Judge ruled Friday that the “elections supervisor in Florida’s second-most populous county (Broward) broke state and federal law by unlawfully destroying ballots cast in Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s 2016 Democratic primary.#BlueWave #TuesdayThoughtshttps://t.co/izkiPVjBJB— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) May 15, 2018
The Western Journal
written by Cillian Zeal
Tuesday May 15, 2018
Remember Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Yes, I know, you’d like to forget her as she fades into obscurity — particularly when evidence emerges that she may have tried to rig an election.
Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, may be beloved by family members, but that’s pretty much it. Rank-and-file Democrats detest her for her god-awful handling of the Democratic National Committee’s top role — a position she was forced to resign from after email hacks and numerous scandals. The party’s left fringe believes Wasserman Schultz and her retinue have engaged in pretty sketchy behavior to keep them down.
Now, I know that supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders do indulge in some tinfoil haberdashery from time to time. However, this conspiracy claim appears to have some legitimacy.
See, Florida has some fairly strict “sunshine” laws when it comes to public transparency, and this spills over to elections. So, when Wasserman Schultz faced a difficult primary challenge in 2016 and won with 58 percent of the vote, it was well within the rights of challenger Tim Canova to request a recount of the ballots.
The only problem is that after much stalling, it turns out the ballots had been destroyed. As in, very illegally.
The saga has wound its way through the court system, but a judge ruled Friday that the “elections supervisor in Florida’s second-most populous county broke state and federal law by unlawfully destroying ballots cast in Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s 2016 Democratic primary … in a case brought by the congresswoman’s challenger who wanted to check for voting irregularities,” according to Politico.
We just won our lawsuit on summary judgment. Court ruled that Broward Supervisor of Elections illegally destroyed all paper ballots in our primary against @DWStweets. We are walking the walk on election Integrity & need your help now, small donations at https://t.co/93JqKJImOr pic.twitter.com/lgfLDpiMoo— Tim Canova (@Tim_Canova) May 14, 2018
Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes has already been under extreme scrutiny since the incident happened, and what happened during 2016 looks like it’s going to make her job a whole lot harder.
“During the upcoming election, the Department of State will send a Florida elections expert from the Division of Elections to Supervisor Snipes’ office to ensure that all laws are followed so the citizens of Broward County can have the efficient, properly run election they deserve,” a written statement from the office of Florida Gov. Rick Scott said.
Snipes and her lawyer haven’t commented on the ruling. Keep in mind, too, that Snipes got her job 15 years ago when her predecessor screwed up the 2002 Democrat gubernatorial primary.
There are two takeaways from this. First, Snipes has been on the job a decade and a half and, in spite of Florida’s famous sunshine laws, she still doesn’t realize that she can’t destroy ballots. And second, it’s so hard to find good governmental help these days.
In all fairness, Snipes claimed that she accidentally signed a certification that no cases were pending involving the ballots (this is a blatant lie; Canova had repeatedly requested the ballots). She called it a “mistake” and insisted that “nothing on my part that was intentional.” Which is why she still has her job, of course.
I’m not Florida’s governor and I don’t have anyone to mollify. However, I think this is pretty much a fireable offense. And, furthermore, I don’t think Snipes did this without permission — not from the very top, anyway.
Wasserman Schultz won easily with 57 percent to Canova’s 43, although this didn’t seem to jibe with polls that showed the race significantly closer. That doesn’t necessarily prove anything, except for the fact that Floridians are getting awfully tired of Wasserman Schultz’s presence.
And if you don’t believe me, just ask them about her IT guy.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Former I.T. Staff And Staffer's Wife Has Been Indicted. The Leftist media hardly reported this very critical information. This was huge news. If the Democrats cared so much about sensitive classified federal government information getting into the hands of foreign enemies, why didn't the media flinch when this information came to light? (emphasis mine)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz defends not immediately firing IT staffer.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz told a police chief there would be "consequences" if he didn't hand over her ex-IT staffer's computer over to her. Pulling the race card. She's a fast talking con artist.
The Daily Caller
written by Luke Rosiak, Investigative Reporter
April 1, 2018
Every one of the 44 House Democrats who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later allegedly made “unauthorized access” to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks, according to congressional documents.
All of them appear to have waived background checks on Imran Awan and his family members, even though the family of server administrators could collectively read all the emails and files of 1 in 5 House Democrats, and despite background checks being recommended for such positions, according to an inspector general’s report. The House security policy requires offices to fill out a form attesting that they’ve initiated background checks, but it also includes a loophole allowing them to simply say that another member vouched for them.
Among the red flags in Abid’s background were a $1.1 million bankruptcy; six lawsuits against him or a company he owned; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records. Public court records show that Imran and Abid operated a car dealership referred to as CIA that took $100,000 from an Iraqi government official who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities. Numerous members of the family were tied to cryptic LLCs such as New Dawn 2001, operated out of Imran’s residence, Virginia corporation records show. Imran was the subject of repeated calls to police by multiple women and had multiple misdemeanor convictions for driving offenses, according to court records.
If a screening had caught those, what officials say happened next might have been averted. The House inspector general reported on Sept. 20, 2016, that shortly before the election members of the group were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”
A pair of closely-held reports on Imran Awan, his brothers Abid and Jamal, his wife Hina Alvi, and his friend Rao Abbas, said, “the shared employees have not been vetted (e.g. background check).”
