The latest revelations about top secret information traversing Hillary Clinton’s private email server have triggered accusations that someone in her “inner circle” likely stripped the classification markings, illegally.

The claims come after the Clinton campaign stuck to the argument that the Democratic presidential candidate, while secretary of state, never dealt with emails that were “marked” classified at the time.

“Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to supporters Wednesday.

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton’s emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

“If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings,” the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. “[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC’s server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC’s personal email.”

The official said doing so would “constitute a felony, in and of itself. I can’t imagine that a rank-and-file career DOS employee would have done this, so it was most likely done by someone in her inner circle.”

The messages apparently contained satellite imagery and signals intelligence, information that diplomats cannot unilaterally obtain.

Yet, like the Clinton campaign, the State Department public affairs team also maintains that the emails were “not marked classified” when Clinton received them.

“None of them were classified at the time,” department spokesman Mark Toner said.

With Clinton’s server and thumb drive now in the possession of the FBI, questions about whether classification markings were tampered with are just part of the puzzle — and only one factor that is complicating Clinton’s frontrunning bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Washington Post reports that the server itself was picked up by the FBI on Wednesday in New Jersey, at a third-party data center. But someone from that cyber-management company also told the Post that the server they forked over is blank, because everything on it was transferred during a 2013 upgrade.

Clinton announced that she would turn the server over to the FBI Tuesday. That same day, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told members of Congress that at least two emails that traversed the device while she was secretary of state contained information that warranted one of the government’s highest levels of classification.

The latest email revelations have thrown a major wrench into Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, though Palmieri shrugged off the ongoing investigation in her email to supporters Wednesday.

“Look, this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president,” Palmieri said. “We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.”

Meanwhile, Fox News has learned that top U.S. intelligence officials are running out of patience with the State Department’s reluctance to turn over emails from the server.

The intelligence community’s inspector general has requested approximately 30,000 emails from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to conduct its own review.

Those emails are in possession of the State Department, which has been gradually releasing them to the public.

An intelligence source told Fox News the State Department has pushed back on the government intelligence watchdog’s request, and that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is considering intervening. The source said the inspector general wants to check the controls on the redaction process and ensure that the office can get a handle on all of the potentially sensitive information that was contained in the Clinton emails.

Fox News’ James Rosen, Peter Doocy and Matthew Dean and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

If no one has looked at the plight of those in poverty lately, it is well worth noting that minority children are being born into households headed by a single mother, and are more likely to go to prison than to college. Every cure for poverty attempted by conservatives is blocked by liberals, so the picture is even more bleak with every passing year.

For instance, conservatives keep trying to push for school choice for all students, offering a voucher system that will enable children of any class or neighborhood to attend the school of their choice–only to be blocked by liberals, who like poor, minority children right where they are. Liberal spending of $18 trillion on impoverished minorities in this county has only served to entrap them in the poverty industry, administered by liberals.

Most of the unemployment in this nation is focused among young minorty men, as is most of the violence. While liberals howl about a few questionable minority deaths during police arrests, they entirely ignore thousands of murders and attempted murders committed against minority men by their own people.

The minority culture has completely abandoned its strong family roots, and adopted a lifestyle of casual sex, resulting in over 1,800 abortions of black babies every day in this country, followed by a like number of Hispanic abortions each day. Those minority babies who aren’t aborted are likely to end up in impoverished, fatherless homes, in the middle of rap and gang cultures where hustling, drugs and crime are a common and accepted way of life.

Because liberals need an impoverished underclass to justify their existence, they block every conservative attempt to liberate the impoverished minorities of this once great nation. If conservatives cannot free them through elevating them into the middle class and above, the only path left open to alleviate the pain of our minorities is the handout path–one that liberals will not fight under any circumstances.

If the federal government would simply offer free contraception in the form of tubal ligations and vasectomies, and add a cash bonus to those who receive them–$5,000 for any man receiving a vasectomy and $15,000 for any woman receiving a tubal ligation–I believe that those who find themselves deepest in the midst of poverty and hopelessness will avail themselves.

What will be the result of this contraception program? Those who have no desire to have or care for children will receive the procedure, and get the money. Those who desire to have children and live the American dream will have no incentive to receive the procedures.

This will cost many millions of dollars, of course. However, the return on investment will be incalculable. Welfare costs, police costs, medical costs, abortion costs, prison costs, repair costs, pain and suffering–they will all begin a rapid descent from the current hundreds of billions of dollars we are currently spending on this sector of society. Societal costs–like disruption in the classroom, violence in our streets, and culture that breaks down every class–will likewise diminish rapidly.

We see no down side to the plan, and invite comments below.

PUBLIUS

IN THE DEBATE: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich.

Fox News has announced the line-up for the prime-time Republican presidential debate this Thursday, and here’s who qualified:

Real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

The roster of 10 candidates was determined based on an average of the five most recent national polls. Trump as expected made the cut, as did Bush and Walker, who have each posted strong numbers in recent surveys.

The drama, rather, was at the edge of the top 10. Christie and Kasich, who were hovering by that edge in recent polling, were able to qualify.

But former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among others, will not be on the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET stage. The seven who did not make the top 10 will be invited to a separate 5 p.m. ET debate.

The debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party, will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.

With the campaign lately being rocked by Trump’s rise in the polls above the jam-packed field, though, the big question is how the other nine candidates will hold their own on the prime-time stage — and whether Trump will remain the front-runner after his debate debut.

For political outsiders like Trump and Carson, Democratic strategist Doug Schoen said, “The question is are they ready, literally and metaphorically, for prime-time?”

The debate will test whether they can articulate a “cogent narrative of what they’ll do to promote and provoke change in our country,” Schoen said.

Analysts have warned that Trump, whose bomb-throwing persona has seemingly fueled his climb, stands to lose traction if he can’t command the stage.

