Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.
Democrats, Republicans and the media who are framing the Trump impeachment in terms of "quid pro quo" misunderstand the term as well as common diplomacy.
Listen to the podcast by clicking the audio player below.
Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI
For more original reporting, subscribe to my two podcasts on iTunes, Spotify or your favorite distributor: "Full Measure After Hours" and "The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast." Follow us on Twitter @FullMeasureAH @SharylPodcast!
The following is an excerpt from an article in the liberal publication The Atlantic.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her blessing to an impeachment inquiry three weeks ago, she also laid down a marker: The investigation wouldn’t center on any of the issues that Democrats have obsessed over for the last three years. Not Russian interference, or emoluments, or security clearances, or family separation. Impeachment would be about Ukraine—and only about Ukraine...
Some moderate lawmakers and rank-and-file Democrats—many of whom were reticent to support impeachment to begin with—are intent on keeping the focus of the inquiry as narrow as possible, as it is now under Pelosi’s direction. They’re worried that straying from Trump’s Ukraine-related offenses could create the appearance of a partisan fishing expedition...
The current plan is for Democrats, led by the House Intelligence Committee, to continue gathering information about Trump’s request of Ukraine through witness testimony and subpoenaed documents; today, Democrats plan to question the former ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor. Then, after reviewing the evidence, the Judiciary Committee will decide if there are grounds for impeachment. If so, committee members will write the articles—a list of reasons why they think the president should be removed from office—and present them to the full House for a vote. Former President Andrew Johnson, for example, faced a total of 11 articles, spanning from his violation of the Tenure of Office Act to bringing “contempt, ridicule and disgrace” to the presidency. By contrast, former President Bill Clinton faced two: for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. If the House votes to approve any of the individual articles, Trump will be formally impeached, and his case will go to the Senate for trial...
Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/impeachment-trump-democrats/600448/
Fourteen years after Hurricane Katrina, mass amounts of federal tax money has been spent to protect New Orleans from a repeat disaster.
More than 1800 people died as a result of the 2005 storm.
Among the funds devoted to help are $19 billion for what amounts to the largest civil engineering project in U.S. history. Among other improvements, the city's levees have been reinforced.
Lisa Fletcher followed the money to New Orleans and found two important things.
First, some say that's not enough money and that the levees will need continual improvements at additional cost.
Second, some experts say it's not a matter of "if" but "when" the new and improved levees will fail.
Watch out cover story investigation this Sunday on Full Measure.
Also on this week's program, when you hear the debate over immigration and illegal immigration, you often hear cries of "racism." It turns out that very debate is familiar in Europe, as well, as Europe deals with repercussions of mass immigration from mostly Muslim countries, creating a culture clash in many areas.
I'll talk to an author and professor who describes himself as a "liberal" but says some on his side are unfairly using the slur "racist" against those who have very different reasons they oppose mass uncontrolled immigration. He has suggestions on ways to bridge the divide.
And I'll take you to one of the happiest places on earth. (Hint: it's in Scandinavia.) #hygge
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
"Pierre Delecto" strikes back at Romney critics
If there was ever any doubt that Republican Senator Mitt Romney (at least secretly) identifies as vehemently anti-Trump, the Twitter account under the name "Pierre Delecto" may have put that to rest.
Romney recently admitted he was using the "Delecto" pseudonym on social media. Romney told reporters it was "a way to have a private account to see what's going on." (Of course, one doesn't need a private account to "see what's going on." Any Twitter user with an account under their real name can privately read whatever they wish without detection.)
Romney was the Republican nominee for president in 2012, beaten out by Democrat Barack Obama. Romney spoke out against Trump in 2016. Trump later endorsed Romney for senate in Utah.
Though Romney didn't publish very frequently on Twitter under his fake name, the content has garnered him some fans among both liberals and anti-Trump Republicans. Romney used "Pierre Delecto" to express pro-Romney and/or anti-Trump sentiments.
Romney's tweets are now protected and cannot be seen by ordinary users on Twitter. But a Slate reporter says she captured some highlights, which are excerpted below.
On May 31, Romney's "Delecto" Twitter account tweeted a conservative writer who had called Romney's treatment of Trump "non-confrontation verging on spinelessness." Delecto told the reporter she "needed to take a breath," and "Maybe you can then acknowledge the people who agree with you in large measure even if not in every measure."
On June 8, Romney's "Delecto" Twitter account replied to a CNN report stating that Romney had an "utter lack of a moral compass." Delecto replied: "Only Republican to hit Trump on [Mueller] report, only one to hit Trump on character time and again...you think he's the one without moral compass?"
On October 7, a news report noted that Romney called Trump an "unreliable ally." Fox News' Brit Hume replied, "Some might say Romney is too." "Delecto" weighed in, tweeting that Romney is "loyal to principle," while Trump's "loyalty [is] to party or person, right Brit?"
The following is an excerpt from my latest column in The Hill.
Quid pro no.
The current impeachment debate is being framed in terms of whether or not there was a “quid pro quo”— as if that is the bar that will determine whether or not President Trump did something egregious.
There are big flaws with this framing, as well as with the use of the term.
Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions,” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”
The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”
It is true that few Americans would think it’s appropriate for a U.S. president to use his foreign aid diplomacy to set conditions to receive “dirt” on a political opponent. But the available information is proving to be a far cry from the original “whistleblower” allegations that Trump “solicit[ed] interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential election, in quid pro quo fashion.
Foreign aid is widely considered a tool to allow the U.S. “access and influence in the domestic and foreign affairs of other states,” particularly “national security policy.” It also “helps governments achieve mutual cooperation on a wide range of issues.”
All of this appears to neatly fit the definition of the very things President Trump’s critics allege he did: try to ensure Ukraine’s cooperation in the U.S. investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign, and obtain a commitment from Ukraine to open an investigation into widespread corruption that could have U.S. ties — including a possible tie to the 2020 presidential election. (Continued...)
Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/467079-quid-pro-quo-in-ukraine-no-not-yet
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.
"Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years."
Mike Taibbi, reporter, Rolling Stone
Former presidential nominee for Democrats, Hillary Clinton, ignited a lot of discussion when she recently stated that other prominent liberals are "Russian assets."
Who does Clinton say has gone over to the red side?
Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat (who was identified by implication only); and Jill Stein (who ran as an independent candidate in 2016).
Both Gabbard and Stein quickly slammed Clinton's "conspiracy theory."
Clinton also continued pushing the idea that President Trump is a Russian, asset, too.
“[Jill Stein’s] also a Russian asset… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate....I don’t know what Putin has on [Trump], whether it’s both personal and financial … I assume it is.”
Hillary Clinton, 2016 (D) presidential nominee
Clinton's accusations prompted an article by Mike Taibbi in Rolling Stone who writes, "Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years."
The following is an excerpt of the article in Rolling Stone
Less than a week before Clinton’s outburst, the New York Times — once a symbol of stodgy, hyper-cautious reporting — ran a feature called, “What, Exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?” The piece speculated about the “suspicious activity” surrounding Gabbard’s campaign, using quotes from the neoconservative think-tank, the Alliance For Securing Democracy, to speculate about Gabbard’s Russian support.
(Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below)
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.
The latest court filing in the case of Gen. Michael Flynn has to do with information the government wishes to keep redacted, and alleged delays caused through the process of determining what should or should not be made public.
Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, has accused the Department of Justice of stalling. He is awaiting sentencing for lying about his discussions with a Russian ambassador. There is controversy surrounding his guilty plea. Among other issues, some FBI agents reportedly stated privately that they did not believe Flynn had lied. the discussions with the Russian ambassador themselves were not against the law.
Read today's filing by clicking the link below. Note: emails between the government and Flynn attorney Sidney Powell are at the end of the document.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.127.0_1.pdf
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.
Two top former intel officials at the center of the controversy over the Trump-Russia probe may be interviewed by the Trump administration U.S. attorney investigating the origin of it all.
That's according to one of the officials, former CIA Director John Brennan.
Brennan, an analyst for NBC News, says that he and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are being asked to give interviews to U.S. Attorney John Durham.
Read the entire story by clicking the link below:
