Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
and then

The Awan Family in depth

75 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Uh, I didn't derail the thread, I replied to something merc brought up.

Also, it's not a conspiracy theory. It actually happened.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The meeting was about "adoptions", which is the code-word for The Magnitsky Act. The Russians offered damaging info on a Presidential candidate, with the intent on influencing your election and obviously wanted help with the Act (which Trump himself tried to provide), which has personally cost Putin billions by the way, as a quid pro quo. A foreign government at least attempted to influence your national election from inside your country. 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/18/could-trump-jr-kushner-or-manafort-be-charged-under-the-espionage-act/

LMAO.  First of all, Flynn, who we were talking about, was NOT at the "adoption" meeting.  Second, Eric Trump went to the meeting to gather opposition intel on a political opponent, which is NOT espionage by anyone's measure.  The fact that you posted the law and didn't read it, obviously, is amusing to say the least.  When the lawyer brought up the adoption regulations it was nothing more than bringing up the adoption regulations and the Trump party subsequently left as there was no value in said meeting.  No state secrets were asked for nor passed mostly because ERIC TRUMP WASN'T PRIVY TO ANY STATE SECRETS AT THE TIME.  See, EMM, Trump hadn't been elected yet and so wasn't in office and his son therefore had no state secrets to pass.  I am embarrassed for you mate and I suggest you stay out of this fight as you are clueless on the matter. 

Now Hillary's team actually used foreign intelligence to gather opposition intel, namely the Ukranians, and actually met with foreign government representatives  but I am guessing you won't bother screaming about that. 

Now, back to the subject you have avoided, how was Flynn's meeting with the Russian ambassador espionage (see above legal definition)?   

Edited by Merc14
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LMAO.  First of all, Flynn, who we were talking about, was NOT at the "adoption" meeting.  Second, Eric Trump went to the meeting to gather opposition intel on a political opponent, which is NOT espionage by anyone's measure.  The fact that you posted the law and didn't read it, obviously, is amusing to say the least.  When the lawyer brought up the adoption regulations it was nothing more than bringing up the adoption regulations and the Trump party subsequently left as there was no value in said meeting.  No state secrets were asked for nor passed mostly because ERIC TRUMP WASN'T PRIVY TO ANY STATE SECRETS AT THE TIME.  See, EMM, Trump hadn't been elected yet and so wasn't in office and his son therefore had no state secrets to pass.  I am embarrassed for you mate and I suggest you stay out of this fight as you are clueless on the matter. 

Now Hillary's team actually used foreign intelligence to gather opposition intel, namely the Ukranians, and actually met with foreign government representatives  but I am guessing you won't bother screaming about that. 

Now, back to the subject you have avoided, how was Flynn's meeting with the Russian ambassador espionage (see above legal definition)?   

I didn't say Eric committed espionage per se and I definitely didn't claim that Flynn was at the meeting. My point (that I've made countless times already on the forum) was that the Russians were clearly committing an act of espionage, and that if they received help from any US citizen then said citizens are guilty of aiding an enemy state in an act of espionage. And the Espionage Act encompasses more than you seem to realise.

Again with HRC. You realise that I actually started a thread on HRC's Ukranian connection, right? And it received no replies.

Literally nowhere have I claimed that Flynn committed espionage. I said he broke the law, which isn't even really up for debate. He received money while he was a general and didn't disclose it. This is simply illegal. And he also likely violated the Logan Act. Flynn is way past the point of being defended. It's already a slam dunk in his case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I didn't say Eric committed espionage per se and I definitely didn't claim that Flynn was at the meeting. My point (that I've made countless times already on the forum) was that the Russians were clearly committing an act of espionage, and that if they received help from any US citizen then said citizens are guilty of aiding an enemy state in an act of espionage. And the Espionage Act encompasses more than you seem to realise.

Again with HRC. You realise that I actually started a thread on HRC's Ukranian connection, right? And it received no replies.

Literally nowhere have I claimed that Flynn committed espionage. I said he broke the law, which isn't even really up for debate. He received money while he was a general and didn't disclose it. This is simply illegal. And he also likely violated the Logan Act. Flynn is way past the point of being defended. It's already a slam dunk in his case.

Oh, well, we were NOT arguing about the Russians doing espionage now were we?  No, that is a given and Hillary was far more complicit in that than any Trump operative.  Nope, we were arguing about Flynn being guilty of espionage, something you brought up and accused him of, and then you switched to Eric Trump's meeting.  Now you admit neither was espionage and you had no intention of making that accusation but are now claiming the Russians committed espionage.  Ok, I agree, so the F what?  They did it while Obama was president and HE chose to do nothing, not even inform the states that their voting rolls had been penetrated but I ask once again, how the F does that involve Trump or his family?  

Let's go back and review your posts #37. where your accusations started, #42, $44 where you say Flynn took money (he didn't, he talked to the Russian ambassador so lie one) and finally #49 where you quote the whole espionage thing and link Flynn to Eric Trump's meeting with a Russian lawyer that lasted 20 minutes and led to nothing.   No criminal charges, no FBI investigation on anyone except democrats, no collusion and no espionage charges against any Trump affiliate. 

You don't know what you are talking about and have made several glaring errors here and so I once again suggest you stay out of the argument as you are obviously in way above your head but keep it up, I am glad to keep correcting you. embarrassing for you but illustrative of how jaded the rabid media has made your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

31 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Oh, well, we were NOT arguing about the Russians doing espionage now were we?  No, that is a given and Hillary was far more complicit in that than any Trump operative.  Nope, we were arguing about Flynn being guilty of espionage, something you brought up and accused him of, and then you switched to Eric Trump's meeting.  Now you admit neither was espionage and you had no intention of making that accusation but are now claiming the Russians committed espionage.  Ok, I agree, so the F what?  They did it while Obama was president and HE chose to do nothing, not even inform the states that their voting rolls had been penetrated but I ask once again, how the F does that involve Trump or his family?  

Let's go back and review your posts #37. where your accusations started, #42, $44 where you say Flynn took money (he didn't, he talked to the Russian ambassador so lie one) and finally #49 where you quote the whole espionage thing and link Flynn to Eric Trump's meeting with a Russian lawyer that lasted 20 minutes and led to nothing.   No criminal charges, no FBI investigation on anyone except democrats, no collusion and no espionage charges against any Trump affiliate. 

You don't know what you are talking about and have made several glaring errors here and so I once again suggest you stay out of the argument as you are obviously in way above your head but keep it up, I am glad to keep correcting you. embarrassing for you but illustrative of how jaded the rabid media has made your side.

Read post 37.

Quote

I don't quite agree with this statement. I'm sure when the FBI get to the bottom of this it will be a big story but the reason that Trump is such a big story now is because he is the leader of your entire country, not the ex-leader of the opposition party, and it has been shown that loads of his team (and likely he himself) have lied on multiple occasions about contact with Russia (and Flynn looks to have likely even broken some laws). There's really no comparing the scale of the two situations. One is gargantuan and the other could be merely big.

Nowhere did I say Flynn was in any way connected to the Russian meeting. He was mentioned as an afterthought because he also broke laws and is part of the overall scandal, because we were discussing why the media's attention is on Trump and not Hillary, which is down to the whole scandal, not just one meeting. He received money and didn't disclose it. This is illegal. He didn't disclose receiving money and likely violated the Logan Act. So my claim isn't even false.

And nowhere did I claim Jr committed espionage. To quote myself:

Quote

That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken.

A Russian act of espionage.

But you now hit me with:

Quote

Oh, well, we were NOT arguing about the Russians doing espionage now were we?

So yes, merc, we actually were 'arguing about the Russians doing espionage'. It is you who completely misunderstood what I was saying - on more than one occasion, no less! - then had the cheek to tell me that I wasn't following and shouldn't even be debating this :D That's funny. You corrected nothing and should be embarrassed for yourself.

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Read post 37.

No, you read post #44 where you explicitly state "That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken. Flynn broke the law by taking money from Russians, That's two cases that we know of."  You now admit it wasn't so aopology expected.

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Nowhere did I say Flynn was in any way connected to the Russian meeting. He was mentioned as an afterthought because he also broke laws and is part of the overall scandal, because we were discussing why the media's attention is on Trump and not Hillary, which is down to the whole scandal, not just one meeting. He received money and didn't disclose it. This is illegal. He didn't disclose receiving money and likely violated the Logan Act. So my claim isn't even false.

 You said what he did was illegal and then brought up espionage.  I asked what was illegal and what was done that could be considered espionage.  You completely deferred and now claim to have never said anything of the such. 

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

And nowhere did I claim Jr committed espionage. To quote myself:

Post 44 above you claim two crimes committed espionahge and some other undefined crim or two cases of espionage.  You are wrong either way so, again, apology expected.

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

A Russian act of espionage.

 gExcept we were never talking about the Russians committing espionage because they obviously were.  You accused the Trump people of two crimes, one at least being espionage and now are trying to back away.  Sorry but no..

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

But you now hit me with:

So yes, merc, we actually were 'arguing about the Russians doing espionage'. It is you who completely misunderstood what I was saying - on more than one occasion, no less! - then had the cheek to tell me that I wasn't following and shouldn't even be debating this :D That's funny. You corrected nothing and should be embarrassed for yourself.

You may have been but I certainly wasn't because there is no argument that the Russians committed espionage, they invaded our state election computers and attempted to change the voter rolls.  They failed at this and ultimately gave up.  This was done while Obama was president and he did nothing except ask then to "Cut it out!"   You, however, started this whole thing by claiming that Flynn and then Eric Trump committed espionage and once proven totally wrong are now claiming you never said any such thing but you quote is my evidence you did.  I'll post it again for you  "That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken. Flynn broke the law by taking money from Russians, That's two cases that we know of. "   Flynn took no money and Eric Trump's meeting had nothing about "state secrets:' in it.  Russia invading the voter rolls was an entirely separate thing and is Obama's failure, nothing to do with Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No, you read post #44 where you explicitly state "That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken. Flynn broke the law by taking money from Russians, That's two cases that we know of."  You now admit it wasn't so aopology expected.

 

What are you talking about? The passage of mine you just quoted proves my point. I said it's a Russian act of espionage. As in, the Russians committed an act of espionage. That's what that means and you are clearly misunderstanding the clear meaning of that statement. Nowhere did I say that anyone else committed an act of espionage, but I did say that laws may have been broken in aiding the Russian act of espionage.

8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

 You said what he did was illegal and then brought up espionage.  I asked what was illegal and what was done that could be considered espionage.  You completely deferred and now claim to have never said anything of the such. 

What are you talking about? Here, I'll quote all of my posts in order:

Quote

I don't quite agree with this statement. I'm sure when the FBI get to the bottom of this it will be a big story but the reason that Trump is such a big story now is because he is the leader of your entire country, not the ex-leader of the opposition party, and it has been shown that loads of his team (and likely he himself) have lied on multiple occasions about contact with Russia (and Flynn looks to have likely even broken some laws). There's really no comparing the scale of the two situations. One is gargantuan and the other could be merely big.

That's the way I see it anyways.

Quote

I liked the post. Pretty much I agreed with it all except the sentence I replied to, which was why I replied.

And I really don't think the proportions are being exaggerated. I think almost the entire right have their blinkers on regarding this whole matter. This is truly massive.

Quote

That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken. Flynn broke the law by taking money from Russians, That's two cases that we know of.

Why are you deflecting back to Obama

Quote

The meeting was about "adoptions", which is the code-word for The Magnitsky Act. The Russians offered damaging info on a Presidential candidate, with the intent on influencing your election and obviously wanted help with the Act (which Trump himself tried to provide), which has personally cost Putin billions by the way, as a quid pro quo. A foreign government at least attempted to influence your national election from inside your country. 

 

Please point to where I accused Flynn of espionage.

I brought up espionage and that meeting (the last of my posts I quoted) as a direct response to your post #48:

Quote

Please explain how that meeting w as espiongae?

I was answering your own question.

15 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Post 44 above you claim two crimes committed espionahge and some other undefined crim or two cases of espionage.  You are wrong either way so, again, apology expected.

The two crimes committed by Flynn have nothing to do with espionage. I have stated nowhere that they were. Are you even reading the same thread as me? This reply doesn't even really make sense.

 

16 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

 gExcept we were never talking about the Russians committing espionage because they obviously were.  You accused the Trump people of two crimes, one at least being espionage and now are trying to back away.  Sorry but no..

Again, look at my quotes above. Where do I accuse anyone of Trump's team of committing espionage? (I don't). My entire point about Jr possibly having broken a law has always been that he looks to have been aiding a foreign government in an act of espionage. That is not committing espionage. It's, well, is exactly what it says.

 

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

You may have been but I certainly wasn't because there is no argument that the Russians committed espionage, they invaded our state election computers and attempted to change the voter rolls.  They failed at this and ultimately gave up.  This was done while Obama was president and he did nothing except ask then to "Cut it out!"   You, however, started this whole thing by claiming that Flynn and then Eric Trump committed espionage and once proven totally wrong are now claiming you never said any such thing but you quote is my evidence you did.  I'll post it again for you  "That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken. Flynn broke the law by taking money from Russians, That's two cases that we know of. "   Flynn took no money and Eric Trump's meeting had nothing about "state secrets:' in it.  Russia invading the voter rolls was an entirely separate thing and is Obama's failure, nothing to do with Trump. 

So, wait, this has all been about '2 cases'? You think that the 'two cases' was me saying two cases of espionage? Is that where you went off track? Look at the context of that reply, merc. We were talking about the overall scandal, not espionage. Those two cases I was referring to were two cases of cosying up to Russia and lying about it. Two cases of Trump's team doing exactly what they told us they didn't. and that's part of why this is such a large scandal.

Look at the post of yours I was replying to when I said that:

Quote

Flynn lied to Pence about something that was in no way illegal and Eric Trump didn't divulge a completely legal meeting with a Russian.  What other lies are you talking about.  Now, should I start listing the lies form the left and the massive illegal unmasking that is now being investigated.  The Obama administration lied like no administration in our country's history yet silence form all these now so upset reporting agencies.  It is a travesty and an insult to our constitution how corrupted our press is and how corrupted our Department of Justice had become the last 8 years.  

Then I said:

Quote

That meeting was a Russian act of espionage and it's entirely possible that laws were broken. Flynn broke the law by taking money from Russians, That's two cases that we know of.

We were talking specifically about lies and the overall Russian ties. Nothing whatsoever about espionage. You have completely misunderstood a post, proceeded to accuse me of making claims that I didn't, then laughed at me and said you were embarrassed, all the while it's been you who has been in the wrong here. 

I think it's you who owes me the apology. Let's see if you're big enough to do so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What are you talking about? The passage of mine you just quoted proves my point. I said it's a Russian act of espionage. As in, the Russians committed an act of espionage. That's what that means and you are clearly misunderstanding the clear meaning of that statement. Nowhere did I say that anyone else committed an act of espionage, but I did say that laws may have been broken in aiding the Russian act of espionage.

What are you talking about? Here, I'll quote all of my posts in order:

Please point to where I accused Flynn of espionage.

I brought up espionage and that meeting (the last of my posts I quoted) as a direct response to your post #48:

I was answering your own question.

The two crimes committed by Flynn have nothing to do with espionage. I have stated nowhere that they were. Are you even reading the same thread as me? This reply doesn't even really make sense.

 

Again, look at my quotes above. Where do I accuse anyone of Trump's team of committing espionage? (I don't). My entire point about Jr possibly having broken a law has always been that he looks to have been aiding a foreign government in an act of espionage. That is not committing espionage. It's, well, is exactly what it says.

 

So, wait, this has all been about '2 cases'? You think that the 'two cases' was me saying two cases of espionage? Is that where you went off track? Look at the context of that reply, merc. We were talking about the overall scandal, not espionage. Those two cases I was referring to were two cases of cosying up to Russia and lying about it. Two cases of Trump's team doing exactly what they told us they didn't. and that's part of why this is such a large scandal.