Steve Deace, who hosts a conservative radio talk show in the Hawkeye State, said: “His entire campaign is based on him being a blunt instrument” and if he holds back, “that would be the death knell for him.”

Plenty of candidates are eager to seize the spotlight from him, no matter which debate stage they’re on. Ahead of the debates, Bush on Monday outlined his plan for improving border security and immigration enforcement.

Tough-talking Gov. Christie last week vowed to enforce marijuana laws if elected president, and tangled over the weekend with the teachers unions after saying on CNN they deserve a “punch in the face.”

Paul on Tuesday introduced an amendment to crack down on “sanctuary cities” by requiring local officials to notify the feds about the arrest of an illegal immigrant.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to climb in the polls despite attracting the ire of fellow Republicans for recently questioning Sen. John McCain’s war record.

In the latest Fox News poll, Trump got the support of 26 percent of primary voters — the highest level of support for any candidate so far and up from 18 percent in mid-July.

FoxNews.com

Hillary Clinton is losing ground with white women voters, a new poll shows, marking a potentially damaging development with a demographic important to her and which President Barack Obama fared poorly with in the 2012 election.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, conducted July 26-30 of 1,000 adults, showed that among white women with at least a college degree, the group sharing the most similarities with Clinton, the former secretary of state’s numbers had turned negative, with 47 percent holding an unfavorable view of her and 43 percent showing a positive view.

In comparison, in June, the same demographic showed 51 percent with a positive view and 38 percent negative, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

“There is no way you can say she’s in the same position this month compared to last month,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who directs survey along with Democrat Fred Yang.

“She’s been dented and she’s in a weaker position.”

The poll numbers dipped amid negative reports of Clinton’s email practices, the millions of dollars she has earned through speaking fees, and donations to the Clinton Foundation, particularly those from foreign countries. Some experts are also seeing the numbers as an echo from the 2012 election, when Obama lost white female voters to GOP nominee Mitt Romney by 14 points even though he went on to win the election.

On Tuesday, Clinton’s first television ads for this cycle started airing in Iowa and New Hampshire. Both of the spots are likely to appeal to female voters, as they focus on the importance of families.

The first spot shares the story of Clinton’s late mother, Dorothy Rodham, who has long served as the former first lady’s role model. It tells of her mother’s tough upbringing and how it taught her that everybody needs someone to champion them.

In the second ad, Clinton’s career is spotlighted, along with photos of herself and husband Bill as younger adults, and reveals her reason to serve as secretary of state under Obama after he defeated her in 2008, saying “because when your president calls, you serve.”

Both ads put an emphasis on family values, marking a change from the experience and toughness themes her campaign put on her bid in 2008. This time around, the campaign is presenting Clinton as a mother- and grandmother-in-chief, while reminding voters that if elected, she would be the first female president.

Even with the ads, the latest poll numbers are particularly troubling to Clinton’s team, said the Journal, because she is not being seen as able to match the numbers of African-American voters who turned out for Obama.

So while it would be logical for her campaign to target women and encourage them to help vote in the nation’s first female president, the numbers aren’t matching up. In the past, Clinton has fared well with voters with a similar background to hers, but that appears to be changing.

In the first part of this year, suburban women had a positive view of her by 18 points, but by July, suburban women had changed their view, marking a five-point negative opinion.

Other results in the WSJ/NBC poll also showed trends that could cause Clinton’s campaign trouble:

• Independent voters’ support is dwindling. In the first quarter of this year, independents were nearly even, but in the new poll, only 27 percent had a positive opinion of Clinton, and 52 percent saw her negatively.

• African-American numbers are also dropping. In June, she had support of 81 percent to 3 percent; in July, the numbers went to 66 percent positive and 15 percent negative.

The poll also showed the numbers narrowing between Clinton and the second-place challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the July poll, Clinton led Sanders by 59 percent to 25 percent, but in June, her lead was wider — 75 percent to 15 percent.

Her husband’s initial poll numbers were low in 1992, when he earned a 30-38 percent favorability rating the summer before the presidential election.

Businessman Donald Trump continues to gain ground in the race for the Republican nomination.  What’s more, the number of GOP primary voters saying they would at least consider backing Trump has more than doubled in the last two months.  Meanwhile, support for Democratic frontrunner former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains high, despite sliding to its lowest yet.

These are some of the findings from the latest Fox News national poll on the 2016 presidential race.

Trump receives the backing of 26 percent of self-identified Republican primary voters — up from 18 percent in mid-July and 11 percent a month ago. That’s not only the highest level of support for Trump, but it’s also the highest any GOP candidate has received since the Fox poll began asking the question in December 2013.

Trump’s rise hasn’t hurt former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who garners 15 percent and is the only other Republican in double-digits.  He was at 14 percent in mid-July and 15 percent in June.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

Behind Trump and Bush, it’s Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 9 percent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 7 percent, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6 percent each, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 5 percent a piece, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich get 3 percent each.

That group is followed by businesswoman Carly Fiorina and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum tied at 2 percent, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tied at 1 percent and former New York Gov. George Pataki, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore receive less than 1 percent support.

Two Republicans threw their hat in the ring in the last two weeks.  Kasich formally announced July 21 and his support went from two percent in mid-July to three percent in the new poll.  Gilmore made his candidacy official July 30.

Men (29 percent) are a bit more likely than women (24 percent) to back Trump — yet he’s the top vote-getter for both.

Another example of GOP primary voters increasingly liking what they hear from Trump:  34 percent say they would “definitely” vote for him, which is more than four times what it was two months ago (8 percent).

And the number who would “never” support Trump dropped 26 percentage points: it was 59 percent in June and 33 percent now.  Graham (40 percent), Christie (34 percent) and Pataki (34 percent) now have more voters than the Donald saying they would never vote for them.

Only nine percent would “never” vote for Walker.  That gives him the best rating among GOP candidates on that measure, although he’s also one of the least well-known candidates: 47 percent say they “want more information” about him before deciding their vote.

Winning isn’t everything — or at least electability isn’t foremost in the minds of GOP primary voters right now. When asked what they want in their party’s nominee, they say being a strong leader (29 percent) matters more than having true conservative values (20 percent), beating the Democrat (13 percent), having the right experience (13 percent) and shaking things up in Washington (13 percent).

Those who prioritize strong leadership are most likely to back Trump (29 percent), Bush (19 percent), Walker (10 percent), Rubio (7 percent), Kasich (5 percent) and Paul (5 percent).

While 40 percent of GOP primary voters say economic issues will be most important in deciding their vote for the party’s nomination, some 31 percent say national security will matter most.  Another 12 percent say immigration issues will be most important and 7 percent say social issues.

Trump is ahead among some sought-after GOP constituencies.  For example, the current favorites among the Tea Party movement are Trump (33 percent), Walker (15 percent), Cruz (13 percent) and Carson (10 percent).  The top picks among white evangelical Christians include Trump (22 percent), Bush (17 percent), Carson (10 percent), Huckabee (10 percent) and Walker (10 percent).

What if Trump were out of the picture? Republican primary voters were also asked about their second choice candidate, which allows a look at the state of the race if a current candidate were to drop out. Here’s how things stand without Trump: Bush gets 20 percent, followed by Walker at 13 percent, Carson and Cruz at 9 percent, Huckabee at 8 percent, Paul, Rubio and Christie tie at 6 percent, Kasich at 4 percent, and Perry, Fiorina and Santorum get 2 percent each.

Switching to the Democratic side, Clinton is still the favorite among self-identified Democratic primary voters.  She receives 51 percent while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders comes in at 22 percent.  Yet that is Clinton’s worst showing — and Sanders’ best.  Support for Clinton was 59 percent two weeks ago, 61 percent a month ago — and has been as high as 63 percent in the months since Sanders entered the race.  Vice President Joe Biden, who is said to be considering a run, sits at 13 percent support.

By an 18-point margin, Republican primary voters (74 percent) are more likely than their Democratic counterparts (56 percent) to be extremely or very interested in the 2016 election.

Overall, voters say the economy is the most important issue facing the country (30 percent).  Next it’s terrorism and health care (11 percent each). Less than one voter in 10 says the top problem is immigration (7 percent), foreign policy (7 percent), the federal deficit (7 percent), race relations (5 percent), climate change (5 percent), gay marriage (3 percent), taxes (3 percent) and abortion (2 percent).

The economy is the top concern for both Democrats and Republicans.  Health care comes in second for Democrats, while for Republicans it is terrorism.

Voters split on the job Barack Obama is doing as president:  46 percent approve and 46 percent disapprove.  Two weeks ago it was 47-48 percent (July 13-15, 2015).  A year ago, 42 percent of voters approved and 49 percent disapproved (August 2014).

Eighty-two percent of Democrats approve of Obama’s performance, while 85 percent of Republicans disapprove.  Among independents, it is 37 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,306 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 30-August 2, 2015. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters, and four points for both Democratic and Republican primary voters.

FoxNews.com

California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced Friday she plans to review two undercover videos released by anti-abortion activists aimed at discrediting Planned Parenthood’s procedures for providing fetal tissue to researchers to see if any law was broken in the filming.

Harris made the announcement in a letter to four Democratic members of Congress who had requested the investigation, saying she’ll use her office’s authority to regulate charity organizations to see if the organization that made the videos violated registration or reporting requirements, or broke any other rules.

“We will carefully review the allegations raised in your letter to determine whether there were any violations of California law,” Harris said in the letter to four members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

She said her office will look into “allegations that individuals impersonated corporate officials from a fake biologics company, resulting in the release of secretly filmed videos of Planned Parenthood physicians without their consent.”

Harris, a Democrat, plans to run for the U.S. Senate in 2016.

The videos show Dr. Mary Gatter, a Planned Parenthood medical director in Southern California, meeting with people posing as possible buyers of intact fetal specimens. The conversation is centered of the cost of the specimens.

David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, the group that released the videos, contends it follows all applicable laws when making videos that he called investigative journalism.

He said in a statement that Planned Parenthood is “trying to use the power of their political cronies to shut down free speech” and to “silence the freedom of the press.”

The videos have shined the spotlight on Planned Parenthood’s policies on aborted fetuses by three Republican-led congressional committees and three states.

Federal law prohibits the commercial sale of fetal tissue, but it allows the not-for-profit donation of tissue if the women who underwent abortions give their consent. Planned Parenthood says the payments discussed in the videos pertain to reimbursement for the costs of procuring the tissue — which is legal.

Gatter says in the second video, which was released on Tuesday a week after the first, that “We’re not in it for the money,” while also discussing whether a payment of $100 per fetal specimen would be adequate.

Planned Parenthood spokesman Eric Ferrero said in a statement after the release of the second video that the organization behind the videos “is a group of extremists who have intimidated women and doctors for years in their agenda to ban abortion completely.”

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

“Like Saint Peter, he repeated it three times.”

You just don’t see this in the U.S. Senate. Or you didn’t, before Ted Cruz got there. And frankly it’s about time someone called Mitch McConnell out for the crap he pulls.

The subject is the Export-Import Bank, and Cruz asked McConnell point blank to tell him if a deal had been cut to achieve a sneaky re-authorization of Ex-Im, and McConnell told him, “There is no deal, there is no deal, there is no deal.”

As Cruz puts it, “Like Saint Peter, he repeated it three times.”

McConnell lied. That’s not a surprise. McConnell is a liar. And one of the reasons he lies so unrepentently is that it goes against the culture of the Senate for any senator to publicly call him out for it. The Senate is a genteel body and everyone pretends that everyone else is their wonderful and good friend. Cruz doesn’t care. Cruz tells us publicly here that McConnell lied to him – and not just once. Worse: He compares him to Harry Reid.

Cruz doesn’t even stop with calling McConnell a liar. He goes on to blister “empty show votes” like one to repeal ObamaCare that McConnell went ahead with even though everyone knew the outcome.

By the way, in the course of letting McConnell have it here, Cruz demonstrates that he understands the workings of the Senate pretty well and isn’t fooled when McConnell puts on a show of doing things when he is really doing something else – particularly the way McConnell abuses his status as Senate Majority Leader to essentially snuff out any other senator’s amendments, even as he promises he would never do such a thing.

This. Is. War. I know the D.C. establishment hates Cruz because he refuses to play ball, but he’s never let loose like he does here. And it’s awesome. He obviously doesn’t care because he obviously is the rare politician who went to Washington to shine a light on what really happens there rather than get along by going along.

I already had a favorable impression of Cruz. It’s a lot more favorable after this. Oh, and you’re one of those Republiicans who still supports Mitch McConnell, by all means, explain that.

By: Dan Calabrese

Dan just served as editor of a fantastic book by Katherine Jeffries about a secret vigilante organization. It’s called Stranglehold and you can download it here. Dan’s Royal Oak Series of spiritual thrillers is available here. Follow all of Dan’s work by liking his page on Facebook.

A stunning new poll shows trouble brewing for Hillary Clinton in key swing states, with the Democratic presidential front-runner trailing potential Republican rivals in every match-up tested.

The Quinnipiac University poll put Clinton head-to-head against Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in three states: Colorado, Iowa and Virginia.

In every hypothetical contest, the former secretary of state was either clearly trailing or, as Quinnipiac phrased it, “on the wrong side of a too-close-to-call” race. A majority of voters in all three states also said they found Clinton not honest and trustworthy.

The gap between Clinton and GOP candidates was most pronounced in Colorado and Iowa. She trailed Rubio by 8 points in Colorado, 38-46 percent; and Walker by 9 points, 38-47 percent. She trailed Bush by 6 points in Iowa, 36-42 percent; and Rubio by 8 points, 36-44 percent.

The survey raises troubling questions for the campaign, which has struggled to shed the image of a candidate who is closed off to the media and the public, despite her decisive lead over the Democratic field. The latest results reflect a drop from a similar poll in April.

“She has lost ground in the horserace,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement.

In another troubling sign for the Democratic candidate, voters gave her poor marks on being trustworthy. In Colorado, for instance, voters said 62-34 percent she is not honest and trustworthy.

Clinton wasn’t the only one taking a hit in the latest poll. Though Donald Trump has narrowly led the GOP presidential field in some recent polls, the Quinnipiac survey showed voters, by roughly 2-1, had a negative view of the billionaire real estate magnate. Brown said that means his “growth potential” is lower than that of his GOP rivals.

The polls were taken July 9-20, of 1,231 Colorado voters; 1,236 Iowa voters; and 1,209 Virginia voters. Each had a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.

FoxNews.com

A new undercover video shows a top Planned Parenthood official discussing “less crunchy” techniques to get “whole specimens” and haggling over the price of fetus tissue sales because she wants “a Lamborghini.”

And the activist behind the sting operation says there’s much more to come.

Center for Medical Progress Project Lead David Daleiden told Fox News his group has “at least 12, really solid videos” among thousands of hours of footage.

“So, we’ll be doing this for the foreseeable future,” Daleiden said.

The video released Tuesday morning, the second put out by CMP, features a woman identified as Dr. Mary Gatter, who was president of the Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council until 2014 and now works in a leadership and advisory capacity at the local and national level of the organization. Over drinks, Gatter and the undercover activists discuss “specimen” prices, eventually settling at $100 for “intact tissue.”

“I want a Lamborghini.” – Dr. Mary Gatter, Planned Parenthood

“It’s been years since I’ve talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting,” says Gatter, during a conversation alleged to have occurred on Feb. 6. “If it’s in the ballpark then that’s fine, if it’s low we can bump it up.”

Gatter then turns to the women seated to her right, pats her on the shoulder, laughs and says, “I want a Lamborghini.” Asked to repeat the statement, Gatter replies, “I said, ‘I want a Lamborghini.’”

It is against federal law to sell fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood has maintained it donates the specimens, charging only for the expenses it incurs.

“We don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that,” Gatter says in the video. “On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and all that kind of stuff.”

Daleiden said Tuesday that he believed Planned Parenthood’s activities were illegal.

“Our video evidence and the video evidence that CMP will continue to release over the coming weeks and months is prima facie evidence of criminal activity at the highest levels of Planned Parenthood,” he said.

Planned Parenthood Vice President of Communications Eric Ferrero released a statement calling the video a”heavily edited” release by “activists who have been widely discredited.” Ferrero said his organization could not confirm the video’s authenticity.

“What we see on this tape is a woman who says ‘we’re not in it for the money,’ and that any money must be related to reimbursement for costs,” Ferrero’s statement said.

The video making the rounds Tuesday was an edited 8-minute “summary” of a much longer conversation. The full video, lasting more than an hour, has also been posted online.

“Anybody can go and, if they want to watch an hour to three hours of baby parts negotiations, they can judge for themselves if we just chose the highlights,” Daleiden said.

Planned Parenthood has received nearly $46 million in federal grants in 2015, according to government records, for non-abortion-related activities. The organization has taken in more than $207 million in federal funds since 2012.

When asked on Monday if the White House would reconsider federal funding for Planned Parenthood, press secretary Josh Earnest said, “No.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, was not nearly as curt in a statement about Tuesday’s video.

“This new video is as sickening, disturbing and callous as the last video,” Boehner said. “It’s now clear that Planned Parenthood allows this horrifying conduct to happen throughout its organization.

“Last week, I called on Congress to investigate these gruesome practices.  The Energy & Commerce and Judiciary Committees have begun immediate investigations and I look forward to their prompt and thorough action.

