Top 10 Findings From the FBI’s Hillary Labor Day Document Dump

Over at the Washington Examiner, Ashe Schow boils down the FBI’s Labor Day weekend document dump to the bare essentials.

The top 10 revelations related to Hillary’s interview with the FBI?

10. Hillary Clinton is incompetent (part I): she claimed she didn’t know that a (C) marking on official government documents meant that it was classified as “Confidential”.

9. Hillary Clinton is incompetent (part II): she also claimed she didn’t know how document classification worked; say, that Top Secret, Secret and Confidential are the three basic levels of classified documents.

8. Hillary Clinton couldn’t recognize what documents should be protected: like emails regarding specific drone strikes, for instance. Hillary was fine with sending those over her unprotected, illegal, and bathroom-dwelling email server.

7. Hillary Clinton hid at least 18,000 work-related emails: far from turning over “all work-related emails”, she hid tens of thousands of government-related communications, because they were all about yoga lessons and Clinton Foundation bribes, but mostly bribes.

6. Hillary Clinton used more than a dozen mobile email devices for State Department business: so much for the using “one device for convenience” lie.

5. Hillary Clinton repeatedly lost her mobile devices: but there were just a bunch of state secrets on them, so what’s the big deal?

4. Hillary Clinton ignored government warnings not to use mobile devices for official business: “Clinton and her immediate staff were notified of foreign travel risks and were warned that digital threats began immediately upon landing in a foreign country, since connection of a mobile device to a local network provides opportunities for foreign adversaries to intercept voice and email transmissions…” — and Clinton and her immediate staff, of course, ignored such warnings.

3. Hillary Clinton was never authorized to conduct State Department business on her private server: she was required to solicit and gain approval from the government in order to conduct official business on her home-brew, bathroom email server. She failed to do so. She ignored all official guidance.

2. Hillary Clinton was terrified she’d been hacked: she had received a variety of phishing emails, including porn solicitations. No word on what category said porn fell into.

1. Clinton mass-deleted emails just after The New York Times revealed the private server: only three weeks after the Times revealed Clinton’s private email server, the “oh sh**” moment occurred, according to the FBI. Electronic shredding was the result.

(For more from the author of “Top 10 Findings From the FBI’s Hillary Document Dump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mark Levin BLOWS up the Hillary Charade: Was She Sick, a Liar, or BOTH?!

Brand new information came out Friday detailing Hillary Clinton’s alleged health problems, and no this is not conspiracy peddling.

Hillary Clinton reportedly told the FBI that a concussion followed by a blood clot prevented her from recalling all her State Department briefings. That sounds like a pretty serious concussion and perhaps a prevailing medical concern, notes Mark Levin.

“Either she had a problem, or she is a liar, or both!” exclaimed Levin on his radio program Friday.

Remember, the FBI is, of course, releasing all of this important information the Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend. Now why would they do that? Could it be that they want to dump the information while the media is asleep at the wheel? Nooooo, can’t be.

Responding to the report, Levin called on the Clinton campaign to release her medical records and answer for the 2,000 occasions that classified material passed through her private server.

Will they? We doubt it. But someone ought to be demanding it because the FBI and DOJ won’t. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin BLOWS up the Hillary Charade: Was She Sick, a Liar, or BOTH?!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Shut It Down!’: Cameraman Ordered to Kill Positive Trump Footage

Donald Trump was enjoying a rare moment of positive media coverage on CNN, Fox and other networks Saturday as a black Christian bishop from Detroit was bestowing his blessing with a powerful symbolism that included the laying on of a Jewish tallit or prayer shawl.

“There are going to be some times in your life that you’re gonna feel forsaken,” Bishop Wayne Jackson told Trump. “You’re gonna feel down. But the anointing is going to lift you up. I prayed over this prayer shawl and I fasted over it. And I wanna just put this on you … .”

The bishop placed the prayer shawl over Trump’s shoulders, then gave him a Jewish Heritage Bible and instructed him, when things are going badly, to read Mark 9:23 “If you can believe … .”

That’s when a voice can be heard saying, “Shut it down!” . . .

After some brief resistance from the cameraman, the order to “shut it down” persists and the feed is suddenly dropped. The screen went to a “blackout.” (Read more from “‘Shut It Down!’: Cameraman Ordered to Kill Positive Trump Footage” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Greatest Achievement

The time for complaining about President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has passed. The time has come to overcome the enormous damage his signature foreign policy accomplishment has caused.

To understand why this is the case, it is important to understand the breadth and depth of Obama’s failure.

On August 4, during the course of a press conference, Obama gave his interim assessment of his nuclear agreement with Iran.

“It worked,” he insisted.

A year after the deal was signed, Obama argued, events have proven that he was right and the deal’s critics were wrong.

“You’ll recall that there were all these horror stories about how Iran was going to cheat and this wasn’t going to work and Iran was going to get $150 billion to finance terrorism and all these kinds of scenarios, and none of them have come to pass,” he proclaimed.

Obama then snidely swiped at the deal’s opponents saying that it would be “impressive” if the people who criticized the deal would own up to their mistakes and admit that it worked.

As it works out, everything that Obama said about the deal with Iran during his press conference was a lie.

Some of his lies became apparent within hours.

For instance, Obama falsely claimed that Israel now “acknowledges this has been a game changer and Iran has abided by the deal and they no longer have the sort of short-term breakout capacity that would allow them to develop nuclear weapons.”

Hours later, the Defense Ministry issued a stinging rebuke of Obama’s claim, parroted more diplomatically by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Obama’s press conference took place the day after The Wall Street Journal reported that in January 2016, the US sent an unmarked plane to the Tehran airport filled with $400 million in cash, on the same day Iran released four US hostages.

Obama angrily rejected allegations that the cash payment was a ransom payment for the hostages’ release. He insisted that the US had made the payment as the first installment of a $1.7b. payment the administration made to settle an Iranian government lawsuit against America.

Obama claimed that the administration agreed to the settlement at the urging of the Justice Department.

He said his administration was able to settle the dispute only due to the nuclear deal which placed US officials in direct contact with their Iranian counterparts for the first time in decades.

Within a day, Obama’s claims were exposed as lies. It turns out that Justice Department lawyers opposed the cash payout to Iran.

One of the hostages released in January told the media that the Iranians refused to allow the hostages to leave Iran until the airplane with the cash landed in the airport.

The Iranians, for their part, contemptuously mocked Obama, and stated openly that the $400m.

was a ransom payment for the hostages.

Two weeks later, Obama’s State Department admitted that the $400m. was a payment for the hostages.

Obama’s principle claim is that due to his deal, Iran no longer has a short-term nuclear breakout capacity. He also says that in accordance with the deal, Iran has shipped its nuclear materials out of the country. These claims are both untrue and misleading.

On Thursday Reuters reported that Iran did not ship the quantities of low-enriched uranium out of the country in the quantities the deal required.

Last January, when the deadline arrived for Iran to comply with the deal’s clauses calling for it to move its uranium enriched to 3.5 percent and 20 percent out of the country and so enable the US and its European colleagues to cancel UN sanctions against it, it worked out that Iran had failed to comply.

Rather than acknowledge Iran’s failure and maintain the sanctions in accordance with their deal, the Americans and Europeans decided to move the goalpost closer to Iran.

They secretly decreased the amount of uranium the Iranians were required to part with. They then announced triumphantly that they were canceling UN sanctions because Iran had complied with the agreement.

Reuters reported that much of the low-enriched uranium Iran did remove from its territory wasn’t actually removed from its possession. Instead it was transferred to neighboring Oman, where it is held under Iranian guard and control.

Obama of course knows all of this. So his claims that the agreement “worked” are nothing more than a card trick meant to trick the American public.

Obama’s assertion that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear arsenal has been slowed as a result of his deal is similarly a stretch of the imagination. The Iranians have suspended much of their prior centrifuge spinning. But that is only because they are now directing their efforts to developing and deploying more advanced centrifuges that will be able to enrich uranium to bomb grade material far more rapidly than the centrifuges they were required to retire.

Experts have already placed Iran’s post-deal nuclear breakout time at a mere six months. And Iran can leave the agreement – which it never actually signed or officially agreed to – anytime it wants.

While developing their next generation centrifuges, the Iranians are expanding the range and precision of their ballistic missiles, deploying them and increasing the size of their arsenals. Despite the fact that these actions are prohibited under US law and breach what was initially claimed about the ever-changing nuclear deal, the Obama administration has refused to impose sanctions against Iran, insisting that its actions merely breach the spirit, rather than substance, of the deal.

The administration has had a similar response to Iran’s recent deployment of Russia’s S-300 missile defense battery around its military nuclear site at Fordo. On Sunday Iranian television showed footage of the missiles being set up around the formerly secret site.

As Omri Ceren of the Israel Project noted this week, Iran’s deployment of the S-300 system places it in breach of three US sanctions laws. Despite this, the White House announced on Wednesday that it has no intention of enforcing US law and applying sanctions on Iran. The S-300 missiles can be used both as a defensive system and as an offensive one.

On Tuesday, Tehran announced that it will be launching three satellites in the coming months.

Satellite launches are widely viewed as a means through which Iran is covertly developing a longrange ballistic missile capability. Rather than censure Iran for its actions, the Obama administration insists that such actions, as well as Iran’s recent longrange rocket tests, do not violate the nuclear deal or warrant US action.

Taken separately and together, Iran’s actions since the nuclear deal was officially concluded make clear that it continues to pursue its nuclear program, and indeed, has become more brazen in its nuclear operations than it was before the agreement was announced last year.

In other words, not only has the deal not worked, contrary to Obama’s claims, it has been a colossal failure on every level. The deal’s opponents were entirely right about the dangers it posed and Obama was entirely wrong.

This is true as well in relation to the administration’s qualified promises that the deal would lead to better relations between the US and Iran. As Shoshana and Stephen Bryen noted last week following the Iranian naval assault on the USS Nitze in the Strait of Hormuz, with its repeated harassment of US naval ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is clearly practicing its tactic of swarming US naval craft as a preparation for a real strike against them.

The main reason that Iran’s nuclear program is such a grave concern for Israel and for other Middle Eastern states is that the Iranian regime has hegemonic ambitions. It seeks to destroy Israel and dominate the entire region.

Since it concluded the deal with Washington, Iran has surged its forces and massively expanded its power projection throughout the region.

On Thursday the Daily Mail reported that the commonly held belief that Iran commands 16,000 troops in Syria is wrong. According to the National Council of Resistance in Iran, the regime actually commands 60,000 forces in Syria, deployed throughout the country. The entire Syrian army today numbers a mere 50,000 men.

On August 4, Obama mocked claims that Iran would spend its windfall profits of $100b.-$150b.

from the sanctions relief the nuclear deal offered to fund terrorism. Yet, according to the Daily Mail report, to date Iran has spent $100b. on the war in Syria.

The implications of the report are blood curdling.

They mean that despite Obama’s denials, the funds Iran has received as a result of the sanctions relief he brought about through his nuclear deal have paid for Iran’s war in Syria. That war has caused the death of nearly half a million people and forced more than 11 million people to flee their homes.

Obviously, it is important for Americans to know the truth about the Iran deal and its consequences as they consider their votes for Obama’s replacement.

One of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s top candidates for secretary of state is Wendy Sherman.

Sherman was the chief negotiator of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

For Israel, the question of what to do about Iran now is far more urgent than it is for Americans.

Today more and more commentators are voicing concern over the prospect that Obama will support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council as a parting shot at Israel.

But any such resolution will be small potatoes in comparison to the strategic devastation his nuclear deal, which is his main foreign policy legacy, has caused.

The rapidity of Iran’s advance makes clear that there is no justification for waiting to act until Obama has left office. If it doesn’t act soon, Israel is on the fast track to waking up one morning and discovering it has no means of thwarting the threat.

Indeed, with each passing month, its options for action become more and more limited.

After Israel’s security leadership undermined Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to attack Iran’s nuclear installations in 2010 and 2012, Netanyahu settled on a strategy of blocking Obama’s moves to appease Tehran.

That strategy of course failed last summer. Since then, Netanyahu has worked to build an anti-Iranian alliance with the Sunni Arab states. His efforts in this area have clearly met with some measure of success, as witnessed by public statements from prominent Saudis and others.

Whatever that success may be, and whatever the status of that burgeoning alliance of spurned US allies, the fact is that it’s time Israel and its new allies do something more than send signals. Time is a-wasting.

Last spring Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said, “Today the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are more present than ever before.”

Thanks to Obama, he may be right.

It is time for Israel to make him eat his words. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Greatest Achievement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Michigan High School Football Team Shows What It Thinks of National Anthem

When a Michigan high school football team learned that the national anthem would not be played before its Wednesday game, the players took up the challenge.

They sang it themselves.

The Lapeer Lightning freshman team was playing a game against Carman-Ainsworth High School in Flint Township, Mich. Lapeer was told there would be no anthem played before the game.

“Like most schools in the state of Michigan, we choose to play the national anthem prior to the highest level of competition,” Carman-Ainsworth Schools Superintendent Eddie Kindle said, noting that the anthem was to be played before a junior high game later that night. He said that the lack of an anthem was not in any way a form of protest.

When game time rolled around, Lapeer’s freshmen lined up on the sideline, waiting for the anthem to be played.

When they learned it wouldn’t be, they started to sing.

“It’s an incredible feeling. I’ve been with most of these players for three years now. They’re just an awesome group of kids,” Lapeer head coach Bryan Sahr said. “It makes me incredibly emotional and I don’t usually get emotional.”

Sahr said the team was unaware that a formal decision had been made not to play the anthem, which was why the team lined up to hear it. They assumed it was not played due to problems with the sound system.

The coach said the players and fans on the host team’s sideline saluted while his team sang, and then cheered when their rendition was over.

“A lot of teenagers would be embarrassed to do that. I know I don’t like to hear myself sing,” Sahr said.

The school said it was proud of its freshmen.

“We’re just super proud of our guys to overcome that situation and take it upon themselves to sing the national anthem. We couldn’t be prouder,” said Lapeer High School athletic director Shad Spilski.

Lapeer mom Chell Byrnes posted an image of the team on her Facebook page with an explanation of what happened. The post was shared more than 1,700 times and attracted numerous comments.

“I was proud of my great nephew & team for being respectful,” posted Lynn Dunn. “It was the first time ever seeing him play. Kudos to the parents and coaches for installing the pride we should have of our country and the people who serve/served this great nation. … Please share this so that all kids know that it is cool to do the right thing, hard but cool.”

Nicole Driskell Mckenna added, “Maybe Colin Kapernick could learn a few things from our boys!” (For more from the author of “Michigan High School Football Team Shows What It Thinks of National Anthem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Progressives Just Warped the Word ‘Parent.’ Here’s What That Means for You

Last week, New York’s highest court effectively redefined what it means to be a parent. The New York State Court of Appeals determined Tuesday that non-biological, non-adoptive parents can claim custody or visitation rights, marking the unprecedented expansion of the understanding of parenthood.

The Ruling

Tuesday’s ruling overturned a 1991 decision that limited the legal definition of parenthood to biological or adoptive relatives, granting only these two groups the ability to seek custody or visitation rights. In this case, Alison D. v. Virginia M., the petitioner (Alison D.) sought visitation rights to see the son of the respondent (Virginia M.) whom Alison D. had helped raise before the lesbian couple split up. Since the respondent was the only biological “parent,” and the two were not married, it was determined that Alison D. had no standing under the New York Domestic Relations Law to seek visitation.

That all changed this week, when 25 years after Alison D. v. Virginia M., the court ruled in Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A. C.C that non-biological, non-adoptive parents can seek custody or visitation if “a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together.”

“This is a major step forward for same-sex couples and especially for the children of those parents,” said attorney Eric Wrubel, who argued on behalf of the winning appeal. “Tying the definition of parenthood to biology or adoption was no longer viable. This new ruling will help to protect children, regardless of the marital or financial status of their parents.”

Wrubel represented the child in Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A. C.C, who was seeking time with both of his mothers after his lesbian parents split up.

Tuesday’s decision comes five years after the New York State Senate voted to legalize gay marriage, and just more than a year after the nationwide legalization of gay marriage.

“In light of more recently delineated legal principles, the definition of ‘parent’ established by this Court 25 years ago… has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships,” wrote Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam.

The Implications

On the one hand, New York’s decision speaks to society’s acceptance of what some call “spiritual” motherhood or fatherhood — the idea that women and men can demonstrate real maternal or paternal qualities without having a biological connection to the child(ren) under their care. This is why adoption is accepted and even viewed admirably in most American circles.

But there’s a case to be made for why the definition of parenthood should be limited to biology and legal adoption: Parenthood is a monumental responsibility that requires demonstrable dedication to a vulnerable class of human beings. A biological mother who neglects her child is not a parent; nor is a caretaker who has not gone through the legal process of obtaining custody.

Parenthood is a form of stewardship that involves contributing to the formation of another human being. Treating the term “parenthood” as dispensable opens up the potential for ill-fit guardians, such as the state, to usurp a position that up until now has been protected under the law.

Writing for The Federalist last year, author Paul Kengor, who has written a collection of books on communist ideology, outlined several Marxist ideas that have gained popularity and taken form in American policy during the last few years.

In the June 29 piece, Kengor first details portions of “The Origin of the Family,” which scholars consider to be the first joint work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

There, and elsewhere, we see, among other things, a fanatical push to abolish all right of inheritance, to end home and religious education, to dissolve monogamy in marriage, to pursue pre- and extra-marital sex, to foster and “tolerate” (as Engels put it) the “gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse” by unmarried women, to nationalize all housework, to shift mothers into factories, to move children into daycare nurseries, to separate children into community collectives apart from their natural parents, and, most of all, for society and the state to rear and educate children.

As Engels envisioned, “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not.”

Kengor then moves on to the pair’s magnum opus, “The Communist Manifesto,” in which Marx and Engels voice similar goals for what they enthusiastically call the “abolition of the family.” In the work’s famous 10-point plan for bringing about a communist utopia, Kengor notes, one will find that half of these points depend on familial dissolution:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of all property of emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work….

8. … gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools…

More from Kengor:

Overall, stated Marx and Engels, “The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.” Yes, no wonder.

Among those ideas, at the epicenter, was natural, traditional, biblical family and marriage. It had to be targeted. Alas, only now, two centuries later, is it finally being redefined. In perhaps the most radical rapture of all, those pushing the redefinition are not crackpot German atheistic philosophers in European cafes but everyday mainstream Americans … .

Do we really want to redefine parenthood and open up a can of communist worms? Do we want to uproot the foundational social pillar that is the family? Are we ready to cede custody of our children to the state?

We already have. (For more from the author of “Progressives Just Warped the Word ‘Parent.’ Here’s What That Means for You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muslim Refugee Tells Court Raping Little Boys ‘Culturally Appropriate’ in His Homeland

A Muslim refugee on trial in Australia for raping a 10-year-old boy told the judge he did not know it was a wrongful act, as doing such is “culturally appropriate” in his homeland of Myanmar.

The Daily Telegraph reports, via the Daily Mail, that 20-year-old Mufiz Rahaman told Sydney’s Downing Centre Court that sexually assaulting children was not viewed as morally wrong in his country of origin, as he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault.

Rahaman and the boy, also a refugee, are stateless Rohingya Muslims, a religious minority of “people considered illegal immigrants from Bangladesh by the Buddhist-majority in Myanmar—who came to Australia to flee religious persecution,” according to the Daily Mail.

Rahaman attacked the 10-year-old boy while they were living among a community of refugees, including the boy’s father, in the southwest Sydney suburb of Lakemba.

The rapist argued he was completely unaware of his wrongdoings throughout the trial:

Rahaman told the court he had been a victim of sexual abuse as a child before he moved to Australia.

Judge Andrew Scotting said Rahaman failed to understand his actions would ‘physically’ and ‘psychologically damage’ his young victim.

He also said Rahaman, who insisted he thought sexual assault was not seen as morally wrong in his homeland, had not accepted responsibility for his actions and demonstrated a ‘lack of morality’, according to the Daily Telegraph.

‘There is a need for specific deterrence … The offence appears to have been (viewed) as being culturally acceptable conduct in the offender’s childhood,’ Judge Scotting said.

The 20-year-old rapist was sentenced to five years in prison. (For more from the author of “Muslim Refugee Tells Court Raping Little Boys ‘Culturally Appropriate’ in His Homeland” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

McConnell Thinks Were Stupid? Here’s the Lesson He Still Hasn’t Learned

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) is gloating. He and his team believe they have achieved a noble and worthy feat.

“GOP establishment trounces tea party in congressional elections,” a headline in Politico blared yesterday. The Washington Post published an explainer titled “Why Mitch McConnell’s Strategy to Quash the Tea Party is Working.”

Both stories focus on the fact that incumbent Senate Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 77%) and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) staved off primary challenges this cycle. But that’s not notable. What’s notable is that the Senate Majority Leader views success as killing the grassroots—which is exactly the attitude that fueled the fury and fracture within the GOP that ultimately installed Donald Trump as its presidential nominee.

The stories do not talk about how the McConnell and his allied political operatives guided candidates to address voters’ concerns and message a principled, winning agenda. The pieces seek to snuff out reliably conservative fundraising operations such as the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth—groups that are a “shell of their former selves,” if you believe the Washington Post.

The gruel they’re serving up, however, is pretty thin.

For example, the Washington Post piece detailed how McCain was able to fend off his primary challenger by labeling her “Chemtrail Kelli Ward,” tying her to a conspiracy theory about airplane exhaust.

“It wasn’t pretty, but McCain won and Republicans have their best chance at keeping the seat in the red column in November,” the Washington Post story read. “It is a different story at the top of the ticket, and many establishment Republicans look at these Senate races as the petri dish for how to get a more palatable candidate in the next presidential primary.”

(Never mind that McConnell, along with McCain and the rest of the GOP establishment, are openly backing a non-palatable, conspiracy-theory espousing candidate for president. Or that the Club for Growth, which they ridicule, was one of the first conservative organizations to run ads opposing Trump’s candidacy.)

McConnell and his crew want people to believe they’re some kind of grand master strategists because they helped the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee McCain—who possesses an incredible donor network, name ID, and history in his state—beat a weak, loony challenger who wasn’t even supported by SCF and the like.

In other words, they think we’re stupid.

McConnell hasn’t learned his lesson and likely never will. He believes he will ultimately be able to use Trump to tar all future conservative threats. One problem: that involves losing the White House for the third straight presidential election.

McConnell titled his recently-released memoir “The Long Game.” That must be because there’s still no victory in sight.

Republicans have been boxed out of the White House for two terms. While the GOP has been in the wilderness, the only constant leadership figure in Washington has been McConnell, who offers nothing but false victories, embarrassing displays of political expediency, and disdain for the base.

McConnell is arguably the person in Washington most responsible for making Trump the GOP nominee, who is poised to lose to the most disliked and distrusted Democratic presidential candidate in history — potentially dragging down scores of GOP candidates down with him.

Had the party produced any meaningful leadership in Washington, any respected figure that instilled unity within the ranks, or delivered results for conservatives, Trump probably would not have had an opening to launch his candidacy.

Remember, it was McConnell openly loathed the Tea Party’s influence over GOP’s historic 2010 and 2014 midterm wins and infamously told the New York Times he would “crush them everywhere” in the future. And, that’s what he did, save Nebraska where Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%) prevailed against establishment forces to win his seat in 2015. It should be no surprise to anyone that Sen. Sasse is proudly #NeverTrump.

In short, if McConnell wants credit for crushing the Tea Party, he should get credit for the way Trump is crushing the GOP, as well. One is directly related to the other.

McConnell’s reign in Washington has been defined by three things: no leadership, no unity, and no results. Those three things that created the perfect storm for Trump to rise.

That’s certainly not anything to brag about. (For more from the author of “McConnell Thinks Were Stupid? Here’s the Lesson He Still Hasn’t Learned” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dr. Drew Loses Show After Discussing Hillary’s Health

Dr. Drew Pinsky is so afraid of Hillary Clinton and her supporters, he won’t blame them for the cancellation of his show on HLN, the sister channel of CNN . . .

“Dr. Drew” was canceled eight days after Pinsky discussed Clinton’s health on a radio show, saying he was “gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care.”

“CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting Drew,” a source told me. “First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.”

What followed was a series of nasty phone calls and e-mails. “It was downright scary and creepy,” a source close to Pinsky said. (Read more from “Dr. Drew Loses Show After Discussing Hillary’s Health” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

THE FIX WAS IN: Yes, the FBI Found Ample Evidence That Hillary Clinton Violated Federal Records Act

FBI investigators compiled enough evidence during their investigation of Hillary Clinton’s rogue email server to show that the former secretary of state violated federal records-keeping laws.

She was also informed in 2009, her first year in office, that she had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to forward her State Department work emails to the agency’s record preservation system. But, according to the news website Circa, Clinton opted against that option because she wanted control over “sensitive” messages.

Circa’s report comes from former Washington Times veteran reporter John Solomon and is based on unnamed sources familiar with the FBI’s investigation of Clinton. That probe ended in July when the FBI and Justice Department declined to press charges against the Democratic presidential candidate or her aides for their handling of classified information.

But sources told Solomon that there was ample evidence that Clinton violated the Federal Records Act by failing to save her work-related emails to the State Department’s SMART system and by exclusively using a private BlackBerry and email account.

Further, Solomon reports that one witness interviewed by the FBI invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It is unclear who that witness was, but the report describes the individual as a technology-oriented worker.

Bryan Pagliano, the State Department official who Clinton paid under the table to set up and manage her rogue email network, was interviewed by the FBI under limited immunity. He had pleaded the Fifth in an interview with the House Select Committee on Benghazi last year. It’s unclear if he also invoked those rights during his FBI interrogation.

The report contains other new information, which has not been verified by The Daily Caller.

Clinton’s team of handlers was specifically questioned by a tech worker involved in maintaining her private server at her New York residence about whether the system flouted federal rules and regulations. According to Solomon’s source, the worker was told that the system was in compliance.

Clinton also opted to continue using a private email address on her personal BlackBerry because she did not want her emails made available under the Freedom of Information Act. Clinton knew that by using a personal email account, her records would not be accessible to the State Department employees who handled FOIA requests.

That claim, if true, would grossly undermine Clinton’s assertion that she did not use the private email system to flout FOIA. A federal judge has granted the watchdog group Judicial Watch discovery in order to get to the bottom of that issue. The group recently submitted 25 questions to Clinton asking her why and how she set up the private email system.

Despite Clinton’s claims that the system was designed not to avoid FOIA but for personal convenience, several FOIA requests filed for Clinton’s email records while she was in office were denied by the State Department. One of those FOIAs — filed in December 2012 — was handled by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills. Though Mills knew that Clinton used a private email account for State Department business, the FOIA request was denied by the State Department.

The State Department’s inspector general issued a report in January calling the agency’s handling of Clinton FOIAs “inaccurate” and “incomplete.” (RELATED: State Dept. Gave ‘Inaccurate’ Response To Records Requests For Hillary’s Emails)

“There was plenty of evidence from our interviews, especially from technical and compliance staff, as to the intention of creating a private email system outside the State Department’s record keeping. It was well known, and it persisted even after people raised legal and security concerns,” one source told Circa.

Some of the claims in the Circa report may be cleared up soon. The FBI is reportedly ready to release the report it gave to the Justice Department as part of its investigation. The bureau will also reportedly release notes taken during Clinton’s July 2 interview. (For more from the author of “The FIX WAS In: Yes, the FBI Found Ample Evidence That Hillary Clinton Violated Federal Records Act” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.