>>6403362 PB
Re Tarmac Meeting, transcript leaked.
See bread some hours ago.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Previous notable re interpreting the conversation through the eyes and ears of LL.
Hillary Clinton irritated with questions about tarmac meeting (2017).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lmtD3ehDo0
Interviewer made an assumption that turned out to be mistaken. LL did not recuse, officially. Instead she said she would defer to the decision of her senior staff, as per normal process. This would require that she be brief by her senior staff on their decision; it would require that she understand the basis for that decision.
But Comey took it all upon himself. He usurped the DOJ – both LL AND her senior staff. He did not have the authority to do what he did in declination much less in exoneration via press conference.
So HRC got it wrong, natch. LL was cut-out of her own chain of command at DOJ. The Deputy likewise was cut-out. The DOJ senior staff likewise, cut-out. They did not even know that Comey made such a decision to MAKE their decision for them. They did not know that he was doing a presser until he had it setup and was on his way.
So HRC, in 2017, was not telling the truth, natch.
Okay, so the chain of command argument is bogus, as is now very evident. Even Comey admitted as much. The FBI does the investigation and does not do the decision-making of the DOJ. Separate roles because DIFFERENT roles and responsibilities.
Now, consider the conversation between LL and BC on tarmac meeting in light of this. BC talked of grandkids – but that was just a way of talking about the Clinton's extended political family. He talked of LL as if she was a continuation – Reno, 1st woman AG, Holder, 1st black AG, and LL, 1st black woman AG. Extend that into the Supreme Court. But LL had a very long nomination process for AG – one of longest in US history – and a very narrow confirmation vote. So the underlying message, just beneath the surface, was that she would have to depend on BC to master the tactics to get her nominated and approved. He could protect, he could reward, and he could menace LL if she did not choose correctly.
If LL dithered, then, who doubts that BC had not also communicated his message, through the same ambiguities, to the FBI – to Comey? The content of their discussion was set forth in LL's press conferences and so forth. Her staff at DOJ/FBI worked on the narrative. But the elements remained the same – to this day. Hidden meaning, not so deeply hidden, was in plain sight.
How did Comey's move – given LL's pre-emptive deference to her senior staff – get called by BC? Hussein also talked of intent, right? Pre-judgement. Comey, we now know, on the record, pre-judged before the investigation was done – before HRC was interviewed. Comey played his role in the Clinton extended political family.
What do you think BC meant by his remarks about some say it is better to be a grandparent because you have the fun without the responsibilities? But that he disagreed with that because he thought being Chelsea's parent was his best gig. He sent the message to LL, and via her account in the press also sent to Comey et al, that LL would be sidelined – she'd have the "fun" but not the responsibility. Comey would be the "adult parent" to step in where LL would step back.
Read previous bread from several hours ago for further interpretation of the LL - BC conversation on the tarmac.
Godspeed Anons.
On the tarmac, BC and LL talked of golf – BC's game, politics, was the real topic. Apparently, BC also talked about coal mining in West Virginia in 1932. Historical perspective was the context, said LL. A continuation from then to now, progress, in the eyes of LL/BC as per Reno (1st woman AG) to LL (1st black woman AG). Clinton extended political family – progeny.
LL, being a lawyer holding the top US lawyer job at that time, would be versed in the highlights of Supreme Court decisions across the historical landscape. In 1932-33 court season, the high court had a case on coal mining in West Virginia. That case hinged on intent.
The law and the case very different from HRC email, but the emphasis on intent was in BC's message to LL in that conversation.
Also, historical perspective, regarding a famous song that came from the conflicts between workers (unions) and companies (owners and operators) going back to the early part of the last century. Going back to 1932. The song: Which side are you on?
For LL I think she would understand that song in terms of the civil rights movement and Selma and so forth. Again, identity politics in modern times is freighted with meaning – implicitly – and makes sense in the context of the potentially 1st black woman Supreme Court Justice.
BC had the smarminess and the smoothness to relay a flattering anecdote – both flattering to himself and flattering to LL. A velvet glove for the iron fisted message: Which side are you on?
BC also talked of the then-recent Brexit vote. Apparently, he reduced it to identity politics and popularism. But the message was thinly veiled. Brexit was disruptive to a process. Now Anons understand that the process was a 16-year plan; and that Trump was a potential disruption of that plan. This message was relayed to LL in the context of the brewing insurance policy scheme.
BC's talk of golf – and managing the heat – was talk of the game of politics under pressure. He could shield LL – shadows do that – and he could manage the heat – LL could get through the email scandal. Just had to do what was expected of her.
As HRC might have said, what does it "matter".
Godspeed Anons.
Bill Clinton reportedly was offended by his critics regarding the tarmac meeting with LL.
He said, or he claimed, that he did not whether to be more offended at being thought crooked or being thought stupid.
False dichotomy. Even a very intelligent political strategist can behave stupidly while being crooked at the same time.
Q: These people are stupid.
TY Anon, yes, agreed.
Bonus is that the messaging can be compared with the current attacks on Barr, also.
Chain of command? Are the DEMs really well-versed in that? When it suites them.