Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

US

POLL: Epstein murder more likely than suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click the link below to read more:

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

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

"Why I released the ABC Epstein tape"

For those following the media drama surrounding the blame game over the release of the ABC Amy Robach video, there's a new development.

Project Veritas, which originally published the video, has published a new "letter" from the anonymous ABC insider it says leaked the video. The insider calls himself or herself "Ignotus."

The video shows ABC reporter Robach complaining that she had the goods on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein several years ago, but that ABC higher-ups spiked the story.

The new letter was written, Project Veritas states, in part because ABC and CBS News blamed and fired the wrong person this week for releasing the video.

The letter is accompanied by the following Editor's Note:

Editors Note: Project Veritas is publishing the writing below at the request of the ABC news insider who gave us the Amy Robach tape.

This was submitted to us in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking of the tape and the reactions of ABC news to their spiking of the story on Jeffrey Epstein.

Ignotus addresses "my fellow man," "fellow ABC News employees" and "those wrongfully accused."

Read the letter by clicking the link below.

ABC Insider: Why I, alone, released the Amy Robach Epstein tape.

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 curious timeline for taking down Trump

The following is an excerpt from my latest article in The Hill.

It’s three full years since President Trump was elected.

Among those who predicted he could never win the election — or that he might have been conspiring with Hillary Clinton all along, worked for Russia’s President Putin, would crash the U.S. stock market his first week in office, would ban all Muslims, would send illegal immigrants home en masse on buses and trains, and would start a nuclear war — there have been real concerns.

But to others, there are different concerns that have borne out. We continue to get evidence of an orchestrated effort among government insiders and the well-connected to take down President Trump at all costs. The public evidence indicates that the effort was hatched even before he took office.

Trump critics would argue that there was good reason to devise plots against him before he was inaugurated. His supporters would argue that the opposition has crossed the line into unlawful actions involving wiretapping and attempts to frame Trump and his associates.

In any event, we can build an oversimplified timeline to make the point:

Aug. 15, 2016: After FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texts Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place. (Continued...)

Read the entire article by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Top senators ask State Dept. to release docs on Hunter Biden, Burisma

How did the Ukrainian energy company Burisma allegedly use Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, to influence State Department matters?

That question is being asked by the heads of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and the Senate Finance Committee. Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also want the State Department to release documents involving the scandal surrounding the Bidens and Burisma.

Joe Biden is running for president. He and others have accused President Trump of improperly seeking political "dirt" on him from Ukraine. However, Trump officials have said they are simply investigating corruption and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 campaign, as well as any ties to Democrats.

According to the senators, "Recently obtained State Department emails, made public through a FOIA request, indicate Burisma’s consulting firm noted 'two high profile U.S. citizens (including Hunter Biden as a board member) affiliated with the company' when requesting a meeting with State Department officials to discuss the validity of the U.S. government’s classification that their client, Burisma, was corrupt."

Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with [Under Secretary] Novelli [U.S. Government] remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption. She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt. According to Tramontano, there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.  Would appreciate any background you may be able to provide on this issue and suggested TPs for U/S Novelli’s meeting.

State Department email from February 2016 

“Although it is not clear if Under Secretary Novelli met with Karen Tramontano on March 1, 2016, as planned, later that month Tramontano and other members of Burisma’s legal team reportedly met with Ukrainian prosecutors," write Grassley and Johnson. "According to what appears to be contemporaneous notes by one of those Ukrainian prosecutors, during that meeting, Burisma’s legal team apologized about what they alleged to be ‘false information’ promoted by the U.S. Government about the prosecutors’ handling of the investigation of Burisma."

The letter sent by the Republican senators to State Department Secretary Mike Pompeo can be read by clicking here.

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.

"Coup has started": Tweet by "whistleblower" attorney 10 days after Trump took office

Depending on where you sit, there's new evidence in what some see as an orchestrated campaign against President Trump. It is found in a social media tweet from 2017.

In that January 2017 tweet, Mark Zaid, an attorney now representing an alleged "whistleblower" in the Trump impeachment effort, wrote a "coup has started" and "impeachment will follow ultimately."

A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweeted more. "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president" and "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."

Zaid has been arguing that the alleged whistleblower's identity should be kept secret. There are questions surrounding how that person's information surfaced, and the extent of the cooperation or collusion (depending on your view) between him and Democrats in Congress.

Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a "coup" simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.

Other tweets from Zaid, as reported by Fox News, include "'as one falls, two more will take their place,' apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the White House. Zaid promised that the 'coup' would occur in 'many steps'."

RealClearInvestigations and other outlets have identified the alleged whistleblower as a CIA analyst with ties to other prominent Trump adversaries. However, the person has not stepped forward publicly, and Democrats have not asked him to appear to testify in public or behind closed doors.

Who is the “Whistleblower” that’s trying to take down Trump?

Part of the information the alleged whistleblower provided anonymously to the Intelligence Community Inspector General claimed President Trump had improperly demanded a "quid pro quo" from Ukraine's new president in a phone call.

Quids pro quo for foreign policy aid are routine; in fact that's the general purpose of forcing aid...to encourage or force other countries to behave a certain way.

But the whistleblower alleged Trump withheld military aid in order for Ukraine to provide "political dirt" on Democrat Joe Biden, who is running against Trump for president.

After this account was leaked to the public, President Trump released the transcript of the actual call. There was no mention of a quid pro quo or political dirt. And there has been no indication that any dirt or information was ever provided by Ukraine to Trump. The President of Ukraine himself told reporters he felt no pressure.

President Trump has addressed the alleged whistleblower's allegations by saying he--Trump--was lawfully seeking Ukraine's cooperation in U.S. efforts to uncover corruption and interference in the 2016 U.S. elections as it relates to Ukraine and possibly Democrats.

Trump defenders suggest the impeachment effort has been drummed up because Trump was getting too close to potentially uncovering serious wrongdoing involving key U.S. figures.

There has been extensive reporting alleging that Ukraine conspired with the Democratic National Committee to help Hillary Clinton win against Trump.

A Politico investigation concluded in 2017:

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 Politico investigation found. 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. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Politico, January 11, 2017

Still, Trump critics insist the pressure the president exerted on Ukraine, and the desire to receive dirt on Biden for 2020, was implicit.

The same month of Zaid's 2017 "coup" tweet, Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader in the Democrat party, issued a public warning to Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has "six ways from Sunday" to "get back at you". MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow asked Schumer, "What would the intelligence community do?" Schumer answered, "I don't know," but went on to say the intel community was very upset with Trump.

On Aug. 15, 2016, after FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and his FBI girlfriend Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texted Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.

Another figure, Benjamin Wittes, chose the same phrase. In October 2016, in his Lawfare blog, Wittes wrote: “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” 

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. Wittes spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey's interactions with President Trump, right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel. 

In a 2016 blog post, Wittes wrote that his vision of an “insurance policy” against Trump would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentioned impeachment — two weeks before Trump was elected.

Read more: What would the intelligence community's "insurance policy" against Trump look like? Click the link below.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401116-what-would-the-intelligence-communitys-insurance-policy-against-trump

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

REPORT: CBS fires ABC whistleblower

A New York Magazine/HuffPost contributor has published some hot information about whoever leaked the incendiary video of an ABC reporter saying the network quashed her investigative reporting into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein years ago.

Yashar Ali has tweeted out that two of his sources indicate the leaker of the video-- a then-ABC employee who went on to work at CBS News-- has been fired by CBS.

That follows Ali's initial tweets yesterday (linked below).

Read more at The Right Scoop by clicking the link below:

RETALIATION: ABC News whistleblower FIRED by CBS News

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Al-Baghdadi's death, 3 Washington Post headlines

There was confusion and outrage surrounding three Washington Post headlines after the raid on the leader of the Islamic extremist terrorist group ISIS, al-Baghdadi.

The first headline called al-Baghdadi a "terrorist in chief": “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘Terrorist in Chief,’ dies at 48."

That headline was mysteriously replaced by one that changed al-Baghdadi from a terrorist to a scholar. It read, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

That ignited a firestorm of criticism and prompted yet another headline change. This one read, "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48."

A Washington Post executive tweeted that the headline, presumably the second one, should never have been posted. However, the publication failed to explain who was behind that headline or how and why it was posted.

PR News published an interesting take on the whole saga from a public relations standpoint:

PR often advises that companies own their errors, correct the mistakes, apologize sincerely, promptly and with a remorseful tone. Being as transparent as possible also is recommended. In addition, PR 101 says an investigation into how the error occurred and a plan to correct it should be shared with the public. The newspaper took several of those steps Sunday, but omitted others.

PR News

Click the link below to read the interesting analysis in PR News.

https://www.prnewsonline.com/WaPo-headline-al-Baghdadi

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Politico: Ukraine interfered in 2016 election against Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton

With all of the talk about Ukraine, there is some helpful context and background to be found in a 2017 article in Politico.

The following includes excerpts from the article followed by a link to the entire article.

Politico, Jan. 11, 2017

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

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 Politico investigation found.

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. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Read the article by clicking the link below:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446