>>6393607 >>6394262 OB

RE: Previous Notable, Tarmac article.

BC waited for LL at the particular location where she'd disembark.

BC waiting for LL to be (mostly) alone on the plane.

He entered and spent time acknowledging the witnesses to his presence on the plane. He made it clear he knew who they are.

1. BC brought up the failing health of a former AG (Reno).

2. BC told an anecdote about "his next location". LL did not recall what that was about.

3. LL prodded BC and said "we have to move on" (repeatedly).

4. BC said he had been playing golf (implausibly).

5. BC said he had to move on. LL recalls, talk of West Virginia coal mining.

6. • *

7. Comey had considered appointing a SC to look into the tarmac meeting.

8. Comey decided to make/announce the decision for LL regarding non-prosecution of HRC.

9. LL had recused (informally, not officially) by way of pre-emptive deferrence to FBI/DOJ staff.

Moar …

>>6401060

Golfing, golfing, golfing.

BC was probably really talking about "golfing", the political game.

>>6401064

According to LL, BC said, "you can manage the heat".

>>6401067

The Billigan.

Billybunion.

For a man who is infamous for claiming "I don't recall", BC is equally famous for having a very good memory about what he wants to remember. Natch.

>>6401072

>>6401067

>>6401064

>>6401060

Tarmac Meeting and Bill Clinton's talk about his golf game, his political plays, is a blatant and brazen example of his comms in which he says a great deal without saying much "substance".

Veiled threats, hinted promises, acknowledged obstacles, implied resolutions.

>>6401060

According to LL and to BC's accounts of their tarmac meeting, there are common points of what appear to be niceties, polite ambiguities, and of course the fact the meeting happened because BC wanted it to happen.

For those Anons who are convinced, or merely suspect, that the numbers 23 and 32 are significant in the comms of the DS players, see the Pics.

23 June – date of Brexit vote which would have been fairly fresh in the minds of politicos, in the midst of the presidential election, who met on the tarmac a few days later.

1932 – year of symbolic significance during which certain events would now hold meaning for DEM la(w)yer-politicians. Moar on this angle in a bit.

>>6401088

Re the Tarmac Meeting.

LL listened as BC talked of family (grandchildren, children, grandparents, parents). These were veiled messages about the Clinton Family, writ large as per extended political family, and their "issues". Who got you where you are now? Who will protect you? Who will advance you?

EX: Reno, 1st Woman AG

EX: Holder, 1st Black AG

EX: LL, 1st Black Woman AG

Each with skeletons in the closet, or bodies buried, or abuses of power for which to answer. This is the context in which BC talked so ploddingly during his tarmac meeting with LL.

>>6401093

I'll leave the matter of the Pulse Nightclub [shooting] to others as a blank to fill-in for the purpose of decoding what LL and BC were actually communicating with each other on the Tarmac.

>>6401093

Re the Tarmac meeting.

While LL did mention the recent [shooting], BC did not dwell on it, discuss it's impact (superficial or otherwise) but both he and LL said to each other, multiple times, that he/she/we needed to "move on".

Recall that Comey was at the WH meeting with Husein for which LL had cut short her China trip. Pic related.

>>6401060

>>6401093

>>6401095

>>6401105

LL as part of a continuation – Reno, Holder, LL.

Implied with BC's talk of family.

Their talk was in the context of the very hot (political) weather that each acknowledged in their own way during their encounter. They have included this in their public accounting of the tarmac meeting.

Scandals = heat.

This is the reason they met on the plane, accoriding to LL's testimony before Congress. Of course, she and BC refer to it in the moar ambiguous terms that enables them to brazenly admit what they have done – broadcast it, as it were, to friend and foe (in the know).

>>6401060

Re the tarmac meeting and reading between the lines and the codes.

Why did West Virginia coal mining enter into their conversation?

See the series of pics.

West Virginia, coal mining "problems" go back to 1932 origins.

BC brought it up, said LL, in the same context as Brexit. Brexit, BC said, was disruptive of a process. Consider expanding on that through the political metaphor of Golf. Golf concentrates your mind as you play, for example. Do not rely on the superficial explanation offered by BC.

Okay, next, what might a lawyer, with aspirations for a seat on the SupCrt recall about 1932 and the prominent decisions of that year? See next post.

>>6401114

Tarmac Meeting, between the lines, and symbolism in your face.

1932?

Supreme Court took on a case that year (resolved in the end of that court season in 1933) that featured mining in West Virginia. During the economic Depression. During the near collapse of the coal and steel industries.

The case, as argued by both sides and as resolved by the courts right up to the Supreme Court's majority opinion, rested very much on intent. Actual intent.

This gave LL a yuge hint – and one that backed Hussein's blatant pre-judgement of HRC's email case (or matter, as LL would insist on calling it). It featured large in Comey's handling of the case, too, natch.

Duly reasoned?

>>6401126

Re Tamac Meeting.

Also, in 1932, there was a yuge mining disaster. Actually several, but one in particular grabs attentin today. See pic.

Think what might come to mind, whether during the tarmac meeting or shortly after, as LL ponders what BC was getting at in his talk of mining and West Virginia and whatever anecdote he dropped in her lap.

