Gowdy counters Clinton claim she 'never had a subpoena,' reveals document

House Republicans investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya on Wednesday released a March subpoena issued to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, one day after she said in a nationally televised interview that she "never had a subpoena" in the email controversy. 
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Benghazi panel, said he had "no choice" but to make the subpoena public "in order to correct the inaccuracy" of Clinton's claim. 
Clinton told CNN on Monday that she "never had a subpoena," adding: "Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation." 
Gowdy said the committee issued the March 4 subpoena to Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her use of private emails while serving as secretary of state. 
Regardless of whether a subpoena was issued, "Secretary Clinton had a statutory duty to preserve records from her entire time in office, and she had a legal duty to cooperate with and tell the truth to congressional investigators requesting her records going back to September of 2012," Gowdy said in a statement. 
The dispute over the subpoena is the latest flashpoint in an increasingly partisan investigation by the House panel, which was created to probe the September 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. 
Gowdy and other Republicans have complained that Clinton and the State Department have not been forthcoming with release of her emails and note that the State Department has said it cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Clinton's private server. 
The emails all predate the assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility and consist mainly of would-be intelligence reports passed to Clinton by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, officials said. 
Gowdy has said the missing emails raise "serious questions" about Clinton's decision to erase her personal server, especially before it could be analyzed by an independent third-party arbiter. 
A Clinton campaign spokesman has said she turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department, "including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal."

South Carolina House approves removal of Confederate flag

Just The Beginning.

BREAKING NEWS –  The South Carolina House approved taking down the Confederate flag from Capitol grounds early Thursday, a stunning reversal in a state that was the first to leave the Union in 1860 and raised the flag again at its Statehouse more than 50 years ago to protest the civil rights movement.
The move came after more than 13 hours of contentious debate, weeks after the deadly shootings of nine black church members, including a state senator, at a Bible study in Charleston. The House approved the Senate bill 93-27, and still has one more vote than appeared to be perfunctory since they had met two-thirds approval.
It is possible the flag could come down Thursday or Friday, but the exact timing is unknown.
The bill is set to go to Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who supports it.
“Today, as the Senate did before them, the House of Representatives has served the state of South Carolina and her people with great dignity,” Haley said in a statement early Thursday. “I’m grateful for their service and their compassion. It is a new day in South Carolina, a day were can all be proud of, a day that truly brings us all together as we continue to heal, as one people and one state.”
A group of Republicans mounted an opposition Wednesday to immediately removing the flag from the Capitol grounds, but at each turn, they were beaten back by a slightly larger, bipartisan group of legislators who believe there must be no delay.
As House members deliberated into the night, there were tears of anger and shared memories of Civil War ancestors. Black Democrats, frustrated at being asked to show grace to Civil War soldiers as the debate crept into the 12^th hour, warned the state was embarrassing itself.
The closest vote in the GOP-controlled body came on an amendment to place the state flat beside the monument to Confederate soldiers at the front of the Statehouse.
Changing the Senate bill could have meant weeks or even months to remove the flag, perhaps blunting the momentum that has grown since the church massacre.
Republican Rep. Jenny Horne scolded fellow members of her party for stalling the debate with dozens of amendments as she reminded them she was a distant relative of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
She cried as she remembered the funeral of her slain colleague state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, the pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church, who was gunned down as his wife and daughter locked themselves in an office.
"For the widow of Sen. Pinckney and his two young daughters, that would be adding insult to injury and I will not be a part of it!" she screamed into a microphone.
Horne said she didn’t intend to speak but got frustrated with fellow Republicans.
Opponents of removing the flag talked about grandparents who passed down family treasures and lamented that the flag had been “hijacked” or “abducted” by racists.
Rep. Mike Pitts, who remembered playing with a Confederate ancestor’s cavalry sword while growing up, said for him the flag is a reminder of how dirt-poor Southern families fought Yankees not because they hated blacks or supported slavery, but because their lands was being invaded.
Pitts said those soldiers should be respected just as soldiers who fought in the Middle East or Afghanistan. Pitts then turned to a lawmaker he called a dear friend, recalling how his black colleague nearly died in Vietnam.
"I'm willing to move that flag at some point if it causes a twinge in the hearts of my friends," Pitts said. "But I'll ask for something in return."
The debate began less than one day after the U.S. House voted to ban the display of Confederate flags at historic federal cemeteries in the Deep South.
House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford said Democrats were united behind the Senate bill, which would send the flag to the state's Confederate Relic Room — near the resting place for the final rebel flag that flew over the Statehouse dome until it was taken down in 2000.
Democrats didn't want any new flag going up because it "will be the new vestige of racism," Rutherford said.
After the break around 8 p.m., Rutherford said Democrats were willing to let the other side make their points, but had grown tired. He said while much had been said about ancestors of the Confederacy, “what we haven’t heard is talk about nine people slaughtered in a church.”
"The whole world is asking, is South Carolina really going to change, or will it hold to an ugly tradition of prejudice and discrimination and hide behind heritage as an excuse for it," Neal said.
Other Democrats suggested any delay would let Ku Klux Klan members planning a rally July 18 a chance to dance around the Confederate flag.
"You don't have to listen to me. But there are a whole lot of people outside this chamber watching," Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter said.
Under the Senate proposal, the Confederate flag would have to come down within 24 hours of the governor signing the bill.
In Washington, the vote by the U.S. House followed a brief debate on a measure funding the National Park Service, which maintains 14 national cemeteries, most of which contain graves of Civil War soldiers.
The proposal by California Democrat Jared Huffman would block the Park Service from allowing private groups to decorate the graves of Southern soldiers with Confederate flags in states that commemorate Confederate Memorial Day. The cemeteries affected are the Andersonville and Vicksburg cemeteries in Georgia and Mississippi.
Also Wednesday, state police said they were investigating an unspecified number of threats against South Carolina lawmakers debating the flag. Police Chief Mark Keel said lawmakers on both sides of the issue had been threatened, but he did not specify which ones.

