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

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I continue to be amazed at the lack of coverage on this story. Looks like the 4th Estate is circling the wagons until the evidence is irrefutable. With the FBI working the case and a DOJ that will focus on the law, not politics we will eventually know the truth. Who wants to bet that this story has a link to Wikileaks, Seth Rich and the Russian fake story of hacking?

I want to bet. Terms?

DP. What do you mean by "terms"? Thanks.

What are we betting and what constitutes winning? I am willing to eat an edible cricket (per the suggestion) if this case turns out to have no connections to Wikileaks, Seth Rich, and the Russian hack of the DNC. Of course, the other person is going to have to make his/her identity known so we can make sure he/she eats the cricket when he/she loses the bet.

DP. Could they send a video eating it while face is partially masked to you?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe this dumb-ass thread is still going.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I continue to be amazed at the lack of coverage on this story. Looks like the 4th Estate is circling the wagons until the evidence is irrefutable. With the FBI working the case and a DOJ that will focus on the law, not politics we will eventually know the truth. Who wants to bet that this story has a link to Wikileaks, Seth Rich and the Russian fake story of hacking?

I want to bet. Terms?

DP. What do you mean by "terms"? Thanks.

What are we betting and what constitutes winning? I am willing to eat an edible cricket (per the suggestion) if this case turns out to have no connections to Wikileaks, Seth Rich, and the Russian hack of the DNC. Of course, the other person is going to have to make his/her identity known so we can make sure he/she eats the cricket when he/she loses the bet.

I'm curious, Jeff. Do you still believe Awan is an innocent who was just going on vacation?

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Being Muslim doesn't change that, as much as you might wish that it did. That said, the evidence that he lied on his mortgage application is compelling. But, do I think he was involved with Seth Rich? No. Do I think he was involved with the DNC hack? No. Do I think he leaked anything to Wikileaks? No.

[Anonymous]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

Today's update.

He may have had nothing to do with DNC leaks--but, considering the people he worked for, the possibility was certainly there.

Connection to Seth Rich? No idea. But, again, possible. Maybe Rich was on to them. If what the stepmom has said is true, these are not nice people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

Today's update.

He may have had nothing to do with DNC leaks--but, considering the people he worked for, the possibility was certainly there.

Connection to Seth Rich? No idea. But, again, possible. Maybe Rich was on to them. If what the stepmom has said is true, these are not nice people.

What did the stepmom say?

[Anonymous]

I'm so glad the Faily Caller is on this!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

Today's update.

He may have had nothing to do with DNC leaks--but, considering the people he worked for, the possibility was certainly there.

Connection to Seth Rich? No idea. But, again, possible. Maybe Rich was on to them. If what the stepmom has said is true, these are not nice people.

Damn. Another bombshell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

Today's update.

He may have had nothing to do with DNC leaks--but, considering the people he worked for, the possibility was certainly there.

Connection to Seth Rich? No idea. But, again, possible. Maybe Rich was on to them. If what the stepmom has said is true, these are not nice people.

So again, nothing. Nothing but the usual empty innuendo from Daily Caller.

How about we stop wasting our time and tune back in when the prosecutors/investigators actually have something to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

Today's update.

He may have had nothing to do with DNC leaks--but, considering the people he worked for, the possibility was certainly there.

Connection to Seth Rich? No idea. But, again, possible. Maybe Rich was on to them. If what the stepmom has said is true, these are not nice people.

So again, nothing. Nothing but the usual empty innuendo from Daily Caller.

How about we stop wasting our time and tune back in when the prosecutors/investigators actually have something to say?

You mean like Russia! Russia! Russia! Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/exclusive-dws-it-guy-was-banned-from-house-after-trying-to-hide-secret-server/

Today's update.

He may have had nothing to do with DNC leaks--but, considering the people he worked for, the possibility was certainly there.

Connection to Seth Rich? No idea. But, again, possible. Maybe Rich was on to them. If what the stepmom has said is true, these are not nice people.

So again, nothing. Nothing but the usual empty innuendo from Daily Caller.

How about we stop wasting our time and tune back in when the prosecutors/investigators actually have something to say?

You mean like Russia! Russia! Russia! Lol.

ROFL! Luke Rosniak > Robert Mueller!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Definitely one, possibly 2 but prob just the one, pathetically goosing this thread every day.

I am one who is goosing this thread only because new evidence is being produced. Its called a clue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I continue to be amazed at the lack of coverage on this story. Looks like the 4th Estate is circling the wagons until the evidence is irrefutable. With the FBI working the case and a DOJ that will focus on the law, not politics we will eventually know the truth. Who wants to bet that this story has a link to Wikileaks, Seth Rich and the Russian fake story of hacking?

I want to bet. Terms?

DP. What do you mean by "terms"? Thanks.

What are we betting and what constitutes winning? I am willing to eat an edible cricket (per the suggestion) if this case turns out to have no connections to Wikileaks, Seth Rich, and the Russian hack of the DNC. Of course, the other person is going to have to make his/her identity known so we can make sure he/she eats the cricket when he/she loses the bet.

I'm curious, Jeff. Do you still believe Awan is an innocent who was just going on vacation?

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Being Muslim doesn't change that, as much as you might wish that it did. That said, the evidence that he lied on his mortgage application is compelling. But, do I think he was involved with Seth Rich? No. Do I think he was involved with the DNC hack? No. Do I think he leaked anything to Wikileaks? No.

I'm the bet guy Jeff and agree Awan wasn't involved with the DNC hack or Seth Rich, so don't know what we are betting. Awan did have access to DWS account who was involved in the hack and possibly may know about Seth Rich, that is the connection. Jeff. as for eating a cricket, its not fair as during survival training back in the day I ate more bugs than you will ever eat.

[Anonymous]

What did the stepmom say?

Awan's stepmom said that the kids would not let her see her husband and that they made him sign documents that shut her out or something like that. It's in one of the articles at Daily Caller. She filed a complaint against the Awans --so it is not just Luke Rosiak saying this.

Most everything on Daily Caller has links to actual documents. The link to the police report is in this article:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/08/house-staffers-in-security-probe-allegedly-kept-stepmom-in-captivity-to-access-offshore-cash/

The list of articles about this family is at the bottom of the story. Highly recommend reading them. It is quite a puzzle of evidence. All depends on how many pieces are left.

The most troubling part is that Awan had access to emails, passwords, etc. of many, many Dem members of Congress--some of them quite powerful and tied to intelligence committees, etc. The list of those members of Congress is at the bottom of the article.

Rosiak has done little speculating in these articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fairness Doctrine would be at the whim of those who decide what "fair" is.

For example, who is fair? Fox or MSNBC and CNN? Depends on your meaning of "fair".

Was it just an oversight that NYT left out Menendez party? That NBC reported him as a Republican?

Take WAPO from last summer/fall: get a marker and underline the adjectives in the political articles. Decide which articles are fair.

Fairness depends on point of view.

I think CNN is unfair--you may think Fox is unfair.

Newspapers used to report facts with little bias except on editorial pages.
No longer.

But, of course, the biggest bias is reflected in what they choose to report. Who would determine "fairness" there?

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fairness Doctrine would be at the whim of those who decide what "fair" is.

For example, who is fair? Fox or MSNBC and CNN? Depends on your meaning of "fair".

Was it just an oversight that NYT left out Menendez party? That NBC reported him as a Republican?

Take WAPO from last summer/fall: get a marker and underline the adjectives in the political articles. Decide which articles are fair.

Fairness depends on point of view.

I think CNN is unfair--you may think Fox is unfair.

Newspapers used to report facts with little bias except on editorial pages.
No longer.

But, of course, the biggest bias is reflected in what they choose to report. Who would determine "fairness" there?

Well said.

No, the PP is actually full of sh#t. The Fairness Doctrine didn't require the FCC or any other bureaucrat to decide what's "fair." It merely stipulated that an FCC-licensed broadcaster had to present the opposite points of view on a contentious issue of the public interest. If a broadcaster did not present the opposite point of view, viewers could file a complaint against the broadcaster. Networks had plenty of editorial latitude - they just couldn't blatantly lie without getting push back.

The truth should not be jeopardized in the name of "free speech." That's like telling a black person to accept a KKK grand wizard in the name of "tolerance."