Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Loretta Lynch – Bill Clinton tarmac meeting now makes sense, it was the end not the beginning

    Loretta Lynch – Bill Clinton tarmac meeting now makes sense, it was the end not the beginning

    A signal to the Clintons that all was good; the FBI had made its exoneration decision, and key investigators believed Lynch was aware.

    The meeting between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in Lynch’s jet on a tarmac at Phoenix airport on June 27, 2016, would have remained a secret if not discovered by a local news crew.

    Our first post about the tarmac meeting was on June 29, 2016, Gross appearance of impropriety in AG Lynch private meeting with Bill Clinton:

    What do you call an Attorney General who meets privately with the husband of a person under FBI investigation, and only discloses it when asked?

    Loretta Lynch….

    Neither Lynch nor Bill Clinton are dummies. They both know that such a private meeting creates the appearance of impropriety regardless of what was discussed. Bill Clinton’s wife is being investigated by the FBI — why do you think he dropped in for a chat with Lynch?

    Of course they didn’t discuss the case. They didn’t need to.

    If there was no appearance of impropriety, why did Lynch wait until a local news crew, apparently tipped off, asked her about it?

    It feeds a narrative of the Clintons acting like the fix is in, with Hillary repeatedly bragging that there is no way she’s going to be indicted.

    Hillary claimed, the day after her July 3, 2016 FBI interview, that the meeting was by chance, and she only learned of it in the news:

    Well, I learned about it in the news. And it was a short, chance meeting at an airport tarmac. Both of their planes, as I understand it, were landing on the same tarmac at about the same time, and the attorney general’s husband was there, they said hello, they talked about grandkids, which is very much on our minds these days, golf, their mutual friend, former Attorney General Janet Reno, it was purely social. They did not veer off of speaking about those kinds of very common exchanges.

    At the 2017 one-year anniversary of the tarmac meeting, I wrote about the impact of the tarmac meeting based on what was known as at the time:

    The tarmac meeting set a number of events in motion that would shake the campaign, and remain issues.

    Then FBI Director James Comey, in light of the seeming impropriety of the meeting, took over the role that DOJ normally would play.

    While Lynch didn’t officially recuse herself, Comey took it on himself to announce that there would be no charges against Hillary Clinton.

    He would later testify that the meeting “made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation.”

    It also led to Comey’s letter just before the election announcing the investigation was restarted…

    The tarmac meeting, in Comey’s word, destroyed the credibility of DOJ, forcing him to act….

    When Comey testified, after his firing, that Lynch told him not to use the term “investigation” when referring to the investigation of Hillary, that tarmac meeting once again became the context of possible collusion by Lynch to help Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    We now know a lot more about the sequence of events, which now strongly suggests that the tarmac meeting was not the start of events that led to the exoneration. Rather, it now appears that the tarmac meeting was the end of that process, the signal to the Clintons that all was taken care of.

    The key facts we know now but did not know then are:

    1. The tarmac meeting was planned, not spontaneous, as we covered on August 5, 2017, ACLJ: DOJ Document Dump Shows Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Summit Planned, Media Coverup.
    2. The conduct of Lynch in trying to conceal details was not consistent with it being an innocent meeting, as we covered on August 7, 2017, Loretta Lynch used alias “Elizabeth Carlisle” to email about Bill Clinton tarmac meeting and August 10, 2017, Why did Loretta Lynch need DOJ Talking Points about a meeting she alone attended?
    3. The FBI has tried its best not to produce documents regarding the tarmac meeting, and when it did, those documents focused heavily on how the meeting was discovered, as Judicial Watch reported on November 30, 2017.
    4. The FBI decided, sometime by early May 2016, not to charge Hillary. The drafts of the exoneration statement now are public, and show a concerted effort to reword the language to support exoneration. These drafts took place prior to the tarmac meeting and prior to the interview of Hillary on July 4th weekend.
    5. Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was part of the team investigating Hillary, was removed from the Mueller investigation of supposed Russia collusion in the summer  of 2016 2017 for sending anti-Trump text messages (though the removal was not disclosed for several months). Strzok was involved in editing and softening the Comey draft exoneration statement.
    6. Strzok was having an affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Based on text messages recently released, it appears they believed Hillary would not be charged and suggested Lynch Knew the Outcome of FBI Hillary Probe in Advance.

    So what significance does the tarmac meeting take in this new context?

    Remember, Lynch insisted that she and Clinton only talked about grandchildren and other non-investigation matters during that half hour conversation. That didn’t make sense if the tarmac meeting was the start of a collusive effort, there must have been something more.

    But the tarmac meeting being only small talk does make sense if it was the end point, not the starting point. By then, it was clear within the FBI that Hillary would be exonerated, the statement already was drafted and re-drafted and reviewed, and Lynch likely knew it. Hillary’s interview, which was not under oath and not recorded, was a formality so the predetermined decision could assume the patina of legitimacy.

    So the tarmac meeting very likely signaled to Hillary through Bill that all was good, that there was nothing to worry about regarding her upcoming FBI interview.

    How would that signal take place? It could have been stated verbally, but more likely was the proverbial nod and wink. If anyone understands body language, it’s Bill Clinton. He didn’t need to be told in words, though we can’t rule that out.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Arminius: But Clinton should have been charged under either paras (d) or (e) also.

    That would require showing she knew the information was classified. The evidence shows that she used the secure State Department system for the vast majority of classified information, and that none of the classified information on her emails was properly market, indicating that she did not intentionally transmit classified information. The Supereme Court, in Gorin vs. United States, has said that for the Espionage Act to be constitutional, there has to be a finding of “scienter and bad faith”.

    Arminius: I clearly said she ordered her assistant to remove the markings from a classified document, then send the document on the unclas system.

    Her exact comment was “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” As the State Department confirmed, turning it into a ‘non-paper’ means to remove any classified information and without attribution to allow transmittal over non-secure channels. In this case, the information wasn’t even classified, but a set of talking points for her meeting with a foreign representative. The Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual defines non-paper as follows:

    A written summary of a demarche or other verbal presentation to a foreign government. The non-paper should be drafted in the third person, and must not be directly attributable to the U.S. Government. It is prepared on plain paper (no letterhead or watermark). The heading or title, if any, is simply a statement of the issue or subject.

    Arminius: She wanted to see the classified information. Removing that would have defeated the whole purpose of her illegal system.

    She could always see the information regardless of her email system. They were just having troubles with the secure fax. Your claim is nonsensical.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend