Comey lied about the Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting

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.

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.

However, on October 21, 2016, the Comey FBI replied to our legal demands that “No records responsive to your request were located.” This is in direct contravention to the law, and we are preparing further legal action to force the FBI to come clean and turn over ALL documents related to this matter to us in a timely manner.

Second, the 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.

Third, there 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.”

Fourth, 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.

We will also keep you informed as our litigation continues.

https://aclj.org/government-corrupti...and-illegality

get that fucker

He thought he was going to keep that cozy job forever. Limos, room service, limos, expense accounts, hot women, hot men, Clammy gettin' clammy, bein' taller than POTUS, buyin' not off the rack, bein' better than most everyone else, limos, Lordin' it over his wife's family, sittin' on Bout's face, rotatin' on Clammy's face, limos, ... no.

Trump fired his "nut job" ass.

"nut job" :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

and then came "the begging"

"nut job" :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

VRWC power center extraordinaire

http://www.hrc.org/resources/10-thin...aw-and-justice

so now what?

Comey lie very bad, but Trash and his entire entourage's LIES? yawn

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...aw_%26_Justice

Quote:

---

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is a politically conservative, Christian-based

---

and I'm out.

TSA confirmed jeebotard :lmao

"Since 1998, ACLJ And Another Charity Have Paid More Than $33 Million To Members OF Jay Sekulow’s Family."

Christian Taliban pushing Christian Sharia and supremacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monosylab1k

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...aw_%26_Justice




and I'm out.

---

Does their political affiliation negate the documents they received from the DOJ showing Comey lied about the meeting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Does their political affiliation negate the documents they received from the DOJ showing Comey lied about the meeting?

---

Didn't read any of it. Researched the link you posted, what they were all about, and knew right away that anything in there is 100% biased bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monosylab1k

Didn't read any of it. Researched the link you posted, what they were all about, and knew right away that anything in there is 100% biased bullshit.

---

A link to all of the documents was provided. Unless those documents are forged the article is accurate.

The lying is a transmissible disease so it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Does their political affiliation negate the documents they received from the DOJ showing Comey lied about the meeting?

---

Of course it does. It's called bias.

I just read a portion and gave up around the part where they concluded the DOJ "colluded" with the media to bury the story based on a guy's comment about putting this to rest as if the story only depended on that one guy. :lol

:lol Clear evidence.

TSA , what is your prediction regarding this 700 Club investigation?

Why is it a lie? It's entirely plausible that such emails might've been classified when they requested them and are not at this point.

But it's all good, there's a sure fire way to prove the conspiracy: sue the FBI and win the case in court...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

ACLJ.org

---

Quote:

---

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to engage legal, legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law.

---

FYI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Why is it a lie? It's entirely plausible that such emails might've been classified when they requested them and are not at this point.

But it's all good, there's a sure fire way to prove the conspiracy: sue the FBI and win the case in court...

---

Because clinton, Democrat, *ding*, tarmac, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

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.”

---

How have you, or the authors, proven that this is a deliberate lie, i.e. that someone knew records existed, and deliberately withheld it, as opposed to making a good faith effort and simply not finding anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

How have you, or the authors, proven that this is a deliberate lie, i.e. that someone knew records existed, and deliberately withheld it, as opposed to making a good faith effort and simply not finding anything?

---

:lol yes it was most likely a good faith effort that yielded no results
:lol the same good faith effort Loretta Lynch showed when using the email pseudonym of Elizabeth Carlisle to discuss the tarmac meeting

wrong thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

:lol yes it was most likely a good faith effort that yielded no results
:lol the same good faith effort Loretta Lynch showed when using the email pseudonym of Elizabeth Carlisle to discuss the tarmac meeting

---

So, you didn't really make any attempt.

You have no evidence of intent. If you had you would present it.

The document dump provided a giant nothingburger of PR people doing edits of press releases.

Given that responses have to be timely, it is entirely possible whoever was doing this (as well as all the other FOIR's that come in) just couldn't get the information needed on a timely basis.

I have dealt with various open-records open record requests. Trying to figure out who has the information, then get it, and get it back in time is not easy in a small bureaucracy, let alone a large one.

Meh. It benefits you to say "they lied" because that sounds so much more sinister than "the shit got lost in the gears before he time limit ran out".

Keep digging though. There were witnesses to the meeting. If it was obstruction, then we should know about it.

Too bad you aren't as concerned about President "vroom vroom" Trumps money-laundering. But hey, everything is ok as long as they have the magic "R" behind their name...

Interesting.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/10-thin...aw-and-justice

American Center for Law and Justice really hates gay rights, and well, gay people.

Quote:

---

1.) ACLJ has raised nearly $75 million in the past five years to fight for anti-LGBT causes, despite not meeting 10 out of 20 of the Better Business Bureau’s standards for charity accountability.
2.) ACLJ suggests the “sin” of homosexuality might be to blame for the death of Tyler Clementi and the rash of teen suicides connected to anti-LGBT bullying.
3.) ACLJ goes after cities and municipalities, simply for protecting employees against anti-LGBT discrimination.They even call workplace diversity training “offensive.”
4.) ACLJ defended the Boy Scouts of America in their fight to prevent LGBT scouts and scout leaders, with the group’s founder warning of “predators as Boy Scouts, pedophiles who will come in as Scoutmasters.’’
5.) ACLJ defends criminal punishments for consensual, adult same-sex behavior, saying homosexuality is destructive to society.
6.) ACLJ literally helped write the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), parts of which were deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in United States v. Windsor.
7.) ACLJ opened an office in Nairobi, Kenya, where the group promotes discriminatory legal and legislative policies and engages in “civic education to warn people of the dangers of homosexuality.”
8.) ACLJ-Zimbabwe has organized meetings with the country’s ruthless dictator, Robert Mugabe, and advocated for keeping criminal bans on homosexuality in place as the country reformed its constitution. This is the same Mugabe who threatened to behead gay people in his country.
9.) ACLJ’s export of hate isn’t limited to Africa. They’ve set up shops in Brazil, Europe, and Russia, all to push their anti-LGBT ends and oppose marriage equality and anti-discrimination measures across the globe.

---

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...%20Justice.pdf

They really like the "money = free speech" idea.

Quote:

---

ACLJ TOPICS OF EXPERTISE

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has an international network of more than 300 attorneys with expertise in specific areas of constitutional law. ACLJ spokespersons can provide comments on the following issues:

FREE SPEECH

Pro-life demonstrations
Government regulations
Holiday celebrations
Sharing one's faith
International abuses of religious freedom
NATIONAL SECURITY

Homeland security
U.S. Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism measures
Middle-East crisis
Immigration
PATRIOTISM AND RELIGION

National motto
Patriotic signs and public religious memorials
Pledge of Allegiance
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

"The appointment of judges who will interpret the law, rather than legislate policy, is certainly one of the most important responsibilities given to the President under our Constitution." —Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel
CHURCHES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Equal access—religious use of facilities
Pastors speaking from the pulpit on political issues
Nonprofit tax issues
Zoning
EDUCATION

Curriculum matters
Students' rights
Vouchers
EQUAL ACCESS

Religious clubs
Holiday celebrations
Religious use of facilities
LAND-USE AND ZONING FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS


TEN COMMANDMENTS


PORNOGRAPHY AND OBSCENTITY

Community
Child exploitation
Internet
PRAYER

Public
School
Work
PRO-LIFE

Abortion
Cloning
Euthanasia
Stem-cell research
STUDENTS' RIGHTS

Bible clubs
Prayer
Religious displays
"See You at the Pole" student prayer events
Sharing one's faith
Religious clothing and jewelry
WORK PLACE RIGHTS

Bible reading / Bible studies
Diversity training
Religious expressions
Witnessing
Working on the Sabbath

---

http://demoss.com/newsrooms/aclj/bac...s-of-expertise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So, you didn't really make any attempt.

You have no evidence of intent. If you had you would present it.

The document dump provided a giant nothingburger of PR people doing edits of press releases.

Given that responses have to be timely, it is entirely possible whoever was doing this (as well as all the other FOIR's that come in) just couldn't get the information needed on a timely basis.

I have dealt with various open-records open record requests. Trying to figure out who has the information, then get it, and get it back in time is not easy in a small bureaucracy, let alone a large one.

Meh. It benefits you to say "they lied" because that sounds so much more sinister than "the shit got lost in the gears before he time limit ran out".

Keep digging though. There were witnesses to the meeting. If it was obstruction, then we should know about it.

Too bad you aren't as concerned about President "vroom vroom" Trumps money-laundering. But hey, everything is ok as long as they have the magic "R" behind their name...

---

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

https://projects.propublica.org/nonp...ions/541586817

Even more interesting:

The organizations "VP of finance" Just happened to be the 50% owner of a law firm that this organization paid $5M to (roughly 25% of all 2015 "expenses").

