• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

News

Poll results: Americans say "strict" state abortion laws are good way to bring issue to Supreme Court

In our latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com, a majority of respondents, 60% said that "strict" state abortion laws are a good way to get the issue before the Supreme Court again.

Those who agreed on this issue include respondents on both side of the abortion debate.

Eleven percent found "strict" state abortion laws "outrageous," but said they were a good way to get the issue before the Supreme Court again.

Sixty-seven percent found the laws reasonable, and also said they provided a good vehicle to the Supreme Court.

The full results are below.

Don't forget to vote on our new poll now in the black box on the home page sidebar, or scroll down on your mobile device.

Support independent journalism. Donate to SharylAttkisson.com by clicking here.

"Strict state abortion laws are..."

7% Outrageous

28% Reasonable

18% A good way to get the issue to the Supreme Court

4% A and C

38% B and C

3% I don't know

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.

Clinton email records were found in Obama White House

Bill Priestap, former assistant director of FBI counterintelligence

It's been a decade since Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State and used a private server for government business, transmitting sensitive and classified information in the process.

It's been exactly three years since the Inspector General said Clinton's actions were improper.

It's been a couple of years since the FBI under Director James Comey more or less cleared Clinton of criminal prosecution after granting immunity to her top aides, despite the destruction of subpoenaed emails.

So it's entirely possible you thought the case was closed.

But the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has continued its court pursuit to expose secrets surrounding Clinton's case. The group recently revealed that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that "the FBI found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President."

Support independent journalism. Donate to SharylAttkisson.com by clicking here.

Judicial Watch says the new disclosure was made by E.W. (Bill) Priestap, who was assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division until 2018. The information came as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue.

Now, under the District Court's order, Priestap and other Obama administration senior officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides must answer questions under oath in writing or in person.

According to a news release from Judicial Watch:

Priestap was asked by Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Hillary Clinton, her former staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained.” Priestap responded with the following non-exhaustive list:

  • Bryan Pagliano
  • Cheryl Mills
  • Executive Office of the President [Emphasis added]
  • Heather Samuelson
  • Jacob Sullivan
  • Justin Cooper
  • United States Department of State
  • United States Secret Service
  • Williams & Connolly LLP

A complete copy of Priestap’s interrogatory responses is available here. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.

Priestap was said to have been responsible for overseeing both the Clinton email investigation and the controversial FBI Trump-Russia counterintelligence probe, which itself is under investigation after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no coordination between any American and Russia.

Last year, Priestap told Congress that it was primarily FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI analyst Jonathan Moffa who were “driving the train" in the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok had key meetings with the number two FBI official at hte time, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, that Priestap seemed to know nothing about.

Read more about Judicial Watch's efforts here.

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.

"Wikipedia is...broken," controlled by special interests and bad actors, says co-founder

I've done quite a bit of reporting about how Wikipedia is definitely not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." It's become a vehicle for special interests to control information. Agenda editors are able to prevent or revert edits and sourcing on selected issues and people in order to control the narrative.

Watch Sharyl Attkisson's TedX talk on Wikipedia and other Astroturf tools

My own battle with Wikipedia included being unable to correct provably false facts such as incorrect job history, incorrect birth place and incorrect birth date.

What's worse is that agenda editors related to pharmaceutical interests and the partisan blog Media Matters control my Wikipedia biographical page, making sure that slanted or false information stays on it. For example, they falsely refer to my reporting as "anti-vaccine," and imply my reporting on the topic has been discredited. In fact, my vaccine and medical reporting has been recognized by top national journalism awards organizations, and has even been cited as a source in a peer reviewed scientific publication. However, anyone who tries to edit this factual context and footnotes onto my page finds it is quickly removed.

What persists on my page, however, are sources that are supposedly disallowed by Wikipedia's policies. They include citations by Media Matters, with no disclosure that it's a partisan blog.

Another entity quoted on my Wikipedia biographical page to disparage my work is the vaccine industry's Dr. Paul Offit. But there's no mention of the lawsuits filed against Offit for libel (one prompted him to apologize and correct his book), or the fact that he provided false information about his work and my reporting to the Orange County Register, which later corrected its article. Obviously, these facts would normally make Offit an unreliable source, but for Wikipedia, he's presented as if an unconflicted expert. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't even mention that's Offit is a vaccine industry insider who's made millions of dollars off of vaccines.

Meantime, turn to Dr. Offit's own Wikipedia biography and-- at last look-- it also omitted all mention of his countless controversies. Instead, it's written like a promotional resume-- in violation of Wikipedia's supposed politics on neutrality.

Watch Sharyl Attkisson's TedX talk on Fake News

These biographies are just two examples of ones that blatantly violate Wikipedia's strict rules, yet they are set in stone. The powerful interests that "watch" and control the pages make sure Offit's background is whitewashed and that mine is subtly tarnished. They will revert or change any edits that attempt to correct the record.

This, in a nutshell, exemplifies Wikipedia's problems across the platform as described by its cofounder Larry Sanger.

Sanger recently spoke to 150Sec. The following is an excerpt:

Reading a Wikipedia entry about Wikipedia itself seems strange. But where else on the web would an average internet user go for digestible, encyclopedia-style content? 

With its entries almost always topping Google search results, Wikipedia receives around 33 billion page views per month, according to studies carried out by thinktank Pew Research in 2016. In line with statistics from the website itself, it also changes at a rate of 1.8 edits per second and the number of new articles per day averages 578.

Watch "Wikipedia: The Dark Side," a Full Measure investigation

The multilingual free online encyclopedia was established in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, originally under the name of Nupedia. It is now the fifth most popular website in the world.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. Image courtesy of LinkedIn.

150Sec spoke to one of Wikipedia’s original co-founders, Sanger who — despite leaving the project in 2002 — shared his thoughts on online knowledge platforms on today’s internet, ahead of this month’s Pioneers conference in Austria.  

As an open source, Wikipedia can be added to or edited by anyone in the world through knowledge base websites called wikis, which allow users to collaboratively modify content. However, Sanger claims that this has become one of Wikipedia’s biggest downfalls.

In its early days, “Wikipedia itself had special challenges,” he explained. “One was simply to teach everyone who arrived at the wiki, which was basically a blank bulletin board that could have become whatever we wanted it to become, that we intended to build an encyclopedia. A lot of people didn’t seem to know what that meant, or maybe they just didn’t care,” he said.

“Wikipedia itself had special challenges,” Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder.

“Another hurdle was to figure out how to rein in the bad actors so that they did not ruin the project for everyone else. Unfortunately, we never did come up with a good solution for that one,” Sanger added. 

“Wikipedia is a broken system as a result,” he said.

It is this flaw that has earned Wikipedia its reputation as an often untrustworthy source of information, particularly during times of discussion around misinformation and ‘fake news,’ a term which Sanger finds problematic.

Read the rest of the article in 150sec by clicking the link below:

“Wikipedia is a broken system,” says co-founder Larry Sanger

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 scenarios with Trump-Russia investigators. Neither is good.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

As the investigations into the Trump-Russia investigation proceed, it’s not too difficult to figure out a few of the theoretical starting points.

The first and most obvious theory is the one largely promulgated in the media for the better part of two years. It goes something like this: The sharp, super-sleuth investigative skills of top officials within the Justice Department and our intel community enabled them to identify Donald Trump and his campaign as treacherous conduits to Russian President Vladimir Putin himself.

That theory was summarily dismissed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that there wasn’t so much as even coordination between Russia and Trump, or any American. So that leaves several other possibilities … and none of them is good:

They knew

One possibility to be considered is that top Obama administration officials knew all along there never was any real collusion or crime at play, but they manufactured the false Russia premise in order to justify their political spying.

Under this hypothetical scenario, they wanted to get inside information on the Trump campaign and, perhaps, gather dirt against the competition for blackmail or political purposes.

This effort included surveillance using paid spies and wiretaps on multiple Trump associates, as reported in the press.

The Obama officials had lots of help from foreign players such as the United Kingdom and Russia’s nemesis, Ukraine. Ukrainian-linked Democrats assisted with an early effort to gin up negative press coverage about key players, such as Trump associate Paul Manafort, who had been hired by the pro-Russian Ukrainian government prior to the anti-Russian Ukrainian government taking over in 2014. There were other Ukraine entanglements, such as the lucrative position earning millions of dollars that then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son got in 2015 to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company under the anti-Russia Ukraine regime.

(Continued...)

Read the rest of the story in The Hill by clicking this link. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444508-two-scenarios-on-trump-russia-investigators-and-neither-is-comforting

Gowdy: FBI has important evidence in Trump-Russia probe of investigators

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)

Former Congressman Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, says he's seen evidence with his own eyes that even opponents of President Trump will find "persuasive"-- if it's ever made public.

Gowdy says the information has to do with "exculpatory" evidence that the FBI improperly withheld from a court.

Exculpatory evidence is that which supports the notion that the accused is not guilty.

In an interview on Sunday, Gowdy said the FBI has a transcript of a conversation between former Trump adviser George Papaopoulous and an "informant" assigned to spy on him.

Gowdy was a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight committee that investigated the Justice Department and FBI actions during the 2016 campaign in which they surveilled or spied on Trump associates. Ultimately, the officials accused Trump of being a Russian agent. However, an exhaustive investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded no American conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia.

Click the link below to read more about Gowdy's statements in the following article in Epoch Times.

Epoch Times: "Game Changer" Evidence

Government spying on journalists: the bigger picture

The forensically-proven government spying on me while I was an investigative correspondent at CBS News has much larger implications.

Unlike other cases that became public, whereby the Department of Justice secretly surveilled journalists, the government has indicated there was no warrant authorizing the surveillance on me.

The implications of this are huge. How many intel operations were conducted on U.S. citizens without warrants?

Read more on Attkisson v DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions here, including a summary of the facts and forensic evidence. I will soon be announcing next steps forward.

Here, you can read more about a recent court decision that protects the U.S. government from discovery and punishment for unlawful surveillance against U.S. citizens.

Below, watch my interview that explains why all of this has implications far beyond one journalist.

To support the Attkisson case and the larger principles at stake, visit the Fourth Amendment Litigation fund here. Thank you to the thousands who are supporting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=AfRm_knR-es&fbclid=IwAR3AcwFfO4SQBC38r9VFvZ-RLtdPlNc5jJ-bpgxUWw02SmBroCPCv4fZi3U

How Media Narratives Became More Important Than Facts

The following is a reprint of an article first published in Epoch Times.

The day that I told CBS News I wished to leave my job as investigative correspondent ahead of my contract, I didn’t give a reason. I didn’t see the point because the problem wasn’t fixable.

Nor was it isolated to CBS News.

My own take is that—as our industry has changed in ways that have become undeniable to most—I was a bit of the canary in the coal mine. By that, I mean I believe I was among the first to really pay attention to the increasingly effective operations to shape and censor news—the movements to establish narratives rather than follow facts—and to see the growing influence of smear operations, political interests, and corporate interests on the news.

It’s not that I’m smarter than my peers, and I’m surely far less smart than many, but my particular brand of off-narrative reporting happened to draw the intense attention of the smear operators and propagandists, so I began to study it.

A case in point: the smear that was promulgated when I left CBS. It was often incorrectly reported that I told CBS management I was quitting due to liberal media bias. That false story turned out to be convenient for both political sides, and largely survives today. It simply wasn’t rooted in fact. And I don’t recall reporters even asking me whether it was true. Once a few articles reported that it was, others simply copied the claim and adopted it as if established fact, eventually without attribution. Now there would be no point in trying to clarify it. After all, Wikipedia says it’s true. No going back from that.

Powerful smear groups and certain interests—including some within CBS at the time—started the narrative that I was “conservative,” not because they necessarily believed it, but as a tool to “controversialize” the reporting I was doing that was contrary to powerful interests. The idea is that if I can be portrayed as a partisan, then my reporting can be more easily dismissed.

The Narrative Requires

In fact, prior to the operation to push the narrative that I was “conservative,” my reporting had been lauded by a diverse group of observers, including the likes of Rachel Maddow, who once delivered an entire monologue on an investigative expose I did on the “charity” of then-Rep. Stephen Buyer (R- Ind.). My most recent Emmy award was for an undercover investigation into Republican fundraising.

But the narrative requests—nay, requires—that we forget all that. We must focus on the supposed miraculous metamorphosis. Depending on who’s spinning, they may insist I was a rational journalist who went crazy one day and flew to the dark side of conservatism. Or they may say I used to be a devoted liberal, but decided the big money was in pandering to Republicans, so I sold out. The details aren’t important. You are simply to come away with the notion that my reporting is now politically conflicted.

Another example of this narrative: Many news reports comment that I work for the “conservative” Sinclair Broadcast Group. Fair enough—Sinclair is run by a family that’s made no secret of their conservative political leanings. But the reporters who note this political connection apparently fail to recognize the inherent conflict in the fact that they eagerly label the conservative group; yet I don’t think they reported that I worked for the “liberal” CNN, the “liberal” PBS, or the “liberal” CBS. Some reporters lack the self-awareness and objectivity to understand they are revealing themselves when they selectively apply labels in a one-sided fashion. They are servicing a narrative, even if unintentionally.

When I worked at CNN, it was owned by a billionaire Democrat donor (Ted Turner)—a good boss, by the way. When I worked for CBS, the management (Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves) were rich Democrat donors—also, a great company to work for during most of my 20 years there.

Sinclair has likewise been a terrific employer to date. They haven’t forced editorial biases in the reporting on my program. The program is mostly apolitical, addressing topics such as the underreported dangers of MRI dye or how American farmers are suffering under the current trade war with China. When we address politics, you are as likely to see an interview with Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, as you are to see Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican.

Improvements

But there’s the narrative …

When a national print media reporter wrote about my program a couple of years ago, he incorrectly referred to it as “conservative.” Later, when asked if he’d ever actually seen the program, he admitted he hadn’t. It’s not that it would be difficult to—well—actually do a little bit of reporting rather than repeat a narrative: My weekly program is on at least a half-dozen times each week in the city where this reporter is based, and it’s posted online.

As easy as it was for him to do some first-hand reporting, he chose to repeat the narrative.

Lara Logan, who recently left CBS News, has also been speaking out about her observations regarding the decline of fair and objective journalism. She’s likewise been attacking the narratives. As such, she has been subjected to them. That’s how it works. Obviously (says the narrative), she is a disgruntled conservative who is not to be believed. Or (says the narrative), she’s perhaps a little unbalanced. (You know, all that war reporting and stress. Poor Lara.)

The truth is, Lara is extremely clear-eyed on these issues. And she and I are far from alone in our views on the state of the media. We agree there is terrific journalism being committed on a daily basis at organizations from The New York Times to local news stations. However, we agree that national media has also largely become co-opted by powerful interests who understand how to direct the news landscape in a way that services certain narratives and agendas.

I have heard support from hundreds of journalists, college professors, and media observers during the last several years. I have been reached out to by reporters in print and on TV, by national and local news, by students and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

The effort to expose flaws and conflicts in media reporting is growing stronger, not weaker, despite the narratives. The desire to affect improvements is building. Make no mistake: Not all of us are free to speak publicly, but there are a lot of us. And we aren’t going away.

Read the original article at the link below:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-my-leaving-cbs-news-revealed-about-the-news-industry_2901934.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.

Federal courts indemnify improper government spying on U.S. citizens

In a far-reaching decision Friday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals indemnified improper government spying, protecting the offending federal agents from punishment and making it nearly impossible for harmed citizens to ever receive justice.

The decision comes in Attkisson v. the Department of Justice and the FBI for the long-term forensically-confirmed government computer intrusions of her personal and work devices while she was an investigative correspondent for CBS News.

CBS first announced the early forensic results in August 2013

The court ruled that the Attkisson lawsuit cannot move forward because she has been unable to identify by name the federal agents involved in the spying, as the Department of Justice has blocked discovery for four years.

Read the summary of the Attkisson case and forensic evidence

In a dissenting opinion, Fourth Circuit Court Judge James Wynn blasted the decision stating:

Not only should we disapprove of the tactics the government used to run out the clock on Attkisson’s claims, but we should also reject the troubling “game plan” it provided for the government and private parties to prevent disclosure of—and, therefore, responsibility for—their potentially unconstitutional or illegal electronic surveillance activities.

Judge James A. Wynn, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Attkisson filed suit four years ago for the forensically-confirmed government intrusions into her personal and work devices while she was an investigative reporter at CBS News. Multiple independent forensic exams revealed, among other violations, longterm monitoring of Attkisson's electronics with use of government International Protocol (IP) addresses, proprietary government intelligence software, keystroke monitoring and secret activation of Skype to listen in on microphone and exfiltrate files. The intruders planted classified documents in Attkisson's CBS computer, accessed her photos and passwords, and gained access to the broader CBS News computer system.

According to the government, there was no court warrant against Attkisson authorizing the surveillance.

In November 2017, the trial court judge dismissed some of Attkisson's claims saying that resolving them would require an “inquiry into the sensitive executive branch discussions and decisions.” Attkisson continued the lawsuit with only limited discovery permitted. Even then, the Department of Justice obstructed all of Attkisson's attempts at meaningful discovery and refused to turn over any evidence.

Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock. And just as the Tar Heels had great success running the four corners, the government’s strategy worked.

Judge James A. Wynn, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

In a statement, Attkisson attorney Paul Berman, a law professor at The George Washington University, wrote:

The...decision...effectively makes it impossible for any US citizen to challenge the government in court even if there is compelling evidence of unlawful surveillance.

Paul Berman, Attkisson Attorney and Law Professor at The George Washington University

The controversial court decision comes amid the Justice Department announcing deeper investigations into the circumstances under which government agents surveilled or spied on the Trump campaign in 2016.

Attkisson issued a statement saying:

In my case, the Department of Justice has refused to investigate its own so I was forced to self-fund a fight for justice on behalf of myself and all other U.S. citizens in civil court. It's stunning to think that the court is opening the door to unlimited, unlawful spying on U.S. citizens with no threat of punishment as long as the government can keep the names of its agents secret from the victim. The court's actions means it is virtually impossible for ordinary U.S. citizens to receive justice when offended by a powerful government that has endless resources and tax money to obstruct.

Sharyl Attkisson, Journalist and Plaintiff

Read the full statement from Attkisson's lawyers, Berman and Tab Turner, below:

The 2-1 panel decision that the 4th Circuit allowed to remain in effect effectively makes it impossible for any US citizen to challenge the government in court even if there is compelling evidence of unlawful surveillance.

Significantly, the court did not rule on or challenge the accuracy of Sharyl Attkisson's factual assertions or the physical evidence demonstrating state-sponsored surveillance; instead it said that if the government refuses to turn over evidence for long enough, it can effectively run out the clock on the litigation.

Here, the government has stonewalled Ms. Attkisson literally for years, but instead of criticizing the government for its failure to provide requested discovery, the two judges in the majority turned the facts on their head and actually blamed Attkisson for being stonewalled and dismissed the case because of her supposed failure to get the information the government is unwilling to provide.

Judge Wynn's clear-eyed and passionate dissent in the case properly recognizes that "under the government's playbook…plaintiffs would be deprived all opportunity to challenge the legality of most, if not all, these electronic surveillance efforts, notwithstanding the significant intrusion on individual rights posed by such surveillance.”

The decision does leave open the possibility that Attkisson can refile in the District Court and start again, so hopefully justice can still be done.

Attkisson is considering next steps.

--Paul S. Berman and Tab Turner

Read more on the case in Courthouse News

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.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad