Advertisement – story continues below

Funny how paperwork that got “lost” in the Obama years keeps popping up in the Trump administration, even if it takes a lawsuit to do it.

In the latest twist involving leftover investigations from the Obama administration, the conservative activist group Judicial Watch announced Friday that the FBI had located 30 pages of “documents” on its investigation of one of the most notorious aspects of the Hillary Clinton email investigation:

The clandestine meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch aboard Lynch’s government plane on June 27, 2016, at an Arizona airport.

Advertisement – story continues below

The FBI’s disclosure came in response to lawsuit Judicial Watch filed over the FBI’s failure to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch submitted in July of last year. That was only days after then FBI Director James Comey announced he was not recommending criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton for using a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

But even under a new president, the FBI has been less than cooperative when it comes to disclosing key parts of its controversial investigation into the Clinton affair. The new documents won’t be disclosed until Nov. 30, according to Judicial Watch.

It wasn’t just the FBI that wanted to downplay the Clinton-Lynch tryst. The Clinton corner of the mainstream media did its best to whitewash the whole affair too. Check out current White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders laying into the media on a recent episode of “The View.”

So why, even under a new adminsitration, is the FBI still holding tight to information about its Clinton investigation? Draining a swamp takes time, especially when the swamp critters keep resisting.

Comey may no longer be with the bureau, but key personnel who participated in the attempted whitewash are no doubt still drawing their fat government salaries and waiting out the time until they can retire with fat government pensions. Slow-walking information disclosure is apparently a habit that dies hard.

In a statement Friday, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, one of the most relentless of critics during the Obama administration, showed he hadn’t lost any fire just because there’s a new commander in chief in the White House.

“The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI ‘found’ these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit,” Fitton said.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the FBI’s document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately.”

While it’s unclear what is actually in the documents, they’re almost certain to shed more light on the Clinton-Lynch meeting, which would have passed in secret if a local television journalist had not been tipped off by a “trusted source.”

Even more importantly, KNXV-TV’s Christopher Sign refused to be intimidated by FBI agents guarding Lynch’s plane.

Obviously, the FBI wanted this supposedly coincidental meeting under wraps. No wonder the bureau couldn’t find the information Judicial Watch was looking for when there was still the likelihood that Hillary Clinton would be president come January 2017.

But Donald Trump is in the White House now and the walls of protection that surrounded the Clintons and their cronies in the Obama administration are going to come down.

Lynch famously claimed after the meeting was public that the two had discussed everyday items like golf and grandchildren.

But few Americans – and certainly no conservative – believed that.

When the full FBI documents are fully released, maybe we’ll all know the truth.

Like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you think it’s time to end the coverup over the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch meeting.

Advertisement – story continues below

One of Barack Obama’s biggest claims to diplomatic success during his eight years in office was just overturned by President Donald Trump.

On Friday, the Trump administration announced that it is decertifying the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which was promoted by then-Secretary of State John Kerry but heavily criticized by conservatives.

According to Fox News, the president’s announcement does not immediately pull the United States out of the deal, but the decertification is one step closer to walking away from what Trump called “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“I am announcing today that we cannot and will not make this certification,” Trump announced in Washington. “We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakthrough.”

In simple terms, decertifying the deal means that the United States does not officially believe that Iran is upholding its end of the bargain.

(This isn’t the first time President Trump has stood up to Iran. Watch the video below of Trump utterly roasting Iran’s leaders before the UN in September.)

“Under a law passed in 2015 to give Congress oversight of the nuclear deal, the president must tell Congress every 90 days if Iran is complying. If the president doesn’t, that triggers a 60-day process for lawmakers to weigh whether to reimpose sanctions under expedited consideration,” The Wall Street Journal explained.

The president’s announcement means that it’s now up to the Republican-controlled Congress to decide what happens next. Lawmakers can try to make adjustments to the U.S.-Iran agreement negotiated during Obama’s time in office, but there is a good chance the arrangement would end completely.

“In the event we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies, the agreement will be terminated,” Trump explained. “It is under continuous review and our participation can be canceled by me as president at any time.”

During the same announcement, Trump revealed that he would be using financial sanctions to pressure Iran’s Revolutionary Guard — a group that he called a “terror force.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“Execution of our strategy begins with a long overdue step of imposing tough sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” Trump said. “The revolutionary guard is the Iranian supreme leader’s corrupt personal terror force and militia.”

The Obama-era deal with Iran lifted many sanctions against the Islamic country, provided that the Persian nation reeled in its nuclear ambitions. Iran’s leaders have insisted that they’re only interested in nuclear technology for energy production, while more realistic observers believe it is eager to obtain nuclear weapons.

Critics have compared the Iran deal to a previous U.S.-North Korea agreement that was signed by President Clinton during the 1990s. That earlier deal most likely paved the way to Kim Jong Un’s current stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the dramatic problems now taking place on the Korean Peninsula.

The current situation in Asia proves that taking radical regimes at their word is a losing proposition. The current nightmare of a nuclear-armed North Korea could have been prevented if the United States had acted sooner… and now President Trump has a chance to learn from that Democrat mistake and do things properly in Iran.

We do not need Iran threatening its neighbors, Israel, and the world with nuclear weapons. Under the naive agreement laid out by Kerry and signed by Obama, that scenario could have been just around the corner.

Instead, it’s time to act like a global leader and stand up to regimes like Iran. President Trump made the right call… and the American people are more secure as a result.

