Replies

If you want to predict what’s going to become of this accusation by Tucker Carlson, the history of one reporter - Sharyl Attkisson is instructive.

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson#Computer_hacking_allegations

In May 2013, while still employed by CBS, Attkisson alleged that her personal and work computers had been “compromised” for more than two years.

CBS News stated that it had investigated her work computer and found evidence of multiple unauthorized accesses by a third party in late 2012. The U.S. Department of Justice denied any involvement.

In her 2014 book, she wrote that a forensic examination revealed that her personal computer was hacked with keystroke logging spyware, enabling an intruder to read all her e-mail messages and gain access to the passwords for her financial accounts.

In late January 2015, Attkisson appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a confirmation hearing for Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. As part of her appearance in front of that committee, a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was released stating that “their investigation was not able to substantiate... allegations that Attkisson’s computers were subject to remote intrusions by the FBI, other government personnel, or otherwise” and the deletion seen in Attkisson’s video “appeared to be caused by the backspace key being stuck, rather than a remote intrusion”.

In March 2015, Attkisson and her family filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against Holder, Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe, and unnamed agents of the US Department of Justice, the US Postal Service and the United States, alleging that they had been subject to illegal surveillance activities.

The government then moved her case to a D.C. federal court, and the case was eventually transferred to a federal court in Virginia.

In 2017, federal judge Leonie Brinkema dismissed Attkisson’s case, finding that Attkisson’s lawsuit failed to allege sufficient facts to make a plausible claim that either defendant personally engaged in the alleged surveillance”.

Attkisson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2019, which affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

Two of the three judges on the panel agreed dismissal was justified because plaintiffs failed to name specific agents being accused of surveillance, and that they “failed to act diligently in pursuing that discovery”, citing “significant periods of inactivity”. Judge James Wynn Jr. wrote a dissenting opinion claiming that delays were not the fault of plaintiffs, but due to Justice Department lawyers deliberately using tactics to delay the process and “run out the clock” before Attkisson’s lawyers could find those being accused. Judge Wynn found it plausible that “Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims”.