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.

 

Maybe We've Been Wrong About The Trump-Russia Narrative Being The Insurance Policy

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
By now most are aware of the text messages between Lisa Page (FBI legal counsel) and Peter Strzok (Head of FBI counterespionage).
But in case someone doesn't recall or needs refreshing here is what strzok sent to page after a meeting they had with andrew mccabe:
Stzrok: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — 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."

For a long time I've believed this referred to the russia narrative and it very well could. However, I'm beginning to wonder if Jeff Sessions or Rod Rosenstein were actually the insurance policy. They've been far more effective at keeping the deep state covered than the russia probe has. If either of them had an ounce of spine, they would be looking at both sides of the isle here and it's quite obvious they're only interested in looking at one side. The only person to look into the other side of the isle was the IG, who took complaints from congress and the public and actually did something. He even made criminal referrals. What happened with those referrals? Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein decided against prosecution. Amazing that they didn't think it even warranted further investigation.

Then there is the Awan case. According to Jason Chaffetz, he approached sessions about the case but sessions told him he wasn't interested. The AG wasn't interested in a Pakistani who was blackmailing multiple people, hacking into DNC networks, sending data back to pakistan. Why? Well, according to Chaffetz, sessions said it was too close to clinton. What? How is imran awan close to clinton? He worked for Debbie wasserman-schultz and a few other dems. Clinton had nothing to do with the Awan's... or maybe she did? If so, why wouldn't sessions refer chaffetz to Rat Rosenstein?

That duo has been the best insurance policy for corruption that I've ever seen.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Interesting theory but how exactly would they go about making sure Sessions and Rosenstein we're appointed? Doesn't seem like much of an insurance plan if it's out of your control.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
So anyway all this dog and pony show for the public

The banking families and elite bloodlines love Trump hes the greatest we've ever seen

They can do whatever they want in the background and no one will notice
edit on 24-8-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


What is the Date of the message from Stzrok to McCabe in your OP?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
OK...now who is the Andy that Stzrok is talking about? A third person that needs to be investigated.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

The Andy they were referring to would be Andrew McCabe.

He was the deputy director of the F.B.I.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Honestly I thought about this today. I think the real Mastermind behind all this is Pence. He could never get elected on his own but is riding on this Trump train and trying to derail it to become president. That's my opinion.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: rollanotherone

That's an interesting twist. Never thought of that... addresses the issue of ensuring they get nominated.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I think you're reading too much into those texts. I'm sure Trump's enemies have many "insurance policies", but that was just a turn of phrase used by Strzok. People are taking it too literally, encouraged by the media because it sounds dramatic.

It's like if I say "I bet Trump will win." That doesn't mean I'm literally going to a bookie to place a bet.
edit on 25-8-2018 by Cutepants because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants


That's so preposterous as to defy comprehension.

The country's top investigator is leading the investigation into the two people running for President during the same year and he has texts exposed that read:

"Person A is a ^$%#-^$%# we have to do whatever it takes to make sure they lose. It's for the good of the country."
and
"Person B is my personal Mother Theresa so I hope she wins the election 10 million to zero. Go Team Person B!!"

ANd we should simply see these as "turns of phrase" in hindsight when person B is kidgloved and person A hounded during their entire time in office?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

I'm saying it's sidetracking you when you put too much weight on a saying that happens to be brought up in media. It's good for a political talking point. But Strzok was never that powerful, to have organized an FBI-wide insurance policy. I'm not saying he wasn't partial in his thinking.

The turns of phrase you used as examples there are not the one I was talking about.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants


He was the lead agent on the investigations !! And how do you know how much power he had or did not have?




top topics



 
9

log in

join