 |
The
tarmac meeting being only small talk does make sense if it was the end
point, not the starting point.
SCROLL
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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
- 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?
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.
[FULL]
Sarah Carter, for one, asks
this burning question:
|
|
 |
|
