Anonymous wrote:Wasserman Schultz’s brother, Steven Wasserman, is the Assistant US Attorney at the Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

No fan of DWS here. However, FWIW, there is no "the" Assistant US Attorney in the US Attorney's office. There is a "First Attorney" who is the second in command (and is also an assistant US Atty) and there are many, many assistant US Attorneys. I don't know how many are in the DC office of the US Attorney, but I would think it could be around 100.

Now, her brother should not have anything to do with this case. If he does, there is a problem.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

I'm thinking his family association to Hezbollah is relevant to his alleged life of criminal activities.

That depends on the details. Unfortunately, the poster who made that allegation has been unable to support it with a link so we are unable to find the details.

BTW, this brings me to another point. Do you think EVRYTHING is posted on the internet? If it's not posted on the internet, did it not happen?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
As I said, the statement has not been contradicted. Do you have evidence that the lawyer is lying?

"If not for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all" - Chris Plante

Please clarify what standard you use? On which standard do you base the allegation that Awan was "fleeing"? As far as I know, Chris Plante is not involved in this discussion. But since you are, let's hear about your standards.

Simple Jeff - every time we on the right post something, you want a link to back it up. When you fail to do the same about an actual "quote from a DOJ prosecutor" who was told Awan gave notice - crickets...

That's the double standard on your website, which is fine cuz its yours, however please note the hypocrisy. Apply the same standards accordingly.

First, you did not explain your standard. So, I'll assume that you have none. Second, you are actually wrong. I posted the entire statement by Awan's lawyer and it was subsequently reposted just a few posts back.

Again, I am not interested in your opinion of the "Democrats" standard or my standard. I want you to explain your standard. Can you do that or not?

I'm not interested in the lawyer's statement as it stands unless he can back it up with hard evidence. It's very vague

That's totally fine. If you don't accept that statement then there is no evidence that Awan notified the DOJ. However, there is still no evidence that he was "fleeing". We just don't know either way.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

Yes, I'm asking for a single standard also. Anyone who allows justice not to be served because they are muslim is also a bigot. See how that works?

Who is doing that? I'm all for Awan -- and DWS for that matter -- being prosecuted for any crimes they may have committed. I just don't think that Awan's religion or national origin are evidence of guilt and I disagree with those who do. If you are onboard with leaving his religion and national origin out of this, then we have no disagreement.

No, we're obviously not in agreement because we're 30 pages into this and you're still providing defense at every turn. Everything is explainable because you and he are both democrats. It's very obvious.

Jeff, just stop. You don't HAVE to keep defending it. Sometimes the best thing for you to do is stop typing instead of trying to throw roadblocks up to the friggin obvious. It's embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
As I said, the statement has not been contradicted. Do you have evidence that the lawyer is lying?

"If not for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all" - Chris Plante

Please clarify what standard you use? On which standard do you base the allegation that Awan was "fleeing"? As far as I know, Chris Plante is not involved in this discussion. But since you are, let's hear about your standards.

Simple Jeff - every time we on the right post something, you want a link to back it up. When you fail to do the same about an actual "quote from a DOJ prosecutor" who was told Awan gave notice - crickets...

That's the double standard on your website, which is fine cuz its yours, however please note the hypocrisy. Apply the same standards accordingly.

First, you did not explain your standard. So, I'll assume that you have none. Second, you are actually wrong. I posted the entire statement by Awan's lawyer and it was subsequently reposted just a few posts back.

Again, I am not interested in your opinion of the "Democrats" standard or my standard. I want you to explain your standard. Can you do that or not?

I'm not interested in the lawyer's statement as it stands unless he can back it up with hard evidence. It's very vague

Exactly.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

I'm thinking his family association to Hezbollah is relevant to his alleged life of criminal activities.

That depends on the details. Unfortunately, the poster who made that allegation has been unable to support it with a link so we are unable to find the details.

There were no further details beyond what was quoted. My apologies.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
As I said, the statement has not been contradicted. Do you have evidence that the lawyer is lying?

"If not for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all" - Chris Plante

Please clarify what standard you use? On which standard do you base the allegation that Awan was "fleeing"? As far as I know, Chris Plante is not involved in this discussion. But since you are, let's hear about your standards.

Simple Jeff - every time we on the right post something, you want a link to back it up. When you fail to do the same about an actual "quote from a DOJ prosecutor" who was told Awan gave notice - crickets...

That's the double standard on your website, which is fine cuz its yours, however please note the hypocrisy. Apply the same standards accordingly.

First, you did not explain your standard. So, I'll assume that you have none. Second, you are actually wrong. I posted the entire statement by Awan's lawyer and it was subsequently reposted just a few posts back.

Again, I am not interested in your opinion of the "Democrats" standard or my standard. I want you to explain your standard. Can you do that or not?

I'm not interested in the lawyer's statement as it stands unless he can back it up with hard evidence. It's very vague

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

I'm thinking his family association to Hezbollah is relevant to his alleged life of criminal activities.

That depends on the details. Unfortunately, the poster who made that allegation has been unable to support it with a link so we are unable to find the details.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

Yes, I'm asking for a single standard also. Anyone who allows justice not to be served because they are muslim is also a bigot. See how that works?

Who is doing that? I'm all for Awan -- and DWS for that matter -- being prosecuted for any crimes they may have committed. I just don't think that Awan's religion or national origin are evidence of guilt and I disagree with those who do. If you are onboard with leaving his religion and national origin out of this, then we have no disagreement.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

I'm thinking his family association to Hezbollah is relevant to his alleged life of criminal activities.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And until then, we should perhaps avoid the cool-aid.

You are welcome to offer that advice to the lawyer. As for me, I will not avoid reacting to the anti-Muslim bias that I see here.

Let me tell you something, pal. Muslims are no less answerable to the law than anyone else in this country, regardless of your interest in holding them on some pedestal as above everyone else.

Just asking for a single standard. The fact that Awan is Muslim is irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Anyone who uses his religion as a reason to suspect his guilt is a bigot.

Yes, I'm asking for a single standard also. Anyone who allows justice not to be served because they are muslim is also a bigot. See how that works?

Anonymous wrote:Wasserman Schultz’s brother, Steven Wasserman, is the Assistant US Attorney at the Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

Talk about collusion. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
ALARMING:

"According to court documents, federal prosecutors, and former CIA case officer Philip Giraldi, the Awans owed $100,000 to an international fugitive linked to Hezbollah."

This caught my eye on one of the links shared on this forum.

Given that I'm being berated about sources, do you have a link to your source for this?

1. Court Documents
2. Federal Prosecutors
3. Philip Giraldi, Former CIA Case Officer

As I had mentioned, I had noticed this on a link shared somewhere on this forum.

Um, do you know what a link is? Do you have one or not?

As per your previous remarks,
have you any evidence this is false?

No, I have no evidence that it is false. But, I would like to learn more about the allegation. Why can't you provide a link?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering if the Pakistani stepmother brought charges against Awan because she is anti-Islamic?

Um, eagerly awaiting admin's answer.

I understand that you folks are not used to reading more than the three or four words that fit on a meme, but maybe put a bit more effort into this discussion. I clearly said that not all of the people concerned with Awan are anti-Muslim.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
ALARMING:

"According to court documents, federal prosecutors, and former CIA case officer Philip Giraldi, the Awans owed $100,000 to an international fugitive linked to Hezbollah."

This caught my eye on one of the links shared on this forum.

Given that I'm being berated about sources, do you have a link to your source for this?

1. Court Documents
2. Federal Prosecutors
3. Philip Giraldi, Former CIA Case Officer

As I had mentioned, I had noticed this on a link shared somewhere on this forum.

Um, do you know what a link is? Do you have one or not?

As per your previous remarks,
have you any evidence this is false?