• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sharyl Attkisson sues administration over computer hacking [W:148]

ModerateGOP said:
Actually what she says is surely a pattern in her mind, but like Jim Carey in film The Number 23, just because you see it everywhere, doesn't mean that it's taking place. You can find patterns everywhere in life, and from her vague descriptions of "What's happening," it appears to be just random everyday technological occurrences that she has wrapped around a convenient conspiracy theory.

Most of the so-called hacking stories that have led up to the N.Korea hacking scandal (excluding it) haven't really been hacks in the technical sense. I don't even consider the NSA scandal a hack. It was simply theft. When you hear of companies being hacked, that's usually the case. However, leaking passwords and such are not hacks, but the media acts like they are. So I can see why and how someone who might not know much about computers, can be led to believe that they are hacks.

In the same way, Attkisson has been led to believe that these are hacks, probably by outside political forces connected to the the right wing Benghazi circuit. I find it funny, the way she describes these hacks. She thinks the government is hacking her TV and her Home Phone?? Calling Dale Gribble!!!

She thinks that the "ISP Address" is a smoking gun because it pointed back to a government computer??? Despite using the wrong terminology, the first thing EVERY hacker does is mask and hide their IP Address. Not ISP Address. ISP Address is not a real thing. If it is a government hacker. It is a stupid one and can easily be tracked. Needless to say, the Government has denied the incident. Because it was probably a stuck keyboard.

She should name these so-called experts so they don't give anyone else any bad advice ever again. Those are just some of the issues I have with this story and I can't find anything factual about it. But fearandloathing says there is a pattern...What is it? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Good post. *tips hat*
 
I just have 2 questions:

Where are all the conservatives who normally complain about frivolous lawsuits? Does Sharyl Attkisson deserve 35 million dollars?
 
Hatuey said:
I just have 2 questions:

Where are all the conservatives who normally complain about frivolous lawsuits? Does Sharyl Attkisson deserve 35 million dollars?
Click to expand...

IDK. She also worked for CNN/CBS so that's kooky too. Conservatives don't usually defend those types.
 
ModerateGOP said:
IDK. She also worked for CNN/CBS so that's kooky too. Conservatives don't usually defend those types.
Click to expand...

FOX News has been pimping out her book non-stop for a while.
 
Here is Sharyl Attkisson's video of the "hack."

 
Mavis said:
That has been my experience with a lot of people in IT work too! Also, we the public have no idea what the evidence is or is not. Looks like a lot of people on the internet want to believe that video Attkisson shared months ago with the press is THE evidence her attorney will be using. I read in the NYT that the techs she has employed to research and investigate all of this made some new and important discoveries recently that played a big part in the decision to file the lawsuit. How little Attkisson does or does not know won't be the matter of or the foundation of the court case either, which I bet ModerateGOP knows. Or should.
Click to expand...



I can only accept all that at face value, it rings true. But even if not, no one but the participants knows what really happened. You cannot simply dismiss the accusations of a seasoned journalist with a record of exposing corruption. To ascribe motives or actions to her with nothing on which to base it is pure conjecture, the same as me ascribing motives to a police officer facing an investigation for having shot a black kid.
 
Sharyl Attkisson is probably one of the few investigative reporters left in the MSM. She uncovered things that were damning to Obama at times and was ready to report on them and CBS would not permit her. But then again isn't CBS's big guy brothers with one of the big players inside the White House?

Look Attkisson is no dummy and she wouldn't even dream of filing a suit if she didn't have proof to back her claims.
 
vesper said:
Sharyl Attkisson is probably one of the few investigative reporters left in the MSM. She uncovered things that were damning to Obama at times and was ready to report on them and CBS would not permit her. But then again isn't CBS's big guy brothers with one of the big players inside the White House?

Look Attkisson is no dummy and she wouldn't even dream of filing a suit if she didn't have proof to back her claims.
Click to expand...

