Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

Sharyl Attkisson

When *They* Come For You: A new book

The eye opening new book written by award-winning investigative journalist David Kirby is on sale now: When They Come For You.

I think of it as 1984 for 2019.

When They Come For You details how to fight back against government, law enforcement and bureaucratic interests "seizing our property, our children, our savings, and our fundamental American rights."

Federal, state and local governments, police, lawmakers, judges, revenue agents, unelected power brokers, and even government social workers are are all playing a role, according to Kirby.

The book is not just written from a liberal viewpoint, it's written from the viewpoint of all freedom-loving Americans.

Police and prosecutorial misconduct, overzealous bureaucrats with virtually unchecked power, unwarranted searches, SWAT-style raids on the homes of innocent Americans, crackdowns on a free press and the right to protest, removing children from their parents without cause, “debtors prisons," restricting freedom of health choice, seizing private assets for government profit, and much more demonstrate how deeply our rights and our national values are eroding. 

Publisher description of When They Come For You

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.

NewsBlues.com's irresponsible message to journalists: never question Wikipedia

A blog called NewsBlues.com claims to have served up "tasty television insider news since 1998."

They're also serving up a steaming helping of propaganda.

The site, run by a couple of former local newsmen, recently weighed in with a strange defense of the bias and agenda editing going on at Wikipedia. The blog on NewsBlues.com stated that it's not just ill-advised, but it's positively crazy not to trust every word that Wikipedia publishes.

In fact, NewsBlues.com blog authors Tom Claycomb and Rick Iler seem to believe that Wikipedia is the ideal, reliable source for journalists and fact-seeking citizens everywhere.

NewsBlues.com CEO, former local newsman and former adjunct college professor Rick Iler

That idea is not only irresponsible, it's also contrary to the norm. In recent years, there have been countless controversies over Wikipedia's agenda editing; some of them have made international news. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has parted with his creation over Wikipedia's well-known biases and other problems. (He's working on a new online encyclopedia called Everipedia.com with the goal of avoiding some of Wikipedia's inherent conflicts.) Even teachers of kids as young as middle school now warn that Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation for reliable information.

But Claycomb, Iler and NewsBlues.com claim all of that is just tin foil hat conspiracy talk. In their minds, any criticism of Wikipedia is positively deranged.

NewsBlues.com writer and former local newsman Tom Claycomb

The timing of the NewsBlues.com blog in question is curious, indeed. It was published on June 17 right after some Wikipedia agenda editors wrote that I must be "stopped" from publicly discussing Wikipedia's problems.

Could Claycomb and Iler be some of the volunteer editors who insert their biases -- and sometimes vitriol -- onto Wikipedia's pages under the cloak of anonymity?

Below you can read the NewsBlues.com blog and the exchange I had with the website over the issue.

What do you think? Leave your comments on this page!

Original NewsBlues.com blog by Tom Claycomb

THE CONSPIRACY CONTINUES

Look who is ‘looking out for you” by launching something aimed at one of her personal anxieties.

Former journalist-Alex Joneslike [sic] conspiracy theorist Sharyl Atkisson [sic] proudly announces the Wikipedia Correction Project, or WCP, if you really want to feel like an insider.

The goal of said WCP is to make additional information that is censored on Wikipedia available elsewhere.

The Sinclair tv host wants you to help correct what she feels are the many errors of Wikipedia – errors that she believes are intentional and the result of censorship.

Her sole example of Wikipedia’s alleged perfidiousness is referring us to the Wikipedia bio she wishes she had vs. the Wikipedia page that actually exists.

How can you take part in the Wikipedia Correction Project? she asks.

Submit one of the following:

    An entire Wikipedia-style page you’re written on a biography or topic.

    A section or sections that include(s) only the material that’s been excluded from Wikipedia.

    Note: You may include explanation(s) as to what you believe is incorrect or unfair about the Wikipedia page in question, and attempts to amend it; but you do not have to.

Oh…and…Support independent journalism. Donate to SharylAttkisson.com by clicking here. Because evidently, Sinclair is not paying enough.

Attkisson response to NewsBlues.com blog:

Please forward this submission to your chief editor.
June 25, 2019
It's been about a week and I haven't heard back from anybody here regarding your libelous blog dated June 17:
https://newsblues.com/category/just-sayin/
To summarize:
1. I cannot fairly be described in any sense as a "former journalist." I am a currently working investigative journalist who hosts a weekly news program and writes for The Hill and Real Clear Politics, among others. Calling me a "former" journalist is false and malicious, and damages my reputation.
2. I have never been associated with Alex Jones. The attempt to link me to him is malicious.
3. I have never reported on "conspiracy theories," except to the extent that many news stories technically involve conspiracies (more than one person planning a crime together). I have not, to my knowledge, alleged "conspiracies" even when they have existed. It is false and malicious to link me to "conspiracy theories."
4. It is false and misleading to claim that I provided "a sole example" of Wikipedia's "alleged perfidiousness." I have written at length and spoken of many instances documented by authors, journalists, Wikipedia insiders, whistleblowers and others.
The snarky tone of the article makes it clear that the anonymous author of the hit piece had an agenda to accomplish. But he can do so without providing false, misleading and malicious information that demonstrates reckless disregard for the truth.
I am surprised nobody has answered my previous outreach.
Please respond ASAP, as the article must be corrected.
Every day that it remains posted in its current state adds to the harm and damages.
Please also provide me with information as to the names of editors responsible since I was unable to locate this information.
Sharyl Attkisson

Response to Attkisson from NewsBlues.com Tom Claycomb:

First off, allow me to apologize for missing your first email regarding the NewsBlues story of June 17, 2019. Another search of the “Comments” failed to turn it up and we have no explanation for its absence.

Second, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Tom Claycomb and I am the principal content writer and producer at NewsBlues, something a cursory search of the website would have revealed.

NewsBlues has had a mission reputation since its inception 20+ years ago to shine an irreverent, cheeky and yes, ofttimes snarky, light on the business of television news.

As such, the purpose of the story was to poke fun at the idea of fact-checking Wikipedia and yes, your role in that task. If we did overstep the boundaries, it was the inclusion of the word “former” when describing you as a journalist. We would be happy to correct that.

I hope this clears some things up for you.

If you would like a further conversation, our managing editor and CEO is Rick Iler. He can be reached at rick@newsblues.com Thank you for your patience and, again, our sincere apologies for not responding to , or being aware of, your initial email regarding the story.

Best regards, Tom Claycomb 

Attkisson response to Tom Claycomb at NewsBlues.com

I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to imply I wasn’t able to conduct “a cursory search of the website.” I looked at the article and there was no byline or indication of who wrote it. I went to the home page and clicked “About” and it doesn’t have the information as to how to contact anybody to find out who wrote a paticular story. I could not find a search box on the website. I clicked “Request Assistance.” I tried clicking “Help.” And finally I went to “Contact” to send a generic note.
With respect, your story did not come across as funny or witty to me or to anybody who contacted me about it to flag it as a libelous and malicious column. Trying to connect me to Alex Jones is not funny and has no connection to the idea of fact checking Wikipedia, other than you made such a connection. If anything, there are anonymous editors editing Wikipedia who have an affinity for conspiracies or who themselves are conspiring to control certain pages— so if there is any such valid connection to be made to Alex Jones, that would be closer to one. 
Calling me a “former" journalist and implying I’m a conspiracy theorist isn’t funny. My career is based on my reputation which I’ve done a good job to protect for over 30 years. I am not infallable, but I have broken many important national and international stories, never had to correct or retract anything, have received numerous recognition from Emmy (and am an Emmy judge) and Edward R. Murrow awards, and I stand up to arrows shot by the people and special interests I cover every day. That arrows would come from an industry insider and the blog be sent out to young journalists across the country in an effort to parody me and my work— or disparage me— is baffling to me. Can you please explain what motivated you to take away my status as a “journalist” in your “funny" article in the first place?
May I suggest, in the interest of fairness, you consider a brief follow up story at News Blues? It is unclear to me why you consider the idea of fact-checking Wikipedia something to “poke fun” at. The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, supports my project to correct Wikipedia. He is among the many people who have pointed to Wikipedia’s bias, conflicts and fact errors which have become so serious, he has parted his own original project. Others include author Philip Roth, former Wikipedia editors and administrators including Gregory Kohs, and scholars and dignitaries too numerous to count. Wikipedia editors have gotten caught editing for paid interests, working for PR firms, vandalizing pages on various controvrersial issues, controlling pages of personalities and topics in a one sided fashion, deleting factual information and inserting false and libelous material. 
Wikipedia’s problems are so serious, it led to a wholesale movement to get PR firms and pharmaceutical interests to agree to stop editing Wikipedia anonymously. Some did; some didn’t agree. I have investigated the topic of Wikipedia’s agenda editors, bias and mistakes, covered it on the news, written about it in my New York Times bestsellers, and spoken of it in my TedX talks. 
What you see as funny, or a reason to disparage me and my career, is actually quite a serious thing that young journalists who subscribe to your newsletter should know about. Instead, you have implied, thorugh your blog, that Wikipedia should be considered a reliable source (a bad idea even in high school, let alone journalism).
I can provide links and further information if you find the idea worthy of a follow up and a way to help correct the disparagement about me but more importantly, the misimpressions you are leaving young journalists with about sourcing and where they can get reliable facts.  Please let me know one way or another..Thank you, Sharyl Attkisson 

Response from NewsBlues.com Rick Iler:

Sharyl,
I read your response and at this time we don’t want to do any more on the subject.  Thank you for your feedback.
If you want us to run a correction for the “formal Journalist” statement we will.  Just let us know. Thanks,
Rick Iler 

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.

The Miami Herald investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal

Jeffrey Epstein arrest mug shot

In November of last year, the Miami Herald published a three part investigation and timeline about the Jeffrey Epstein case entitled, "Perversion of Justice."

The following is a brief excerpt with a link to the full report. The story starts in October of 2007 with a meeting between Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz and Miami’s top federal prosecutor at the time: Alexander Acosta.

Perversion of Justice, by the Miami Herald

Facing a 53-page federal indictment, Epstein could have ended up in federal prison for the rest of his life.

But on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck — an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein’s crimes and the number of people involved.

Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal — called a non-prosecution agreement — essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes, according to a Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records.

The pact required Epstein to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court. Epstein and four of his accomplices named in the agreement received immunity from all federal criminal charges. But even more unusual, the deal included wording that granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators’’ who were also involved in Epstein’s crimes. These accomplices or participants were not identified in the agreement, leaving it open to interpretation whether it possibly referred to other influential people who were having sex with underage girls at Epstein’s various homes or on his plane. 

As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls — or anyone else — might show up in court and try to derail it...

...The Herald also identified about 80 women who say they were molested or otherwise sexually abused by Epstein from 2001 to 2006. About 60 of them were located — now scattered around the country and abroad. Eight of them agreed to be interviewed, on or off the record. Four of them were willing to speak on video...

...Federal prosecutors identified 36 underage victims, but none of those victims appeared at his sentencing on June 30, 2008, in state court in Palm Beach County. Most of them heard about it on the news — and even then they didn’t understand what had happened to the federal probe that they’d been assured was ongoing...

...“It started out to give a man a back rub, but in many cases it turned into something far worse than that, elevated to a serious crime, in some cases sexual batteries,’’ he said.

Most of the girls said they arrived by car or taxi, and entered the side door, where they were led into a kitchen by a female staff assistant named Sarah Kellen, the report said. A chef might prepare them a meal or offer them cereal. The girls — most from local schools — would then ascend a staircase off the kitchen, up to a large master bedroom and bath. 

They were met by Epstein, clad in a towel. He would select a lotion from an array lined up on a table, then lie facedown on a massage table, instruct the girl to strip partially or fully, and direct them to massage his feet and backside. Then he would turn over and have them massage his chest, often instructing them to pinch his nipples, while he masturbated, according to the police report...

Read the rest of the Miami Herald investigation by clicking the link below:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

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.

Good cop, bad cop and the Starbucks incident

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

I married a cop.

Well, he’s a retired lawyer now, but he was all cop when I met him. And as a young reporter at the time, I learned a great deal from this police supervisor and SWAT team commander that would provide useful in my professional career as a journalist.

I learned that— while relatively rare— there are bad cops, poorly-trained cops, power hungry cops and careless cops. I even covered a case in Florida where an auxiliary police officer turned out to be a serial killer. He would shoot out the tires of women’s cars as they traveled  on desolate Florida roads at night, do unspeakable things to them, cut their bodies into pieces and bury them in 55 gallon drums in the orange groves of Indian River County. I spent many days reporting from those groves as police dug up remains.

I also learned a lot from my husband-the-cop about police restraint. I learned that while use of force by a police officer may be deemed justified under the law, the ideal situation is for police to safely control a situation without using force, if at all possible. The goal should be defusing a dangerous situation rather than inflaming it. (Continued...)

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

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/451920-good-cop-bad-cop-and-the-starbucks-incident

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.

Update: Whistleblower award in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the govt. computer intrusions

Attkisson with attorney Tab Turner (left) and
computer forensic specialist Don Allison (right)

I'm very pleased to be closing in on my goal of 100,000 views on Twitter of my video announcing a whistleblower award in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. (See the video embedded below.)

And yes, the offer is bearing some fruit.

The goal of 100,000 views is being accomplished despite the "throttle" being turned down on my social media accounts, which impacts their visibility and reach.

The goal is being accomplished thanks to many of you!

Read more about the case here. Please consider viewing the video and sharing the information.

Next steps will be announced in the near future!

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.

Waste of U.S. tax dollars in Afghanistan

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko

Our Full Measure cover story today focused on the ongoing problem of waste, fraud and abuse of our tax dollars in Afghanistan.

The scope of the money involves is massive: more than $130 billion.

With Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John Sopko unraveling the many problems, it's no surprise that there is steady pressure to dial him back. It comes from the many interests who profit from U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

The following is a transcript from the report followed by a link to the video.

We begin with Afghanistan: our longest war in U.S. history. President Trump recently ordered thousands of US troops to be pulled back from Afghanistan and said he’s thinking about withdrawing entirely. The Afghan War has claimed the lives of thousands of US soldiers and wasted billions of our tax dollars. Our newest assessment comes from John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

When U.S. Inspector General John Sopko is on site in Afghanistan it’s not for sightseeing.

Sopko: But the contract said this should be tile and the walls should be tile and there should be working stoves. Were there any working stoves?

Afghan official: Ever since we inspected, we never found one.

On this day, he’s inspecting yet another building our tax dollars paid for.

Sopko: Was this supposed to be air conditioned?

Afghan official: Yes, sir.

...And wondering where all the money went.

Sopko: See Lieutenant, when we built this building there was supposed to be tile up the walls, there was supposed to be working stoves.

17 years long into America’s War in Afghanistan— one thing is clear: there’s more frustration than progress.

Sopko: But we paid for tile for your government and you didn't get it. It was not installed, okay.

Sharyl: In the Afghanistan conflict going on now, why is it we’re there and what is it we're trying to do?

Sopko: It goes back to the attack of 9/11. And we went in there because of the fact that was a training ground for terrorists who attacked us and later attacked our allies. So we went in to help the Afghans kick the terrorists out as well as developing government that could keep them out. And that's why we've been there for 17 years.

In 2017, President Trump approved the Pentagon’s request to add thousands of soldiers to the 11,000 troops already in Afghanistan. US commanders were given more leeway to strike the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists. Last July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the changes seemed to be effective.

Pompeo: My conclusion from this visit is that the president’s strategy is indeed working. Taliban momentum is slowing.

But four months later, America’s top general— Joseph Dunford—admitted the Taliban are “not losing.” In all, more than 2,400 US soldiers have been killed. The Islamic extremist Taliban remain dominant and spreading. The Afghan government is mired in corruption. And billions of US tax dollars has been lost to waste, fraud and abuse.

Sharyl: How much US tax money has been spent on Afghanistan reconstruction?

Sopko: Reconstruction alone is $132 billion dollars.

(Continued...)

Read the rest of the story by clicking the link below:

Inspector General: Fraud and Corruption in Afghanistan wastes U.S. tax dollars and kills

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.

Insinuendo: the Mueller Report. A Real Clear Investigation.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller

The following is from RealClearInvestigations

The Mueller report should have been a knockout blow to anti-Trump forces who invested their hopes in the special counsel. Instead, Democrats have acted as if Mueller had reached the opposite conclusion and called him to testify before Congress later this month to bolster this case for impeachment. What gives?

As Eric Felten reports for RealClearInvestigations, the answer can be found in a close reading of the 448-page document. It reveals how the special counsel and his team used a number of rhetorical devices to couch evidence and shape a narrative so that a document that ultimately clears the president can also be read as an indictment of him.

“The first thing to note about the Mueller report,” Felten writes, “is just how contentious it is. It isn’t a set of findings so much as an assertion of what the findings might have been if only there had been more evidence. It is like a closing argument in a criminal case already dismissed for lack of evidence but in which the prosecutor is determined to redeem what he can of his case.”

As Felten demonstrates with specific examples, Mueller’s strategies include:

• Hectoring repetition that can make weak claims sound strong;
• The use of extraneous detail to add heft to flimsy assertions;
• The exclusion of other details that might weaken his case – including the fact that a man he casts as a Russian agent was a U.S. intelligence asset;
• A resort to insinuendo – a mix insinuation and innuendo – to prejudice the reader against those who have escaped the dock.

These literary devices, Felten writes, help explain why those who were at first dumbfounded by the special counsel’s report finding no conspiracy with Russia, and no clear case for obstruction against the president, have since found reasons to be buoyed by it – by its grudging tone, its sly assertions resembling proof, and its insistence that not being found guilty should not be confused with innocence.

Read the investigation by clicking the link below:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/06/28/insinuendo_why_the_muller_report_doth_repeat_so_much_.html

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.

Where do you get your news?

Most people get their news from the Internet, according to our latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com.

The least popular source for news is "newspapers."

Full results are below.

Be sure and vote in our new poll: Are you looking forward to the 2020 Campaign? See the back box in the sidebar on home page at SharylAttkisson.com or scroll down on the mobile site.

Where do you get most of your news?

2% Newspapers

4% Television

61% Internet sites, blogs, etc.

>1% Word of mouth

32% A combo of above

1% None of the above

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.