Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

Key takeaways from Comey's testimony

I read through Comey's closed door testimony to Congress so you don't have to. But you still can-- the transcript and page numbers are included in my article here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/key-takeaways-from-james-comeys-testimony-before-congress_2734427.html

Hillary Clinton probe

Comey confirmed that controversial FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page served both on the team investigating Hillary Clinton’s email practices and the team investigating Trump-Russia connections (p. 18).

Context: Strzok and Page were pulled from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller probe in summer 2017 after the DOJ Inspector General discovered they had exchanged many, pejorative text message and emails. For example, emails lambasted Trump, saying that Hillary should beat him “100 million to zero.” One email referred to Hillary as “the President.” Strzok and Page left the FBI earlier this year amid ongoing controversy.

See the rest of the article at the Epoch Times link.[hr]

Order the New York Times bestseller "The Smear" today online or borrow from your library

CDC: "Possibility" that vaccines rarely trigger autism (AUDIO)

CDC's immunization safety director says it's a “possibility” that vaccines rarely trigger autism but “it’s hard to predict who those children might be.” (They’re not even trying.)

[This article was first published on Sept. 2, 2014]

A CDC senior epidemiologist stepped forward last week to say that he and his CDC colleagues omitted data that linked MMR vaccine to autism in a 2004 study. The scientist, William Thompson, said “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information.”

Dr. Frank DeStefano, CDC Director of Immunization Safety
Dr. Frank DeStefano, CDC Director of Immunization Safety

A coauthor of the questioned study is Dr. Frank DeStefano, Director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office. In a telephone interview last week, DeStefano defended the study and reiterated the commonly accepted position that there’s no “causal” link between vaccines and autism.

But he acknowledged the prospect that vaccines might rarely trigger autism.

“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. "It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities."

It is a significant admission from a leading health official at an agency that has worked for nearly 15 years to dispel the public of any notion of a tie between vaccines and autism. Vaccines are among the most heralded medical inventions of our time. Billions of people have been vaccinated worldwide, countless lives have been saved and debilitating injuries prevented. The possibility that vaccines may also partly be responsible for autism, in individual cases, is not something public health officials are typically eager to address.

One such individual case is that of Hannah Poling.

Listen to Dr. DeStefano's interview

Hannah Poling

Hannah Poling was considered normal, happy and precocious until 19 months of age when she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae. Afterward, she developed high fevers, had screaming fits, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to and began showing signs of autism.

As vaccination has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry, children have gone from being inoculated against four diseases in 1953 to today's recommended schedule of shots for 16 diseases requiring 49 doses by age 6. The government and pharmaceutical industry have said evidence shows babies' systems can easily handle the immune boost.[/box]

The little known "vaccine court" handles vaccine injury claims
In federal "vaccine court," the U.S. government defends injury claims on behalf of vaccine makers

In 2002, Hannah's parents—her father a neurologist, her mother a nurse and attorney—filed a claim in a specially-created federal vaccine court in which the U.S. Department of Justice defends vaccine interests. Hannah was to serve as a test case to help decide the outcome of thousands of vaccine-autism claims.

The case was strong. In 2007, contemplating Hannah would win her claim, sources say the vaccine court analyzed what the broader financial impact might be. It found that a flood of similar vaccine-autism claims would quickly deplete the government’s vaccine injury compensation fund, which is supported by a small fee patients pay on each dose of vaccine.

But instead of allowing Hannah’s case to publicly serve as a precedent for other possible victims, the government took another course: it quietly settled the case and sealed the results. Other families with autistic children were never to know. Hannah’s family petitioned the court to be allowed to reveal the findings but the government fought to keep the case sealed—and prevailed.

Still, news of Hannah’s case leaked out in 2008—along with the medical explanation for her vaccine-related “autistic encephalopathy [brain damage].”

In the U.S., vaccines have reduced or eliminated many infectious diseases that once routinely killed or harmed many infants, children, and adults. Image from: Public Health Image Library
Vaccines prevent many diseases that once routinely killed or harmed. But can vaccines trigger autism in a small subset of vulnerable children? Image from: Public Health Image Library

In a court-submitted opinion, neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, Director of Medical Research at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, stated that he had "personally witnessed [Hannah’s] developmental regression” following “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation." Zimmerman concluded that Hannah was vulnerable to vaccine injury because she had a metabolic disorder called mitochondrial dysfunction. While vaccines are safe for most children, in Hannah, they triggered a brain injury, according to Zimmerman.

Whether vaccines “caused” or “triggered” Hannah’s autism, the result was the same: but for her vaccinations, Zimmerman said, “Hannah may have led a normal full productive life.” Instead, she suffers “significant lifelong disability.”

A second underlying condition that was aggravated by vaccines, resulting in mental retardation and autism, is tuberous sclerosis or "TS," according to a 1986 vaccine court case. According to the National Institutes of Health, TS affects 1 in every 6,000 newborns.

Not all children who developed autism as a result of vaccine injuries, as determined by vaccine court, had identifiable pre-existing conditions. But I asked the CDC’s DeStefano whether it was worth trying to figure out what underlying conditions put kids at risk so they can be tested in advance and, if vulnerable, spared.

“That’s very difficult to do,” DeStefano told me. He said the CDC’s priorities are gaining a better understanding of the pathogenesis, genetics and biology of autism. “And then, I think… it’d be more feasible to try to establish if vaccines in an individual case, say a person with a certain set of genes…if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

See CDC's recommended vaccination schedule

Not worthy of study?

But it turns out the CDC has ruled out that sort of research. A CDC spokesman told me that the agency is not “currently investigating the relation between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Further, CDC does not have any planned research addressing vaccines and autism.”

As of May, 2010 the government had compensated 1,296 vaccine brain damage (encephalopathy/encephalitis and seizure cases) but was not tracking how many of the brain-injured children specifically ended up with autism. 

“CDC believes that this topic has been thoroughly studied and no causal links have been found,” said the spokesman in an email. “Current CDC ASD related research focuses on determining how many people have ASD and understanding risk factors and causes for ASD,” said the CDC.Seven years after Hannah's case settled, twenty-eight years after the TS case, it's impossible to know how many similar children, if any, are out there. And the government isn't trying to find out.

Above: click to hear Part 1 of Sharyl Attkisson telephone interview with CDC Director of Immunization Safety Dr. Frank DeStefano about the possibility of vaccines triggering autism, Aug. 26, 2014

 Transcript:

(Part 1)

Attkisson: And is, is the pos—the current position that any potential link between vaccines and autism, secondary, any kind at all, has been entirely ruled out 100%?

DeStefano: I re, you know, I re—uh, I think every hypothesis that’s been looked at has been, uh, ruled out.

Attkisson: But, I mean, are you, are you, can I say the CDC’s position is that if anybody thinks there’s anything anymore, it’s a myth? It’s all been disproven?

DeStefano: Wouldn’t say it’s a myth, I’d say, you know, all the evidence, thus far, points to that there’s not a causal association between vaccines and autism.

Attkisson: What about secondary?

DeStefano:  Sec—I don’t understand what do you mean “secondary”?

Attkisson:  What about not “causal,” but “as a result of” vaccines, as in the Poling case? The medical expert found, you know, as a result of the damages she had from the vaccines, she ended up with autism. And the distinction was made in the medical expert, ‘well, that’s not ‘causal’, it’s sort of a ‘but for’ but it’s not a ‘causal.’

DeStefano: Yeah, I mean, I mean in that case, you know, she had a, I mean, you know, she had an underlying uh biological illness that uh either vaccination, or it could’ve been an infection that that would trigger some physiological stress in her, uh, seems to have, you know, could’ve, could’ve caused uh, um, manifestations that, characteristics of autism which, you, you know, appears to be what happened in her case.

Attkisson: But I mean doesn’t that, is—isn’t that a “link”? It’s not a “causal” link, but isn’t that a potential link between vaccination and autism if certain children with a “underyling biological illness” can have a “trigger” through vaccination?

DeStefano: [Unintell] as you call it, a secondary link if you wanna call it that way, w-- in certain children, I mean ri—I mean, I, maybe that, but, you know, then I guess, that, that is a possibility.

Above: click to hear Part 2 of interview with CDC's Dr. DeStefano 

(Part 2)

Attkisson: Do you think that’s an important area of study so we could figure out which kids might have that predisposition?

DeStefano: uh, [phone noise] Yeah, I mean, I think um…You know, I think it’s something that, uh, well I mean, you know, in terms of uh… I mean, It’s hard, it’s hard to say, you know, I mean it’s like, um…I mean how how important that is. I mean, it’s a theoretical possibility, I guess the, the Poling case maybe suggested it could happen. Uh, but [unintell] cause it’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, um individual cases, uh, can be studied to try to, uh, to look at those, uh, those possibilities.

Attkisson: Well I would just think—and then, then I’ll let you go in a few minutes unless you have more time—but as a parent, if my kid had whatever Poling had and we could figure that out, that would be one kid you would cull out [from vaccination] versus not worry about other kids if they don’t have that predisposition. But maybe you could identify the ones that would be vulnerable. But I haven’t seen that there’s any—is there an area of study trying to do such a thing within CDC or funded by CDC? Or NIH?

DeStefano: Well, in terms of like, you know, the area at CDC that’s that’s studying autism and possible causal relationships of autism, uh, you know, whatever they may be, uh, is in the Center the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, and they, they do monitoring for autism prevalence and they do have, uh, studies trying to go on, you know, going on to, to look at, uh, a number of factors that could be, uh, related to, uh, increasing the risk of autism or causing autism.

Above: click to hear Part 3 of interview with CDC's Dr. DeStefano 

(Part 3)

Attkisson: I mean I think to sum up, you’re you’re saying what I, what I think is also the case just based on my own research: that while the government has ruled out any known “causal” link between autism and vaccines, it hasn’t ruled out the possibility, and in fact there seems to be at least one case where it’s acknowledged what I called a “secondary” link, meaning not “causal” but uh “triggered.” And the result for the parent, you know, may--to them it may be one and the same. And they may be trying to figure out which kids, you know, might have that predisposition.

DeStefano: Yeah, but you know, that’s very difficult to do. That’s almost circular reasoning, say, you know, kind of, you can’t, I mean, you know, the, the useful thing for parents who are clinically would be able to identify the kids who are gonna have, I mean, this way we’re identifying one certain child after the fact and say, you know, maybe in that one child, it was this or that that happened to him. But uh, it’s very difficult to make a causal link in in just one case.

Attkisson: Well, but isn’t that what you guys are supposed to do, figure it out? That’s a, as you know, autism is such a huge problem, even if a teeny percentage is perhaps triggered by vaccination, I would think that’d be very, very important to, to learn and try to figure out. You guys are the best at it, I’m sure somebody there can do it over time.

DeStefano: Yeah…[unintell] I think…[unintell] have a better understanding of uh of the pathogenesis of autism and the genetics and the biology and then, I think, I mean, and then, and then, with these individual cases, it’d be, you know, more feasible to try to establish if, uh, if, if vaccines in an individual case, say a person with a certain, certain set of genes or something, you know, if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research, uh, might be fruitful, you know.

CDC Vaccine Resources

National Vaccine Information Center

A question of bad science

It's a sad comment on the quality of "science" being conducted by supposedly reputable scientists. 

Our cover story this week looks at promises made to the alcohol industry by researchers at the National Institutes of Health. According to documents, NIH promised positive results in advance of a major study on the benefits of moderate drinking. Once the researchers got caught, the study was cancelled but not before millions of our tax dollars were spent. We look at the internal emails.

We also have a story that looks into allegedly slanted science in the case of Monsanto's weed killer Roundup.  Lisa Fletcher examines documents that allegedly show the company used "ghostwriters" whereby the company conducted research, then published it under a different name to make it seem independent. Monsanto denies the practice but it has become common in research today.[hr]

We never waste your time rehashing stories you've already seen all week.

