Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

Full Measure begins Season 5

Airing Sunday mornings, the original and investigative news program "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson" has begun Season 5.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (SBGI) ("Sinclair") proudly kicked-off its fifth season of 'Full Measure' on Sept. 8, hosted by Emmy award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson.

SBG logo

Since launching in 2015, the Sunday morning news program has seen year-to-year audience growth, capturing viewers by providing long-form reports on a range of political and socioeconomic topics with ratings that consistently outperform its cable competitors.

The inaugural season five episode unpacked Greece's immigration crisis, drawing parallels to the immigration debate in the U.S.

Additional investigative reports planned for this fall include reality checks on illegal immigration and drugs on our border, investigations into billions of dollars in alleged fraud in the spending of U.S. tax funds in Puerto Rico, and stories from a dozen foreign countries that face issues relevant to the U.S.

"Four years ago, we were given the opportunity to create a new space in the Sunday morning news landscape, one with real reporting, rather than a lineup of the same talking heads," said Sharyl Attkisson, host and managing editor of Full Measure. "I'm incredibly proud of what we've built and our sustained success. I'm confident our format will continue to resonate with viewers."

'Full Measure' airs live across Sinclair broadcast TV news stations every Sunday morning. Viewers can also watch the show live online, or on demand for free with the STIRR app.

How to watch: https://sharylattkisson.com/full_measure_station-list/

For more information on 'Full Measure,' please visit: http://fullmeasure.news/ 

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Media Bias: Fact or Fiction? The Video

Here's the video of the Paley Center Media Bias panel from Tues. Sept. 17.

(Click the arrow below.)

In Person:
Sharyl Attkisson, Author; Host, Full Measure
Angelo Carusone, President, Media Matters 
Tim Graham, Director of Media Analysis, Media Research Center
Michelle Malkin, Commentator and Author 
Christine Quinn, Politician and Commentator 
Brian Stelter, Host, Reliable Sources, CNN 
Moderator: Marie Hardin, Dean, Bellisario College of Communications, Penn State University

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!

The real scandal involving the Dept. of Justice and FBI

The following is an excerpt of my news analysis in The Hill.

What will Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s latest investigation reveal? Will Congress hold hearings about it? Will former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe actually get indicted? After all, it’s said that a motivated prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” if he really wants to.

We’re so wrapped up in the daily tick-tock, we could be losing sight of a big picture that’s come into focus over the past two years. For the first time in our nation’s history, an inspector general — one appointed by President Obama — has determined that at least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution. That in itself is a scandal with national implications deserving of headlines, congressional hearings and promises to overhaul a broken system.

Of course, the complicating factor in the whole mess is that the government entities responsible for addressing any wrongdoing are the same ones inextricably tied to the alleged wrongdoing. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI employ enough people to populate a mid-sized city — more than 113,000. Both agencies are much more than the top men or women in charge. Even as certain personalities are divested, tentacles run deep; ties cross administrations and party lines. The recent past provides little reason to think this behemoth can always be neutral when it comes to its own. The machine has proven it can move swiftly when it comes to criminal cases against certain politically connected figures for relatively small infractions — but it has shown less commitment when it comes to others.

By way of a few examples, we can start with the scathing 2016 election-year ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It found the National Security Agency (NSA) guilty of “institutional lack of candor” in its spying on U.S. citizens. The court also said the NSA’s practices raised serious constitutional issues. It sounds pretty serious but, as far as we know, the FBI pursued no investigation into any responsible officials. And after years of surveillance abuses well-documented by the FISC and others, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress that there have never been any.

Also during the 2016 election year, administration officials conducted rampant “unmaskings,” revealing protected names of incidentally surveilled U.S. citizens. But after President Obama’s United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power, testified that someone else made unmasking requests using her name, there seemed to be a conspicuous lack of curiosity. As far as we know, the FBI did not move to expose who was responsible for any possible violations of national security and privacy protections.

