14 thoughts on “The DoJ And Sharyl Atkisson”

  1. Wow, that is highly suggestive of someone cleaning out references to the keyword “Sharyl” and missing a misspelling of the name.

    Also, both of the people on the email (Eric Schultz and Tracy Schmaler) were involved in the alleged “yelling”/”screaming” at Sharyl Attkisson, mentioned in the above link. In fact, if I have the timing right and the emails are Eastern time, then the email chain quoted above happened around 8am on October 4, 2011 and Attkisson’s accusations of “yelling” and “screaming” aired at most a few hours later on the Laura Ingram Show (a talk radio show) at some point between 9am and 12pm (the show’s hours of operation).

    I find it incredible that these two people never typed in Sharyl’s name ever again in an email given that they were in different departments, were working together to apply pressure on Attkisson, and just happened to have an email conversation right before Atkisson publicly mentioned them both by name on a popular talk radio show.

    And it’s interesting that two reporters are mentioned, Bob Schieffer and Susan Davis. I wonder what their role was?

    2. “aired at most a few hours later on the Laura Ingram Show”

      She then got scolded for her bosses at CBS for going on the show and verboten from ever doing so again.

  2. Aside from calling out the DoJ, how ’bout naming and shaming the suits at CBS? Who specifically is the Eason Jordon wanna-be who decided that keeping good relationships in the capital, with the dictator, for the approved press releases, was more important than informing his customers? (or breaking news to draw viewers toward his sponsors advertisements?)

  3. She was on Glenn Beck’s 5PM on Wed or Thu, and I was sitting with my mouth hanging open. One of the things she says is a huge problem, is bureaucrats who exist from admin, to admin, to admin… The very fact that her business and personal computers were hacked should be sending the citizens into the streets, carry torches and pitchforks. But most people will never see of, nor hear this story.

    In my mind the question is how many more computers re being hacked daily.

    2. The untouchable nature of bureaucrats has been true since the Civil Service laws were passed about 100 years ago. The idea was to create a professional class of bureaucrats instead of political cronies from the Spoils System. Unfortunately, the end result is hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of unelected, unaccountable, and largely untouchable public employees that are almost impossible to fire even for cause. Since Democrats are the party of big government, a majority of the bureaucrats are Democrats. They know that when a Republican gets elected president, that he’ll be gone in 4-8 years but the bureaucrats will still be there. They can undermine him by ignoring his policies and by leaking information to the Press. Until the Civil Service laws change, there really isn’t much anyone can do about it short of cutting funding to the government agencies. How many time has that ever happened?

  4. This reminds me of an episode in the first season of Boston Legal, when the firm is researching an age discrimination suit against a corporation. The corporation had internal documents about their “Forty Factor” plan, did a find-and-replace for “Forty” with “Efficiency”, and thus was born the “Efficiency Factor” plan, which was non-age-discriminatory.

    Unfortunately for the corporation, it also created references to dates such as “1943 (nineteen efficiency-three),” which is how the attempted subterfuge was revealed (well, that along with ethics breaches by the attorneys involved in the suit, but it’s a television show…).

    People try and cheat on discovery all the time, but it’s things like that which get them caught. The truth shall set ye free.

  5. Yet, a search of the 40,000 pages produced by DOJ does not include a single additional reference to Attkisson.

    Huh? Judicial Watch has posted 769 pages of the documents produced by the DOJ, and they include over twenty mentions of Attkisson, variously as Sharyl, Sheryl [sic] and Sharryl [sic].

    1. Jim, look at the actual document you linked to. All of the “Sheryl” instances come from the same press conference transcript which was repeated a large number of times (like half a dozen times). “Sharyl” came from a copy of a news article (repeated four times) which was mostly about Sharyl Attkisson’s reporting. “Sharryl” appears once in the email discussed. Seems dishonest to me to characterize it as “over twenty mentions” when it’s actually three with two of them being copy/pastes of outside sources rather than a US government initiated email.

      1. Look again at the sentence I quoted: a search of the 40,000 pages produced by DOJ does not include a single additional reference to Attkisson. Wouldn’t you agree that the writer is incorrect? Doesn’t the document disprove the allegation that the DOJ scrubbed the documents of any correctly-spelled references to Attkisson?

        1. Those other emails weren’t pages produced by the DOJ but forwarding someone else’s content (transcript and news article). Now, maybe those things should count, but it’s not that hard for someone stripping out references to Sharyl to keep innocuous forwarding of third party messages. After all, they had plenty of time to sanitize things. We’ll just have to see if this accusation holds up.

Comments are closed.