An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News.

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign’s standard defense and that of Clinton is that she “never sent nor received any email that was marked classified” at the time.

It is not clear how the FBI team’s findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for — as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

The FBI offered no comment.

A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.

“Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information,” attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. “Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held.”

Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton’s defense.

The Code of Federal Regulations, or “CFR,” states: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the “send” or “receive” distinction.

Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.

Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.

“Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified,” said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. “There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something — that’s not an excuse.”

The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet “safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency.” Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business — and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall — appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.

Fox News was first to report, Aug. 19, that two emails — from aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan — with classified information kick-started the FBI probe, a point not disputed by the Clinton campaign.

The CFR also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified “to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”

Farrell said, “There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and her outlaw server.”

Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton’s immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.

Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.

“I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I’m very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone,” she said. “It will prove what I have been saying and it’s not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn’t change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified.”

The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne

 

IF YOU LIKE YOUR 401(k), YOU CAN KEEP YOUR 401(k)

In 2013, in a little-heralded case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the Obama Labor Department’s attempt to punish voluntary retirement plan service providers. The DOL, under the direction of the controversial, radical leftist Tom Perez, had tried to force providers of 401(k), 403(b), IRA, and related services to adopt a massive new set of regulations known as “fidiculary” responsibilities.

The Seventh Circuit slammed the door shut on Labor and the Supreme Court thereafter declined to hear the appeal, which meant that the Obama administration had lost in the highest court in the land.

Of course for the “most transparent administration ever”, that step simply meant that the court’s opinion was to be rejected and that Obama would use his infamous pen to rule by executive fiat. After all, the ends justify the means, correct?

On August 24th, Perez and the Labor Department confirmed they are moving forward with new regulations that would repudiate the court’s opinion. Even Obama’s SEC Commissioner issued an ominous warning that the Labor Department’s new regulations would unleash havoc and create “a mess.”

Furthermore, financial services experts have cautioned that the new rule is “too complicated to [actually] put into practice.”

Earlier this month, the Labor Department held public hearings to discuss the input and concerns they have received from industry groups and other stakeholders that will be impacted by the department’s proposal to expand the definition of “fiduciary” under ERISA … In the debate over the DOL’s proposal — which, as written, [will] create a vast and costly new regulatory regime for independent firms and advisers across the country…

Barack Obama and Tom Perez don’t care about all of that. They’re on a mission to seize your retirement funds:

Labor Department officials are determined to produce a new standard of fiduciary duty for anyone giving retirement investment advice, once they process concerns raised in thousands of comment letters and four days of hearings on their proposal.

A SIMPLE PLAN

Like Obamacare, the idea is to drive small- and mid-size service providers out of the retirement business by ensuring that the costs of complying with regulations are unaffordable. And, to ensure a Republican president can’t easily unwind the Rube Goldberg machinery, the Labor Department has also promised an impossible eight month implementation timeline. Most providers believe it will take three years to follow all of the byzantine rules and regulations.

Their intent, in my view, is to force a consolidation of the retirement service industry, just as Obamacare drove mergers and acquisitions in the health care business, leaving only gigantic corporations in its wake. These companies have become intertwined and dependent upon legislators and lobbyists in Washington. They can’t make a move without the permission of the federal leviathan.

Many Democrats are open about the true goal of Obamacare: to end up with a single-payer health care system, modeled after the National Health Service in the U.K. You know, the system that was reported to have killed 120,000 seniors in 2012 alone.

SETTING THEIR SIGHTS ON TRILLIONS OF YOUR RETIREMENT DOLLARS

The Obama administration has its sights set on an incredible amount of your money. By some estimates, Americans are holding well over $10 trillion in private retirement accounts.

For a country with debt that is clearly “unsustainable” (source: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office), that amount of money is akin to showing a kilo of heroin to a desperate junkie.

THE GOAL: FINANCIAL REPRESSION

One of the first steps the Obama administration took to signal its direction was to unveil its wildly unsuccessful “MyRA” program. This takes participants’ funds and invests them in “ultra-safe”, government-issued debt.

You can be sure that the future of the retirement services business will be to extend “fiduciary” responsibilities to require advisors to leverage federal debt instruments in their clients’ portfolios.

This is called “financial repression“, and it is the hallmark of a government on its way to bankruptcy. Essentially, a failing government forces investors to purchase its debt because it knows damn well that the instruments will ultimately never be repaid.

Argentina and other failed countries have embarked upon this strategy prior to a full-blown currency collapse.

You can be sure that the real goal of the Obama administration is to nationalize your retirement account and to invest it in debt that will become increasingly unsellable in the open market.

If you want to maintain control of your retirement funds, I’d recommend contacting your member of Congress today. Urge them to defund the Department of Labor until this rule is nuked from orbit.

by David Mills

Political commentator Ann Coulter believes that immigration is the most important issue facing America today. If we don’t get it right, she says, debates over economics, foreign policy, and other issues just won’t matter.

Coulter makes the case in her new book, “Adios, America,” that it has been the goal of liberals for decades to fundamentally transform America by bringing in millions of immigrants from third-world countries to build their voting base.

As those familiar with Coulter know, she speaks her mind. Watch the interview to find out what she told us.

Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood

Over the last week, the debate over birthright citizenship has divided the 2016 Republican presidential field and put the spotlight back on immigration.

Birthright citizenship allows children born in the United States to be granted automatic citizenship, including those born to illegal immigrants. So what are some of the issues surrounding birthright citizenship, and how are those opposed looking to end it? The Daily Signal explains.

UPDATE: Several commenters have raised questions about the 1898 Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Professor Edward Erler addresses the case in “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky said this about it in a Fox News op-ed:

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Sunday that Hillary Clinton is indeed the focus of a Justice Department probe, calling the argument that the probe is about her private email network when she was secretary of state “ridiculous.”

“The FBI doesn’t investigate machines,” Mukasey, a Bush administration attorney general, told “Fox News Sunday.” “It investigates people.”

“It is not a political witch hunt,” he said.

For months, questions about the private email network Clinton used while secretary of state have nagged her 2016 Democratic presidential campaign.

In recent weeks, the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence community have asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether Clinton’s network received or sent classified emails.

Clinton and her campaign have repeatedly said that she neither sent nor received classified email. And they have argued the investigation is not a “criminal” probe and that government nomenclature is at the center of the issue.

“What’s going on here is something that happens all the time,” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon recently argued. “You have a bureaucratic tangle over what counts as classified and what doesn’t.”

Mukasey, an adviser for Republican Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign, said arguments about what information was either classified or unclassified is “at the margins” of the debate.

“It’s inconceivable that a great deal of the information was unclassified,” he told Fox.

However, Mukasey acknowledged that the issue of Clinton perhaps or eventually facing criminal charges like now-retired Gen. David Petraeus would depend on what she knew about the content of the exchanges.

Petraeus gave classified information to a female writer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

Former California Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who is now a Clinton campaign surrogate, on Sunday largely dismissed the email controversy as a political attack.

“We can quibble about what [emails] should be re-classified when they go out to the public, but that’s dancing on the head of a pin,” she told Fox. “That’s partisan politics.”

Off-duty members of the U.S. military subdued a gunman “known to intelligence services” after he opened fire, injuring three aboard on a high-speed train en route to Paris from Amsterdam Friday.

Three U.S. servicemen were on board the train and overpowered the man when the train stopped in the northern French city of Arras, 115 miles north of Paris, French media reported. Some reports said the men were U.S. Marines but that could not be confirmed. 

Passengers on the train subdued the gunman and prevented further carnage, said Christophe Piednoel, spokesman for national railway operator SNCF. The train was then diverted to Arras, where police arrested the suspect, Piednoel said on French television i-Tele.

The suspect was arrested after the train stopped in Arras, 115 miles north of Paris, Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henri Brandet said on French television BFM. Passengers were evacuated and police have secured the area.

The man was armed with an automatic rifle and a knife, Piednoel said.

The suspect is a 26-year-old Moroccan, Alliance police union official Sliman Hamzi said on French television i-Tele.

The victims were identified as an American, a Briton and a Frenchman. Earlier reports said two American service members were among the injured. Two of the victims were in critical condition, according to a statement from the office of President Francois Hollande.

“The situation is under control, the travelers are safe. The train stopped and the emergency services are on site,” Thalys, the train operator, tweeted.

The attack took place while the train was passing through Belgium, according to a statement from Hollande’s office. The statement said he spoke with Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, and the two leaders pledged to cooperate closely on the investigation.

Two of the victims were considered to be seriously injured, the French state rail company SNCF said, according to French wire service AFP. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve is on his way to the scene. Passengers were evacuated and police have secured the area.

The motivation for the attack is unknown, officials said. AFP cited French officials saying the suspect is “known to intelligence services.”

Investigators from France’s special anti-terror police are leading the investigation, a spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutor’s office said.

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

In the wake of the recent and ongoing Planned Parenthood scandal regarding the harvesting and sale of baby hearts, livers, lungs, and other organs, late last week a group of black pastors requested that a bust of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, be removed from a temporary Smithsonian exhibit named, ironically, “Struggle for Justice.”

The pastors are deeply offended at Sanger’s inclusion in the program because of her direct ties to eugenics and overall disdain for African-Americans.

Until now, many Americans have trustingly assumed that Planned Parenthood is a benevolent health care provider, but after watching the horrific videos, complete with senior employees’ casual disrespect for human life and dignity, the public is beginning to ask more probing questions about Planned Parenthood’s founding, mission, and ongoing work.

In doing so, they will likely learn very disturbing information about Sanger’s view of black Americans and how that influenced the founding of Planned Parenthood of America, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

In 1921, Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which in 1942 underwent a name change to become Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Many of the group’s founding directors were actively involved in the “eugenics” movement, which held that certain classes or colors of people were “lesser” and “unfit” for humanity and shockingly should be eliminated. Included in these targeted “unfit” groups were black Americans (another group included was people with disabilities).

In addition to eugenics involvement, one founding director, Dr. Lothrup Stoddard, wrote a book, “Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy.”

Perhaps the hardest fact to take in is that under Margaret Sanger’s leadership, the organization created a program called the “Negro Project,” which involved strategically seeking to decrease the black population by convincing black community leaders to introduce birth control to their networks.

About the project, Margaret Sanger was once quoted as saying, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

She also spoke at Ku Klux Klan meetings.

Fast-forwarding to 2015, sadly, today, black Americans are aborted at a highly disproportionate rate.

Making up only 13 percent of the population, this group makes up a staggering 36 percent of the nation’s abortions.

In certain areas such as New York City, a black baby is more likely to be aborted than carried to term.

In the words of the pastors:

Perhaps the gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as ‘the feeble minded;’ speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women….Also the notorious ‘Negro Project’ which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice.

As the undercover videos continue to be made public one after the other, it is likely that Americans will continue to discover many unseemly truths about Planned Parenthood’s origins.

By Jeanne Mancini

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