Wasserman Schultz Is A Shameful Character!

Report: Wasserman Schultz Screamed at House Official, Admitted To Intervening in Pakistani Deal

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Scandal Resurfaces

 

By Luke Rosiak 
June 5, 2018 at 1:49pm

 Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print

Ex-Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she intervened in a Pakistani land deal involving her then–IT aide Imran Awan, according to two House employees. The dispute came after Awan’s father was charged with fraud in relation to the deal, and the mysterious exertion of political influence resulted in Pakistani authorities instead targeting the elderly alleged victims, according to a local report.

And when a House Office of Inspector General cybersecurity investigation found that Awan made “unauthorized access” to House servers, including the House Democratic Caucus’ shortly before the election, Wasserman Schultz became “frantic, not normal,” “making the rounds” to House officials in an attempt to kill the investigation, one House employee told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Awan told people Wasserman Schultz chose the name for his daughter, Leza — a Jewish name — and that the Florida congresswoman’s daughter regularly rode a horse that Awan kept at a boarding facility, sources with knowledge of the relationship told The DCNF.

Wasserman Schultz cornered House Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko and called him a “f—ing Islamophobe,” saying, “You will not so much as take away their parking spots,” the two House employees said Kiko told them.

TRENDING: Business Responds To Town’s Order to Remove American Flags by Doing the Opposite

The congresswoman also told Kiko she had invited Awan’s whole family to her daughter’s bat mitzvah and said she had “helped him with a land deal,” the sources said. A spokesman for Kiko declined to comment on this story.

A 2009 article in the Pakistani publication Dawn, headlined “Influential expat shields father from long arm of law,” said Awan’s father was facing criminal fraud charges involving a land deal, but Awan used political connections to pressure the police into targeting the alleged victims instead.

Awan’s father purchased “huge chunks of land from different farmers in 2008,” but all the checks bounced, the report said. “The police high-ups are ‘ominously’ indifferent to proceed against Awan,” and it’s “noteworthy” how they were “complying with the desires of” Awan, who the paper described as a “White House employee.”

“About a dozen farmers of Chak 7-JB, Panjor, including five siblings — all aged between 57 and 70 — have given up hope of justice after they sold their agricultural lands to Ashraf Awan of Bole De Jhugi, who is father of White House employee Shahid Imran,” Dawn reported. Imran Awan also goes by Shahid Imran Awan, Virginia court records show.

Do you believe that Wasserman Schultz broke the law?

Yes No

Continue with Facebook

-- or --

 

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The police harassed the 19 would-be victims, including the five elderly brothers and even their lawyer, and charged them with “frivolous” cases, apparently to get them to stop trying to get the money they say they were owed, the paper said.

“Mohammad Abid, a victim of [Ashraf] Awan’s alleged high-profile swindling, said that [Ashraf] Awan’s son had easy access to the corridors of power and that’s why he was able to [pressure] the police to dance to his tunes,” Dawn reported.

The article details a series of people who say they were then subject to retaliation, including widow Bushra Bibi, who said “now Imran was threatening her with dire consequences.”

A third source, who’s familiar with Imran Awan, told TheDCNF that Awan recounted the intervention in the foreign criminal matter and that Awan said it was Wasserman Schultz who intervened. A fourth source — a fellow House IT aide — previously told TheDCNF that Awan said now-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was involved.

Dr. Zafar Iqbal, one of the alleged victims, told TheDCNF that “Imran came to Pakistan to get [his father] out of jail, since he had some [connections] in the Congress.”

RELATED: Ex-Navy Sailor Suing Obama, Comey After Being Pardoned by Trump

Ashraf Awan’s business partner in the land deal, Rashid Minhas, told TheDCNF that the elder Awan gave a USB to a Pakistani senator, who is a former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency, and that Imran claimed that his IT position in Congress gave him the power to “change the U.S. president.” Minhas is in prison for an unrelated fraud charge.

