FBI Finds 30 Pages of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Documents-Wants Six Weeks to Turn Over Docs

Judi cial Watch posted this.

Judicial Watch was informed yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that the FBI has located 30 pages of documents related to the June 27, 2016, tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, and proposes non-exempt material be produced no later than November 30, 2017 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)).

OK.

The FBI originally informed Judicial Watch they did not locate any records related to the tarmac meeting. However, in a related case, the Justice Department located emails in which Justice Department officials communicated with the FBI and wrote that they had communicated with the FBI. As a result, by letter dated August 10, 2017, from the FBI stated, “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened…”

(Surprisingly, the Trump Justice Department refuses to disclose the talking points developed by the Obama Justice Department to help it respond to press inquiries about the controversial June 27, 2016, tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.)

I'm not sure what this implies.

“The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI ‘found’ these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the FBI’s document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately.”

This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI’s Clinton investigative file, although more than half of the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by July 2018.

Sounds like some nice summer reading.

There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses and potential targets preferential treatment.

The Obama administration extended numerous immunity agreements, including: Clinton’s former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills; John Bentel, former director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management; Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s executive assistant; Brian Pagliano, an IT employee at the State Department who serviced the Clinton non-government server; and an employee at Platt River Networks, the company that maintained it. It is not clear whether Hillary Clinton received some type of immunity.

I was unaware that Clinton may have been given immunity of some type.
Has anyone else heard of this?

a reply to: abago71




X 30.

a reply to: abago71

Of course they gave her immunity on pretty much everything.
That's why she is not doing time now.

a reply to: abago71

Gotta love how career politicians like Hillary politicize and criticize others when it suits her agenda, but she is "a victim" and "cannot recall" whenever the discussion turns to her own transgressions.



They will find no wrongdoing...

a reply to: abago71

The immunity deals stunk to high heaven at the time. I had not heard of immunity for Clinton.

a reply to: abago71

Six weeks is enough time to change the entire thing to golf and grandkids.

Judicial Watch spends virtually all its time investigating and suing The Clintons. It's basically all they do. So how can this be even remotely surprising? And they bill themselves as 'conservative, non-partisan...' Yea right.

a reply to: abago71

Judicial Watch? This is your source?

I love it how the other members replying complain about fake media and the MSM but they expect the rest of us to just suck up the tripe from rightwing sources like Judicial Watcj.

Number one. JW. They're a hackjob rightwing organization with no credibility. Fake news right? They have a source and we should take their word for it considering their bias?

Number two. Clinton lost the presidential elections close to a year ago. Trying to use her as the boogey man is well outside of reality at this point. Nothing will come of this like the dozens of other 'investigations' mounted against her.

If we are investigating trump with less evidence, then yes, lets keep this train moving towards HRC

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I was unaware that Judicial Watch was on some kind of ban list.

1. Could you please provide us with a current list of approved and unapproved news sources so we can keep from this happening again?

2. a) I think the real boogey man here is the FBI.

a reply to: abago71
Fox News is now reporting it. Are they real or fake? I forget. Well, at least they are on tv.

a reply to: abago71

I was unaware that Judicial Watch was on some kind of ban list.

Never said it was banned. I said they're a rightwing hackjob of a source with no credibility given their history. Never stated that you should only use 'approved' sources'. Simple.

I think the real boogey man here is the FBI.

I don't understand. Isn't Judicial Watch claiming that the FBI has pages with regards to the Lynch Clinton meeting like a year ago? So are you saying the FBI is not to be trusted? Yet Judicial Watch is claiming they confirmed this with the FBI?

Really confusing sorry.

How is Hillary relevant again?

a reply to: Southern Guardian
As I understand it, The FBI originally claimed that there were no more documents regarding the Tarmac meeting when they were requested by FOIA. In a separate FOIA request lawsuit, The FBI acknowledged the existence of additional tarmac related documents. So another FOIA request for the documents was made and this was the FBI's response.

I think.

It is very confusing to me as well.

As far as referring to Hillary, I was pointing out that an immunity deal may have been discussed with her. This is the first i've heard of a possible immunity deal with Hillary. I find that interesting.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: abago71

Judicial Watch? This is your source?

I love it how the other members replying complain about fake media and the MSM but they expect the rest of us to just suck up the tripe from rightwing sources like Judicial Watcj.

Number one. JW. They're a hackjob rightwing organization with no credibility. Fake news right? They have a source and we should take their word for it considering their bias?

Number two. Clinton lost the presidential elections close to a year ago. Trying to use her as the boogey man is well outside of reality at this point. Nothing will come of this like the dozens of other 'investigations' mounted against her.

Fake news is running with the story that Trump is a sexual predator and grabbed women by the puss all the time when what he really said was that rich guys can easily do it because gold diggers love money. Fake news is NBC (reputable, right? ) refusing to run the Weinstein story because they claimed not to have enough information, even though we had everything we have now at the time, concerning Weinstein. Fake news is running with the story that Trump said he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose voters when what he really said was "THEY SAY I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any voters."

Strike anyone else as strange that on a Conspiracy web site the first two things done are attack the source and defend one of the biggest establishment politicians in our country.

I am with the original poster, the FBI is appearing to more and more be the boogyman we should all be concerned with.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Who would bother writing 30 pages of that meeting? Unless someone was present to transcribe the conversation, it can't amount to much.

a reply to: abago71

The most important aspect of this story, is that INTERNALLY, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is finally transitioning into Trump's FBI, instead of Obama's FBI.

The FBI initially did not find any documents or records related to the tarmac meeting in 2016, according to an FBI letter reviewed by Fox News, but in a related case this summer, the Justice Department recovered email correspondence regarding the meeting.

“Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist,” the FBI wrote to Judicial Watch in a letter on Aug. 10. The FBI wrote that the request had been “reopened” and is “currently in the process of searching for any responsive material.”

“We presume they are new documents. We won’t know what’s in them until we see them, unfortunately,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News in an email Friday. “The fact they just ‘found’ them is yet another scandal.”