Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

Sharyl Attkisson

The Border Wall: True Stats and Facts on Progress (PODCAST)

Some say tons of new wall have been built under Trump; others say nothing has been built. I went to the border and found the truth. Here are the stats and facts.

Joining me is Investigative Producer Daniel Steinberger.

Click the player below to listen.

Watch the video of the story at www.fullmeasure.news, posted on Sun. Nov. 17, 2019 and thereafter. 

For more original reporting, subscribe to my two podcasts on iTunes, Spotify or your favorite distributor: "Full Measure After Hours" and "The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast." Follow us on Twitter @FullMeasureAH @SharylPodcast!

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Raven 23 and the former U.S. soldier in prison under a life sentence

President Trump has stepped in to help three military troops whose supporters said were wrongly accused of war crimes.

Not impacted is a former soldier serving a life sentence for his actions while providing security for a U.S. diplomat in Iraq.

Nick Slatten served with the team known as "Raven 23." In 2007, Raven 23 was called to escort a U.S. diplomat to safety after a car bomb exploded. Warnings of possible suicide bombings had been issued. When a car barreled toward the U.S. convoy and refused to stop, Raven 23 fired and it began a horrific firefight. At least 14 "innocent civilians" were shot.

Amid prosecutorial misconduct and multiple trials, Slatten was ultimately convicted of first degree murder and is now serving a life sentence.

As is often the case, there is more to the story. Read my report below as it aired on Full Measure. A video link follows.

It seems every military conflict has its own tragic version of innocent civilians killed wrongly in the heat of war. In Iraq, there was the Nisour Square shootings in 2007. One of the accused, a decorated former U.S. soldier, was on trial just last week eleven years after the incident. In fact, the lives of four decorated former US soldiers still hang in the balance after all this time. Were their actions in legitimate self defense..or criminal acts? And did our own government suppress or misrepresent evidence? That's today's cover story: the case of Raven 23.

The logical place to begin is in Iraq— at the time, one of the most dangerous places on the planet. After the 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces deposed dictator Saddam Hussein — then faced a constant barrage from Islamic extremist terrorists and insurgents. On September 16, 2007 there was a deadly clash in the capital of Baghdad. A team of former US military troops code named “Raven 23” were working for the private firm, Blackwater, when they reportedly opened fire on innocent civilians. The episode heightened tensions between Iraq and the US— and the FBI stepped in to investigate. It concluded the Blackwater contractors “unleashed powerful sniper fire, machine guns, and grenade launchers on innocent men, women, and children” shooting at least 14 “without cause.” Including two boys ages 9 and 11. But like most stories—there are at least two sides. Erik Prince was Blackwater’s founder.

Erik Prince: This is the story of American military veterans who answered the call again when their country needed them— this time to protect diplomats— in a very large scale, in a war zone. And it is their political prosecution that followed an unfortunate incident in the middle of a war zone after multiple enemy attacks. 

Prince, a former Navy SEAL, made Blackwater an integral part of U.S. overseas security after Islamic extremist terrorists bombed the USS Cole in 2000— murdering 17 sailors. Blackwater was hired to train our sailors in counterterrorism. In 2004, Iraqi insurgents killed four Blackwater contractors, set their bodies on fire, dragged them through the streets and hung them from a bridge. 

Sharyl: What was the claim from the other side? What did they say that your guys had done wrong? 

Erik Prince: And it was a bad firing that there was all these innocent civilians that were killed. 

In fact, to this day, media accounts make it sound as if the “Blackwater guards” randomly “open(ed) fire” on Iraqi civilians— unprovoked and for no reason. But Prince says that sorely lacks context: the Raven 23 team thought it had come under ambush trying to escort the US official to safety. 

Erik Prince: A car bomb had gone off. And the support team, Raven 23 was to block the traffic circles so the fleeing vehicles can move through there, uh, smoothly. All the vehicle stopped except for one which kept coming and coming and coming. It was a white Kia. 

The Blackwater team reported the white Kia was driving straight at the convoy like a suicide bomber. When it kept going despite verbal orders and hand signals to stop, at least one Blackwater guard fired— killing the driver and his mother. Iraqis began firing back and a full-blown firefight broke out. Reba and Darrell Slatten are the parents of one of the Blackwater guards: Nick Slatten. 

Sharyl: So your understanding is that car to them was seen as a threat. So maybe that, maybe, maybe a car bomb. 

Darrell Slatten: That's what it was. So ‘stop, stop, stop.’ Keeps coming. 

Reba Slatten: They had been actually a brief that morning: ‘Be on the lookout for a white Kia because it's probably a car bomb.’ 
But Iraqi investigators and the FBI said panic and animosity toward the locals drove some members of Raven 23 to commit a criminal massacre. 

Sharyl: When you heard this report, did it ever occur to you that these men would end up being criminally prosecuted? 

Erik Prince: When I first heard the report of the events of September 16, it actually sounded like dozens and dozens of other incidents, uh, that the guys had been in and subject to in Iraq in war zones. Remember, helicopters were shot down, vehicles blown up, men shot by snipers, by suicide vests, by every kind of have a danger you could face. 41 of our men had been killed in action doing that work for the U.S. government and, you know, hundreds wounded on top of that. 

Sharyl: What do you think made this one different? 

Erik Prince: This was the height of the surge and it was also the height of real antiwar, noise and protest in the United States. 

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Blackwater and other private contractors were also under increasing attack in Congress over allegations ranging from poor supervision to harmful misconduct. After the murky and disputed accounts of the tragedy in Iraq involving Raven 23 the pursuit of criminal charges against Slatten and the other Blackwater guards has spanned three U.S. presidential administrations. In 2008, Slatten and four others - all decorated former military soldiers—were charged with multiple counts of manslaughter.A year later—all the charges were thrown out due to misconduct by prosecutors. In 2011, prosecutors refiled charges — then dropped them against one man after new allegations of prosecutor misconduct. Among the four left, Nick Slatten was hit hardest. This time, instead of manslaughter, the Justice Department charged him with first degree murder — accusing him of firing the first shot at the Kia driver. Even though teammate Paul Slough had admitted to doing so.Nick Slatten’s sister, Jessica, is an attorney. 

Jessica Slatten: Multiple other up gunners shot into the car because the car kept coming. My brother never shot at the Kia. The government has known that since day one.

The Slattens say Nick told them not to bother to come from Tennessee to the first trial a joint trial held in Washington DC in 2014. 

Reba Slatten: He said, mom, I'm not a murderer. I didn't shoot the driver of the Kia. Um, so don't come up here. Don't waste your time. Don't waste your money. I'll see you. I thought he was coming home. 

At that first trial, Slatten was forbidden from telling the jury that one of his co-defendants had admitted to the shooting he was accused of. All four men were convicted. All of them except Slatten got 30 years in prison. Slatten got life— for first degree murder. 

Sharyl: So what did it make you think as a mom when you thought he was just doing his job and you heard that he was being perceived as a criminal? 

Reba Slatten: I couldn't believe that the United States was doing this to my son who served four years in the 82nd airborne and loves this country. I was in shock.

But the story was far from over after the 2014 trial. The convictions started a movement by family members and advocates. For them, a big break came last year. An appeals court determined the sentences were “cruel and unusual punishment” and threw them out. And it said Slatten deserved a new trial because jurors had been kept from hearing key evidence in his defense. The new trial began in Washington D.C. in JulyThis time, Slatten’s parents, grandmother and sister were all there. And this time, jurors finally got to hear that Slatten’s teammate had acknowledged shooting the driver of the white Kia. The one prosecutors accused Slatten of murdering. But this past Wednesday, after a month of deliberations, the trial — Slatten’s second — ended with no resolution. A hung jury. The Justice Department declined our requests for comment and hasn’t yet said whether it will try Slatten yet again. Slatten’s family say Nick is the victim of a malicious prosecution in our government’s misguided attempt to use Raven 23 as a symbol of accountability in an unpopular war. 

Darrell Slatten: And this case has brought me to understand that we don't really live in a country of justice and truth. It's about the check in the winners' column. And that's what our justice system is today. Totally corrupt.

Slatten and the other Raven 23 members have been charged, had charges dropped, were recharged and convicted, then had those sentences thrown out. All are still in prison while the Justice Department decides on next steps. Meantime, they’ve served more than four years— that’s longer than a Blackwater colleague who plead guilty a decade ago to voluntary manslaughter served a year and a day.

Watch the video of Raven 23 story by clicking this link: http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/raven-23

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

"Read the Transcript" (Call #1, April 21)

Today, Nov. 15, the White House released the transcript from the first call President Trump had with the newly-elected president of Ukraine.

(Read the second call by clicking the link here.)

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

The truth about "The Wall"

New, fortified wall in Arizona along the U.S.-Mexico border

If you're like me, you've heard a lot of claims about progress on a Southern border wall-- or lack thereof.

Some people say a great deal of new wall or fencing has been built under President Trump.

Some claim virtually no new structure has really been built.

