Tarmac Timeline Questioned

PUBLISHED: 7:04 PM 12 Apr 2018
UPDATED: 8:23 PM 12 Apr 2018

Former Congressman Questions Infamous Tarmac Meeting Timeline

He points out that “none of that adds up.”

“Why is it that the attorney general had an extra 30, 45 minutes on her schedule?” former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to know.

Ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s account of her “snakes on a plane” tarmac meeting with former president Bill Clinton, in Phoenix, Arizona, is a lot like common core math. “Why is it that the attorney general had an extra 30, 45 minutes on her schedule?” former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to know. “For them to just say it was impromptu, an accidental meeting really doesn’t add up.”

Conspiracy to interfere with the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of secret information, through a clandestine email server, could bring “very serious criminal liability” on both Lynch and Comey, Dan Bongino notes.

“Loretta Lynch should be talking to a lawyer.” Jim Comey should hire one too.

Chaffetz was responding to remarks Lynch made recently in an interview with left-leaning NBC reporter Lester Holt. Lynch sat down with a friendly interviewer who she knew was not going to throw her any curve balls.

She stuck to the official story that was worked out when the scandal broke.

Two separate security details had to be arranged, involving both the secret service and local police. Lynch continues to insist they went to all that trouble and only talked about “innocuous things.” Nobody near the plane was allowed to use a cell phone.

Septuagenarian Bill Clinton, with heart issues, took time out from playing golf in the 107-degree Arizona desert to have an hour-long chat “about their grandkids.”

The 33,000 destroyed emails, bleach-bitted server or splattered blackberry cellphones that Hillary was under investigation for, by Lynch’s Department of Justice, never once came up, according to Lynch.

The timing was awfully convenient, Chaffetz points out. “You have, in rapid succession: tarmac meeting, interview of Hillary Clinton – without the notes, not under oath – and then that’s all followed by this exoneration. It makes no sense.”

No sense, that is, if you take what she says at face value. If you read between the lines, the inconsistencies are a waving red flag.

Chaffetz was the most recent lawmaker speak out about the inaccuracies, but several lawmakers have reached the same conclusion.

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) had the same problem when he analyzed the timeline of events.

James Comey testified to Gowdy’s Committee that the reason he had to make the ‘decision’ clearing Hillary was because of Lynch’s meeting. The problem is that Comey already had his mind made up. For weeks.

“His ostensible reason for taking that decision away from the Department of Justice was that meeting on the tarmac, but yet a month and a half earlier he is memorializing a decision he’s already made so the chronology does not add up. His answers have been all over the map,” Gowdy declared at the time.

Memos started passing around the FBI on May 2, 2016, discussing whether or not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime. Two months later, on July 5, the decision was announced.

“The chronology does not add up,” Gowdy reiterates. May 2, “is when they are discussing their charging decision. The meeting on the tarmac was June 27. So, that’s a month and a half later.”

A “couple of days later,” he adds, “they interview Secretary Clinton. Then two days later, they decide they’re not going to charge, and he makes that public announcement.”

The story does not “add up” for Senators Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) either.

Together, they wrote a scathing letter last September to the Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, demanding to know how the FBI could have made a final decision before they even interviewed the key witnesses.

“It appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,” the senators wrote. “That was long before FBI agents finished their work.”

There was proof because “Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership.”

The watchdog committee leaders weren’t happy. “The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts,” they scolded.

“This doesn’t add up, and I smell a rat here,” Graham added later in a statement to the press.

Later, a whole string of Lynch’s emails surfaced as part of documents provided to Judicial Watch by the DOJ. When talking about the incident, she used the alias, “Elizabeth Carlisle.”

However, when one of the Phoenix police officers leaked to the press, not just generalities but incriminating details, the spin machine started whirling.

Reporters from liberal Washington and New York papers started calling, saying their editors were on their backs to give them something but they didn’t really want to cover it.

Any plausible line of BS would make the public happy, they said.

“My editors are still pretty interested in it and I’m hoping to put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about-who approached who, how did they realize they were in the same place,” Matt Zapotosky, a national security reporter for the Post, wrote in an email. The world is still waiting to know.

There are three questions that Loretta Lynch still refuses to answer. She has not formally invoked her Fifth Amendment right against incriminating herself, but ignores them, side-steps and provides non-responsive responses.

Lawmakers have been grilling Lynch to learn why she ordered Director Comey to call the Clinton Investigation “a matter.” Comey said it made him “queasy” when she did that. They want to know if she has anything to say about what Mr. Comey testified in June.

Most importantly, they also want to know if she had any communications with the White House in arranging the tarmac rendezvous with Bill Clinton.