FOIA Documents Reveal Attorney General Loretta Lynch used Alias: “Elizabeth Carlisle”…

The American Center for Law and Justice filed a FOIA request for information surrounding the infamous 2016 Arizona “Tarmac Meeting” between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the ongoing Hillary Clinton investigation.

The ACLJ has a summary of their initial review –SEE HERE– However, various internet researchers who have reviewed the initial 413 pages (pdf embed below) have discovered something very interesting.

It appears Attorney General Loretta Lynch used an email alias in her communication to disguise her identity.

Lynch’s alias appears to be “Elizabeth Carlisle“.  (screen grab from page #163):

(PDF Link – page #163)click to enlarge

“Elizabeth” is actually the middle name of Loretta Lynch.  Why AG Lynch would be using an alias is unknown.  However AG Eric Holder also used three aliases when he was Attorney General –SEE HERE-.  The discovery of an alias does open the possibility for FOIA requests into the DOJ for all email correspondence with “Elizabeth Carlisle” and might discover additional communication otherwise unidentified.

There is nobody by the name “Elizabeth Carlisle” in the current contact address book for DOJ employees.  It also appears a Twitter account opened in January of 2017 for Elizabeth Carlisle under the username @ElizCarlisle.  The account has not tweeted, but did ‘like” a February 17th article in Politico by John Podesta: “Trump Trying to Undermine Reality“.

The Elizabeth Carlisle Twitter account follows 29 other accounts including Donald Trump and the local WECT weather in North Carolina, Loretta Lynch’s hometown.

Here’s the full FOIA in pdf format.  The references to Elizabeth Carlisle begin around page #160 with the screengrab image at Page #163.  These pages are heavily redacted as they contain the actual talking points that Loretta Lynch used when the controversy over her meeting with Bill Clinton erupted.

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

312 Responses to FOIA Documents Reveal Attorney General Loretta Lynch used Alias: “Elizabeth Carlisle”…

  1. OmegaManBlue says:

    Holder had 3 aliases. How many did Lynch have? How many other employees used aliases? Does Justice Department know all of their aliases? If asked would Justice give that information out? And what better way to make FOIA harder to do, if the people looking for information don’t even know who’s email’s to check?

    Liked by 34 people

    • joanfoster says:

      Now we must ask how many aliases did Hillary use. Perhaps a little exercise in appropriate names for her might be a fun exercise. Fanny Bright sounds fairly appropriate.

      Liked by 15 people

    • Joe Knuckles says:

      Wasn’t there a scandal about the Obama EPA head using an alias? What a slippery, criminal bunch these people were. I wonder if they voted under these aliases. Do all Democrats have multiple aliases for various nefarious purposes? Like voting multiple times, etc…

      Liked by 18 people

    • Harry Lime says:

      According to the Rush Limbaugh program so did Obama. I thought I remembered this claim and sure enough found a clip of it. Not sure if this was ever proven…what is proven is that they’re all liars, crooks, and most likely much worse.

      Liked by 15 people

      • Daniel says:

        Yes, we shouldn’t need a law against the people in our government trying to hide themselves and what they do but they are using this to mask and obfuscate their crimes. So maybe a criminal law that says “no, you can’t do that.”

        I know when people are operating on foreign soil using fake identities, it’s called ESPIONAGE. What do you call it when government people use fake identities?

        It is subversion because so many laws we have in place restricting government and government players’ actions are intended to provide accountability and transparency and they are subverting all of that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Azrajo says:

      Half of the Obama administration used aliases including Obama himself. They also used multiple cell devices that they could toss or remove the SIM card. What are the ball less Republicans going to do about it nothing. What are the Trump appointees like Rosenstein, McMasters , Kelly going to do noting but perhaps fire anyone that pusses the issue.

      Liked by 9 people

    • farmhand1927 says:

      It was reported Obama used an alias when emailing Hillary. They all took a cue from their Hollywood buddies–fake names and pretending to be someone they were not..

      Liked by 2 people

    • razor 1 says:

      maybe a stupid question….but why doesn’t the subpoena simply ask for documents for “any alias” known or used in any correspondence inside or outside the agency. If it was me or you doing this that’s the way the subpoena’s would be written! I call bs on this…they used it every time in the obama administration. And why has AG Sessions not opened the books on this “matter”….no blacked out documents???

      Liked by 1 person

  2. AmericaFirst says:

    Are aliases even legal to be used for government correspondence?

    Liked by 13 people

  3. MaineCoon says:

    I just posted this on the OT before this was posted.

    If someone uses an alias, when searching their real name in a database, their alias would not get any hits. Hence no docs containing an alias name would be retrieved in a collection for review.

    For those interested, listed below are the 9 exemptions for non-disclosure. When text is redacted, thereby not disclosed, the it must indicate the FOIA exemption claim upon which one is relying to not disclose the information.

    Exemptioms may be challenged as Sekulow is doing. Good luck Sekulow.

    “Not all records are required to be released under the FOIA. Congress established nine exemptions from disclosure for certain categories of information to protect against certain harms, such as an invasion of personal privacy, or harm to law enforcement investigations. The FOIA authorizes agencies to withhold information when they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of these nine exemptions. The nine exemptions are described below.

    Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

    Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

    Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

    Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

    Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

    Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
    Attorney-Work Product Privilege
    Attorney-Client Privilege
    Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

    Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

    7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
    7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
    7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
    7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
    7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
    7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
    Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

    Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

    Liked by 12 people

    • wheatietoo says:

      Eeesh.
      That pretty much covers…everything.

      The ‘Short List’ would be whatever is not exempt.

      Nothing like having rules written ‘for lawyers’, by lawyers.
      Just like banking laws are laws written by bankers, for bankers.

      Liked by 8 people

      • farmhand1927 says:

        …And our employees, members of Congress, write rules for themselves, ignoring the Employee Handbook we gave them when they took their oaths of office. They particularly ignore the page explaining they must uphold our Constitution.

        Liked by 2 people

        • MaineCoon says:

          First interview question should be have you read the Constitution? That’s a good question for RINIs at any townhall.

          Like

    • MaineCoon says:

      My above list of exemptions didn’t reference the Code. You really need it to cross reference to the document production claims. The docs will only list the parenthetical part of each of the 9 exemptions claims, ie (b)(1), (b)(2), etc. Sorry I didn’t note the cites weren’t in my first doc. I noticed in the first many docs they are claiming (b)(6) a lot. This will be Personal Identifiable Information, ie cell nos., email addresses , etc.)

      1. National defense or foreign policy information properly classified pursuant an Executive Order. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

      2. Documents “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2).

      3. Documents “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute” other than FOIA, but only if the other statute’s disclosure prohibition is absolute. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).

      4. Documents which would reveal “[t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

      5. Documents which are “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters” which would be privileged in civil litigation. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).

      6. Documents which are “personnel and medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).

      7. Documents which are “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,” but only if one or more of six specified types of harm would result. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7).

      8. Documents which are related to specified reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of agencies which regulate financial institutions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8).

      9. Documents which would reveal oil well data. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9).

      Liked by 3 people

  4. wheatietoo says:

    Maybe the name ‘Carlisle’ was her mother’s maiden name, or something.

    She may have used this alias email to communicate with her husband, Stephen Hargrove…who works for the cable channel Showtime.

    Showtime is owned by Viacom, which also owns CBS.
    Just like with Ben Rhodes…this is yet another example of the incestuous relationship between the Dems and the Media/Entertainment complex.

    Liked by 12 people

    • rashamon says:

      Reminds me that we need some heavy-duty trust busting. The too big-to-fail go way beyond the banking industry. Didn’t we learn that lesson about a zillion times before?

      Liked by 6 people

    • Carlise is a name in one of Lynch’s fab books by Chaucer. This from the guys at /pol/.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      On the OT thread another Treeper posted that Elizabeth Carlisle was her grandmother’s maiden name, I think.

      These people make me sick.

      Liked by 11 people

    • Gil says:

      Pulled this from 4chan

      …Anonymous (ID: NWE4sa+w) KN
      08/04/17(Fri)21:26:49 No.136212845
      Origin of the name:

      Elizabeth:
      Loretta Lynch’s middle name. Quite straightforward.

      Carlisle:
      A city in England which was the plot of a 14th century story written by Chaucer. In multiple news articles, it has been reported that Lynch enjoyed reading Chaucer in old English while she was in college. Based on this, we see this as the strongest connection to the name, unless anyone can prove a stronger one.
      Alternative theory: There are two roads names Carlisle in Durham, NC where Lynch grew up. If it comes to light that she lived on one of these streets, it would overrule the Chaucer theory. However, no evidence to these claims has been found or presented.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ditzee58 says:

      Her grandmother’s name was Lizzie Carlisle Beel from an internet site that I’m not sure I can name but it’s where I first saw the alias information earlier last night. Don’t know how to post a capture of the post.

      Liked by 1 person

      • beanpole says:

        Reading later on /pol that an anon found that the name was actually Lizzie Carliss Beel.

        Other speculation is that she may have lived on Carlisle St. in Durham, NC.

        Town or place named Carlisle from a Chaucer story also a possibility. Lynch an English major and wrote thesis about Chaucer mentioned. Not sure if that’s accurate.

        Like

    • deanbrh says:

      Carlisle was the name of a place in her favorite book.

      Like

      • Alligator Gar says:

        Do these people mean ‘Canterbury’–as in Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’? It’s in Middle English, not Old English, and has a bunch of pilgrims yakking it up on their way to Canterbury (in SE England….a long way from Carlisle.)

        Like

  5. The Drake says:

    Can’t Trump declassify all this crap?

    Liked by 7 people

  6. nwtex says:

    Interesting. ACLJ—- Chief Counsel = J. Sekulow (one of the founders of the firm).

    Liked by 6 people

  7. Harry Lime says:

    She also wore a trench coat, a fake mustache, and was known to speak in a foreign accent. These people are so ridiculous they deserve prison time just for the stupidity. Alias’s, home brew servers, secret handshakes, and decoder rings seem to have been common tools during the eight years that Obummer was allowed to rest his feet on the White House furniture. And these were supposedly the smartest people in the room? What a disgrace!

    Liked by 11 people

  8. fleporeblog says:

    I think what makes me laugh and at the same time frustrates me is the fact these people are some of the dumbest human beings ever to live on Earth! Loretta “Lets Go Hot” Lynch may actually be the dumbest of them all!

    Liked by 12 people

  9. Cetera says:

    Oh, come on. There’s nothing wrong with being a duplicitous traitor that totally changing yourself can’t solve. But if you can’t manage that, at least change your name. And if you can’t change your name, well, use a fake email.

    I mean, doesn’t everyone have three or four personas these days? It is these cisnamed (identified by name granted at birth) rubes that only have the one identity, and then get upity and claim that identify is somehow sacred, protected, and private. I mean, come on. They didn’t name themselves. They were given that name, probably by some facsist cisgendered egg-donor/breeder who claims biological ownership of the parasite, under some delusional misaprehension that there are only two genders, only females can give birth, that straight men are good for something other than cannon-fodder, and that the earth is actually round.

    Who needs people like that in this country?

    /eyeroll

    Liked by 17 people

  10. MaineCoon says:

    In addition, I am assuming Sekulow’s FOIA request referenced by name Loretta Lynch and Clinton and not any aliases unless Sekulow was aware of them. Therefore, even if the person knew Lynch and Clinton used aliases they would not include them in their database search terms if the FOIA didn’t specify them.

    So aliases would appear to be a method used to avoid transparency and production of various documents in response to FOIAs.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      Yep, pretty sure that’s the game plan. Keep your grubby FOIA requests out of my business. I’m above the law, you peons.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Lunatic Fringe Phd (undocumented) says:

      What you’re describing is not possible, my friend, as Obama promised us the most transparent administration ever. Didn’t he?

      Liked by 6 people

      • Remington..... says:

        Why yes…in fact rumour has it that BO had many aliases, including bathhouse berry, shitbum, and mooselumwanker….He reportedly utilized disguises like Inspector Clouseau. He has been seen traveling incognito as Emile Flournoy of the Nice Telephone Co. ‘Nothing new for VIP’s in his administration.

        Liked by 1 person

      • MaineCoon says:

        He sure did. His paid peons must not have gotten the memo.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Patriot1783 says:

      Yep and by finding one now bodes well for future FOIs to reveal other high ranking officials under their fake names correspondence with theme .
      Should just bypass names when filing FOI, just start searching ID’s under electronic gadget/phone isp #’s…

      Like

  11. Sentient says:

    “Elizabeth Carlisle” will be investigated just as “Stonetear” was.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. AmericaFirst says:

    Do I recall correctly that there were some aliases seen on the Wikileaks dump last October?

    I know I DO recall that throughout the entire Benghazi investigation conducted by Trey Gowdy that the very existence of a second server was completely unknown and unmentioned until close to the very end. So, a lot of discovery either didn’t happen at all or had to be repeated.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Craig from Scotland says:

    Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive…

    media.aclj.org/pdf/Clinton-Lynch-Documents-1.pdf

    Sir Sundance rightly notes PDF page 163 but please also see PDF page 177;
    To: “Carlisle, Elizabeth” ecarlisle@jmd.usdoj.gov
    Subject: Talking points/statement

    And look how many DOJ individuals have full knowledge of the fake email name, register, unlawful, non-compliant FOIA scam that is being conducted.
    Absolutely outrageous.

    Liked by 9 people

    • distracted2 says:

      Why would “talking points” warrant redaction?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Craig from Scotland says:

        @distracted2

        In my view “talking points” should not be redacted in draft form as the information is not related to policy, internal discussions or debate.
        Talking points, talkers, pressers etc are a secondary motion purely related to the presentation of a prescribed policy determination or act.

        The horrendous Benghazi situation supports this viewpoint.
        When the talking points were freely made available it became crystal clear these departments are infected with countless corrupt, heavily politicised individuals.

        ACLJ and/or Judicial Watch will win any appeal or court action.

        Liked by 3 people

        • distracted2 says:

          In other words, at least it seems to me, let’s get our stories straight in an attempt to deceive.

          If these “talking points” were classified, they wouldn’t be talking points. So deception can be the only reason for the redaction.

          Am I off base here?

          Liked by 5 people

          • Craig from Scotland says:

            @distracted2

            You are exactly on point.
            Remember, the reported meeting was subsequently noted by DOJ as purely casual in nature and voluntarily proclaimed as….

            ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH:
            “No. Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving, and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primary social and about our travels. He mentioned the golf he played in Phoenix, and he mentioned travels he’d had West Virginia. We talked about former Attorney General Janet Reno, for example, whom we both know, but there was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body. There was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of the state department emails, by way of example. I would say the current news of the day was the Brexit decision, and what that might mean. And again, the department’s not involved in that or implicated in that.”
            ——————————-

            Given the amount of information freely provided as above, why would any of the ‘talking points’ be redacted ?
            Doesn’t make any sense.

            I would suggest the basis of any redactions is to conceal foul play and/or inappropriate actions within DOJ.

            Liked by 3 people

            • BAMAFan says:

              Craig, what is the source foot this Lynch narrative, and time / date. Looks like it was carefully scripted to include all the subjects NOT discussed.

              Like

      • Sherlock says:

        FOIA gives at least some level of exemption for “deliberative matters”, drafts, and the like, in terms of a routine request made by a private citizen. (FOIA, of course, has no bearing at all on a conversional or FBI/DOJ probe, or when it conflicts with discovery rules for lawsuits, etc.) What I’m saying is that if you filed a FOIA request with the White House, for example, asking for all drafts of a presidential speech written by Miller, they could properly refuse to give you any drafts other than the final one.

        Like

    • Minnie says:

      Craig, as this new information warrants, a FULL investigation should be commenced.

      The exposure of the length and depth of all despicable corruption has just begun.

      Hang tough folks, remember “impossible is merely a starting point” (per OUR President).

      Strength, patience and loyalty 🇺🇸🦁🇺🇸

      Liked by 2 people

  14. fanbrowser1 says:

    Remember the backstory here is that these “aliases” are simply for spam prevention….
    However, they also provide a dual purpose in that they create a transparency dodge regarding the FOIA request.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. I asked this question earlier. Does anyone know if obama’s EO for wide-spread sharing of classified info(on the way out the door) was ever rescinded?

    Liked by 8 people

  16. emet" says:

    The other yuge problem is secret databases. Databases are subject to FOIA if (generally) they are searchable by a persons name. And if an agency wants to create a database, then this should appear in the Federal Register. So, to evade the requirement there would be databases with some name
    like (for example) vehicle maintenance schedule. Also, when forwarding records (subject to FOIA) to another agency (eg Lerner IRS), there must be a disclosure for FOIA purposes.

    Like

  17. maggiemoowho says:

    In 2009 a monster from Ohio named Elizabeth Carlisle, drowned two bunnies in a pet store, then she posted a photo of herself holding the bunnies she murdered. The bunny killers name was hashtaged on twitter in 2009 (#Elizabethcarlisle).
    Now Lynch is sharing the bunny killers hashtag😄.

    Liked by 6 people

  18. History Teaches says:

    Yawn! So what? As if this will amount to a hill of beans.

    It’s painfully obvious that truth and facts are not part of swamp operations. There already is a humongous amount of evidence, what difference will more make?

    The swamp protects it’s own. No matter what. Doubtful any of the core Obama/Clinton uniparty operatives gets even a slap on the wrist.

    The song and dance is so predictable it has become mind numbing. Alternative media, white hats, patriotic loyalists do all the hard work and compile evidence and proof of treasonous behavior. It dissipates into nothingness. Other than evoking outrage from the Trump supporters.

    Uniparty stooges create more obstruction and diversions. The MSM gleefully spread fake news and are silent about the real crimes.

    Like Lucy holding the football, Republican hypocrites promise that ‘this time’ will be different. More obfuscation, distraction and disinformation. Rinse and repeat.

    And with every failure to even take one concrete step against the traitors, more and more credibility is lost.

    The plan seems to be to continue this pattern until Trump gives up or a tenuous fake ‘process crime’ can be pinned on him. Mueller and his legal army are working round the clock to construct any possible case they can. Facts and truth are only inconveniences they are being paid to deconstruct. It’s only a matter of time.

    The coup is real. And not even hidden. Because the swamp sees it as a moral duty to destroy the uncooperative outsider.

    Sessions opened up the floodgates and eventually he will go down in history for his error in judgment. The President needed a tight loyal ship all in sync, but Sessions cracked and the administration couldn’t launch as intended.

    I’m tired of being tweaked by all the relentless stories of swamp criminals allegedly in trouble. It’s good for clicks on alternative news sites, but they all end the same way. Raising collective blood pressure, but to what end? Who will take action? None of it ever gets even whispered to the non engaged public.

    Superman fought for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Sadly, the swamp is the collective Kryptonite and is steadily eroding hope for those values. Charges. Indictments. Investigations. Prosecution. Yeah, sure. Keep dreaming.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. Joe Knuckles says:

    “If he’s elected, we’ll all swing from nooses”- Hillary Clinton, 2016

    This may be the only truthful words she has ever spoken (and this was in private)

    Liked by 17 people

  20. Gil says:

    This person is showing as an email contact. Not sure if this needs follow up, but is former White House IT.

    Dr. Aman Bhandari, Phd Panelist

    Executive Director, Data Science & Insights, Merck

    Aman Bhandari, PhD has worked extensively across corporate, academic and government settings. Currently at Merck, he leads a unit focused on data strategy and global corporate partnerships in the big data and technology space. Prior to Merck, Aman worked on President Obama’s Tech Team at the White House and was also a senior researcher at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) where he sat on the CMS wide Council for Technology and Innovation. Aman has advised data, tech and innovation initiatives from the World Bank, USAID, Academy Health, Harvard, Cornell, Ashoka Foundation, Knight News Foundation, SXSW Health and others. He holds a doctorate in health systems research from the University of California, Berkeley. He resides in Boston

    http://web.mit.edu/sloanhcc/bioinnovations/panels/analytics-drug-discovery-development.html

    Liked by 3 people

    • Gil says:

      Oops, From 4chan.

      Liked by 1 person

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      I think George Webb is chasing some other group of Indian IT brother types who he thinks were the real uploaders of the data Seth Rich is accused of uploading. The whole thing is a mess. I don’t think this is one of them, but just throwing that out there. It’s like South Asian Democrat IT people are some kind of thing.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Paul Hanlon says:

        I think they’re called the Chopras. Apparently they were the incumbent DNC IT handlers, and then Hillary brought in the Awans. This was on a thread in 4chan, so.

        Something else that was on 4chan was that the Awans, and probably the Chopras, were setting up back servers for DNC reps for lobbying purposes, bypassing the security sytem and the rules on lobbying.

        Now, take that with a massive pinch of salt, because that came from a person purporting to be Imran Awan’s gay lover. The thing’s you pick up when you’re on a quest.

        Like

      • Chuck says:

        If it looks like a mess it intentionally looks like a mess. If only one door opens you can just go through it with confidence. If 100 doors open you must question your own decisions about where you choose to go.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 7delta says:

        Chopra? I think. Webb calls them the Chalupas. Apparently Team Chopra were out of jobs if Hillary won. Team Awan (Anthony Weiner’s trusted IT staff) would take over the spying reins at the WH, in addition to harvesting everything in Congress onto a covert server. If I understand correctly, Team Chopra released only the first leak, the information supposedly leaked by Seth Rich, but Rich didn’t have the kind of administrative access required to get it. Only someone like Team Chopra could obtain it in the manner it was done. Can’t explain what that “manner” was. The leaked info also showed that millions given to Bernie’s campaign by supporters was fraudulently diverted to Wasserman-Shultz’s bank account, ultimately, mostly going to Hillary’s and a few other Dems running.

        Based on his research and knowledge of IT “stuff”, Webb speculates that after the information was obtained by Team Chopra, it was given to Flynn, who passed it off to Dennis Kucinch, who then passed it off to a British diplomat that publicly admitted he met someone in a DC park to get it. From there, it went to Wikileaks. According to Webb, Kucinch is a good friends with Assange…but not a friend of Hillary’s, I guess.

        Y’all with me? LOL.

        Liked by 1 person

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          Thanks! Yes – that’s the way I remember his description of it. Not buying Flynn as an intermediary – that sounds like chaff. But Kucinich sounds very likely. That’s getting well over into Bernie-land, and keeps everything there. My version would be that Seth Rich found SOME stuff, tipped off the Chopras for assistance, and the rest basically the same without Flynn.

          The long and fuzzy chain would be part of why Assange was mushy on whether Seth was the “actual” leak.

          It’s important (IMO) not to joke too hard about the Chopras as “Chalupas”, or to call the payload “the Chalupa”, as Webb likes to do, because it just confuses the issue of the actual Ukrainian Chalupa gals.

          What a mess! But a FUN mess! 😀

          Liked by 1 person

          • 7delta says:

            I wondered about the Flynn part too. You could be much closer to how it went down. Looking back though, I could see a scenario with Flynn, but it’s just trying to tie together the frayed pieces I have.

            My thinking was: The leak was about two factions in the Dem Party undermining each other. I can see obama and WH friends trying to take Hillary out. Uncle Joe was likely first choice, but Bernie would do. He’s an ideologue, but like all socialist leaders, he’s not ideologically opposed to the perks of sucking the people dry and using the force of law to compel compliance with his ideology. More importantly, he’s malleable enough for obama and friends to control. On the other hand, Hillary’s only ideology is selling anything not nailed down to anybody, including our enemies, for cash in her account and the power to crush everybody that doesn’t benefit her. The evil queen rules alone.

            After Hillary’s gang cheated Bernie out of delegates, well, what’s left, but to make the best of it…or take another tact. Here is where I can see Flynn come in. He’s either an obama loyalist or an American who serves his country, regardless of party in power. I don’t know about Flynn, but I know the leak was meant to stop Hillary. No matter where loyalties lie, she was bad news.

            Months after the first attempt failed, Flynn made the “unauthorized” visit to Trump Tower. Give Trump the info. From obama and co.’s perspective, it’s a delicate business, but has two good possible outcomes for them, if they manipulate the levers correctly. Let Trump do it and take the heat, while they stirr up the left’s denial about Hillary and Bill’s crimes and demands for Trump’s impeachment, essentially getting a “twofer”, Hillary exposed and Trump removed. They get a useful Republican replacement and a sure shot back into power in 4 years.

            Or, their manipulations could cause the whole government to fly apart. That would be great too. Neither Hillary or Trump would survive the political turmoil, then obama’s faction would move in to “stabilize” the country with their “temporary government” that would be permanent. If the glue held and Trump remained, the chaos would still draw attention away from them. The public would be so exhausted and politicians so scared more cities would burn, no one would have the stomach to go after them. Publicly, their hands would be clean of Hillary’s demise, Trump and the GOP would be terminally tarnished politically, they’d be heroes to their useful idiots and back in power soon. “Free as a Bird, Guilty as Hell.”

            Like

            • wolfmoon1776 says:

              Interesting, but personally I think Trump would treat stolen emails with a lot of skepticism and keep them the heck away. It’s like stolen IP – a smart corporation’s next call is to the feds – not whoever is offering it. Granted, the feds were corrupt in this case, but still.

              I just hope some proven truth emerges at some point!!!

              Liked by 1 person

              • 7delta says:

                The leaked stuff was out on Wikileaks, in the public domain, before Hillary snatched the nomination from Bernie. By the time Flynn showed up at Trump Tower, the election was over. Dems never denied the emails were real, they just created a diversion away from the content, as usual. Team Trump had already read them. It’d have been foolish for them not to.

                Remember Clapper, et al. raised some dust over Flynn’s unauthorized visit. According to Clapper, he and others recommended obama fire him…again. Clapper could easily publicly backdate an original recommendation to give the appearance of preexistence. Did the supposed first recommendation occur around the time of the leaks? I think so. Either way works. Still, obama didn’t remove Flynn. Why not? What did Clapper know? Real or performance reaction? Flynn’s involvement may have only been peripheral observation and doing his duty, as he saw it, to inform the president-elect about “things” or he could have participated in a plan, wittingly or unwittingly. Dunno

                Then it’s possible all Trump and Flynn talked about was the evolution of golf-club shafts from hickory to graphite. My speculative picture has a few core variables that would have to be true and provable. Right now, all I have are my observations, combined with someone else’s research and speculation to build on to see if his theory is plausible. It’s pretty circumstantial so far, but I agree with you that trying to figure out the puzzle is entertaining.

                Probably the most satisfying aspect of all this is that in the end, the Bernie-bots Hillary was sure would instantly become “I’m with Her” sign wavers and loyal voters–after Bernie got a new vacation house to go away–not only didn’t vote for her in droves, but may well be the ones who bring her and her “webb” of criminal enterprises down. Like you, I also hope the truth emerges at some point…soon.

                Good discussion to get the old synapses firing, even if they’re misfires. At least, we’re paying attention and trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thanks.

                Liked by 1 person

  21. A2 says:

    Obama as I recall. also used an alias to communicate with Clinton Fraud central. I think it was exposed during the document dump by the FBI when The Lunatic was given a get out of jail free card.

    I remember wading through the FBI doc release.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. MaineCoon says:

    “The references to Elizabeth Carlisle begin around page #160 with the screengrab image at Page #163. These pages are heavily redacted as they contain the actual talking points that Loretta Lynch used when the controversy over her meeting with Bill Clinton erupted.”

    I did a cursory review of the documents. Many of the above-referenced documents which are highly redacted have the following:

    1. email subject line: DRAFT: TALKING POINTS/STATEMENTS

    2. redacted text is claiming the (b)(5) FOIA exemption:

    Documents which are “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters” which would be privileged in civil litigation. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).

    I have participated in many civil litigation document productions. All DRAFTS are withheld as privileged documents containing the ‘mental impressions’ of attorneys, i.e. their legal, thought process. Other documents with redacted text also contained sentences referencing someone’s edits/comments, which are redacted in civil litigation for the same reason as they are drafts.

    I would like to see the actual ACLJ FOIA request for further insights as some redacted text designated as non-responsive could be if the scope of FOIA request was too narrow and DoJ decided to take an even narrower response.

    It’s late. Will take a closer review tomorrow of the docs.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Craig from Scotland says:

      @MaineCoon

      There is no note or mention of ‘draft’ with regard to the talking points.
      Even if the term was noted it would be irrelevant.
      FOIA (5)(b) clearly does not apply as the information being directed by DOJ press office, ironically named Office of Public Affairs can only refer to presentation of a policy, direction or act.
      Not the decision or act itself.

      Liked by 2 people

    • distracted2 says:

      It seems that when Lynch wants to go off the grid, she becomes Elizabeth Carlisle.

      This woman is so guilty.

      Liked by 4 people

  23. Sylvia Avery says:

    Thanks MaineCoon, you are an ace researcher!

    Liked by 3 people

  24. distracted2 says:

    Jay Sekulow stated on Hannity last night that he will be filing a new document request with the court for the documents in their un-redacted form on Monday.

    Liked by 5 people

  25. Peter says:

    “Trump tries to undermine reality??????”

    The lefts entire paradigm is when Russia steals elections and men are actually women and women are actually men and if you say Blackman you actually meant N-, and all men are rapists and bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman and raising minimum wage actually creates jobs and on and on and on…

    So crooked! “Get em out!”

    Liked by 3 people

  26. KBR says:

    The irony is that most people use an alias online…most of us, if not all of us, here at CTH are doing that right now, while we discuss the aliases of gubment officials.😎

    Unless of course, Sundance, Wheatietoo, Wolfmoon, Cetera, A2, Maincoon, distracted2 (for examples from above) are birthnames. (In which case, I apologize for assuming these names to be aliases.) Hey, it happens, look at Reality Winner.

    Using an alias by the general public for general online communication is not illegal, AFIK.

    Using aliases by DOJ’s and other high-ranking government officials might be (and should be) proscribed by laws, however, because the FOIA is made practically useless by use of aliases, and because they can hide their high crimes and misdemeanors by using aliases while in office.

    The second and delicious irony? If there is a law against a DOJ (and other Government officials) using an online alias, but no such law for we-the-people, it is ONE case wherein “for thee, but not for me” law is in favor of us instead of them! 😄

    Liked by 2 people

    • rorschach says:

      I’d wager that none of us (zero) use aliases at work. All of the individuals in question engaged in this counter professional behavior while under our employ. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I’m discussing work related matters on any channel other than an official “work” channel (which by definition can only have my name attached to it)… it’s a firing offense. Regardless of what name or alias I use.

      Liked by 5 people

      • KBR says:

        Yep.
        People can use aliases on the internet for “personal-not-work” but not for “business-at-work” nor even in “business-related communication after work.”

        Nevertheless, many people, while at work, do make comments online under their aliases, hopefully on their own personal 📱.

        The post was for levity and laughter. A welcome relief sometimes IMO from the seriousness of the subjects we discuss.

        Liked by 2 people

        • MaineCoon says:

          I found your post funny! I’d just read the excerpt above it from The_Donald re: extensive research of Lynch’s alias and the misspelling of same. Then I read your reference me and the misspelling of my name as “Maincoon”.

          Puurrrrfect!

          I fess up. It’s an alias although a well thought out one — just like Elizabeth Carlisle’s.

          Miss MaineCoon Callie has no problem with your slight error as her servant wins the Miss CTH Typo Award, paws down!

          Liked by 1 person

          • Harry Lime says:

            Is that Cat-Tzu?

            Liked by 1 person

          • KBR says:

            Thank you Miss MaineCoon Callie! 😸

            It takes a Cat-Tzu-kind-of-mind to get the ironies and laugh, I guess.

            These “daze” my mind is often more kudzu than catTsu. Glad I could get a laugh!

            Like

            • KBR says:

              Ahem…is the mike on?

              It is my honor to receive the highly coveted CTH typo award.

              I would like to thank all my ancestors, my parents, my cousins, my third cousins twice removed, Auntie Maggie who was not really my aunt but I thought she was, my children, my dog and especially all the kitties 😻I have had and loved over the years before I took that series of allergy tests🤧, without all of whom this award might not have been possible for me.

              I am deeply humbled. And honored…(did I say honored already?)

              I also wish to express my deep appreciation for my cohorts and friends here at CTH, and to express my deep depreciation 😉for all who strike against my tender heart and head 🤕with words of disparagement in times of their rants of angst. Nevertheless all is forgiven on this glorious day of Cat-Tsu awardship, for which I am deeply honored and humbled.

              It is a day which I will cherish in my heart forever as I look out upon all the aliases of my fellows, colleagues and BFF’s here at CTH whom I wish to thank for all their support and fine critiques 😏over the years.

              I am especially humbled to receive this award from the paws of the great CatTsu Maincoon…er…MainCoon. I could go on but I am getting choked up with emotion in all my humility and humiliation at this honor bestowed upon me on this most glorious day.😿

              (Methinks I have been hearing too many politicians.) 😬

              Liked by 2 people

              • MaineCoon says:

                I humbly relinquesh my hard urned Miss CTH Typo Awadr as your acceptence speach was so purrrffect. It truly was a 5-paw performance. Meow.

                I will now go back to bird watchin and MaineCoon cat food munchin. Appreciate hearing of all the relatives. I think one of mine was clinging on your tree.

                Well, back to competing for next year typurr award. I am certain you will have to tip it back to Cat-Tzu Callie Maine Coon.

                My heavy armor got hot. Today’s casual day in my tree.

                Meow! Meow!

                Like

  27. bitterlyclinging says:

    Present day “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow until they stop moving”
    David Burge.

    Antonin Scalia was also found with a pillow over his head. Buraq Hussein Obama wanted to leave an indelible stamp on the Supreme Court, so one of the conservative justices had to go.

    Liked by 5 people

  28. Donna in Oregon says:

    From what I’ve read the NSA keeps a permanent record of all Twitter. Shouldn’t be hard to track “Elizabeth” (or whatever she calls herself ) down.

    Where’s the gap in information? We should not have one. There is a record and for a spy agency it shouldn’t be hard to follow. It is a fact that the FBI uses those same systems. So get the goods already. We all know they can track it if they want to. There is more than enough probable cause. It’s no secret…..jeez.

    These little games that are played are just time wasters. Get on or get off DOJ. This should not be difficult.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Donna in Oregon says:

    Not to be snarky or anything, but I read here that the spies have their own Twitter universe. I really don’t think the Swamp creatures are that smart to be honest. Looks sloppy to me that Holder and Lynch had aliases. That stinks of criminal behavior…..

    The NSA’s ‘Twitter For Spies’ Has Over 60,000 Users
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xp4d9/the-twitter-for-spies-has-over-60000-users

    Liked by 2 people

    • OmegaManBlue says:

      Journalist also used JournoList. Wouldn’t be surprised if there was something like that the democrats are using. Wouldn’t surprise me as well if their was a RINO version of it.

      Liked by 2 people

  30. Publius2016 says:

    Who was at the meeting and what was exchanged? This build up and followup of the “secret meeting” obscure the main reason for the “secret meeting”.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Publius2016 says:

    The use of the alias will lead to more “public disclosures” and transparency. Let the truth have its day to MAGA!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. TwoLaine says:

    Federal Government, HHS, DOJ: Gaming the Freedom of Info System
    by sattkisson
    4 Aug 2017

    https://sharylattkisson.com/federal-government-hhs-doj-gaming-the-freedom-of-info-system/

    Liked by 2 people

  33. JAS says:

    The American Center for Law and Justice is sadly doing this thing wrong, again…

    Attorney’s and prosecutors most always get it wrong – one of the reasons the bad guys frequently get a pass. Back in the day I would get calls from attorney’s to analyze databases for proof of malfeasance.

    My first suggestion and the one that always worked was to find out who the IT people were and bring them in front of a judge, in chambers, under oath. That always worked. The bad guys know what they want but have no idea how to set these things up. So, they need IT people to do it for them. IT employees ALWAYS know….. EVERYTHING.

    The other thing that escapes FOIA is the raw data. There is no way for the attorneys to know the names of the users/owners nor the name of the data files. Most end users don’t know how to work databases, but they know spreadsheets. So, the information gets temporarily transferred to spreadsheets for the end users to play with – no trace. IT people know where all of this is and how it works.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Chickficshun says:

      Get in touch with them. Send an email or talk to anyone who answers their phones.

      Like

    • rorschach says:

      ^This!^

      Totally agree. They could not have operated using any aliases if our Federal IT employees were doing their job. Prosecute every one of them that allowed these subversive account requests to get processed and enabled.

      Liked by 1 person

      • JAS says:

        I am pretty certain that the Federal Government is using Microsoft Exchange or something very similar for their email servers. IT people MUST set these thing up, there are no alternatives.

        IT people MUST set up an email server email policy before user emails get assigned. THEY are the ONLY ONES that can issue email aliases, not the end users.

        Allowing users to set up aliases would be a gross violation of policy, procedures, and probably a felony.

        Liked by 5 people

        • CorwinAmber says:

          Zackly TIMES 2! It was interesting to me when I saw the first emails presented by SD above to see how starkly naked was the name “Elizabeth Carlisle” – all the rest of the addressees had some sort of office name or title after their name (for example, “Newman, Melanie (OPA)”, but Ms. Carlisle has nothing. Made me wonder if it was some kind of an artifice created thru Gmail or other email service. But then later below was an email with Lizzie’s email address :

          To: “Carlisle, Elizabeth” ecarlisle@jmd.usdoj.gov

          I would be curious to learn what “jmd” stands for? Is it an actual office with personnel? Or is it a place to go for aliases? In any event, JAS is absolutely correct – nobody gets to set up their own email account on a government server with a .mil or .gov suffix. You have got to jump thru a bunch of IT hoops before you are granted access…and you have to take whatever moniker they assign you. We’ve come a long way since I got my first .mil account 25 years ago…there is something very fishy here. My deux centimes, FWIW

          Like

        • JAS says:

          I believe this is the person in charge of the DOJ’s NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) implementation. If so, this person is at the SAO (Senior Agency Official) level:

          Jeanette Plante
          Department of Justice
          Office of Records Management Policy
          145 N Street NE
          Washington DC 20530
          202-514-3528

          She knows who the IT people are…..

          Like

        • JAS says:

          A number of Government agencies are using outside contractors to handle their IT, including email. One of the biggest ones and kind of setting the rules is CAPSTONE:

          http://government-contractors.insidegov.com/l/150345/Capstone-Corporation

          Notice they do work for NARA!

          They also subcontract IT personnel to the agencies and in theory those could be “leakers”…..

          Liked by 1 person

          • TheLastDemocrat says:

            I have suggested this strategy before:
            You set some file or document on some file somewhere.
            You drop security on that one file, or add access for one individual, for a ten minute window. And let the individual know when that time window will be. And how to access the file. The time window and file location can be communicated in any of many ways.

            So, the leaker, or sharer, can never be described as giving away a document.

            Like

        • MaineCoon says:

          You’ve nailed it. IT are probably many of the leakers too.

          Like

  34. Mike diamond says:

    Where is the news media on this story about Loretta????? Where are they on all this !!???? This is proof the news media only reports on fake news!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Dragon says:

    I guess that is a step up from ‘Carlos Danger’ for democrats.

    Like

  36. Niagara Frontier says:

    None of this should be new to anyone. It surfaced as long ago as 2013 when the former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson was caught using the email alias “Richard Windsor” to handle correspondence with senior staffers and the White House.

    Article in FCB, the Business of Federal Technology:
    https://fcw.com/articles/2013/09/10/email-records-probe.aspx

    Like

  37. David says:

    QUESTION: FOIA AUTHORIZES AGENCIES TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION

    Executive Branch oversees ALL departments including FBI and the Justice Department. I assume the President has the Power/Authority to walk into any department and ask for anything? When documents are REDACTED; the President has the right to Remove the Redacted portions of the Documents?

    Not all records are required to be released under the FOIA which is defined under the 9-Exemptions. Does the Exemptions apply to the President? It seems the President has the right to see anything classified to protect national security? Applying to everything under the 9-Exemptions?

    Like

    • Minnie says:

      How do we know Mr. President hasn’t seen them?

      Interesting times.

      Like

      • David says:

        You could see where I’m going with this…he could legally go everywhere and find everything. Jay Sekulow was on Hannity last night and showed portions of redacted 45 pages of documents from Lynch/Clinton meeting. Jay is going to court on Monday to get the pages un-redacted. Jay is one of P/T Attorneys…why not just have P/T walk into the Department and make a copy of the un-redacted document. The President has a right to protect the Rule of Law and see all documents; classified or otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          And, what could possibly be classified with the Lynch/Clinton meeting especially they were talking about golf/family?

          Like

          • Minnie says:

            You forgot /sarc

            As to Sekulow, are there limitations to his involvement with ACLJ while acting as attorney for PT?

            Liked by 1 person

            • David says:

              Yes…point well taken. P/T should be able to take the 45 un-redacted copies to the Wray/Sessions. If the Redacted copies are concluded to be a cover-up by Wray/Sessions; this help their criminal case and the 45 documents S/B unredacted by order of the President and shown to the public.

              Like

          • MaineCoon says:

            Thx for asking. In reading the docs something stuck out as weird.

            Doc 125

            “From: Herwig, Paige (OAG) Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:22 PM To: Newman, Melanie (OPA) Subject: RE: DRAFT: Statement/Talking Points Minor point: in the actual statement, can we spell out “former Attorney General Janet Reno” (vs AG Reno)? Otherwise, looks good.”

            Doc 175

            “We talked about former Attorney General Janet Reno, for example, whom we both know,”

            Why the heck was Janet Reno being discussed on the tarmac by Bubba/Lynch and also being included in the above DRAFT: statement?

            On doc 163, it appears the Final version of the statement was printed at 3:46 pm, 6/28, same day as the tarmac meeting.

            Anyone know what time the tarmac meeting was? Before or after the FINAL statement?
            Was Bubba to review the FINAL and edit or did they meet earlier and his edits were included in the FINAL. I think it’s the prior.

            Treepers – why do you think Reno was discussed? She was Clinton’s AG. What was going on with this? Ideas? this is really gnawing at me.

            Maybe they are hiding something that might have surfaced regarding Bubba/Reno reign and be detrimental to Hag’s “pending” reign?

            Reno passed the day before the election, 11.7.2016. Weird.

            Like

        • MaineCoon says:

          Interesting theory. Sekulow is a great constitutional lawyer and would know that answer. I’m guessing separation of powers would arise. Anything that was a national security issued would be in a president’s daily security briefing, but I also grasp your theory.

          I don’t know the answer, but your question begs the questions as to why Sessions couldn’t look at the un-redacted, original docs. Heck, DoJ produced them.

          Like

      • David says:

        Does the Exemptions apply to public viewing only? If P/T view the Redacted documents and there is no explanation in why a portion of the 45 documents were redacted…than the reason would be a cover-up.
        The President should be able to give the 45 documents to the Justice Department since they are evidence in a criminal investigation. AND, if there is no reason to redact the documents other than to protect criminals; the President should be able to release them to the public.

        Liked by 1 person

  38. Alison says:

    Despicable creatures under any name or alias. So not only did they have to keep track of passwords they passed around willy nilly, but also had to track each other’s aliases.

    I bet John Podesta’s alias was ‘Alias Podesta’ to correlate with his ‘password’ password.

    Liked by 5 people

  39. JBrickley says:

    The whole concept of an alias address or alias mailbox is extremely shady, especially in regards to government workers. Didn’t Lois Lerner @ IRS have an alias so she could carry on discussions about denying Tea Party groups tax exempt status? It is a lame attempt to hide certain communications from FOIA requests. The reason Hillary didn’t want to use a @state.gov official email account is that it is subject to FOIA requests. Using her personal server kept prying eyes from seeing her shady and extremely corrupt business dealings.

    Like

    • Minnie says:

      Yes and, as I have asked numerous times, if the NSA in its hidden bunker has collected every keystroke, every conversation, of every American, why would Cankles emails, etc. not be in that same data collection base?

      Regardless she hammered those blackberries and removed SIM cards.

      Like

  40. Minnie says:

    Well, one thing is certain, the ACLJ (thank goodness) will not rest until all the snakes have been exposed.

    Yes, they have just released the Kracken.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. carrierh says:

    J. Sekulow has stated that if Trump wants, his investigators are the best around and they would find the leakers in a very short time. So I am going to write Trump to do this and get it done right and quick!

    Like

  42. Daniel says:

    Why? To obfuscate FOIA.

    Like

  43. Dennis says:

    So many hard drives are about to get hammered to death now.

    Like

  44. Angry Dumbo says:

    Underlying facts, if the meeting with BillJeff was on the up and up, why use an alias?

    Why not just smash your hard drive and your cell phone?

    Or have ILLary wipe it clean for you?

    Like

  45. rsanchez1990 says:

    What’s the point of using an alias if you’re gonna sign it with your real name?

    Like

  46. melski says:

    I am certain AG Sessions and the rest of his team will get right on this and provide all necessary emails./s

    Like

  47. Pam says:

    Oh boy, I just can’t get past the fact Lynch is from this area. At least we have some we can be proud of like Charlie Daniels. 😉

    This woman is a corrupt crooked snake. I did listen to Jay Sekulow’s radio show yesterday and he did an excellent job of explaining all of this foolishness with the grand jury.

    Like

  48. indiana08 says:

    It’s getting really old watching democrats get away with real crimes while Pres. Trump and his family is being witch hunted by those same democrats for fake crimes invented by Crooked Hillary and Bathhouse Barry.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s