Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

ACLJ: DOJ Document Dump Shows Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Summit Planned, Media Coverup

ACLJ: DOJ Document Dump Shows Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Summit Planned, Media Coverup

“There is clear evidence that the main stream media was colluding with the DOJ to bury the story”

When former President Bill Clinton met with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch at an Arizona airport, the gross impropriety of the “tarmac summit” was immediately evident.  Clinton’s wife and 2016 Democrat presidential hopeful was then under FBI investigation for her server and email scandals.  The impropriety was pooh-poohed away by a defensive AG, a disinterested media, a complicit FBI, and the corrupt Clinton clan.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has released 413 pages of memos obtained from the DOJ that show the “tarmac summit” was planned and that the media was working with the Obama-Lynch DOJ to downplay and bury the entire incident.

The ACLJ in their article entitled, “DOJ Document Dump to ACLJ on Clinton Lynch Meeting: Comey FBI Lied, Media Collusion, Spin, and Illegality,” reports:

We have just obtained hundreds of pages in our ongoing investigation and federal lawsuit on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton while the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI had an ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. The results are shocking.

First, the Comey FBI lied to us. Last July, we sent FOIA requests to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ asking for any documents related to the Clinton Lynch plane meeting. The FBI, under the then directorship of James Comey, replied that “No records responsive to your request were located.”

The documents we received today from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting.  One with the subject line “FLAG” was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn, FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials concerning “flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” The DOJ official instructs the FBI to “let me know if you get any questions about this” and provides “[o]ur talkers [DOJ talking points] on this”. The talking points, however are redacted.

Not only was Comey’s FBI less than forthcoming, but the emails reveal that Clinton’s and Lynch’s security details coordinated prior to the tarmac summit.

The ACLJ continues:

Another email to the FBI contains the subject line “security details coordinate between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?”

On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted.

Also of note several of the documents contain redactions that are requested “per FBI.”

It is clear that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then AG Lynch and the husband of the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI.

. . . . On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting.

When efforts by Comey’s FBI to keep the tarmac summit a secret failed, the emails reveal that both the Obama-Lynch DOJ and the mainstream media leapt into spin mode to try to downplay and bury the grossly improper meeting. ACLJ continues:

[T]he hundreds of pages of (heavily redacted – more on that below) documents paint a clear picture of a DOJ in crisis mode as the news broke of Attorney General Lynch’s meeting with former President Clinton. In fact, the records appear to indicate that the Attorney General’s spin team immediately began preparing talking points for the Attorney General regarding the meeting BEFORE ever speaking with the AG about the matter.

[T]here is clear evidence that the main stream media was colluding with the DOJ to bury the story. A Washington Post reporter, speaking of the Clinton Lynch meeting story, said, “I’m hoping I can put it to rest .” The same Washington Post reporter, interacting with the DOJ spin team, implemented specific DOJ requests to change his story to make the Attorney General appear in a more favorable light. A New York Times reporter apologetically told the Obama DOJ that he was being “pressed into service” to have to cover the story. As the story was breaking, DOJ press officials stated, “I also talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren’t interested, even if Fox runs with it.”

Two days after the meeting, DOJ officials in a chain of emails that includes emails to Attorney General Lynch herself stated that the media coverage of the meeting “looks like all or most are FOX” and that “CBS . . . just says a few lines about the meeting.”

Unsatisfied with the numerous redactions in the released emails, the ACLJ states that it will continue to seek full disclosure on this matter.

DOJ bureaucrats have redacted all the talking points, discussions of talking points, a statement on the meeting that was apparently never delivered because there was not enough media coverage on the meeting, and its substantive discussions with the FBI on the matter. They absurdly claim the “deliberative process exemption” to FOIA, which is only supposed to apply to agency rulemaking processes.

Discussions about Attorney General Lynch’s ethically questionable meeting with former President Clinton during her investigation into Hillary Clinton clearly has nothing to do with any rule making process. We will be taking these redactions back to federal court. The law is on our side. We will keep pressing on with our investigation of former Attorney General Lynch until we get to the bottom of this.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Loretta Lynch lied under oath!

