• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

News

Puerto Rico's battle with drugs and illegal immigration

On border patrol in the Caribbean

As a U.S. territory, Puerto Rico--located in the Caribbean--is a hot spot for smugglers moving drugs and illegal immigrants into the U.S.

Full Measure photographer Bryan (above) and Daniel (right) with Customs and Border Protection before our patrol flight in Puerto Rico

It’s strategically located as a straight shot from drug producing countries like Colombia and Venezuela… and that makes it a destination for cartel thugs and other criminals. If they can make it into the island of Puerto Rico undetected, they are pretty much home free. That's because there are no more U.S. border checks if they fly or sail from PR to the mainland United States.

You’ll see what kind of a border hot spot Puerto Rico is when we go on patrol Sunday on Full Measure.

Listen to the podcast: Action on our other Southern Border

I'll also report from a morgue near the U.S. Mexico border.

This story is about a unique effort to identify remains of all the illegal immigrants found in the Arizona desert. It's an amazing project that tries to help bring dignity and closure to families.

Dr. Greg Hess shows us his Arizona operation that works to identify remains of illegal immigrants found in the desert

We'll bring you an amazing report on a way millions of Americans can get free professional help filing their taxes. So why don't you know about it?

And we'll Follow the Money to find out where President Trump has been donating his presidential salary.

See you on Sunday!

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

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.

Trump signs new anti-robocall law

There's a new law to crack down on so-called "robocalls." A robocall is a computerized automatically dialed call that usually delivers a pre-recorded message. Such technology is often used for political marketing, polls, and advertising. Many Americans consider them nuisance calls.

President Trump signed the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act on December 30, 2019.

The Act pulls together many federal and state agencies to improve enforcement and prosecution of laws against robocalls. It provides the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with more time to catch and take action against the offenders, many of whom are repeat violators.

Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) sponsored the Act and issued statements in anticipation of the President's signing of the bill.

Robocalls are already regulated, and some of them are illegal. However, the senators say the TRACED Act provides more ammunition against the calls; requiring phone carriers to authenticate whether calls are legitimate, and to block unverified robocalls at no charge to the consumer.

In 2018, when Thune served as chairman of the Commerce Committee, the committee heard testimony under subpoena from Adrian Abramovich, the president of a now defunct company called Marketing Strategy Leaders. Abramovich, who has since been assessed a $120 million fine by the FCC for making nearly 100 million robocalls between 2015 and 2016, described a telemarketing operation as rather easy to put together and nimble, thus making enforcement difficult.

Release from Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass)

Summary of the TRACED Act:

  • Broadens the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per call on people who intentionally flout telemarketing restrictions.
  • Extends the window for the FCC to catch and take civil enforcement action against intentional violations to four years after a robocall is placed. Under current law, the FCC has only one year to do so, and the FCC has told the committee that “even a one-year longer statute of limitations for enforcement” would improve enforcement against violators.
  • Brings together the Department of Justice, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Commerce, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other relevant federal agencies, as well as state attorneys general and other non-federal entities to identify and report to Congress on improving deterrence and criminal prosecution at the federal and state level of robocall scams.
  • Requires voice service providers to adopt call authentication technologies, enabling a telephone carrier to verify that incoming calls are legitimate before they reach consumers’ phones.
  • Directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to help protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls or texts from callers.
  • Directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking process to protect consumers from “one-ring” scams.
  • Requires the FCC to establish a working group to issue best practices to prevent hospitals from receiving illegal robocalls.

Read more by clicking the link below:

https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/12/president-expected-to-sign-thune-markey-bill-to-crack-down-on-illegal-robocalls

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.

POLL: Most people believe FISA Court should be eliminated

The majority of respondents in the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com believe that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court should be eliminated.

The FISA court is the one that approves wiretaps against U.S. citizens. There have been a number of controversial wiretaps in recent years, including that of a Trump campaign associate who was never charged with any crime: Carter Page.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) say the FISA court should be eliminated.

Thirty-four percent (34%) stated that the FISA court should be reformed.

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!

FISA Court should be:

< 1% Unchanged

34% Reformed

6% Checked on more often

58% Eliminated

1% What's a FISA Court?

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.

Intel community watchdog reportedly stonewalls Senate on leak probes

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Chairman of Senate Finance Committee

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) refuses to answer whether the office is investigating the rash of sensitive and classified leaks since President Trump took office. That's according to Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson.

Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) is the head of the Finance Committee, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) heads up the Governmental Affairs Committee. Both have repeatedly asked the ICIG whether he is investigating the steady stream of intelligence leaks, but they say Inspector General Michael Atkinson has refused to answer.

