It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Gun: The Trump Victory Insurance Policy - Muh Russia?

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Time to fire all the FBI higher ups, they are obviously political and actioning on it, which is absolutely against their purpose.


If it's so obvious, you would have some proof available, right?

You're not just regurgitating the most recent propaganda, are you?


Read the text provided in this OP.


I did. No complete context is there to come to any real conclusion.

Not sure how you came to one in your mind.




posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite



Let that sink in. The FBI is talking about an insurance policy in case an election doesn't go the way they want it to.


Sounds to me like he may have been trying to put himself in a position to have a job no matter who was elected.

Do you have any other info than this or the rest of the conversation?

If not, this doesn't mean much at all.


Yea, Strozk is just an angel. Worried about his job.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Unless CNN is pushing this 'propaganda:'


"I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president," Page texted Strzok on March 16, 2016.

"God(,) Trump is a loathsome human," Page added in another, to which Strzok replies: "Yet he may win."

The two appear to have exchanged text messages on a range of topics, particularly during presidential debates and the 2016 political conventions -- on everything from Melania Trump's convention speech to a thinly veiled comment Trump made about his hands.

Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.


And that is proof the higher-ups at the FBI are acting upon their personal opinions?

No. It's not.

I''l wait for real proof.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



Why would you think it didn't reflect the thoughts of the FBI?


Because it's the opinion/texts of two people.



Remember, comey testified that he leaked information to get a special counsel appointed. Who is McCabe? Deputy director.


Ok...and?



So do tell, why are you skeptical that this could be indicative of the FBI?


Because the FBI consists of many people that hold many different opinions.

The real question is why would you think it could be indicative of the entire FBI?



Also, what does an upper-mid level agent need an insurance policy against a new president for? His job is not a presidential appointment.


BINGO!

We need a lot more context before we jump to conclusions, don't we?
edit on 13-12-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite



Let that sink in. The FBI is talking about an insurance policy in case an election doesn't go the way they want it to.


Sounds to me like he may have been trying to put himself in a position to have a job no matter who was elected.

Do you have any other info than this or the rest of the conversation?

If not, this doesn't mean much at all.


Yea, Strozk is just an angel. Worried about his job.


That could be a part of it. Again, we need a lot more context.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

More context is unlikely unless they are questioned in some form.

What is needed are details regarding this...


Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office"


What exactly was discussed in McCabe's office?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: introvert

More context is unlikely unless they are questioned in some form.

What is needed are details regarding this...


Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office"


What exactly was discussed in McCabe's office?


Good question. I'd like to know that as well.

What's important is that we let the facts lead us and do not let the concocted conspiracies take the lead.

I know this is a conspiracy site, but that does not mean we have to go full retard and go all-in on stupidity.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Say it is a murder trial, and the cop investigating it has texts that say ..

“I hope this POS goes down.. I think he did it. Plus he beats his kids.”

Is the murderer gonna walk??

Hell no..


True that is where we need to figure out whether the cop's bias supported his efforts that could have been out of line. I think a fake dossier would be equal to a cop putting the guy's DNA on a weapon just to make sure...



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Say it is a murder trial, and the cop investigating it has texts that say ..

“I hope this POS goes down.. I think he did it. Plus he beats his kids.”

Is the murderer gonna walk??

Hell no..


True that is where we need to figure out whether the cop's bias supported his efforts that could have been out of line. I think a fake dossier would be equal to a cop putting the guy's DNA on a weapon just to make sure...


The dossier is not fake, though. Some of it has not been verified and some of it has been proven to be true.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Because it's the opinion/texts of two people.


Yes, two people with a lot of power, investigating the people they have strong opinions about. That's unethical as hell.



Ok...and?


You claim to want context then ignore it when it's supplied. Not surprising, just pointing it out.


Because the FBI consists of many people that hold many different opinions.

The real question is why would you think it could be indicative of the entire FBI?


Oh man, I may have to take silly's gold medal in mental gymnastics away and award it to you. You're actually using the no true scotsman argument to deflect from the top FBI brass admitting their motives, under oath. This is amazing.

As for why I think the director and deputy director's actions and testimony may be indicative of the FBI, well, they're the face of the FBI. They set policies and make all of the major decisions. That's why.


BINGO!

We need a lot more context before we jump to conclusions, don't we?


Not like you're imagining, at this point we have a pattern of behavior from those at the top in the FBI. Where we need context is what the insurance policy was. Was it the wire taps? Was it the fake dossier? Was it the idea that they'd investigate him if he won so they were inventing probable cause? What was it?

Unless you're woefully uninformed (you're not, I see you in all of these threads) you're playing dumb to avoid the gravity of the situation. Sure, more information will give us a clearer picture but we don't need to see the cement between the bricks to realize that there's a brick wall we're careening towards.
edit on 13-12-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Putting some half truths in a dossier doesn't mean it isn't fake.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

The dossier is not fake, though. Some of it has not been verified and some of it has been proven to be true.


Well you can throw a little incidental truth in so it leads to a fake conclusion to trigger an unwarranted investigation/wire tapping etc. If the dossier was all that you want it to be the President would not be in office.





edit on 13-12-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Putting some half truths in a dossier doesn't mean it isn't fake.


Exactly.

Could this be the 'path thrown out in Andy's office for consideration', which very well could be the 'insurance policy'? ... a fake dossier jumbled with half-truths... because perception is reality. They/the dossier would change how people perceive Trump, hence hurt his chances of winning. That's what we're saying/concluding, right?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



Yes, two people with a lot of power, investigating the people they have strong opinions about. That's unethical as hell.


No. There are guidelines that actually lay-out what is unethical to do in that position.

You would have to prove there was some sort of wrongdoing on their part.



You claim to want context then ignore it when it's supplied. Not surprising, just pointing it out.


That has nothing to do with the context of one person's opinion reflecting on the entire FBI.



Oh man, I may have to take silly's gold medal in mental gymnastics away and award it to you. You're actually using the no true scotsman argument to deflect from the top FBI brass admitting their motives, under oath. This is amazing.


Perhaps you do not know what that logical fallacy means. I did not say anything that would even come close to that.

Again, your question was illogical because it asks me to address a negative. The question I asked you simply turns that around and asks you to address your positive assertion.

How you came up with the No True Scotmans idea is beyond me.



As for why I think the director and deputy director's actions and testimony may be indicative of the FBI, well, they're the face of the FBI. They set policies and make all of the major decisions. That's why.


So their personal opinions are not their own and reflect on to everyone else?

Now there is a logical fallacy.



Not like you're imagining, at this point we have a pattern of behavior from those at the top in the FBI. Where we need context is what the insurance policy was. Was it the wire taps? Was it the fake dossier? Was it the idea that they'd investigate him if he won so they were inventing probable cause? What was it?

Unless you're woefully uninformed (you're not, I see you in all of these threads) you're playing dumb to avoid the gravity of the situation. Sure, more information will give us a clearer picture but we don't need to see the cement between the bricks to realize that there's a brick wall we're careening towards.


At this point, we have to have more info and context. Otherwise we are driving ourselves in to a brick wall we never had to drive in to.

Without context, you and others are creating the brick wall out of thin air.
edit on 13-12-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

As for why I think the director and deputy director's actions and testimony may be indicative of the FBI, well, they're the face of the FBI. They set policies and make all of the major decisions. That's why.



What people do not realize is we can be talking about slight changes here that add up to huge unwarranted actions by bigger components of the FBI. Change a few words here and there. Set what will be investigated and what will not be. Determine if a person comes in for an interview or will be under oath. Give directions as to where an investigation should head, so on and so on...



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite
a reply to: Xtrozero

Actually, much of the dossier turned out to be true. That includes the issue with Carter Page and the Russian cyber efforts.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

What's the timeline of events from early August 2016 onwards......it's pretty obvious they are referring to info onand about Trump. There was not FISA tapping or any other surveillance on the Trump campaign at that time so what was the info?

Dossier?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Also of the agent in question badly wanted Trump not to win, wouldn't that cloud his judgement on all the Clinton Email stuff he was a lead on?

Smells horrible......



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
No one finds it strange that these text messages are out in the open for everyone to see and the media is making it headline news day after day after day after day? Do we honestly think there is NOT an agenda behind the media's coverage and the texts being made so public?

Keep watching the circus, they're putting on a great show for you guys
edit on 12/13/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


No. There are guidelines that actually lay-out what is unethical to do in that position.

You would have to prove there was some sort of wrongdoing on their part.


You mean like break the law by leaking information... Or lie about what documentation exists, under oath? Or have the FBI officially lie about McCabe's role in his wife's campaign? Lol. See the wrongdoing is there, you just don't want to see it.




top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join