Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

Sharyl Attkisson

Mitt Romney's Twitter alter ego

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

"Pierre Delecto" strikes back at Romney critics

If there was ever any doubt that Republican Senator Mitt Romney (at least secretly) identifies as vehemently anti-Trump, the Twitter account under the name "Pierre Delecto" may have put that to rest.

Romney recently admitted he was using the "Delecto" pseudonym on social media. Romney told reporters it was "a way to have a private account to see what's going on." (Of course, one doesn't need a private account to "see what's going on." Any Twitter user with an account under their real name can privately read whatever they wish without detection.)

Romney was the Republican nominee for president in 2012, beaten out by Democrat Barack Obama. Romney spoke out against Trump in 2016. Trump later endorsed Romney for senate in Utah.

Though Romney didn't publish very frequently on Twitter under his fake name, the content has garnered him some fans among both liberals and anti-Trump Republicans. Romney used "Pierre Delecto" to express pro-Romney and/or anti-Trump sentiments.

Romney's tweets are now protected and cannot be seen by ordinary users on Twitter. But a Slate reporter says she captured some highlights, which are excerpted below.

On May 31, Romney's "Delecto" Twitter account tweeted a conservative writer who had called Romney's treatment of Trump "non-confrontation verging on spinelessness." Delecto told the reporter she "needed to take a breath," and "Maybe you can then acknowledge the people who agree with you in large measure even if not in every measure."

On June 8, Romney's "Delecto" Twitter account replied to a CNN report stating that Romney had an "utter lack of a moral compass." Delecto replied: "Only Republican to hit Trump on [Mueller] report, only one to hit Trump on character time and again...you think he's the one without moral compass?"

On October 7, a news report noted that Romney called Trump an "unreliable ally." Fox News' Brit Hume replied, "Some might say Romney is too." "Delecto" weighed in, tweeting that Romney is "loyal to principle," while Trump's "loyalty [is] to party or person, right Brit?"

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.

Quid pro no in Ukraine

The following is an excerpt from my latest column in The Hill.

Quid pro no.

The current impeachment debate is being framed in terms of whether or not there was a “quid pro quo”— as if that is the bar that will determine whether or not President Trump did something egregious.

There are big flaws with this framing, as well as with the use of the term. 

Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions,” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”

The nonexistent impeachment quid pro quo (PODCAST)

The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”

It is true that few Americans would think it’s appropriate for a U.S. president to use his foreign aid diplomacy to set conditions to receive “dirt” on a political opponent. But the available information is proving to be a far cry from the original “whistleblower” allegations that Trump “solicit[ed] interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential election, in quid pro quo fashion. 

Foreign aid is widely considered a tool to allow the U.S. “access and influence in the domestic and foreign affairs of other states,” particularly “national security policy.” It also “helps governments achieve mutual cooperation on a wide range of issues.”

All of this appears to neatly fit the definition of the very things President Trump’s critics allege he did: try to ensure Ukraine’s cooperation in the U.S. investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign, and obtain a commitment from Ukraine to open an investigation into widespread corruption that could have U.S. ties — including a possible tie to the 2020 presidential election. (Continued...)

Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/467079-quid-pro-quo-in-ukraine-no-not-yet

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.

"Everyone is a Russian Asset"

2016 presidential nominee, Democrat Hillary Clinton

"Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years."

Mike Taibbi, reporter, Rolling Stone

Former presidential nominee for Democrats, Hillary Clinton, ignited a lot of discussion when she recently stated that other prominent liberals are "Russian assets."

Who does Clinton say has gone over to the red side?

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat (who was identified by implication only); and Jill Stein (who ran as an independent candidate in 2016).

Both Gabbard and Stein quickly slammed Clinton's "conspiracy theory."

Clinton also continued pushing the idea that President Trump is a Russian, asset, too.

“[Jill Stein’s] also a Russian asset… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate....I don’t know what Putin has on [Trump], whether it’s both personal and financial … I assume it is.”

Hillary Clinton, 2016 (D) presidential nominee

Clinton's accusations prompted an article by Mike Taibbi in Rolling Stone who writes, "Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years."

The following is an excerpt of the article in Rolling Stone

Less than a week before Clinton’s outburst, the New York Times — once a symbol of stodgy, hyper-cautious reporting — ran a feature called, “What, Exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?” The piece speculated about the “suspicious activity” surrounding Gabbard’s campaign, using quotes from the neoconservative think-tank, the Alliance For Securing Democracy, to speculate about Gabbard’s Russian support.

(Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below)

Everyone Is a Russian Asset

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 HERE: The latest Gen. Flynn defense filing

Former Trump National Security Adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

The latest court filing in the case of Gen. Michael Flynn has to do with information the government wishes to keep redacted, and alleged delays caused through the process of determining what should or should not be made public.

Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, has accused the Department of Justice of stalling. He is awaiting sentencing for lying about his discussions with a Russian ambassador. There is controversy surrounding his guilty plea. Among other issues, some FBI agents reportedly stated privately that they did not believe Flynn had lied. the discussions with the Russian ambassador themselves were not against the law.

Read today's filing by clicking the link below. Note: emails between the government and Flynn attorney Sidney Powell are at the end of the document.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.127.0_1.pdf

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

When polls are fake news (PODCAST)

When we dig into one recent poll on President Trump's impeachment, we find a lot more than what made headlines.

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 government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

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!

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!

Brennan; Clapper sought for interviews in probe into origins of Trump-Russia investigation

Two top former intel officials at the center of the controversy over the Trump-Russia probe may be interviewed by the Trump administration U.S. attorney investigating the origin of it all.

That's according to one of the officials, former CIA Director John Brennan.

Brennan, an analyst for NBC News, says that he and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are being asked to give interviews to U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Read the entire story by clicking the link below:

HERE WE GO: Clapper And Brennan To Be Interviewed As Part Of Investigation Into Origins Of Russia Probe

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Poll: Few minds are being changed about 2020

Most people have not changed their mind regarding who they might vote for in 2020.

That's according to the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com.

Ninety-six percent (96%) of those who answered indicated they haven't been swayed one way or another in recent weeks.

Read the full results below. Meantime, be sure and vote in our latest poll at SharylAttkisson.com on the home page. Look for the black box in the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site!

I have changed my minding recent weeks on who I might vote for in 2020.

3% True

96% False

1% Unsure

Support the fight against government overreach in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!

"Dissident" Mitt Romney

The following is an excerpt from an article in The Atlantic.

...[A]fter weeks of escalating combat with the president—over Ukraine, and China, and Syria, and impeachment—the gentleman from Utah suddenly appears ready to unload...

To Romney, Trump’s performance as president is inextricably tangled up in his character. “Berating another person, or calling them names, or demeaning a class of people, not telling the truth—those are not private things,” he says, adding: “If during the campaign you pay a porn star $130,000, that now comes into the public domain.”...

In just the past few weeks, he has denounced the president’s attempts to solicit dirt on political rivals from foreign governments as “wrong and appalling”; suggested that his fellow Republicans are looking the other way out of a desire for power; and condemned Trump’s troop withdrawal in Syria as a “bloodstain on the annals of American history.”

(Continued...Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/mitt-romney-middle-impeachment-fight/600373/

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI