More Evidence of Political Coverup in Dem Wasserman IT Security Scandal

GOOGLE IS DEBBIE WASSERMANS BITCH.png

 

More Evidence of Political Coverup in Dem Wasserman IT Security Scandal

 

EmailPrintText Size

More evidence has surfaced about the disturbing political coverup of grave national security violations committed by the Pakistani who ran House Democrats’ information technology. His name is Imran Awan and last year he was arrested on bank-fraud charges at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C.  while trying to flee to his native Pakistan. Even after getting fired by some members of Congress for stealing computers and data systems, Florida’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, kept him and let him have access to her emails and files as well as the password to the electronic device she used for DNC business. At one point, Awan had access to the computers of dozens of members of Congress, including those on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. Judicial Watch has launched an investigation and is pursuing public records.

The government’s bizarre failure to prosecute Awan for the national security violations he appears to have committed points to a political coverup that’s dangerous, craven and borders on traitorous. A House Office of Inspector General investigation determined earlier this year that Awan and his relatives committed numerous violations of House security policies, including logging into the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times without authorization. The same news agency that reported that story published alarming new revelations in the case this month, concluding that “Democrats appear to want to keep the case out of court” because “a trial could expose their reckless IT practices.” It turns out that, not only has Capitol Police failed to make any arrests, it inadvertently gave evidence to defense attorneys that was supposed to go to prosecutors. It gets better; prosecutors appear to be sharing information with someone on Capitol Hill who in turn is leaking it to Awan’s lawyer.

Here is an excerpt from the news article published just a few days ago: “The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source.” Someone inside government apparently tipped off Awan’s lawyer, Chris Gowen, that a reporter was digging around for information on the Capitol Police’s suspicious mistake involving the mishandling of evidence. Gowen, a former public defender in Miami Florida, worked for Bill Clinton and on Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign. The exchange of information (known as discovery) in a federal criminal case occurs between prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense lawyers by either registered mail or a third-party copy service. Law enforcement is never involved, according to federal law enforcement sources contacted by Judicial Watch.

Legal experts and veteran federal agents contacted by Judicial Watch say something smells rotten in this case. The so-called inadvertent disclosure to Awan’s defense team by Capitol Police was intentional for one of two reasons, the experts assert. Perhaps the prosecution is alerting the defense of particular facts of the case to generate cooperation and further the probe into political figures. “This is possible because prosecutors are always gun shy when it comes to prosecuting political figures, especially the figures who may be culpable in the case,” said a longtime Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official who has worked on similar cases. “They do not want to go to trial for a number of reasons, so they are showing their hand to induce a plea with cooperation.”

The second reason, according to Judicial Watch’s sources, is that there is corruption and the inadvertent disclosure was purposeful to help bolster the defense without being obvious and backing down in court. “Either way, something is up,” a longtime federal agent told Judicial Watch. “I have never heard of anyone at the federal level inadvertently handing over documents to the defense en mass like this, never happens.” Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations and Research, maintains that “the Awan case has all the characteristics of a major national security crime, specifically, 18 USC Sec 793(f),” which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. A former military intelligence officer specializing in counterintelligence and human intelligence, Farrell added that treating the Awan case as anything less than a major national security crime is either negligence or complicity. “The bungled handling of evidence is disgraceful and amateurish,” Farrell said, adding that “the effort to bury, constrain and minimize the Awan case is deeply disturbing, and points to the need for a legitimate, full investigation by a competent law enforcement agency with substantial experience in counterintelligence and cyber-crime arenas.”

The Clinton Tentacles Engulf Every Single Russian Collusion Narrative - All Roads From Russia Lead To Hillary Clinton


CLINTON-COLLUDED-01.jpg

By Susan Duclos - All News PipeLine

With the recent release of the Senate Judiciary Committee's witness transcripts from those that attended the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting that has been the subject of so many media stories that accused Donald Trump Jr. of some type of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, not only did that narrative crumble when the truth was revealed, but yet more Russia  "connections" to Hillary Clinton have emerged.

The Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcripts of co-founder of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze, Anatoli Samochornov, Robert Goldstone, Rinat Akhmetshin and the written answers from Natalia Veselnitskaya.

The long story short on the circumstances surrounding the meeting, by all accounts by those participants, was that Donald Trump Jr. thought the other attendees, especially Natalia Veselnitskaya, had some type of opposition research on Hillary Clinton, but none was provided at the meeting and the meeting ended up being  focused mainly on the Magnitsky Act. There was no follow-up meeting scheduled.

WHO IS RINAT AKHMETSHIN?

According to an Axios report "Akhmetshin was apparently hired to work with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met with Trump on June 9, 2016, in a lobbying effort against the Magnitsky Act, a congressional measure that sanctions Russia and Russian figures."

That same report described Akhmetshin as a "former Soviet intelligence officer," and "a superlative Washington political operator who over the last two decades has repeatedly been at the center of cases involving corruption, dictators and sometimes war."

While the June 2016 meeting was the first and presumably the last time Akhmetshin met with any of the Trump family or campaign member, what was exposed in his 242 page interview transcript (PDF)  however, is yet another Russian involved in the meeting which the media held up as some type of evidence of "collusion," with the Trump campaign, personally "knew" Hillary Clinton and some of her 2016 presidential campaign members.

Akhmetshin, also called Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson a "colleague," but also admitted to knowing Hillary Clinton and members of her 2016 presidential campaign. He described his meetings with Clinton herself as having been in a "social setting."

On page 234 of the Akhmetshin transcript  he was asked "Did you ever have any meetings with the Hillary Clinton campaign or campaign officials officials?" His answer was "Not with officials, no."  After some back and forth with interviewers clarifying they were talking about her presidential campaign, Akhmetshin was asked "Well, regardless of whether you were involved, did you ever have any meetings?" He answered "I knew her, I knew some people who worked on her campaign."

The questioner then followed up "So you did have meetings with her and -- did you have meetings with Hillary Clinton?" His response was "I met her in a social setting, not on a professional line."

Breitbart reports that Akhmetshin's personal relationship with Hillary Clinton dates back to the 1990s.

On Page 37 of that same transcript Akhmetshin admits to having a business relationship with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, after being questioned about an email in an unrelated matter, where he referred to Simpson as a colleague in an email exchange.

Page 38 shows the following exchange:

Q. This is another email provided by your  counsel . It's an email from Glenn Simpson to Natalia Veselnitskaya , you , and Murat Glashev . It was sent on February 4 , 2016 . Mr . Simpson writes, "Natalia, I understand the meeting is tonight at  9 : 00 , but Rinat suggested we get together  beforehand . Are you free later this afternoon or  for dinner? "  What is the meeting at 9:00 he refers to ? A. I don't remember exactly. Maybe dinner? Q. Did you meet with Mr . Simpson and Ms. Veselnitskaya along with the legal team working on the Prevezon case at any time? A. I have, yes.


After questioning him at length about his association with Simpson, by page 231 he had denied that he spoke with Simpson about the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr.

Clintondossiercollusion.jpg

GLENN SIMPSON, FUSION GPS, THE STEELE DOSSIER AND HILLARY CLINTON

The reason I highlighted the connection between Akhmetshin and Glenn Simpson is because Simpson's company, Fusion GPS, hired Christopher Steele to create the unverified Steele dossier. The dossier's information admittedly came from Russia/Kremlin sources, and was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, via the law firm Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

That unverified dossier was then used by the FBI to obtain FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants to spy on a Trump campaign member, Carter Page. The FBI used the dossier without telling the FISA court that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded it.

Via the WSJ:
 

The most troubling issue is that the surveillance orders were obtained by withholding critical information about Mr. Steele from the FISA court. The court was not informed that Mr. Steele was personally opposed to Mr. Trump’s election, that his efforts were funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, or that he was the source of media reports that the FBI said corroborated his dossier. These facts are essential to any judicial assessment of Mr. Steele’s veracity and the applications’ merits.


So, once again, Hillary Clinton is connected to yet another piece of the puzzle that was used to spy on the Trump campaign.

STRZOK/PAGE TEXTS- RUSSIA INSURANCE POLICY - STRZOK MEETING WITH CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR

The information contained within the text messages exposed by the DOJ's Inspector General investigation, between FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and FBI special counsel Lisa Page, showed extreme anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bias.