November 2016–While under oath

Rep. Trey Gowdy: So you use official email to conduct official business?

AG Loretta Lynch: Yes sir. I do.

In point of fact, at the time of this testimony, AG Lynch was sending and receiving official e-mail under the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle” (her grandmother’s name).

Simple solution: have Sessions or his hand-picked designate review the 413 pages and re-evaluate the redactions. The ACLJ will find the extra information interesting, I’m sure.

Comey lied. Rosenstein was part of the cover up. This all stinks very badly. And the local ABC reported that neither party arrived on the plane the meeting occurred. And that at least 4 FBI agents were present: 2 inside 2 keeping out the public.

Shall we wager that Comey arranged for the 3rd plane the meeting was at? I am willing to place a bet.

    Milhouse in reply to puhiawa. | August 6, 2017 at 1:53 am

    Comey lied. Rosenstein was part of the cover up.

    What are you blathering on about? What could Rosenstein possibly have to do with this?

      Ask our troll, YellowTail.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | August 6, 2017 at 1:17 pm

      “‘Comey lied. Rosenstein was part of the cover up.’

      What are you blathering on about? What could Rosenstein possibly have to do with this?”

      Interesting question. The answer, either Rosenstein is part of the cover-up or he is not. So, let’s find out.

      But, let’s take a look at the time line here, for a moment. Servergate, the Tarmac Summit, surveillance of the Trump campaign prior to obtaining a FISA warrant [June-October 2016], ongoing illegal domestic surveillance by the Obama administration, the stonewalling of the Clinton Foundation investigation and the seeming inability of the FBI to identify criminal leakers; all of which Comey knew about or actively participated in. Because of the greater public exposure of the Director of the FBI, Comey is the keystone of any investigation into criminal wrongdoing during the Obama years. This made him the chink in the armor surrounding these activities. And, as the sitting Director of the FBI, he is much more exposed. he can not claim many of the protections of former government employees with regard to investigative tools, including such things as polygraphs.

      Now, here is where things get twisty. Out of the blue, Sessions brings in Rosenstein. Within days, Rosenstein drafts a memo outlining why Trump should fire Comey immediately. Trump, not liking Comey in the least, does just that. The expected criticisms emerge in very short order. Rosenstein’s answer to these criticism’s is to appoint Comey’s extremely close friend and mentor, Robert Mueller, as SC to investigate an issue for which no evidence, reasonable suspicion and, certainly, no probable cause exists and to which his close friend, James Comey, is a witness. To top it all off, Rosenstein drafts an authorizing warrant which is so vague as to allow the SC to investigate virtually any contact which even remotely involves Russian nationals or interests. Something that a highly experienced federal prosecutor is not expected to do.

      So, at Rosenstein’s behest, Comey is removed from a position in which the administration has far greater control of him, than if he is no longer employed by said government. Comey’s extremely good friend Mueller is appointed to investigate a matter in which Comey, via his directorship of the FBI, is heavily involved and during which illegal surveillance may have taken place. And, the authorizing document is so vague so as to be a license to investigate virtually anything involving Trump and members of his campaign staff and administration. All of this is Rosenstein’s work product.

      So, one has to ask, is this a cover-up and is Rosenstein involved? There is a far greater degree of suspicion leaning to “Yes” than there is in the charge of Trump/Russia collusion. Think about it.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | August 6, 2017 at 4:39 pm

        Rosenstein wasn’t there when any of this was happening, so why would he want to cover any of it up?

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | August 6, 2017 at 9:56 pm

          Anther good question. It is one that should be answered. But, simply because a person does not appear to have been involved in an incident, this does not mean that person can not be “hired” to take a hand in fixing that problem.

          What you have here, involving Rosenstein, is a series of incidents, when taken together, raise questions as to how this all happened. It could have been due to serendipity. Or it could have been total incompetence on the part of Rosenstein. Or it could have been a series of closely calculated moves to reach the resu7lt that we are now faced with.

          What we do know is that unexpectedly, Sessions names Rosenstein as DAG. Rosenstein immediately presents a lengthy memo designed to get President Trump to remove Comey fomr the position of Director of the FBI. This changes Comey from an employee of the federal government, subject to investigative tools not applicable to a non-government employee, to a non-government employee with greater legal protections. Then, in response to easily predicted cries of obstruction of justice for firing Comey, Rosenstein’s answer is to appoint Robert Mueller, a very close personal friend of Comey [a witness and possibly a person of interest in an number of improper and illegal actions during his tenure as Dir FBI], to be SC with quite possibly the most vague warrant ever drafted. Before Mueller’s name is even dry on his door, Comey is meeting with Mueller, privately. When Mueller’s unit, which is composed entirely of anti-Trump attorneys, most with ties, some very close, to the DEMs and Clintons, goes off the reservation and begins investigating things involving the Trumps, and others on the Trump staff, Rosenstein’s answer is that he will have to wait and see what Mueller does, before he can, or will, do anything to control him. See a pattern here? The only names which run throughout this thread is Rosenstein and, to a lesser extent, Comey.

          Now, the real question is not why would Rosenstein engage in some form of cover-up centered around Comey? It should be, why did Rosenstein make the choices that he did? Maybe we will find out.

Inform the average progressive about these underlying facts, and the dishonesty, and they will usually be ignorant, and then think it’s fake news. Imagine coming to the realization that you’ve been so easily duped. Then again, the cultural indoctrination is pervasive.

    YellowSnake in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | August 5, 2017 at 9:53 pm

    Ditto for conservatives and Trump. Hang Clinton for all I care. It is old news and they have left the stage. Meanwhile the only foreign leader that Trump has not had a bad word for is Putin. Coincidence?

    Meanwhile his own party just tied Trumps hands with regards to Russian sanctions by a veto-proof majority. You think they don’t know something is amiss?

    BTW, no one is better a duping people than DJT. His 1st book even brags about it. Do you know that Trump Tower is 10 stories less than claimed? Can conservatives count? What does that say about a man who will lie about something that is literally as plain as day?

      Conservatives may also suffer from this, but progressives are exponentially more misinformed about Trump and what he stands for. Such as yourself. That’s why they lost. They tolerated corruption because they were so sure they would win, and it would never be exposed. They are the most corrupt. But progressives control the culture and are indoctrinated to focus on hate and things that do not matter in real life. It is destructive. So who are you to complain? You appear to justify and support the wrongdoing that was hidden because you don’t like Trump.

      ConradCA in reply to YellowSnake. | August 5, 2017 at 11:27 pm

      The best thing about Trump is that he stands in opposition to just about everything you evil progressive fascists stand for and everything your Dear Leaders have done.

      ConradCA in reply to YellowSnake. | August 5, 2017 at 11:31 pm

      There still is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. No evidence that the Russians had any significant impact on the election. No evidence that the Russians did anything worse than what you progressive fascists do in every election.

      However, there is tons of evidence that Hillary and the DNC colluded with Ukraine. There is tons of evidence the Tyrant Obama the Liar used the NSA to illegally spy on Republicans. Yet you progressive fascists don’t give a damn about these criminals.

      YellowTail, you sound like a cult fool.
      (Whats on the prison dinner menu tonight, btw?)

    kenoshamarge in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | August 6, 2017 at 9:01 am

    Willful ignorance is prevalent with supporters of both parties.

    Honesty requires that you accept and seek out the truth. Many don’t want that. Their tribal instincts take over and they can only see wrong when it’s done by the “other” side.

    Fact is the government is screwing all the people all the time and we’re so busy fighting each other we make it easy for them.

      Ragspierre in reply to kenoshamarge. | August 6, 2017 at 9:52 am

      Yeeeeeeeup. And some here will fight the truth with all the fallacy they can muster.

      Which is a lot…

      No doubt, but in one case we see ignorance or indifference to conduct that appears criminal while that does not appear so on the other case. The other case seems more centered around finding a crime to get the person. These observations may not be “true,” yet are they inaccurate?

Seems to me Scooter Libby was prosecuted for far less.

So maybe I’m showing my naïveté, but by what right can DOJ redact content in these emails? Surely there is nothing pertaining to national security here.

Why the hell can’t we, the people who pay the salaries of these cretins, see what was actually written by U.S. government employees? Who decides – and on what grounds – what we can see?

Damn shame

The American government is the most corrupt it has ever been in US history – by far.

The GOPe is weakest, most untrustworthy political entity in the history of the Republic. The democrat party, the most treasonous.

We are Trump. Trump is us.

Michael Savage: ‘Taking down Trump’ would provoke civil war

It sure would.

Doesn’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions run the DOJ? Can’t he order these folks not to slow walk their response to the ACLJ’s FOIA requests? Doesn’t Sessions have the teeth to tear into these people?

The only relevant question now is, “why isn’t Sessions doing something about obvious criminality?”

Time to change the inscription on the Supreme Court from You Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free

To: Money Talks.

Humphrey's Executor | August 6, 2017 at 9:34 am

Here’s a theory: The careless dissemination of sensitive info via unsecured email is widespread, especially in the upper ranks where they can’t be bothered with such mundane rules — rules are for the little people you see.

So the Clinton Lynch confab included something like this: “You know Loretta, if Hillary goes down for this she’s gonna take a whoooole lot of other people with her.”

So Comey et al had to whitewash the Hillary email scandal to keep from opening a massive can of worms and that coverup may well be carrying over to the current admin.

“Yes, her implication is crystal clear, and it is nothing even remotely like what you represent it as….”

If her implication is ‘so clear,’ what do YOU think her implication was?

    Exactly what she said: That we can’t just sit back and expect change to happen by itself. That every achievement in the past has come about through difficulty, through hard work and sacrifice. People marched, bled, and died to achieve change, and we look up to them and should learn from their example. It’s completely anodyne. How could anyone object to it? To portray it as a call for violence, for making ones opponents bleed and die, is beyond dishonesty, it’s absolutely defamatory.

      Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | August 6, 2017 at 6:15 pm

      A black woman saying those things in the Time of BLM? Yep, means absolutely nothing but the simple words, folks. Just a little history lesson for our edification, apropos of nothing.

        Milhouse in reply to Daiwa. | August 7, 2017 at 12:20 pm

        In the time of BLM or any other time, there is no possible way to interpret her words as a call for violence. On the contrary, it’s a call for people to put themselves and their own safety on the line, to be willing to bleed and die for what they believe. And who could object to that?

I had a dream last night: People that elected Trump descended on Washington one weekend late this summer for a peaceful demonstration. Oh, they were, most of them, armed all right, but they were threatening no one. They came by the hundreds of thousands, traffic handled by Harley bikers.

They heard speeches by people of national stature, urging the country to return to lawful conduct, to forget about
purges and putsches, and to apply the law equally to all.

Then they all left, as quickly as they had arrived.

You know, when it comes right down to it, the Silent Majority
will only gain full recognition, when the people unite.

There is little doubt, that in one form or another, this will happen. It is badly needed if we want to continue as a country.

Unknown3rdParty | August 7, 2017 at 8:22 am

Remember, this involves the Clinton family, so remember to take into account how many people have died who have had some degree of involvement in, whether uncovering the cloud of scandal that hovers over the Clintons or who, in some way, have incriminating information that would put the family in (further) disrepute or stand in their way of pushing through their agenda (think of Scalia and the lack of any autopsy). Although we can be fairly certain that the conversation wasn’t recorded, I wouldn’t put it past Slick Willy to have pointed out what could happen to Lynch while they talked about golf and their grandchildren.