Thursday, July 9, 2015

Benghazi Panel Chair: Clinton Was Issued Subpoena

Image: Benghazi Panel Chair: Clinton Was Issued Subpoena
(Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Republican lawmakers investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, released a subpoena Wednesday issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refuting her claims that she was never subpoenaed.

Clinton used a private email address and a home-based server during her time at the State Department (2009-2013), and investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are trying to piece together what Clinton knew at the time of the attacks.

During an interview with CNN this week, Clinton said everything she did was "permitted," including deleting thousands of emails without turning them over to the government.
"I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me," Clinton said. "Because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it's kind of fun, people get a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about."
On Wednesday, the Select Committee on Benghazi released a copy of one subpoena  sent to Clinton in March asking for all documents and records related to Libya from emails she sent in 2011 and 2012.

"The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public," committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said in an emailed statement.
"I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy. The committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.





KANSAS GOV. BROWNBACK ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CLERGY ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OBJECTIONS

Gov. Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas is acting to protect clergy and religious organizations from punishment for refusing to recognize or provide services for same-sex marriages.

He’s issued an executive order, titled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” that states:
[T]he protection of religious liberty from government infringement is a constitutional and fundamental state interest, and government is obligated to take measures that advance this interest by preventing government interference with religious exercise in a way that complements the protections mandated by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution…
The order, which also complements protections offered in the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, prohibits the state from taking any discriminatory action against “individual clergy or religious leader,” or any “religious organization” that objects to a marriage that conflicts with its religious beliefs or moral conviction that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
“We have a duty to govern and to govern in accordance with the Constitution as it has been determined by the Supreme Court decision,” said Brownback in a statement. “We also recognize that religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as Kansans and Americans, and should be protected.”
“The Kansas Bill of Rights affirms the right to worship according to ‘dictates of conscience’ and further protects against any infringement of that right,” he added. “Today’s Executive Order protects Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”
“While we disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court, it is important that all Kansans be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve,” the governor said.
According to the Washington Post, militant LGBT groups have condemned Brownback’s executive order.
“Having nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with enabling discrimination, this executive order is divisive, unnecessary, and sends the wrong message,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign.
She reportedly referred to the idea that clergy could be forced to participate in same-sex marriages as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized them nationwide as false rumors.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), however, announced in an op-ed in the WaPothat it “can no longer support” the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because “it is now often used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people…”
“Religious liberty doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on others,” wrote Louise Melling of the ACLU.
Melling views situations in which those who invoke the federal RFRA to protect their free exercise of faith as “abuses” if it means same-sex marriage and abortion are not accepted.

[OPINION] The Real Student-Debt Crisis

"If you’re reading this, 'college' may connote a very expensive, four-year residential institution where one comes of age, acquires what one hopes will become an impressive lifelong credential and a network of useful friends, and learns at least something of the liberal arts," Nicholas Lemann writes in an opinion piece for The New Yorker.
"Because élites have a thumb on the scale of public discourse, discussions of student debt too often assume that it’s acquired at private liberal-arts institutions. In fact, the main drivers of student debt—which has recently risen to the attention-getting sum of a trillion dollars—are the rapid growth of for-profit, mostly online education institutions, where ninety per cent of students take on debt, completion rates are low, and default rates are high; substantial cuts by state legislatures in their support for public universities; and the stubborn fact that, for most people, going to college continues to pay off economically, effectively doubling lifetime earnings. ...
If people choose to exit from the higher-cost model rather than to stay and complain, then 'college,' notionally, will become more like the actual colleges that most American students attend. There’s something to be said, then, for complaining about rising costs at this small fraction of institutions: it’s emotionally satisfying, and it preserves a small and valuable part of the system."
NASFAA's "Headlines" section highlights media coverage of financial aid to help members stay up to date with the latest news. Inclusion in Today's News does not imply endorsement of the material or guarantee the accuracy of information presented.

Murdered by the Left: Time for a campaign against “sanctuary” cities

On Monday, illegal alien Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender who had been deported five times, was charged with killing Kathryn Steinle, 32, at Pier 14 in the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco. The details surrounding this case are a testament to the multi-layered bankruptcy of progressive ideology.


