John R, Houk, Editor
Posted January 26, 2018
Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost discusses the reaction
of Sharyl Attkisson to the Dems and the Dem-supporting allies in the FBI and
DOJ stonewalling on the Republican members of the House Intel Committee desire
to release the FISA Memo put together by the Chairman Rep. Gerald Nunes which
exposes criminal conspiracy in those departments.
Brown’s analytical thoughts on Attkisson are spot-on. I
should say Attkisson is spot-on. She insightfully claims Conservatives are
asking the wrong question pertaining to the release of the FISA Memo. Here’s
quote from an Attkisson Tweet:
“The main story isn't about
what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It's *why.* It's about what they
feared Trump & Co. would expose.”
Before I get to the Brown post, I think it will help the
reader to know a little about Sharyl Attkisson. She worked at CBS for over two
decades until ran afoul with the network over her investigative reporting on
(treasonous) President Barack Hussein Obama over Benghazigate. No matter what
the MSM may paint her to be in her present incarnation as a reporter she has an
awesome journalistic pedigree indicating she is no slouch investigator. First a
little bio info from Wikipedia:
Sharyl Attkisson (born
January 26, 1961[4]) is an American author and host of the weekly
Sunday public affairs program Full
Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, which airs on television stations operated by
the Sinclair
Broadcast Group.[5] She was
formerly an investigative
correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News. She had also substituted as
anchor for the CBS Evening News.
She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014, after 21 years with the network.
Her book Stonewalled reached number 3 on The New York
Times e-book non-fiction best seller list in November 2014[6] and number 5
on The New York Times combined print and e-book non-fiction
best-seller list the same week.[7]
…
… Her step-father is an orthopedic surgeon, and her brother is
an emergency room physician. Attkisson graduated from
the University of Florida with
a degree in broadcast
journalism in 1982.[9]
Career
Attkisson
began her broadcast journalism career in 1982, aged 22, as a reporter at WUFT-TV, the PBS station in Gainesville,
Florida. She later worked as an anchor and reporter at WTVX-TV Fort Pierce/West Palm
Beach, Florida from 1982–1985, WBNS-TV, the CBS affiliate in Columbus, Ohio from 1985–86, and
WTVT Tampa, Florida (1986–1990).[10]
1990s
From
1990–1993, Attkisson was an anchor for CNN, and also served as a key anchor for CBS space exploration
coverage in 1993.[11] Attkisson left
CNN in 1993,[12] moving
to CBS, where she anchored the
television news broadcast CBS News Up to the Minute and became
an investigative correspondent based in Washington, D.C.[10]
She
served on the University of Florida's
Journalism College Advisory Board (1993–1997) and was its chair in 1996.[10] The University
gave her an Outstanding Achievement Award in 1997. From 1997 to 2003, Attkisson
simultaneously hosted CBS News Up to the Minute and the PBS
health-news magazine HealthWeek.[13]
2000s
Attkisson received an Investigative Reporters and Editors (I.R.E.) Finalist award for Dangerous Drugs in 2000.[14] In 2001, Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award nomination for Firestone Tire Fiasco from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.[15]
In 2002, she co-authored a … READ THE REST (Sharyl Attkisson; Wikipedia; page was last edited 12/31/17 12:46)
2000s
Attkisson received an Investigative Reporters and Editors (I.R.E.) Finalist award for Dangerous Drugs in 2000.[14] In 2001, Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award nomination for Firestone Tire Fiasco from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.[15]
In 2002, she co-authored a … READ THE REST (Sharyl Attkisson; Wikipedia; page was last edited 12/31/17 12:46)
Well, that’s Attkisson’s pedigree. Now read a bit of the details that has probably made her anathema among the typical Leftist MSM outlets:
Sharyl
Attkisson is an investigative
journalist who became the story when she quit CBS News after two decades amid
allegations that the network refused to run some of her stories that were
critical of President Barack Obama. Ahead of the Tuesday release of
her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of
Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, she spoke
to The Hollywood Reporter about her struggles with CBS
executives and her assertion that her computers were hacked, possibly by Obama
operatives.
…
Who
did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?
The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.
Did he believe you?
He appeared to.
The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.
Did he believe you?
He appeared to.
Did
CBS care? Did they do anything about it?
God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.
God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.
Did
they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?
I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.
Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?
I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.
Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?
Not
to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the
case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could
do about it.
So what did you do about it?
It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.
Did they conclude anything yet?
Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.
So what did you do about it?
It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.
Did they conclude anything yet?
Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.
…
Do
you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked
your computer and spied on you?
The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.
The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.
…
Did
your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?
Not my reporter colleagues.
But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?
Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.
Not my reporter colleagues.
But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?
Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.
Who
were the ones discouraging it?
Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.
Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.
…
It
sounds like you've been telling me that journalists at CBS who don't toe a
certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks,
too?
I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don't think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don't fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray. … READ ENTIRETY (Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies' List; By Paul Bond; HollywoodReporter.com; 11/3/2014 11:00 PM PST)
I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don't think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don't fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray. … READ ENTIRETY (Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies' List; By Paul Bond; HollywoodReporter.com; 11/3/2014 11:00 PM PST)
See also Reporter
Sharyl Attkisson says feds hacked computer, CBS protected Obama – Washington
Times 10/28/14
So, knowing that Sharyl
Attkisson is NOT full of baloney, pay attention to what she says about the WHY
through the eyes of Tim Brown.
JRH 1/26/18
*******************
Investigative
Journalist Sharyl Attkisson: "The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop
Trump, It's Why"
By TIM BROWN
JANUARY 25, 2018
In commenting on the current
brouhaha about the FISA memo and
the violations
of law by the NSA and the Obama administration, as well as the
collusion of the FBI and DOJ to take down Donald Trump before he could be
elected president, investigative reporter and author of The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives
and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote Sharyl Attkisson said
that the main story is not about what they did to Trump to stop him, but why
they did it.
In a tweet on
Wednesday, Attkisson wrote, "My take for what little it's worth: The main
story isn't about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It's *why.*
It's about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose. I think that will
turn out to be the bigger can of worms."
My take for what little it's worth: The main story isn't about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It's *why.* It's about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose. I think that will turn out to be the bigger can of worms.— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) January 24, 2018
She was then asked,
"Is the [Robert]
Mueller Investigations real purpose is to cover up the FBI/DOJ
mistakes, attempting to bring down a sitting President?"
Attkisson replied,
"I believe the better question is *why* some bad actors in intel community
were so panicked at the thought of Trump being president, bringing in people
who would examine what they've been doing the past 15+ years."
I believe the better question is *why* some bad actors in intel community were so panicked at the thought of Trump being president, bringing in people who would examine what they've been doing the past 15+ years. https://t.co/Q8yIq8mog3— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) January 24, 2018
She then added,
"(Including the time when Mueller was FBI Director). Disclaimer note:
Mueller is not accused of any wrongdoing."
(Including the time when Mueller was FBI Director). Disclaimer note: Mueller is not accused of any wrongdoing. https://t.co/7JUlbeQOFR— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) January 24, 2018
Well, not so fast. He
stands accused of a lot of wrongdoing, whether anyone has actually brought an
indictment against him is something else.
Recently acquired court
documents indicate he was involved in a coverup of a Florida families ties to
the 9-11 hijackers. Prior to that, we know that he was the
one that began the purge
of references "offensive" to Islamic supremacists in the FBI's
anti-terrorism training material.
Furthermore, we know from a
leaked cable from Wikileaks that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was
to have Mueller
conduct a Uranium transfer with the Russians in 2009 at a “secret tarmac
meeting,” which occurred on September 21, 2009.
Attkisson went on to tweet,
"It's fair to say there's panic among some bad actors within our intel
agencies who are now pulling out all the stops to try to spin Congress &
the media & keep from getting inside. That kind of panic can lead to
mistakes being made."
"Interesting to see
"open govt." groups & advocates pressing to keep "the
memo" secret. This may be unprecedented." she added.
Interesting to see "open govt." groups & advocates pressing to keep "the memo" secret. This may be unprecedented. 2/2— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) January 25, 2018
What
happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing — also
control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the
ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them —
ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?
She then followed up with two
very important issues to keep in mind during the investigation.
Those
questions are moving to the forefront as the facts play out in the
investigations into our intelligence agencies’ surveillance activities.
There
are two overarching issues.
First,
there’s the alleged improper use of politically-funded opposition research
to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.
Second,
if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel
agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue
the officials touched over the past decade — or two —
under administrations of both parties.
This
is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.
It
touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.
Of course, she pointed out
that not only are there people in the Justice Department, as well as Congress,
trying to stop the FISA memo from being presented to the public, but even media
outlets and reporters are attempting to keep it secret.
She wrote, "Meantime, the
Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence
Committee not to release its memo. It's like the possible defendant in a
criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to
reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury."
"This is the first time
I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the
argument to keep the information secret," she added.
"They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with
implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against
Americans. 'Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,' they
plead."
She then followed up with
what everyone should agree on simply because we don't have two Constitutions,
but one.
"As for me? I don’t care
what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re
on," she wrote. "If their sources and methods are
inappropriate, they should be fully exposed and stopped."
Indeed, and they should be
prosecuted. The why is important, but the simple violations of the law
are enough that indictments and arrests should be taking place.
____________________
Intro to The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It's
Why
John R, Houk, Editor
Posted January 26, 2018
_________________
Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson: "The Main Story Is
Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It's Why"
Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com.
He is husband to his "more precious than rubies" wife,
father of 10 "mighty arrows", jack of all trades, Christian and lover
of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim
is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic
rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment