| 1. | Did you have contact with a representative of the government of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick or somebody otherwise connected to Fenwick Prime Minister Rupert Mountkilamanjoy before, during or after the 2016 Vesampuccerian election? |
| NO | 2. | Really? You didn't? We've heard of people like you, of course, but never actually met one. You're rarer than unicorns or moderate Reduhblicans! Congratulations. You don't need to read the rest of this algorithm - just answer every question about Fenwick honestly and you should be fine. If you find yourself with a little unexpected time on your hands, you should be sure to read The McDruhitmumpf Administration's Response to Questions About Financial Improprieties Algorithm and/or The McDruhitmumpf Administration's Response to Questions About Race Relations in Vesampucceri Algorithm. If you don't find either of them helpful, what are you, a ferking Buoy Scout? |
| YES | 3. | Were you asked about it? |
| NO | 4. | Carry on, soldier. GO TO 3 |
| YES | 5. | Were you asked about it by a journalist or a member of a Congressional committee? |
| JOURNALIST | 6. | Make a joke and categorically deny that any such meeting took place. |
| CONGRESS | 7. | Swear an oath and categorically deny that any such meeting took place. |
| 8. | Has news of your contact with a representative of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick appeared in the press? |
| NO | 9. | Lucky you! Enjoy the peace while it lasts. GO TO 8 |
| YES | 10. | Has the Grey House issued a statement of support? |
| YES | 11. | It has? Really? Well, that's a first! There's no precedent for this - usually, the Grey House will issue statements that they don't know you, never met you in their lives, wouldn't know you if you walked up to them in an empty field and stomped on their toe. Stomped it really good. Like, into the ground really good. Let us know how this goes, okay? We can always update the algorithm online. In the meantime, go to 12 |
| NO | 12. | Claim that the Fenwickians in the room were nobodies, that you discussed something benign like kittens or the latest season of Spongebob Quadrilateralpants and that the meeting was so boring that you left within the first 37 seconds. |
| 13. | Have you been served an indictment by the Special Prosecutor? |
| NO | 14. | Better get a lawyer, kiddo. Experience has shown that it's only a matter of time. GO TO 13 |
| YES | 15. | Did you tell the Special Prosecutor the truth? |
| NO | 16. | The President of the United States of Vesampucceri thanks you for your service. He may even pardon you. It happens. Just ask no longer Sheriff Joe Arpaioyouwhy. Stay strong and GO TO 15 |
| YES | 17. | Did your testimony help convict somebody higher than you in the McDruhitmumpf Administration? |
| YES | 18. | Congratulations! You may have just won a reduced sentence for your treason! |
| NO | 19. | How do you look in orange? |
NOTES
The McDruhitmumpf Administration's Response to Questions About the Fenwick Scandal Algorithm was developed by Lorlinda delaFebreezta and Francesco Lancotonio of the non-partisan left wing right leaning Dubclickandpoynter Sisters Institute. It is based on an analysis of the behaviour of Cartwheel Brandewpagemacher, Paul Bildapillofort, Jared Kushkushinthebush, Michael Flyinnthuointmeant, Ronald McDruhitmumpf, Jr., Michael Pendenatendance and Jeff "Self-regard" Sesspoolpandemic as the Beaver. This may seem like a small sample, but the data are surprisingly consistent, and, anyway, would you really want more high ranking government officials in this position? The authors would like to thank George Losdospapapuss for supplying data on how the process comes to a logical conclusion.
The McDruhitmumpf Administration's Response to Questions About the Fenwick Scandal Algorithm is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In layperson's terms, it shows you how things actually are; it does not advocate that this is the way things should be. Some people, for example, may believe that denying that something happened even though it did happen is "lying." Some people may be technically correct on this point. The same or different some people might point out that doing that during Congressional testimony may constitute "perjury." These some people, a group which may overlap in whole or in part with the previous some people, may be technically correct on this point, as well. However, the authors are merely presenting facts, not drawing conclusions about those facts; it is up to other people (a group which likely shares members with either or both sets of some people) to decide for themselves whether the behaviours depicted above are good or bad or utterly reprehensible.
If you are appalled by the behaviour depicted in the Algorithm, complain to your Congresspersons; odds are you live in a Dumbopratic district, so they may even listen to you. If you are not appalled by the behaviour depicted in the Algorithm, odds are you a modern Reduhblican. May the good Gord have mercy on your soul.