Sanctuary City Cartoon

Negotiators again extend deadline in Iran nuclear talks

International negotiators have extended their deadline once again as they struggle to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. 
Negotiators had been running up against a Tuesday deadline, after initially extending a June 30 deadline amid lingering differences. On Tuesday morning, the State Department said the new deadline is now Friday, as talks continue. 
"We've made substantial progress in every area, but this work is highly technical and high stakes for all of the countries involved," State Department official Marie Harf said in a statement. "We're frankly more concerned about the quality of the deal than we are about the clock, though we also know that difficult decisions won't get any easier with time -- that is why we are continuing to negotiate." 
She said they're taking the talks "day to day" in pursuit of a comprehensive agreement, and Secretary of State John Kerry will remain in Vienna for discussions. 
"To allow for the additional time to negotiate, we are taking the necessary technical steps for the measures of the Joint [Plan] of Action to remain in place through July 10," Harf said, referring to a prior interim agreement. 
The extension raises questions about whether world powers can resolve their differences and strike a deal to cut off Iranian pathways to a bomb. President Obama earlier warned that the U.S. could walk away if they're in danger of seeing a bad deal. 

More on this...

• Kerry says Iran deal could go 'either way' as deadline nears

Republican lawmakers have long warned that's the direction talks are heading. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recently urged all sides to hit pause on the discussions and reassess their goals. 
The extension of talks poses a potential complication for Kerry and his team. Under congressional legislation passed earlier this year, if a deal is submitted after July 9, Congress can claim 60 days to review and vote on the agreement. If a deal is submitted before then, the time frame is only 30 days. 
Missing that deadline could leave any deal in limbo until September, while Congress reviews it. 
It was becoming evident by early Tuesday that talks would press on. Fox News learned that the hotel rooms arranged for the reporters in Vienna with Kerry had been extended through Saturday, July 11. 
Meanwhile, Iran threw another wrinkle into the mix on Monday by pushing for an end to the U.N. arms embargo on the country -- a parallel deal that the United States opposes as it seeks to limit Tehran's Mideast power and influence. 
Lifting the arms embargo would be separate from a long-term accord that foresees limits on Iran's nuclear programs in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic. But Iran also sees existing U.N. resolutions affecting Iran's nuclear program and the accompanying sanctions as unjust and illegal. It has insisted that those resolutions be lifted since the start of international negotiations nearly a decade ago to limit its nuclear-arms making capability. 
After world powers and Iran reached a framework pact in April, the U.S. said "important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles" would be incorporated in any new U.N. guidelines for Iran. It also said "a new U.N. Security Council resolution ... will endorse" any deal. 
Russia and China have expressed support for lifting the embargo, which was imposed in 2007 as part of a series of penalties over Iran's nuclear program. 
But the U.S. doesn't want the arms ban ended because it could allow Tehran to expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's embattled government, for the Houthi rebels in Yemen and for Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also would increase already strong opposition to the deal in Congress and in Israel. 
Over the weekend, diplomats reported tentative agreement on the speed and scope of sanctions relief for Iran in the potential nuclear accord, even as issues such as inspection guidelines and limits on Iran's nuclear research and development remained contentious.