Hating on the gays and Obama is profitable, even if you are a non-profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

---

Why are you not spending any effort on uncovering bad deeds by anyone with a magic "R" behind their names?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Why are you not spending any effort on uncovering bad deeds by anyone with a magic "R" behind their names?

---

We are currently in a thread about Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting and you currently have an unanswered question.

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ler/547917001/

I wonder how upset the 4chan crowd would have been had Bill been communicating in any way with the special counsel investigating him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

We are currently in a thread about Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting and you currently have an unanswered question.

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

---

I don't really care at this point.

Call it "TSA fatigue". Chasing down your shit, only to find that behind every claim, is some bullshit exaggeration is tedious, especially when you seem to give a total pass to anybody with the magic "R" behind their name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I don't really care at this point.

Call it "TSA fatigue". Chasing down your shit, only to find that behind every claim, is some bullshit exaggeration is tedious, especially when you seem to give a total pass to anybody with the magic "R" behind their name.

---

You don't care because there is a magic "D" behind their name. Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You don't care because there is a magic "D" behind their name. Sad.

---

Not what I said.

I don't care because you posted it. After sifting through the wreckage of more than one of your claims that didn't pan out, I view the effort/benefit ratio as undesirable.

Big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Not what I said.

I don't care because you posted it. After sifting through the wreckage of more than one of your claims that didn't pan out, I view the effort/benefit ratio as undesirable.

Big difference.

---

Loretta Lynch using an alias email account is not up for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by any poster but TSA

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Loretta Lynch using an alias email account is not up for debate.

---

Donald Trump's conflict of interest aren't up for debate.

Yet that outright, up front, in your face corruption gets crickets.

How much money do you think Trump should earn from the government while he is president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Donald Trump's conflict of interest aren't up for debate.

Yet that outright, up front, in your face corruption gets crickets.

How much money do you think Trump should earn from the government while he is president?

---

We are currently in a thread about Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting and you are dodging questions about the topic at hand and trying to shift focus to Trump.

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

We are currently in a thread about Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting and you are dodging questions about the topic at hand and trying to shift focus to Trump.

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

---

Did LL's alias say something to upset you assholes?

Why isn't that otherwise-gifted banjo-player Trey "Three Balls" Gowdy investigating LL's sweet ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

We are currently in a thread about Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting and you are dodging questions about the topic at hand and trying to shift focus to Trump.

Why was Loretta Lynch using an alias email to discuss the tarmac meeting?

---

Why are you lying about Comey?

whataboutism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

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.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

How have you, or the authors, proven that this is a deliberate lie, i.e. that someone knew records existed, and deliberately withheld it, as opposed to making a good faith effort and simply not finding anything?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Appeal to Ridicule
reductio ad ridiculum

(also known as: appeal to mockery, the horse laugh)

Description: Presenting the argument in such a way that makes the argument look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or the use of exaggeration.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...al-to-Ridicule

---

So you have no such proof. If you had, you would offer it. Since you didn't, you fell back on a flawed "argument".

The entire premise of the thread is unproven. It failed in the very first sentence.

The default position, the null hypothesis, is that Comey told the truth. They just didn't find anything the first time is a more likely explantion, until proven otherwise.

The amount of effort expended for a FOIR is far less than that expended for a law suit or a court order.

Not finding something the first time is fully consistant with the far more plausible explanation that the search simply didn't find anything after a good faith effort.

The existance of emails found after a lawsuit is filed does not even come close to proving intent. The best evidence of intent to lie is direct statements, which you don't have.

Any decent skeptic would subject this "Comey lied" claim to some modicum of scruntiny. "What evidence is presented to support this", especially given that the source of the claim has every reason to exaggerate, given their hyper-partisan nature.

The "they simply din't find anything first time around after looking" theory requires a lower standard of proof, since it is much more mundane, and occams razor would apply. This makes many fewer assumptions.

Actively lying and decieving is a larger claim. It is a direct statement of intent to decieve. You have to have evidence showing this intent.

You don't have that evidence.

SO the only thing this thread really has "proven" is that you read something, posted it as fact, and didn't apply a basic level of skepticism to a claim that you already believe is true. Your ability to analyze information and realize how your own confirmation biases affect how you percieve things is weak.

Comey's people were telling him weeks or months before his summer trashing of Hillary, that they had found nothing to indict Hillary for, so he was circulating an exonerating memo to that effect, DECISION on Hillary MADE, well before Slick Willy and Lynch met on the tarmac.

Repugs and Trash's base here on ST GOT NOTHING. :lol

lying boutons lying boutons