On July 25, 2016, the House Inspector General notified the Committee on House Administration that investigators had detected major cybersecurity violations by the Awan family. Awan, his wife, two brothers, his brother’s wife and even his elderly father were all being paid by various Democrats to manage their servers, with many of the members being from Wasserman Schultz’s Florida.

The finding came at a critical time for Democrats; it was three days after WikiLeaks published the first emails from a hacked on the DNC, setting the stage for Wasserman Schultz to lose her position as party chair and for Democrats to begin electioneering on a theme of Russian hacking.

In February 2017, Kiko and the House’s top law enforcement official, Paul Irving, outlined serious violations in a letter to the committee, and the family was banned from the House computer network. The letter also noted that the House Democratic Caucus server disappeared soon after the IG report named it as key evidence.

But Wasserman Schultz refused to fire Awan, with her spokesman saying he would work on “websites” and “printers,” which a cybersecurity expert previously told TheDCNF would presumably involve network access.

The congresswoman also added Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, to her payroll in late 2016, after the investigation was in full swing but before the family was banned from the network. Wasserman Schultz kept paying her until March 17 — 12 days after Alvi went to Pakistan with $12,000 in a suitcase.

Her actions so rattled the Administration Committee’s Democratic staff director, Jamie Fleet, that he planted a negative story in Politico that revealed Wasserman Schultz, his fellow Democrat, was continuing to pay the suspect, two House sources said. The story also said Wasserman Schultz had a “friendly personal relationship” with Awan and Alvi.

Fleet did not respond to a request for comment.

Kiko said in an April 2018 hearing spurred by the scandal that he was powerless to stop members who refused to fire a bad actor.

“Termination, now it’s the member’s responsibility … We can revoke everything but they could still be employed,” he said. He added that his office should have the authority to override members who would want to keep a rule-breaker on the government network.

Wasserman Schultz became fixated on finding out everything investigators knew about Awan, the House sources said. House investigators briefed her extensively with significant evidence about Awan and his family, including improper computer evidence.

Yet Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, “My office was provided no evidence to indicate that laws had been broken, which over time, raised troubling concerns about due process, fair treatment and potential ethnic and religious profiling.”

Wasserman Schultz was defending someone investigators allegedly told her was suspected of cybersecurity violations, despite having resigned from her position as DNC head following a devastating hack during the 2016 election.

Despite Wasserman Schultz’s relationship with Awan, in April 2017 — two months after he was banned from the computer network — the IT aide appeared to put the congresswoman at risk. Capitol Police found a laptop with the username RepDWS in a phone booth at midnight along with a copy of Awan’s ID, a letter to prosecutors and a note that said “attorney client privilege,” according to a police report. Awan’s ID caused police to tie it to a criminal suspect and seize it, but the note kept them from looking at it.

That led to a tense exchange recorded on video in May 2017, in which Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the Capitol Police with “consequences” for not returning the laptop. When he refused, she mulled attempting to restructure the Capitol Police’s entire board so that her committee would have more leverage over it.

House sources told TheDCNF these exchanges were only a public glimpse into numerous such interactions, which were frequently profane, with every official she could buttonhole. One source said she also went to the Department of Justice and “made a stink.”

Wasserman Schultz hired the House’s former top lawyer, Bill Pittard — who had recently quit the House — to try to block prosecutors from seeing evidence, TheDCNF previously reported. Awan obtained legal representation from two lawyers who began their careers in Miami — one with experience in espionage cases and the other a former aide to Hillary Clinton. Wasserman Schultz’ district includes much of Miami.

One of Awan’s lawyers told a judge he felt “very strongly” that prosecutors should not be able to look at the RepDWS laptop, mounting an attorney-client privilege argument. Prosecutors did not challenge the argument before the judge.

In August 2017, Imran and Hina were charged with four felony counts for gathering up money under allegedly false circumstances before wiring $300,000 to Pakistan in January. Prosecutors said the timing suggests that the Awans had learned of their investigation, which a spokeswoman for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, AshLee Strong, told TheDCNF was supposed to be secret. Capitol Police “requested that the shared employees be allowed to continue to use their IT credentials until February [2017] because they didn’t want to tip off the employees,” she said.

Wasserman Schultz’s brother is a prosecutor in the same office handling the case and has tweeted about it.

Gowen said the wire transfer instead had to do with the land deal, which he told the Washington Examiner was “quickly souring.”

Wasserman Schultz did not respond to a request for comment.

When Respect Of A Country's Institutions Diminishes, So Do Its Morals And Its Reason For Existing

Disrespecting Trump is no laughing matter

Posted on May 10, 2017 by John Myers

“You salute the rank, not the man.” — U.S. Army Major Richard Winters of Easy Company to Captain Herbert Sobel during the German surrender to Allied forces.

I’ve become fascinated by the words above written by Stephen E. Ambrose in his book Band of Brothers that was made into a television miniseries. They illustrate the respect demanded in the U.S. military. I had a chance to meet the renowned historian when he and I were both speakers at the New Orleans Investment Conference in the late 1990s. He was of an older generation and had a quiet confidence about him. We spoke only briefly because many veterans from the war were politely waiting their turn.

America today has little in common with the America that existed when members of Easy Company fought and died in World War II. Until the 1990s, there was an overriding respect for the presidency with the exception of the Watergate crisis in the early ‘70s. Today, without cause, there is lack of decency for the presidency. Nowhere is it more painfully pernicious than in late night comedy television.

Decency is dead

I grew up watching Johnny Carson, the man who built the blueprint for late night television. He was standard fare during my college years. A few years ago I watched a fascinating two-hour biography, “Johnny Carson King of Late Night” on PBS American Masters.

His close friend and onscreen sidekick Ed McMahon explained part of Carson’s mystique was that he never shared his political views. Carson explained his position by saying why should I automatically lose one half of my audience because of my political views which are worth nothing.

Compare Carson to today’s list of late night hosts who are rude, crude and deliberately disrespectful of President Donald Trump. Television hosts regularly ridicule the president, which inspires a loathing not just of President Trump, but of the presidency itself. This delights liberals who chortle at the Trump jokes and yet consider themselves as caring and kind Americans.

Last week late night television hit an all-time low.

For months, CBS “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert has focused his monologue on President Trump. Colbert has joked about Trump’s intellect, appearance and family.

This is from Colbert’s monologue last Wednesday:

Mr. Trump, I love your presidency. I call it Disgrace the Nation.

Sir, you attract more skinheads than free Rogaine.

You have more people marching against you than cancer.

You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*ck holster.

Liberals were outraged, but not because Colbert wasn’t funny or that it was a mean-spirited and obscene attack on the president of the United States. They were upset because they said Colbert used a homophobic reference. To liberals, the holster line was incredibly painful to homosexuals.

Tough times, but better than today

In the mid-60s an overwhelmingly majority of Americans respected the office of the president.  It was only after four students protesting the Vietnam War at Kent State were shot dead by the National Guard in 1970, followed by the publication of the Pentagon Papers — that proved that President Lyndon Johnson had been compulsively lying about the war — that Americans begin to turn against the presidency, then held by President Richard Nixon, who made matters far worse with his criminal coverup of the Watergate break in.  A decade later, President Ronald Reagan had restored respect for the presidency.

Thirty years later millions of Americans have an inexplicable rage against Trump. His haters, who number in the millions, say he is a racist, Islamophobe, misogynist and a fascist.

Claims that Trump is a racist can only be based on his convictions that America must protect the border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws.

If being an Islamophobe means being concerned enough to enact a temporary ban on peoples who openly espouse the murder of American, then that is a good thing for the president to be.

If Trump is a misogynist, it doesn’t show in his record in the private sector where many women filled top positions in his businesses.

In a 2008 interview with CBS News about women in the workplace, Trump praised the women he has hired over the years.

“Women are doing very, very well in my company and in virtually all companies. They’re tough, they’re smart, they’re competitive — they really are a force,” he said. “And they talk about the glass ceiling — I believe they’ve broken that glass ceiling many, many times over.”

As for being a fascist, Trump, at age 70, has displayed no evidence of this. There is nothing in his writing or in what he has said, which has been exhaustively covered over the past 30 years.

The Washington Post, March 28, 2017 wrote:

“There’s an oft-overlooked plank of 1930s fascism that’s missing from Trump’s worldview: an anti-capitalist populism that, no matter Trump’s campaign rhetoric, is not at all reflected in the White House’s proposed policies.”

Until he threw his hat into the ring for the presidency, Trump was considered what he was and still is, a New York, big government liberal. He is no further to the radical right than President George H.W. Bush was, but the two men’s personas and styles are miles apart. The populist rhetoric Trump used to win the presidency has no doubt attracted many on the radical right. But Trump’s four months in office do not back up liberal claims of an impending dictatorship.

Trump has been ridiculed, vilified and taunted by the Left, which wants to see him impeached. Democrats look every day under every rock to find something remotely criminal in Trump’s campaign. The longer they go without finding anything the angrier they become.

Respect for America has become a part of our past. If Americans cannot respect institutions like the presidency, they certainly cannot respect each other. To a very large degree, Americans no longer even respect themselves. There is an ugliness growing in America. The lack of decency and the widespread absence of respect are hastening America’s decline.

