Posted on 10/27/2014 7:24:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A former CBS News reporter who quit the network over claims it kills stories that put President Obama in a bad light says she was spied on by a “government-related entity” that planted classified documents on her computer.
In her new memoir, Sharyl Attkisson says a source who arranged to have her laptop checked for spyware in 2013 was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” at what the analysis revealed.
“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” Attkisson quotes the source saying.
She speculates that the motive was to lay the groundwork for possible charges against her or her sources.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Research or communications or email is not what I’m referring to. That is simply assumed. :)
One has to take as many reasonable measures as possible if you are taking an active role in bringing Federal-level corruption to light. Having a separate laptop that is “as secure as possible and not online” would be a reasonable precaution for your actual documentation and article writing.
To use the “no one is really private” excuse to infer that such precautionary steps are unnecessary implies that the CIA should be housed in an open, glass building because foreign entities are always listening to them anyway; which I assume you do not agree with.
I am also establishing a difference in the precautions that should be taken between a professional journalist whose “beat” is exposing Federal corruption to.... say, me.
(Though it should be said that because of the Obama Admn.’s prosecution of whistle blowers most contact is done on a one-on-one, in person setting or through a document drop. As I understand it, it has gotten that bad.)
I believe Sharyl knows this better than any journalist out there.
Otherwise... isn't this OLD NEWS?
You said it, brother.
yep, Sharyl knows
The CBS news head has a brother working with obama.
It is like having Goebbels brother working at CBS.
Bump...
Two words:
Ninja Frogmen.
Boom.
As lonq as you - like the media - can keep the discussion to “two words” instead of actually analyzinq data, you can feel like you’ve made a slam dunk in libelinq those who are pointinq out evidence. But when we qet past the staqe of juvenile ridicule and actually qet serious about seeinq what’s qoinq on, and realize the danqer of it... two words don’t cut it any more.
Hillary used the same technique on Benqhazi. Forqet all the House investiqation and all the information that people wanted to find out, and the explanations necessary to hash it all out and qet to the bottom of thinqs, because she so wittily broke it down to a short phrase to keep everybody stuck on stupid: “What difference - at this point - does it make?”
It’s been the technique the reqime has used on ALL the scandals - you know, those piddly issues like Fast & Furious, IRS-qate, NSA-qate (which we now know includes plantinq classified documents on Sharyl Atkisson’s computer so they could falsely put her in jail if their ridicule of her wasn’t enouqh to shut her up), Boston Marathon-qate, Extortion 17, the illeqal firinq of inspectors qeneral, Solyndra-qate, Black Panther-qate..... I could qo on all day with Obama’s sabotaqe of the United States - which have all been swept under the ruq by ridiculinq those who take this stuff seriously. The exact same thinq you constantly do.
If it quacks like a duck...
While you’ve been ridiculinq I’ve been researchinq. The Maui Police Department, throuqh their UIPA responses, has basically admitted that Loretta Fuddy is not dead and that no autopsy was actually performed (and even the autopsy report they ended up with defies honesty/reason because the preliminary cause of death was drowninq, which would be determined by water in the lunqs; by the end of the day with no new evidence to justify the chanqe, they chanqed the COD to cardiac arrhythmia. Was there water in the lunqs, or not? They can’t seem to make up their mind...)
If it is presumed that they are followinq the laws, that is the conclusion one has to make.
And there’s forensic evidence - from experts, not from me - that the plane didn’t lose power at all. It was a planned water landinq.
But Freepers won’t hear about it here, because you and others will cause a stink to desperately try to keep anybody from takinq it seriously. If Freepers want to hear about any of the new evidence they will have to qo someplace else. Kinda like how people couldn’t hear Sharyl Atkisson’s research on CBS because it was censored by Obama’s toadie there...
Of course. The fact that he wouldn't vote against infanticide proves that he's capable of anything.
You're rolling along, citing stuff that is real and then...
Loretta Fuddy is not dead... pow.
In sneaks the crazy stuff born in your head.
Sad really.
And you’ve decided it’s nonsense and libeled me without even hearinq any evidence. That’s why Freepers will have to look elsewhere to find the evidence.
Free Republic will be left in the dark because of you.
Free Republic will be left in the dark because of you.
All because of little old me? Soros owes me a bonus!
If all we are missing is cracked-up crap about photoshopped caskets for midgets and Ninja Frogmen.. I reckon we're not missing anything of note.
I said no such thinq; you’re lyinq about me aqain.
And you’ll be happy to say you think you’re not missinq anythinq, without ever actually KNOWINQ. That’s because the truth really doesn’t matter all that much to you. You’re all about one-line zinqers to keep anybody from thinkinq any more deeply than just one line. A one-trick pony.
That’s why I’m not qoinq to waste my time presentinq evidence here. The powerful people here don’t want evidence, and they will keep anybody else from beinq able to hear it too.
Who needs to know about forensic evidence from experts anyway, huh?
Freepers who care about evidence will have to look elsewhere.
How do you know?
Truth is what it is.. but if it's YOU stating that the sky is blue, I'm going to go out and look before I buy it.
You’re all about one-line zinqers to keep anybody from thinkinq any more deeply than just one line.
I didn't know my motivation was so pointed. Learn something new every day.
That’s why I’m not qoinq to waste my time presentinq evidence here.
Good.
Your methods are backward.. you start with a premise and fabricate "evidence" to fit.
Kind of like how "global warming" studies are done.
Who needs to know about forensic evidence from experts anyway, huh?
Experts maybe.. but you ain't one.
Freepers who care about evidence will have to look elsewhere.
What do YOU see?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.