Brit Hume not alone in not buying that explanation of Peter Strzok’s ‘insurance policy’ text

Posted at 9:01 pm on December 18, 2017 by Brett T.

As Twitchy reported earlier Monday, unnamed sources — “people” — told The Wall Street Journal’s Del Quentin Wilber that when FBI agent Peter Strzok sent that message about the risk of Donald Trump being elected president and the FBI’s “insurance policy” just in case, he was just cautioning the FBI not to move too slowly in its investigation under the certain assumption that Hillary Clinton would win.

ADVERTISEMENT

Got it.

It seems people aren’t buying that account, and Wilber took to Twitter after the story made the rounds to explain how that explanation makes sense. His thread is worth reading for an overview of the controversy, and it might provide a laugh or two along the way.

Hang in there — it does go on a bit.

A Twitter thread longer than the article it’s about, it looks like.

ADVERTISEMENT

Remember? It was just cover for their affair … it was all code that didn’t mean anything except to them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Can we PLEASE stop pretending that James Comey is a credible source? In any context?

“Just the facts” … along with a lot of speculation based on the word of people familiar with Strzok’s account.

Ari Fleischer and Brit Hume ain’t buying it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wilber seems pretty sure he knows what Strzok meant.

Anyone else a little skeptical?

Maybe Strzok would like to comment in person to tie up these lingering doubts?


Related:

So THAT’S what that FBI agent meant when he sent that text about an ‘insurance policy’

 

ADVERTISEMENT