[blu]

PART TWO of the series on the [UNCONFIRMED] story about Ryan-at-the-Tarmac-Meeting.

See, this is the problem I have with these "unconfirmed" things....People don't always see the "unconfirmed" notation. Other's quote the post and leave out the "unconfirmed" part. Later, much later, some posters believe the post...having not seen the "unconfirmed" status. And then the "unconfirmed" becomes truth.

[defconw]

What if that Ryan report was a trial balloon or disinformation? I get in trouble here all the time over minute details. I like facts. But right now I am not believing much of anything.

[stylin19a]

I seem to recall we beat this rumor up pretty good an stuck a stake in its heart.
Not sure on the “Q” threads or on the main board.

The Tarmac meeting took place @ 7:00pm on 06/27/2016.

I keep trying to find out where Paul Ryan was on 06/27/2016 (Tarmac meeting)
- The House was not in session on that day.
- It appears Ryan gave an interview to a Wisc. radio station that aired on 06/27/2016.
This interview was done in Wisc. on Fri. 06/24/2016 after Ryan flew back to Wisc. from D.C.

No mention that Lynch’s plane made a stop in Wisc. on 06/27/2016.
Arizona was the first stop on a policy tour for her.

If Ryan was on Lynch’s plane, how\when did he get back to D.C. ?

F.B.I has this - :
https://vault.fbi.gov/documents-discussing-the-meeting-between-former-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-and-former-president-bill-clinton-june-27-2016

I do have the judicial watch doc which does not mention Ryan. It’s a pdf of images, so I had to read everything - I’m sure I missed a bunch
https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-02046-clinton-lynch-tarmac-records/

and this

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/JW-v-DOJ-Clinton-Lynch-meeting-production-2-00421.pdf

I am pretty sure this is a dry hole...again

[TEXOKIE]

PART TWO of the series on the [UNCONFIRMED] story about Ryan-at-the-Tarmac-Meeting.
See, this is the problem I have with these “unconfirmed” things....People don’t always see the “unconfirmed” notation. Other’s quote the post and leave out the “unconfirmed” part. Later, much later, some posters believe the post...having not seen the “unconfirmed” status. And then the “unconfirmed” becomes truth.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What you say has merit, blu.