Yours in good times and bad,

— John Myers

If You Want To Protect Women From Shariah Law In Britain, You Are An Islamophobe

• ABOUT US
• EVENTS
• EXPERTS
• AUTHORS
• DONATE
• ARCHIVES
• MEDIA CITATIONS
• CONTACT
• MOBILE WEBSITE

Sharia Councils and Sexual Abuse in Britain by Khadija Khan April 14, 2017 at 5:00 am https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10191/sharia-councils-sexual-abuse Share197 Comment As bad as this is, there is an even darker side to the story: Under sharia law, the second husband is under no obligation to give his wife a quick divorce – allowing him to keep her as his virtual sex slave for as long as he wishes. If one asks how all of this jibes with British law, the answer is that it does not. The UK-based NGO, Muslim Women's Network, penned an open letter -- with 100 signatories -- to the British government and Home Affairs Select Committee demanding that the Sharia Council be investigated to determine whether its practices adhere to British law. In response, the Sharia Council declared the letter to be "Islamophobic" and accused the Muslim Women's Network of being an anti-Muslim organization. It is British law, not sharia, law that protects Muslim individuals and couples, as it does any other citizen. Contrary to what apologists for this travesty say, the plight of Muslim women should be treated as an issue of human rights. The most recent scandal surrounding the sexual exploitation of Muslim women by Islamic religious leaders in the UK is yet further proof of the way in which Britain is turning a blind eye to horrific practices going on right under its nose. A BBC investigation into "halala" -- a ritual enabling a divorced Muslim woman to remarry her husband by first wedding someone else, consummating the union, and then being divorced by him -- revealed that imams in Britain are not only encouraging this, but profiting financially from it. This depravity has led to many such women being held hostage, literally and figuratively, to men paid to become their second husbands. This ritual, which is considered a misinterpretation of Islamic sharia law even by extremist Shi'ites and Saudi-style Salafists, is practiced by certain Islamic sects, such as Hanafis, Barelvis and Deobandis. When a husband repeats the Arabic word for divorce -- talaq -- three times to his wife, these sects consider a Muslim marriage null and void. For such a woman to be allowed to return to the husband who banished her, she must first marry someone else -- and have sex with him -- before the second husband divorces her. These divorce rites, despite the laws of the land, are common in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and other Asian countries, where a majority of the people belong to the Hanafi, Barelvi or Deobandi sects. Nevertheless, local seminaries, mosques and online services openly advertise and promote halala with impunity; it is accepted by society and rarely monitored by state authorities. In Britain, halala has emerged as a booming business, with websites and social media sites offering to provide women with second husbands for exorbitant sums of money. As bad as this is, there is an even darker side to the story: Under sharia law, the second husband is under no obligation to give his wife a quick divorce -- allowing him to keep her as his virtual sex slave for as long as he wishes. One Muslim woman, who changed her mind about going through with halala after looking into the process, told the BBC that she knew others who did undergo the process, and ended up being sexually abused for months by the second husbands paid to marry them. According to a report in The Guardian, the Sharia Council of Britain says it deals with hundreds of divorce cases annually. This infamous council is indirectly responsible for what essentially has become a rape pandemic, since it does nothing to stop or refute halala. In fact, it declares that the practice is completely legal under sharia law. The only caveat, the council states, is that the imams presiding over it are not following the proper guidelines, according to which the second marriage and divorce should not be premeditated, but rather happen naturally. If one asks how all of this jibes with British law, the answer is that it does not. But young Muslims in the UK are discouraged by their communities from marrying through the British system, and are told to have imams perform their weddings and sharia councils register their marriages. Couples who comply end up being at the mercy of Islamic authorities in family matters, including divorce. Due to its often unethical practices conducted in the name of religious law, the Sharia Council has come under scrutiny a number of times. Last November, for instance, the UK-based NGO, Muslim Women's Network, penned an open letter -- with 100 signatories -- to the British government and Home Affairs Select Committee demanding that the Sharia Council be investigated to determine whether its practices adhere to British law. In response, the Sharia Council declared the letter to be "Islamophobic" and accused the Muslim Women's Network of being an anti-Muslim organization. In addition, Labour MP Naz Shah jumped to the defense of the Sharia Council, rejecting the idea of an inquiry, on the grounds that shutting down such councils could mean that more women would be stuck in abusive marriages. While acknowledging that these councils could be used as a tool to deny women their rights, Shah said that they also serve as valuable arbitrators in marital disputes. Her claims are totally baseless. It is British law, not sharia, law that protects Muslim individuals and couples, as it does any other citizen. Haitham al-Haddad is a British shari'a council judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves." (Image source: Channel 4 News video screenshot) Had the British government addressed Sharia Council malpractice when it was first revealed, we would not be facing this pandemic today. Contrary to what apologists for this travesty say, the plight of Muslim women should be treated as an issue of human rights. It is time for the British government to wake up and take a tough stand on such unethical, and probably illegal, system. And the sooner the better, lest the whole sharia council system go "underground" and out of reach to protect thousands of women from abuse. Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator. © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Words Mean Nothing When It Comes To Liberals

ND THE MOST JUDGMENTAL PEOPLE ON EARTH ARE …

'Scarlet Letters' writer Jack Cashill on 'gay,' Muslims, abortion and immigration

“Caitlyn” Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner

By Paul Bremmer

Progressives in America need to realize that when they point a finger at conservatives for “judging” various identity groups, there are three other fingers pointing back at them, journalist and author Jack Cashill says.

“The irony is that the left has prided itself historically on being anti-judgmental,” Cashill said in a recent interview on Phyllis Schlafly’s “Eagle Forum Live” radio show. “I mean, they have introduced that word ‘judgmental’ as though it were bad, and yet they are the most judgmental people on the planet.”

The things on which progressives pass judgment change from day to day, Cashill noted. He pointed to the recent controversy over use of the term “anchor baby” to describe the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

It was a term used by Senate Minority leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the Senate floor in 1993. His conclusion was that “no sane country” would allow illegal immigrants to so easily gain a foothold.

But when Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush uttered “anchor babies” last week, ABC reporter Tom Llamas charged the term was offensive. He suggested calling an anchor baby an “American child of undocumented immigrants.” Bush’s use of the term is now being treated as a gaffe by the media.

Cashill, a WND columnist, finds it infuriating that progressives are raising a stink over the term “anchor babies” at a time when several undercover videos have shown Planned Parenthood employees casually discussing the buying and selling of aborted-baby parts.

“These people who are willing to endorse groups that dismember real babies, unborn babies, healthy unborn babies and trafficking their body parts are dictating to us our morality?” Cashill asked. “How did we let them get away with this?”

Americans also have allowed progressives to define public morality, according to Cashill. And conservatives are not without blame.

“We’ve seen our political leaders buckle in the face of the merest insults or name-calling, the fear of being called a racist, the fear of being called a sexist, the fear of being called a xenophobe has led to some very bad policy decisions on the parts of Republicans, always prodded of course by Democrats and their progressive puppeteers,” he said.

“Cashill’s newest book, “Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism Exposed,” deals with this very topic of leftist name-calling.

In it, Cashill identifies the “seven deadly sins” against intolerant progressives: racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia and climate-change denialism.

Cashill calls self-righteous progressives “neo-Puritans” for their rigid adherence to a secular faith. And he believes this secular faith is actually the world’s second-oldest faith – the faith that humans can be like gods, as the serpent promised Adam in the Garden of Eden.

“For the left, they’ve adopted the idea that man can create his own universe more successfully than God can, and so they’re always tinkering,” he said. “They’re always improving. They’re always refining. And yet, as we know, it’s not like they’re making anything better. They’re simply appealing to their interest groups and calling it progress when in fact it’s regress.”

The “neo-Puritans” don’t tolerate dissent, according to Cashill. They assume anyone who disagrees with them has sinister motivations.

“So if you don’t believe in affirmative action, you’re racist,” he said. “If you don’t believe in illegal immigration, you’re a xenophobe. If you don’t believe that the earth is going to turn into a cinder in the next 10 years, you’re a climate-change denialist, a term they borrowed from the Holocaust. That’s how sinister their use of language is.”

Phyllis Schlafly, the host, jumped in and offered another historical comparison for what progressive are doing.

“It’s kind of like an inquisition, where you’re guilty before you even have a trial,” said Schlafly, a WND columnist and author of “Who Killed the American Family?”

Cashill acknowledged that not every part of the “neo-Puritan” coalition would naturally be in harmony. Most notably, two of the seven deadly sins are Islamophobia and homophobia, but Muslims could be considered “homophobes,” too, considering their religion’s intolerance of “gays.” But Cashill said such considerations don’t matter in the short term, because all parts of the coalition have the same goal.

“Muslim radicals wouldn’t seem to have much in common with gay rights activists, except they have the same enemy,” he said. “And that same enemy is traditional Judeo-Christian America. And their goal at this stage in both cases is to pull down the supports that maintain those traditions and those institutions.

“When that battlefield clears, if they win, they’re obviously going to have some trouble reconciling one group that wants to celebrate homosexuals and the other group that wants to stone them to death. They’re not exactly compatible worldviews.”

In fact, Cashill claimed Muslims used the homosexual lobby as an example of how to become part of the liberal grievance industry.

“Muslim activists saw the success that gay activists were having with the term ‘homophobe,’ so they borrowed the ‘phobe’ from the gays, who they would stone to death on their own terms, and they added it to Islam and then they used that as a weapon,” he said.

The neo-Puritan coalition invents new sins all the time, Cashill argued.

Witness the Bruce/Caitlin Jenner transformation saga. Two months ago, the author said, comedians were joking about Bruce Jenner. Then Jenner became a woman, gave a lengthy interview to ABC’s Diane Sawyer and received ESPN’s Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Now anyone who refers to “Bruce Jenner” is called a hater or “transphobe.”

“One day transitioning from male to female is bizarre, next day it’s sacred,” Cashill noted. “They have so imposed this kind of counterfeit morality on America that it is hard to know where it’s going to pop up next, so you always have to be vigilant.”

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2015 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/and-the-most-judgmental-people-on-earth-are/#9JsKs0cdkaCL8UkL.99