Look at the post of yours I was replying to when I said that:

Then I said:

We were talking specifically about lies and the overall Russian ties. Nothing whatsoever about espionage. You have completely misunderstood a post, proceeded to accuse me of making claims that I didn't, then laughed at me and said you were embarrassed, all the while it's been you who has been in the wrong here. 

I think it's you who owes me the apology. Let's see if you're big enough to do so.

Russia conducting espionage has NOTHING to do with Trump.  Flynn did NOT take money from the Russians, he met with the Russian ambassador after he was appointed to NSA and failed to divulge that meeting to Pence so Trump fired him.  Eric Trump's meeting with the Russian lawyer was NOT illegal, you can question the ethics but the Clinton campaign actually did collude with a foreign government to attack the Trump campaign so possibly a crime there, it is being looked at.  No crime was committed by the Trump campaign and the Russian espionage was on Obama, it had nothing to do with Trump.  Why Obama failed to alert he states that Russia was hacking their voter rolls is a bigger question not being asked...until now that is. 

They have been investigating this for over a year and have NEVER brought any charges and all the heads of intelligence and Obama himself have admitted there is no crime committed by the Trump campaign.  As far as punishing Russia for hacking Trump has placed sanctions on them.  Not sure what else the left wants short of a war  but Obama did absolutely nothing and no one said a word.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/04/ten-shocking-things-know-right-now-about-democrats-big-it-scandal.html

 

Ten shocking things we know right now about Democrats' big IT scandal

This has more solid evidence of widespread criminality and cover up than the whole of the Russia-Trump thing ever did.
One principal is in federal custody, and several more are being sought with warrants for felonies against them. The FBI et. al., have a mound of physical evidence in those stolen computers and hard drives. They will find out what was on them too in the near future.

Some highlights for those who can't bring themselves to click on the source.

 

 

Quote

1. Awan was arrested after wiring $283,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to Pakistan. Officials charged him with defrauding the credit union of $165,000 by lying on a home equity loan application.

3. Awan is a Pakistani-born U.S. citizen. He had access to emails and files of many Democrats in Congress. He even had the password to the iPad that Wasserman Schultz used for DNC business until she resigned from the DNC in July 2016.


7. Though both Wasserman Schultz and Awan’s attorneys are trying to disparage those chasing this story as being guilty of “anti-Muslim bigotry,” the FBI actually seized smashed hard drives from Awan’s home. Also, investigators say Awan and others might have stolen computer equipment from members’ offices and might have done illegal things on the House IT network.


9. This investigation has been ongoing since last February; however, even before Capitol Police began their investigation of Imran Awan and his relatives – including his brothers Abid and Jamal and their wives – there were a lot of red flags that should have alerted Capitol Police. Jamal Awan, for example, had an annual salary of $157,000, or about three times what the average IT staff member was paid in the House, according to InsideGov. Meanwhile, Abid Awan had a salary of $161,000 and Imran Awan was being paid $165,000.

 

Its starting to get so deep, the Dems will need wings to stay above it!

 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will ignore for a while longer because they are what they are.  This is going to blow up unless the administration folds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so the Grand Jury has indicted the two IT aides. The Congresswoman who hired them admitted that she knew one of them was being investigated for - amongst other things.. "Data Transfer violation". 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/two-former-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-indicted-for-conspiracy-against-u-s/

So, DID the "Russians" hack Hillary Clinton's email server, or was it an inside job by Democrat interns, who where held above suspicion due to - as the Congresswoman stated - “racial and ethnic profiling concerns” ? 

I agree with many other posters.... this story seems to have potentially (though yet unproven) MASSIVE security implications, and could derail the "Russian Hacker" narrative, but is not really being highlighted by the mainstream US media ? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

OK, so the Grand Jury has indicted the two IT aides. The Congresswoman who hired them admitted that she knew one of them was being investigated for - amongst other things.. "Data Transfer violation". 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/two-former-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-indicted-for-conspiracy-against-u-s/

So, DID the "Russians" hack Hillary Clinton's email server, or was it an inside job by Democrat interns, who where held above suspicion due to - as the Congresswoman stated - “racial and ethnic profiling concerns” ? 

I agree with many other posters.... this story seems to have potentially (though yet unproven) MASSIVE security implications, and could derail the "Russian Hacker" narrative, but is not really being highlighted by the mainstream US media ? 

Its definitely being under reported . Interestingly it seems to be being under reported by Foxnews as well as the rest though, at least on their website. 

I do think there is a certain logic however which says the crimes of those formerly in power will not and should not push the crimes of those currently in power out of the headlines. 

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, absolutely Farmer77. However, the "Russian Hacking" surely IS part of the "crimes of those currently in power", and this corruption by the interns could relate to it.

I mean, when the various "Intelligence Organisations" made their comments about the Russians, did they actually KNOW that the Democrats already had an American mole (or two) in their IT systems ? 

Personally, I doubt the two are connected, but it will make for interesting reading as the case goes on. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merc and ExpandYourMind... calm down, both of you. Feels like you guys are getting to the point you are mortal enemies on these threads. O.o

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

Merc and ExpandYourMind... calm down, both of you. Feels like you guys are getting to the point you are mortal enemies on these threads. O.o

Did posts get deleted? EYM, and Mercs conversation was a couple weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Did posts get deleted? EYM, and Mercs conversation was a couple weeks ago.

I think they did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2017 at 6:10 AM, Uncle Sam said:

I think they did...

It happens so much around here.... 

 

Meh, why bother at all?

Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this should get interesting. Notice how he mentions the Russian probe while talking bout this lol. hmmm 

Edited by preacherman76
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Well this should get interesting. Notice how he mentions the Russian probe while talking bout this lol. hmmm 

I'm sure einteinium will show up to 'splain things to us morons why this is meaningless and Trump's collusion with Russia is all that matters.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I'm sure einteinium will show up to 'splain things to us morons why this is meaningless and Trump's collusion with Russia is all that matters.  

I bet he will lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

 

 

woah -- so Mrs Awan is returning to maybe spill the beans (on her husband?) to save her own skin..?

edit to add -- and perhaps to spill more of the same beans on Wasserman Schultz in some way - 
pure speculation >>>> perhaps there is some kind of sexual intrigue driving parts of this like Awan having an
affair with DWS and this is one of the reasons she kept him on -- possibly mixed in with blackmail of some kind - :huh:

I wonder how much the public will get to hear about it all because the MSM will be very reluctant to give it space -

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/wasserman-schultz-aide-who-fled-us-strikes-a-deal-to-return-facing-charges/

 

Quote

A former staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz who fled to Pakistan while under criminal investigation has struck a deal with federal officials to return to the U.S. to appear at an arraignment.

Two former Democratic staffers, Imran Awan and his wife Hina Alvi, both face charges of conspiracy and bank fraud. Alvi who has a warrant for her arrest, struck a deal with prosecutors that would allow her to return to the U.S. for a mandatory court date in October, according to new court documents.

 

Edited by bee
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bee said:

 

woah -- so Mrs Awan is returning to maybe spill the beans (on her husband?) to save her own skin..?

edit to add -- and perhaps to spill more of the same beans on Wasserman Schultz in some way - 
pure speculation >>>> perhaps there is some kind of sexual intrigue driving parts of this like Awan having an
affair with DWS and this is one of the reasons she kept him on -- possibly mixed in with blackmail of some kind - :huh:

I wonder how much the public will get to hear about it all because the MSM will be very reluctant to give it space -

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/wasserman-schultz-aide-who-fled-us-strikes-a-deal-to-return-facing-charges/

 

 

I think she is coming back to protect her husband, and throw DWS under the bus. They have both asked for immunity for what may very well be info on the scandal of the decade. It must be really good info for her to risk coming back here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 6:56 AM, preacherman76 said:

I think she is coming back to protect her husband, and throw DWS under the bus. They have both asked for immunity for what may very well be info on the scandal of the decade. It must be really good info for her to risk coming back here.

 

Exactly what I was thinking!  DWS is probably nervous enough to shriek at a mouse fart :w00t:  Good enough!  After the vile display she has made for several years she deserves some of her own back in her face.  Once she realizes she might even face prison, who KNOWS what she might offer for immunity...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.