Op-Ed Larry O'Connor via the Washington Times

ANALYSIS / OPINION:

It has been more than a year since the extremely damaging text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were revealed to the American public. The correspondence showed that two senior officials of the Ministry of Justice were engaged in the most petty and vitriolic political diatribes while making decisions on the most sensitive investigations of the 2016 political season.

Their hatred towards then candidate Donald Trump as well as their contempt for his supporters have given reasonable observers every reason to wonder if Hillary Clinton's email inquiry and counter-intelligence investigation into the alleged influence of Russia in the Trump campaign (Mr Strzok and Ms Page played a key role in both surveys) were treated fairly, impartially and judiciously.

Their behavior was so blatant that special advocate Robert Mueller dismissed them from his team as soon as Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz told him about SMS. Mr. Strzok has been fired from the FBI and new investigations are continuing.

Nevertheless, the supporters of James Comey's cabal and "collusion with Russia" enthusiasts put forward a strong argument that apparently belies the outrageous scandal and indignation provoked by the Obama administration's vast surveillance operation over the President's rival party campaign.

"If Comey and Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Strzok and even Obama did everything to hurt the Trump campaign, then why did not they let it sink to the hurt, and how on earth did he win? the elections with this type of dirty trick played against him? "they argue." If these guys, with all their power, intend to hurt Assetthey did a bad job. "

This argument makes sense (that is why it is used and repeated by reporters and traditional media experts when objections to the Department of Justice's behavior in 2016 are raised on cable TV) only if The FBI's intention in the summer of 2016 was only to hurt the Trump campaign.

New revelations confirm that it was not the mission of the creators and steele commissioners. It was, instead of harming Mr Trump he's won the election.

To understand this, we must first examine one of the most damaging and misunderstood text exchanges between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.

On August 15, 2016, two weeks after Mr. Strzok's launch of the Crossfire Hurricane operation, the investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, the top FBI official wrote to his girlfriend: "I want to believe the path you have traced to be considered in Andy. office – that there is no way that he is elected – but I'm afraid we can not take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before turning 40. "

Some people mistakenly think that the reference to "insurance policy" is a way to keep Mr Trump to win the election. But that's not what insurance does. An insurance policy does not prevent a disaster from occurring; it provides relief and restoration after the disaster.

Mr. Strzok explains it explicitly in his text, but the mainstream media want to ignore it. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you turn 40." He does not say "in the unlikely event that you fall ill and may die"; he says it's insurance in case the worst thing possible happens. If you die Si Mr Trump is elected. The insurance policy is to repair the damage after Mr Trump wins. In case Mr Trump wins.

Newly Released Documents Related to Judicial Decision in UK Courts Reveal That Strzok's "Insurance Policy" Concept Was Designed Several Months Ago and Implemented by none other than Clinton's Presidential Campaign .

Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times announced last week that Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who worked for Fusion GPS and had been hired with the Clinton campaign's money to create his Russian "record", now infamous, told a British court that he had not been hired to thwart Mr TrumpThe chances of winning but undermining the legitimacy of his presidency if he won.

"The immediate client of Fusion was the Perkins Coie law firm. He appealed to Fusion to obtain the necessary information allowing Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russia's participation on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. Steele wrote in response to a request for information.

On the basis of this opinion, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as "Hillary for America") could consider measures that they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the result of this election. "

An insurance policy.

The Steele issue was meant to help a Clinton challenge to take up the challenge. Asset victory. "In case you should die"

Make no mistake, some rumors found in the file were leaked to the media, including Yahoo News, Mother Jones and The New York Times, a few weeks before the election, but this was just an attempt to surprise the month of October with volatile content content folder not verified.

But the primary reason for the project, and the very real impact of Mr. Steele's efforts, was to delegitimize and undermine the presidency of Donald Trump. And with the help of all the traditional media, the insurance policy has borne fruit.

Larry O'Connor writes for the Washington Times on politics and the media and can be heard the afternoons of the week on WMAL radio in Washington. Follow Larry on Twitter @ LarryOConnor.