We begin with the contemptible notion of a sanctuary city itself. Despite the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 requiring cities to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), there are literally hundreds of cities in the nation that provide safe haven for illegal aliens in open defiance of federal law. Yet, because that law conflicts with progressive sensibilities, not a single lawsuit has ever been filed by the federal government against a sanctuary city for violating it. In a revealing contrast, the Obama administration has filed suit against states such as Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina that were attempting to enforce federal immigration law. The administration claimed the states had no right to do so—despite the reality the administration itself refuses to do so.

The case of Lopez-Sanchez itself is equally illuminating. Despite his presence in America following five deportations to his native country of Mexico, ICE turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco police on March 26 because he had an outstanding drug warrant. And despite the reality he had a record of seven felony convictions, San Francisco released Lopez-Sanchez to the streets on April 15, after the district attorney declined to prosecute him for a 20-year-old marijuana possession charge. In short, the feds aided and abetted the release of a serial border-buster to a sanctuary city manifestly unwilling to jail a career criminal.

No one made that reality clearer than San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. Mirkarimi first blamed ICE for Sanchez-Lopez’s release, insisting the agency didn’t file a formal court application to detain him. But in a later interview with CNN, his progressive instincts were revealed. The sheriff defended San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, insisting it “makes us safer.” “We’re a world-renowned city with a large immigrant population,” Mirkarimi declared. “And of that population is a population that is also here undocumented. From a law enforcement perspective, we want to build trust with that population. And our sanctuary city and other attendant laws have allowed us to do that.”

Mirkarimi’s arrogant defiance of federal law is nothing new. In a press release sent out last year, he boasted about a revision made to his department’s policy of retainment that “reduced the number of individuals released to ICE authorities by 62 percent. Only one other county in California had a policy of similar strength,” it stated.

San Francisco’s equally contemptible Mayor, Ed Lee, added ideologically inspired insult to injury. Despite issuing a press release saying he was “deeply saddened” by the “tragic and senseless death,” of Steinle and that his “thoughts and prayers” were with her family, he also endorsed his city’s sanctuary policy. “Let me be clear: [the policy] protects residents regardless of immigration status and is not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons,” he said. Lee further emphasized his commitment to “civil liberties” and “public safety” to explain his 2013 decision to “veto any legislation” undermining the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s ability to determined whether or not to honor ICE-issued “detainers” on a case-by-case basis.


AP's Rugaber Changed Jobs Report Assessment Again on Thursday, From 'Mixed' to 'Bleaker Picture'

The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber had a very bad day on Thursday as he covered the government's June jobs report, but it was all self-inflicted.

 I noted much of the problem in a NewsBusters post yesterday, citing how the AP economics writer got badly burned while engaging in the wire service's usual practice of analyzing expected and reported economic results instead of concentrating on relaying the facts. But there's more.

 Ahead of the government's report, Rugaber claimed that it would that it would "likely" show that the job market "is nearing full health."

He stuck to his guns in the first paragraph of the story he filed shortly after the report was released, claiming that the job market is "moving close to full health," despite acknowledging clear weaknesses in two paragraphs which followed. The first paragraph's unsupportable take on things appeared to designed to ensure that "good news" reports would emanate from online outlets, email alerts and AP-subscribing broadcasters across the nation. 

A mere half-hour after his initial post-release report, Rugaber began to reverse field. Now the very same government report which showed that the job market was "moving close to full health" at 8:39 a.m. was "paint(ing) a mixed picture" at 9:12 a.m.

 Thanks to the AP's annoying (and keister-covering) practice of sending older reports down the memory hole once they've been updated or revised, I didn't know until this morning when I stumbled across it at a non-AP site that Rugaber downgraded his evaluation of the results and their potential impact again late Thursday afternoon.


Dems: Not voting to release Clinton aide's transcript is 'an abuse of power' 35

Democrats serving on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are chiding the panel’s chairman for not holding a vote on whether to make public the deposition of Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.
In a statement, the panel’s five Democrats said they are “disappointed” chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) “decided not to hold a vote today on releasing the transcript of Sidney Blumenthal’s deposition, particularly since we have no hearings, interviews, briefings, or other activities on today’s schedule.”
“We believe it is an abuse of power for Republicans to selectively release Mr. Blumenthal’s emails while at the same time withholding the deposition transcript from the American people,” they added.
The statement comes a little over a week after Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the panel’s ranking member, said the select committee would vote today on releasing Blumenthal’s roughly nine-hour, closed-door interview.
But a GOP spokesman for the panel quickly shot down that idea, saying Gowdy had not scheduled anything relative to holding such a vote.
Gowdy and other Republicans have resisted making the deposition public, noting that the select committee hasn’t released the text of any of its previous interviews.
Democrats had expected to lose the vote, being outnumbered on the 12-member committee 7 to 5. But panel member Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) has said the deposition should be public, putting Democrats one vote away from getting it released.
Democrats believe the transcript will show GOP questions during the marathon, closed-door session were mostly political and not focused on the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including an ambassador.
"The fact is that the Select Committee has not held a public hearing in more than five months, and the taxpayers of this nation should be able to see for themselves how far beyond Benghazi the Select Committee has strayed in its glacial, politically-motivated, $3.7 million fishing expedition targeting Secretary Clinton," they said. "We urge Chairman Gowdy to follow the House rules and schedule the vote promptly.”

Half of Capitol Hill Staff Could Qualify for New Overtime Rules

overtimeNearly half of Capitol Hill staffers could qualify for overtime pay under the new Obama administration overtime rules to move the threshold to $50,440. Whether the new rules will apply to staffers is an open question for Congress.
According to a custom report produced for CQ Roll Call by LegiStorm, 5,617 staffers, or 43 percent, are making less than $50,440 annually. The report analyzed 13,092 Capitol Hill staffers who work in committee, leadership and personal offices of the House and Senate and adjusted for anomalies, which include staffers who leave midway through a fiscal quarter and those paid out for vacation days.
The new overtime regulations are expected to affect nearly 5 million Americans. On a recent conference call with reporters, White House Domestic Policy Council Chief Cecilia Muñoz said the Office of Personnel Management is likely to adopt the new threshold for federal government workers as well.
However, legislative branch employees — including Capitol Hill staff — are exempt from many labor rules unless Congress takes proactive action, such as amending the landmark Congressional Accountability Act that brought workplace rights, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, to Capitol Hill staffers.
While several offices — including that of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. — provide overtime pay, many do not. Long hours are considered the de rigueur workplace norm on Capitol Hill, as is lower-than-market-value pay.
Capitol Hill jobs are competitive — many want to work on the Hill and some are willing to do so for free. Offices are small, compact units, often functioning as their own separate small businesses with their own workplace rules and norms. For many staffers, the day begins before the boss arrives and lasts well into evening receptions at night, which can often mean 50- or 60-hour workweeks when Congress is in session.
Under the previous overtime threshold of $23,660, only 244 staffers, or less than 2 percent, would have qualified for overtime pay. However, a source familiar with the LegiStorm data believed the number to be even smaller, as the low salary likely included temporary workers, such as interns or part-time staff.
The Obama administration announced plans in June to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to move the overtime threshold from $23,660 to $50,440. An open-comment period will last through September, and the new overtime threshold would be implemented in 2016. Workers who make less than $50,440 would be paid time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.
While Congress has previously been unwilling or slow to take action on implementing employment laws for its own employees, the overtime rules fall into a gray area. Parts of the FLSA were adopted as part of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995, including overtime provisions.
“I think there is going to be a lot of pressure for Congress to keep current with the FLSA,” said Kelly A. Magnuson, a labor and employment attorney with Tully Rinckey PLLC. “The CAA does follow the FLSA. To now say that they are not going to make the changes is going to cause a lot of upheaval.”
It’s possible that even as new overtime regulation changes sweep the private sector and executive branch, Congress may remain resistant to modifying its own employment rules. If not, staff on Capitol Hill, even those making as little as $23,661 annually, may see no changes.
The overtime rules are most likely to affect staffers in House personal offices, said Jock Friedly, president and founder of LegiStorm, who produced the data for CQ Roll Call.
“As a general rule, people make more in the Senate than they do in the House; it’s a very clear trend that we see,” Friedly said. “Even for the same job, the Senate will pay more than the House does.” Committee and leadership offices often pay more as well, with Friedly noting that certain committees have one-fourth of the staff making close to the staffer maximum salary of $174,000.
Certain Hill offices may adopt the overtime changes, said Julie Kashen, a former House and Senate staffer and current senior policy adviser for Make It Work. “That is the way so much already works on the Hill. Some offices have much more flexible policies overall. And some are less generous,” she said.
Kashen believes the increase in transparency has helped provide more generous workplace policies on Capitol Hill, and that a younger generation of millennials are likely to speak up and demand workplaces that “work for them” rather than accepting an outdated status quo. “Younger staffers may be a huge part of that,” Kashen explained. “They are the ones most likely affected by it.”
One thing that is not likely to change is the high level of interest in pursuing Capitol Hill jobs. Even without adhering to the same labor laws as the rest of the workforce, enough staffers find the employment worthwhile and meaningful to do, even without extra compensation.