Fraud crackdown sends illegal immigrant licenses plummeting in NM

Gov. Susana Martinez

A crackdown on document fraud has sent the number of driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens in New Mexico plunging by 70 percent, while revealing that the state likely issued tens of thousands of bogus licenses after becoming the first state to adopt the controversial policy a dozen years ago.
Last year, New Mexico issued 4,577 licenses to foreign nationals, down sharply from the 2010 high of about 15,000. Officials in the administration of Gov. Susana Martinez, who opposes the policy but has been unable to get it repealed, say the huge drop came as soon as new procedures were implemented to identify fraudulent documents that had been submitted to obtain licenses.
“While this is encouraging news, Gov. Martinez still sides with an overwhelming majority of New Mexicans who believe we must repeal the dangerous law of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, which has turned our state into a magnet for criminal activity,” said Mike Lonergan, spokesman for the governor.

“These people enter the country illegally then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies.”
- Bill Rehm, New Mexico state lawmaker

New Mexico became the first of 10 states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2003, under then-Gov. Bill Richardson, who claimed it would cut down on uninsured drivers in the state. But while the policy's effect on public safety has been inconclusive, critics say it launched a cottage industry for criminals to sell fraudulent documents.
Last year, federal officials broke up a five-year operation -- which extended from New Mexico to New York -- that saw illegal immigrants from Georgia paying as much as $2,000 to obtain documents to secure a New Mexico driver’s license.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

A high-profile case in 2012 saw five Albuquerque residents federally indicted in a multi-state license distribution scheme. Federal investigators said 30 people from five states were involved in the ring that provided false documents to illegal immigrants who had resided in South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia to fraudulently obtain 164 New Mexico driver's licenses.
"New Mexico's driver's license policy has once again attracted criminal elements to our state in pursuit of a government-issued identification card," Martinez said at the time. "Our current system jeopardizes the safety and security of all New Mexicans and it is abundantly clear that the only way to solve this problem is to repeal the law that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."
Although it is impossible to say how many licenses were issued fraudulently, Republican State Rep. Bill Rehm, a retired county sheriff's officer, said more than 100,000 driver’s licenses have been issued to illegal immigrants, but only about 17,000 have filed a state income tax.
“These people enter the country illegally, then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies,” Rehm said. “We sparked a whole criminal industry by allowing this.”
Rehm is among a large number of opponents who have been unable to get the law repealed, despite Martinez's support. The critics say the policy has penalized legal residents of the state, because of a 2005  federal law aimed at preventing terrorists from getting fraudulent IDs. Because the federal REAL ID Act sets forth standards stricter than New Mexico's for federal recognition of identification documents, the Department of Homeland Security will not recognize licenses from states including New Mexico as ID for getting on a plane or entering federal buildings, for example.
“Because of this policy of giving licenses to illegal immigrants we continue to be non-compliant with the federal guidelines,” Rehm said.
Vivian Juarez, director of the Mexican Consulate in Albuquerque, declined to comment on the drop in licenses issued to Mexican nationals in New Mexico.

