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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh noes... the popcorn is tasting better every day!

Ron DeSantis: Fired Debbie Wasserman Schultz aide may have terrorist ties

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ron-desantis-fired-debbie-wasserman-schultz-aide-may-have-terrorist-ties/article/2630522

Yup Im popping mine too now that we have a grand jury and subpoena'a for RussiaGate, Debbie who?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love you Jeff, however I continue to see a pattern with your comments over the years on DCUM. You are always quick to question something that makes a Democrat look bad, yet at the same time quick to jump on the fake news about anything to do with this Russia story. This Awan arrest is big and will eventually connect all the missing pieces that Mueller is investigating.

FWIW popcorn is my favorite snack!

Not true. I have dismissed many aspects of the Russia story. I have repeatedly attacked the allegation that Trump had a server in Trump Tower that communicated with the Russians. I have probably been the most vocal critic on DCUM of that loony Louise Mensch. I have evaluated the Russian allegations based on the evidence supporting them and when that was found lacking, I have dismissed them.

In contrast, you folks are drawing lines from Awan that have no relationship to known facts and are obviously based in simple prejudice.

Why then are you always deleting any comments in the political thread that has to do with the investigation of Clinton and the emails? The WSJ thread alone has focused on Russia alone, while the Special Prosecutor has "wide range" of investigator options and it can take any path it wants. When theories come up on Clinton, you quickly delete it.

You keep posting off-topic posts. Mueller was hired to investigate Russia, not Awan and Pakistan. In your fantasies, these are somehow connected. But, legal process are not based on your imagination. Rather, they are based on reality.

Moreover, and this shows how warped your thinking is, you are acting like Clinton (who had a private email server but no known leaked emails), the DNC (whose email was hacked), and Awan (who did no work for the DNC) to all be the same thing. The posts I removed had nothing to do with Clinton, yet here you describe them that way.

DP. I thought his investigation allows him to go anywhere it takes him. Is that wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love you Jeff, however I continue to see a pattern with your comments over the years on DCUM. You are always quick to question something that makes a Democrat look bad, yet at the same time quick to jump on the fake news about anything to do with this Russia story. This Awan arrest is big and will eventually connect all the missing pieces that Mueller is investigating.

FWIW popcorn is my favorite snack!

Not true. I have dismissed many aspects of the Russia story. I have repeatedly attacked the allegation that Trump had a server in Trump Tower that communicated with the Russians. I have probably been the most vocal critic on DCUM of that loony Louise Mensch. I have evaluated the Russian allegations based on the evidence supporting them and when that was found lacking, I have dismissed them.

In contrast, you folks are drawing lines from Awan that have no relationship to known facts and are obviously based in simple prejudice.

Why then are you always deleting any comments in the political thread that has to do with the investigation of Clinton and the emails? The WSJ thread alone has focused on Russia alone, while the Special Prosecutor has "wide range" of investigator options and it can take any path it wants. When theories come up on Clinton, you quickly delete it.

You keep posting off-topic posts. Mueller was hired to investigate Russia, not Awan and Pakistan. In your fantasies, these are somehow connected. But, legal process are not based on your imagination. Rather, they are based on reality.

Moreover, and this shows how warped your thinking is, you are acting like Clinton (who had a private email server but no known leaked emails), the DNC (whose email was hacked), and Awan (who did no work for the DNC) to all be the same thing. The posts I removed had nothing to do with Clinton, yet here you describe them that way.

DP. I thought his investigation allows him to go anywhere it takes him. Is that wrong?

Here is a story in the ABA Journal examining the scope of Mueller's investigation - hopefully you will find it helpful:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/does_scope_of_robert_muellers_investigation_into_russian_influence_include/

The TL;DR: He can't go investigate that speeding ticket your mom got in Milwaukee cause the police officer was totally biased against her. Similarly, the things you are interested in - relating to what you perceive as various Democrats' misdeeds - are likely outside the scope of what Mueller was brought in to investigate: "links between the Russian government and individuals associated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

I would be surprised if your mom's ticket or the theories about Democrats fall into that bucket. I've been wrong before, but I would be very surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love you Jeff, however I continue to see a pattern with your comments over the years on DCUM. You are always quick to question something that makes a Democrat look bad, yet at the same time quick to jump on the fake news about anything to do with this Russia story. This Awan arrest is big and will eventually connect all the missing pieces that Mueller is investigating.

FWIW popcorn is my favorite snack!

Not true. I have dismissed many aspects of the Russia story. I have repeatedly attacked the allegation that Trump had a server in Trump Tower that communicated with the Russians. I have probably been the most vocal critic on DCUM of that loony Louise Mensch. I have evaluated the Russian allegations based on the evidence supporting them and when that was found lacking, I have dismissed them.

In contrast, you folks are drawing lines from Awan that have no relationship to known facts and are obviously based in simple prejudice.

Why then are you always deleting any comments in the political thread that has to do with the investigation of Clinton and the emails? The WSJ thread alone has focused on Russia alone, while the Special Prosecutor has "wide range" of investigator options and it can take any path it wants. When theories come up on Clinton, you quickly delete it.

You keep posting off-topic posts. Mueller was hired to investigate Russia, not Awan and Pakistan. In your fantasies, these are somehow connected. But, legal process are not based on your imagination. Rather, they are based on reality.

Moreover, and this shows how warped your thinking is, you are acting like Clinton (who had a private email server but no known leaked emails), the DNC (whose email was hacked), and Awan (who did no work for the DNC) to all be the same thing. The posts I removed had nothing to do with Clinton, yet here you describe them that way.

DP. I thought his investigation allows him to go anywhere it takes him. Is that wrong?

Here is a story in the ABA Journal examining the scope of Mueller's investigation - hopefully you will find it helpful:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/does_scope_of_robert_muellers_investigation_into_russian_influence_include/

The TL;DR: He can't go investigate that speeding ticket your mom got in Milwaukee cause the police officer was totally biased against her. Similarly, the things you are interested in - relating to what you perceive as various Democrats' misdeeds - are likely outside the scope of what Mueller was brought in to investigate: "links between the Russian government and individuals associated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

I would be surprised if your mom's ticket or the theories about Democrats fall into that bucket. I've been wrong before, but I would be very surprised.

Has anyone (directly working on this) said that it was ONLY Russian meddling?

[Anonymous]

Are you asking if other countries are thought to, or known to, have also been linked to Trump's campaign? What are you asking?

[Anonymous]

And the PR campaign of the left starts...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/08/04/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-she-did-the-right-thing-standing-by-it-staffer-arrested-by-feds-n2364347

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And the PR campaign of the left starts...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/08/04/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-she-did-the-right-thing-standing-by-it-staffer-arrested-by-feds-n2364347

That is not a PR campaign by "the left". It is an interview by DWS. One person answering questions does not represent a coordinated action by an entire portion of the political spectrum. Your hysterical exaggerations make you look foolish.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the PR campaign of the left starts...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/08/04/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-she-did-the-right-thing-standing-by-it-staffer-arrested-by-feds-n2364347

That is not a PR campaign by "the left". It is an interview by DWS. One person answering questions does not represent a coordinated action by an entire portion of the political spectrum. Your hysterical exaggerations make you look foolish.

Why wait almost two weeks since the arrest to grant the "interview"? In this town, granting an interview when you aren't looking good is always thoroughly vetted and those inside the Clinton circle are famous for this with a complicit and friendly media.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the PR campaign of the left starts...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/08/04/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-she-did-the-right-thing-standing-by-it-staffer-arrested-by-feds-n2364347

That is not a PR campaign by "the left". It is an interview by DWS. One person answering questions does not represent a coordinated action by an entire portion of the political spectrum. Your hysterical exaggerations make you look foolish.

Why wait almost two weeks since the arrest to grant the "interview"? In this town, granting an interview when you aren't looking good is always thoroughly vetted and those inside the Clinton circle are famous for this with a complicit and friendly media.

Everything for you is a conspiracy. I'm part of the left. DWS didn't coordinate with me. She may have coordinated with her press secretary, but even the two of them don't represent the left. By your reasoning, when Trump Jr. released his press release about his meeting with the Russians -- which was clearly coordinated with many in his fathers administration -- it was "a PR campaign of the right". In reality, it was a PR campaign by a small group of people, not the entire right.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the PR campaign of the left starts...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/08/04/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-she-did-the-right-thing-standing-by-it-staffer-arrested-by-feds-n2364347

That is not a PR campaign by "the left". It is an interview by DWS. One person answering questions does not represent a coordinated action by an entire portion of the political spectrum. Your hysterical exaggerations make you look foolish.

Why wait almost two weeks since the arrest to grant the "interview"? In this town, granting an interview when you aren't looking good is always thoroughly vetted and those inside the Clinton circle are famous for this with a complicit and friendly media.

Everything for you is a conspiracy. I'm part of the left. DWS didn't coordinate with me. She may have coordinated with her press secretary, but even the two of them don't represent the left. By your reasoning, when Trump Jr. released his press release about his meeting with the Russians -- which was clearly coordinated with many in his fathers administration -- it was "a PR campaign of the right". In reality, it was a PR campaign by a small group of people, not the entire right.

For once you and I agree - everything in this town is scripted and clearly coordinated. The problem is that only a few see it and in my mind its far from a conspiracy. Rather DWS realizes she is in trouble and the Clinton machine has circled Awan with their handpicked attorney to keep things quiet. If they are successful, then we can discuss the conspiracy issues.

[Anonymous]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/04/wasserman-schultz-says-laptop-she-sought-to-keep-from-police-was-awans-not-hers/

Turns out the computer that she hired a lawyer to get back was not hers.....it was Awan's. She sure fought hard with Capitol police over it. This smells more and more.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or maybe it's not on the front page of the post for the same reasons your comet ping pong story wasnt on the front page -- because it is a made up story intended to distract and deflect.

Made up? Not so much.......The people were employed in IT at generous salaries. The wife moved to Pakistan with family. Charges against the family and the one still here has an ankle bracelet. What is made up about this?

What charges have been made against the family? I haven't heard of any charges other than the bank fraud charge against Imran Awan.

And you believe all this is not worth the coverage? How much more do you need to get WP report? Some Russian ties I guess. Ties with Pakistan would not do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

it's possible there is nothing criminal here except for bank fraud (now, bank fraud is not front page news but i certainly wouldn't want to commit one). we don't know yet.

Bank fraud may not be front page news. But, the circumstances around this case should be. Why did DWS keep him on the payroll when he was denied access to the network? After all, he was her IT guy. Why were these people employed in what were surely somewhat sensitive jobs, when they were going bankrupt? These people may not be crooks, but it sure appears that way.

Step-mother's charges against them are pretty awful. Yet, they were employed on the Hill.

The front page stuff?
They were working for lots of DEMs --including DWS. DWS was Chair of DNC when it was hacked. Is it too much of a stretch to think her IT guys had access?
DWS would not fire the guy.
A computer was mysteriously "found" which may be evidence in a case against Awan. DWS gave a thinly veiled threat to the Chief of Capitol Police about the laptop. She claimed it was hers--even though it was part of the investigation, and, I would think, belongs to the taxpayers.

Bank fraud--when the guy was fleeing to Pakistan. When wife had taken more cash than allowed to Pakistan. Fake loan and strong connection to DWS and access to her computers and devices. That is the front page news.

A question for you, PP: What are your thoughts on Russia's connection with the 2016 election?

There are several threads on this topic, please move your question there.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/04/wasserman-schultz-says-laptop-she-sought-to-keep-from-police-was-awans-not-hers/

Turns out the computer that she hired a lawyer to get back was not hers.....it was Awan's. She sure fought hard with Capitol police over it. This smells more and more.

She says the laptop was purchased with government funds from her office. So, it is neither hers nor Awan's.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/04/wasserman-schultz-says-laptop-she-sought-to-keep-from-police-was-awans-not-hers/

Turns out the computer that she hired a lawyer to get back was not hers.....it was Awan's. She sure fought hard with Capitol police over it. This smells more and more.

She says the laptop was purchased with government funds from her office. So, it is neither hers nor Awan's.

Now she admits that. She certainly did not admit it when she spoke to Capitol Police Chief at the budget hearing. She kept saying it was her property--or "a member's property" something like that. Her story has changed.