Elizabeth Carlisle is the latest nom de guerre being used by a Democratic politician to be uncovered by Judicial Watch in its endless pursuit of transparency in government and exposure of corruption. This time, the alias comes from none other than the nation's erstwhile top law enforcement officer, former attorney general Loretta Lynch, for her email correspondence.

The alias was discovered in a trove of records Judicial Watch wrenched out of the Justice Department through litigation over one of my Freedom of Information Act requests.

I'd sought communications and other records related to the now infamous June 27, 2016 meeting on a hot, dusty airport tarmac in a hot, cramped government airplane between then-attorney general Lynch and former president Bill Clinton, whose wife, coincidentally enough, was under investigation that very moment by the FBI for her illegal use of a private email server to conduct highly classified government business. Did I mention that Ms. Lynch had authority over that same FBI? Oh, and that the FBI was going to grill (or maybe just have coffee with) Mrs. Clinton five days later as part of its "investigation"?

Of course, planes carrying government VIPs bump into each all the time on sun-baked Phoenix airport runways, and what better time for those VIPs to catch up on golf and those rascally grandkids than in those comfortable Boeing Barcaloungers? With FBI agents directing everyone in sight to turn off their cameras, of course.

The emails show the top muckety-mucks at the Justice Department going into full-blown panic mode in the day following the tarmac meeting after a local ABC affiliate, tipped off to the encounter, captured it on video, and an ABC News reporter contacted the Justice Department asking about the propriety of the husband of the target of a U.S. government investigation, then running for president, meeting covertly with the attorney general overseeing that investigation.

The spin-meisters at the Justice Department spent the better part of a taxpayer-funded day putting their little heads together to come up with talking points for Ms. Lynch to use with the press to explain away her little aeronautical encounter with Bill Clinton. (Naturally, as Judicial Watch explained in our report, the government blacked out the talking points and the revisions to them so that we the American people can't see the details of their scheming.)

At the end of that day, Melanie Newman, the Justice Department's head of public affairs, emailed a person with the email account "Elizabeth Carlisle" and said "AG Lynch - We are holding on the statement for now. Given that there wasn't any follow-up in the press avail, [redacted]. We will keep you posted as things develop. Thank you." The person using the "Elizabeth Carlisle" email account then responds, "Thanks to all who worked on this. AG[.]"

Confession being good for the soul and all, I admit to missing the significance of this email exchange when I conducted Judicial Watch's review of these records and prepared the report upon which we based our article about this record production. When I noticed that a person named Elizabeth Carlisle was sending an email "signed" by Loretta Lynch, I assumed that Ms. Carlisle was Ms. Lynch's assistant. After all, Loretta Lynch is an important person with big fish, like Hillary Clinton, to fry – or not. She has minions to do mundane stuff like send emails. Or so I thought.

I focused instead on the emails sent to DOJ's media people from sycophantic reporters trying to bury the story for their Democratic Party masters, the frantic efforts of top Justice Department officials to craft talking points used to spin the meeting between Ms. Lynch and President Clinton as something benign and everyday, and the collusion (yes, I said "collusion") between the DOJ and FBI to get their stories straight on the outrageous meeting. You know, the usual workaday routines of Democratic politicians and Deep State hacks.

But modern technology means we don't have to rely on one pair of eyes to hold government accountable. Leave it to Al Gore's Amazing Internet (hat tip: Chris Plante), the power of crowdsourcing intelligence analysis, and all my wonderful fellow Clinton crime family sleuths to spot what I had missed: Loretta Lynch was using an alias in her email communications.

My fellow snoop in this case who appears to have made the connection was internet digger Kim Dotcom, who tweeted his revelation, which was subsequently reported by Gateway Pundit. My hat's off to you, Kim.

Reddit users in turn discovered that Ms. Lynch appears to have adopted the maiden name of her departed grandmother, Lizzie Carlisle. (See the G.P. article for a copy of grandma Lynch's death certificate.)

In the tradition of Barack Obama's former EPA director, Lisa Jackson, using the alias Richard Windsor, Chelsea Clinton using Diane Reynolds, and Anthony Weiner using Carlos Danger, we now have Loretta Lynch weirdly summoning the spirit of her late grandmother to conduct dodgy government cover-ups. Lizzie must be so proud.

For over 30 years, I have enjoyed a bit of success investigating all manner of human depravity. Latin American drug traffickers who chop up their rivals. Homicidal spouses who murder their loved ones for life insurance proceeds. Democratic politicians doing the business of the American people. I've seen it all. I shouldn't have missed this one.

Let this serve as a lesson to all my brother and sister investigators, or would-be investigators. If you see something anomalous, always check it out. Never give the benefit of the doubt to people who don't deserve it. That extra effort can make the difference between a merely competent investigation and a stellar one.

As for me, we all miss one now and then. My brain was fried reviewing thousands of Huma Abedin emails. Maybe I need a vacation. By the way, has anyone learned Huma's alias yet?

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years. Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author's alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)