Strzok’s future tense insurance policy

strzok insurance policy

Peter Strzok sent a *text* about Trump to Lisa Page concerning how a meeting in Andy McCabe’s office played out. Lisa wants to know why Strzok embarrassed her in front on Andy, dissing her short-sighted plan in favor of his own, which includes an “insurance policy.” So, Strzok says to her:

“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.”

A life insurance policy isn’t put into effect until death comes about. In the analogy, the election of Trump is the death. So, to be pedantic, what happened in the meeting based on this text is as follows:

  • Lisa Page presented a plan merely to make sure that Trump would not get elected. That’s bad enough, but that’s all she has.
  • Peter Strzok has another plan, an insurance policy, which he had presented, stomping down Lisa’s lesser plan. Strzok’s own plan, his insurance policy, is to do something that will remove Trump should he in fact get elected. This is the object back-referenced with “It’s.”

The effective date of Strzok’s insurance policy coming into play does NOT refer to a pre-election time period, but only from the announcement moving forward that Trump has won the election.

And now Strzok is being backed into a corner. People do bad stuff when they are backed into corners. He could put his insurance policy into play at any time. I’m guessing that he doesn’t want to wait much longer. They are so sure of themselves that they can still make it happen. Way overconfident. People make mistakes when they are overconfident. And they have made a mistake.

Just a note to some “friends”: Extortion speaks to the players, to the motives, to those involved. It puts just a bit too much of an edge on things. It’s a mistake.

4 Comments

Filed under Intelligence Community

4 responses to “Strzok’s future tense insurance policy

  1. Hello! Could you point out what Constitutional provision or statute mandates a new election for the POTUS if he is removed from office with more than two years remaining? I am not familiar with this, and a very quick search (for I am occupied at the moment) did not bring anything up for me.

    Thanks!

  2. Father George David Byers

    @ R bonono – corrected. It would be the 25th amendment. But not. But it does have a super interesting history to it, demonstrating the need for looseness of wording. What I was recalling was not the amendment but a fierce argument in the early-mid 1970s in my “homeroom” about whether the country should accept a vice president as (acting) president when the president is ousted but the vice president had stridently been supporting him all along. I think the two-year thing was part of that really hot ongoing debate. We had a super politicized homeroom teacher who would put us through mock scenarios and force the kids to make public votes with a show of hands, setting kids against kids, making them activists with no thought in a might makes right world. It wasn’t what I was interested in at all, but I overheard them with glazed eyes. I was going from Junior High School to High School at the time. What a time that was.

  3. Richard Bonomo

    Ah! Good! I was afraid that I was missing something. I could think of no Constitutional mandate to have an early set of popular elections for the electors of the President and Vice President for any reason, and you had me wondering what I had been overlooking all of these years!

    This option, then, not existing for the Deep-State-Hard-Left coalition, one wonders of what this “insurance policy” consists. The possibilities that come to mind are disturbing.

    Western society seems to acting like a severely unbalanced laundry-washing machine that is on a high-speed “spin” cycle and is not anchored to the floor. One wonders how long this unmitigated insanity can go on before things fail dramatically and fly apart.

  4. Father George David Byers

    Great analogy. And the dirty water still goes to the swamp.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.