Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch setup the tarmac meeting and released the info to the public intentionally so that Lynch could recuse herself from the HRC investigation.
76 2017-10-16 by LightBringerFlex
Why? Because Lynch had to indict HRC based on the NYPD findings. She didn't want to indict HRC and so she setup the tarmac meeting which was released to the public only so that she could RECUSE herself from the whole thing and force James Comey to make the decision to release her without charges. It seems that if it was Lynch's decision to do so, Lynch would be forced to indict, HRC would be in jail, and Lynch would lose her position/power.
Quotes from Source:
"1. Lynch and Bill Clinton PURPOSEFULLY PLANNED to have an unironic, questionably shady, private meeting on the tarmac. 2. (((THEY))) ALL KNEW, Lynch would catch public shit for it, because that's how they planned it. THEY LEAKED THE SECRET TARMAC MEETING WITH PICTURES ATTACHED, TO ONE SPECIFIC, NO NAME LOCAL AFFILIATE REPORTER, IN AZ. 3. They leaked it themselves so when they'd awkwardly and eventually DENY rumors that they'd met (also started and circulated by them) in an undisclosed airplane meeting..."
and he continues on below:
"Oh, sorry... she'd have to recuse herself from having to formally indict and charge Hillary, once Comey had come back publicly seeking the charges he'd have concluded, were founded from their investigation/findings.
Lynch wouldn't be able to continue to obstruct justice from prevailing as AG, if Hillary couldn't win the election and become President if she was watching it all from a max security, women's federal corrections center, thanks to Lynch, could she?"
and
"Lynch and Clinton set Comey up to HAVE to publicly suggest indictment or not. (((They))) called Patsy Comey's number and he knew it was "his turn". Clinton/Lynch purposefully leaked the tarmac meeting, complete with photos making it look extra good, to a local network affiliate station and reporter. This allowed Lynch to formally recuse herself over "conflict of interest", so she wouldn't be forced to indict the first woman president they wanted/needed her to continue to serve, as Attorney General by ensuring she'd continue her role of covering their asses.
Didn't you find it weird how Comey basically spelled out EVERY SINGLE CHARGE, he would've nabbed ANYONE ELSE ON, BUT HILLARY?! Not for nothing, but when Comey gave that public statement and didn't recommend indictment on behalf of conveniently recused Lynch, to the DOJ, he looked just as green-faced and nervous, as fucking Lombardo, the puppeteered LV Sheriff."
Source (MegaAnon):
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/uid/pI4yGye9/order/asc/
24 comments
1 illumination_station 2017-10-16
The thing is Lynch never actually recused herself. Comey just acted like she did and in the process made the decision not to prosecute. They knew any "reasonable prosecutor" would have indicted HRC and didn't want to take the chance.
1 Zarathasstra 2017-10-16
Comey knee that and punted the decision to whoever won the election (Trump).
1 accountingisboring 2017-10-16
I’m still convinced that’s why Trump was her pied piper. They knew for a long time her dirt was going to come out, so they needed someone they could trust not to convict her.
1 Zarathasstra 2017-10-16
In that story he steals the children after the mayor refuses to pay the piper.
1 accountingisboring 2017-10-16
True.
1 goroboldo 2017-10-16
By (((they))) you mean Jews, right?
1 LightBringerFlex 2017-10-16
According to MegaAnon:
"For me, I use (((they))) to describe or refer to the corrupt of anything. Every gov't, organization, corporation, group or population of people (whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.) all have (((they))). In reality there's a (((they))) associated with everything and everyone. (((They))) are always the very, very small percentage, of the very top of everything and everyone, who ultimately dominate the 3 most important things over the majorities of anything and everyone they represent - power, control and money."
1 goroboldo 2017-10-16
That's kind of silly. (((They))) was used to describe Jews on 4chan for years and years, why would MegaAnon change the meaning of it instead of just using a different marker? My guess is that they just want to provide themselves plausible deniability if accused of anti-semitism.
1 FightingFlamingo 2017-10-16
k
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-10-16
Dude. It's a theory. It's a conspiracy theory forum.
1 456com 2017-10-16
Certainly a possibility we can't rule out at this time.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2017-10-16
I might buy this if t wasn’t for the fact that Lynch and Clinton both had their offices in the same building. They literally met all the time and can give a fuck what the public believes.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-10-16
I think the theory is that they purposely staged it to look as suspicious as possible so the recusal wouldn't be questioned.
1 At_Work_SND_Coffee 2017-10-16
God are we still on Hillary shit? Don't we have plenty of Trump or Putin conspiracies to fuel us? What about Weinstein? There are literally a billion other things currently going on but we're still talking about Hillary.
She's done, she's borderline irrelevant, and every time she's opened her mouth up lately there have been plenty of voices on the left saying "please don't, we appreciate you but you're killing us" But yet we're still beating this dead horse.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-10-16
You're right. When someone loses an election we should consider them absolved of their past crimes and move on.
/s
1 At_Work_SND_Coffee 2017-10-16
Well since most of the Hillary shit has been gaslighting lately maybe we should, that's the point I'm trying to make. When we spam article after article after empty headed belief/confirmation bias post after blogspam, youtube spam, shitty source propaganda spam it's just one giant circlejerk and whenever anyone wants to chase people away from a topic we get a flurry of Hillary posts from r/t_d posters, I wonder why.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-10-16
Probably because Hillary is a criminal and people want to see justice served.
1 At_Work_SND_Coffee 2017-10-16
Yeah sure that's it totally. /s
Dude most of the Hillary shit these days is just gaslighting and virtue signalling, if you think it's actually about that then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
I'm not saying she's not dirty and corrupt, I am saying she has/is/will be a pawn in certain games being played right now, she's a boogie man like Soros is, or the Koch's for the Left, when we should all in fact be scared of the Mercers, Right and Left, they are the enemy of freedom and personal liberty.
Lastly if they and you were so concerned about how dirty and corrupt Hillary is what about the blatantly corrupt people on the Right side of things? People like Dana Rohrabacher, Devin Nunes, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Pam Bondi, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, VP Pence himself, none of these people or others are ever mentioned on this sub, but yet there are thirty posts on Hillary each day that rise to the top and anything else usually comes nowhere close. Yet another one of those "I wonder why" questions.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-10-16
Those folks are on my list, too. But nice whataboutism. Impressive.
1 At_Work_SND_Coffee 2017-10-16
Yes because there are never a million whataboutisms on this sub.
That wasn't a whataboutism, I addressed both points and never deflected with a "what about" I addressed my main point and then made an additional point pertaining to other pertinent people that I never see discussed on this sub. Whataboutism is a deflection from the topic, so nice job using it wrong.
1 skorponok 2017-10-16
4 chan
1 pcwebbjr 2017-10-16
Reading up on Anon theories is fun and all, but a rando on /pol/ should not be considered a credible source.
1 KushInMyBluntzz 2017-10-16
Anonymous sources are 100% real and accurate when they are against the Clintons you didn’t know that?
1 pcwebbjr 2017-10-16
I completely overlooked that fact. My fault.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-10-16
Dude. It's a theory. It's a conspiracy theory forum.