Watch us on TV or replays online anytime, livestream Sundays at 9:30a ET www.fullmeasure.news[hr]

Full Measure TV station list here: https://sattkisson.wpengine.com/full_measure_station-list/

Order the New York Times bestseller “The Smear” today online or borrow from your library

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revelations in the Government Computer Intrusion

The following is the 10th in a series of excerpts from my New York Times bestseller “Stonewalled,” which recounts the government intrusions of my computers. More excerpts to follow.[hr]

I’ve been an Apple user since my first personal computer purchase circa 1989I’ve been an Apple user since my first personal computer purchase circa 1989. My Macintosh, my Quadra, my Color Classic, my Performa, my iMac. As far as I know, I’ve never had viruses or major malfunctions with my Apples. I replace them not because they break but because they eventually run out of memory or I want the next generation. But now, my Apple iMac desktop begins a new behavior I’ve never before observed: it winds itself into a fever. The fan starts churning and the pitch gets higher and becomes so loud, it sounds as if it’s going to explode. We shut it down and restart it but it happens again. On the third day of this, my daughter runs from the computer down to the kitchen.

[hr]Support the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to fight the government computer intrusions[hr]

“It’s burning up!” she tells me.

I rush to the iMac to find it frozen, whining in its pre-explosion- sounding state, and it won’t let me shut it down. This time there’s a pungent smell of burning electronics. I reach underneath the desk and unplug it: that’s all she wrote. The iMac is deceased. R.I.P., faithful Apple, you were so young.

My husband and I are weighing whether and how to file a criminal complaint over the intrusion. A crime has been committed. Someone has, in essence, illegally entered my property and violated the privacy of my entire family. They’ve stolen my property by rifling through my work and removing data. They’ve placed classified materials on my computer for motives that can’t be considered anything but nefarious. But when the culprit is believed to be connected to the government, to whom, exactly, does one go to complain? Can you really turn to the Justice Department’s FBI when the Justice Department might be part of the plot? I consult some trusted advisors and decide to file a complaint with the Department of Justice inspector general.

Every federal agency has its own inspector general designed to serve as an independent watchdog. The way I figure it, the best-case scenario is that the IG is honest and conducts a real investigation. Worst-case scenario: nothing comes of it, but at least the inquiry puts operative insiders on official alert: your actions are known and being probed. The idea is to try to create an environment that makes their deception and cover-up that much more difficult. So on April 3, 2013, I file the complaint. It’s six weeks before the government snooping scandals would be revealed.

[hr]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.[hr]

In a way, I’m at the center of the ultimate story. As disturbing as it is, I also find it intriguing. A widening circle of sources and contacts is interested, too. Some of them want to help me. They clue me into the many possibilities that exist. There are a thousand ways to spy on a private citizen. When we meet, before they speak to me, they put away their smartphones and tell me to lose mine, too. They don’t want to talk in my house. I lose count of how many of them tell me that the government—or anyone with skill—can remotely turn on my smartphones and listen to me. Not just when I’m using the phone, but even when I think it’s powered down. As long as the battery’s in it, they can activate the microphone to hear what I’m doing and to whom I’m speaking. And when they’re doing this, the phone doesn’t appear to be on at all. Other sources tell me that sophisticated intruders have the capability to suck information out of my smartphones and computers, or for that matter put stuff in them, without even physically connecting to them. The devices simply have to be in proximity to the perpetrator’s smartphone or device. Just innocently put one on a table next to another and Floop! it’s compromised. How many times have I set my BlackBerry or iPhone near a colleague’s, a stranger’s, or a business associate’s? And pretty much all of my self-appointed advisors tell me to use burner phones, which I am. They suggest I should have an acquaintance who’s not closely connected to me purchase the device and buy the minutes. Switch it out a lot. One intelligence source advises me to remove the phone battery before I cross the threshold into my driveway. Don’t put the battery in or use the phone while in my house.

[hr]Support the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to fight the government computer intrusions[hr]

Two acquaintances with knowledge of government surveillance and spy methods insist on sweeping my house and vehicle for bugs and signs of intrusions. They don’t know each other and each uses different methods. They’re not official, professional sweeps, just what can be done with devices like simple signal detectors and a FLIR thermal imaging device. They feel that the government has overstepped its bounds by spying on me, and helping me makes them feel like they’re doing something about it.[hr]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[hr]

Oral Arguments Granted in Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI

Our request for Oral Arguments has been granted in the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI government computer intrusion case.

Thank you to all the supporters--moral and otherwise! More details in the near future.[hr]

If you think the government should not spy on U.S. citizens, including journalists, please consider supporting this case along with the diverse group of Constitutional, free press and privacy advocates who organized the Attkisson 4th Amendment Litigation Fund.[hr]

Read more about the government computer intrusions here.[hr]

Ex-Navy SEALS and police to the rescue: Saved in America

Joseph Travers of "Saved in America"

I was surprised to learn how much the sex trafficking of young American girls is on the rise. A team of volunteer ex-Navy SEALS and police says the criminals who enslave the girls are connected to the illegal drug pipeline coming in from south of our border. They groom and prey on girls starting in middle school across America. Watch Sunday on www.fullmeasure.news as we go along on a rescue.[hr] Support Attkisson v.DOJ/FBI 4th Amendment Litigation Fund[hr]

Scott Thuman will have an interview with the man in charge of U.S. counterintelligence about what he says it a major but little-publicized threat to all of us: China spying on our intellectual property. He'll explain how that's costing us billions.[hr]

Full Measure TV station list and times

[hr]And Lisa Fletcher digs into why a bunch of our top-line fighter jets were left behind in Florida to suffer damage in a recent hurricane.

We won't waste your time rehashing stories you've already heard all week. Watch on TV or online at www.fullmeasure.news live stream 9:30a ET Sundays.[hr]

Check for a TV station near you[hr]

Order the New York Times bestseller "The Smear" today online or borrow from your library

 

The Government Computer Intrusions: The Disruptions Continue

The following is the 9th in a series of excerpts from my New York Times bestseller “Stonewalled,” which recounts the government intrusions of my computers. More excerpts to follow.[hr]

It’s February 4, 2013. Three and a half months before revelations about the Obama administration’s seizure of AP phone records and those of the FOX News reporter. Almost exactly four months before the news that the NSA is secretly collecting Verizon phone records, as revealed by Edward Snowden.

| THE DISRUPTIONS CONTINUE

When you challenge powerful institutions in the twenty-first century, you conduct your business with the notion ever present in the back of your mind that somebody’s listening. Tapping your phone. Reading your computer files. Trying to learn what your sources are telling you. Finding a way to stop you. These thoughts float through your mind, escalating in direct proportion to the strength of the story and the power held by whomever it challenges. You think of it, but you don’t really believe it’s actually happening. You certainly don’t think someone will turn up one day and hand you proof.

[hr]Support the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to fight the government computer intrusions[hr]

In fairness, I’ve begun telling my sensitive sources that our communications aren’t secure. Funny thing is, none of them is surprised. They tell me they already assumed they were under government surveillance. But we do start crafting more secure ways to exchange information. For example, as I make contact with important confi- dential sources about the Benghazi attacks, I set up meetings on the phone but then later change the time and place in a way that can’t be monitored. Of course, the intruders now know that I know. And I know that they know that I know. And so on. It’s the loop of the paranoid wrapped in suspicion codified by truth.

CBS has remained strangely unfazed by the official news from Patel confirming what I’d told them: that an intruder has been in my computers and in the company’s news and corporate system. I’d thought that the moment they got the corroboration, it would set off processes and inquiries. That corporate forensics experts would descend upon me and my house, looking to secure my personal and professional information, to protect my sources and look for the origin. That my colleagues would be officially notified so that they, too, could make their sources aware and a damage assessment could be made.

But none of these things happens.

[hr]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.[hr]

CBS does ask Patel to conduct further investigation, but there seems to be no particular urgency, and he comes to the Washington bureau to pick up my laptop. We’ve kept it off the CBS system since the day Number One first gave me the news. I sign the chain- of-custody document and hand over the computer. I wonder if the intruders have already penetrated my newly issued CBS News laptop. When I earlier recounted to Number One how I heard the castle lock sound one night and assumed the intruder had been locked out of the CBS system, he practically chuckled, like a patient elder speaking to an ingénue.

“You may have heard that sound but I hate to disappoint you—we can cut through that firewall like butter. It’s not an impediment.”

Patel and his company are working for CBS. They’re clearly tasked with protecting the network’s security, not mine. But they do sit down with me and Isham and have a serious conversation to say that I should find ways to better protect my computer privacy. Aware of the persistent interruptions in my FiOS service, they tell me that I should have my Verizon FiOS box replaced again, and relocated inside the house.

[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 [hr]

“Insist on it,” one of the experts tells me. “Don’t take no for an answer. Don’t let them leave the house until they replace it and move it.” Add to the glitches a new one: our Internet has begun disconnecting anytime a landline is in use. My kid’s on her iPad, the phone rings, I answer it, and blop, she’s bumped offline. I’m doing business on my Apple desktop, I pick up the phone to make a call, and blop, my Internet connection drops. You don’t realize how often you use the phone and the Internet at the same time until you can’t. So in early February 2013, a Verizon technician visits our home and two supervisors show up, too. A three-fer. The tech sits upstairs and works on my Apple desktop beside the router. The male supervisor comes, takes a look around, and leaves. The female supervisor chats up me and my husband downstairs in the kitchen. We mull over the familiar disturbances and I direct them to replace the whole outdoor box and move it inside. They tell me it’s not necessary. I keep thinking of Patel saying, “Don’t take no for an answer.” So I tell the Verizon pair that I have a security expert who insists this step be taken. But they’re formidable. It’s not necessary, they say. They know their business. As adamant as I am about moving the box, they’re just as adamant about not doing so. If I’m concerned about security, they say, there are lots of private consultants whom I can hire to help me. The tech gives me a name and number for one of them. He says there are many folks in Northern Virginia who need those special types of services. When the Verizon pair departs, our Internet is working, but the other same old problems persist.

[hr]To be continued…[hr]

Support the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to fight the government computer intrusions[hr]

The MCALLEN Case: Computer Intrusions Confirmed

The following is the 8th in a series of excerpts from my New York Times bestseller “Stonewalled,” which recounts the government intrusions of my computers. More excerpts to follow.[hr]

| THE MCALLEN CASE

The MCALLEN Case begins on February 2, 2013.
We’re expecting snow on a chilly Saturday in Northern Virginia.
The doorbell rings and I greet the very businesslike Jerry Patel [not his real name], the private computer forensics analyst hired by Isham at CBS. Patel is doing CBS a favor by coming here. I haven’t shared many details with him and I can tell at the outset he doesn’t really expect to find anything significant. He thinks he’s here to put my mind at ease. To assure me that the strange goings-on with my computers aren’t the work of any intruder. Maybe just ordinary malware, a nagging virus, or a glitch.

[hr]Support the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to fight the government computer intrusions[hr]

I begin with niceties but none are necessary. Patel patiently tolerates the introduction before asking to be directed to the star of the show: my computers. I lead him upstairs into my bedroom and adjacent office. At night, this entire area becomes my workspace. My husband knows that when I’m on an important story, this is the business space until one or two in the morning. Forget about lights out.

Patel sits on the couch in my bedroom and unlocks a briefcase full of gear like a high-tech handyman. He tells me he’s given this job a code name: The MCALLEN Case. I give a brief summary of what’s been going on. Then he opens up the CBS News laptop and begins deconstructing the files. He transforms the user-friendly format of my Toshiba Windows into a baffling screen full of lines punctuated by brackets, forward slashes, and question marks. He looks in places that most of us have no idea exist in our computers. I’m practically breathing down his neck as I watch his fingers dance along the keyboard and his eyes scan one line after another. As the hours pass and my mind gets accustomed to looking at the gibberish, it almost begins to make sense to me.

[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 [hr]

Other than a few “nonstandard” observations, the process is frankly pretty mundane. That is, until the date of December 9, 2012, surfaces. That was the time frame when I noticed that my computers had stopped freelancing on me.

“It looks like what we’re seeing here is a log-in attempt at 4:20, approximately 4:20 and three seconds in the morning on December 9, 2012.”

His voice has escalated from the soft monotone to somewhat expressive for the first time on the visit. I wasn’t the one who attempted to log in at 4:20 in the morning. Patel spots another suspect message on December 12, 2012.

“What’s unusual is audit policy changes.”

He tells me that someone with administrative privileges, not me, has taken action in my computer. His voice becomes excited.

“Someone changed the audit policy at 8:48 in the morning . . . your computer rebooted at one o’clock in the morning. . . . So we’ll go backwards. Here we go. December 11 we’re back at the time in question. 4:05 [a.m.] . . . all right.”

I don’t know how to interpret what he’s saying but I’m following along as he points to the lines on the screen.

“But you see . . .” he says, pointing to 4:05 a.m.

“There’s nothing there . . .” I observe.

“Oh boy.”

“What does that mean?”

“Ohhh boy. Look at the difference. December 10, 5:00:50 seconds. December 11th. Someone removed 24 hours.”

He exhales, makes a whoosh noise, and summarizes.

“We have evidence that shows 24 hours, 23 hours of log messages have been removed. That’s suspicious behavior.”

[hr]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.[hr]

Now he’s breathing heavily. It alarms me because it alarms him and he’s not easily alarmed. His voice becomes more formal and he launches into what sounds like a speech for posterity.

“In my professional opinion, someone has accessed this box. I’m going to be honest with you. I was hoping you weren’t infected. But . . . I see evidence that shows a deliberate and skilled attempt to clean the log files of activity.

“Approximately 23 hours . . . 22 hours, 55 minutes of log messages have been removed. That is extremely nonstandard, especially considering the act of clearing a log is a log message in and of itself. So I am now going to concur with . . . I’m starting to concur with your suspicions.”

His findings are lining up with what my earlier analysis found.

“Well, I suppose this visit wasn’t for nothing then,” he says. Deeper offsite analysis will be required.

It’s dusk and the clouds are heavy with impending snow. Patel has been here six hours now and needs to head back to town to meet friends for dinner. Before he leaves, he wants to take a quick look at my personal Apple iMac desktop computer. Since his time is short, I ask him to go straight to December 9 on the iMac, too. If the intruders removed evidence of their presence from my laptop around that time, they might have tried to cover their tracks on the iMac desktop as well. Within a few minutes, it’s confirmed.

“Oh shit!” The high-tech handyman is now fully animated. “Par- don my French but . . .”

“That’s gone, too?” I say, looking over his shoulder.

“That’s now a pattern . . . We have a gap,” Patel reports in the official posterity voice.

“A second gap from December 8, 2012, 10:12:11 p.m. to December 9, 2012, 3:18:39 p.m. That’s not normal. Someone did that to your computer. Two separate instances showing the same MO. That shows knowledge of the event logging and it shows skill. Somebody’s deleting days of messages . . . That shows skill.”

He then searches through what he says is a key file.

“It should be bigger than that. It should be huge. Somebody deleted the file on December 11. It’s not supposed to be like that. It’s supposed to have lots of data in it and it doesn’t.”

“So what does that mean?” I ask.

“Someone was covering their tracks.” Long exhale.

“So they would’ve done that remotely? ’Cause no one’s been in the
house.”

“Yeah. We’re examining the last log. And we have a deletion
wtemp log that actually begins Saturday, December 11. Suggests the log was deleted on that day.”

He proposes conducting further analysis at his office. But he tells me at the outset that he doesn’t think he’ll be able to attribute the intrusion to the guilty party. He can already see that from his cursory analysis. They’re too sophisticated, he tells me. Too skilled. This is far beyond the abilities of even the best nongovernment hackers. They’ll have covered their tracks.

It’s snowing now. And dark. Patel remarks that sometimes his computer forensics job is a little dull. But the MCALLEN Case is not. He rushes off to meet his friends, leaving me and my compro- mised computers. I look out the window and watch his headlights track down my long driveway and down the road until they disappear.

What now? As someone who’s usually constantly online, I don’t much feel like working on my computers tonight.

Two days later, Patel sends an email to Isham and copies me. I hear his voice in my mind as I read his words.

“It is my professional opinion that a coordinated action (or series of actions) have taken place. I don’t wish to go into details because the integrity of email is now in question. . . . It bothers me that I was not able to leave Sharyl with an increased sense of security Saturday evening, but hopefully we can all work together to remedy this ASAP.”

[hr]To be continued…[hr]

Support the Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund to fight the government computer intrusions[hr]