Thursday, November 30, 2017

What happened on the tarmac?

Looks like Hillary Clinton needs to write another book: WHAT HAPPENED THE SEQUEL: ALL THE THINGS I 'FORGOT' TO INCLUDE LAST TIME.

Like the meeting her husband had with Loretta Lynch?

JUDICIAL WATCH issued the following:

FBI Concerned About Preventing Damage from Leakers 
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 29 pages of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents related to the June 27, 2016, tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. The documents show that FBI officials were more concerned about leaks than the actual meeting itself.  The new documents also show that then-FBI Director Comey seemed to learn of the meeting from news reports. 
The new documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking: 
  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure. 
  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. 
  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016. 
The new FBI documents show FBI officials were concerned about a leak that Bill Clinton delayed his aircraft taking off in order to “maneuver” a meeting with the attorney general.  The resulting story in the Observer is seemingly confirmed and causes a flurry of emails about the source of the article.  FBI official(s) write “we need to find that guy” and that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.”  Another FBI official, working on AG Lynch’s security detail, suggests instituting non-disclosure agreements.  The names of the emails authors are redacted. There are no documents showing concern about the meeting itself. 
The FBI originally informed Judicial Watch they could not locate any records related to the tarmac meeting.  However, in a related FOIA lawsuit, 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…” 
On June 27, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on board a parked plane at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.  The meeting occurred during the then-ongoing investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, and only a few days before she was interviewed the Justice Department and FBI.  (Judicial Watch filed a request on June 30 that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigate that meeting.) 
The tarmac meeting also came just days before former FBI Director James Comey held the July 5, 2016, press conference in which he announced that no charges would be filed against Mrs. Clinton. In his subsequent, May 3, 2017, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey said the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting was the “capper” among “a number of things” that had caused him to determine that Department of Justice leadership “could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.” 
“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people.  No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them.  These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation.” 

We may be about to find out what actually happened on the tarmac.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Thursday, November 30, 2017.

Starting with Iraq's militias.  They were supposed to be disbanded long ago, were considered illegal.  But the US-installed prime minister of Iraq Hayder al-Abadi has made them part of the Iraqi military and they aren't planning on leaving.  AP reported last month:

With the [ISIS] group driven from nearly all of Iraq, US officials have suggested that the thousands of mainly Shiite paramilitary fighters who mobilised against the Sunni extremists three years ago lay down their arms.
But Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis, who once battled US troops and is now the deputy head of the state-sanctioned Popular Mobilization Forces, says they are here to stay.
“The future of the (PMF) is to defend Iraq,” he told The Associated Press in his first extensive interview with a Western media outlet. “The Iraqi army and Iraqi police say they cannot operate without the support of the Hashd,” he added, using a shortened Arabic term for the paramilitary force.

Today, PRESS TV notes:

A senior commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), also known as Hashd al-Sha’abi, says American military forces must leave his country’s soil following the eradication of the Takfiri terror group.
In an exclusive interview with Press TV, Hadi al-Ameri, who heads Iraq’s Badr Organization, said the popular forces would call on the parliament to draw up legislation to demand the US pull out all its troops from the Arab country.
 “We will adopt a parliamentary decision to pull out all American troops”, who were allegedly fighting [ISIS] terrorists in the conflict-stricken Arab country, he said.
Ameri said the popular forces won’t allow even “one US soldier” to remain in Iraq now that the Takfiri terrorists have lost their major bastions in the Arab state in the face of successful Iraqi army operations.

That is what an element of the Iraqi government is saying.

Where are the journalists at the White House demanding a response to this?

Where are they at the State Dept?

Where is the President's statement on this?

I believe the US forces should leave Iraq immediately.

That has nothing to do with the threat from the faction of the Iraqi military.

But if you believe the US military should remain in Iraq -- and clearly those in charge at the Defense Dept do -- then why aren't you addressing these comments?

Seems the press should be asking why US military personnel are in Iraq.

And if the answer is "to train and assist," the response should be, "How effective can they be training and assisting a military that publicly states they are the enemy and that they need to get out of the country?"

This goes beyond the philosophical musings of why.

This goes to the fact that these comments indicate "harms way" now includes potential harm to US troops from the Iraqi military.

Should something happen to even one US service member, heads should roll.

And if something should happen to one US service member and the press hasn't done their job of informing people what the situation actually is and hasn't done their job demanding answers from the administration, then the blame for any harm or deaths will not just belong to Donald Trump and company but also to the press.

But what is the press today but willing collaborators eagerly embroidering the tapestry of lies?

Take Larry Luckner (WASH DIPLOMAT) and his most recent 'reporting.'

To read it, he's covering a simple public event planned and attended by unbiased participants.

The Turkish Heritage Organization is a lobbying front for the government of Turkey.

I'm not really sure why James Jeffrey participated -- cash?

But considering the attacks that took place -- by Turkish bodyguards -- in DC not all that long ago, I really think he showed disrespect -- not just stupidity -- for democracy and for those who were attacked by gas bagging at this event.

Turkey does not want Kurdish independence.

So let's not pretend this was a dis-interested party.

They invite James Jeffrey -- one of Barack Obama's many failed US Ambassadors to Iraq (Chris Hill was the worst but they were all failures).  Jeffrey was in the job for approximately two years.  He couldn't hack it.  Jeffrey was also part of the mop-up committee known as the Iraq War Study Group.  They produced nothing of value but did manage to consume a lot of US taxpayer funds.

Also participating in person?

Lukman Faily.


Until 2016, he was the Iraqi ambassador to the US.  Installed by forever thug Nouri al-Maliki.

Lukman accomplished nothing though he did manage to insult many of Iraq's minority groups.

This included the Kurds so, no surprise, he did so at the conference.

Third guest -- appearing via satellite -- a Turkman.

That really says it all.

So they're there to discuss the Kurds.

No Kurd is on the panel.

No pro-Kurdish person is on the panel.

And they spew their hate and their conspiracies unchecked and it's all supposed to be wonderful.

The UK is committed not only to defeating [ISIS] militarily but also to countering the dispersal of foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria.

Replying to 
The Prime Minister today became the first major foreign leader to visit Iraq since the fall of Mosul, where she congratulated British, Coalition and Iraqi Troops on the success of the counter [ISIS] campaign.

Replying to 
The Prime Minister today became the first major foreign leader to visit Iraq since the fall of Mosul, where she congratulated British, Coalition and Iraqi Troops on the success of the counter [ISIS] campaign.

ISIS fighters could slip back into Europe, May warns on Iraq trip

PM IN IRAQ: becomes first major world leader to visit Iraq since Isis were driven from Mosul and Raqqa. The PM met British troops training Iraqi soldiers as she warned of the risks of IS terrorists 'dispersing' across the region.

Theresa May's visit should beg the question of where's Donald Trump's visit?

He has yet to visit Iraq.

As a US president, Barack Obama only visited Iraq once -- once in eight years as president.

So if Donald plans on being a one-term president -- as so many hope -- maybe he could just go to Kuwait instead?

Let's move to one of the media's biggest liars: Joy Reid.

Replying to 
One last thing on the history of protests: the March On Washington was meant to move a Democratic president, and it did, because at core, he had come to agree with the protesters. The anti-Vietnam and anti-Iraq war marches were massive, but failed versus Republican presidents.

I don't see how LBJ was moved by the protesters (other than realizing he couldn't be pro-war and be re-elected).

Are we also forgetting that Barack didn't end the Iraq War, Joy?

He was a major liar.  He 'protested' with a small speech in Chicago ahead of the war.

Then he told THE NEW YORK TIMES, in 2004, that he's not sure how he would have voted if he'd been in Congress at the time.

Please remember that he used his Iraq War 'protest' to show his superior judgment -- but in 2004, he didn't know how he'd vote?

Barack told Elaine and I, after the war started, that the protests didn't matter because the US was in Iraq now.

He told many people that.

Yet the press let him run as anti-war in 2008.

And the same press agreed to stay silent as he left office with the Iraq War still dragging on.

Joy realizes Barack is a Democrat, right?

The following community sites -- plus THE GUARDIAN -- updated: