Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

POLL: Most Americans believe US govt. spies on journalists

The following is from Rasmussen Reports

Voters strongly believe journalists and political opponents are targets of spying by the U.S. government, and they don’t trust the judgment of the feds when they do it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters think it’s at least somewhat likely that the U.S. government spies on critical journalists and political opponents, but 24% think it’s unlikely. This includes 30% who think it’s Very Likely the government spies on these groups and six percent (6%) who think it’s Not At All Likely. Another 14% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Does the U.S. government spy on critical journalists and political opponents?

  • 61% Very likely or somewhat likely
  • 24% Unlikely
  • 14% Undecided

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2019/most_believe_the_government_spies_on_journalists_political_opponents

Note: Sharyl Attkisson is currently suing the Justice Department and FBI for the government intrusions into her work and personal computers as far back as 2011 while she conducted investigative reporting for CBS News.

The Smear and Shades of Grey

From the fall of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein to the political demise of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, there’s no shortage of sexual abuse allegations against famous men. The MeToo movement has liberated women to talk about long-tolerated misconduct. But it’s also led to whispers about the grey area between improper harassment and criminal assault. And questions about whether it’s now easier for people to get smeared by unproven — or even false— allegations. Our cover story is: Shades of Grey. It also covers the organized effort to smear WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange with unproven sexual assault allegations, but for political purposes.

FitzGibbon: If you’ve got two believable stories, you’ve got— you can take anybody down.

Trevor FitzGibbon claims it happened to him. His story begins in December 2015, when he ran his own progressive PR firm and got a fateful call from his company’s vice president.

Continue reading and watching at the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/shades-of-grey-07-24-2018

The govt. computer intrusions: other reporters weigh in

The following is the 22nd in a series of excerpts from my New York Times bestseller “Stonewalled,” which recounts the government intrusions of my computers. More excerpts to follow. Links to previous excerpts are below.

Now, I remind you that those are wholly fanciful scenarios. The stuff of imagination. The government would never misuse its authority or information, right? Still, the fact that these notions can be conjured up, even if chimerical, illustrates why it’s so important to have public discussion and oversight.

| OTHER REPORTERS WEIGH IN

In late June 2013, I’m flying back from the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in San Antonio, Texas, and am seated next to another journalist: Len Downie. Downie is former executive editor of the Washington Post and had spoken at the conference on the very topic at hand.

“The Obama administration’s War on Leaks is by far the most aggressive that I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, and I go back that far,” Downie told the audience of investigative journalists.

As we strike up a chat shoulder to shoulder on the plane, I bring up the subject of Snowden. I ask Downie if it doesn’t seem as though more attention should be focused on the content of Snowden’s claims instead of where he’s hiding or whether he graduated from high school. Downie agrees.

https://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php

Four months later, Downie would publish a definitive report for the Committee to Protect Journalists. It establishes the Obama ad

ministration as the news media’s top choice for Least Transparent American Presidency in Modern Times. When you think of all the transparency promises, it’s stunning to read the actual experiences of national news reporters, not those working at conservative outlets but journalists from the New York Times and the Washington Post.

David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent of the Times, says, “This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

Times public editor Margaret Sullivan: “It’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”

Financial Times correspondent Richard McGregor: “Covering this White House is pretty miserable in terms of getting anything of sub- stance to report on in what should be a much more open system.”

ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton: “He’s the least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico: “If the story is basically one that they don’t want to come out, they won’t even give you the basic facts.”

Washington correspondent Josh Meyer: “There is across-the- board hostility to the media. . . . They don’t return repeated phone calls and e-mails. They feel entitled to and expect supportive media coverage.”

Post managing editor Kevin Merida describes what he sees as the White House’s hypersensitivity, saying that officials often call report- ers and editors to complain about something on Twitter or a headline on a website.

I have a slightly different interpretation of the administration’s sensitivities. It’s not that they’re really so sensitive. They’re simply ex- ecuting a well-thought-out strategy to harass reporters and editors at the slightest air of negativity so as to impact the next news decisions. To provide so much unpleasant static and interference that we may subconsciously alter the way we report stories. To consume so much of our time explaining and justifying what we’ve reported, that we begin to self-censor in the future. They accuse us of “piling on,” when all we’re doing is accurately covering their actions and the outcome of their decisions. But what human being doesn’t instinctively learn to avoid negative, unpleasant feedback?

Let’s not use that phrase in our story. Yes, it’s accurate, but the White House will go nuts over it. Maybe if we soften it a little, we can avoid some headaches. We don’t want to appear to be—piling on.

What we don’t seem to realize is that our never-ending pursuit to avoid the static is a fool’s errand. Their relentless objections are not because they want accurate reporting; their goal is to spin and stop negative reporting. When we allow them to wrap us up in their game, it furthers their propaganda goals. We risk inadvertently giving them inappropriate influence over our reporting, of becoming their tool rather than their watchdog.

[hr]Read excerpt #1 here: The Computer Intrusions: Up at Night

#2: Big Brother: First Warnings

#3: The Computer Intrusions: Disappearing Act

#4: The Incredible, Elusive "Verizon Man"

#5: I Spy: The Government's Secrets

#6: Computer Intrusions: The Discovery

#7: Notifying CBS About the Government Computer Intrusions

#8: The MCALLEN Case: Computer Intrusion Confirmed 

#9: The Disruptions Continue

#10: Revelations in the Government Computer Intrusion

#11: Obama Leak “Witch Hunt”

#12: Obama’s War on Leaks 

#13: The Computer Intrusions Become Public

#14: The Govt. Computer Intrusions: Word Spreads

#15: My Computer Intrusion and the National Connection 

#16: URGENT dispatch

#17: Clapper’s False Testimony

#18: Government Spying First Revealed

#19: How the FBI Missed the Boston Marathon Bombers

#20: The media operation against Snowden and the government computer intrusions

#21: Government Surveillance and Two-Tiered Justice

Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson hosts the Sinclair Sunday TV program "Full Measure"

Govt. surveillance and two-tiered justice

The following is the 21st in a series of excerpts from my New York Times bestseller “Stonewalled,” which recounts the government intrusions of my computers. More excerpts to follow. Links to previous excerpts are below.

If Snowden leaks, it’s a crime. But if the administration leaks to implicate Snowden, it’s a virtue? In other words, government leaks are okay as long as the leaks flow in the right direction.

Snowden’s story isn’t black-and-white. He may have indeed validated national security rules and hurt the country. At the same time, he may have believed himself a patriot and also done an important service in exposing potentially improper and overreaching behavior by the U.S. government. The scenarios aren’t mutually exclusive. Surely Snowden doesn’t see himself as a traitor. To date, there’s no evidence that he peddled information to enemies of the United States or anyone else. There’s no evidence that he stole the information for personal financial gain. Quite the opposite: he gave it to the public, free of charge, at great personal peril, as if he has incredible conviction and belief in the importance of what he’s revealing.

“Even if you’re not doing anything wrong you’re being watched and recorded,” Snowden said in an interview with the Guardian. “The public needs to decide whether these programs or policies are right or wrong.” Snowden has given up a comfortable life in Hawaii and a six-figure salary. “I’m willing to sacrifice all of that because I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

Many in Congress assist the administration’s diversionary plan. They don’t treat Snowden’s revelations as deserving of scrutiny. Instead, it’s how did a guy like Snowden get his hands on all those secrets? Senator Feinstein announces a proposed legislative fix to prevent con- tractors like Snowden from handling highly classified technical data.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

Meantime, no sanctions are proposed against Clapper for his mis- leading testimony. And nobody seems to think it’s odd that he’s trusted to spearhead efforts to address concerns over the very programs about which he misled Congress. The AP reports that Clapper’s new plans include “a sweeping system of electronic monitoring that would tap into government, financial and other databases to scan the behavior of many of the 5 million federal employees with secret clearances, current and former officials.” Nobody seems to notice that, if anything, the administration is ramping up, not tamping down, its controversial War on Leaks.

Allowing Clapper and other government officials to be in charge of solving their own surveillance controversies is like inviting the fox to guard the henhouse. Except the fox is also getting the keys to the henhouse and the recipe for chicken fricassee.