Senator Johnson issued a report in 2017 that found that the Trump administration experienced as many as 125 leaked stories in his first 18 weeks in office (averaging one leak per day), about seven times as many as during President Obama's or President Bush's first 126 days in office.

A subset search of Associated Press and five major newspapers found 62 leaked stories involving potential national security damage during President Trump's first 126 days in office, versus 8 and 9 respectively during President Obama's and Bush's first 126 days, according to Senator Johnson's report.

As recently as October 10, 2019, the ICIG refused to confirm or deny the existence of any investigations into media leaks by the intelligence community, according to Senators Grassley and Johnson. The Senators say the unknown status of any probe erodes public trust in the intelligence agencies.

In a recent letter to the ICIG again asking for information on the existence of any investigations into the leaks, the Senators provided examples of other Inspectors General who have answered questions about ongoing investigations.

Given the intense congressional and public interest surrounding the most recent leaks of sensitive and classified information, it is incumbent upon you to answer the simple questions that we have posed.

Senators Grassley, Johnson to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, Oct. 2019

Click the link below to read more from Senators Grassley and Johnson, and related information.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/watchdog-refuses-confirm-investigations-leaky-intel-community-spills-secrets

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.

Church shotgun shooter said he was "battling a demon"

Police have identified the man who shot and killed two people at a church on Sunday as Keith Kinnunen, a reportedly disturbed, homeless man with a lengthy criminal record.

NBC 5 in Dallas-Ft. Worth reports Kinnunen had been previously arrested for alleged assault, theft, arson and possession of an illegal weapon in Texas, Oklahoma and New Jersey.

Authorities say he was wearing a wig and fake beard when he began firing with a shotgun inside a Texas church killing a deacon and another member of the congregation.

Church members had reportedly helped Kinnunen in the past. He had told police that he was homeless.

Kinnunen's ex-wife told reporters that Kinnunen was addicted to drugs and out of touch with reality.

We knew he was crazy but not like this. I don't wish this on anybody. I feel sorry for the victims. I really do...he said he was battling a demon.

Angela Holloway Kinnunen's ex-wife, to 5 NBC News

Angela Holloway was reportedly married to Kinnunen for eight years, divorcing him in 2010. After their divorce, she filed for a protective order calling Kinnunen "violent" and "paranoid." After Kinnunen began shooting Sunday, he was shot and killed by an armed member of the church congregation.

Read more and watch video reports by clicking the links below.

‘We Knew He Was Crazy, But Not Like This,’ Ex-Wife of Church Gunman Says

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article238826463.html

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

WATCH: Denmark's most controversial, anti-Muslim politician

The following is a transcript of my cover story investigation on "Full Measure." Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

We begin with a very American debate that’s underway in Europe where a quickly-expanding Muslim population is testing tolerance on all sides. Nowhere is the discussion more heated than in Denmark. In three short decades, that small country has gone from almost no Muslims to hundreds of thousands -- a bigger proportion of the population than other European nations. The resulting culture clash is raising issues of freedom of speech and religion. Our cover story is The Danish Debate.

Denmark is known for its love of bicycles free speech traditions and a Muslim population that now surpasses five percent.

Mayor Cecilia Lonning-Skovgaard: We still see slightly higher birth rates for Muslim families than for non-Muslim families.

Cecilia Lonning-Skovgaard is the mayor in charge of integration in the Danish capital of Copenhagen, where the community of Muslims is quickly expanding.

Lonning-Skovgaard: We see a pattern where a lot of Muslim youngsters are required, unfortunately, to marry boys or girls from their home country. So we still see quite a huge number of the young people being flown in from Pakistan, Turkey and so on in order to, to marry Muslims living here.

In Copenhagen— as in many parts of Europe— tensions are growing with the expanding Muslim population bumping up against non-Muslim communities. It’s a dynamic that's testing the limits of free speech and hate speech on both sides.

Denmark is where the “Cartoon controversy” originated in 2005. A Danish newspaper standing for free speech defied Islam’s ban against depicting its prophet Mohamed. That set off a global wave of deadly attacks by Muslims against Christians and a violent, deadly attack a decade later in France on the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Jacob Mchangama: I'm very much a child of the cartoon crisis

Jacob Mchangama is a free speech expert at a Copenhagen think tank.

Sharyl: Was your view that even if minorities or certain people are offended, that free speech should still enjoy special protection?

Mchangama: Oh, very much so. I think in many ways it's the best form of equality before the law, and a sign of integration, that you can sort of laugh off or at least dismiss, thoughts that you find offensive to you or religion and say “You know what? They have the right to say this, but that right is also what gives me the right to go to my Mosque and practice my faith, to hand out Korans in the street if I want to.”

But Denmark’s strong free speech culture is being seriously tested by the emergence of a Danish politician named Rasmus Paludan. Paludan, an attorney, founded an anti-Muslim hard line party in 2017.

Paludan video: Hello, my name is Rasmus Paludan and I'm the leader of the Danish political party, Hard Line.

Mchangama: And probably the first person since 1939 when the Nazis were running for parliament to have a political program that called for the deportation of people based on their ethnicity. So he wanted non-Western people, even Danish citizens to be deported. And he wanted to ban Islam. It wasn't quite Nazi-ism, but it was an explicit platform of ethno-nationalism, based on deeply illiberal values.

Paludan video: In Denmark, our party is fighting for the survival of ethnic Danes here in Denmark.

Read more about Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI here.

In a matter of months, Paludan gained popular attention through his YouTube channel

Paludan video: There are plenty of countries in the world that were very peaceful and non-Muslim and became Sh*thole nations when Islam arrived.

He burned Islam’s sacred book, the Koran.

Sharyl: What has made him a possible in this society?

Mchangama: Well, for a long time he was mostly a sort of a pathetic phenomenon, online phenomenon. Then he went to this immigrant area of Copenhagen and he was attacked. Police had to protect him. Cars were burned down and he would probably have been killed or seriously injured if the police hadn't protected him. And that gave him massive popularity and ensured that he was eligible to run for the parliamentary elections.

To Paludan and his supporters, the violent attacks proved his point. Muslims had come to the tolerant Danish society and resorted to violence to stop constitutionally protected free speech.

Sharyl: What's your goal?

Paludan: Well, the goal is for all the Muslims to leave Denmark

We went to Paludan’s offices in downtown Copenhagen where the government forces him to accept around the clock security, for his own protection.

Paludan: I mean people came from Afghanistan because of the war there. People came here, here from Bosnia when there were strikes there and I'm like, “How can that possibly be Denmark's problem? Are we really supposed to destroy our own country because other people in other countries have problems?”

Paludan: If you live in a Muslim country and you're well off and you're reasonably happy, and you have reasonably high intelligence and good jobs, you have no reason to leave. But the people who are not very intelligent and who are deeply religious, they have every reason to leave because they live sh*tty live where they're from. And in Denmark they get everything for free

Sharyl: Would your position be that you agree you are racist, but there's good reason to be — or is your position that you're not racist?

Paludan: No, My position is that I'm certainly not racist already because I don't want to, separate people by determining their race. Muslims can be any race. I don't judge them by whatever perceived race they are. I do judge them by their actions and Islam teaches actions that are completely in conflict with Western democracies.

As much as many oppose what Paludan has to say, Danes, like Tarek Ziat Hussein , defend his right to say it. Hussein is a lawyer, Muslim, and author of a book on “How to be a Danish Muslim.”

We interviewed Rasmus Paludan. And what are some of your general thoughts about his rise in popularity?

Tarek Hussein: He's had a strategy where he's gone out to these areas where there is a lot of Muslim people and trying to provoke a reaction. And, unfortunately, a lot of places you've got that reaction. There's definitely, in some Muslim communities, there is problems in regard to accepting free speech. And from my point of view, of course that's an issue that we have to address. That's one of the things I've said to my own community that if you look at Rasmus Paludan, he's been doing this for two years and nobody listened to him. And as soon as he got the reaction where people started burning cars and throwing rocks at the police, suddenly he rose in the polls and were able to almost get into parliament.

Sharyl: So would you say Paludan, as an extremist himself, is picking out extremists maybe on the other side— to the extent they exist— and highlighting those?

Tarek: Most definitely. So one of the things that we've seen in Denmark, but also in other European countries, is that the extremes in both parties lifts out of each other. If you could say that.

In Denmark’s most recent elections, Paludan's hard line party ended up falling just short of the 2% needed to win seats in parliament. But he insists his popularity, like Denmark’s Muslim population, will continue to grow.

Sharyl: If your views are not popular among a majority, and if this is perhaps even endangering your way of life, if not your life, what keeps you going?

Paludan: Well, I can tell you many, many people agree with me. As much as I can see with succinct clarity that if I don't do this, then this country will— we'll go straight to hell. It will completely be a different country in, in very few years. And, and that will be very, very, very unfortunate for all the Danes who are not Muslim, which means almost all of them.

And so Denmark will continue to wrestle with a very American ideal: the most important speech to protect can be that which is hardest to defend

Mchangama: If you don't protect the free speech of people like Mr. Paludan, then basically you don't have strong free speech protections.

Lonning-Skovgaard: He is basically free to go out there and say all the crazy stuff that he wants to do because we deeply, deeply believe that free speech is a universal right.

Paludan recently claimed his free speech rights were being violated.. after police banned several demonstrations he planned and forced his party's conference to be cancelled over security concerns.

Watch the video investigation by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-danish-debate

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.

China has allegedly stolen billions of dollars worth of American science

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal agencies have failed to prevent China from openly recruiting American scientific experts in exchange for payment and perks. This, according to Judicial Watch.

The Judicial Watch story relies on a report published by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. According to Judicial Watch, "This report exposes how American taxpayer funded research has contributed to China's global rise over the last 20 years."

The U.S. Senate report says the U.S. taxpayers spend over $150 billion a year on scientific research. Most of the federal agencies conducting this research have been impacted by the Chinese infiltration efforts, according to the story.

In 2008, the Chinese government announced its plan to recruit top overseas researchers and to eventually bring their talents and expertise to China to benefit the government. Despite China’s public declaration of its intentions, the FBI took nearly ten years to recognize that Chinese government talent programs posed a threat to the U.S. academic community and federal research grants.

Threats to the U.S. Research Enterprise: China’s Talent Recruitment Plans
Staff Report, U.S. Senate

Several examples of alleged Chinese theft involve national security information, such as that related to U.S. military jet engines.

Read the full Judicial Watch article by clicking on the link below:

Communists Working in U.S. Steal Billions in Taxpayer-Funded Scientific Research

Read the full Senate report by clicking on the link below:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019-11-18%20PSI%20Staff%20Report%20-%20China's%20Talent%20Recruitment%20Plans.pdf

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.

WATCH: Following the Big Tech lobbying money

The following is a transcript of Lisa Fletcher's investigation story into big tech's lobbying efforts to protect their interests, appearing on "Full Measure." Watch the video by clicking on the link at the end of the page.

Four major tech companies run the web-based world. But the reach of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple goes far beyond your browser. And as they face new scrutiny about privacy, anti-trust, and data security - they’ve poured cash and lobbyists into Washington to protect their interests. Lisa Fletcher follows the money.

From shopping to socializing and searching, Big tech is all over our small screens. But there's a much wider ppicture in play. Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook are facing a powerful threat to how they do business.

William Barr: Big tech companies like for instance, Google and Facebook who have drawn much attention of late, pose significant challenges not just for competition but also for the larger issues of privacy and the free flow of ideas.

The Department of Jusice is pressing an antitrust review of the tech giants - scrutiny similar to - and that brought about the breakup of oil companies a century ago - or the bell system in the 80s. So the new tech is resorting to an age old tactic - flooding washington with money and lobbyists.

Lisa Gilbert: They need to spend money in politics so that politicians remember that one of the reasons they’re in office is because of the campaign dollars that the big 4 gave.

Lisa Gilbert tracks spending with the watchdog group Public Citizen.

Lisa : More than a third of their political spending - of the $346 million that Public Citizen looked at -- more than a third has occurred just in the last year. What’s the explanation for that?

Lisa Gilbert: As we've seen things like the Russian hacking scandal that was perpetrated through Facebook or data breaches through a tech companies left and right, they have recognized that they're likely to face privacy regulations and potential antitrust violations. All of that means they need more people here talking about their company's best interests.

Read more about Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI here.

Lisa: Lobbying by the Big 4 skyrocketed more than 600 percent in 9 years - from just $7.5 million in 2009 to $55.4 million in 2018 - with money going to both Democrats and Republicans.

Lisa: Your report indicated that about half of the members of Congress received money from at least two and in some cases all four of the big four. Are these companies essentially inoculating themselves against onerous legislation?

Lisa Gilbert: Yes, it’s a strategy to be bipartisan That is unusual in corporate political spending. Often we see dollars go toward Republicans. But in this case, Silicon valley is playing differently, they’ve recognized that this legislation is probably inevitable. So they need people in every room on both sides of the aisle.

Lisa: Is it working?

Lisa Gilbert: Certainly we’ve seen legislation slow down. Lisa: In 2009, there were 89 lobbyists working for the Big 4 on Capitol Hill. Last year, we were up to 277.

Lisa Gilbert: They have been hiring folks with deep Rolodexes connected to the committees of jurisdiction, energy and commerce and judiciary, as well as people from the agencies, from the FTC and DOJ to have on the payroll in house as lobbyists.

Lisa: Should we be concerned about the high political spending of the big four in Washington?

Lisa Gilbert: Absolutely. Things that harm consumers, things that harm our elections, real vibrant concerns for America. And the regulation that needs to ensue is vital. So anything that derails the new possible public protections is a problem.

Those antitrust probes are ongoing. Gilbert told us it’s up to regulators like the Federal Trade Commission tasked with looking objectively into vital consumer issues.

Watch the video investigation by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/follow-the-money/big-4-lobbying

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.
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad