When we last checked in on newly released information regarding that infamous tarmac meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, we learned that the media wasn't terribly interested in discussing the matter any more than absolutely necessary. But as reporters continue to dig through the trove of Justice Department emails obtained by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, we find out that there were some people who were very interested in talking. The people in question would be Lynch's staff and they were having a flurry of discussions with none other than the folks at James Comey's office.

You'll recall that all of this was taking place only days before Comey would hold his bizarre press conference where essentially cleared Hillary Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing in the private email server scandal. (Only to famously reopen the investigation later.) So if it was really just a casual, chance meeting to discuss grandchildren and golf, why would the Attorney General's office be sending out a flurry of messages to the FBI Director's office? It turns out that one of Lynch's own attorneys was editing talking points for the White House in terms of how to address questions from the press and another of her people was sending talking points to the FBI. The Washington Free Beacon once again has the details. (Emphasis added)
One of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's top lawyers at the Justice Department helped edit Obama administration press statements about the infamous meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac last summer.

The same attorney, Paige Herwig, is now the deputy general counsel for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That panel is now investigating whether Lynch played any role in trying to influence the scope or intensity of the FBI's investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal...

[O]n June 29, 2016, two days after the Clinton-Lynch meeting when the national news media was first learning of the tarmac one-on-one, Melanie Newman, the then-director of public affairs at the Justice Department, emailed her FBI counterpart to "flag" the media stories about the tarmac meeting that she noted were "gaining traction tonight."

Newman included a transcript of a question Lynch answered about the meeting the following day, as well as Justice Department talking points on the topic, which are redacted in the emails.
Two obvious questions leap to mind immediately. The first is a no-brainer which somebody at Justice should be addressing for us. Lynch had, by that point, already essentially recused herself from the question of possible prosecution of Hillary Clinton, saying she would leave the decision entirely up to the FBI, so why was her staff sending a blizzard of information and press talking points to the FBI after the secret meeting was revealed?

The second question is even more puzzling and deserves a thorough scrubbing if anyone in the MSM can be bothered to ask. There are generally accepted rules for when the government can or should redact information being released to the public. These can include privacy considerations if the personal information of individuals (such as their Social Security number) are included. Also, the government can withhold sensitive information which might endanger national security. But this was a document which contained a list of talking points to be used if they had to answer questions for the press. In what version of reality would a set of press talking points qualify for redaction?

The more we learn about this the worse the general odor coming from the story becomes. And as the old saying goes, the fish rots from the head down. The original explanation for how that meeting took place and the initial secrecy around it was laughable but it seemed as if we'd never get any details. Now their cover seems to be blown. It's quickly approaching the point where both Lynch and Clinton need to be coming in to sit down and answer some questions under oath if you ask me.