Subpoena threat issued for ObamaCare files

House Republicans are threatening to subpoena documents related to an ObamaCare program at the center of their lawsuit against President Obama.
The Republican chairmen of the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees on Wednesday released a letter to the administration reiterating a request made in February for documents related to the program. 
Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) set a deadline of July 21 for a response. If the administration does not provide the documents by then, a subpoena will be considered, they said.
“If HHS fails to produce the documents and information, the committees will have no choice but to consider the use of the compulsory process to obtain them,” the letter states.
Ryan and Upton first asked for the documents in February. The letter reiterating the request was sent to Health Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.
House Republicans argue that the administration is unconstitutionally spending money on an ObamaCare program despite Congress declining to appropriate money for it. That allegation is at the center of House Republicans’ lawsuit, which is being heard by a federal court in the case House v. Burwell
The funds in question are for “cost-sharing reductions” that help insurers lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income people.
House Republicans are seeking documents related to the administration’s decision to make payments through the program despite the absence of an appropriation. 
In court filings, the administration has laid out the case that it did not need an appropriation for the funds because they are mandatory spending not subject to the appropriations process. 
Republicans counter the administration requested an appropriation for the program in 2013, which was turned down. But the administration says it later realized the request was unnecessary because it had the funds through mandatory spending. 
Obama administration officials also say Congress never took action to block the funds and even passed a bill, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, that was predicated on the idea that the funds were available.
“Thus, although the House seeks to focus on the Administration’s initial budget request for FY2014, the end result of the budget process for that year confirms a shared understanding that these payments could be made,” the administration wrote in a court filing last week.
The administration has asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, saying Congress does not have legal standing to sue the president.
But Judge Rosemary Collyer leveled tough questions at the Department of Justice lawyer during arguments on the question in May.

Rick Perry to Hannity: Donald Trump said ALL MEXICANS were rapists and killers

Rick Perry told Hannity last night that Donald Trump painted with a broad brush and basically said ALL MEXICANS were rapists and killers, which is patently false. Hannity challenged him on that mischaracterization but Perry gave a non-answer, refusing to acknowledge that Trump was only referring to ‘some’ illegals.

Watch (the exchange happens near the beginning):




I’ve liked Rick Perry for a long time and believe he did a lot of good things for Texas, things that would be good for the country. But I am now seeing a side of him I do not like. It’s one thing to disagree with his comments in an honest way, but it’s another thing to completely mischaracterize them in order to bolster your own position. That’s something Democrats do all the time. I don’t like it then and I don’t like it now.




JUDGE OUTRAGED: ORDERS JEH JOHNSON, TOP OFFICIALS TO ANSWER FOR VIOLATIONS OF EXEC. AMNESTY INJUNCTION

The federal judge who halted President Obama’s executive amnesty programs is demanding top immigration officials appear in his court to answer for the administration’s violations of his injunction.

In a court order, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen expressed frustration at the administration’s failure to correct the violations of his order in a timely manner.
“This Court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this Court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation,” Hanen wrote in his order, obtained by Politico.
The problem is the issuance of more than 2,000 three-year work permits issued to illegal immigrants under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals under Obama’s expansion of the program, as opposed to current two-year permits. The administration admitted to issuing the three-year permits after Hanen issued his February injunction.
The violation came on the heels of another administration admission that it had issued three-year work permits to some 108,800 illegal immigrants before the injunction and before the official start date of executive amnesty.
Hanen has expressed outraged in past orders about the administration’s violations and lack of transparency about the missteps. In recent weeks the administration has further admitted that it has not recouped all of the three-year work permits that it erroneously issued, in violation of Hanen’s order.
“The Government promised this Court on May 7, 2015, that ‘immediate steps’ were being taken to remedy the violations of the injunction… Yet, as of June 23, 2015—some six weeks after making that representation—the situation had not been rectified,” Hanen wrote in his Tuesday order.
He also demanded the administration come into full compliance with his prior order, noting that even the government conceded that it directly violated his order, allowing two months to pass without fully remedying the violation.
“That is unacceptable and, as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional. To be clear, this Court expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Compliance as to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance,” Hanen added.
He noted that if the government comes in compliance with his order by July 31 he will cancel the August hearing at which he is expecting the named defendants in the case: Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, Customs and Border Patrol Director Gil Kerlikowske, Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana, and Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez.
DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron confirmed to Politico that it has received the order and “is currently reviewing it with the Department of Justice.”

[EDITORIALS] Recent editorials from Texas newspapers


Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Documents show execessive use of Massachusetts SWAT teams

I reported last year that many of Massachusetts’s SWAT teams were claiming to be private corporations that were immune from public records requests. Last month, the Northeastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC), the corporation that overseas that region’s SWAT teams, settled with the Massachusetts ACLU and released records related to how SWAT teams are used. A number of publications have since been sifting through the documents.
The results are similar to what we found in other situations in which these records have been made public — the widespread use of the kind of militarized tactics, weapons, and gear that was once reserved only for emergency situations, when lives were at immediate risk. Most notable: Of the 21 times a NEMLEC SWAT team was deployed to serve a search warrant for drugs, the SWAT team reported finding drugs just five times.
Just one of the 79 SWAT deployments in 2012-14 — assistance with the search for the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing — involved terrorism. Other SWAT actions during that period show no hostage situations, no active shooters and only 10 non-suicidal barricaded subjects.
About half of the remaining cases involved everyday and often mundane police activity, including executing warrants, dealing with expected rioting after a 2013 Red Sox World Series game, and providing security for a Dalai Lama lecture. In one mission, 15 SWAT team members roved through Salem’s Halloween celebrations looking out for unspecified “gang-related activity,” but were warned by their commanders to maintain a “professional demeanor” given that “everyone has a camera phone and you don’t want to be on YouTube or the news later.”
The remaining 37 SWAT actions were either proactive drug operations, initiated by local police, or suicide response operations . . .
More than half of the SWAT teams’ drug operations were initiated at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. Furthermore, of the 22 narcotics operations detailed in the documents over the two years, 14 included warrants authorizing SWAT teams to conduct “no knock” raids and four authorizing “knock and announce” raids — both of which are forceful entry options that have made national headlines for the accidental killings, injuries, and trauma they can produce.

CNBC: Cramer: $30 oil could be around the corner

While most investors are freaking out about Greece, Jim Cramer thinks it would be more prudent to take a closer look at the price of oil, which has much more of a direct impact to U.S. companies.
The price of oil has been hit hard lately, dropping to about $50 during the day on Tuesday from $59 a week ago. Cramer is still in shock, because when oil was hovering around $60 he was convinced that the independent oil companies might provide some real leadership in the market.
But after the latest session of crude being put through the meat grinder, Cramer's opinion has been thrown out the window.
So what could be next for oil prices?
To find out, Cramer turned to the help of Carley Garner, a technician and co-founder of DeCarley Trading, and a colleague of Cramer's a tRealMoney.com.
"Now, if there is one thing you need to keep in mind as the price of oil tumbles, it is that this is very much an issue of excess supply," the "Mad Money" host said. (Tweet This)
"If you agree with Garner that oil could be headed lower here, you have to hold off on buying the oil stocks in order to wait for better prices"-Jim Cramer
Looking at the long-term chart of U.S. oil production going all the way back to the 1920s, Garner pointed out that the U.S. has doubled its monthly oil output since the lows of 2008 and is nearly back to its peak levels set back in the 1970s. Thus, unless some sort of unforeseen powerful even occurs, she believes that the oil market will be over-supplied for a long time.
But to really understand what is going on with oil means knowing what the big money dogs are doing with it. That is why Garner took a look at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's weekly commitments of traders report, which tells investors how the big money is betting in the oil futures market.

Popular Posts