Please press “Share on Facebook” if you think handing Iran the keys to a nuclear program was the wrong path!

Advertisement – story continues below

An autopsy on Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock has revealed no physical abnormalities with his brain, according to the U.K. Daily Mail, discounting the possibility of a tumor or other physiological aberrance as a motivating factor behind his attack.

The findings were announced on Tuesday, along with other discoveries that seemed to discount earlier reports concerning Paddock’s mental state.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo told a news conference that contrary to previous accounts, Paddock’s girlfriend Marilou Danley had no concerns about his mental health.

Advertisement – story continues below

Lombardo also said that investigators had scoured Paddock’s family tree and his ex-wives for evidence on his mental state. While Lombardo said it gave investigators insight into his upbringing, it got them no closer to a motive or evidence of mental illness. Likewise, in spite of Paddock’s heavy gambling, he had no heavy debts.

“We may never know” what caused Paddock to do it, Lombardo said. “All those things that you would expect to find, we have not found.”

So with no documentation of previous mental illness, no physical neurological problems to pin Paddock’s evil action on, and no proven external motivation so far (such as a covert conversion to radical Islam), the most obvious conclusion that remains the one that liberals in the United States cannot permit themselves to admit:

Advertisement – story continues below

That the hedonistic lifestyle glorified by the liberal elites of Hollywood and the mainstream media is the likely biggest driving factor behind Paddock’s mass murder.

One clue in particular that seems to stick out as to the manner of the man is a report from a Vegas prostitute reportedly patronized by Paddock. In an interview with the U.K. Sun, she described heavy drinking and violent sex on Paddock’s part. She also showed a text message he allegedly wrote in which he seemed to identify with his father, a notorious bank robber who once escaped from prison.

“I didn’t have anything really to do with him but the bad streak is in my blood. I was born bad,” Paddock said in the message.

The left loves to downplay environment-based mental health conditions and moral turpitude as motivating factors behind mass shootings. The focus, instead, always goes to political motives (if they’re of the extreme right-wing variety) or the weapons used by the shooter (pretty much every case, regardless of politics).

Advertisement – story continues below

Yet, everything we’ve learned about Stephen Paddock so far indicates that it was a combination of factors — namely, poor upbringing and a lifestyle that reflected and exacerbated that. It’s clear from reports that he drank and gambled to profound excess and engaged in coital relations of the most sordid sort — with women paid exorbitant amounts of money to tolerate his depravity.

That’s not terribly indicative of a man with a strong — or any — moral anchor.

We are, of course, going on media reports, but these facts seem to be relatively well-established. Even if there was some genus or species of mental illness involved here, investigators don’t seem to believe at present that it was the sole motivating factor. So, what are we left with? A dissolute man who indulged in a sea of vice in a postmodern society where vice is no longer considered immoral.

That’s not a motive, mind you — merely a diagnosis of the culture that produced Stephen Paddock. But pointing it out, and noting its deleterious effect, is the left’s worst nightmare.

Let’s assume that, at the end of what will no doubt be a protracted investigation into the motives of this murderous degenerate, that we are still no closer to determining a motive. Let’s say we cannot definitively determine why, on one October night, Stephen Paddock took position inside the perch of an absurdly expensive hotel suite on the 32nd floor of a garish casino, aimed at tens of thousands of innocent concertgoers, began firing indiscriminately, and ended up snuffing out 58 innocent lives.

Will we then look at this man’s lifestyle? Will we look at the drinking, the gambling, the prostitutes, the glorification of an absent father who robbed banks at gunpoint, the seeming lack of any moral core? The predictable result of the society the left glorifies?

Or will we just look at the guns that he owned?

I hope it will be the former. I will admit to not holding very much hope.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts

A poll released October 11 shows that voters remain more supportive of gun rights versus gun control in the wake of the Las Vegas attack.

The poll, conducted by Politico/Morning Consult, found that 47 percent of voters supported gun rights versus 42 percent who supported gun control.

Politico reported the findings, which also showed that voters who supported Trump stand for gun rights over gun control by a margin of 48 percent to 46 percent.

This is not to say gun control is without its supporters, but Politico reports that support for “limiting gun ownership” is largely driven by Democrat voters. For example, 63 percent of Democrat voters support limiting gun ownership while only 25 percent believe protecting gun rights is more important. Republicans are just the the opposite with “70 percent [saying] it’s more important to protect gun rights, compared with 23 percent who say limiting gun ownership is more important.”

Support for gun control was also strongest among voters who do not have a gun their household. Twenty-seven percent of those without guns in their homes support gun rights over gun control while 66 percent of voters “with at least one gun in the household think it’s more important to protect gun rights.”

Despite these divides, Democrat support for gun control resulted in majority support for expanding background checks to private sales and banning gun purchases by persons on terror watch lists, even through the Vegas attacker passed background checks for his guns and was not on a terror watch list. Moreover, the poll found majority support for gun storage laws, a gun registry, and a three-day waiting waiting period for gun purchases. However, gun storage was not an issue in the Vegas attack and other attackers—like the Orlando Pulse attacker—actually passed a three-day waiting period for firearms. Empirical evidence proves that a firearm registry only leads to confiscation, just look at California for proof.

Other gun controls garnered support as well, proving once again the genius of our Founding Fathers in using the Second Amendment to shield gun rights from the tyranny of subjecting natural rights to a majority vote.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.