“President Obama still has not denounced these horrific practices.  He has a responsibility to also speak out immediately and stop these practices now.”

The first shoe dropped on Planned Parenthood last week, when CMP released a video showing a top abortion doctor discussing the sale of fetal body parts while drinking wine and eating salad.

A July 20 letter sent from Planned Parenthood senior counsel Roger Evans to Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., appears to have forecast the release of Tuesday’s video.

“We don’t know what the Center will release next, but we know enough to be deeply concerned about the infiltration of Planned Parenthood and its affiliates,” Evans wrote in the letter.

Evans traced the videotaped infiltration back “nearly three years,” when Daleiden created the “phony company” Biomax Procurement Services, according to the letter.

“Biomax then embarked on a campaign of corporate espionage with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates as its target,” the letter stated.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for an investigation into Planned Parenthood following the release of the first video on July 14, and he released a statement Tuesday commenting on the new video.

“This latest video showing yet another Planned Parenthood senior official negotiating the price of unborn baby body parts is more than just callous and morally bereft, it may be criminal,” Abbott said in a statement. “The video appears to directly contradict Planned Parenthood’s statement last week that they do not earn a profit for selling body parts. Today’s new grotesque revelations necessitate that Texas expand its investigation into this abhorrent practice.”

Father Frank Pavone of Priests For Life spoke in stark terms about Planned Parenthood Tuesday morning.

“In the light of what they do to kill children and sell their parts, it is clearly immoral to give any support or transact any business with Planned Parenthood,” Pavone told Fox News.

Tuesday’s video opens with a portion of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards’ response to the first CMP sting video.

“I want to be really clear, the allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true,” Richards says, before the video moves to the covertly recorded footage of Gatter.

The undercover activist asks Gatter what “compensation” she would expect for “intact tissue.”

“Why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying?” Gatter responds.

Later, she adds, “But you know, the money is not the important thing for me. But it has to be big enough that it makes it worthwhile for me.”

By Cody Derespina / Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy contributed to this report

The latest Fox News national poll finds another reshuffling in the race for the 2016 Republican nomination, as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gets a post-announcement bump and businessman Donald Trump claims more of the spotlight.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton still dominates the Democratic race.  Yet the poll also warns trouble may be ahead for her.

Among Republican primary voters, Trump captures 18 percent. He’s closely followed by Walker at 15 percent and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 14 percent. No one else reaches double-digits.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

Support for Trump is up seven percentage points since last month and up 14 points since May.  He’s also the candidate GOP primary voters say they are most interested in learning more about during the debates.

Walker’s up six points since he officially kicked off his campaign. That bump gets him back to the support he was receiving earlier this year. In March, he was also at 15 percent.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul gets eight percent, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio receives seven percent, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson comes in at six percent, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee get four percent a piece.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie launched his campaign June 30.  Even so, he comes in at three percent — mostly unchanged from his two percent last month (June 21-23).  Ohio Gov. John Kasich (who is announcing Tuesday) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum each get two percent.  Businesswoman Carly Fiorina, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former New York Gov. George Pataki each receive one percent or less.

On the Democratic side, Clinton captures 59 percent among Democratic primary voters compared to 19 percent for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.  Last month, 61 percent backed Clinton and 15 percent Sanders (June 21-23). Eight percent would like to see Vice President Joe Biden as the nominee (he’s undeclared).  Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb each get one percent.

But here’s the possible trouble for Clinton in the general election: 70 percent of voters overall say that a candidate who is sometimes less than honest is a “deal breaker” for their vote — and a 58-percent majority believes Clinton’s natural instincts lean more toward “hiding the truth” than “telling the truth” (33 percent).  Democratic primary voters are more likely to think her natural instincts lean toward telling the truth (61 percent) — but even here, 29 percent say Clinton is more prone to hide the truth.

The Fox poll also asks voters their second choice candidate, which allows us to look at what happens to the lineup if someone were to drop out.  For example, if Trump decides to get out, Bush moves to the top spot at 19 percent, followed by Walker at 16 percent, Paul at 9 percent, Rubio at 8 percent, Carson at 7 percent, Cruz at 6 percent, Huckabee at 5 percent, Christie and Perry at 3 percent, and Fiorina, Kasich and Santorum get 2 percent.

Trump’s June 16 announcement speech included provocative comments on illegal immigration that people are still talking about a month later, including the suggestion that the Mexican government is sending criminals and rapists to the United States.  Whatever the blowback, his views resonate with many: 44 percent of voters think Trump is “basically right” on the issue. A 53-percent majority disagrees.  Among Republican primary voters, 68 percent say he is right.

 

Immigration

There’s been a major shift in the last five years in how voters want to handle illegal immigrants currently working in the United States.  Today 64 percent favor setting up a system for them to become legal residents, up from 49 percent in 2010.  And now 30 percent favor deportation, down from 45 percent five years ago.

Compared to 2010, support for setting up a system for legalization is up 21 points among Democrats, 11 points among independents and 8 points among Republicans.

The top concerns about illegal immigration are strain on the government and, increasingly, crime.  The poll shows 55 percent of voters are very concerned about illegal immigrants overburdening government services.  That’s down from 61 percent who felt that way in 2006.

Fifty percent are very concerned about increased crime associated with illegal immigration.  That’s up from 39 percent almost 10 years ago.  Views are about the same when voters are asked about illegal immigration leading to an increase in terrorism:  50 percent are very concerned, up from 34 percent in 2006.

People also see significant benefits to the country from legal immigration: 43 percent say adding needed skills is a major benefit and another 43 percent feel that way about immigration adding to the entrepreneurial spirit of the U.S.  About a third thinks a major upside is that legal immigrants perform jobs that Americans mostly don’t want (35 percent) and bring new cultures (34 percent).

 

Pollpourri

Voters are divided over whether Congress should continue to investigate then-Secretary of State Clinton’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans.  Nearly half — 47 percent — want lawmakers to keep investigating Clinton.  A slightly larger number — 49 percent — think it’s time for Congress to move on.

Most Republicans (74 percent) say continue investigating, while most Democrats (74 percent) say move on. Views among independents split: 47 percent investigate vs. 48 percent move on.

After being on the campaign trail for about a month, how do voters feel about the Donald?  Fifty-four percent dismiss him as “just a loud mouth.”  Yet just over a third — 34 percent — admire Trump because “he’s got guts.” That jumps to 59 percent among GOP primary voters.

By a 15-point margin, Republican primary voters (82 percent) are more likely to say they are extremely or very interested in the upcoming election than Democratic primary voters (67 percent).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,019 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 13-15, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error is higher among the subgroups of Democratic (+/-5%) and Republican primary voters (+/-4.5%).

By Dana Blanton

JURY FINDS COLORADO THEATER KILLER GUILTY!

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — A verdict has been reached in the highly-anticipated capital murder case against James Holmes, the gunman who killed 12 people when he opened fire on a sold-out Colorado movie theater three years ago.

The jury’s decision comes on day two of deliberations after meeting for about 14 hours.

Holmes, 27, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Defense attorneys say the heavily armed Holmes was in clutches of a psychotic episode when he ambushed the theater watching a midnight showing of the Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises” on July 20, 2012.

Four psychiatrists who interviewed Holmes agreed that he suffers mental illness, but were split on whether he met the criteria to be delclared insane at the time of the shooting.

Prosecutors have painted a pictured of a conniving egomaniac who killed for enjoyment.

The case has drawn international attention and stoked fiery debate about the death penalty, gun control and the execution of people who are mentally ill. A rampage killer going to trial has also boosted interest. Most mass killers commit suicide or are killed by police at the scene.

If convicted of murder, the former neuroscience graduate student could be sentenced to death. That decision would be come during a penalty phase where both sides will present evidence and arguments. A decision by the jury to spare his life would result in a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Prosecutors rejected a plea offer to a life sentence without parole in 2013. “Justice is death,” District Attorney George Brauchler said at the time.

If the jury of nine women and three men find Holmes not guilty by reason of insanity, he would be committed indefinitely to the state’s mental hospital 100 miles south of Denver. That scenario would leave open the possibility that he could be released if he were some day declared to be sane.

The tragedy at the Denver-area theater is among the worst mass shootings in U.S. history. Holmes, dressed in police-like riot gear, was armed with three guns and more than 700 rounds of ammunition. Police said the bloodshed would have been worse, but the gunman’s semi-automatic assault rifle jammed during the attack.

“He only stopped when the gun stopped,” Brauchler told the jury during closing arguments.

Those killed ranged in age from a 6-year-old kindergartner to a 51-year-old father of four. Fifty-eight moviegoers were wounded by gunfire, and 12 more were suffered other injuries in the commotion to escape the theater.

Those killed include Jon Blunk, 26; Alexander Boik, 18; Jesse Childress, 29; Alex Teves, 24; Gordon Cowden, 51; Jessica Ghawi, 24; John Larimer, 27; Matt McQuinn, 27; Micayla Medek, 23, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6; Alex Sullivan, 27; and Rebecca Wingo, 32. Some of the wounded suffered life-changing injuries including brain damage and paralysis.

It took 2½ years for the case to ever reach jury selection earlier this year. Officials have said the number of victims, amount of evidence and legal issues surrounding the death penalty and Holmes’ insanity plea contributed to the delay. Twelve jurors and 12 alternates were picked from a pool 9,000 candidates.

In February, records obtained by Yahoo News revealed the cost of the case had already exceeded $5 million three months before opening statements were made.

Holmes was charged with 165 criminal counts — each murder and attempted murder charge carries separate charges, one for showing premeditation and one for showing extreme indifference to life. He is also charged with possessing explosives because he left his apartment ahead of the attack booby-trapped with homemade bombs.

Under Colorado law, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means that Holmes acknowledges committing the acts, but believes he wasn’t responsible because he was incapable of determining right from wrong at the time of the shooting. The prosecution must prove he was sane for him to be found guilty.

“We know what insanity is … this ain’t it,” Brauchler said during closing arguments. “He knew what he was doing when he killed those people. He intended to kill them. That was his specific goal.”

During the 11-week trial, jurors heard from nearly 300 witnesses, were shown more than 1,500 photos — including unsettling images of the grisly crime scene — and viewed 24 hours of video.

Much of the video was interviews Holmes has done with psychiatrists since the massacre. The four psychiatrists who evaluated Holmes agreed that he suffers from Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder, but they split on whether he was legally insane at the time of shootings. The two court-appointed psychiatrists concluded he was sane, but the two working for the defense found he was legally insane.

“You cannot divorce the mental illness from this case or from Mr. Holmes,” defense attorney Daniel King told jurors during his closing argument. “Schizophrenia is a disease, inherited like cancer. We don’t blame people for getting cancer.”

Holmes surrendered to police without incident near his car behind the theater after the shooting, but prosecutors said he may have wanted to flee. Evidence recovered from his two-door hatchback included devices used to throw on the road and puncture the tires of pursuing vehicles, cash, backpacks, a first aid kit, a canister of tear gas and a .40-caliber handgun.

Prosecutors said Holmes meticulously planned the massacre for months in response to a series of personal failures including losing his first-ever girlfriend and dropping out of graduate school.

“On July 20, 2012, he tried to murder a theater full of people because he thought it would make him feel better and increase his self-worth,” Brauchler said when the trial stared on April 27.

The defense team doesn’t contest that Holmes spent three months purchasing guns, explosives and charting the attack. King, the lead court-appointed defense attorney, said Holmes began suffering from serious delusions in March 2012 that intensified when he was misdiagnosed and given anti-anxiety medication in May 2012.

The delusions and hallucinations, King said, involved Holmes believing that murder would increase his “human capital.”

“He was on autopilot. He was following the plan,” King told the jury. “We can’t attribute logic to it. That’s why it’s psychotic.”

The defense attorney used his two-hour allotment to challenge jury to change what he called America’s denial about mental illness.

“Now is the time,” King said. “This is the place and you are the people.”

Holmes did not testify in his own defense.

PUBLIUS

Ever since the United States got involved in the dispute over Ukraine — and ended up in a challenging place with Russia over it — people have been quietly reviving statements that former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made during the 2012 election about his foreign policy concerns. When Russia decided they’d like to annex Crimea this week, the dig into the Romney archive began anew, with consensus from his co-partiers — and from some people who would never admit to liking him — generally falling along the lines of “oh my dear lord, Mitt was right all along!”

Campaign statements about the Affordable Care Act and general gloom and doom were also recycled. One Web site went so far as to ask if Romney was the next Nostradamus. Actually, more than one Web site crowned him the seer of our time.

Is the hype true?

Let us go through some of Romney’s old statements, and add some context to the conversation.

First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not… excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin.

This is the Romney prediction that has been getting the most press lately. Over the course of the 2012 campaign, Romney repeatedly called Russia “our number one geopolitical foe.” However, when Obama pushed back against that statement in the Oct. 22, 2012, debate, Romney downgraded Russia to a geopolitical foe, as David Weigel pointed out last September. Romney decided in the end that he wasn’t set on casting the former Soviet Union as the big baddie of his hypothetical administration. He just saw Russia as a foe for all geopolitical generations.

Was Romney right?

With the conflict in Ukraine escalating and President Vladimir Putin actively annexing Crimea, many people are citing Romney’s “number one geopolitical foe” line with vindication. The fact that the New York Times editorial board wrote at the time that such rhetoric was “either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics” made Romney’s supporters even more gleeful. Last September, a Romney friend told Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins, “Everyone thought, Oh my goodness that is so clever and Mitt’s caught in the Cold War and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Well guess what. With all of these foreign policy initiatives — Syria, Iran, [Edward] Snowden — who’s out there causing problems for America? It’s Putin and the Russians.” Media outlets on the left and right have mentioned Romney’s remarks as “just about right” over the past year. Romney has begun “I told you so-ing” too. In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, he wrote,

 In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, “a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.”

The difference between the foreign policy school Romney belongs to and the Obama administration is that one group has no problem seeing the world through Cold War-colored glasses, while the other would like to think we’ve moved past that mindset. As the president said in late February, “our approach in the United States is not to see these as some Cold-War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia.”

Unfortunately, the rest of the world has no problem viewing political strategy as a big board game, which is why the White House failed to predict how Russia would act with Syria and Ukraine and Edward Snowden in advance. As Stephen Walt put it earlier this month,”Did we really think that power politics was no longer relevant in the 21st century, and that the spread of democracy, free markets, rule of law, and all that other good stuff meant that other states were no longer willing to defend their own security interests?

The unfortunate and unrelenting old-school nature of international politics is what Mitt Romney was most right about.

…

 “You know that if the president were to be elected, he would still be unable to work with members of Congress. He’s ignored them, he’s attacked them, he’s blamed them. And of course the debt ceiling is going to come up again, and then there’d be a threat of shutdown or default. And that of course chills the economy, puts more people out of work.”

Was Romney right?

Yes. The debt ceiling came up. More than once. There was a shutdown. There was a threat of default. Obama still doesn’t get along with Congress. However, this was not a claim that required clairvoyance. Obama and Congress had already faced off in a series of debt-ceiling showdowns. Nothing suggested that future fights would end any differently. Romney was right, but so was everyone else watching.

Romney’s point also completely skips the part where Congress ignored, attacked and blamed Obama. During the January 2013 debt-ceiling fight, 45 percent of Americans said they’d blame Republicans in Congress if a shutdown happened. When a shutdown finally did happen, they blamed Republicans too. Why? Because congressional Republicans wanted things — like raising entitlement reform — in return for raising the debt ceiling. If President Romney attacked Senate Democrats who tried to raise the minimum wage in return for raising the debt ceiling, he’d probably think such a characterization of the political landscape was unfair. Blaming the president for near default might be a good campaign throwaway line, but it misses some of the complexity of the situation — like most campaign lines (see Obama’s questionable campaign line below).

If the president’s re-elected, Obamacare will be fully installed. In my view that’s going to mean a whole different way of life for people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. Many will lose it. 

Was Romney right?

Romney said this during the Oct. 3, 2012, presidential debate. The first part is unequivocally true; Obama was re-elected, and House Republicans have been unable to get the Senate to sign on to their many attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. President Obama countered Romney’s second statement — that many Americans would lose their insurance plans — from 2009 up until this November, by saying that people who liked their health-care plan, could keep their health-care plan.

Except everyone knew this wasn’t quite true. Administration estimates from July 2010 showed that “40 to 67 percent” of private health-insurance customers would have health-care plans ineligible for the grandfather clause Obama had been talking about. That percentage works out to about 7 to 12 million people, as Sarah Kliff reported last year. That’s a relatively small fraction of the entire population of Americans who have health insurance, but it is plenty large enough to provide anecdotal horror stories for the media until the end of time.

Most of the customers who received cancellation notices after October 1, 2013, had health-insurance plans that didn’t meet Affordable Care Act standards. The Obama administration contends that now these people will be able to get better insurance, and in most cases tax subsidies to stave off price increases. Customers who bought a plan after Obamacare was enacted, or who have health-care plans that have changed their deductibles, co-pays or benefits since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, also received cancellation notices.

At the end of 2013, Politifact called “if you like your plan, you can keep it,” the lie of the year.

Obama has repeatedly apologized for not peppering his health-insurance marketing with more nuance. The White House is allowing states to stave off cancellations until 2016 if they want, but for the near future, damage is done. If the Affordable Care Act ends up working well a few years from now, its early framing fumbles — and real fumbles — may fade. For now, however, the flubs will hover over any health-care debate.

In many cases, the people who lost insurance are going to have better and cheaper insurance. But, as a University of Michigan professor told Bloomberg last year, “the first thing you get that affects you personally is that you’ve lost your health insurance. That approach is going to backfire politically.”

It has, and many conservatives have gone back to Romney’s many quotes on Obamacare cancellations to strike up a “told-you-so” choir. Yes, Romney was right. But the Obama administration also knew he was right. They just did a very bad job of telling the public of why cancellations might be a good thing for many people.

By Jaime Fuller

 

With the level of the federal deficit over $18,000,000,000 (trillions), the interest on which costs Americans the first $1,500,000,000 (billion) they earn every day, and the recent explosion of federal power over the citizens and the states as handed to U.S. socialists by the Supreme Court and the prolific pen of the Executive Order, the independence from government rule and tyranny sought by our Founders is all but neutralized. We and our children are indebted and imprisoned by design of a leftist attack on our country, and an Orwellian federal government spies on patriotic citizens and treats them like enemies while Islamic terrorists are welcomed into the White House and allowed to overrun territories recently liberated with the blood of thousands of Americans.

A polarization has occurred in the nation—as the left has chipped away at personal liberty and individual sovereignty over the past several decades; those who cherish freedom have finally begun to become more vocal in their resistance. But is it too little, too late?

The left has made tremendous inroads in their quest to replace King George with its own elitist panels, commissions and czars, and within the past years its inches of ground-winning have become feet.

In the name of laborer parity and elevating the ethnically or socially disadvantaged, the socialists and communists of the past century have robbed the people of the world of their birthright, established by the labor and sacrifice of their 18^th and 19^th Century forebears. In the name of pretended “fairness,” leftist forces have lowered the wealth and opportunities of everyone, rather than elevate the status of the less fortunate.

Look at any country where socialism and liberalism have penetrated the veil of liberty. Not one of them has improved the quality of life of their working people.

Where do we find the bottom half of earners in America? With all of the talk of the 1% and the 99% in this country, and the mindless chants of brain-dead occupiers in the streets, even an overtaxed economy like ours has rendered our own 99%, the 1% of the world. Nearly all of our poor live in good housing, have clean water and food aplenty (many suffer from obesity), a computer of some kind, and cell phones and cable television. They live better than the wealthy of most of the earth’s nations.

Additionally, the tremendous generosity and military might of Americans has been the salvation of billions of people around the world, whose leftist economies have left them with nothing but squalor, want and exposure to dictators and war lords (usually leftist tyrants).

We hear of the Tea Party these days, and the name is spoken with disdain by over half of the country, and almost all of the mainstream media. Does any of them actually recall where the term originated? Do they remember how an oppressive monarch imposed taxes that were hard to bear and intruded into the personal liberties of a hardworking people, and that those people finally decided that they would take no more and rose up in rebellion, starting with throwing British tea into the harbor?

No, sadly enough, most young adults these days are the products of a dumbing-down campaign launched by the left and its educational arm, the National Education Association. They have mush for brains and their education consists of nothing more than pop culture and global warming propaganda.

We have nearly come full circle. We have hundreds of millions dependent on government and its handouts, a White House dedicated to the overthrow of the Constitution, and a Supreme Court that has decreed that the people are to be taxed even for services they DO NOT purchase at the government’s command and that sodomy is the equivalent of traditional marriage.

King George is back, liberty has been strangled to near enslavement, and this time it will take more than a few muskets to rid us of the burgeoning oppression. America has not seen such dark times since the Civil War. I say the Civil War, because in all other wars the enemy was external. If we fail to immediately change our course, we will be irretrievably carried back under the oppression of dictatorship. We invite all liberty loving Americans to join the revolution, and to regain our independence from oppressive, centralized government.

PUBLIUS

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say.

Further, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify ICE when he was released.

“DHS records indicate ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the subject at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody. The detainer was not honored,” ICE said in a statement Friday afternoon.

Kathryn Steinle was killed Wednesday evening at Pier 14 — one of the busiest tourist destinations in the city.

Police said Thursday they arrested Francisco Sanchez in the shooting an hour after it occurred.

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico.

“His criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions, four involving narcotics charges,” ICE said in a statement.

ICE briefly had him in their custody in March after he had served his latest sentence for “felony re-entry,” but turned him over to San Francisco police on an outstanding drug warrant. At this time, ICE issued the detainer — effectively asking that he be turned back over to ICE when San Francisco was finished with him.

But ICE was not notified. The incident is sure to renew criticism of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies.

“Here’s a jurisdiction that’s not even honoring our detainer for someone who clearly is an egregious offender,” an ICE official told FoxNews.com.

ICE has since lodged another immigration detainer against the individual, though it’s unclear whether San Francisco will cooperate.

A representative with the police department has not yet responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.

Police Sgt. Michael Andraychak earlier said witnesses snapped photos of Sanchez immediately after the shooting and the images helped police make the arrest.

Liz Sullivan told the San Francisco Chronicle that her 32-year-old daughter turned to her father after she was shot and said she didn’t feel well before collapsing.

“She just kept saying, ‘Dad, help me, help me,'” Sullivan said. Her father reportedly tried to do CPR before she was rushed to the hospital.

The immigration detainer issued against the suspect earlier this year would have initiated the process of removing him from the U.S. once again.

“ICE places detainers on aliens arrested on criminal charges to ensure dangerous criminals are not released from prisons or jails into our communities,” ICE said in the statement. “The agency remains committed to working collaboratively with its law enforcement partners to ensure the public’s safety.”

FoxNews.com’s Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.