A group of prominent Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) are rushing to endorse Hillary Clinton for President.

TIME reported on August 3, 2016 in a story titled “Here are 7 Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump,” the following:

During a week that has found Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump deeper embroiled in controversy, more disaffected Republicans have begun to voice their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Any Republican who is going to vote for Hillary Clinton is a RINO. Let’s make sure after these RINOs leave, they are not allowed back in the Republican Party.

Although Hillary will ruin the Supreme Court, take away Second Amendment rights and provide a de facto third term of President Barack Obama, these RINOs don’t care.

For Republicans who feel they can’t vote for Donald Trump, they can vote for Libertarian-lite candidate Gary Johnson or write somebody in, but don’t, under any circumstances vote for lyin’, corrupt Hillary this fall.

There are three different species of RINO that have decided to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton for president.

1. The Squishes

The squishes are the biggest species of the Republican politicos who are endorsing and proudly supporting a woman who lied to the families of the fallen in Benghazi and repeatedly lied on Fox News this past weekend about her email scandal.

Former advisor to Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) campaign for president in 2008 and Republican nominee for governor in 2010, Meg Whitman took to Facebook recently writing, “it is clear to me that Secretary Clinton’s temperament, global experience and commitment to America’s bedrock national values make her the far better choice in 2016 for President of the United States.” If there was any doubt, Meg Whitman confirmed that she is a member of the liberal elite sect within the GOP after writing that Hillary represents “America’s bedrock national values.”

Another person that falls into the squish category was former President George W. Bush Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. Remember him? He was the guy who crafted the Wall Street Bailout in 2008 that saved jobs … on Wall Street … and caused politicians like Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 53%) to make bizarre statements like “Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles, but I’m gonna vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.” Paulson wrote in the Washington Post, “I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world.” Hank-Bailout-Paulson supports Hillary – should we really be surprised?

2. The Haters

This group includes angry, arrogant pundits like Mark Salter, former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain, who helped craft the 2008 failed campaign strategy that ushered in four years of President Obama.

Salter, a known hater of conservatives, wrote in Real Clear Politics that “whatever Hillary Clinton’s faults, she’s not ignorant or hateful or a nut. She acts like an adult, and understands the responsibilities of an American president.” Salter is motivated by pure hate and on separate occasions, has attacked strong conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Sen. Rand Paul. R-Ky. (A, 92%). It is a good bet that if you are a conservative or have every ridiculed John McCain in any way, Mark Salter hates you.

Bill Kristol was a long-time advocate for an independent candidate to run against Mr. Trump. However, he failed to recruit one and Kristol refused to man up and run himself. Although Kristol has yet to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton, I do believe that he will wait right up until the days before the election before to throw his hat into the ring.

3. The Nation-Builders

These are the so-called “national security conservatives” derisively referred to as “neo-cons.” All they care about is an expansionist foreign policy that will result in American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq forever. These individuals are only Republicans because they have allied themselves with the party most likely to invade another country. That used to be Republicans but might be the Democrats under the Iraq and Libyan War supporting Hillary Clinton. The nation-builders and interventionists are willing to shift support to any candidate who will espouse a reckless foreign policy that ignores the consequences of endless wars.

Politico reported on June 16, 2016, that one former Bush Administration official is on board with Hillary:

Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, says he will vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, in one of the most dramatic signs yet that Republican national security elites are rejecting their party’s presumptive nominee. Armitage, a retired Navy officer who also served as an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is thought by Clinton aides to be the highest-ranking former GOP national security official to openly support Clinton over Trump.

Armitage is well known for exposing the identity of Valerie Plame, former Intelligence officer, because Plames’ husband questioned the justification for the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq.

Brent Scowcroft who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford also endorsed Hillary. He was quoted in Politico saying that, “Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader. She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage.”

These were merely the first herd (or is it crash) of RINOs to charge towards Hillary for President. There will be more. They will not be missed. (For more from the author of “Rinos for Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After officially becoming the Democratic Party nominee for president, Hillary Clinton made a rare media appearance, going on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace for an exclusive post-Democratic National Convention interview. During the interview, Clinton made some comments about her email server that raised eyebrows and inspired a Washington Post fact-check.

As the topic of Hillary Clinton’s email server came up in the interview, Wallace played video of Clinton saying “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials. I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”

At the four minute mark in the interview, Clinton responds to that video by telling Chris Wallace that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

The problem is that isn’t what Director Comey said. In his statement on the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email server, Director Comey described Hillary Clinton’s and her colleague’s actions as “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Additionally, Comey revealed that “seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

The Washington Post awarded Clinton’s claim FOUR Pinocchios, indicating Clinton egregiously contorted the facts to her favor.

Hillary Clinton’s decision to appear on Fox News comes after a very patriotic Democratic Convention in which American flag-waving delegates shouted down anti-war protesters with chants of “USA!” and the Democrats paraded military officials on stage to sing Clinton’s praises and denounce the Republican nominee.

Some believe that Clinton is making a play for national-security-first Republicans who are uncomfortable with Donald Trump as commander-in-chief. Appearing on Fox News immediately after the DNC could be read as an overture to some of those voters.

But should Sec. Clinton intend to win those voters over, perhaps it would be best for her not to lie about that time she endangered national security by holding classified information on a private email server in violation of State Department protocol and federal law. (For more from the author of “Another 4 Pinocchio Lie for Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Now that Hillary’s considerable edges have gone through an awkward and hilarious softening procedure via last week’s DNC account of Bill Clinton romancing her, it’s time to come back to reality.

Because Hillary’s edges aren’t just ordinary edges. They have sharks with lasers on their heads. And no one should ever forget that, no matter how clumsy and decadent the Trump cult is on the other side of the political ledger.

She is a ruthless liar and moral reprobate. As has been demonstrated over and over again across roughly two and a half decades in the national spotlight as first lady, senator, secretary of state or presidential candidate. But her Faustian nine lives keep her unapologetic in the extreme and incomprehensibly on target to achieve her life-long dream: to rule us all.

Hillary embodies the very worst in what a lifelong politician becomes over time as their soul goes the way of the dodo. Yet try as Trump supporters might to convince us otherwise, their false god is temperamentally, ethically, philosophically and demographically incapable of saving us from her looming tyranny.

This is well documented by now, both by myself and many others. Trump has been an avid supporter of Hillary over the years, in both deed and dollar. And he wasn’t doing that as a businessman who needed to grease the palm of a politician to get a development approved, because she was never in local power as far as he was concerned. No, Trump supported her because he admired her, so we must look elsewhere to render justice in the case of Hillary Clinton vs the world.

In that vein, might I suggest following in the footsteps of Elliot Ness and William Wilberforce. Whereas Ness finally got Al Capone on tax evasion, not thuggery, and Wilberforce ultimately kneecapped the slave trade in Great Britain through legislative sleight of hand, perhaps the place to attack Hillary at the moment is in a place long forgotten – her legal career.

More to the point: Hillary, like her husband before her, should be disbarred. FBI Director James Comey’s statements before Congress proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hillary not only lied, but jeopardized national security, and mishandled classified material. At a minimum, that means Hillary has committed acts of professional misconduct that should be taken up by the state of Arkansas.

According to the code of ethics for the American Bar Association, which happens to coincide with the dictates of Arkansas’ rules for professional conduct, Hillary is guilty of failing to ‘maintain the integrity of her profession’ as outlined in rule 8.4.

She has engaged in conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Furthermore, “although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.”

And finally, “lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers.”

With this ammunition in hand, the next logical step would be to obtain an official statement from the congressional oversight committee or the Benghazi committee officially accusing Hillary of committing perjury. If they were to then join a similar complaint in Arkansas — as the judge in the Paula Jones case did for Bill Clinton’s disbarment in 2001 — it would be a far more effective path toward seeking quick and perhaps consequential justice for Hillary than going down the road of filing criminal perjury charges.

Hillary is immune to such things at the federal level as long as Obama’s departments of injustice and statism are calling the shots, and does anyone really believe the IRS that targeted conservatives is going to truly “investigate” – wink, wink — the Clinton Foundation’s “pay for play” con? But perhaps Hillary’s Achilles Heel lies elsewhere. It is no defense to say that she has not practiced law for a long time. She is still a licensed attorney who has been voluntarily suspended for failure to keep up with continuing legal education requirements, which exactly describes Bill Clinton’s circumstances when he was disbarred for his own assault on the truth.

And if the truth still matters – as it always does – justice must be rendered without thought of compromise to absurd binary presidential categories such as the ones confronting us in 2016. I stand against Hillary and Trump simultaneously, and my conscience will allow me to do nothing less.

For we are now dealing with the roulette of such a binary choice because we have become drunk on scam compromises to the point of farce. We bend and we twist and we contort the truth until those noble souls who would still fight for it are almost unrecognizable to us. And we actually prefer to be ruled by conmen, crime syndicates and craven usurpers of our Judeo-Christian and Constitutional underpinnings as a free people.

Maybe, just maybe, some folks in Arkansas still have something to say about that. It is no secret to any honest person, be they Republican or Democrat, that her respect for the rule of law is dead man walking. But making it official by taking away her right to practice law – just as she prepares to assume the highest office in the land – would be an important shot across the bow.

If Hillary doesn’t even belong as a legitimate officer in a courtroom any longer, why on earth should she be allowed to move back into the White House as president?

And while our broken country has perhaps moved beyond caring about or recognizing such fundamentals, might I suggest to you that is all the more reason to fight like heaven in order to breathe life back into them once again. (For more from the author of “Liar, Liar Pantsuit on Fire: It’s Time to Disbar Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.