Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

Deadline passes for FBI to respond to FISA court

The deadline for the FBI to provide key information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court passed on Friday.

As of now, there has been no public release filed by the court disclosing what information the FBI provided.

The order for information from the FBI was secretly issued by the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, Rosemary Collyer, on December 5 and made public Friday.

The order came after the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) uncovered previously nonpublic misconduct by FBI agents, officials and lawyers involving their election year surveillance connected to the Donald Trump campaign, which continued in 2017 after he became president.

One key finding by IG Michael Horowitz was that an FBI lawyer doctored a document presented to the FISA court in order to justify wiretapping a U.S. citizen, former Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page.

According to the IG, the CIA explicitly emailed the FBI saying that Page had acted as a source for the CIA on Russian spy cases in the past. This is information the FBI was required to disclose to the FISA court with its application to wiretap Page. That's because the disclosure that Page acted as a government source could impact the court's judgement that he would actually, at the same time, also be a Russia spy -- as the FBI claimed -- deserving of being wiretapped.

Instead of providing the key information, the IG says an FBI lawyer altered the CIA email to reflect the opposite, falsely stating that Page had not been a CIA informant.

On December 5, Judge Collyer ordered the FBI to do the following "on or before December 20," which was Friday:

  • Flag all other cases before the FISA court in which the FBI participated in.
  • Explain what the Department of Justice and FBI have done to verify that those cases were not tampered with.
  • Tell the court whether the FBI attorney has been referred to the association that oversees ethical conduct of attorneys.

Read the court's full order by clicking the link below:

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Dec%205%20Redacted%20Order%20191220.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: Mexican cartels recruit teens to "mule" drugs

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 an important border issue you probably don’t know much about. Under longstanding federal policy, when underage kids are caught smuggling drugs from Mexico into the U.S., they’re usually let go with no consequences. Not surprisingly, that’s prompted Mexico’s drug cartels to increasingly rely on children to move their illegal products. Sometimes, the children are brutalized. Today’s cover story is how one border county has gotten creative to interrupt the destructive dynamic. A note: some of the images are graphic.

You’ve seen the pictures of smugglersso called human “mules” transporting illegal drugs across the border from Mexico into the U.S. What you may not realize is how many of them are high school-aged teens. The smuggler here was 17 when he was caught. These two young drug smugglers, also 17. One of the smugglers seen here carrying a giant bale of marijuana age 16. 

Brian: Border Patrol members of the local stations approached me with a particular problem they had, which was with juveniles being used by the cartel to smuggle large quantities of drugs into the United States. 

Sharyl: What kind of drugs?

Brian: Most often it was marijuana. But when I say large quantities, we're talking about loads in a group of 240 to 320 pounds. 

Brian McIntyre is the lead prosecutor in Cochise County, Arizona which borders Mexico. 

Sharyl: And they're using the same juveniles over and over again, you would see them? 

Brian: Yeah. And the problem that Border Patrol had is that they were getting three and four time offenders who were never having any consequences imposed upon them. As a result, they're becoming basically professional drug mules and becoming very familiar with the routes in Cochise county. Very familiar with the operation of Border Patrol and what routes to exploit. And just getting better and better. 

Sharyl: Why were there no consequences for juveniles who were moving drugs across the border? 

Brian: So at the time, the federal government, and still to this day, didn't have a good mechanism to deal with individuals who were between the ages of 14 and 18 who were committing criminal offenses. And so essentially it was, you might catch them on day one, but they had to be immediately returned, and then you can catch them on day two again. 

The drug cartels are infamous for targeting recruits at scandalously young ages. One boy who started moving dope at age 15 grew up to become one of Mexico’s most notorious drug lords, El Chapo. He’s now serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. It’s estimated the cartels have recruited tens of thousands of children as young as age 12. Captured juveniles told police they were paid up to $500 per double bundle backpack of marijuana.

In 2015, officials in Cochise County, Arizona a hot spot for smugglingdecided to try something new to stop it. 

Brian: So after a series of meetings, we worked with the Cochise County Sheriff's Department and Border Patrol, Douglas Police Department, Bisbee Police Department, and came up with a plan. And unlike other operations that get conducted that require Congressional approval and a whole lot of paper, we did it on a handshake. And what we agreed was that local law enforcement would go down and take the case from Border Patrol anytime a juvenile was involved. So what that might mean is, we have a group of five individuals and there's one juvenile. Now we're going to take all five individuals, all five packs and process all of them through our state system, through our county.

The handshake launched “Operation Immediate Consequences.” Any time Border Patrol picked up a juvenile in Cochise County, the sheriff’s office agreed to take over the whole case and prosecute, including any adults the group. 

Right away, teen drug smugglers started filling space in Cochise County’s small jail. 

Sheriff Mark Dannels: So in my jail next door here we went from one or two remanded juveniles, to 36— was the average daily population for juveniles that were remanded for drugs. That's an epidemic. In a rural county, that's an epidemic, and it showed you what the cartel was doing to exploit these kids. Brian: In the first six months we had 36 juveniles apprehended. That's, that's a huge number for a small county, we're a county of maybe 130,000 people. 

Sharyl: And you prosecuted all of them? 

Brian: And we prosecuted all of them. 

In addition to strict enforcement, the county started “Operation Detour” in border schools where smugglers recruit kids. The mission is to send the message that in this county, at least, juveniles will be prosecuted. As part of the program, students are shown gruesome photos of what can happen to them if they get mixed up with cartels. 

Brian: A 15 year old male who reported to the port of entry in Douglas and he was asking for asylum, but really he was just asking for protection. And what had happened with him was he got scared, he got spooked while attempting to mule a load, dropped the pack and crossed back into Mexico. The cartel individuals responsible for that load got to him, and they beat his entire backside off with a two by four. That was his consequence for failing to deliver. And that's why he was asking for protection. There's a video which was posted by the Sinaloa Cartel to show people what happens to you if you don't do the cartel's bidding.

Cochise County officials had no idea what the impact would be after that first six months when they arrested 36 juveniles. 

Sharyl: What has happened to the juveniles you've seen come into this county moving drugs since word's gotten out about your prosecution? 

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Brian: Our initial six months figure looked pretty much the same the second six months. Then it began to decline. And then looking into about two years into the program, we were down to 20. Three years into the program, we were down to 10. 

As for 2019, They say they have arrested just two juveniles for smuggling. They credit the significant drop to the fact that their new reputation has spread among the bad guys south of the border.

Dannels: If you smuggle drugs in my county, there's a 100% chance that when we get you, you're going to prison. 

Sharyl: You have 100% conviction rate? 

Dannels: We have 100% conviction rate, and the cartels know that. They know that. 

It’s not been an easy road. “Operation Immediate Consequences” has drawn plenty of attention and criticism along the way. 

Dannels: My own court system told me that they didn't want to take these cases in my county. I'll say to you what I said to them, "I didn't know you had a choice. You're trier of facts. I didn't know you had a choice." And they backed off on that. Now people were saying, and this is where the pressure came, "Sheriff, this is cruel. These are kids." No, these were vulnerable kids that were exploited by a cartel that don't care about these kids. They're safer in my hands where they get education, they get counseling, they get health, they get good meals, and hopefully they get some structure in their life when they get out in a year and a half that they see life different. That's our goal. 

It’s too soon to know for sure, they say. But in a drug war that’s been marred by too many losses one county hopes they’ve scored a rare win.

Operation Immediate Consequences has only seen two juvenile repeat offenders in the last four years.

Watch the video investigation by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-kids

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.

University pays $1.5 million to employees after they were terminated

An Illinois state watchdog group has found that a small public university paid dozens of former employees for up to a year after they were told they would be losing their jobs, and while some did little or no work.

That's according to a report in the Chicago Tribune about the work of the governor's office of executive inspector general. Its investigation concluded that Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, paid 33 people full time salaries and benefits after they were terminated. Some had reportedly already begun working elsewhere but still collected money from Governors State.

Governors State University receives state taxpayer money.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

  • In one case, a former vice president was given more than a year of notice before his official last day of work. During that time, he told investigators he did not return to campus or do any work “although he said he did submit his timesheets.” That person received $164,337 in salary and benefits.
  • A former director said she stopped working the day of her termination notice and only returned to campus to clean out her office. She continued to submit her timesheets but did not do any work. She received $88,169 in salary and benefits.

The inspector general reportedly concluded that some former employees falsified time sheets at the direction of the university.

Governors State University President Elaine Maimon reportedly stated she was unaware of any employees being paid after their termination and did not know about any falsified time sheets.

The governor's office of executive inspector general concluded that the payments were made as part of a mismanaged system. The Governors State University Board of Trustees says it is overhauling its systems in response to the findings.

Read the full article by clicking on the link below:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-governors-state-terminated-employees-pay-20191221-zsnprxn6jrgpbgsm624vcuuopu-story.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.

READ: New FISA court order to FBI re: Trump campaign-related surveillance

We don't yet have the FBI's response, but we now know that on December 5, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ordered a review of wiretap applications touched by an FBI attorney.

The attorney got caught by the Department of Justice Inspector General allegedly doctoring information provided to the court for the surveillance of former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

The FBI deadline was December 20 (yesterday).

Read the order by clicking the link below.

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Dec%205%20Redacted%20Order%20191220.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.

Six Screaming Red Government Surveillance Flags That Got Ignored (PODCAST)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has given the FBI until Jan. 10, 2020 to come up with fixes to abuses flagged by the Dept. of Justice Inspector General.

In light of the revelations about FBI misbehavior in surveilling Trump campaign associates in 2016, it's clear we ignored screaming red flags that told us government abuse was not only possible-- but was happening.

Listen now on iTunes or your favorite podcast distributor or by **clicking the arrow in the player below**! Subscribe to my two podcasts “The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast” and “Full Measure After Hours” on iTunes or your favorite podcast distributor. Leave your comments and share with your friends!

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.

FBI violates procedures designed to prevent surveillance abuse of U.S. citizens

About 2 yrs ago, I wrote about the FBI's apparent violation of its "Woods Procedures" in investigating the Trump campaign.

The recent Department of Justice Inspector General report confirmed FBI violations of the very rules intended to prevent abuses.

Original article dated: February 4, 2018

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

For all the debate over the House Republican memo pointing to alleged misconduct by some current and former FBI and Justice Department officials, one crucial point hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.  And it relates in an unexpected way to special counsel Robert Mueller. The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.

There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to “salacious” and “unverified” material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.  

Presentation of any such unverified material to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to justify a wiretap would appear to violate crucial procedural rules, called “Woods Procedures,” designed to protect U.S. citizens. Yet Comey allegedly signed three of the FISA applications on behalf of the FBI. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe reportedly signed one and former Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each reportedly signed one or more. 

Woods Procedures  

Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent, in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.  Prior to Woods Procedures, “[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,” the FBI told Congress in August 2003. “By signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.” 

It’s incredible to think of how many FBI and Justice Department officials would have touched the multiple applications to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — allegedly granted, at least in part, on the basis of unverified and thus prohibited information — if normal procedures were followed. The FBI’s complex, multi-layered review is designed for the very purpose of preventing unverified information from ever reaching the court.

It starts with the FBI field offices.  According to former FBI agent Asha Rangappa, who wrote of the process last year in JustSecurity.org, the completed FISA application requires approval through the FBI chain of command “including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there.” 

At FBI headquarters, an “action memorandum” is prepared with additional facts culled by analytical personnel assigned to espionage allegations involving certain foreign powers.  Next, it goes to the Justice Department “where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it,” wrote Rangappa. “DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court.

After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!).” 

There’s more 

But there are even more reviews and processes regarding government applications for wiretaps designed to make sure inaccurate or unverified information isn’t used.  In November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage. 

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge. All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally. 

Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done? Robert Mueller. Perhaps ironically, Mueller isn’t in charge of the investigation examining the conduct of FBI and Justice Department officials and whether they followed the rules he’d carefully implemented 15 years before.

Instead, Mueller is leading the probe into Russia’s alleged illegal connections with Trump associates. Congress is looking at the wiretap process. With so much information still classified, redacted and — in some cases — withheld, there is much we don’t know. Perhaps we will eventually learn that there’s a good reason unverified material was given to the court.

Maybe there was no violation of rules or processes. But there’s a reason Woods Procedures exist in the first place. They aren’t arcane rules that could have been overlooked or misunderstood by the high-ranking and seasoned professionals working under the Obama and Trump administrations who touched the four Carter Page wiretap applications and renewals.

And unless they’ve secretly been lifted or amended, Woods Procedures aren’t discretionary. In the past, when the FBI has presented inaccuracies to the FISA court, it’s been viewed so seriously that it’s drawn the attention of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department attorneys accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions.

Read the original article in The Hill by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Lara Logan sues New York magazine and writer for $25 million

  • Logan claims a 2015 article about her was designed to harm her career
  • New York Media (which owns New York magazine) stands by its reporting

Former 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan is suing the author and publisher of a story that she says destroyed her earning capacity at CBS News.

The article by Joe Hagan was published in New York magazine 2014. It was titled "Benghazi and the Bombshell." It provided an in depth look at Logan's career as a war correspondent, and her personal life before and during her employment at CBS News.

The story included a critical look at the 60 Minutes story Logan reported about the Sept. 11, 2012 Islamic extremist terrorist attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed. The Obama administration attempted to cover up the terrorist source of the attacks and the fact that the State Department, manned by Hillary Clinton at the time, had denied repeated requests for beefed up security from U.S. diplomats on the ground.

CBS retracted the 60 Minutes report after government officials and the smear group Media Matters launched a campaign to discredit it. Government officials took issue with a claim by one of the men Logan interviewed who they say gave false information: he stated he was on the scene during the attacks when he allegedly was not. (However, the government officials who challenged the information did not provide Logan with any documentation proving their claim.) Logan apologized publicly for making a mistake, but said it did not impact the heart of the story, which remained true.

Logan's lawsuit claims Hagan's article was "intended to portray Logan as a dangerous and untouchable and incendiary reporter" and that it included false statements. One of those allegedly false statements referred to Logan's rape at the hands of an Islamic extremist gang while on assignment in Egypt as simply a "groping."

The lawsuit also takes issue with the chosen headline, which included the word "Bombshell." Logan claims that was "sexist, insulting and defamatory."

In the lawsuit, Logan says that after the New York magazine story, her annual compensation at CBS was reduced from more than $2 million a year to $750,000 for a part-time job.

Hagan now works for Vanity Fair. New York magazine told The Hill's Joe Concha that it stands by its story.  

The New York Magazine article was thoroughly vetted and fact-checked, and we stand by our reporting.

A New York Media spokeswoman to The Hill

Read more in The Hill by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/475474-former-60-minutes-reporter-lara-logan-files-25m-lawsuit-against-new-york-media

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.

Six screaming red surveillance flags we were blind to

The following is an excerpt of my latest article in The Hill.

Six ways we were blinded to screaming red flags about government surveillance

By Sharyl Attkisson 

The secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court has given the FBI until Jan. 10 to address abuses and lapses identified by the Department of Justice inspector general (IG) in a recent report. That report heavily criticized FBI practices in its long-term spy case that produced no evidence of any American improperly conspiring with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

Here are six ways we were blinded to screaming red flags about government surveillance abuse:

1. FBI Woods Procedures: One red flag came with creation of FBI “Woods Procedures” nearly two decades ago under then-Director Robert Mueller. These rules were designed to appease the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which had flagged abuses by FBI officials in wiretap applications submitted to the court. The procedures require strict verification of all facts and sources in a wiretap application by FBI officials all the way up the chain. Facts that cannot be properly verified are to be removed from the application. The Woods Procedures were designed to prevent the very sorts of abuses that FBI officials committed in 2016 and 2017. The problem is, it’s left to the FBI to execute the safety check upon itself and, apparently, some officials weren’t capable of doing so faithfully. Why were the Woods Procedures set up if the FBI ultimately doesn’t follow them and nobody notices? What makes us think any new, proposed reforms will have a different fate?

2. Congress: Despite many public reports of government surveillance abuses, Congress passed up its most recent opportunity to exercise much-needed oversight. Two years ago, in January 2018, Congress reauthorized Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act. It allows the U.S. intelligence community wide latitude to spy on U.S. citizens. Shocking abuses of this government authority were exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Yet Congress voted down a measure to reform the law by adding significant safeguards. Insiders told me that a majority of Democrats and Republicans had favored reforms, but shortly before the vote, the parties’ leaders directed members to renew the surveillance authority without them. Critics say the reauthorization codified “some of the most troubling aspects.” 

3. FISA: The FISA court has documented numerous serious government surveillance abuses over the years. This includes a scathing review issued by the court in the fall of 2016, accusing the National Security Agency (NSA) of problematic “lack of candor” that raised constitutional questions. Yet the court remained publicly silent these past three years amid questions, a crisis of confidence, and evidence that it had in hand about FBI wrongdoing. The court only spoke out in recent days, well after the damning findings in the IG report. 

4. Election year red flags: Following sporadic reports of intelligence officials misleading Congress about surveilling U.S. citizens — even spying on journalists and political figures and their staffs — there was a series of red flags in 2016 and 2017 that should have drawn attention and action. Some of the same intelligence officials who we now know wanted to keep President Trump from winning the White House apparently modified rules to make it easier to share and leak intelligence involving innocent U.S. citizens (including people connected to the Trump campaign). (Continued...)

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

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/475364-six-ways-we-were-blinded-to-screaming-red-flags-about-government

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.