Zano: Hey Poke, so last week a court of law found the procedure of unmasking Michael Flynn appropriate, legal, and warranted? Remember that whole Rice and Obama should go to jail stuff from Fox & Friends?

Pokey: Ok, so they didn’t improperly unmask Flynn, but did they improperly unvaccinate the guy?

Zano: I see what you did there. Cheap shot [badum bump]. My old predictions on unmasking at the end of this article. I bring these up for pattern purposes, before banging my head against a wall. Oh, let’s not forget the Durham setback this week. Thus far, no one has been indicted in your endless Spygate ruminations. So over the last two decades, we still have …hmm, carry the one [eraser sounds]. Uh, zero indictments. Wait, let’s have a recount. Yep. Zip.

Pokey: Hold on. So why have all those Clinton Foundation “charity projects” withered since Bill and Hillary vacated politics? Answer: The Clinton Foundation only flourished because of politics. To suggest otherwise is as ridiculous as respecting Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings as “legitimate.” They have proven themselves to be crime families. I’ve never supported the Republican’s foreign business dealings, including Trump’s, but to lend legitimacy to the Clintons and the Bidens—what you tend to do—is the problem.

Zano: People are accruing wealth via political means? Is there a Captain Obvious emoji? There should be. I don’t like being placed in the position of defending the Clintons, but they will be a footnote in the collapse of this country. You keep glossing over all the good parts of our pending demise. Biden crime family?

Pokey: You are saying that the Clintons and Bidens squire their wealth through legitimate business?

Zano: I am saying it’s standard operational procedures versus clear criminal conduct. Let me put it this way,

Whereas the Clintons function on the very edge of the law, one that heavily favors the rich,

republicans operate somewhere between Charles Manson and Benedict Arnold. 

Let me cite that Jordan Peterson video you just sent me. When asked about the future of the US—and I love this line—he said he hoped for a return to “normative political incompetence,” as he identifies “a certain underlay of ineradicable corruption,” aka, a baseline of shadiness and stupidity at the heart of our democracy. For 20 years you have pointed out this baseline corruption with these: ooh, ooh, look at that! Gotcha! Politicians being politicians again! 

It’s always been a magnitude thing, Poke. Here’s the crime family score card (a phrase I used for Trump during his campaign):

BIDEN: Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, may have done some shitty things, and he certainly struggled with drugs and relationships, which is not uncommon with his affliction. And, yes, his father helped him out when and where he could, hoping he’d get his shit together. It seems like he did use his influence inappropriately at times, but I understand, as a father myself, the human sentiment behind these actions.

versus

TRUMP: Every family member, every child, every uncle, every corner of his family tree (except his niece), are criminals who blatantly break the law—not subtlety, loopholery, lawyery, baseline sleazily—but openly and egregiously via deeply unlawful acts, preferably before breakfast. Trump has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a certain class of folks operate under wholly different set of rules. None, as it were.

Pokey: Hunter Biden compromised our national security by taking money from Russia, Ukraine, and China. This is not an isolated incident. Congressional members of both political parties have been profiting off of foreign money for decades. Our lawmakers don’t serve those who elect them; they serve those who fund them.

Zano: No argument, but this is selective enforcement. Anyone in Trump’s family can trump those actions by noon (MST) on.any.given.day. I support reform, across the board, always have. Who isn’t for that? But, today, you don’t like how the whole system works? We had a whole impeachment hearing on this subject; I think you sent me a fake moon landing link that day. You pay attention when it suits you. The hallmark of the republican party.

Pokey: What interested me in that video was Peterson’s acknowledgment of Trump’s success in resisting the forces that seek to pull us into foreign wars.

Zano: I ran my whole blogging career on that premise, so, sure, let’s avoid dumb wars. But Dems weren’t in charge at the time, or lying to us about the facts on the ground. While Trump’s position on the Iraq War was all over the same map he couldn’t find Iraq on, Barack Obama’s position was quite clear (as was mine). Also, if we get entangled in a conflict with Iran over the dismissal of the Iran Deal, Trump deserves zero credit in this department.

Pokey: The main point, legal crimes by lawmakers and financial investors are far worse than blatant crimes. If the business dealings of the Biden’s and the Clintons are “legal,” then that is the problem. Your distinction between Republican and Democratic “crimes” is politically motivated semantics.

Zano: That’s a false equivalency. I agree with Peterson’s baseline-of-corruption premise, but I think in the last 28 years it’s 120 (R) indictments to 3 (D) indictments. I realize this doesn’t sway you, as nothing will, but Peterson’s assessment of US politics was disappointing. I’m shocked he’s this lost. Trump is an anomaly? US polarization is within a normal range? His predictions for the future are profoundly misguided. At this point, Trudeau probably wants Mounties along the border armed with confiscated AKs and those electric radar dish zapper thingies from those Godzilla movies. I try to nurture and support the last handful of republicans who can walk and chew gum, but I think Peterson just swallowed his and fell into an open manhole.

Pokey: This is the piece that you are missing. The level to which foreign powers are influencing government officials, entertainers, and influencers is a profound threat to our national sovereignty. By making this a partisan issue, you serve the agenda of those interests who purchase (legally and illegally) our politicians.

Zano: My solution has always been: 1. end the GOP, and 2. start fixing shit. What the hell is your plan? Does it involve a bison hat? And I just don’t see how Trump rubbing elbows with foreign spies in the WH, or in Helsinki when— [Winslow here: I said no, Zano!].

Fine, but how does the questionable conduct of one investor, lobbyist guy named Hunter trump all this? Remember, thus far you’ve managed to build a list of Democratic wrongdoing that needs filed under N for Narnia.

Pokey: As the elite leaders of the world meet in Davos talking about their nano-tech meds that confirm consumption to the WHOs upcoming pandemic policies that ushers in the New World Order, and you are still going to defend the Deep State? Are you an agent?

[Winslow here: Zano just snagged a fly out of midair with his tongue.]

Zano: Stop that. We are, sadly, waaaay past the point of no return in so many areas, so enjoy your new overlords. You’ve earned it. Take a load off, Pokey. Next time we’re in this situation in the multiverse, don’t support the disparity creating, regulation-free, corporation are people, industrial military complex lovin’, F infrastructure, F the poor, F the environment, and F rules in general, people. If we wanted to reveal the puppet master, why couldn’t we do the easy part and eliminate the puppet master’s chief fan club?

Pokey: Acknowledge the reality that the Bush’s and the Clinton’s are special members of the same club is a prerequisite. That’s all I have to say.

 

 

Those unmasking predictions as promised!

Zano week one (2017):

“The Attorney General can ‘unmask’ anyone he or she sees fit, and the rationale behind the process of unmasking is murky. So although some Obama peeps’ actions may prove politically motivated, unsettling, or even disturbing, they are not illegal. And more likely it was none of these things” …and later (same article), “This may be tough for Republicans to digest, but Susan Rice’s actions will be found to be legal.”

Here’s Axios (this week) on the same subject:

“These conversations involved U.S. sanctions relief and the larger policies of the incoming Trump administration toward Russia — policies about which there was great concern, as Russia had just executed a successful influence campaign to help elect Donald Trump president. It would have been a scandal if U.S. counterintelligence officials weren’t alarmed.”

And my same sentiment, years earlier:

“Knowing everything we know now, are you really saying our intelligence agency should have ignored what was happening on the lead up to the 2016 election? That’s a rhetorical question.” And 2019: “The only thing more mind boggling is this: how could someone outright ignore all this?”