When the FBI lost thousands of text messages, sought by the inspector general, between FBI official Peter Strzok and bureau attorney Lisa Page, it was chalked up to a technical snafu and the case was closed. There was no announcement at the FBI about steps being taken to ensure such a major blunder won’t happen in the future; there was only what amounted to a symbolic shrug. The chaser to that debacle was Strzok and Page’s text messages from their time working for special counsel Robert Mueller also ended up somehow deleted. 

There’s been no swift, public action that we know of on eight criminal referrals that two House Intelligence Committee Republicans sent to the Department of Justice more than five months ago. There’s no word of any action more than eight months after Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a criminal referral to the DOJ against Christopher Steele, author of the anti-Trump political opposition research “dossier.” 

Read the rest of the article in The Hill by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/461599-weve-lost-sight-of-the-real-scandal

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.

Media Bias: Fact of Fiction? Paley Panel in NY Tues. Sept. 17

Watch live on The Paley Center's facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/PaleyCenter/

The James P. Jimirro Media Impact Series: Media Bias: Fact or Fiction?

Tuesday, September 17, 2019 
6:30 pm ET 
New York

In Person:
Sharyl Attkisson, Author; Host, Full Measure
Angelo Carusone, President, Media Matters 
Tim Graham, Director of Media Analysis, Media Research Center
Michelle Malkin, Commentator and Author 
Christine Quinn, Politician and Commentator 
Brian Stelter, Host, Reliable Sources, CNN 
Moderator: Marie Hardin, Dean, Bellisario College of Communications, Penn State University

In this contentious political landscape, with an overwhelming amount of relentless news, the public is having a harder time finding accurate sources of information. According to a recent Gallup/Knight Foundation Survey, more Americans have a negative views of the news media, with charges of bias and unfairness growing considerably from a generation ago. The Paley Center is gathering journalists and experts to explore media bias from all political sides, trying to determine if it is fact or fiction. Our panelists will assess what this mistrust means for our political discourse and democracy, as well as examine how it is possible to be a well-informed citizen in an era of fake news.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

All prison documents about Jeffrey Epstein: Withheld

There's a bit of news in the case of Jeffrey Epstein. He's the convicted sex offender who somehow managed to commit suicide in a New York jail last month while he was supposed to be under close watch.

My public information request about his death— has been formally denied.

Shortly after Epstein died in August, I filed a Freedom of Information request for public documents about his injuries and medical care for both the day he died and earlier, in July, when he reportedly attempted suicide.  

Member of the public and press are entitled to review documents and communications generated and collected by federal agencies and officials because-- we own them. However, federal agencies often delay, obstruct and resist the release of such documents.

Guidance from FOI court cases and the executive branch indicates that federal agencies are supposed to make every effort to release as much information as possible-- and at least partial information if exemptions are at play.

In the case of the Epstein documents I requested, the federal Bureau of Prisons responded by stating that it is withholding all of the documents entirely.

The Bureau cites six exemptions, including that releasing the information "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an(y) individual.”

One of the exceptions cited by the Bureau of Prisons in
withholding all information related to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Bureau of Prisons invited me to keep refiling in the future to see if the status changes.

The FBI is said to be investigating how jail authorities missed Epstein committing the act of suicide in their custody while awaiting trial on new sex trafficking charges. 

The letter from the Bureau of Prisons is below:

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

5g Risks (Podcast)

5G promises to make our phone and computer experience better and faster. But there are serious health concerns. Sharyl digs into the question. Appearing in this episode: investigative producer David Bernknopf.

Subscribe to both of Sharyl Attkisson's podcasts on iTunes or your favorite distributor: "The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast" and "Full Measure After Hours."

Follow on Twitter: @SharylPodcast @FullMeasureAH.

Listen to all the podcasts at SharylAttkisson.com under the "Podcast" tab.

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.

POLL: 2020 presidential polls so far are probably not accurate

Most people aren't very confident in the accuracy of polling about the 2020 presidential race.

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

About 87% of people said such polls are "pretty inaccurate." Only 2% said they are "pretty accurate."

The full poll results are below.

Meantime, answer our latest polls at SharylAttkisson.com by looking for them in the black boxes on the right sidebar of the home page, or scroll way down on the mobile site.

I think current polls about 2020 race are:

2% Pretty accurate

87% Pretty inaccurate

11% I don't know/don't care

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.

"Outing" the medical centers that have contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement

By U.S. Customs and Border Protection - CBP Processing Unaccompanied Children, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51178811

The following is a news analysis.

It's a new phenomenon in the era of Trump.

First, illegal immigrant supporters have worked hard-- using political figures, advocacy groups, news organizations and social media-- to controversialize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its work.

ICE defines its mission as protecting America from "the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety" by enforcing federal laws.

As part of this effort to controversiaize ICE, the illegal immigrant supporters point to what they call inhumane conditions and treatment of the migrants in federal custody as the system has been overwhelmed.

That's where part two of the phenomenon comes into play. At the same time they complain ICE isn't providing the illegal immigrants proper medical treatment, shelter, food and care-- the activists are working to discourage companies and contractors that are doing just that.

A new article on the website Medscape, which is owned by Web MD, "outs" medical centers that have contracts with ICE, as if the business relationship something to be considered controversial.

Some of the medical centers say they are doing the humane thing to assist with care of the illegal immigrants. But other medical officials say the business ties are wrong because it enables ICE.

The title of the Medscape article is: "Does Your Medical Center Have a Contract With ICE? These Do."

You can read an excerpt below, followed by a link to the full article.

Does Your Medical Center Have a Contract With ICE? These Do.

As controversy swirls around physician involvement with migrant detention centers, a Medscape analysis has found that four major medical centers have contracts with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide services they say will improve conditions for migrants at the US-Mexico border, including developing medical and triage protocols for adults and children.

Medscape Medical News' analysis found that Brigham and Women's Hospital, Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center have or have had contracts ranging from just under $10,000 up to $2 million for medical services. For both medical and nonmedical services, a dozen institutions were found to have 17 contracts total, and some institutions have multiple contracts.

Medical centers have had contracts with CBP and ICE in the past, but of the currently running contracts, all but one of the 17 began in 2017, after the Trump administration took a more hardline approach to immigration.

At least one institution, Harvard Medical School-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital, has said it is canceling its contract with CBP to provide "guidance for medical triage protocols at the southern border," Medscape Medical News has learned.

The institutions have contracted to provide a variety of services, including tactical medical training, university-level education and training services, strategic planning facilitation services, and medical direction services.

Hospital administrators and many physicians say they have a moral obligation to do what they can to help ease the suffering at the southern US border, but other physicians and healthcare workers contend it is wrong to support a system they believe abuses detainees attempting to seek asylum in the United States.

In a commentary published online August 30 in JAMA, Paul Spiegel, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Johns Hopkins University provide recommendations for how clinicians should work with migrants at the border. "Whatever the future of US immigration policy, decent and humane treatment of children, as well as all other detainees, and preservation of the independence of physicians and other health professionals to meet patients' medical and psychological needs are essential," they write. "Now is not a time to change the commitments, reputation, and integrity of physicians and the medical profession."

In response, an ICE spokesperson told Medscape Medical News in an emailed statement that the agency has "several levels of oversight in order to ensure that residents in ICE custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments."

Those levels of oversight include receiving "a comprehensive physical exam within 14 days of arrival to identify medical, mental health and dental conditions that require monitoring or treatment." In addition, all detainees should expect "timely and appropriate responses to emergent medical requests, and timely medical care appropriate to the anticipated length of detention. At no time during detention will a detainee be denied emergent care," the statement continues.

CBP did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Read the rest of the Medscape article by clicking the link below.

Medscape Article

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI