You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Lurid Crime Tales-
The Very Strange Indictment of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's IT Scammers
2017-08-22
[National Review] It leaves out a lot of highly pertinent information.

Let’s say you’re a prosecutor in Washington. You are investigating a husband and wife, naturalized Americans, who you believe have scammed a federal credit union out of nearly $300,000. You catch them in several false statements about their qualifications for a credit line and their intended use of the money.

The strongest part of your case, though, involves the schemers’ transferring the loot to their native Pakistan. So . . . what’s the best evidence you could possibly have, the slam-dunk proof that their goal was to steal the money and never look back?

That’s easy: One after the other, the wife and husband pulled up stakes and tried to high-tail it to Pakistan after they’d wired the funds there -- the wife successfully fleeing, the husband nabbed as he was about to board his flight.

Well, here’s a peculiar thing about the Justice Department’s indictment of Imran Awan and Hina Alvi, the alleged fraudster couple who doubled as IT wizzes for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and many other congressional Democrats: There’s not a word in it about flight to Pakistan.

The indictment undertakes to describe in detail four counts of bank-fraud conspiracy, false statements on credit applications, and unlawful monetary transactions, yet leaves out the most damning evidence of guilt. In fact, the indictment appears to go out of its way not to mention it.

Skipping down to the closing para:

To summarize, the indictment is an exercise in omission. No mention of the Awan group’s theft of information from Congress. Not a hint about the astronomical sums the family was paid, much of it for no-show "work." Not a word about Wasserman Schultz’s keeping Awan on the payroll for six months during which (a) he was known to be under investigation, (b) his wife was known to have fled to Pakistan, and (c) he was not credentialed to do the IT work for which he had been hired. Nothing about Wasserman Schultz’s energetic efforts to prevent investigators from examining Awan’s laptop. A likely currency-transportation offense against Alvi goes uncharged. And, as for the offenses that are charged, prosecutors plead them in a manner that avoids any reference to what should be their best evidence.

There is something very strange going on here.

'Strange' or possibly just some routine house cleaning. Mike Pompeo sworn in as Director, CIA on 23 Jan 2017. On or about 15 Feb 2017, Awan IT story broke.
Posted by:Besoeker

#5  Like the Lois Lerner case...? Pleads the Fifth and then the case is consigned to oblivion because there is no *cough* chance of conviction *cough* ?
Posted by: magpie   2017-08-22 16:13  

#4  Is this going to be like a Clinton case, i.e. rigged from the inside with Swamp denizens?
Posted by: JohnQC


I believe you've nailed it John.
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-08-22 08:21  

#3  Is this going to be like a Clinton case, i.e. rigged from the inside with Swamp denizens?
Posted by: JohnQC   2017-08-22 07:48  

#2  The FBI investigated only the alleged scam operation.

I am confused. For the sake of argument, if let's say, a Robert Mueller investigation discovered 'intent to defraud and flight' might they have continued to dig a bit further ?

I suspect we all know cousin Susan is snorting and why she's made those frequent shopping excursions to the city all of these years. This case reeks of espionage, theirs and possibly ours as well. While I doubt it will happen, I think we should drop the denial and be honest.


Posted by: Besoeker   2017-08-22 03:46  

#1  The FBI investigated only the alleged scam operation.
The attempted flight and successful flight of one of the two are not illegal actions in themselves. They are evidence of intent to defraud, but are not, in my opinion, indictable.
The connection with the DNC suggests irresponsibility on the part of the Representatives who hired them, and what has happened calls out for an investigation as to what classified information these people have been able to obtain.
But working for these Representatives is not a crime in itself.
Since a crime was committed at the DNC, namely the leak or theft of private or classified information, an investigation of whether these people are responsible for that crime seems reasonable, given the degree of moral turpitude that the FBI claims to have found about them.
Someone has suggested that a Special Prosecutor be assigned to conduct such an investigation, and the former Mayor Giuliani might be a suitable prosecutor for it.
Posted by: Daniel   2017-08-22 01:27  

00:00