He deserved it; he said something bad about Obama and worked for Trump? And deep down, you don’t care about the truth of Trump-Russia. You only care that Trump be resisted and stopped at any cost, and Trump-Russia narrative serves that end, so you assume it, you require it, you believe it with you soul, and then you place every bit of the burden of proof (if Manafort and Stone were to testify….) on the accused.

Leave a Reply

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