In a fictitious world, one can imagine a meeting in which any member of Congress calling for Clapper’s head gets a closed-door visit from Clapper or his team. They slide a file bearing the name of the member of Congress or someone close to him across the desk, J. Edgar Hoover–style. The file contains materials surreptitiously gathered under the auspices of a government leak investigation or surveillance program. The member of Congress opens the file. Perhaps his eyes flicker. Maybe his face becomes white. The materials are very . . . per- sonal. The imaginary Clapper rubs his forehead with his four fingers. No words are spoken because none are necessary. The file is closed and Clapper drags it back across the desk, never to be spoken of again. Unless necessary. Suddenly the member of Congress is no longer out for Clapper’s head.

Or here’s another fictitious premise. CIA director Petraeus de- viates from the Obama administration’s official line on Benghazi. Somewhere in a private room, a small group of government operatives culls through data to find out who Petraeus has been emailing and calling. Any skeletons in that closet? A review of his file reveals some unseemly contacts with his former biographer. That information could come in very handy.

To be continued...

[hr]Read excerpt #1 here: The Computer Intrusions: Up at Night

#2: Big Brother: First Warnings

#3: The Computer Intrusions: Disappearing Act

#4: The Incredible, Elusive "Verizon Man"

#5: I Spy: The Government's Secrets

#6: Computer Intrusions: The Discovery

#7: Notifying CBS About the Government Computer Intrusions

#8: The MCALLEN Case: Computer Intrusion Confirmed 

#9: The Disruptions Continue

#10: Revelations in the Government Computer Intrusion

#11: Obama Leak “Witch Hunt”

#12: Obama’s War on Leaks 

#13: The Computer Intrusions Become Public

#14: The Govt. Computer Intrusions: Word Spreads

#15: My Computer Intrusion and the National Connection 

#16: URGENT dispatch

#17: Clapper’s False Testimony

#18: Government Spying First Revealed

#19: How the FBI Missed the Boston Marathon Bombers

#20: The media operation against Snowden and the government computer intrusions

The media operation against Snowden and the government computer intrusions

The following is the 20th in a series of excerpts from my New York Times bestseller “Stonewalled,” which recounts the government intrusions of my computers. More excerpts to follow. Links to previous excerpts are below.

| THE TURNAROUND
Now mired in the bad press about Clapper, AP, FOX, and Snowden, the Obama administration is working overtime to try to turn it all around—not the government’s behavior, mind you, just the public’s perception of it. That translates into tightening the noose around government secrets and those who hold them.

One of my sources is called into a group meeting at a government agency.

“If you speak to reporters, we’ll f**k you up, put you in a box,” they’re told.

The message: don’t view the current whistleblower environment as an opportunity to join in on revealing the federal government’s possible misdeeds. Federal supervisors circulate internal emails reminding the line staff and field guys, in so many words, that this administration has prosecuted more leakers than all previous administrations combined.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned through years of dealing with federal whistleblowers, it’s that they’re terrified of losing their jobs and eventual retirements. I guess most people would be. But federal workers have pretty sweet retirement deals and the threat of that evaporating usually convinces them to keep their mouths shut about suspected ethical and even criminal violations by their bosses and agencies. It’s effective. (“We’ll fuck you up,” is pretty effective, too.)

On June 21, 2013, the Justice Department unseals a criminal complaint charging Snowden under the Espionage Act.

The Big Chill is on.

Many sources, including congressmen, become more wary of com- municating the ordinary way. One evening, I’m talking with a member of Congress on my regular mobile phone about a somewhat sensitive news matter. He’s avoiding giving straight answers. I keep pressing. Finally, sounding exasperated, he blurts out, “Sharyl, your phone’s bugged!” I can’t argue the point. We decide to meet in person and work out alternate ways to communicate. It’s the new reality in a society where journalists and politicians suspect their government is listening in.

Beyond its move to privately contain and even threaten some federal employees, the Obama administration must also try to recapture the hearts and minds of the public and the press. How? One strategy is to convince the public to view Snowden as the villain. This might not fly if too many people decide he’s a hero. But if enough people buy the argument that he put American lives at risk, it just might turn things around for the Obama White House.

