(1) The Internal Revenue Service Deliberately Targeted Conservative Groups Through Two Election Cycles - The IRS' story is falling to pieces. When Lois Lerner revealed on Friday that the agency had engaged in "inappropriate" investigative tactics against conservative organizations, she claimed the practice was (a) the doing of "low-level" operators in Cincinnati, and (b) not politically motivated. Neither assurance was true. As Katie noted this morning, the Washington Post has learned that IRS officials in three other locations were also in on the scheme, including Washington, DC -- from which the entire enterprise may have emanated. "IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of 'social welfare' groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications," the Post reported last night. Emphasis mine.
ProPublica -- a non-profit hub of investigative journalism -- has announced that the very same IRS division responsible for wrongly scrutinizing right-of-center organizations also leaked them confidential documents from nine different conservative groups. Mary Katharine Ham compiles a round-up of at least four other recent instances when sensitive and private tax documents from conservative-aligned organizations were mysteriously leaked to the press and hostile liberal groups. The suggestion that none of this was motivated by political bias is risible and insulting.
As for the "who knew what, and when?" time line, the original story has completely disintegrated: The politicized monitoring commenced in March 2010 (just as the national debate over Obamacare came to a head, coincidentally) and the aforementioned Lois Lerner, who runs the IRS division in charge of tax exempt groups, discovered what was happening in 2011. As did the IRS' chief counsel. The practice continued deep into 2012 (a presidential election year), when IRS acting Commissioner Steven Miller became aware of the practice. Miller's predecessor, Douglas Shulman, had testified under oath several months earlier that no such targeting was taking place (video HERE). Miller then "repeatedly failed to tell Congress" about what he knew, according to the Associated Press. It also appears as though the IRS was looking into certain pro-Israel organizations as well. This is an actual quote from Politico's story on the matter:
Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010 alleging that one of its attorneys were told its application for tax exemption was delayed and sent to a “special unit…to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”
President Obama claimed yesterday that he first found out about the IRS' malfeasance along with the rest of the country, via media reports. But administration spokesman Jay Carney told reporters the White House counsel was brought into the loop more than three weeks ago. Did no one tell the president? Are we expected to believe that? This saga is far, far from over, and may have real political legs and is drawing umbrage from commentators who are typically very protective of the administration.
(2) The Obama Administration Overhauled the Benghazi Talking Points to Mask Failures and Misdirect the Public on the Terrorist Attacks - It's beyond dispute that (a) the White House's false talking points were revised 12 times, (b) that high-ranking State Department officials were concerned that the accurate original talking points might make them look bad, and (c) final edits were made at a White House meeting on September 15. The "useless" finished product was rejected by the then-CIA director and slammed as "jaw-dropping" and "embarrassing" by the Amb. Stevens' second-in-command in Libya. In spite of black-and-white evidence to the contrary, both the president and spokesman Jay Carney continue to assert that the White House wasn't involved in any substantive changes to the "official" story, which they still claim was based on the "best assessment" of the intelligence community at the time. Both of these statements are demonstrably false. Last November, this is what Carney told reporters:
The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
On Friday, he hedged a bit, leaving open the possibility that State -- but certainly not the White House -- had dirtier hands than he'd previously let on. Yesterday, a State Department spokesperson (who might seem familiar) frantically passed the buck again, repeatedly placed all responsibility for the talking points on the CIA:
"These Were CIA Points. They Were CIA Edited. They Were CIA Finalized."
This is profound dishonesty. The CIA presented finalized talking points to the administration, which proceeded to revise and scrub them a dozen different times, with many of the most politically-calculated edits triggered by State Department bigwigs. The original assessment represented the best intel. The finished product was unrecognizable. Pinning that on the CIA is a shameless and risky proposition. And the president is playing with fire with false claims about his own forthrightness; he was just awarded Four Pinocchios by the Washington Post for Benghazi-related statement he made at yesterday's press conference.
