NewsBusters.org:
Fox News's Howard Kurtz reported on Monday
that former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson filed a lawsuit against
the Justice Department and the U.S. Postal Service over the hacking of
her computers. Kurtz noted that Attkisson "alleges that three separate
computer forensic exams showed that hackers used sophisticated methods
to surreptitiously monitor her work between 2011 and 2013." The
journalist seeks $35 million in damages against the federal agencies.
The Fox News host later pointed out that Attkisson and her lawyers claim to "have 'pretty good evidence' that these efforts were 'connected' to the Justice Department."
The correspondent asserted that she was "caught in a 'Catch-22,'
forcing her to use the lawsuit and an administrative complaint to
discover more about the surveillance through the discovery process and
to learn the identities of the 'John Does' named in the complaints."
On her own website, Attkisson outlined
that she filed "administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
against the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and
certain unnamed employees and/or agents of the federal government." She
added that she had "filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia alleging
certain violations of her constitutional rights based on information
implicating the federal government in illegal electronic monitoring and
surveillance of her home and business computers and phones from 2011 to
2013."
Back in May 2013, the then-CBS journalist revealed that her personal and work computers had been hacked, and indicated during an interview with a radio station in Philadelphia that "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James
[Rosen]," who also had been investigated by the Department of Justice
for his reporting about the CIA's intelligence on North Korea. Three
weeks later, CBS News confirmed, via an investigation by an outside cyber security firm, that "Attkisson's computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson's accounts."
RELATED: Concha: Chris Hayes’ Attkisson Interview Sums Up MSNBC’s Issues in One Question
Mediaite.com:
This is the tale of two journalists.
One has won multiple Emmy awards going back to the turn of the
century, including an investigative series titled, “Bush
Administration’s Bait and Switch on TARP and the Bank Bailout.” Another
report revealed fraud around multi-billion dollar Halliburton contracts
in Iraq. Sharyl Attkisson also was one of the first journalists to fly combat missions over Kosovo.
The other journalist is the former editor of The Nation magazine.
He hasn’t won any Emmy awards and invariably finishes a distant third
in his 8:00 p.m. MSNBC time slot in a three horse race. Chris Hayes
hasn’t flown in any combat missions as a journalist, but was hit by a
modest rock covering the Ferguson riots this past August.
During the Obama administration, Attkisson — who reported for CBS
News for over two decades — captured a prestigious Edward R. Murrow
award for “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious,” and was dominated for an Emmy
for “Green Energy Going Red” (which focused on the failure of
government-financed Solyndra) and an Investigative Emmy nomination for
“Benghazi: Dying for Security.”
By contrast, Hayes once won something called the May Sydney Award for
his 2012 piece that declared fossil fuel companies must surrender $10
trillion in unburned gas and oil reserves to avert global disaster. And
that’s about it on the trophy shelf.
So when juxtaposing the two careers in terms of experience and
accomplishment, and after watching Hayes’ interview with Attkisson —
which included the host asking his guest if she was angling for a job at Fox News — the only thought that comes mind is the following:
He has some balls asking that question. And no, that’s not meant as a
compliment. Hayes questioning someone as decorated as Attkisson if she
fabricated an allegation against the government (for hacking her
computer) was somehow motivated because she needed to enhance already
one of the most — if not the most — extensive resumes in investigative journalism would be like Arsenio Hall asking Johnny Carson if he knew how to effectively interview a guest.
Cojones, indeed. Especially coming from the guy known in the industry
for singlehanded sinking his network’s primetime lineup from his
barely-watched 8:00 PM position. No sympathy for the host following his
show, however, as more than a few MSNBC insiders concede the biggest
push to put Hayes in the most important time slot on the network came
from Rachel Maddow, the real decision-maker for “The Place for Politics” at 30 Rock.
Know this: Attkisson could pretty much work anywhere she wants, and
doesn’t need to fabricate any stories in order to enhance her LinkedIn
profile. And when her new book hits shelves this Tuesday, it will be on
the best-seller list. Guaranteed. Why? She has the credibility that
comes from dogged reporting regardless of which party controls the White
House. All the aforementioned awards during the Bush and Obama
administration prove that.
We’ve often explored why MSNBC struggles so mightily,particularly
lately — a disturbing development considering an election was just held.
Is the presentation outside of its morning show an echo chamber, which
doesn’t make for compelling television? Yes. Is the decision to go
almost all opinion — even during dayside — making it impossible to
discern one program from another? Yes.
But here’s one more point to consider: How high is the quality of the
guests? Are those guests diverse from a political perspective?
The answers are “not high at all” and “no”. Rarely does a big-name Republican outside of a periodic Rand Paul interview ever appear on the network. There’s only so many times David Corn (Mother Jones), Joan Walsh or Ezra Klein
can be booked. For any GOP member, there’s simply no upside when the
audience is small and the hosts are agenda-driven with blinders on.
Hayes landed a rare big interview on his program Friday night. It
could have been fair, tough, and the kind of deep-dive he once excelled
at when hosting Up on weekend mornings.
Instead, the host simply became the caricature his network has become
when calling into question the career motives of a guest with a resume
he can only dream of having.
RELATED: Sharyl Attkisson Dismisses Media Matters: ‘Paid, Left-Wing Blog’ [VIDEO]
Townhall.com:
Despite mounting pressure from lawmakers and the public, President Obama on Saturday said that he would not cave on the issue of imposing travel bans on West African nations.
“We can’t just cut ourselves off from West Africa,” he said in his weekly radio address. “Trying to seal off an entire region of the world—if that were even possible, could actually make the situation worse.”
If that were true, then why has nearly every African nation—plus
a number of other countries (and airlines) around the world—imposed a
ban or significant restrictions on the Ebola-stricken countries in West
Africa? It’s simple: quarantines work. As Ann Coulter noted
in her column this week, “It’s becoming increasingly clear that this is
just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of
the world.”
Indeed. Our commander in chief has even sent thousands of U.S. troops with only four hours of training
to West Africa to combat the virus. The safety and security of
Americans has clearly taken a backseat to wellbeing of those overseas.
And if all this weren’t enough, a conservative watchdog group is out with a shocking new report that claims the administration is looking to bring Ebola-infected foreigners to the U.S. for treatment. Yes, you read that correctly.
Judicial
Watch has learned that the Obama administration is actively formulating
plans to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States
for treatment. Specifically, the goal of the administration is to bring
Ebola patients into the United States for treatment within the first
days of diagnosis.
It is unclear who would bear the high costs
of transporting and treating non-citizen Ebola patients. The plans
include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission
of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.
One
source tells us that the Obama administration is keeping this plan
secret from Congress. The source is concerned that the proposal is
illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the
approval of Congress.
If this plan comes to
fruition, the public outcry will be deafening. The fact that the cost
of this would undoubtedly fall on the backs of taxpayers is one thing,
the negligence it would show for the American people is quite another.
RELATED: O’Reilly Rips ‘Pathetic Ideological Loons’ at MSNBC for Ebola ‘Racism’ Attacks
HotAir.com:
There’s plenty of evidence to support Chuck Todd’s conclusion, and not just on foreign policy, either. The new host of Meet the Press told the Morning Joe
panel today that the new NBC/WSJ polling on issues shows that Obama
really may be the second coming of Jimmy Carter … and that’s bad news
for the Democrats:
Earlier, I wrote about the latest in the series of cratering poll numbers for Barack Obama and how it would impact his ability to restore confidence in his leadership. The NBC/WSJ poll numbers
have more interesting data on domestic issues, especially in the
context of the upcoming midterms. Obama’s leadership and popularity have
become a boat anchor on Democrats’ hopes to avoid a GOP wave this
November, but those aren’t the only problems facing the President’s
allies in the midterms.
First, the generic ballot question looks better for the GOP than it
has since the last election, but only marginally. Republicans have a
45/43 lead, about the same as last month’s 44/43, and the numbers for
both parties are within the narrow range we have seen in this series all
year. That doesn’t take into account likely voters, though, only registered
voters. This poll doesn’t have any explicit enthusiasm tests, and for
some reason NBC/WSJ isn’t testing for voting likelihood on these
questions, even though the midterms are less than two months away.
The big problem for Democrats is on the issues. Democrats have wide
lead on their traditional issues, including environmentalism (+27, but
the lowest since 1992), abortion (+15), and health care — which is only
at +8, when it was a +36 in January 2008. Republicans lead on their
traditional issues too, such as national defense (+38) and the federal
deficit (+18), both highs for this series — but those issues are more
relevant in polling. Even more relevant than those are the economy, for
which Republicans have a +10 advantage. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats
had a +13 advantage. On taxes, Republicans have a narrow edge at +4. On
the issues that matter most to voters in this cycle — the economy,
taxes, national security — Republicans are peaking while Democrats are
fading.
RELATED: NBC’s Richard Engel Slams President Obama’s ISIS Speech: ‘Wildly Off-Base’
