Why has AG Sessions redacted 350 pages of emails in re Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting?

Why has AG Sessions redacted 350 pages of emails in re Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting?

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is typically a very level-headed, calm, and serious commentator. That wasn’t the case, however, when he took a look at emails written by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch relating to her now-infamous meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport in 2016.

At the time, the two must have assumed the meeting was secret — which it would have been had it not been for a nosy Phoenix news reporter who discovered that it was Lynch and Clinton who were meeting on that plane.

Appearing on “Varney & Co.,” Napolitano described himself to host Stuart Varney as “infuriated,” a word I had never heard him use to describe himself.

He isn’t infuriated at Lynch using an alias for official communications, something that he claims is not illegal or even unethical. He is not even infuriated that all 350 pages of the emails relating to the meeting are redacted, completely black, obviously hiding something.

What has the judge’s knickers in a knot is the identity of the redacter: Ir was Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who, for reasons known evidently to him alone, is protecting Lynch!

This should be the last straw. Sessions is either a wimp or there is some sort of establishment-style quid pro quo at work here.

In either case, President Trump should remove Sessions immediately and replace him with a trustworthy pit bull like Trey Gowdy.

Thomas Madison

Thomas Madison

Thomas Madison is an ex-Army officer and stone-cold patriot on a mission to restore strict obedience to the U.S. Constitution. He is editor of the blog Powdered Wig Society.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.