An Interesting Turn Of Phrase

[Yooper]

Trump wins Supreme Court review of three cases against him | Sharyl Attkisson

sharylattkisson.com

I'm not posting this because of the SCOTUS Trump stuff. What caught my eye was this:

Even before Trump was elected, some Democrats announced a plan to challenge him in court at every opportunity.

In October 2016, Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — wrote, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.”

Wittes wrote that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He also mentioned impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller‘s appointment as special counsel.

emphasis mine

"Insurance policy"?

Page/Strzok used this interesting turn of phrase in August 2016 and Page later claimed (on CNN) that it simply meant a quick resolution to the "Russia investigation" (to ensure Trump (or Trump associates) wasn't a Russian asset).

Whether one believes Page's explanation (or not) we have Wittes using the same phrase two months later to mean something entirely different. Given Strzok-Page's and Wittes' close association to Comey (and all being Democrat- and/or Left-leaning, anti-Trump lawyers) this phrasing seems quite the coincidence. Was it also a coincidence that it was October 2016 when the FBI began it's "yearlong secret wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which would have allowed intel officials access to information and conversations involving other Trump associates and possibly Trump himself"? (Click on link in first line of the longer quote above ("challenge") to see the article I took this quote from.)

Can't mind read Ms. Page, but Witte's statement seems to more accurately describe Strzok's and Page's "insurance policy" than Page's explanation. Makes one wonder if this is what Strzok-Page's use actually meant and that Page only came up with an alternate explanation because the text was "discovered."

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[SamSpade]

Funny but the “make sure he doesn’t get elected” meaning is the one I always assumed was meant.

 

[Yooper]

Funny but the “make sure he doesn’t get elected” meaning is the one I always assumed was meant.

Agreed. I think most objective (sane?) folks would see just that.

My angle was that Page made (what I thought was) a ludicrous claim (that was sold as "truth"; "See, we didn't do anything wrong") and yet we have strong reason (confirmation?) to believe there was close coordination by these folks to undo an election they didn't like/cripple an administration if they couldn't undo it.

Folks opposed to my/your/this take will quote Page and others to reject this, but Page et al's attempt to do what they did (apparently) has been right out "there" in plain sight the entire time. Meaning, any benefit of the doubt I held in reserve for Page et al is gone. And that's why this article caught my eye: I hadn't before seen "independent proof" like this.

Cheers.

--- End of line (MCP)