Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

"Read the transcript" (Call #2, July 25)

President Trump has insisted his July 25, 2019 phone call with Ukraine's president was "perfect."

His critics argue it's evidence of a criminal quid pro quo, extortion and bribery.

Read the transcript as released by the White House below.

Note: Per procedures described by White House officials, the "transcript" is not necessarily a direct verbatim of the call, which reportedly was not recorded, but a compilation of transcribed notes taken by observers. This apparently is not a process unique to the Trump presidency. George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State who testified against Trump at Wednesday's impeachment hearing, stated it is not unusual for such calls to not be recorded.

The link to the document is below:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

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

The Biden-Burisma part of the impeachment hearing

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Sec. of State (left) and Ambassador William Taylor (right)
Wed. Nov. 13, Courtesy: CSPAN

The following is a new analysis

There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.

There's a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here's a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, I'll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.

Kent agrees today that Burisma should be "fully investigated," as President Trump has asked.

Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.

Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky's crimes "go away." Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.

Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma's board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.

Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.

Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about "Hunter Biden's status as a [Burisma] board member" amid the corruption questions because it "could create the perception of a conflict of interest." He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President's office. Kent stated he has "no idea" what the Vice President's office did about his concerns.

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden's son still served on the board. Ukraine's president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)

Kent defended Biden's action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.

When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.

Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.

Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are "never held to account" in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is "lots to review."

Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he'd been there 13 times.

When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated "no."

When asked, Kent agreed it's appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.

Read the Politico investigation about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton and "sabotage" Trump. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”

Ambassador William Taylor

Amb. Taylor testified he was concerned that the "irregular channel was going against purpose of regular channel."

Amb. Taylor indicated he was upset that President Trump was going outside the “regular” channels, using an “irregular, informal” channel “unaccountable to Congress” that consisted of:

  • Energy Secretary Rick Perry
  • U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker
  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney
  • U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland
  • Trump attorney and adviser Rudy Giuliani.

Amb. Taylor stated that the regular diplomats were enthusiastic about the newly-elected president of Ukraine and they urged President Trump to meet with him to cement the relationship, but "Trump didn't share the enthusiasm."

Amb. Taylor stated that approval of additional aid to Ukraine was being held by the Office of Management and Budget, supposedly at the president's behest. Trump had reportedly asked for an assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. assistance to Ukraine. Amb. Taylor felt that was "a threat to longstanding policy."

Amb. Taylor said OMB's Mulvaney maintained a "skeptical view of Ukraine."

Amb. Taylor said Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky indicated he did not want to be used in U.S. election campaign.

Amb. Taylor was upset at being excluded from some discussions involving Ukraine, on which he disagreed.

Amb. Taylor stated that he was afraid that U.S. strong support toward Ukraine was "shifting." He said he was “embarrassed” at times that he didn’t have answers about U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Amb. Taylor said he was concerned to learn on September first that the U.S. made additional aid and a White House meeting with Ukraine's president conditional on Ukraine conducting investigations into its corruption, including Burisma.

Amb. Taylor says Amb. Sondland told him that President Trump wanted Ukraine's President Zelensky to publicly state he would investigate Burisma and 2016 election interference. Amb. Taylor said that President Trump wanted Zelensky in a "public box to keep him honest"; make him publicly commit to the investigations. Amb. Taylor disagreed with this “demand” and asked Amb. Sondland to “push back” against it.

Amb. Taylor said he “understood” there to be a stalemate: Ukraine would not get additional U.S. assistance without President Zelensky making a public statement agreeing to an investigation.

Amb. Taylor stated that did not want President Zelensky to give make a planned statement on CNN promising an investigation, and Amb. Taylor says he sought assurances from President Zelensky that he would not do so.

Amb. Taylor stated that the withholding of additional U.S. aid was "wrong" and that doing so "shook [Ukraine's] confidence."

Amb. Taylor acknowledged the U.S. "conditions assistance all the time," but he disagreed with what he assumed to be Trump’s motivations.

Amb. Taylor said his "nightmare" was that President Zelensky would make the public statement but not get the U.S. aid. “Russians love it and I quit,” he says he texted at the time, adding, “I think it’s crazy to withhold political assistance for help with political campaign.”

