The just us dept strikes again!!

It amazes me that it amazes me that this incredible trail of corruption, espionage and Democratic malfeasance is being covered up successfully.

Time to fire Mueller, Rosenstien and Sessions, they ain't gonna like you Donald, no matter what you. Scorched earth time. The Next DOJ need to understand it's democrap open season. Obama, Cliton ALL of them....

quote:

not sure where this one went wrong, but this isn't the outcome I anticipate

Except it didn't go wrong; it went exactly to plan. He was a democratic IT guy. There is a different set of laws that apply to them. The left controls the pathetic excuse for a justice system we have, and they don't turn on their own. No matter what.

Now had he been a republican IT guy, the full weight of the Secret Police (DOJ/FBI) would have fallen on him like a ton of bricks. Seals would have kidnapped his family from Pakistan so Brennan could waterboard them for information.

What a wonderful two-tiered system of "justice" we have in this country!

These news stories EVERY GOD DAMN day are enough to piss a motherfucker right off.

NO INDICTMENTS on the left. Ever!! Burn the conservatives to the ground!! The hole damn system is rotten to the core.

Letter from Newt Gingrich sent 16 Nov 2017 to House IG

To: U.S. House of Representatives Inspector General Mike Ptasienski

As a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a concerned private citizen, I am alarmed by the appearance of a cover-up of serious crimes committed by a former House employee and his associates, as well as, potentially, members of the House of Representatives themselves.

I waited until after the election to send this letter so it clearly would not be seen as a political act.

To help reassure the American people that our nation’s leaders stand for honesty, accountability, and transparency, this letter is a formal request to ask for the release of the two PowerPoint presentations given on September 20, 2016 and September 30, 2016 by your office to House leadership.

The presentations provide critical information pertaining to the possible invoice manipulation, equipment theft, illicit cyber activities, irregular cyber-related login and usage patterns, and outside storage of House data by Imran Awan and his associates.

The plea agreement for Mr. Awan, court appearances, and reported conversations with witnesses connected to the FBI’s investigation of Awan and his associates’ activities suggests that the FBI (while working with the United States Capitol Police) and the Department of Justice have avoided conducting a thorough and meticulous investigation.

For example, in the July 2018 plea agreement, the DOJ stated that approximately 40 witnesses were interviewed throughout the duration of the investigation. Upon further examination, this number seems substantially inadequate for an investigation potentially involving so many individuals. While employed by the House for 13 years as shared IT employees, the Awan associates worked for more than 60 members, and in 2015, 2016, and 2017, the Awan associates were on the payrolls of approximately 40 members each year.

When taking into account the members, the staff of each member, fellow House IT colleagues and peers, and additional business associates, the 40 interviews that were conducted appear to be remarkably insufficient to support the argument that an investigation of this magnitude was conducted thoroughly.

In connection with the investigation, it has also been reported that key witnesses were only contacted days or hours before the plea agreement was signed. In another case, a witness was asked to be interviewed by the FBI but was prohibited from bringing any documents. Conducting investigative interviews in this manner suggests that the FBI investigators merely wanted to be able to say that they contacted witnesses and raises significant questions as to whether these interviews were actually conducted in good faith.

Aside from the alleged criminals themselves, this apparent collective effort of willful negligence sought to protect the involved members of Congress and their staffs – at the expense of the American people who they were entrusted to protect in the first place.

The sheer scale and size of the alleged criminal activity, the potential damage it could have caused, and the continual threats it potentially poses for the United States, raises significant questions that every American deserves to have answered.

In just one of the dozens of offices where one of the Awan associates were employed, almost $120,000 worth of equipment was written off of the House inventory, after he was unable to produce the equipment. An unofficial transcript of your office’s PowerPoint presentation from September 20, 2016 asserts that the “shared employee stated that the items were never received, shouldn’t have been inventoried, or the staff lost the equipment.” The flaw in this claim is emphasized by the transcribed statement that follows: “However, equipment could not be on inventory or have [an] asset tag unless it had arrive[d] in office and EIN had been signed.”

The member of the office in question is a member of the Committee on Ethics.

Additionally, more than $111,000 was paid by the House Democratic Caucus to one of the Awan associates throughout the duration of her employment. Members on the Committee of Foreign Affairs issued payments to associates totaling more than $950,000. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence paid the associates over $530,000, while the Committee on the Judiciary paid more than $446,000. The Committee on Ethics paid more than $221,000, and the Committee on Homeland Security paid upwards of $175,000.

Close ties between Pakistan and the Awan associates were also identified, including large amounts of property that were owned but not properly disclosed in House documents. A $165,000 home equity line of credit loan received in January 2017 was wired in its entirety – almost immediately – to two individuals in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Imran Awan pleaded guilty this summer to obtaining this exact loan illegally.

These allegations and the accompanying investigation have been kept under such secrecy that the American people have been denied their fundamental right to know what happened, who is responsible, and what actions have been taken to ensure the fair and transparent administration of justice.

The American people expect better than this. The United States Congress should be better than this.

Releasing the requested documents is essential to show that the U.S. government will require every member of Congress to answer to his or her constituents and fellow citizens for his or her actions.

If you choose to deny this request, I will appeal to the House membership to pass a resolution that will make public the two documents, and all additional documents that are related to the claims made against and his associates, investigators and law enforcement, and the House members and staffers who may be involved.

Americans deserve truthful, complete answers to the questions that have been raised surrounding these extensive allegations.

Sincerely,

Newt Gingrich
Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

DOJ Refuses To Release Records On Imran Awan, Citing ‘Technical Difficulties’ And A Secret Case, Court Docs Show

https://dailycaller.com/2019/1...-imran-awan-records/

December 13, 2019 6:17 PM ET


Judicial Watch sued the Department of Justice for records about former Democratic cybersecurity aide Imran Awan in order to square evidence of wrongdoing with prosecutors’ decision not to charge malpractices on Capitol Hill.
The DOJ said it could not produce records under FOIA because of “technical difficulties,” then said it was actually because of a secret case it had not wanted to mention, according to a court filing.
As the lawsuit heated up, a judge appears to have erased information about Awan’s wife Tina Alvi from the record, despite the DOJ itself opposing such a move as highly unusual.

The Department of Justice is withholding documents about the Imran Awan cybersecurity scandal by saying there is an ongoing, secret case related to matter, according to court papers.

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Nov. 7, 2018, for 7,000 pages of Capitol Police records related to the cybersecurity investigation, and Aug. 2, the DOJ agreed to begin producing records by Nov. 5.

That deadline came and went with no records being produced; on a Nov. 13 phone call, the DOJ said “technical difficulties” had resulted in a delay, Judicial Watch stated in a court filing.

The DOJ later changed its story and said it was actually withholding documents “pursuant to an Order issued by the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan who is presiding over a related sealed criminal matter,” prosecutors said in a Dec. 5 filing. (RELATED: Fifteen Things To Know About ‘Pakistani Mystery Man’ Imran Awan)

“The ‘difficulties’ in providing responsive material was [sic] due to the unexpected and unique set of facts described above that was out of control of the Defendant. Defendant’s only motivation was to maintain the integrity of the sealed matter as much as possible,” assistant U.S. Attorney Benton Peterson said in the filing.

Awan’s attorney, Chris Gowen, did not respond to a request for information about any ongoing case.

The Department of Justice said it closed the investigation with a plea deal to minor charges July 3, 2018.

Prosecutors issued what Chutkan acknowledged at the time was an unusual statement explicitly saying a lengthy investigation had found no crimes related to his work as a computer administrator for House Democrats. The plea deal even gave Awan partial immunity.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request in an attempt to square that determination with a large body of evidence of suspicious behavior, which included alleged threats against witnesses, connections to foreign officials, false House ethics disclosures, severe cybersecurity violations documented by the House inspector general, disappearing computer equipment, and bullying of the Capitol Police by Democratic Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz for examining evidence in the case.

In court Friday, the DOJ lawyer said he had not actually seen any judge’s order requiring secrecy, and he would not commit to explaining to the judge why the case had to be secret — even if that explanation was itself given privately.

He told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta, who is presiding over the FOIA lawsuit, that “On Nov. 4, the day before we were supposed to make a production, the agency was informed by one of its custodians that there may have been a seal that would impact production … It was only in learning of the sealing order that I learned that I couldn’t discuss the sealing order … We have this cache of documents that we were going to produce, but now we can’t.”

Mehta said that “typically when criminal cases have concluded, the materials become public and I don’t know whether there’s any relationship between the judge’s order and that case … The seal Judge Chutkan has ordered, is that itself sealed?”

“That’s under seal as well,” Benton Peterson replied.

“Have you seen a copy of that order?” the judge asked.

“I have not,” he said, acknowledging he was also “fairly unfamiliar with the criminal matter” and that “I fairly rarely do FOIA.”

Judicial Watch’s attorney, James Peterson, replied what they were being told is “simply not accurate … We were sandbagged over the phone the day before it was due with something that was not true, and we don’t even know if there is a sealed order.”

“I appreciate your frustration. This case was filed seven, eight months ago and we’re only now hearing of this sealing issue. I would be interested in getting a written copy of the sealing order, among other things,” Mehta said.

Court records that have since been erased suggest that far from prosecuting the Awans for new crimes, the “sealed” matter might be because Chutkan agreed to essentially expunge records related to Awan’s wife Hina Alvi — a request that was strongly opposed by the DOJ itself as unfounded and extraordinary. (RELATED: Awan’s Own Wife Turns, Accuses Him Of Fraud, Violent Threats)

On Oct. 9, 2018, Alvi’s attorney drafted a proposed “order to seal public criminal records” for the judge to consider.

On Oct. 16, 2018, prosecutors filed a “government’s opposition to defendant’s motion to seal publicly available records of a non-conviction.”
Imran Awan with Bill Clinton / Facebook | 15 Things About 'Pakistani Mystery Man'

Imran Awan with Bill Clinton / Facebook | 15 Things About ‘Pakistani Mystery Man’

“The Court should summarily deny defendant’s motion,” they wrote. “Defendant cannot establish that her arrest was invalid or illegal, that the indictment was defective or not supported by probable cause, or that the expungement of the record is authorized by any ‘specific statutory authority,’ as she must in order to qualify for expungement.”

“To the extent that the defendant premises her claim for relief on an assertion of innocence, this claim must fail. The fact that the government agreed, as part of the plea agreement with defendant’s husband, to dismiss the indictment against the defendant does not negate the grand jury’s finding of probable cause nor does it concede the innocence of the defendant,” prosecutors said.

They said expungement was for “extraordinary” circumstances “necessary to protect basic legal rights,” whereas Alvi simply escaped bank fraud charges because prosecutors agreed to drop charges against her in exchange for her husband pleading guilty.

Alvi “argues that she would like to attend a trade school and open a business, and she speculates that the record of her arrest ‘will likely prevent one or more of these endeavors,” they wrote.

The motion and opposition were left unanswered by the judge for many months. Then, sometime in the past few months — as the FOIA lawsuit heated up — Chutkan appears to have belatedly granted the proposed seal or something similar. The proposed motion to seal and the government’s opposition are apparently gone from the court docket, and Alvi’s name has been removed — though all 80 documents pertaining to the Imran Awan case remain.

Indeed, the draft motion to seal appears to pertain only to Alvi, not Awan, saying “only those records, or portions thereof, relating solely to the movant [Alvi] be redacted from the co-defendant’s [Awan’s] records.”

Hina Alvi changed her name to Tina Alvi following the case, Fairfax County records show.

DOJ spokeswoman Kadia Koroma declined the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request to comment.

Nothing that the obstructionist leftist garbage does surprises me any more. The pieces of shit are hounding the president over a lie but when it comes to the legal FOIA request, the deep state swamp resists again.

Are the Republicans waiting for the people to break out the pitchforks and nooses and do their damn jobs for them? Oh that’s right, the deep state is on both sides of the aisle.

There's something treasonously smelly in Denmark relative to Wubberman-Shultz and the Imran Awan clan. My guess is it's very very bad.