For today’s schitznik, Pokey and Zano discuss Andrew Sullivan’s and David Frum’s recent articles on Trump-Russia collusion: Frum’s Atlantic article summarizes the damning allegations as uncovered by the Senate Intelligence report, and Sullivan pushes back on his Weekly Dish by citing the mainstream media’s endless and fruitless march toward a conspiracy conviction.
Pokey: Sullivan’s article was the best article you’ve sent me in a long time, and I essentially agree with everything …except for the misleading title. The term ‘hoax’ implies orchestration. Media Overkill, coordinated by the CIA, FBI, and the DOJ. I see little mention of the established coordination, but I do concede the facts of Trump’s deep character flaws and the very real Russian influence on his campaign. That’s a potent assessment, bridging gaps. I will acknowledge this—at this time I cannot imagine ever supporting the politics of Trump again. I’m proud of you, Zano. You are still capable of trans-consensus thought. You ain’t over the hill yet.
Zano: Don’t call me trans-consensual! I prefer metro-unitive. And I’ve been encouraging you to read these guys for 15 years, maybe you should fire your secretary. But let’s rejoice! Somewhere between these two republican-esque peeps we’re approaching some real meaningful conclusions and consensus on collusion. I agree with most of Sully’s assessment, including the overhyped-media piece. However, Sullivan mentions collusion scenarios (Manafort) and more attempted collusion (public and beyond), and then concludes ‘no collusion.’ He also downplays Trump’s deep compromisedness (a word), the cresting levels of which will likely prove damning. Orchestration isn’t mentioned by either pundit for a reason.
Pokey: Ooooh, so we agree that Trump-Russia was a hoax? Sullivan’s title was misleading, because the story didn’t seriously argue the investigation was legitimate. He calls it “Media Overkill,” which implies such “overkill” did not arise from political players. I’m saying that in the context of what we now know that is simply false. That’s called “a hoax,” even if the accusations prove accurate. That’s the BS that passes for reputable journalism. Good pick Zano, but learn more, young grasshopper.
Zano: I prefer the title, Zano Mantis. Sullivan’s piece was a response to Frum’s article entitled; It Wasn’t a Fucking Hoax. I added the pejorative, but I’m sure you skimmed that one. But I essentially agree with all of Frum’s and most of Sullivan’s take as well.
Pokey: So you agree with media overhype?
Zano: Yes, as far as the conspiracy component is concerned. Maddow, Corn, Chait, and countless others never let up on conspiracy gas pedal. I was never fully convinced of that one aspect. But this is precisely how Fox has operated for 20-years, although they tend to make more with considerably less. None of the mainstream media’s (MSM) reporting was necessarily false, but they needed to give up the conspiracy ghost when their leads fizzled. I, too, supported the Dossier for far too long, but it’s more about what they didn’t cover during that period that gets my goat. The day McClatchy’s Cohen-mysterious-cellular-Prague-ping story went bust is when I realized folks were straw-grasping.
Pokey: Ok, I’m with you on that. Do you agree with these definitions? Overhyped—media exaggeration primarily motivated by interests inherent within the media established Hoax—coordinated agenda to promote a narrative primarily motivated by a partisan political.
Zano: According to Googleville, a Hoax mean “a humorous or malicious deception,” which doesn’t fit the media’s culpability. The MSM overplayed their hand; they separately came to the conclusion there was no there-there but were slow to correct the record. In their defense, it’s still very muddy. But malicious deception? Overhype means “to make exaggerated claims about (a product, idea, or event); publicize or promote excessively.”
For both of your definitions you include ‘primary motivation as political’. One could easily conclude the primary motivation was our national security. That was certainly my interest. If you polled our intelligence community in 2016, they would likely have rated Trump an 8 out of 10 on any risk assessment (possibly higher). The prospect of a Trump 2024 will be higher still.
Pokey: National security as a motivation? One could easily conclude that, if one ignored the primary player’s declassified conversations. The issue—was their political coordination with the media and CIA heads, FBI heads, and DOJ, and Democratic leadership? Did you define the 2 terms yet—most matters are settled by defining the terms—something that interferes with your “big picture perspective.”
Zano: What’s wrong with my definitions? Hoax = malicious deception. Overhyped = publicize or promote excessively. Motivations, political or otherwise, can certainly be relevant factors, but primary politically motivated? My reluctance to dive into your next declassified Reddit chat findings is the absence of any legitimate sources. Sullivan implied the Dossier was Dem-concocted, so do real sources exist somewhere? Historically you link to, uh, sources primarily motivated by partisan politics. These items are what Durham is investigating, right now, and his report may well validate some of these claims. I am with you on this much, if a country elects a Hitler, then seig-fucking-heil. You can’t illegally conspire to overturn any election, even one as catastrophic as 2016. I know you supposedly have all the ‘goods’ on this bit, no doubt courtesy of the MemeYanker77, et al.
Pokey: What exactly are you challenging—the leaked info about the Comey’s conversation with Trump to CNN? I have to say—I’m tired of seeking and establishing these facts that you ignore. Then you challenge my claim later while never engaging the info presented. You’ve been handed the timelines. Comey told Trump about Dossier Jan 6, CNN ran a story about “FBI brief Trump on the Dossier” on Jan 10. This fills in the blanks. Please tell me what exactly is implausible or disputed? Check these this link and this one. Are these accurate accounts?
Pokey: I’m tired of having to find the pieces to make the same argument I made for that last 5 years, because you have neither challenged nor acknowledged my claim. Is this the fact you wish to challenge? You don’t believe this happened? I’m making a specific claim of specific people on a specific-dates.
Zano: Then stop looking for the truth in truck stop toilet stalls. I understand your frustration, but from a reality-based perspective, it’s also tough for the rest of us to cut through the Breitbart din. I feel like a shaman who must dive deep into the underworld to bring back shiny factoids for my editor. You must understand that if you have finally arrived at something on the truthy side of life, you swam through a sea of lies to get there.
As for that more concise answer: you can look at all the actions of the key player through one of two lenses:
- a group trying to spy on and intentionally mire an incoming administration in scandal as some sort of stick in Trump’s spokes, or:
- a group really concerned about the quality of the circus-style crime syndicate moving into the White House.
Either way, these timelines suggest the spooks have some splain’n to do, but were the key players warning us to handle a threat, or intentionally derailing an incoming Administration? This was not a run of the mill transition of power, period. Does that excuse everything? Not necessarily.
As for your links:
No, I don’t agree with the narrative form 100% Fedup, which is F’d up. Both articles assume everybody across the beltway was in on it, which I know you buy hook, line and Gawker, but the rest of us don’t. There are way too many republicans in the mix to hatch a Hillary Clinton plot to topple a republican president. In your version, the media, the intelligence community, a number of republican senators, a special counsel or two, and all the rest of the Whos down in Whoville concocted the Dossier. The entire beltway agreed to create this sketchy gem and kept it secret until they could use it to derail Trump. There’s not one line in one transcript that suggests this broader version of events, unless you read into the conversations. So let me guess…
Your second ‘article’ rehashes the House Intelligence report findings, aka a republican only version of events, minus any adult supervision. This much-ignored report attempts to exonerate the following: Devin Nunes for violating campaign finance laws (guilty as charged), Donald Trump (a wanted crime boss), and Paul Manfort (currently incarcerated for the very charges they exonerated him of). Wow. That report didn’t age well. The House’s finding also concede that Russia interfered with the election, for Trump, but questioned how the Feds analyzed the data. Hmmm, maybe they didn’t check with the folks at 100% FedUp.
The article then offers a Dossier timeline that lists the intelligence community’s transgressions, but it starts and ends with Foxal matter. My additions in brackets.
“The Intelligence Community: knew of the Dossier from the start,” and “helped in the Dossier’s creation.” [2nd part unproven]
directly leaked information – including Clapper himself [True].
relied on the Dossier in obtaining the FISA Warrant [partially true].
relied on the Dossier – at least in part – in the ICA Assessment Report [False. This assessment report focused on confirmed Russian interference in our election. The only related website link says this: “congressional leaders (no doubt republican) now suspect the dossier also informed Obama intelligence officials who compiled the ICA.]
repeatedly lied about doing so [True].
actively colluded against the Trump Administration [Unproven].
Prediction: Durham will agree more with my assessment than yours (which is still problematic).
If you recall, Mueller, limited his scope to collusion and, when no one answered any of his questions truthfully, he later shifted to obstruction. No money laundering, no compromisedness, no other financial matters were explored, aka a real tragedy of shortshightedness. Compare that to every Hillary related investigation since 1869, wherein republicans leave no stone unturned, follow any and all leads–in any and all directions–and then attempt to prosecute everything, real or imagined.
For the motivation behind your scheme to be fully political, the masterplan of the guilty party (or parties) can be summarized as this:
Let’s bring down Trump by setting up a Special Counsel mandated to only look at that one singular piece of the story that we, the collective coconspirators, fabricated.
Wow. Great plan. If this came from your side of the aisle, maybe.
If anyone was trying to open a bag of worms, Team Trump is at least 94% worm meat, or at least worm byproduct. This is a very illogical and onerous approach to bring down a comparably easy target. It seems implausible to me. And, if this timeline narrative of yours is all true, and Obama/Hillary/The MSM/and the Spooks all conspired on this one, then the real story is how no one except 100%Fedup.com could break this story …which, again, I find to be 100% …well, you know.
Again, if a batch of Russian spy chatter, true of false, opened a criminal investigation into a presidential criminal, who cares? The rest of these timelines of yours can all be explained by this sentiment: “Holy shit! A criminal is moving into the WH, and he’s refusing questions. Now what?”
But, IF Hillary is linked to the content of the Dossier in a proven and meaningful way (aka Pokey’s links sold separately), then this series of events is deeply disturbing and places this entire matter firmly into the hoax category. If true, I will happily submit my resignation to Mr. Winslow, along with my first major retraction in nearly two decades. But waxing some Kipling poetic, If.