“Shared employees” means they were all hired as part-time, individual employees by individual members, cobbling together $165,000 salaries. Jamal began making that salary at only 20 years old, according to House payroll records; Abid never went to college, his stepmother said; and Rao Abbas’ most recent job experience was being fired from McDonald’s, according to his roommate. (“Whether they had formal training or not, they were trained on the job by Imran,” one of Imran’s lawyers said.)
Among the 44 employers, the primary advocate for the suspects has been Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who introduced a bill Monday that would require background checks on Americans purchasing ammunition. “Without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal,” she said, calling ammunition the “loophole” in gun control policy.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 29, 2018Former DNC chair, who hired Pakistanis to manage her US Congressional email accounts, introduces bill to perform background checks on ammunition purchasers... 🤦🏻♂️ can’t make this stuff up.https://t.co/w4tZwDDlMR
Wasserman Schultz was also chair of the Democratic National Committee when Wikileaks published its emails. (The Wikileaks emails show that DNC aides called Imran when they needed the password to her device.) Since then, she and other Democrats have described cyber breaches in the strongest possible terms, such as “an act of war” and “an assault on our democracy.”
But there is no indication Democrats put those concerns into practice when they entrusted the Pakistani dual citizens with their data, nor when suspicious activity was detected. Police banned the suspects from the network after the IG report, but Wasserman Schultz kept Imran on staff anyway. He was in the building and in possession of a laptop with the username RepDWS months later, according to an April 6, 2017 police report.
The House security policy, HISPOL16, says “House Offices shall… Ensure background checks, as defined in this policy, have been conducted on Privileged Users.” It includes quarterly reviews of privileged accounts’ appropriateness. By the time the policy was enacted, some members had dropped the Awans for assorted reasons, including Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona in early 2015 for what her spokesperson called “incompetence.”
The $1.1 million bankruptcy in itself would be enough to stop many employers from giving access to sensitive data. “Excessive indebtedness increases the temptation to commit unethical or illegal acts in order to obtain funds to pay off the debts,” so “financial problems are the number one killer of security clearances,” according to ClearanceJobs.com.
For each server administrator, an “Authorizing Official” from the member’s office must fill out a form on which the office attests: “I have assessed the risk of the prospective Privileged Account holder via background check processes outlined in HISPOL 16.”
However, there is an alternative: “I have verified that a trustworthiness determination has been made on behalf of this shared resource by another Member.”
The option B does not ask the name of the member that vouched for the employee, and the language does not directly specify that vouching for an employee requires that the earlier member provided a background check.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to all 44 members, and none disputed that they had not conducted a background check. Not a single one of the 44 would say which of their colleagues vouched for the Awans, nor stated what criteria they used to determine that it was prudent to give them access to all their data.
Besides Wasserman Schultz, Imran has longstanding personal relationships with Reps. Gregory Meeks and Marcia Fudge of New York, Politico reported. Employers also include Rep. Ted Lieu of California on the Foreign Affairs Committee and three members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: Reps. Andre Carson of Indiana, Jackie Speier of California and Joaquin Castro of Texas.
The HISPOL16 policy was created in September 2015 and says “As privileged accounts have a greater potential impact on information and information systems than general user accounts, organizations must promote trustworthiness of users of privileged accounts. Authorization officials must check the backgrounds of users of privileged accounts for elements that might make trustworthiness of a user questionable… The Office of the CISO suggests that Hiring Officers and their designees use the rigorous criminal history records search services provided by the United States Capitol Police.”
The policy focuses on and encourages members to use the Capitol Police’s background check service, but it says private background check companies can also be used. The IG report does not specify whether it made the determination that the Awans had not received background checks by looking at the forms or by consulting with the Capitol Police, but it says that they “have not been vetted.”
The Shared Employee Handbook, published in 2009, says “Due to the sensitive nature of the information to which Shared Employees may be exposed during day-to-day job functions, it is recommended that Member and Committee offices request a Capitol Police Criminal History Records Check on potential Shared Employees.”
Eric McCracken, a spokesman for the Committee on House Administration, would not say why the screening policy provided the option B loophole that allowed another member to vouch for the aides in lieu of a background check. Despite the IG report addressing it, Gregg Harper, the Mississippi Republican who controls the committee, told The Daily Caller in 2017 that he did not know whether the Awans had background checks.
The Awans’ employers also included Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, who saw $120,000 in computer equipment disappear under Abid Awan’s watch but “wrote off” the taxpayer funds rather than make an issue of it, according to the IG report and multiple senior government officials.
Xavier Becerra, now attorney general of California, ran the House Democratic Caucus, and his server was physically stolen shortly after the IG report named it as evidence in a hacking probe, three senior government officials said. A list of the members who did not conduct background checks is below.
CLICK HERE to read =>The IT guys in the House criminal probe could read these members' emails
The Awans and their associates collected more than $5 million in pay from congressional offices, often drawing chief-of-staff level pay though there is reason to believe many didn't even show up. The House's internal probe found they logged into servers they had no affiliation with, used members' usernames, covered their tracks, and persisted even after being fired.
The money is broken down by year, congressional office and family member paid:
Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan and Hina Alvi, Natalia Sova, Rao Abbas, Hasseb Rana, and Muhammad Awan.
No comments:
Post a Comment