Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

Behind the Jersey City terror attack by Black Hebrew Israelite

The following is an excerpt from The Investigative Project on Terrorism

by Patrick Dunleavy

Armed to the teeth with guns and explosives, David K. Anderson and Francine Graham opened fire Tuesday in Jersey City on a kosher grocery store, killing three civilians. Prior to the attack at the store the couple allegedly shot and killed Jersey City Police Detective Joseph Seals. Seals was investigating a report of a stolen van used in a homicide in Bayonne, N.J. several days earlier.

Read more about Black Hebrew Israelites

Initial reports on the supermarket attack downplayed the possibility that it was a terrorist attack.

And in the initial chaos, some people tried to fill an information void with speculation. That continued even as subsequent information made it clear that the killers were Jew haters who targeted to the kosher store. U.S. Rep Rashida Talib, D-Mich., went so far as to assume the attack was an act of white supremacy even though the shooters' identities were already known publicly. (Continued...)

Read more by clicking the link below:

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8213/jersey-city-terror-attack-mirrors-another

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Trump wins Supreme Court review of three cases against him

Image from: U.S. Supreme Court order, Dec. 13, 2019

The Supreme Court has accepted three cases involving President Trump in a decision announced Friday. President Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow responded by stating, "We are pleased."

Two of the cases, Trump v. Deutsche Bank and Trump v. Mazars, involve whether Congress can obtain Trump's financial records from his accounting firm.

Another case, Trump v. Vance addresses presidential immunity from investigation. (Trump v. Deutsche Bank also concerns this issue.)

Even before Trump was elected, some Democrats announced a plan to challenge him in court at every opportunity.

In October 2016, Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — wrote, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.”

Wittes wrote that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He also mentioned impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel. 

That plan to use the courts to challenge Trump at every turn seems to have been well executed. However, when numerous cases have reached the Supreme Court, President Trump has often ended up the victor.

 We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the President's three pending cases. 

Jay Sekulow, Trump attorney

Analysts consider it a positive sign for Trump that the Supreme Court will consider the cases. The Justices could have passed up that opportunity and let lower court rulings against Trump stay in place.

It doesn't mean by any stretch, though, that Trump has won the cases. They will be formally argued in the Spring.

On the other hand, at least one analyst says the high Court's decision to accept the cases for consideration is already a momentous one. On Fox News's Sean Hannity program, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said it means Trump has a legitimate case to make when he argues that-- due to Constitutional separation of powers-- the executive branch is not bound by the subpoenas of Congress, the legislative branch.

"The Congress should immediately remove the 'Obstruction of Congress' article of impeachment," said Dershowitz. "It's over."

Read the Supreme Court order by clicking the link below.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121319zr_1a7d.pdf

Read a left-leaning viewpoint by clicking the link below.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/20997638/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns

Support the fight against government overreach in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!

Forced to pay?

Last year in a Supreme Court decision known as "Janus," the high court justices determined state and local government workers cannot be forced to join and pay labor unions.

It was a ruling that shook up decades of labor law.

Until that time, some workers who didn't join unions still had union dues deducted from their paychecks.

What's happened in the year since?

Image by David Dugan, Wikimedia Commons

We found there hasn't been the major shakeup in union membership that some expected. Some claim workers are being trapped into union membership despite the Supreme Court decision.

Meantime, some are now in court seeking to be paid back for the dues they were forced to pay in the past.

We'll also hear from union supporters who say the whole Janus decision is part of a conspiracy to undermine unions nationwide.

That's on Full Measure this week.

How to watch Full Measure

Also on Sunday's program, we'll hear from James Rosen after the Inspector General Horowitz report that revealed shocking abuses on the part of current and former FBI officials in surveilling the Trump campaign in 2016 and President Trump associates in 2017.

Attorney General Michael Horowitz Image: Courtesy C-SPAN

And speaking of government surveillance, a top investigative journalist joins us to discuss the disturbing findings in his new book: "When They Come For You: How Police and Government are Trampling Our Liberties and How to Take Them Back" Award-winning author David Kirby examines government abuses and overreach into virtually every aspect of our lives.

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

Thank you to the thousands who are supporting the landmark case of Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.

Exit polls: Big win for Britain's Boris and Brexit

As of this writing, the final results aren't in-- so take the early news with a grain of salt. But the British press and analysts seem to be celebrating or mourning, depending on where they stand, what looks like a big victory for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

And the opposing Labour Party could have suffered one of its biggest losses in decades.

The election victory for the pro-Brexit leader would seem to get the popularly-voted British exit from the European Union back on track. Establishment politicians in Great Britain and Europe have been fighting to block Brexit ever since a majority voted to approve it in June of 2016.

Watch my report on Full Measure that explains the Brexit controversy and what it has to do with the U.S.

On my trip to Europe to report on Brexit for Full Measure, analysts explained that part of the broad support for Brexit coming from both liberals and conservatives came because of Europe's refugee crisis in 2015 and its aftermath. A flood of mostly-Muslim illegal immigrants rushed Europe's borders, fleeing civil war torn countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Many viewed European leaders as not properly addressing the problem. The result has been financial strain, culture clashes and Islamic extremist terrorist attacks by some of the immigrants.

Read more about the British election results here:

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/12/12/20999535/boris-johnson-uk-election-results-brexit

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: Majority believe voter ID laws are designed to suppress fraud

Ninety-three percent (93%) of respondents say that voter ID laws are designed to suppress fraud.

Just over 1% say voter ID laws are designed to suppress votes. Another 1% of respondents believe that voter ID laws are designed to both suppress fraud and suppress votes.

Four percent (4%) say that the laws are not designed to suppress fraud or votes. And fewer than 1% of respondents said they "don't know/don't care."

That's according to the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com.

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!

Voter ID laws are designed to:

1% Suppress votes

93% Suppress fraud

1% Both

4% Neither

<1% I don't know/don't care

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.

California Cell Phone Health Warning Survives Supreme Court Challenge

A 2016 Berkeley, California city ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to warn customers about the possible radiation dangers will stand after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

A similar ordinance that required retailers to give buyers a warning that described cell phone emissions as a “possible carcinogen" had previously been successfully struck down in Court.

The Berkeley ordinance informs cell phone customers that carrying cell phones close to the body may expose them to radiation exceeding Federal Communications Commission standards.

Cell phone companies argued that the ordinance violates their free speech rights, and noted that the Federal Communications Commission has declared that “no scientific evidence establishes a causal link” between cell-phone use and human illnesses.

Federal Courts have permitted enforcement of the ordinance tied to the Federal Communications Commission standards.

Read more by clicking on the link below:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-s-cell-phone-health-warning-survives-14893869.php

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.

AG Barr's information dump about probe into FBI in 24 concise, numbered points

Attorney General William Barr (right)

The following is an excerpt of my latest article in The Epoch Times.

William Barr has suddenly become chatty— and he’s provided quite an information dump.

In video appearances on NBC News and at Wall Street Journal’s “CEO Council,” Attorney General Barr provided the same basic information and views about the U.S. intelligence community’s actions against the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2017. A criminal investigation is underway and being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Barr was motivated to make the public statements, he explained, by misreporting and confusion surrounding Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report issued on Monday. It found serious government surveillance abuses but no evidence of political bias on the part of the offending FBI officials and agents.

Below are 24 points Barr felt the need to make after the release of the Horowitz reprot. (All of the information is attributed to Barr.)

1. Don’t expect Durham’s findings to be announced before late Spring or Summer 2020.
2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.

3. Regarding FBI’s actions in surveilling Trump campaign associates, it was a “travesty” and there were “many abuses.” (Continued...)

Click the link below to read the rest of the article in The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI


Rolling Stone: How scandalously wrong the news media was about the anti-Trump "dossier"

The following is an excerpt from an article in Rolling Stone entitled:

‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke: The report throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”

By Matt Taibbi

The Guardian headline reads: “DOJ Internal watchdog report clears FBI of illegal surveillance of Trump adviser.”

If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. Holy God, what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was.

Like the much-ballyhooed report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Horowitz report is a Rorschach test, in which partisans will find what they want to find.

Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz’s conclusion that there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct.

Horowitz uses phrases like “serious performance failures,” describing his 416-page catalogue of errors and manipulations as incompetence rather than corruption. This throws water on the notion that the Trump investigation was a vast frame-up. (Continued...)

Read the rest of the article in Rolling Stone by clicking the link below:

‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke
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.