Here is one: the disaster of Pocahontas, politically, as E Warren pushed for, basically "created", an agency (CFPB) but could not plausibly stand for nomination as the first director of her own creation. She wanted the appointment, sure. She served as interim director but could not garner the votes in the Senate for confirmation. Hussein dropped the idea of nominating her before even trying.

BC's political message to LL: so close but close only counts in the game of horseshoes and we are playing the game of golf. My game.

LL's appointment as AG was very hard played. Longest nomination process – or one of the longest – in US history. And a narrow vote, 56-43, compared with other cabinet members, especially.

And that raises the question, doesn't it, of how could LL realistically expect to gain confirmation for a SC appointment in the future – should HRC win and nominate? Why, natch, BC's record of playing the game in all kinds of weather.

>>6401139

It is BC's assurances, I would think, that made the porposed bargain re HRC's email case all the moar plausible for LL. If HRC had this conversation she would not have been as artful in the ambiguities nor have had the record to provide the context. BC had all of that on offer, if LL had ears to listen to it.

I think she heard the message, if not immediately, then, later in mulling over what she clearly did recall BC going on about during that unusual meeting.

But, maybe, that was not such an unusual meeting for these Deep State operatives. Topic for another time, I guess.

What moar might have been implied by BC's talk of West Virginia coal ming? Apart from suggesting that LL listen carefully, listen for what is under surface, what vibrates underfoot.

Moar …

>>6401151

>>6401114

Re the Tarmac Meeting.

What other things might be beckoned into mind during a discussion of coal mining in West Virginia? The mind of LL. As fed by the mind and hints and looming "presence" of BC?

Here is a chain of notions that came to my mind but which a few flash cards might be helpful for other Anons not of a certain generation.

Which side are you on?

It is a song that has a history. Predating even the lyrics for it. But we can start with the lyrics and perhaps circle back to the earlier history, later.

During the early part of the last century, coal mining was dangerous and poor-paying work. At times very profitable for the mine owners/operators. The balance of power, as it were, would change through a series of conflicts – wars even – that marched through that century into the next. Suffice it here to say that the song's lyrics are based on chosing sides.

BC to LL: you are either with us or against us. Decide and act accordingly.

That song became prominent during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It took on a different meaning under the leadership of MLK. This probably touched LL moar immediately, I think, during that tarmac meeting.

When listening to the recording of that era, keep in mind that the protestors were singing with the heavy weight of fear for their physical safety. Shaky voices. But defiant voices. Choose a side.

And moar recently the song's lyrics have taken on yet a different meaning. See the Black Lives Movement and so forth. Hip Hop. Rap. New versions of an old theme with injected meaning and symbolism.

That, too, might have vibrated with LL who was on a tour of police departments/associations when that tarmac meeting took place in Phoenix Airport.

>>6401168

Tarmac Meeting.

Which Side Are You On?

BC dropped question to LL that had a racial component, I think. Something that might have sprung to mind that particular year for that particular AG.

>>6401173

>>6401168

>>6401114

>>6401177

Context for Tarmac Meeting and BC's talk of coal mining in West Virginia, 1932, and the history leading to present time.

>>6401182

Which side are you on, civil rights version.

While it is relevant what Anons might think of when they consider what BC was getting at during that Tarmac Meeting, we need to expand and think what LL was taking in with the talk of coal mining, 1932 to present.

So far we do not have details of BC's anecdote. But that may not be essential to understand the ready message to LL - pick a side, if you haven't already.

>>6401060

In the OIG Report on the 2016 Election, BC tried sarcasm. Said he did not whether to feel more offended that critics thought him crooked or stupid.

False dichotomy, right? He might have intelligence but he also appears to have behaved as the stupidest smart person in the room – or fuselage – in insisting on that tarmac meeting.

Q: These people are stupid.

And that is probably one of the deepest cuts that BC will feel, for real.

>>6401060

Rush reported a 3rd plane. BC arrived, and waited, in his plane. LL arrived and eventually disembarked her plane. She got on the 3rd and BC followed her in.

But other than Rush's report, haven't found moar on that 3rd plane. He is usually reliable on this type of tidbit. The implications for both LL and BC are rather large, I think, if the report is accurate. Maybe that is where the "bridge" comes in – Renteria, witness.

>>6401223

>>6401093

Third plane was not in LL nor BC's account of their meeting on the tarmac. The significance of a third plane, then, would go to telling a lie through omission. Why would they avoid tell of the third plane?

Your idea is as good as I've heard, read, or thought up. Secure room. That would also mean the others in attendance, the "crew" and security where not unaware of 1) planned meeting and 2) request for the heightened security. It would mean that the impromptu appearance of the meeting as told by LL and BC was a ruse for the exact opposite.

One can read their official accounts and see no contradiction – apart from omission – in terms of who arrived when and how. Now, sure, LL might have gone farther over the line in her tell because she discussed the normal sequence of disembarkment.

Here is another story – see pic – on this general part of the meeting.

By the by – I do think that out of their mouths came words about grandkids, but it had different meaning. Freighted with both a threat and a promise, I think, in terms of the political family.

See: >>6401284

>>6401311

Oops, see >>6401093 re political family and implications of reading this between BC's lines.

>>6400594

Bill also met Putin at Putin's house.

Dinner guest.

Prolly talked golf and grankids..