Let's look at this from a reasonable perspective shall we? This is what the lawsuit alleges:

Sharyl Attkisson v. Eric Holder

On January 8, 2013, Ms. Attkisson made arrangements to deliver her Toshiba laptop to a contact with connections to a government forensics computer expert in the intelligence community.

On January 9, 2013, the forensics expert reported to Ms. Attkisson that the Toshiba laptop showed clear evidence of outside and unauthorized “intrusion,” and that the sources of the intrusion were state-supported due to the nature of the technology used.

On January 10, 2013, the computer was returned to Ms. Attkisson through an intermediary, along with a report. According to the report, the forensics computer expert found that so-called sophisticated software had been used to accomplish the intrusion, and the software fingerprint indicated the software was proprietary to the federal government.
Click to expand...

There are least 2 other people involved in this. Neither of whom are mentioned. The rest of the lawsuit pretty much is a story about how Sharyl Attkisson reported on stuff the government does. Three things will come out to be questioned immediately:

1. Who is the person that said her computer was hacked?
2. How does she intend to prove that A) it was a hack and B) it was done by the government?
3. How doing being surveilled entitle her to 35 million dollars in damages?

Sharyl Attkisson really is biting way more than she can chew and this lawsuit makes it pretty obvious.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Most of the so-called hacking stories that have led up to the N.Korea hacking scandal (excluding it) haven't really been hacks in the technical sense. I don't even consider the NSA scandal a hack. It was simply theft. When you hear of companies being hacked, that's usually the case. However, leaking passwords and such are not hacks, but the media acts like they are. So I can see why and how someone who might not know much about computers, can be led to believe that they are hacks.

In the same way, Attkisson has been led to believe that these are hacks, probably by outside political forces connected to the the right wing Benghazi circuit. I find it funny, the way she describes these hacks. She thinks the government is hacking her TV and her Home Phone?? Calling Dale Gribble!!!

She thinks that the "ISP Address" is a smoking gun because it pointed back to a government computer??? Despite using the wrong terminology, the first thing EVERY hacker does is mask and hide their IP Address. Not ISP Address. ISP Address is not a real thing unless she is talking about the physical location of her local Verizon Store. If it is a government hacker. It is a stupid one and can easily be tracked. Needless to say, the Government has denied the incident. Because it was probably a stuck keyboard.

She should name these so-called experts so they don't give anyone else any bad advice ever again. Those are just some of the issues I have with this story and I can't find anything factual about it. But fearandloathing says there is a pattern...What is it? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Good evening ModerateGOP, you do know that's a lot of conjecture on your part? None of us know what the evidence is or that Attkisson was mislead by so called experts giving her bad advise. The pattern that fearandloathing refers to is from information that has come out along the way, not the evidence that will be presented in court. Following the outcome of the case in court, then we will know what the evidence was, what the advise given to Attkisson was and who the experts advising her were. Since this is now a high profile case that will get massive amounts of coverage? It is safe to say that these experts know they better have a pretty good case or else there goes their career and reputation. This reminds me of all the certainty that people had as to what the evidence was in other high profile cases recently. Like the Trayvon Martin matter and more recently the Ferguson grand jury, we saw that internet prophets had it all figured out before hand only not to. I had said this earlier but I think it bears repeating, argumentum ad hominem won't get you anywhere in a court case. But it sure does on the internet!
 
bubbabgone said:
Why?
Because it's difficult to win?
Or because you don't think the Feds would do it?
Click to expand...

Because I think the video evidence she has is bogus, watch the video in post #30.
 
pbrauer said:
Because I think the video evidence she has is bogus, watch the video in post #30.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what I'm looking at in the video, but I can clearly hear keyboard and mouse clicking in the background.
 
What I find ironic about the Attkison case is that given all we know about the Obama administration's actions against journalist? And all the spying and surveillance of just regular citizens (thank you Mr. Snowden) that we know is occurring in this country? That a respected award winning journalist who has filed critical reports about the same administration and government that is doing all of that, is supposed to now all of a sudden be crazy. That's just crazy and naive too.
 
Amadeus said:
I don't really know what I'm looking at in the video, but I can clearly hear keyboard and mouse clicking in the background.
Click to expand...
She used a cell phone to create the video. She must be manipulating the screen with the mouse with her right hand and taking the video with her left hand.
 
pbrauer said:
She used a cell phone to create the video. She must be manipulating the screen with the mouse with her right hand and taking the video with her left hand.
Click to expand...

There are many ways to pull it off (wireless keyboard/mouse). I have never seen hacking like this, outside that one time I let a "virus technician" from India install sh!t on my computer to delete my malware.
 
Mavis said:
Good evening ModerateGOP, you do know that's a lot of conjecture on your part? None of us know what the evidence is or that Attkisson was mislead by so called experts giving her bad advise. The pattern that fearandloathing refers to is from information that has come out along the way, not the evidence that will be presented in court. Following the outcome of the case in court, then we will know what the evidence was, what the advise given to Attkisson was and who the experts advising her were. Since this is now a high profile case that will get massive amounts of coverage? It is safe to say that these experts know they better have a pretty good case or else there goes their career and reputation. This reminds me of all the certainty that people had as to what the evidence was in other high profile cases recently. Like the Trayvon Martin matter and more recently the Ferguson grand jury, we saw that internet prophets had it all figured out before hand only not to. I had said this earlier but I think it bears repeating, argumentum ad hominem won't get you anywhere in a court case. But it sure does on the internet!
Click to expand...

What information has come forward that I haven't already debunked? I think I've covered the meat of her claims. Crazy people sue others all the time and more and more people seem to be suing the government daily for idiotic stuff that has no basis in reality. You are acting like she is this rational person, but she has a history of fabricating and over exaggerating stories exactly in this same manner. Seems to me she is capitalizing on the paranoid CT industry just like the grievance industry did with the Trayvon Martin case. I wouldn't consider this a high profile case... Even if it makes it to court, which I highly doubt will happen. Unless you ONLY read Right Wing news outlets, you haven't heard about this case. It's not that there is a huge conspiracy that the gov't is covering up. It's much more based on the fact that she is completely crazy and terminally wrong, that everyone who knows something about computers, and knows about this story knows that it is complete BS.

Also your circular logic makes no sense. You said that Fearandloathing refered to a pattern of information that has come out. When I actually asked him if he can elaborate more on what that information is. You then said that we can't know until it's in a supposed trial? That is ludicrous!!! She wrote an entire book about crazy schemes that sounded good in her head, but anyone who has taken higher level computer courses or has taught themselves how to code, knows that her story is BS.

The video "evidence" is also in question as even people on this forum who are not detectives in their daily lives, have pointed out that we can hear clicking, and typing in her video. There is no point in which she shows both her hands in the video, or even the delete key. We also do not have video evidence of any of her other claims. If she is comfortable releasing that video, why not show us MORE proof? She obviously does not see eye to eye with you that evidence shouldn't be released before trial, if in fact she is claiming that video is evidence... So nothing I've seen from her shows me any indication that she is telling the truth. Why do you believe her?

You think Government Agents are "smart" enough to do all those hacking-like things and stupid enough to let her see/know/talk about it??

This is coming from the same group of paranoid fringers who think that the Government routinely takes out people who don't agree with them, in large elaborate conspiracy theories. Oh, wait.... Attkisson is basically saying that because she feels the government didn't like what she was writing now she is being hacked. Even though there are no indications that it is being done by the government or that it is being done AT ALL!
 
This suit isn't going to go anywhere.

As soon as the court tells the Obama Administration to turn over all emails and other evidence...a bunch of hard drives are going to crash.
 
Hatuey said:
Let's look at this from a reasonable perspective shall we? This is what the lawsuit alleges:

Sharyl Attkisson v. Eric Holder



There are least 2 other people involved in this. Neither of whom are mentioned. The rest of the lawsuit pretty much is a story about how Sharyl Attkisson reported on stuff the government does. Three things will come out to be questioned immediately:

1. Who is the person that said her computer was hacked?
2. How does she intend to prove that A) it was a hack and B) it was done by the government?
3. How doing being surveilled entitle her to 35 million dollars in damages?

Sharyl Attkisson really is biting way more than she can chew and this lawsuit makes it pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

I don't think she is biting off more than she can chew. Not at all.
You and Byers at Politico would get along well.



I believe she has the proof needed or she would never pursue it. That's the nature of an investigative journalist. In November she sued the DOJ to release all documents related to her personally from background checks, conversations she had with fellow employees at CBS, emails etc. Tom Finton president of Judicial Watch has joined Attkisson's lawsuit. Fitton said in a statement last week. “We know from the emails we have already obtained that the Obama White House and the Justice Department sought to silence this courageous reporter. Now, we need to find out just how far they went.” It was after the documents obtained, Attkisson's attorneys and Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit against the Obama administration.
 
Mavis said:
What I find ironic about the Attkison case is that given all we know about the Obama administration's actions against journalist? And all the spying and surveillance of just regular citizens (thank you Mr. Snowden) that we know is occurring in this country? That a respected award winning journalist who has filed critical reports about the same administration and government that is doing all of that, is supposed to now all of a sudden be crazy. That's just crazy and naive too.
Click to expand...

Mental Illness, Social Media, 4chan, Drugs, Stormfront and Infowars all has this effect on turning people crazy.
 
ModerateGOP said:
What information has come forward that I haven't already debunked? I think I've covered the meat of her claims. Crazy people sue others all the time and more and more people seem to be suing the government daily for idiotic stuff that has no basis in reality. You are acting like she is this rational person, but she has a history of fabricating and over exaggerating stories exactly in this same manner. Seems to me she is capitalizing on the paranoid CT industry just like the grievance industry did with the Trayvon Martin case. I wouldn't consider this a high profile case... Even if it makes it to court, which I highly doubt will happen. Unless you ONLY read Right Wing news outlets, you haven't heard about this case. It's not that there is a huge conspiracy that the gov't is covering up. It's much more based on the fact that she is completely crazy and terminally wrong, that everyone who knows something about computers, and knows about this story knows that it is complete BS.

Also your circular logic makes no sense. You said that Fearandloathing refered to a pattern of information that has come out. When I actually asked him if he can elaborate more on what that information is. You then said that we can't know until it's in a supposed trial? That is ludicrous!!! She wrote an entire book about crazy schemes that sounded good in her head, but anyone who has taken higher level computer courses or has taught themselves how to code, knows that her story is BS.

The video "evidence" is also in question as even people on this forum who are not detectives in their daily lives, have pointed out that we can hear clicking, and typing in her video. There is no point in which she shows both her hands in the video, or even the delete key. We also do not have video evidence of any of her other claims. If she is comfortable releasing that video, why not show us MORE proof? She obviously does not see eye to eye with you that evidence shouldn't be released before trial, if in fact she is claiming that video is evidence... So nothing I've seen from her shows me any indication that she is telling the truth. Why do you believe her?

You think Government Agents are "smart" enough to do all those hacking-like things and stupid enough to let her see/know/talk about it??

This is coming from the same group of paranoid fringers who think that the Government routinely takes out people who don't agree with them, in large elaborate conspiracy theories. Oh, wait.... Attkisson is basically saying that because she feels the government didn't like what she was writing now she is being hacked. Even though there are no indications that it is being done by the government or that it is being done AT ALL!
Click to expand...
Hello again ModerateGOP. You make the mistake of assuming that because you have "debunked" some information reported in the press, you have an iota of an idea about what the evidence that will decided the case is. I have no idea if the video will be used as evidence and I don't care. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I said before I really hope our government is not guilty of this but I'm nowhere near as "certain" as you are that is not the case. And again, argumentum ad hominem won't get you anywhere in court. Or with me either. I have not posted any logic much less circular logic, just pointed out some realities. I guess you don't like that. What you said to fearandloating does not address the fact that the information he was referring to is just information that has come out in the press. And just like with the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson grand jury cases, the certainty that some people on the internet have that they have "debunked everything" won't have a thing to do with the outcome of the case.

ModerateGOP said:
Mental Illness, Social Media, 4chan, Drugs, Stormfront and Infowars all has this effect on turning people crazy.
Click to expand...
If those are the sources for all the "evidence" you claim to have access to and have debunked? Yeah, that's pretty crazy, don't let it rot your mind!
 
Mavis said:
Hello again ModerateGOP. You make the mistake of assuming that because you have "debunked" some information reported in the press, you have an iota of an idea about what the evidence that will decided the case is. I have no idea if the video will be used as evidence and I don't care. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I said before I really hope our government is not guilty of this but I'm nowhere near as "certain" as you are that is not the case. And again, argumentum ad hominem won't get you anywhere in court. Or with me either. I have not posted any logic much less circular logic, just pointed out some realities. I guess you don't like that. What you said to fearandloating does not address the fact that the information he was referring to is just information that has come out in the press. And just like with the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson grand jury cases, the certainty that some people on the internet have that they have "debunked everything" won't have a thing to do with the outcome of the case.
Click to expand...

OK what is the information?? You never answered my question. You just keep repeating yourself. The root of her case is saying the Government hacked her computers. Or are you saying that she is not saying this? All of the stuff that she has talked about so far has been off the walls crazy or plain out wrong. So why should I believe her going forward?

It would be wise of you to elaborate on what those realities are that you pointed out? Because to me they seemed more like questions.
 
Amadeus said:
There are many ways to pull it off (wireless keyboard/mouse). I have never seen hacking like this, outside that one time I let a "virus technician" from India install sh!t on my computer to delete my malware.
Click to expand...

At most it could have been the IT Department playing jokes on people. That's the farthest I will go here.
 
ModerateGOP said:
OK what is the information?? You never answered my question. You just keep repeating yourself. The root of her case is saying the Government hacked her computers. Or are you saying that she is not saying this? All of the stuff that she has talked about so far has been off the walls crazy or plain out wrong. So why should I believe her going forward?

It would be wise of you to elaborate on what those realities are that you pointed out? Because to me they seemed more like questions.
Click to expand...
Yes ModerateGOP I did answer your question, more than once. You don't know what the "evidence" that will be used in court is and you won't know what it was until the court case is decided and that information is released to the public. The information that you say you have "debunked" is not evidence but information reported in the press, which is why I brought up the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson grand jury case. I think I know why you tried to claim I was offering up circular logic, you are mistaking my having to repeat myself to you as circular. If you would simply stop avoiding those simple facts while asking me to repeat them, well there is the end to your problem. Sigh. So let's simplify this, you have offered a lot of conjecture as well as some not too advisable argumentum ad hominem and other fallacious appeals. I think it would be wise of you to stop making such fallacious arguments and feigning not being able to understand what to me or some pretty simple and easy to follow statements. I did not say you should believe Attkison and as far as I can see nobody else has either. But I will tell you this, a respected award winning journalist with a solid reputation is a lot more believable than a person making your arguments and repeatedly calling everyone else "crazy" on the internet is. Especially given the belligerent attitude of the Obama administration towards the press and what we know (thanks to Snowden) about what it is our government is doing to just regular everyday citizens. The idea that this same government would not do so to a reporter who has filed critical work about them is IMO willfully naive.

Now if you really do think you know what the evidence is or is not? How did you come by it and why are you slumming here on the internet with the rest of us?
 
Mycroft said:
This suit isn't going to go anywhere.

As soon as the court tells the Obama Administration to turn over all emails and other evidence...a bunch of hard drives are going to crash.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom