Breaking: Debbie Wasserman-Schulz' IT staffer arrested while trying to flee US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This tweet says it all:

"Imagine if a group of Congressional IT staffers illegally breached networks funneling massive amounts of data to a server which they then stole. Imagine they were giving govt intel & equipmemt to a foreign govt. Imagine if they were from #Russia, not Pakistan."

Good thread and links to previous thread with tons of questions about this questionable case: https://twitter.com/DropTha_Mic25/status/980772546080632832

Wow, I'd bet you dollars to donuts the person tweeting that is a Russian troll. Did you read the stuff they've posted?

Of course it is. Because. Dems. Pakistan

I find the original story disturbing, but that twitter feed is whack. If you think there's some pretty blonde lady in NYC tweeting out story after story in support of Trump and against the Democrats and things like gun control, then I've got a bridge in Moscow to sell to you. That's one giant Russian troll machine. I can't believe people fall for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

Because it's the same employer. The better analogy is whether companies do new background checks when an employee moves to a different department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There really isn't much to explain. This is yet another manufactured story, like Vince Foster, emails, Bengazi, all of the Nunes stuff down to Uranium One and Page-Strozak where the right is trying to do something to distract from its own actual crimes against the United States.

This has nothing to do with the current story. However, everyone of those things--with the exception, perhaps, of Vince Foster--has some basis in reality. And, please think about this--if one of Trump's senior advisors committed suicide, don't you think there would be some suspicions?

Emails: Comey did everything but say Clinton was guilty. There are certainly many reasons to believe the investigation was not conducted properly. Including a very inappropriate meeting on the tarmac between Bill and Loretta.NY FBI rigged the election by slow playing the issue in October- what server are the trumps and kushner using as I type this?
Benghazi: sending Rice out to repeat a lie five times on Sunday shows--when Clinton herself told Chelsea it was terrorism.Shit happens, it wasn't Hillary's fault. What is the US doing now to ensure the embassies are properly protected and staffed under this administration?
Uranium One: this is definitely troubling. Once more, if this happened with Trump, the Dems would be screaming, and so would the media. There is seriously no story here. Even Fox News admitted it. The timing as twisted by the right, is way off
Page-Strozk is documented. They were demoted and there is no question that Strozk was a powerful investigator at FBI. If this does not trouble you, you are in the tank with him or incredibly naive. Two people were texting each other. As soon as Mueller found out about it, the one was removed from the case. It would have been worse if he hadn't been removed, right? So what is the issue?

So really, there is almost nothing to stories the right propogated for years/decades to distract

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

Because it's the same employer. The better analogy is whether companies do new background checks when an employee moves to a different department.

But no one did the background checks! In your analogy, none of the departments would have done the background checks - not the first one, not the second one.

What is it going to take for you to understand that the background checks weren’t done? Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

Because it's the same employer. The better analogy is whether companies do new background checks when an employee moves to a different department.

But no one did the background checks! In your analogy, none of the departments would have done the background checks - not the first one, not the second one.

What is it going to take for you to understand that the background checks weren’t done? Seriously.

Actually the article did not say that. It said that none of the 44 current ones did. They conveniently left out former members, including the one who first hired him. This is how liars figure. They write a big long story with lots of detail but leave out the obvious, hoping you will not notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

Because it's the same employer. The better analogy is whether companies do new background checks when an employee moves to a different department.

But no one did the background checks! In your analogy, none of the departments would have done the background checks - not the first one, not the second one.

What is it going to take for you to understand that the background checks weren’t done? Seriously.

Actually the article did not say that. It said that none of the 44 current ones did. They conveniently left out former members, including the one who first hired him. This is how liars figure. They write a big long story with lots of detail but leave out the obvious, hoping you will not notice.

So you are just assuming that all of these people passed background checks? Despite the multiple DUIs, multiple 911 calls suggesting violence or intimidation, multiple lawsuits against them, sketchy payments from foreigners, and a bankruptcy filing? Why would you think that?

Do you have no concept of what the term “background check” means?

[Anonymous]

Actually the article did not say that. It said that none of the 44 current ones did. They conveniently left out former members, including the one who first hired him. This is how liars figure. They write a big long story with lots of detail but leave out the obvious, hoping you will not notice.

Nice spin.
Does this explain why DWS kept Awan on the payroll even after she knew he was being investigated? When he had been denied access to the system? You think she was depending on the fact that Wexler hired him first? Really? She seems to be his godmother on the Hill. Why? Because he was unfairly targeted because he was Muslim? That's what she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There really isn't much to explain. This is yet another manufactured story, like Vince Foster, emails, Bengazi, all of the Nunes stuff down to Uranium One and Page-Strozak where the right is trying to do something to distract from its own actual crimes against the United States.

This has nothing to do with the current story. However, everyone of those things--with the exception, perhaps, of Vince Foster--has some basis in reality. And, please think about this--if one of Trump's senior advisors committed suicide, don't you think there would be some suspicions?

Emails: Comey did everything but say Clinton was guilty. There are certainly many reasons to believe the investigation was not conducted properly. Including a very inappropriate meeting on the tarmac between Bill and Loretta.
Benghazi: sending Rice out to repeat a lie five times on Sunday shows--when Clinton herself told Chelsea it was terrorism.
Uranium One: this is definitely troubling. Once more, if this happened with Trump, the Dems would be screaming, and so would the media.
Page-Strozk is documented. They were demoted and there is no question that Strozk was a powerful investigator at FBI. If this does not trouble you, you are in the tank with him or incredibly naive.

Seriously, Boris, it's bedtime now. Your English is really getting good, though.
Sweet dreams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There really isn't much to explain. This is yet another manufactured story, like Vince Foster, emails, Bengazi, all of the Nunes stuff down to Uranium One and Page-Strozak where the right is trying to do something to distract from its own actual crimes against the United States.

This has nothing to do with the current story. However, everyone of those things--with the exception, perhaps, of Vince Foster--has some basis in reality. And, please think about this--if one of Trump's senior advisors committed suicide, don't you think there would be some suspicions?

Emails: Comey did everything but say Clinton was guilty. There are certainly many reasons to believe the investigation was not conducted properly. Including a very inappropriate meeting on the tarmac between Bill and Loretta.
Benghazi: sending Rice out to repeat a lie five times on Sunday shows--when Clinton herself told Chelsea it was terrorism.
Uranium One: this is definitely troubling. Once more, if this happened with Trump, the Dems would be screaming, and so would the media.
Page-Strozk is documented. They were demoted and there is no question that Strozk was a powerful investigator at FBI. If this does not trouble you, you are in the tank with him or incredibly naive.

Seriously, Boris, it's bedtime now. Your English is really getting good, though.
Sweet dreams

[Anonymous]

Luke Rosiak, the reporter who is closely following this story (and apparently the only one, really), was interviewed today. An excerpt:

“The House policy actually says that background checks are required, but if you delve into the fine print there’s technically a loophole that these members may have been able to invoke that essentially allowed another member just to vouch for them.”

“Before you turn over the passwords that give the guys access to all of the emails of the members of Congress and every file on their hard drives and all the staffers’ hard drives — they just kind of ask casually ask a friend, ask a fellow member of Congress and fill out this form — and turns out that all 44 members who employed Imran Awan, they never ran a background check.”

“If they would have run this background check it would have found out not only multiple criminal convictions, but $1 million bankruptcy, a dozen lawsuits … it would have found a whole host of major red flags and the Democrats didn’t do any of those checks,” Rosiak added. “As a result they gave these guys access access to everything and IG determined that they were funneling data off the House network.”

Rosiak said the entire scandal is becoming a Democratic cover up as investigators have been blocked from looking any deeper into the matter.

“There’s hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment suspected to have been stolen and that’s basically what the IG started investigating and then it found that data was coming off the network too. And we don’t know exactly what the data was. We know that it had, quote, sensitive file names according to the IG. And the reason we don’t know more because the House actually blocked investigators from looking at some of the stuff,” Rosiak said. “This is a cover-up.”

“This is the biggest story that you never hear about,” he continued. “It’s a hack on the Congress by foreigners and the Democrats didn’t care about it, they didn’t stop it. These are the same people who were talking constantly about cyber breaches and Russia. And if you care about one, you’ve got to care about the other. So why haven’t they addressed it?”

Rosiak thinks Democrats are silent on the scandal because it would interfere with their Russian hacking narrative and affect their grasp on power.

“It basically destroys that Russian narrative just because it shows that they didn’t actually care about cyber-security and they haven’t responded to this. And thirdly, it could just be a question of, do these guys have something on members of Congress?” he concluded.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/02/imran-awan-hacking-scandal/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

Because it's the same employer. The better analogy is whether companies do new background checks when an employee moves to a different department.

But no one did the background checks! In your analogy, none of the departments would have done the background checks - not the first one, not the second one.

What is it going to take for you to understand that the background checks weren’t done? Seriously.

Are we actually arguing about this? Pretty sure the arwan brothers/family should all be in jail. Except their mom, who they improsoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Links to other stories are in the article and listed below. Almost every story has specific documentation. There is a lot to this.

The guy first went to work for Robert Wexler. He is the one who should have done the background check, but since he is no longer in Congress, he is not part of the 44 members DC is going on about.

Naturally Daily Caller did not mention that they omitted the one person who should actually have done the background check. Liars figuring.

Why would you think that only the first guy should have done a background check? If I’m hiring a nanny, I’m not going to just assume the nanny’s last employer made sure her background check was okay. I’m also not going to hire more of the nanny’s relatives on the assumption that their backgrounds must be fine.

Responsible people do their due diligence. If you haven’t learned this yet in your life, you really should now.

Because it's the same employer. The better analogy is whether companies do new background checks when an employee moves to a different department.

But no one did the background checks! In your analogy, none of the departments would have done the background checks - not the first one, not the second one.

What is it going to take for you to understand that the background checks weren’t done? Seriously.

Actually the article did not say that. It said that none of the 44 current ones did. They conveniently left out former members, including the one who first hired him. This is how liars figure. They write a big long story with lots of detail but leave out the obvious, hoping you will not notice.

So you are just assuming that all of these people passed background checks? Despite the multiple DUIs, multiple 911 calls suggesting violence or intimidation, multiple lawsuits against them, sketchy payments from foreigners, and a bankruptcy filing? Why would you think that?

Do you have no concept of what the term “background check” means?

I know that he was hired in 2004, and the bankruptcy filing was in 2012.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There really isn't much to explain. This is yet another manufactured story, like Vince Foster, emails, Bengazi, all of the Nunes stuff down to Uranium One and Page-Strozak where the right is trying to do something to distract from its own actual crimes against the United States.

This has nothing to do with the current story. However, everyone of those things--with the exception, perhaps, of Vince Foster--has some basis in reality. And, please think about this--if one of Trump's senior advisors committed suicide, don't you think there would be some suspicions?

Emails: Comey did everything but say Clinton was guilty. There are certainly many reasons to believe the investigation was not conducted properly. Including a very inappropriate meeting on the tarmac between Bill and Loretta.
Benghazi: sending Rice out to repeat a lie five times on Sunday shows--when Clinton herself told Chelsea it was terrorism.
Uranium One: this is definitely troubling. Once more, if this happened with Trump, the Dems would be screaming, and so would the media.
Page-Strozk is documented. They were demoted and there is no question that Strozk was a powerful investigator at FBI. If this does not trouble you, you are in the tank with him or incredibly naive.

Seriously, Boris, it's bedtime now. Your English is really getting good, though.
Sweet dreams

Seriously, do you realize how stupod you sound? Only an imbecile would believe that the Russians are targeting some third tier website with their trolls.

[Anonymous]

I know that he was hired in 2004, and the bankruptcy filing was in 2012.

You do know that background checks must be redone from time to time? None of them are permanent. And, still, please explain why DWS kept Awan on her payroll after she was warned.