Oklahoma gov to keep Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds, report says

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said Tuesday the Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol will stay there despite the state's Supreme Court ruling it violated the Constitution and must be removed.
The Tulsa World reports Fallin and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reconsider the 7-2 decision that was handed down last week after a challenge from the ACLU of Oklahoma on behalf of three plaintiffs.
Lawmakers have also filed legislation to let people vote on whether to remove a portion of the state Constitution cited in the ruling; Article II, Section 5.
It reads: "No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such."
The state said last week the Ten Commandments are "obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths." The state Constitution bans using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose. The monument was privately funded by Republican Rep. Mike Ritze.
“Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions,” Fallin said. “However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government.”
Fallin cited a petition to rehear the case and legislation seeking to let people vote on amending the constitution in her argument to let the monument stay on Capitol grounds, according to the newspaper. 
Last week, Pruitt argued the monument was historical in nature and nearly identical to a Texas monument that was found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Oklahoma justices said the local monument violated the state's constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.
"Quite simply, the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong," Pruitt said in a statement. "The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law."
Ryan Kiesel, ACLU of Oklahoma executive director said Fallin is charged with enforcing the law, not predicting the "hypothetical future" of it. He also told the Tulsa World he wouldn't be surprised if Fallin denies a court order.
“Frankly, I would be astonished if we get to a point where the governor outright defies an order of our state’s highest court,” Kiesel said. “That said, if she does, there is a word for it. It is called contempt.”
As a result of the court ruling, some lawmakers have called for the impeachment of the justices who voted for it.
Several other religious orders have tried to erect religious monuments on Capitol grounds since the Ten Commandments was placed in 2012. Among them is a group that wants to erect a 7-foot-tall statue that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard. A Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group, and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also have made requests.

Shooting renews scrutiny on 'sanctuary'-backing San Francisco sheriff

The murder of a young woman in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant has brought renewed scrutiny on the sheriff who released the defendant before the attack and has ardently backed policies making the city a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in March handed over defendant Francisco Sanchez on a drug-related warrant to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.
However, the department released him several weeks later, after the charges were dropped, following a policy of not complying with federal requests to detain illegal immigrants for deportation.
"My long-held belief is that local law enforcement should not be in the civil immigration detainer business," San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said last year, after the policy was adopted.
Mirkarimi, a Democrat and former Green Party member, has argued since Sanchez allegedly shot to death 32-year-old Kate Steinle on July 1 that federal authorities should have issued a warrant or court order to hold Sanchez, who has seven prior convictions and has already been deported five times. 
But this claim has been met with skepticism, given the circumstances. “He should have honored the immigration hold,” immigration lawyer Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Tuesday. 
Mirkarimi, elected in 2011, is up for re-election in November. Now, Steinle’s death, coupled with personal and departmental missteps, pose potential problems. 
In 2012, the sheriff was suspended from office after being charged with domestic violence battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness in connection with an altercation with his wife.
He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of false imprisonment and was reinstated about seven months later, after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors failed to get enough votes to remove him from office.
Still, Mirkarimi, a former board member, was sentenced to three years of probation and had to stay away from his wife for seven months.
A two-week-long, sheriff department-led search in 2013 to find a missing hospital patient also came under criticism, despite Mirkarimi’s apologies for the slow response. The female patient’s body was eventually found inside the hospital by an employee.
Mirkarimi, meanwhile, has actively defended so-called "sanctuary city" policies that San Francisco and dozens of other cities and counties across the country follow -- they essentially limit local authorities in assisting federal officials on immigration and deportation cases.
San Francisco sheriff's deputies who opposed the policies reportedly were secretly helping federal authorities get illegal immigrants off the streets, until March when Mirkarimi issued a directive stating only he could turn them over to ICE.
“Being able to say, ‘I’ll call ICE for this guy, but not call ICE for that guy or that woman or not that woman,’ that doesn’t make any sense,” Mirkarimi told a local CBS radio station on Monday, in defending his policy.
Mirkarimi has tried to push some of the blame on the feds in the aftermath of the killing on a popular city pier. 
“If ICE does not provide the proper legal instrument, they are jeopardizing also the city’s ability to detain somebody against their will,” he said. “We need ICE to step up. … ICE knew that he had been deported five times.You would have thought [Sanchez] met a threshold that he required a court order or a warrant. They did not do that."
ICE, though, said it issues nearly 200,000 detainers a year and that getting a warrant for each one is impossible because the judicial system would collapse under that kind of volume.
As a board supervisor from 2005 to 2011, Mirkarimi also proposed legislation to make San Francisco the first city in the country to sell marijuana. And he introduced legislation that ultimately made the city the first in the country to prohibit large supermarkets and drug stores from providing customers with non-biodegradable plastic bags.

Supreme Court Cartoon