• 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

US

Timeline of alleged "sabotage" of Trump in 2016 by Democrats, Ukraine

  • Republican senators request records related to reported Ukraine-Democrats' role in 2016 anti-Trump efforts
  • Democrats deny both interference by Ukraine, and coordination between Ukraine and Democrats
  • Timeline of key allegations and events follows
Former Democratic National Committee (DNC) consultant
Photo via: Twitter

The heads of two Senate committees are asking the FBI and the Department of Justice for records related to a reported scheme by Democrats to get "dirt" on the Trump campaign from Ukraine in 2016.

According to reporting in Politico in 2017, the alleged efforts by Democrats and Ukraine to "sabotage" the Trump campaign in 2016 did impact the race, even though Trump won in the end.

Both Politico and Yahoo News interviewed a Democratic National Committee (DNC) consultant named Alexandra Chalupa.

Democrats have repeatedly claimed the reporting on Chalupa, her work for the DNC, her meetings with Ukrainians, and her meetings with reporters in Ukraine and the U.S., is "debunked" and a "conspiracy theory." In public accounts since the original news articles, Chalupa has claimed her role and intentions have been misrepresented.

A Ukrainian-American, Chalupa reportedly acknowledged in a 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign to publicly expose Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort's links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

Listen to podcast: Important stuff you didn't know about Ukraine

Chalupa reportedly told Politico that she began researching Manafort in 2014.

In 2014, the FBI investigated, and then reportedly wiretapped, Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing Russia-related work. FBI failed to make a case at the time, according to CNN, and discontinued the wiretap.

On March 25, 2016, according to Politico, Chalupa--who previously worked in the Clinton administration--met with top Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. in an effort to tarnish the Trump campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton by exposing "ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.”

The Ukrainian embassy proceeded to work “directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions,” according to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related activities.)

“Collusion against Trump” timeline

On March 30, 2016, Chalupa reportedly briefed Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on alleged Russian ties to Manafort and Trump. It was the day after the Trump campaign hired Manafort to manage the July Republican convention.

With the “DNC’s encouragement,” Chalupa reportedly asked the Ukrainian embassy to arrange a meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort’s lobbying for Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yanukovych. The embassy reportedly declined to arrange the meeting but became “helpful” in trading info and leads, according to Politico's reporting.

Did Democrats really coordinate with Ukraine against Trump in 2016? (PODCAST)

Ukrainian embassy officials and Chalupa “coordinat[ed] an investigation with the Hillary team” into Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort reportedly included working with U.S. media.

In April 2016, Ukrainian member of parliament Olga Bielkova reportedly sought meetings with five dozen members of U.S. Congress and reporters including former New York Times reporter Judy Miller, David Sanger of New York Times, David Ignatius of Washington Post, and Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.

The week of April 6, 2016, Chalupa and the office of Rep. Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, reportedly discussed holding a possible congressional investigation or hearing on Paul Manafort and Russia “by September.” Chalupa says she began working with reporter Mike Isikoff around this time.

On April 12, 2016, Ukrainian parliament member Olga Bielkova and a colleague met with Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer with the McCain Institute, according to government records. Bielkova also met with Liz Zentos of Obama’s National Security Council, and State Department official Michael Kimmage. (Kramer is an ex-U.S. State Dept. official affiliated with the anti-Russia “Ukraine Today” media organization. He and Sen. McCain would later retrieve the anti-Trump dossier from a source in London.)

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

On April 26, 2016, reporter Michael Isikoff published a story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort’s business dealings with a Russian oligarch.

On April 28, 2016, Chalupa reportedly was invited to discuss her research about Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at the Library of Congress for the Open World Leadership Center, a U.S. congressional agency. Chalupa said she invited reporter Isikoff to “connect him to the Ukrainians.” After the event, reporter Isikoff reportedly accompanied Chalupa to a Ukrainian embassy reception.

On May 3, 2016, Chalupa emailed the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that she would share with them sensitive information about Paul Manafort “offline” including “a big Trump component…that will hit in next few weeks.”

Late July 2016, Chalupa reportedly left the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to work full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia; and she provided off-the-record guidance to “a lot of journalists.” This was the same time frame when FBI agent Peter Strzok opened a counterintelligence investigation based on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

On Aug. 3, 2016 Justice Department official Bruce Ohr reportedly met with FBI official Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to discuss Russia-Trump collusion allegations relayed by ex-British spy Christopher Steele.

The next day, on Aug. 4, 2016, the Ukrainian ambassador to U.S. wrote an op-ed against Trump published in The Hill.

On Aug. 8, 2016, FBI attorney Lisa Page and FBI’s head of Counterespionage Strzok pledged, in text messages, that they would "stop" Trump from becoming president.

On Aug. 14, 2016, the New York Times broke a story about Manafort allegedly taking improper cash payments a decade before from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine. Ukraine's so called "black ledger" showing the cash payments was publicized by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, which signed an evidence-sharing agreement with the Obama administration's the FBI related to the Trump-Russia probe.

Ukraine had formed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau back in 2014 as a condition to receive U.S. aid.

On Aug. 15, 2016, CNN reported the FBI was conducting an inquiry into the Manafort payments from Ukraine.

On Aug. 19, 2016, Manafort resigned as Trump campaign chairman.

The same day, Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko, a deputy of the 'Petro Poroshenko Bloc' political party, held a news conference to draw attention to Manafort and Trump’s “pro-Russia” ties. (The original link to a photo of the news conference was recently cleared.)

At the news conference in Ukraine, Leshchenko was said to be exposing "a firm run by U.S. businessman and Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who reportedly directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway the American public's opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government, during the presidential period of Victor Yanukovich, according to a report of the Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (UNIAN)."

Three days later (Aug. 22, 2016), Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr met with Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson, who reportedly identified several “possible intermediaries” between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Sept. 23, 2016: Reporter Michael Isikoff published a Yahoo article on the anti-Trump "dossier" and implicating Trump volunteer Carter Page, a U.S. citizen whom the FBI later wiretapped as a supposed Russian agent for a year, but never charged. The way wiretaps work, the FBI would have allowed itself to collect all emails, phone calls, photos and communications from hundreds of people around Page: everyone who communicated with him, and everyone who communicated with those people (two "hops" away), possibly including Trump in the surveillance dragnet.

Nov. 18-20, 2016, Sen. John McCain and his longtime adviser, David Kramer–an ex-U.S. State Dept. official–attended a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia where the former UK ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood tells them about the Fusion GPS anti-Trump dossier. (Kramer is affiliated with the anti-Russia “Ukraine Today” media organization). They discuss taking steps to confirm that the info has reached top levels of  FBI for action.

On Nov. 28, 2016, Sen. McCain associate Kramer flew to London to meet Christopher Steele of Fusion GPS for a briefing on the anti-Trump research. Afterward, Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson reportedly gave McCain a copy of the “dossier.” Steele also passed the anti-Trump info a to top UK government official in charge of national security. McCain soon arranged a meeting with FBI Director James Comey.

On Feb. 22, 2018, Kramer invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before House Intelligence Committee.

Meantime, Chalupa reported she believed she was targeted by a government-related cyberattack while working at the DNC. As a result, the FBI interviewed her and obtained forensic images of her laptop computer and phone.

That's part of the new document request Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), head of the Homeland Security Committee; and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), head of Finance Committee. They wrote a letter this past week to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray asking for records, including forensic images of Chalupa's devices, related to the FBI investigation.

If this reporting [about the FBI and DOJ obtaining forensic images of Chalupa's devices in 2016] is accurate, it appears that the DOJ and FBI have in their possession material relevant to our Committees’ ongoing investigation into collusive actions Chalupa and the DNC took to use foreign government sources to undermine the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in letter to DOJ and FBI

According to a news release from Senator Grassley, he "first raised concerns in 2017 about Chalupa’s activity on behalf of the DNC to coordinate with a foreign government to sabotage the Trump campaign."

In a September letter, Grassley and Johnson asked the Justice Department whether it was looking into Ukrainian coordination with Democrats or Hillary Clinton campaign officials in 2016.

The two senators are also seeking records from the National Archives to obtain White House visitor log records regarding any meetings between Chalupa, Ukrainians, and Obama officials.

Click here to read the letter to the FBI and DOJ.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Anti-Semitism in Sweden and an unexpected approach

There are culture clashes across Europe, which has accepted countless Muslim refugees.

In the city of Malmo, Sweden there has been constant violence heaped on the Jewish population and the one and only synagogue there. Not only do they face hate from Muslim extremists but also from white supremacists in the area.

Instead of hunkering down, a rabbi has taken an unusual approach that will amaze you. Watch Full Measure this Sunday to see for yourself.

How to watch Full Measure

Lisa Fletcher reports on an important story that looks at corporate money spent in trouble spot

This is a complicated story reported by Lisa Fletcher that connects the dots between business some companies do in troubled parts of the world, the governments they have to deal with, and how the money may allegedly end up in the hands of terrorists who kill  U.S. citizens.

full-measure-promo

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Trump challenged people to try to overhear conversation on phone. See what happened when CNN took the challenge.

In an effort to dispel the notion that an anti-Trump diplomat could have accurately overheard a phone call between President Trump and another diplomat on speaker phone, Trump challenged people to try:

I have been watching people making phone calls my entire life. My hearing is, and has been, great. Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation. I’ve even tried, but to no avail. Try it live!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2019

CNN took the challenge to "try it live." To their credit, they clearly didn't set it up for a particular outcome in advance. To their embarrassment, it didn't quite turn out as they seemed to expect.

Click below to watch the clip courtesy of Free Beacon.

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 least-biased impeachment guide

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is leading House
impeachment hearings against President Trump

The following is a news analysis.

In recent weeks, many people have asked me questions such as, "What's going on with impeachment?" and "Is someone trying do something to President Trump?"

I know that most people probably don't have the time or perhaps the interest to follow this story in great detail. But when they look for news summaries, they often end up with one-sided accounts.

That's why I'm putting together this "Least biased impeachment guide." It's an attempt to summarize some basic, key information to help people who want to get read-in a bit. Resources are included so that readers can look at original material and make up their own minds, rather than rely solely on what they may think is suggested in my language or other news reports.

Time permitting, I'll be adding specific allegations and counterpoints, so please check back in! (By clicking on the topic you are interested in, an internal link will take you directly to that spot.)

Table of Contents:

  • 1. Trump's phone call
  • 2. Ukraine's "interference" in U.S. election
  • 3. Alleged Burisma corruption
  • 4. "Whistleblower" complaint
  • 5. The transcript

1. Trump’s phone call

On July 25, 2019 President Trump spoke with the recently-elected President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a telephone call.

Zelenskyy said he was trying to “drain the swamp” in Ukraine.

Trump said Europe isn’t doing enough to help Ukraine, and the U.S. is doing more, particularly in sanctioning Russia.

Zelenskyy said he was assigning a new ambassador to the U.S. to help the nations could get closer.

Trump asked Zelenskyy to pledge to get to the bottom of Ukrainian-linked 2016 U.S. election interference. Trump also said he heard that Joe Biden bragged he’d stopped a prosecution in Ukraine involving his son.

Zelenskyy pledged “all investigations will be done openly and candidly.”

Trump said he wanted Zelenskyy to speak to Trump adviser and lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. 

Zelenskyy said that Ukraine’s next prosecutor “would look into this situation” after he was sworn in in September.

Trump said former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, whom he had removed several months before, had dealt with Ukrainians who were “bad news.” 

Zelenskyy stated that the Yovanovitch “admired the previous [Ukrainian] president and she was on his side…She would not accept me as a new president…”

The two men exchanged invitations to visit.

Read the transcribed summary of the July 25 call.

2. Ukraine “interference” in 2016 U.S. election

There has been substantial reporting on alleged Ukrainian connections to U.S. Democrats in an attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign to “sabotage” President Trump and assist Hillary Clinton.

Some call this a "debunked conspiracy theory."

Much of the discussion stems from a Politico investigation published in January 2017. It reported on a Ukrainian-American operative working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Alexandra Chalupa, who outlined her efforts to work with American reporters, and to publicly connect Trump officials, such as Paul Manafort, to Russia.

Politico concluded: 

  • Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.
  • A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
  • The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.

Read the Politico investigation about Ukraine's alleged anti-Trump election interference here.

3. Alleged Burisma corruption

Another area in need of investigation, according to both President Trump and the Democrats' impeachment witnesses, involved the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The company was founded by a former top Ukrainian official, Mykola Zlochevsky, who is accused of self-dealing and corruption by all sides in the current debate. 

During a prosecutor's investigation into Burisma and Ukraine corruption involving millions of U.S. tax dollars, U.S. officials say a key Ukrainian prosecutor was bribed, and the investigation was halted.

During this time frame and while under suspicion in 2014, Zlochevsky hired several notables to join Burisma’s board, including the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden. 

U.S. diplomats have testified they were concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest with Biden's son on the board and Vice President Biden overseeing corruption issues. One of these diplomats, a State Department witness for Democrats named George Kent, testified he filed a concern with Vice President Biden’s office at the time but does not know how it was addressed, if at all. 

Biden's son, Hunter, remained on Burisma’s board from 2014-2019, reportedly collecting up to $50,000 a month, amounting to several million dollars.

In a January 2018 public appearance, Vice President Biden said that while he was still in office, he had demanded Ukraine’s president fire its top prosecutor within six hours in order to receive a billion dollars in U.S. aid. Biden say Ukraine quickly met his demand.

The prosecutor was reportedly investigating Burisma at the time. Democrats have said that is not why the Obama administration demanded he be fired and, in fact, they didn't think the prosecutor was strong enough in investigating corruption, so he needed to be replaced.

However, once replaced, the new prosecutor reportedly did not substantively investigate Burisma. Multiple Democrats' witnesses have said this is something that needs investigating. This is one area President Trump asked Ukraine's new president to investigate in the July phone call.

Watch former Vice President Joe Biden’s January 2018 public appearance here.

4. “Whistleblower” complaint

Anti-Trump: On Aug. 12, 2019, an alleged whistleblower in the U.S. intelligence community filed a complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IG). It expressed an “urgent concern.”

This person alleged that numerous government officials told the whistleblower they believed President Trump had used the July 25 call to demand Ukraine’s assistance in interfering in the 2020 U.S. presidential election for his own political gain. 

The complaint also took issue with various views and reporting on alleged Ukrainian efforts to assist Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Read the original whistleblower complaint here.

Pro-Trump: The Intelligence Community IG stated the whistleblower had an “arguable political bias...in favor of a rival political candidate” to Trump. The Office of Legal Counsel determined the whistleblower complaint did not meet the legal definition of an Intelligence Community “urgent concern” because it is not “in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

The complaint acknowledged “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.”

The identity of the whistleblower is being withheld or protected. After first indicating he would be called to testify in private, Democrats have said there is no need to hear from him.

5. The transcript

On September 24, after public allegations that he had pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival for political purposes, President Trump released a transcript of the actual July call.

Pro-Trump: The transcript did not reflect the "quid quo pro" or "eight mentions" of investigating the Bidens that some reports had claimed. It did not mention the 2020 campaign. Ukraine's president stated that he did not feel pressured.

Anti-Trump: The quid pro quo and "bribery" later alleged by Democrats did not have to be explicitly stated because they were implicit. Also, the "transcript" is not a verbatim transcript, but a reflection of notes taken by various observers to the call, so it may not be accurate. The call should have been recorded.

Pro-Trump: The Democrats' own witnesses testified the transcript is substantively accurate, and they did not believe any differences were nefarious in origin. They also stated it is not unusual for such a call not to be recorded.

Read the White House-released transcript of the July call here.

More context, information and resources will be added.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

READ: Congress asks ABC for answers about allegedly blocking Epstein story

ABC

In a letter issued November 17, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives ask ABC News to explain its alleged obstruction of a news story about convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The allegation of obstruction was made by ABC anchor Amy Robach in an apparently candid discussion that was recorded and leaked for publication.

Read the letter below:

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!

Silent bombshell in last week's impeachment testimony: State Dept. witnesses are the ones who conducted "shadow diplomacy"

Ambassador William Taylor

The following is a news analysis.

There has been an understandable (and predictable) effort by President Trump's opponents within the State Department and beyond to controversialize his foreign policy practices.

Among the supposed controversies is Trump's use of his personal adviser and attorney Rudy Giuliani, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Director of Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney to implement Ukrainian diplomacy.

Trump critics and some in the media have incorrectly termed that as "shadow diplomacy."

Impeachment witness Ambassador William Taylor took great pains to repeatedly called this an "irregular channel," implying there was something sinister and wrong-- maybe even impeachable-- about the arrangement.

In fact, the resisting diplomats are the ones who are conducting shadow diplomacy when they are acting contrary to the president's wishes. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president directs all foreign policy; not the other way around.

Along those lines, there was something of a silent bombshell that nobody flagged in last week's impeachment testimony from Ambassador Taylor.

Taylor testified that he understood it was President Trump's desire to lock in a commitment from Ukraine to launch a corruption investigation by having the president, Vlodymyr Zelensky, say so on CNN. But Taylor further testified that he did not want the CNN interview to happen, and "sought assurances from Zelensky that he would not do so."

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Under what authority did Taylor resist the President's foreign policy-- presumably behind his back?

Taylor and others also testified they assumed President Trump was seeking a campaign 2020 quid pro quo from Ukraine, and that they resisted that, too. We now know that Trump never mentioned the 2020 campaign-- at least there's no testimony or documentation so far that he did. He discussed investigating corruption tied to the 2016 election.

And we also know that quids pro quo -- although one was not consummated in the Ukraine case -- are a common and necessary part of foreign aid.

So, under what authority did these diplomats, who are tasked with implementing the president's foreign policy, assume his motivations as nefarious (having never met or spoken with him) and resist his policy desires?

Much of what they criticized isn't controversial at all-- except to the extent it's President Trump who's making the decisions. And, at times, his decisions are contrary to the opinions of some long-established diplomats.

What follows below is a description of the U.S. president's authority when it comes to who he can appoint to conduct diplomacy.

It was written in 1960 by Henry Wriston, President Emeritus of Brown University; Chairman of the Secretary of State's Public Committee on Personnel, 1954-56; President of the American Assembly, Columbia University; author of "Strategy of Peace," "Diplomacy in a Democracy" and other works.

Wriston's description makes clear that President Trump's use of Giuliani, Volker, Sondland and anybody else he pleases is clearly within his authority-- not "irregular" or sinister "shadow diplomacy."

Quids pro quo and using personal representatives to conduct diplomacy are not controversial.

The practice of diplomats going rogue to pursue their own foreign policy contrary to the president's wishes is controversial.

Regarding the impeachment debate at hand, the main valid question, which has not been well-defined, is whether President Trump improperly attempted to direct foreign policy solely for his personal, political benefit and/or to the detriment of U.S. interests. He says no. His enemies say yes.

Foreign Policy 1960 article

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy

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.

Seeking the wall

Part of the Arizona-Mexico border

Watch the Full Measure video investigation by clicking the link at the end of this story.

Building the wall was a top promise of the Trump campaign along with getting Mexico to pay for it. Well, Mexico hasn’t paid but some wall has been built with more progress made since summer after the Supreme Court ruled President Trump and use military funds. For a reality check on the wall we head to the Tucson Sector in Arizona, covering 262 border miles, and one of the busiest for illegal immigrants and drugs.

With dusk on the way, we’re far from civilization, in the northern part of Arizona’s Sonoran Desert.

Sharyl: Mexico is this way—Is that right?

Elledge: Yes, Mexico is approximately 34, 35 miles south of us here and we're just south by about six or seven miles of Three Points, Arizona.

Sharyl: Johnny Elledge is one of 250 agents assigned to the Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Team, known as BORSTAR.

Sharyl: What's it like on a night like this?

Elledge: If you guys were here this morning, it was approximately 102 degrees. Now it's approximately 88 degrees. So the aliens and the smugglers are going to take advantage of this time that it's cooler to move.

Sharyl: if you find somebody, they've probably been walking for quite a while already?

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Elledge: Yes. Most of the time if we're this far north of the border, the individuals have been walking for quite some time. And on BORSTAR, all of us are at a minimum of EMTs. And we also have paramedics.

Tena: This area, if you are lost or seeking aid, this is a very bad spot to be in.

Supervisory Border Patrol agent Richard Tena is trying out their newest technology.

Tena: This is a Polaris Ranger, that's been retrofitted with military specifications and it houses a scope package.

Sharyl: In this area where we are, have you run across much traffic?

Tena: Yes. This area, the Altar Valley, is historically very busy. For both illegal aliens and illegal narcotics trafficking. There’s never a dull moment, it's always busy.

Before long, they spot what they call a “quitter” an illegal immigrant who wants to be caught.

He’s Juan Manuel Juarez Melendez from Honduras.

Sharyl: How old are you? Cuantos anos?

Translator: 21

Sharyl: He tells me he came to the US for work it’s the second time he’s crossed illegally in two months.

Translator: because of the blisters I couldn’t continue walking. My last drink of water before this was around 6 or 7 in the morning.

Sharyl: Was there a fence that you crossed? How did you cross?

Translator: Up in the mountains

Sharyl: Where there was no fence?

(Continued below. Listen to the podcast on this topic at "Full Measure After Hours." Click the link below the photo.)

For more original, off-narrative reporting, subscribe to our PODCAST: "Full Measure After Hours" on iTunes or your favorite distributor. Or click here to listen now. Follow on Twitter! @FullMeasureAH

Translator: Just a barbwire fence.

Much of the border between the US and Mexico is just a barbed wire or other barriers easily crossed. This video shows 66 illegal immigrants on the Mexican side, on their way to a place where the fence ends and they walked into Arizona. Here, 38 illegal immigrants managed to cross from Mexico under old border wall. This photo shows how drug cartel vehicles use ramps to defeat vehicle barriers. And this group is walking into the U.S. between fencing and a short vehicle barrier. Before President Trump was elected, there were 654 miles of manmade barriers on the 1,933 mile long southern border. We wanted to find out how much new and improved wall has been built over the past three years. This is one spot along the Mexican border where there’s a big difference. The fence has been extended from 18 to 22 feet, it’s been reinforced, improved, and the razor wire added. We asked Ken Cuccinelli, head of US Citizenship and Immigration Services to quantify miles of new barrier.

Sharyl: Some people say there's almost nothing new as a result of President Trump. Some people argue there’s a lot of new wall or pieces of wall refurbishment. Is there a way to quantify what's been done?

Cuccinelli: Yeah. As we sit here, there's 75 miles of new wall. I think the debate arises because some of that new wall, which is this 18 foot steel girders with climb plates and that sort of thing, is replacing what looks like in some places dilapidated, the kind of things you see on tin shacks in third world countries, that people are walking through.

Construction crews have been demolishing old barriers where border patrol said they most needed help. Most of the new construction is replacement, and there’s a handful of new barrier miles. Here’s a section of old wall on the left— made of what’s called “landing mat” material— next to the replacement. Border patrol says the new barrier makes a difference. This 2005 video shows illegal crossings in San Luis, Arizona despite 10 foot high landing mat wall. Here’s that spot today— a “triple layered enforcement zone” featuring an 18 foot high fence made of hollow steel beams filled with concrete and reinforced steel. This is a spot where the new 18-foot border wall meets the new 30-foot border wall east of the San Luis, AZ commercial port of entry.

Sharyl: President Trump has said since before he was elected that we do not need a wall along the entire border. But 75 miles is not a very big piece three years in.

Cuccinelli: The Department of Defense money was only freed up truly this summer. Literally, we're only weeks or a couple of months after that happened. And the other element of it is that like a lot of other construction, it takes more time to get ready to build than it does to build. We've pounded through a lot of the land acquisition, some of which has to be done by eminent domain, not our first choice.

Overall, since President Trump took office in early 2017, nearly ten billion dollars has been secured for 509 miles of "new border wall system.” Besides the 75 miles built 157 miles more are under construction. 276 miles are in the pre-construction phase. They expect to get to 450 miles by the end of President Trump’s first term.

There’s one more complication. On an air tour with border sheriff Mark Dannels, we saw something surprising on the Mexico side. Wall prototypes that look like ours.

Dannels: This is obviously built by the cartel, and this is a duplication of what the U.S. – Mexico barrier looks like. And they practice on that before they get to the real one.

No sooner do we design a better wall.. than the Mexican drug cartels find ways to defeat it. Before we leave Arizona, we go on a last call with Border Patrol surveillance cameras captured this image of a man getting over the new and improved wall into the U.S then disappearing in a nearby neighborhood.

Border patrol: Looks like a rock was kicked out of the way there.

Border patrol: He in there? Yeah he’s right around the corner.

Sharyl: Agents finally found him in a tree, his hands seriously cut.

Sharyl: How do you think he got across? One of the most fortified places?

Border Patrol: We have a cut in the concertina wire over here We've seen a major reduction in crossings in these particular areas. This used to be very well known for a drug smuggling route, now we'll see since this one individual maybe one or two on a random or rare occasion.

Since we spoke to Trump officials, six more miles of border wall has been finished for a total of 81 miles. Border Patrol says it costs an average of $6.5 million dollars per mile to build or replace fencing.

Watch the story by clicking the link below.

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/seeking-the-wall

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.

Most say they won't closely watch impeachment proceedings: POLL

Eleven percent (11%) of those who answered the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com say they "won't take their eyes off" the impeachment proceedings.

Forty-two percent (42%) say they are only interested in an overview.

Forty-seven percent (47%) indicated less interest, answering that the impeachment proceedings "do not exist to me."

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!

How closely will you watch impeachment proceedings?

11% Won't take my eyes off

42% Only interested in overview

47% They do not exist to me

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

« 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