Journalist mysteriously stalked by unknown entity

Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has released shocking video allegedly showing a government entity deleting volumes of text from her computer screen as she worked to break news on the Benghazi investigation.

Video shot by the veteran investigative journalist in 2012 depicts how panels of text from her work were mysteriously highlighted and deleted by an unknown entity, suggesting her computer was hacked and she was under some form of surveillance.

In addition to showing how her cursor moved without any keyboard interaction, Attkisson also demonstrated how her word processor would not let her “save” her work.

“Earlier this week, she cited a renowned security expert who examined her computer and concluded that ‘a sophisticated entity…used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency’ to monitor her: ‘either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency,’ reports Mediaite.

Attkisson recently released a book entitled Stonewalled in which she breaks down “how she has been electronically surveilled while digging deep into the Obama Administration and its scandals,” according to Amazon, including “groundbreaking stories on the Fast and Furious gunwalking program, Obama’s green energy boondoggle, the unanswered questions about Benghazi, and the disastrous rollout of Obamacare,” Attkisson’s site states.

Given the fact that the Obama administration has charged more journalists with espionage than all other presidents combined since the passage of the 1917 Espionage Act, the attack on Attkisson’s First Amendment is unsurprising in today’s political climate.

The sophisticated digital intrusion is an excellent example of how a war is being waged on investigative journalists, and also shows how NSA malware planted in to computer systems can be leveraged by hackers.

Everyone at CBS News ducking questions about killing stories to protect Obama


Sharyl Attkisson!

Here’s the thing about an insider book that documents CBS (or ABC, or NBC, or PBS, or . . .) killing stories that make Obama look bad. One the one hand, if you’re paying attention, you think it’s interesting to hear about the insider info that proves it – but the evidence is so obvious just from watching them, it’s really little more than a footnote. Of course they kill anti-Obama stories. How do you know? Because you’re aware of them – Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, etc. – and you don’t hear much about them on CBS.

So when Sharyl Attkisson writes a book explaining how this works on the inside, it’s sort of like looking at the lungs of a smoker who keeps coughing in your ear. What’s happening here is obvious. Do I really need to see how ugly it is in there?

And if you’re not exorcised over media bias, which most non-ideological people are not, then you probably don’t even care about this, let alone care to read a book (or read about the book) that exposes it for all the world to see. That’s why, I’d guess, CBS executives feel they’re on pretty safe ground trying to completely ignore this:

Moonves failed to answer repeated phone calls or an e-mail seeking comment.

A secretary for David Rhodes, president of CBS News, immediately volleyed a Post reporter’s phone call to company spokeswoman Sonya McNail. Before the reporter could even ask a question, McNair curtly said, “We decline to comment. Thank you. Bye.”

“Evening News” anchor Scott Pelley’s assistant did not respond to numerous e-mails, and he didn’t return a call to his office.

Attkisson said in her book that under Pelley’s leadership at “Evening News,” her investigative pieces began getting killed regularly.

Former “Evening News’’ Executive Producer Patricia Shevlin, now a producer at “60 Minutes,” also didn’t return a call, with the CBS operator saying the top exec was too busy to talk to The Post.

Attkisson has claimed that after she complained that the network shelved several of her reports on Solyndra — the Obama-supporting green-energy firm that went bankrupt despite hundreds of millions of dollars in government handouts — Shevlin replied, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”

I’ve spent enough time in newsrooms to recognize a lot of this. Of course, news reporters have biases like everyone else, and the vast majority of them are definitely liberal. They don’t think of themselves as propagandists, of course, and in their own minds they simply think they’re exercising news judgment when they pursue certain stories and ignore others.

But what they don’t admit even to themselves, let alone to others, is that their ideological biases absolutely influence that news judgment. When they don’t hear anyone but right-wingers talking about Benghazi, for instance, they file it away as a right-wing narrative – and that’s very different from a real news story. If they go to town covering a story like that, their beat reporters are going to hear about it from other journos at the next press conference or council meeting, and they’ll come back to the newsroom pissed because they don’t appreciate being put in a position to defend why their station, network or paper is starting to sound like Fox News.

Do editors think about stuff like this when they make decisions about stories? They absolutely do, although they will never admit it.

Attkisson’s news judgment was clearly not aligned with the prevailing culture of the newsroom, and I’m sure she realized it. I’m just as sure that the resistance and blowback she got for her stories didn’t really surprise her all that much. She knows what CBS News is. She worked there 20 years. I’m sure she realized that if she kept pushing stories like this it would reach the point where the organization would simply start rejecting her. I’m not faulting her for trying. She was fighting the good fight. But she probably always realized that at some point she would end up walking away – and maybe writing a book.

The funniest thing about this is that, if CBS was covering a story about someone else accused of some sort of wrongdoing, they would be all over the party for not returning reporters’ phone calls or ignoring e-mails. But when it’s them?

No comment!

Valerie Jarrett Key Player in Fast and Furious Cover-Up After Holder Lied to Congress

Screen Shot 2014-10-24 at 4.46.21 PM

This is not surprising at all. Valerie Jarrett is “the power behind the throne” in the Obama Administration. It is not a stretch at all to think that Jarrett is behind the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups, the cover-up on the Benghazi attacks and even keeping Americans out of national parks during the Federal Government shutdown. Now finally, Judicial Watch, after years of lawsuits to release documents that Jarrett and the White House were suppressing, has obtained documents proving Jarrett’s and Obama’s vindictive and secretive form of governance. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Just the little we have seen makes Richard Nixon look like a little league piker compared to Barack Obama.

From Judicial Watch:

President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.
The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections. Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.
Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the once-secret program that allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
The files received by JW include three electronic mails between Holder and Jarrett and one from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Jarrett. The e-mails with Holder are all from October 4, 2011, a significant date because, on the evening of October 3rd, Sheryl Attkisson (then at CBS news) released documentsshowing that Holder had been sent a briefing paper on Operation Fast and Furious on June 5, 2010. The paper was from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther.
This directly contradicted Holder’s May 3, 2011 testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which he stated that he, “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” The October 4, 2011 date may also be significant because it came shortly after the August 30, 2011 resignation of U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke and reassignment of acting ATF director Kenneth Melson to the position of “senior forensics advisor” at DOJ.
The description of one of the e-mails, written from Jarrett to Holder, reads, “re: personnel issues.” Another, also from Jarrett, reads, “outlining and discussing preferred course of action for future responses in light of recent development in congressional investigation.” Unfortunately, the index is vague and that’s all the information we have about them. Nevertheless, given the timing and subject of these e-mails, it seems clear that Jarrett quickly became a key player in the Fast and Furious cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that Holder had lied to Congress.

It will be interesting and revealing as more documents are released and sifted through by Judicial Watch and other watchdog groups. If Republicans take the U.S. Senate in November 2014, there will be multiple impeachable offences in front of them committed by President Obama and his administration. Will a Republican Senate actually act upon the offences and begin impeachment proceedings? Doubtful.