Strzok held key positions in both the Hillary Clinton investigation, to the point where he helped change the rough draft of James Comey's statement exonerating her from using the term grossly negligent, which opened her up to criminal charges to the term extremely careless, also indicated that Strzok played a role in starting the Russia probe, which he referenced as an "insurance policy," in the even that Donald Trump won the election.

Strzok is also the agent that was tasked to meet with an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who in one version of the Mockingbird Media's ever-changing accounts of how the Russia investigation began, supposedly was told by a Trump campaign member, George Papadopoulos, that Russia had emails that would embarrass Hillary Clinton. There was no indication of whether those alleged emails were the 33,000 missing emails, or the ones published by Wikileaks from the DNC and John Podesta.

Later reports revealed that while the initial NYT claimed it was emails that Russia had, Downer himself says he was only told Russia had "material," that could damage Clinton, and on that basis, they claim, " Crossfire Hurricane," the counterintelligence investigation into possible coordination between members of Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.

It was also later revealed that it was Peter Strzok who interviewed Alexander Downer in London.

Coincidentally, or not, Alexander Downer was responsible for arranging "one of the largest foreign donations to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable efforts," to the tune of $25 million, back in 2006.

Once again, the FBI neglected to inform Congress of the Downer/Clinton connection. Republicans reportedly have expressed deep concern that nearly all the evidence the FBI used to justify the Russian probe, from their Crossfire Hurricane investigation all the way to Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation into collusion, were all connected to Hillary Clinton in some way.

ClintonTentacles2.jpg

BOTTOM LINE - THE CLINTON TENTACLES ENGULF ALL 'RUSSIA COLLUSION' NARRATIVES

When news of the Trump Tower meeting hits the news, the media and Democrats (yes, I know, redundant) screamed Collusion, yet multiple members of that meeting were Russian, and one admits to having known Hillary Clinton for years.

When the unverified dossier hit the Internet, once again everyone howled it proved collusion, a connection with Russia, to the point where even corrupt senior level members of multiple intelligence agencies, knowing the sources for the allegations were from the Kremlin, used the dossier, while lying to the FISA court about who funded it, to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

The media's own narrative that Papadopoulos claimed Russia had "material" that would damage Hillary Clinton, and passed that information on to Alexander Downer, includes the claim that Downer's information "prompted" the Russia investigation, and Downer arranged a $25 million donation to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton tentacles engulf every single Russian collusion narrative, yet it is the Trump campaign under investigation by Robert Mueller? 

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

 

You’re Not Allowed to Talk about It. About What? Don’t Ask!!!

“I am in a country that is not free… I feel jealous as hell of you guys in America. You don’t know how lucky you are.” — Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad), YouTuber with around a million subscribers.

By – Bruce Bawer 

Scroll 4Video

  • “I am trying to recall a legal case where someone was convicted of a ‘crime’ which cannot be reported on.” — Gerald Batten, UKIP member of the European Parliament.
  • “UKIP Peer Malcolm Lord Pearson has written to Home Secretary Sajid Javid today saying: if Tommy is murdered or injured in prison he and others will mount a private prosecution against Mr Javid as an accessory, or for misconduct in public office.” — Gerald Batten.
  • Good on Lord Pearson.

On Friday, British free-speech activist and Islam critic Tommy Robinson was acting as a responsible citizen journalist — reporting live on camera from outside a Leeds courtroom where several Muslims were being tried for child rape — when he was set upon by several police officers. In the space of the next few hours, a judge tried, convicted, and sentenced him to 13 months in jail — and also issued a gag order, demanding a total news blackout on the case in the British news media. Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was immediately taken to Hull Prison.

Most media outlets were remarkably compliant. News stories that had already been posted online after Robinson’s arrest at the Scottish Daily Record,Birmingham Live, The Mirror, RT, and Breitbart News were promptly pulled down, although, curiously, a report remained up at the Independent, a left-wing broadsheet that can be counted on to view Robinson as a hooligan. Indeed, the Independent‘s article described Robinson as “far-right” and, in explaining what he was doing outside the courthouse, used scare quotes around the word “reporting”; it then summed up the least appealing episodes in his career and blamed him for an attack on the Finsbury Park Mosque last January. Somehow, the Independentalso got away with publishing a report on London’s Saturday rally in support of Robinson.Also on Saturday, Breitbart UK posted a copy of the gag order, but redacted it as required.

The resulting document proved to be a perfect illustration of Western Europe’s encroaching tyranny.

Were all the articles in the British media pulled down “voluntarily”? There is no way to know for sure. On Sunday, at about noon Central European Time, one of my Facebook friends posted a link to what was apparently a new story at Breitbart UK, about Robinson’s imprisonment in Hull. Three hours later, however, the story was no longer there. Shortly afterward, I clicked on a link to an article at the Hull Daily Mail that Google summed up as follows: “Supporters of former EDL leader Tommy Robinson are urging people to write to him in Hull Prison — where they say he is in ‘grave danger.'” When I clicked on the link, however, the story had been pulled.

Carl Benjamin, who produces video commentary under the name “Sargon of Akkad,” is a popular British YouTuber who has somewhere around a million subscribers, and who routinely criticizes Islam, identity politics, and political correctness with wit and panache. He is generally a lively, free-wheeling, sardonic fellow, but in the two-hour-plus video he posted on Saturday about the Robinson case, he was uncharacteristically sober, exceedingly cautious, and at times even sounded mournful.

READ MORE:  Stockholm syndrome: The Mecca of moral elitism

“I did tell you that Britain isn’t a free country, didn’t I?” he said a minute or so into his video. “I’ve been saying it for ages… and nobody listens.” He made it clear he was not about to violate the gag order — not, as he put it, about to “blunder into the jaws of the beast, in much the same way as I guess Tommy has,” and thus “deliberately put myself in the line of fire with the UK government, giving them just cause to arrest me.”

Benjamin is a gutsy guy, so it was unsettling to hear him speak this way. The look on his face somehow brought home the dark reality underlying Robinson’s fast-track arrest, trial, conviction and incarceration. Benjamin emphasized that the most “sensible” thing for someone like himself [Benjamin] to do right now — he used that word, “sensible,” repeatedly — is to do his best to stay out of jail so that he can continue to speak up. “I am in a country that is not free,” he repeated gravely. “My options are limited… I feel jealous as hell of you guys in America. You don’t know how lucky you are.”

The upside — and the irony — of this case is that the gag order, while silencing the British news media, has caused people around the world to take notice. To be sure, a quick tour of major mainstream newspaper websites in Western Europe, North America and around the Anglosphere turned up nothing. But on alternative news sites around Europe, the story was front and center. The Fox News website reported on Robinson’s arrest — but even Fox, frustratingly, insisted on calling him a “right-wing activist.”

Judi McLeod, editor of the Canada Free Press, began her article:

“Where is Tommy Robinson? A question whose answer should be demanded rather than merely asked…. Modern day Merry England has become far more nightmare than fairytale, as it steadily works its way toward ugly police state status.”

McLeod also challenged Fox’s label for Robinson: “‘Right wing activist’? How about civil rights activist or humanitarian activist?”

Yesterday, my article asked when anyone in a position of power in Britain would speak up against Robinson’s arrest. Since then, Gerald Batten, a UKIP member of the European Parliament, has done so:

“I am trying to recall a legal case where someone was convicted of a ‘crime’ which cannot be reported on,” he tweeted. “Where he can be cast into prison without it being possible to report his name, offence, or place of imprisonment for fear of contempt of court. Can anyone remember such a case”

 

 

Shortly after noon on Sunday, London time, Batten tweeted:

“UKIP Peer Malcolm Lord Pearson has written to Home Secretary Sajid Javid today saying: if Tommy is murdered or injured in prison he and others will mount a private prosecution against Mr Javid as an accessory, or for misconduct in public office.”

Good on Lord Pearson. We can only hope his efforts make a difference — and that, in the end, a prosecution of Javid will not be necessary.

See also: Petition to Free Tommy Robinson

Follow  SaveMySweden

Read more:  From  2018/05/09 

Freedom of speech under attack from the left-wing establishment as Swedish Journalist Probed for ‘Hate Speech’ Over Sharia Cartoons

 

 

They posted on the same topic

Trackback URL : https://topnewsglobal.net/index.php?trackback/1884

This post's comments feed