Tim Brown
\nconstitution.com<\/p>\n
The man researching and seeking to have the tape released is Florida orthodontist Larry Kawa. \u00a0You may remember him because of Judicial Watch\u2019s filing of a lawsuit on his behalf to obtain a week\u2019s worth of Hillary Clinton\u2019s emails regarding Benghazi.<\/a><\/p>\n It\u2019s being reported now that the NSA has declared the recording of the conversation that took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in Phoenix, Arizona on June 27, 2016.<\/a><\/p>\n Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request in March of this year to obtain the following:<\/p>\n This brings us to Kawa. \u00a0In an article at Big League Politics, Patrick Howley writes:<\/a><\/p>\n The National Security Agency (NSA) blocked the release of a purported tape of Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch\u2019s private airplane talk with a rare legal justification used to protect top national security secrets.<\/em><\/p>\n The NSA\u2019s block of the release of this information \u2014 citing one of President Obama\u2019s executive orders \u2014 undercuts Hillary Clinton\u2019s claim that her husband and Lynch had a \u201cpurely social\u201d conversation about grandkids and golf on June 27, 2016, two weeks before Lynch dropped the Department of Justice investigation into Hillary Clinton\u2019s email scandal.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Citizen researcher Larry Kawa is pressing the government to release the contents of a taping system that is required to have been installed on Lynch\u2019s government airplane. Kawa points to the Tempest<\/a> system, a NATO-certified system by which the NSA tracks and records sound that emanates within government structures.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cGeneral Dynamics installs the recorders in the planes,\u201d Kawa told Big League Politics. \u00a0\u201c(Lynch) could not have un-installed them if she wanted to.\u201d<\/p>\n Kawa claims that there are Voice Over IP recorders that are installed on government airplanes, so there must be a recording. \u00a0His FOIA request was denied citing national security.<\/p>\n So far, we\u2019ve not really heard anything except that the conversation was all about golf and grandchildren<\/a>, even though Lynch claimed the meeting was \u201cregrettable<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0How is that a matter of national security?<\/p>\n We do know that following that meeting, the Justice Department shielded Clinton Foundation emails<\/a> and there is definitely a question of how that meeting may have resulted in the communications of Donald Trump and his advisors at Trump Tower.<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cTo respond to your request, NSA would have to confirm or deny the existence of intelligence records on Loretta Lynch,\u201d the NSA wrote in their\u00a0response on November 14, 2016. \u201cWere we to do so in your case, we would have to do so for every other requester. This would enable, for example, a terrorist or other adversary to file a FOIA request with us in order to determine whether he or she was under surveillance or had evaded it. This is turn would allow that individual to better assess whether they could successfully act to damage the national security of the United States. For such reasons, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of the records you requested.\u201d<\/p>\n Kawa then wrote to the NSA FOIA office to challenge them on their denial. \u00a0Here\u2019s their response.<\/p>\n Our letter dated 14 November 2016 is indeed our final response to your FOIA request. It states that the \u201cfirst exemption\u201d of the FOIA authorizes, by Executive Order, properly classified information to be kept secret and goes on to say that the fact of existence or non-existence of intelligence records on any individual is an appropriately classified matter. The \u201cfirst exemption\u201d is often referred to as the \u201cB(1) exemption\u201d to which you refer.<\/em><\/p>\n We also provide background information regarding the decision, as well as the specific paragraph of E.O. 13526 which authorizes the type of response, which is often called a \u201cGlomar\u201d response. \u00a0\u00a0In addition, we state that the withholding of this information is also authorized by the third exemption under the FOIA, as the information is also protected by statute. \u00a0Lastly, we provide you with instructions on how to appeal this response.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Both stories here cannot be true. \u00a0We cannot have a conversation about golf and grandchildren and that be national security at the same time. \u00a0It\u2019s one or the other, and judging from the Clintons and Lynch\u2019s lawlessness, I think it\u2019s safe to assume that there was no talk of golf and grandchildren and I\u2019m betting there was no \u201cnational security\u201d talk either. \u00a0Rather, there was more than likely criminal scheming taking place. \u00a0Let\u2019s hear the recordings for ourselves NSA<\/p>\n\n