(3) The Obama Justice Department Secretly Monitored Dozens of Journalists' Phone Records for Months - With the mainstream media warming to the task of covering the previous two scandals, Monday evening's compounding bombshell couldn't have dropped at a worse time for the White House. Because it's a jarring affront to press freedom, journalists are likely to take it personally. Indeed, many in the Washington press corps are friendly with the reporters and editors whose work and personal phone records were quietly culled by the federal government. Gasoline, meet fire. It appears the DOJ's aim here was to identify and plug an administration leak, which they sought to accomplish by resorting to a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into the business of a very wide swath of journalists -- who by definition aren't the ones doing the leaking. The Associated Press' write-up explains why the Justice Department's heavy-handed and surreptitious action in this case was exceptional:
The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department might have taken to get information in the case. A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules. The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news." News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."
It would appear that Eric Holder made all sorts of exceptions to existing rules and protocols in this case. And yes, per DOJ guidelines, the Attorney General himself must sign off on operations like this. Jay Carney referred reporters' questions to the Justice Department and said the White House didn't know about this situation until the news broke publicly -- a familiar and dubious refrain. The Attorney General's priorities have worked hand-in-glove with the president's agenda for nearly five years. No one at the White House got a heads-up on this story?
(4) HHS' Coercive "Donations" Drive Pressures Healthcare Companies to Finance Obamacare Implementation - Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander has asked the Government Accountability Office to review the legality of Sec. Sebelius' unorthodox and ethically-suspect fundraising efforts. Alexander suspects the scheme "could violate Congress' power to direct policy through appropriations." This isn't the first time Sebelius has been accused of violating the law by testing the boundaries of her official duties. As an aside, don't forget which fine federal agency is slated to enforce Obamacare.
With the gale-force winds of four separate scandals howling in the background, the president had the temerity to offer yet another lecture on "cynicism," this time blaming Rush Limbaugh for all that ails Washington. This analysis came at a posh celebrity-dotted fundraiser in Manhattan. Obama senses heightened distrust and dysfunction, and instinctively fingers his critics -- rather than, say, any of the items detailed above. Parting quotation - a relevant flashback:
"Punish our enemies." How interesting.
When news broke last week just ahead of an IRS inspector general report detailing the specific and inappropriate targeting of conservative tea party groups, IRS officials claimed the targeting was the result of a few low-level IRS agents in Cincinnati. It turns out, that isn't true. Not only did senior IRS officials know about the targeting as early as 2011, but officials in California and more importantly, Washington D.C., helped carry it out.
Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.
The IRS has been caught in three lies up to this point. The first: IRS official Lois Lerner admitted to the inappropriate targeting of tea party groups but said the targeting in no way was politically motivated. That is a lie. The IRS targeted conservative groups and flagged words and phrases like "constitution," "patriot," "government spending," "limiting government," "9/12," "making America a better place to live," etc. The entire thing was political. The second: Initially IRS officials said the targeting was conducted by a few "low-level" agents working in Cincinnati. It turns out, the Cincinnati IRS office is anything but "low-level" and is the place to go when applying for tax-exempt status.
Upon a review of the IRS bureaucracy, though, the Cincinnati office is not a random backwater outpost for "low-level" IRS rogues. In fact, the Cincinnati office is where determinations on tax-exempt organizations' eligibility are made and is the only physical office in the complex IRS bureaucracy dedicated to tax-exempt determinations.
On the IRS's website, in the "How to Contact the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division" section, the Cincinnati office is the only one listed for people to contact if they have questions about "Charities & Non-Profits."
The third: IRS officials claimed nobody in Washington D.C. was a part of ongoing targeting and that senior IRS officials knew nothing about this when in fact, as noted above, senior officials knew as early as 2011.
Senior officials at the Internal Revenue Service were aware that its agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011, according to an Inspector General's draft report obtained by Fox News.
Lois Lerner, who runs the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, knew about the targeting of Tea Party groups since June 29, 2011.
Yesterday President Obama said if conservative groups were being targeted by the IRS, which we know they in fact were being targeted, that he's "got no patience for it."
As Guy detailed extensively yesterday, the Department of Justice has been secretly monitoring the phones of dozens of Associated Press reporters.
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
When asked about the extensive intrusion, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pulled out the typical response to every Obama administration scandal, saying of course the White House knew nothing about this and only found out through news reports just like the rest of us.
Carney, in a statement sent through the pool reporter, said the White House was unaware of the DOJ’s actions.
“Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP,” he said. “We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department. Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice.”
The secret monitoring of press phones isn't something some low-level employee was doing inside the Department of Justice. Monitoring like this is only signed off on by the Attorney General and after all, Holder is longing for the day when he and Obama can just "hang out" as old friends. As the AP pointed out yesterday, this most likely has to do with national security leaks, leaks that made the Obama administration look bad.
The government would not say why it sought the records. Officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."
On June 8, 2012, President Obama vowed a zero tolerance policy when it came to national security leaks after his administration was accused of sending information to reporters in an effort to make his record on terrorism and foreign policy look better in an election year.
President Barack Obama indignantly hit back Friday at "offensive" charges that his administration disclosed vital national security secrets to beef up his image in an election year, insisting he has a "zero tolerance" approach to leaks that endanger America's interests.
And Obama, speaking at a hastily called session with reporters in the White House briefing room, defended his handling of the weak economy, insisting that "the private sector is doing fine." He blamed cuts in government spending and "head winds" from Europe for sluggish growth.
Leaks for me but not for thee is the Obama administration's policy.
During the Clinton scandals of the '90's, I learned about a whole new model of promoting corruption -- through example and indirection. Most dramatically, I remember realizing that Bill Clinton had, indeed, urged those who worked under him to lie . . . just not explicitly. In other words, he had never said to Betty Currie or anyone else, "Please lie." But it was clear that it's what he wanted -- and needed -- them to do.
Somewhat less directly, it strikes me that the abuses committed by the IRS are pieces of the same set of cloth. Most everyone working under a leader has a pretty good idea of the kinds of actions that are permitted, welcomed, tolerated or encouraged -- if not explicitly, through a wink and a smile and non-discouragement. To put it in terms that the perpetually-aggrieved on the left can understand, it's like a boss tolerating a hostile workplace, not by actively harassing women himself, but by condoning that behavior by other employees, turning a blind eye to it, and subtly communicating through his own words and actions that all the EEOC signs and the rest aren't really to be taken seriously.
President Obama has pretty much treated the truth -- and in some sense the Constitution -- a little bit like that boss with the EEOC signs. It's all there for show. But clearly, through "jokes" and winks and nods and tolerating hitherto out-of-bounds behavior committed on his behalf, he signalled to potential partisan freelancers that little was really beyond the pale.
Last year, Kim Strassel wrote about thecase of Romney donor Frank VanderSloot, who was the recipient of a fiercely intrusive audit after he became a Romney contributor:
Did Mr. Obama pick up the phone and order the screws put to Mr. VanderSloot? Or—more likely—did a pro-Obama appointee or political hire or career staffer see that the boss had an issue with this donor, and decide to do the president an unasked-for election favor? Or did he or she simply think this was a duty, given that the president had declared Mr. VanderSloot and fellow donors "less than reputable"?
Around the same time, The New Times reported on Obama targeting the Koch brothers personally in a new ad. About a month later, as ABC News reported,
President Obama’s re-election team is engaging conservative oil magnates Charles and David Koch in a public spat they hope will rouse the Democratic base and draw donations to their campaign.
The back-and-forth began Friday when, in a fund-raising email to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina accused the billionaire brothers of “jacking up prices at the pump” and bankrolling “Tea Party extremism.”
This was the President's campaign, mind you, run by him. Similarly, The White House petition site posted and allowed signatures on a petition to pull Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio. That's an official web site, financed by your tax dollars. Only later did it post a reply from the Department of Defense politely declining to remove Limbaugh.
Then there's what the Obama campaign did to Romney. Here's an excerpt from John Harris on Politico (yes, Politico! No friend to the GOP) who wrote:
With a few exceptions, Romney has maintained that Obama is a bad president who has turned to desperate tactics to try to save himself. But Romney has not made the case that Obama is a bad person, nor made a sustained critique of his morality a central feature of his campaign.
Obama, who first sprang to national attention with an appeal to civility, has made these kind of attacks central to his strategy. The argument, by implication from Obama and directly from his surrogates, is not merely that Romney is the wrong choice for president but that there is something fundamentally wrong with him.
Yeah, like he killed a woman -- a sleazy charge first made by the Obama campaign that the President never repudiated even when it was roundly discredited through an ad run by a Super Pac led by his former staffers.
For the President, it isn't enough to encourage people to disagree with his opponents -- they have to hate them. And he is willing, himself, to demonize his opponents openly and personally -- to an extent we've never seen by a President -- if that's what it takes to get the job done. It's behavior that cheapens the office he holds, and no one should really be astonished that it elicits the kind of illegal and ugly behavior we're discovering. If the President is as smart as we've all been told he is, surely he knows that hiself.
Given the highly personal, take-no-prisoners vibe emanating from the top,is anyone really surprised that the IRS office that targeted conservatives also leaked confidential information in its files on them? Or that the IRS stole a form listing donors to the National Organization for Marriage and leaked it to the Human Rights Campaign when the debate over gay marriage was in full force?
At the time a lot of this stuff was going on, I deplored "The Official Obama Attack Machine." But the press just never seemed interested in connecting the dots. Now, perhaps, the AP understands the widespread sense that this administration has stretched all sorts of boundaries of behavior -- and not in a good way.
With the IRS, AP and Benghazi stories cresting simultaneously, how can any American be confident this administration is serving the public interest fully, truthfully and impartially? Last night, Obama denounced Rush Limbaugh (again!) and charged that Republicans were making Americans feel "cynical about government."
Ha. As if they needed to. His own administration is already doing a pretty good job with that.
What the hell is going on within the Obama administration? Another huge scandal rears its head, and I'd bet the press won't take this one lying down:
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
The Associated Press is understandably livid:
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
Was the DOJ snooping for leakers and potential whistle-blowers? That's my initial gut reaction. Stay tuned for details. If you're keeping score at home, here's what we've discovered since last Friday:
(1) The Obama administration changed its Benghazi talking points 12 times, scrubbing politically unhelpful elements, and radically changing the best analysis of the intelligence community. The White House had previously denied presiding over anything but minor, cosmetic changes to the talking points.
(2) The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra harassment from 2010 to 2012, and top officials knew about it since at least 2011. No disciplinary action has been taken so far.
(3) The Obama Department of Health and Human Services is requesting "voluntary" donations from the healthcare companies over which it wields enormous power in order to help fund Obamacare's implementation, perhaps in violation of the law.
(4) The Obama Justice Department secretly monitored dozens of Associated Press journalists' work and personal phone records for purposes that remain unclear. This lasted for at least two months.
I'd toss in some "what if Bush had done it?" snark, but that hardly seems necessary. This is quite simply astonishing. And to think, Ron Fournier's piece about President Obama's credibility crisis was written before this latest bomb dropped. Last week, Obama told Ohio State graduates to "reject" those "cynical" voices who warn of government abuse and tyranny. Then the IRS and AP stories broke. Listen up, grads. And all other citizens.
UPDATE - Here's the DOJ's deeply Orwellian statement:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.
Notifying the AP that they were secretly collecting work and personal phone records data on dozens of reporters and editors for months was a "substantial threat" to the investigation? But remember, they "value the freedom of the press."
UPDATE II - What's our president up to tonight?
Obama schmoozing w Justin Timberlake &Jessica Biel at NYC fundraiser, while his DoJ snoops on reporters & his IRS targets tea party orgs.
— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) May 13, 2013
Is this a "side-show," as well?
In April, Townhall reported illegal border crossings had doubled in light of amnesty talk on Capitol Hill and potential cutting of Border Patrol hours.
"We've seen the number of illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening," an agent told Townhall, who asked to remain unnamed due to fears of retaliation within Customs and Border Protection [CBP], something he said is common. "A lot of these people, although not the majority, are criminals or aggravated felons. This is a direct danger to our communities."
Data obtained by Townhall and reported within CBP from February 5 through March 1, 2013 shows 504 illegal aliens were spotted exploiting the Tucson/Nogales area, 189 were caught on CBP intelligence cameras. Of those 504, only 174 were apprehended and 32 of the 189 on camera were carrying large drug load packs for Mexican cartels. Some were armed with AK-47 style weapons.
Now, the Arizona Daily Star is reporting after an eight year drop, illegal immigration from south of the U.S. border is on the rise again.
The number of people apprehended along the Southwest border is rising for a second fiscal year after an eight-year decline.
As of April 2, 192,298 people have been detained this fiscal year, compared with 170,223 during the same period last year, unofficial data shows.
The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.
Apprehensions in the Tucson Sector - the busiest section of the border - are down 1 percent so far this year to 64,514. But the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, arrests are up 53 percent to 59,147. Apprehensions are used as an indicator of how many people are crossing into the United States.
Most of the recent growth in apprehensions is due to more Central Americans attempting to cross, unofficial data shows.
Just last week the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated all efforts to secure the border before granting amnesty.
A bloc of 12 pro-immigration senators blocked a GOP amendment to freeze the proposed legalization of 11 million illegals until the border is secured, highlighting a fundamental political divide on the first day of voting on the far-reaching Senate immigration bill.
“The bill is … legalization first and enforcement later, and just opposite what the people think they’re getting, and opposite to what many members of Congress think is in the bill before us,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
The defeat, however, gives critics an obvious argument during national debates over the immigration bill. Numerous polls show strong public demand for a secure border with Mexico.
After a long trial and ten days of jury deliberation, abortionist Kermit Gosnell from the "House of Horrors" has been convicted of murdering three babies in the first degree. This means he will face at least three life sentences and could face the death penalty. Gosnell was found guilty of murdering Baby A, Baby C and Baby D. He was found not guilty of murdering Baby E. Gosnell was charged with four counts of first degree murder.
LifeNews has more:
Baby Boy A was the biggest baby that Kareema Cross had ever seen delivered at Gosnell’s abortion “House of Horrors” clinic in the four years she worked there. He was delivered to 17-year old Shaquana Abrams at 29.4 weeks gestation, according to an ultrasound record. Baby Boy A was so large, he did not fit into the plastic shoe box that Gosnell tossed him in. Cross said she saw the baby pull in his arms and legs while Gosnell explained the movements as “reflexes” telling her the baby really didn’t move prior to cutting the baby’s neck. Baby Boy A was so large, Gosnell joked that “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” Cross and fellow employees Adrienne Moton and 15-year old Ashley Baldwin were all so “startled” by the size of the baby that they all took photos of the baby with their cell phones.
Baby C was an intact baby of over 25-weeks gestation. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Baby C breathing and described the up and down chest movements she observed for 20 minutes. She told the court she saw Lynda Williams lift the baby’s arm and watched as the newborn drew it back on its own power. Afterwards, Williams inserted surgical scissors into the baby’s neck and “snipped” the spinal cord. Gosnell was said to be in the room at the time. This baby’s murder charges were unintentionally dismissed in the place of Baby F, but were reinstated after Judge Minehart discovered his error.
Baby D was described by witnesses as 12-15 inches long with the head the size of a “big pancake” when he was delivered into a toilet. Kareema Cross testified that she saw the baby struggling, using swimming motions in an attempt to get out of the toilet bowl. Adrienne Moton pulled the baby out and “snipped” the neck, as Gosnell had taught her to do, while the mother watched. Gosnell has also been charged with Criminal Solicitation of Moton to commit murder of Baby D.
Baby E was estimated to be at least 23 weeks gestation and maybe more. After Baby E was delivered, teen Ashley Baldwin heard the baby cry and called Kareema Cross for help. Cross described the baby’s cry as a “whine.” Baldwin said that Gosnell when into the room then came out with the baby — which now had an incision in its neck — and tossed it into the waste bin.
We are still waiting to hear the verdict for the charge of third degree murder.
He also faces a third-degree murder charge related to the death of a woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Virginia, from a botched legal abortion. Gosnell, who has been in jail since his January 2011 arrest.
And the other charges.
The abortionist faces 258 counts total and other charges against him include one count of infanticide and one of racketeering, 24 counts of performing third-trimester abortions and 227 counts of failing to follow the 24-hour waiting period law before an abortion so women can consider its risks and alternatives.
Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins has released a statement:
"There are no victories here and this is far from over. The women and children Gosnell killed are still dead. The families he destroyed with his lies are still suffering. Abortion is still legal in America and is being perpetrated in the same corrupt and dirty ways Gosnell did it for 40 years. Our generation has only just begun our quest to obtain justice for the 55+ million baby girls and baby boys who have killed by legal abortion and to save untold millions more from the same fate," Hawkins said. "Gosnell's filthy practices are simply business as usual for the abortion industry and its Goliath, Planned Parenthood. We know there are other Gosnells out there. It's time to expose these front alley butchers."
The pro-life Susan B. Anthony list isn't celebrating and reminds everyone that Gosnell is not alone.
“The greatest tragedy is that Kermit Gosnell is not alone. Exploitation of women and complete disregard for their health and well-being are problems endemic to the entire abortion industry,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a statement. “There are numerous examples of negligence and even death in abortion facilities across the country. Now is the moment to realize that abortion is neither safe, nor rare. Abortion is a brutal, painful procedure, both for the child that it kills and the woman that it wounds. We must protect children both inside and outside the womb who experience unspeakable pain from abortion. Congress must address its role in protecting nationwide the human rights of children. Legislation to ban late-term abortions in the nation’s capital, as well as the recent action taken to investigate abortion industry oversight across the country are the vital first steps. But Congress should not and must stop there. The few inches that separate a child in the womb from a child outside the womb should never determine whether its intentional ‘demise’ is permitted by law or whether a ‘right’ to kill it no longer exists. Americans overwhelmingly oppose late-term abortions and the law should follow their instinctive resistance to this dehumanizing and degrading practice.”
The sentencing portion of the Gosnell trial will take place next week.
UPDATE (GB) - The immediate, emotional reactions from the prosecution and defense tables:
RT @kirstenpowers10: CNN reporter on air now says the prosecutor was sobbing after verdict read.
— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) May 13, 2013
#Gosnell looked shocked and bewildered when convicted of multiple counts of first degree murder.#nrlc
— Jacki Ragan (@JSR1353) May 13, 2013
Gosnell's in-trial smirk is gone.
UPDATE II - Gosnell's attorney said his client received a "fair trial."
UPDATE III (GB) - Surprise: Planned Parenthood weighs in with a sanitized tweet that doesn't mention Gosnell's younger victims. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania was aware of the horror shop Gosnell was running and did nothing. The abortion lobby has consistently opposed efforts to increase regulation, health inspections and oversight at abortion clinics.
UPDATE IV (GB) - Guilty, guilty, guilty...
#Gosnell was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of patient Karnamaya Mongar, who died of an overdose of sedatives.
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) May 13, 2013
The abortionist #Gosnell also guilty of infanticide in death of Baby A, and conspiracy in deaths of babies C and D.
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) May 13, 2013
Jury found Phila abortionist #Gosnell guilty of "corrupt organizations," and conspiracy to perform abortions past Pa.'s 24 week limit.
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) May 13, 2013
#Gosnell also found guilty on most of the more than 200 counts of Pa.'s "informed consent" law requiring a 24-hour wait.
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) May 13, 2013
Gosnell is eligible for the death penalty. The sentencing phase of the trial begins in July, according to NBC News.
UPDATE V - The one murder count Gosnell skated on:
#Gosnell found not guilty in death of Baby E, who was heard emitting a single baby sound before neck was cut.
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) May 13, 2013
They couldn't definitively prove that this child was slaughtered outside of the womb, so "not guilty" it is, under our barbaric laws. Many forms of late-term abortion remain legal in the United States, thanks to the obsessive efforts of the abortion lobby, and in the face of widespread public opposition:
Gallup also notes that overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose late-term abortions; 80 percent reject third trimester abortions, and 64 percent do the same in the second trimester.
Some in the media are still referring to the murdered babies in this case as "fetuses."
Katie already flagged the major elements of President Obama's joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. ABC News' Rick Klein offered a succinct observation about Obama's dichotomous approach to the two major scandals dominating today's headlines:
Two poles of presidential response: Outrage with the story on #IRS, outrage against the story on #Benghazi.
— Rick Klein (@rickklein) May 13, 2013
The president expressed (qualified) strong disapproval about the IRS' ideological seek-and-destroy mission, but inveighed against the legitimacy of Benghazi as a newsworthy story. I'd like to follow up on a few of the president's comments: (1) We now know that the IRS targeted conservative groups as far back as 2010, and that the IRS brass became aware of the practice between 2011 and 2012. Can the president tell Americans that no one inside his administration was aware of this situation prior to last Friday? Obama claimed that he himself only learned of this outrage through "the same news reports" the general public has seen. Color conservatives skeptical.
(2) The president softened his denunciations of the IRS story with the caveat of "if, in fact, this happened...." Isn't he aware that the IRS has publicly confessed, and apologized for, "inappropriate" conduct?
Why are we in patented Obama indefinite "wait-and-see," "fact-gathering" phase for IRS story when they've admitted their wrongdoing?
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) May 13, 2013
Mary Katharine has seen this dodge before. In her forthcoming Townhall Magazine column, she dissects the "work in progress presidency," in which Obama's "patented fact-gathering phase" is frequently invoked to deflect questions about inaction or problematic reports. See: Closing Guantanamo Bay, Obamacare implementation, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Syrian "red lines," etc.
(3) What are "so-called talking points"? Either the administration drew up talking points to inform the public about a deadly terrorist attack, or they didn't. And we know that they did because those "so-called talking points" were modified and revised 12 times, then relayed to the public on every Sunday morning chat show.
(4) The president repeated his mouthpiece's line that the talking point revisions are a "no there there" non-story. Even some mainstream media journalists were floored by that approach:
"There's no there there." Wow. Doubles down on shifting stories.
— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) May 13, 2013
Fournier sees an Obama credibility crisis brewing. Team Obama continues to insist that the White House's talking points were based upon the "best assessment" of the US intelligence community, which we know to be false. CIA director David Petraeus rejected the heavily-bowdlerized final memo as "useless," and the Assistant Sec. of State emailed a Libyan official the day after the attack and clearly stated Ansar al-Sharia's involvement. That was four days before Susan Rice (speaking on Obama's behalf) told the American people that the terrorist attack was actually the "direct result" of a "spontaneous" protest sparked by a YouTube video -- which was never mentioned in any version of the CIA's talking points. Democratic whistle-blower Gregory Hicks called the YouTube clip a "non-event" in Libya. Stephen Hayes asks a good question, as does Philip Klein:
CIA Dir Petraeus called the #Benghazi talking points useless disappointed WH was using them. And Obama says they were consistent w/PDBs?
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) May 13, 2013
So why did Obama repeatedly talk about the video at UN two weeks after attacks?
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) May 13, 2013
Hayes rightly wonders if journalists, Congressional investigators and the public will have access to those presidential daily briefings, now that Obama has asserted that they aligned with Susan Rice's false talking points.
(5) "We dishonor [Benghazi's victims] when we turn things like this into a political circus," an irritated Obama intoned. Is Patricia Smith turning her son's death into a "circus" and "dishonoring" him by demanding truthful answers to questions, especially after she was misinformed by high-ranking White House officials?
(6) Obama channeled Jay Carney by condemning Republican attempts to "politicize" Benghazi. Is Dennis Kucinich a Republican? Did the White House press corps and numerous editorial boards morph into partisan right-wingers when no one was looking?
(7) Finally, the government of the man standing next to Obama today withdrew its diplomatic team from Benghazi in June of 2012, due to escalating attacks against Western targets in the city. Why didn't the Obama administration follow suit, particularly after its compound was bombed twice? It turns out Sec. Clinton wanted to go in the opposite direction and make it a permanent post, which is why Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi that day. In light of the vastly different British and American judgment calls, why was our security presence so lacking, and why were urgent petitions for more protection shot down? Was the president involved in these discussions, and if not, why not? After all, Libya was a country in which he chose to go to war -- without Congressional permission, no less.
Breaking news from MSNBC: You're all racists and you "need to be held accountable"!
Philip Klein over at the Washington Examiner has taken the time to go through the IRS inspectors general report exposing the agency specifically targeted conservative groups and has listen the key words that were flagged. –”Tea Party”
–”Patriots”
– “9/12″
– “We the People”
– “Take Back the Country”
– “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement”
–"Issues include Government spending, Government debt, or taxes”
– Education via advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”
– “Criticiz(ing) how the country is being run.”
This list is extensive and took more than a simple "flag tea party stuff" order to complete. It's clear someone at the IRS, or from another agency or sector of government, heavily researched specific tea party issues, which mainly includes limiting government spending and the growth of government.
Here are some groups close to the terms flagged above:
-FreedomWorks 9/12 March on Washington
-Tea Party Patriots subgroup 'We the People'