Thus begins Operation Where’s Waldo. Only it’s Where’s Snowden.Attention is diverted from the questions that Senator Wyden and Snowden have raised. It turns away from Obama’s War on Leaks. It’s redirected from the targeting of journalists. Instead, we’re consumed by the imponderable question of Snowden’s whereabouts. What country is he in? What plane is he boarding next? Is it the 2:30 p.m. nonstop to Moscow? Or the 4:45 p.m. to Cuba? Who will grant him asylum?

Where’s Snowden dominates the White House briefings and the news headlines.

Oral arguments have been set for Jan. 29 in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI. A diverse group of Constitutional free press and privacy advocates is supporting Attkisson v. Dept. of Justice/FBI to fight the government computer intrusions. Click here to support.

Before long, the quest branches out into a full-blown news media obsession with all things Snowden. Everything except the editorial content of what he revealed. How many documents did he get? How did he get access? Who passed his background checks? Did he graduate from high school? And what about rumors of a questionable discharge from the army? Looking into Snowden’s background is certainly a legitimate and reasonable area of inquiry. But it seems as though disproportionate media attention is being devoted to dissecting his character rather than also looking into the merits of the issues he raised.

“How much did Snowden steal?” screams a July 18, 2013, sub- heading on a news wire service. Unidentified sources are quoted in the article as saying Snowden took “tens of thousands” of documents. Nowhere does the article represent Snowden’s side of the story or that of those who view him as a whistleblower.

To be continued...

[hr]Read excerpt #1 here: The Computer Intrusions: Up at Night

#2: Big Brother: First Warnings

#3: The Computer Intrusions: Disappearing Act

#4: The Incredible, Elusive "Verizon Man"

#5: I Spy: The Government's Secrets

#6: Computer Intrusions: The Discovery

#7: Notifying CBS About the Government Computer Intrusions

#8: The MCALLEN Case: Computer Intrusion Confirmed 

#9: The Disruptions Continue

#10: Revelations in the Government Computer Intrusion

#11: Obama Leak “Witch Hunt”

#12: Obama’s War on Leaks 

#13: The Computer Intrusions Become Public

#14: The Govt. Computer Intrusions: Word Spreads

#15: My Computer Intrusion and the National Connection 

#16: URGENT dispatch

#17: Clapper’s False Testimony

#18: Government Spying First Revealed

#19: How the FBI Missed the Boston Marathon Bombers

[hr]


Behind the Closed Doors of K Street Lobbying

(CBS News) Members of Congress are widely regarded as the nation's shakers and movers. But behind them, unseen, are a powerful force of lobbyists shaping everything from the national dialogue to the actual laws Americans will have to follow. Sharyl Attkisson gives us a rare and exclusive peek behind the sometimes shadowy lobbyists' curtain in Washington, D.C.: 

"The Catholic Church has lobbyists," said Professor James Thurber. "The Boy Scouts have lobbyists. The AFL-CIO has lobbyists. Apple does. Everybody has a lobbyist."

No one knows the business of Washington lobbying better than Thurber. He helped write a report on lobbying reform for the American Bar Association, and he teaches a course to aspiring lobbyists at American University.

His definition of a lobbyist: "Someone who advocates for someone else and is getting paid for it." 

The fingerprints of lobbyists are all over daily life. They defeated plans to cap credit card interest rates.

They made pizza count as a vegetable on school lunch menus. 

They wrote a lot of the health care reform law. 

Thurber estimates $9 billion is spent every year on lobbying and related advocacy. A top lobbyist can make millions.

Watch my entire Emmy Award-winning investigation here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/behind-the-closed-doors-of-washington-lobbyists/

The Statin Wars

A few weeks ago at an American Heart Association meeting in Chicago, new guidelines were issued for treating high cholesterol. It ws the first big update since 2013. Past guidelines have said more and more of us should take cholesterol-lowering drugs called “statins” to prevent heart attacks and save lives. But the recommendations aren’t without controversy. And they raise a larger debate in medicine— over who’s paying the doctors and groups deciding what’s good for us.

Our search to learn about the Statin Wars takes us to the town wharf in South Freeport, Maine where we catch a ferry to Bustins Island. That’s where we find one of the foremost experts in the whole controversy over statin drugs: Harvard’s Dr. John Abramson.

Watch the video and read the Full Measure investigation here: http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-statins-war