And still others say any wall built under Trump should actually be credited to President Obama.

Sunday on Full Measure, I set out to get at the facts without the spin. I'll tell you just how much wall has or has not been built under President Trump.

I'll also have a fascinating interview with news media skeptic and conservative TV and radio host Mark Levin. His new book, "Unfreedom of the Press," is a New York Times bestseller.

And just for fun, we'll visit a fantastical place in a faraway land where the Star Wars saga began.

We never waste your time rehashing news you've already seen all week. To learn how to watch Full Measure on TV, online or on demand, click: How to watch Full Measure

Thank you to the thousands who are supporting the landmark case of Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.

"Read the transcript" (Call #2, July 25)

President Trump has insisted his July 25, 2019 phone call with Ukraine's president was "perfect."

His critics argue it's evidence of a criminal quid pro quo, extortion and bribery.

Read the transcript as released by the White House below.

Note: Per procedures described by White House officials, the "transcript" is not necessarily a direct verbatim of the call, which reportedly was not recorded, but a compilation of transcribed notes taken by observers. This apparently is not a process unique to the Trump presidency. George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State who testified against Trump at Wednesday's impeachment hearing, stated it is not unusual for such calls to not be recorded.

The link to the document is below:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Thank you to the thousands who are supporting the landmark case of Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.

The Biden-Burisma part of the impeachment hearing

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Sec. of State (left) and Ambassador William Taylor (right)
Wed. Nov. 13, Courtesy: CSPAN

The following is a new analysis

There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.

There's a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here's a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, I'll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.

Kent agrees today that Burisma should be "fully investigated," as President Trump has asked.

Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.

Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky's crimes "go away." Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.

Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma's board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.

Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.

Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about "Hunter Biden's status as a [Burisma] board member" amid the corruption questions because it "could create the perception of a conflict of interest." He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President's office. Kent stated he has "no idea" what the Vice President's office did about his concerns.

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden's son still served on the board. Ukraine's president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)

Kent defended Biden's action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.

When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.

Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.

Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are "never held to account" in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is "lots to review."

Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he'd been there 13 times.

When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated "no."

When asked, Kent agreed it's appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.

Read the Politico investigation about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton and "sabotage" Trump. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”

Ambassador William Taylor

Amb. Taylor testified he was concerned that the "irregular channel was going against purpose of regular channel."

Amb. Taylor indicated he was upset that President Trump was going outside the “regular” channels, using an “irregular, informal” channel “unaccountable to Congress” that consisted of:

  • Energy Secretary Rick Perry
  • U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker
  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney
  • U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland
  • Trump attorney and adviser Rudy Giuliani.

Amb. Taylor stated that the regular diplomats were enthusiastic about the newly-elected president of Ukraine and they urged President Trump to meet with him to cement the relationship, but "Trump didn't share the enthusiasm."

Amb. Taylor stated that approval of additional aid to Ukraine was being held by the Office of Management and Budget, supposedly at the president's behest. Trump had reportedly asked for an assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. assistance to Ukraine. Amb. Taylor felt that was "a threat to longstanding policy."

Amb. Taylor said OMB's Mulvaney maintained a "skeptical view of Ukraine."

Amb. Taylor said Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky indicated he did not want to be used in U.S. election campaign.

Amb. Taylor was upset at being excluded from some discussions involving Ukraine, on which he disagreed.

Amb. Taylor stated that he was afraid that U.S. strong support toward Ukraine was "shifting." He said he was “embarrassed” at times that he didn’t have answers about U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Amb. Taylor said he was concerned to learn on September first that the U.S. made additional aid and a White House meeting with Ukraine's president conditional on Ukraine conducting investigations into its corruption, including Burisma.

Amb. Taylor says Amb. Sondland told him that President Trump wanted Ukraine's President Zelensky to publicly state he would investigate Burisma and 2016 election interference. Amb. Taylor said that President Trump wanted Zelensky in a "public box to keep him honest"; make him publicly commit to the investigations. Amb. Taylor disagreed with this “demand” and asked Amb. Sondland to “push back” against it.

Amb. Taylor said he “understood” there to be a stalemate: Ukraine would not get additional U.S. assistance without President Zelensky making a public statement agreeing to an investigation.

Amb. Taylor stated that did not want President Zelensky to give make a planned statement on CNN promising an investigation, and Amb. Taylor says he sought assurances from President Zelensky that he would not do so.

Amb. Taylor stated that the withholding of additional U.S. aid was "wrong" and that doing so "shook [Ukraine's] confidence."

Amb. Taylor acknowledged the U.S. "conditions assistance all the time," but he disagreed with what he assumed to be Trump’s motivations.

Amb. Taylor said his "nightmare" was that President Zelensky would make the public statement but not get the U.S. aid. “Russians love it and I quit,” he says he texted at the time, adding, “I think it’s crazy to withhold political assistance for help with political campaign.”

Amb. Taylor says Amb. Sondland told him President Trump had been "crystal clear: no quid pro quo." Amb. Taylor said he assumed the opposite was true, though did not speak to Trump.

Amb. Trump quoted Amb. Sondland as explaining that when a businessman like Trump is about to sign a check, he asks for them to "pay up" before the signing. Amb. Taylor said that "didn't make sense" because "the Ukrainians didn’t owe U.S. anything."

The hold on additional U.S. assistance was lifted the next day without Zelensky making a public statement or providing "dirt" on Biden, even though Amb. Taylor and Kent said they clearly understood the aid would not be released unless those quid pro quo terms were met.

In the end, additional aid to Ukraine was delayed for 55 days from July 18-Sept. 11, 2019.

During that period, Amb. Taylor says he met with Ukraine's president three times and there was "no linkage of security assistance dollars to Biden or Burisma investigation" in any of the meetings.

Amb. Taylor added that Ukraine's president did not know at the time of the first two meetings that any assistance was being withheld, and only learned of it prior to their last meeting, when it was reported in an Aug. 29 Politico article. At that point, Amb. Taylor testified, there was still no discussion of conditions or why the aid was being withheld.

Amb. Taylor and Kent did not testify they heard that President Trump was looking for “political dirt,” mentioned the “2020 elections” or suggested anybody should fabricate or make up any dirt on the Bidens. Both men acknowledged they have never met or spoken to President Trump. However, both witnesses and the Democrats' counsel stated they concluded additional U.S. aid to Ukraine was temporarily held due to “personal or political interests of the President.”

Amb. Taylor testified he and Kent unaware of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election in collusion with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and the role Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa played as a consultant for the DNC at the time, as described in a January 2017 Politico article. They stated they did not know a Ukrainian had admitted spreading disinformation to undermine Trump's candidacy. He said they learned of this only recently.

Amb. Taylor testified that the information in the Politico article “surprises me, disappoints me, because it’s a mistake for any government official to interfere” with another country.

Amb. Taylor stated that he was not testifying to help decide about impeachment and did not allege an impeachable offense against President Trump.

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

ISIS bride is not a U.S. citizen, says judge

Hoda Muthana and child

A federal judge ruled today that a so-called "ISIS bride" Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be allowed to return to the United States.

Muthana, a Muslim woman, told her family she was going on a field trip to Atlanta in 2014. Instead, she joined the Islamic extremist terrorist group ISIS in Syria. She reportedly married three different ISIS fighters, becoming a widower each time.

While part of ISIS, Muthana advocated for the murder of Americans.

In one tweet, she reportedly wrote: “Go on drive-bys and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriot, Memorial etc Day parades..go on drive by’s + spill all of their blood or rent a big truck n drive all over them. Kill them."

Muthana asked to be allowed to return to her family in the U.S. on the grounds she is a U.S. citizen and that she had diplomatic immunity for her crimes. She filed an appeal earlier this year when the U.S. government determined she had no right to return. She said she was willing to face trial in the U.S.

Although Muthana was born in the United States, the U.S. government determined she is not a citizen. That's because her father was a Yemeni diplomat posted to the United Nations in New York. Children of such diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Muthana argued that she has received death threats from people who are still loyal to the Islamic extremist terrorist group ISIS, which she married into. She also says her child needs access to better medical care.

The Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America says it will continue to fight to bring Muthana back to the U.S.

"United States citizenship cannot be revoked by tweet or any other form of social media, and today’s ruling does not change that," stated the Center in response to the court decision.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Dissenting diplomats are the ones conducting "shadow diplomacy" against Trump

Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor

The following is an excerpt from my latest news analysis in The Hill.

There’s an important revelation from the first day of impeachment hearings that I haven’t heard discussed. It has to do with the witnesses’ strange notion of how foreign policy works...

...There must be some confusion. 

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?...

...Trump’s enemies may cheer on the idea of diplomats and other officials choosing to oppose or undermine his wishes. But based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats are the ones who are at odds with “official foreign policy”— not the other way around. To the extent they are attempting to further policies that oppose or undermine the president’s wishes, they are the ones conducting the “shadow campaign.”

Read the entire article at The Hill by clicking the link below:

The-president-not-diplomats-sets-official-foreign-policy

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.