Amb. Taylor says Amb. Sondland told him President Trump had been "crystal clear: no quid pro quo." Amb. Taylor said he assumed the opposite was true, though did not speak to Trump.

Amb. Trump quoted Amb. Sondland as explaining that when a businessman like Trump is about to sign a check, he asks for them to "pay up" before the signing. Amb. Taylor said that "didn't make sense" because "the Ukrainians didn’t owe U.S. anything."

The hold on additional U.S. assistance was lifted the next day without Zelensky making a public statement or providing "dirt" on Biden, even though Amb. Taylor and Kent said they clearly understood the aid would not be released unless those quid pro quo terms were met.

In the end, additional aid to Ukraine was delayed for 55 days from July 18-Sept. 11, 2019.

During that period, Amb. Taylor says he met with Ukraine's president three times and there was "no linkage of security assistance dollars to Biden or Burisma investigation" in any of the meetings.

Amb. Taylor added that Ukraine's president did not know at the time of the first two meetings that any assistance was being withheld, and only learned of it prior to their last meeting, when it was reported in an Aug. 29 Politico article. At that point, Amb. Taylor testified, there was still no discussion of conditions or why the aid was being withheld.

Amb. Taylor and Kent did not testify they heard that President Trump was looking for “political dirt,” mentioned the “2020 elections” or suggested anybody should fabricate or make up any dirt on the Bidens. Both men acknowledged they have never met or spoken to President Trump. However, both witnesses and the Democrats' counsel stated they concluded additional U.S. aid to Ukraine was temporarily held due to “personal or political interests of the President.”

Amb. Taylor testified he and Kent unaware of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election in collusion with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and the role Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa played as a consultant for the DNC at the time, as described in a January 2017 Politico article. They stated they did not know a Ukrainian had admitted spreading disinformation to undermine Trump's candidacy. He said they learned of this only recently.

Amb. Taylor testified that the information in the Politico article “surprises me, disappoints me, because it’s a mistake for any government official to interfere” with another country.

Amb. Taylor stated that he was not testifying to help decide about impeachment and did not allege an impeachable offense against President Trump.

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.

ISIS bride is not a U.S. citizen, says judge

Hoda Muthana and child

A federal judge ruled today that a so-called "ISIS bride" Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be allowed to return to the United States.

Muthana, a Muslim woman, told her family she was going on a field trip to Atlanta in 2014. Instead, she joined the Islamic extremist terrorist group ISIS in Syria. She reportedly married three different ISIS fighters, becoming a widower each time.

While part of ISIS, Muthana advocated for the murder of Americans.

In one tweet, she reportedly wrote: “Go on drive-bys and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriot, Memorial etc Day parades..go on drive by’s + spill all of their blood or rent a big truck n drive all over them. Kill them."

Muthana asked to be allowed to return to her family in the U.S. on the grounds she is a U.S. citizen and that she had diplomatic immunity for her crimes. She filed an appeal earlier this year when the U.S. government determined she had no right to return. She said she was willing to face trial in the U.S.

Although Muthana was born in the United States, the U.S. government determined she is not a citizen. That's because her father was a Yemeni diplomat posted to the United Nations in New York. Children of such diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Muthana argued that she has received death threats from people who are still loyal to the Islamic extremist terrorist group ISIS, which she married into. She also says her child needs access to better medical care.

The Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America says it will continue to fight to bring Muthana back to the U.S.

"United States citizenship cannot be revoked by tweet or any other form of social media, and today’s ruling does not change that," stated the Center in response to the court decision.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Dissenting diplomats are the ones conducting "shadow diplomacy" against Trump

Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor

The following is an excerpt from my latest news analysis in The Hill.

There’s an important revelation from the first day of impeachment hearings that I haven’t heard discussed. It has to do with the witnesses’ strange notion of how foreign policy works...

...There must be some confusion. 

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?...

...Trump’s enemies may cheer on the idea of diplomats and other officials choosing to oppose or undermine his wishes. But based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats are the ones who are at odds with “official foreign policy”— not the other way around. To the extent they are attempting to further policies that oppose or undermine the president’s wishes, they are the ones conducting the “shadow campaign.”

Read the entire article at The Hill by clicking the link below:

The-president-not-diplomats-sets-official-foreign-policy

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.

"Historic increases" and border issues create backlogs in U.S. Trusted Traveler Programs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports an historic increase in new applications and renewals for its Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP), and significant delays processing them.

Backlogs blamed on:

  • Historic increases in new applications and renewals
  • Humanitarian and security crisis on southern border
  • Extended, partial government shutdown
  • CBP processes 100,000 - 200,000 applications and renewals/month

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) "Precheck" program started in December 2011 at Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport. It has since expanded to several hundred airports.

It's part of a group of programs, including "Global Entry," that are administered by the Department of Homeland security. They enable travelers to go through quicker security at participating airports and when crossing international borders-- after paying a fee and passing a background check.

But customers have been suffering long delays in having their applications processed.

I discovered this for myself when I applied to renew my "Global Entry" pass on July 23, 2019.

It's as if the application went into a black hole.

Actually, it just went somewhere into the bowels of the Department of Homeland Security. After four months, I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever be heard from again.

Here's how the process works. After applicants fill out an online form and pay a fee, they're told to wait for "conditional approval." The website warns you won't get an email or other notification when approval is given: you have to log into the website to check every day (or as often as you figure it's worth checking).

After checking daily for awhile, you may start to realize this is a process that isn't going to take a day or two. Maybe weeks. You keep logging in to check. Weeks go by. Still--nothing.

For me, a big moment of realization came when the wrong mail was delivered to my home about a month and a half after I'd filled out my application and paid the fee. This particular mail was intended for my next door neighbor. It was his Global Entry renewal pass. When I delivered it, the neighbor's wife lamented about her spouse had waited months for his "conditional approval," logging into the TSA website to check day after day, week after week, month after month.

One clue as to what's wrong comes from a red alert that appears when applicants log into the Homeland Security website to check their status. It explains that "the extended partial government shutdown has resulted in a substantial backlog."

Until reading this, I wasn't aware we were even having an "extended partial government shutdown." It was time to put in a query to the Department of Homeland Security!

I got a timely response from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), where my query was referred.

First, they explained that we are not in an extended, partial government shutdown. The shutdown referred to in the red alert is the one that spanned about two months during December 2018 and January 2019. Apparently, that brief shutdown is still drastically slowing the processing of applications almost a year later.

But perhaps an even bigger factor, says CBP, is the "historic increase in new applications and renewals." And there's a third issue impacting the time it takes to process: the border crisis.

"These record numbers combined with the partial government shutdown and the additional deployment of CBP personnel in response to the ongoing humanitarian and security crisis on our southern border created a considerable backlog," a CBP spokesman told me.

The spokesman went on to say that, in recent months, there's been "significant progress" in reducing the backlog.

For new Global Entry applicants, about 65% of applications are processed within zero to 15 days, and about 30-35% of applications require more than 90 days to process.

Customs and Border Protection spokesman

CBP told me that only about one-third of applications require more than 90 days to process.

(Lucky me. I'm about to enter my fifth month...)

CBP also notes: "As of April 2019, membership is being extended from 6 months to 1 year beyond the expiration date provided that the member submits a renewal application before their membership expires. During this 1-year extension, cards will remain valid for use."

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

Sen. Graham chides Republican colleagues for not doing more to defend Trump

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seemed to express frustration and imply that his hands are tied when it comes to Republicans providing a counterpoint to Democrat-led impeachment hearings, which began today in the House of Representatives.

On Fox News Tuesday night, host Sean Hannity asked Graham why the Republican-controlled Senate isn’t holding simultaneous hearings.

At issue, according to Trump supporters, is alleged corruption involving Democrats’ involvement with Ukraine, the 2016 elections, Ukrainian energy company Burisma where Joe Biden’s son served on the board, then-Vice President Biden’s threat to withhold U.S. aid unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the alleged impeachment whistleblower, and the House Democrats’ impeachment push. 

Graham indicated that some of those controversies are under the purview of different Republican-led Senate committees, whose chairman have not moved to hold hearings.

“The whistleblower is under the jurisdiction of the Intel Committee, all things about Hunter Biden is under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee,” Graham stated.

Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee

Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Graham went on to indicate that he felt his Republican colleagues should be doing more. “If I were Chairman Risch, I would call the State Department officials in to express concerns about a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden and see where that takes you.”

“If I were Chairman Risch, I would call the State Department officials in to express concerns about a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden and see where that takes you.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Graham also implied that some other Senate Republicans are not being outspoken enough.

“The first thing I want my colleagues in the Senate to do is step up and say ‘What’s going on in the House is unfair, unAmerican, we’re not going to bless it,’ and I’d like my colleagues in the Senate to say ‘There is no quid pro quo here’ because the money was given to the Ukraine and Hunter Biden, Joe Biden were not investigated.’ I’d like Republicans to speak up and say ‘This is a bunch of garbage.”

Democrats say President Trump engaged in an improper quid pro quo with Ukraine, withholding U.S. aid to get political dirt on Biden for his own political purposes in the 2020 campaign.

Trump's supporters say the President properly sought Ukraine's cooperation in investigating corruption and foreign interference in the 2016 campaign, as well as the alleged involvement of Democrats. They also point out that "political dirt" was neither discussed nor delivered, campaign 2020 was not referenced, and a temporary hold on U.S. aid was lifted.

If the Democrat-controlled House votes to impeach President Trump as expected, the case then goes to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial to see if Trump should be removed from office. That would take a two-thirds "super majority" or 67 votes.

The current political makeup of the Senate is 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats (including two independents).

Watch the full interview below. The operative segment begins approximately five minutes into the interview.

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.

"When They Come for You"

When They Come For You: How Police and Government are Trampling Our Liberties and How To Take Them Back

It goes without saying that our government is responsible for a serious erosion of our Constitutional rights in recent years.

Maybe it's more accurate to say it has often gone without saying. Some of those most outspoken, historically, on these issues remain largely silent-- or even take the other side in today's Alice in Wonderland dynamic.

Author and journalist David Kirby stands up where too many stay seated with his new expose: "When They Come For You: How Police and Government are Trampling Our Liberties and How To Take Them Back."

Kirby, a New York Times bestselling author, says the idea for his newest book came after he began hearing one case after another of outrageous government violations from seizure of property to claiming to own our children. It's happening at the federal level, but also at the local level of city and county government.

Free speech, privacy, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and equal protection under the law are rights that belong to every American citizen, but are being shredded at an alarming rate all across the country.

When They Come for You by David Kirby

Kirby calls his work a "curated compendium of many of the different ways that state agents, local and federal government abuse power and violate constitutional individual rights."

When They Come for You tells horrible but true stories about SWAT-style military style raids on private homes of innocent Americans, legal kidnapping of children by government protective services, debtors' prisons, civil asset forfeiture, abuses of free speech and free press, and government spying on journalists.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

When They Come For You uses true stories of everyday citizens to reveal how our federal, state, and municipal governments, police, lawmakers, judges, revenue agents, unelected power brokers, and even government social workers are eviscerating our most fundamental liberties. And, it shows how people are fighting back—and winning.

When They Come for You by David Kirby

Above all, Kirby and When They Come For You teach us that many liberals, conservatives, libertarians and independents walk on common ground when it comes to treasuring constitutional protections from unlawful search and seizure, and privacy violations.

But it's time for all of them to step up and say so with louder voices.

Order When They Come For You on Amazon or your favorite distributor

“Rage-inducing, impeccably researched, and timely…an absolute must-read.” ―Booklist, Starred Review

“Harrowing…This detailed and often shocking book...is investigative reporting at its most effective.” ―Publishers Weekly

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: Epstein murder more likely than suicide

We haven't heard much lately on the investigation into the death of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a New York prison.

At last word, authorities were supposed to look into matters such as how he came to be removed from suicide watch, how the cameras that were supposed to be surveilling him failed, and how guards apparently fell asleep on the job.

The prison system is still withholding public documents I have requested under Freedom of Information law.

And in recent days, two forensic examiners have given their opinion that Epstein's injuries were more consistent with murder than suicide.

Now, a new poll from Rasmussen indicates most Americans agree with these two forensic examiners.

Only 29% of American adults say Epstein actually committed suicide while in jail.

Forty-two percent (42%) say they believe Epstein was murdered to prevent him from testifying against powerful people.

Almost one in three, 29%, indicated they are undecided. 

Click the link below to read more:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2019/americans_say_murder_more_likely_than_suicide_in_epstein_case

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.