Real World Event Discussions

Lynch. Comey. Dirty Debbie. Hillary. The FBI-DNC-DOJ link. Ohr. Stzok. Page. Rosenstein. It's one giant deep state clusterfvck

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, September 29, 2025 15:08
VIEWED: 16657
PAGE 4 of 14

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:04 AM

Quote:
Discovery Of Another Democratic "Secret Server" May Have Prompted Imran Awan's Firing, Report

The mysterious case of Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's now indicted former IT staffer, continues to grow more interesting by the day. As we've noted before, Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, have so far only been charged with bank fraud and conspiracy though new allegations of wrongdoing seemingly surface on a daily basis.

Now, the latest revelation comes via an exclusive report from The Daily Caller which suggests that Awan may have been fired only after Capitol Police discovered a "secret server" being housed by the House Democratic Caucus.

A secret server is behind law enforcement’s decision to ban a former IT aide to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the House network.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network.

Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects.

According to the DC, the "secret server" was discovered when California Congressman, and chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Xavier Becerra asked to have his server wiped clean (you know, like with a cloth) in advance of his departure to take his new seat as Attorney General of California.

They're all crookeder than a dog's hind leg. But I digress.

MORE AT http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-13/discovery-another-democratic-
secret-server-may-have-prompted-imran-awans-firing-repo

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Discovery Of Another Democratic "Secret Server" May Have Prompted Imran Awan's Firing, Report

The mysterious case of Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's now indicted former IT staffer, continues to grow more interesting by the day. As we've noted before, Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, have so far only been charged with bank fraud and conspiracy though new allegations of wrongdoing seemingly surface on a daily basis.

Now, the latest revelation comes via an exclusive report from The Daily Caller which suggests that Awan may have been fired only after Capitol Police discovered a "secret server" being housed by the House Democratic Caucus.

A secret server is behind law enforcement’s decision to ban a former IT aide to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the House network.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network.

Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects.

According to the DC, the "secret server" was discovered when California Congressman, and chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Xavier Becerra asked to have his server wiped clean (you know, like with a cloth) in advance of his departure to take his new seat as Attorney General of California.
They're all crookeder than a dog's hind leg. But I digress.

MORE AT http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-13/discovery-another-democratic-
secret-server-may-have-prompted-imran-awans-firing-repo

Chair of House Democrap Caucus becomes Top Crook of California.
That is rich.

Does "Congressional Offices prohibited" indicate criminality for each upload/download?

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:56 PM

My question in this matter is a simple one: Why, with Jeff B. Sessions as AG, isn't the DOJ investigating? Why, with the republicans running the show, isn't the appropriate committee investigating? It's been a year already!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
As more Democrats have started to question why former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was never investigated for obstruction following a suspicious meeting with former President Bill Clinton, it appears the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally decided to act.

The Washington Times reported Friday that the committee has launched a formal investigation into Lynch’s attempts to shape the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton, and whether she mishandled classified information on her private email server.

According to the Times, the investigation has bipartisan support.

“Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.”

“Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far."

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey said his suspicions about Lynch’s cozy relationship with the Clintons prompted him to unilaterally announce the close of the Clinton investigation last summer.
Because... why??

Quote:
According to Comey, Lynch leaned on him to soften his language when discussing the investigation, asking him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” mirror language used by the campaign, instead of as “an investigation.”

Comey also said the suspicious meeting between Clinton and Lynch raised questions about her objectivity that could’ve compromised the bureau’s integrity.

LANKFORD: Then you made a comment earlier a the attorney general, the previous attorney general asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that?

COMEY: Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for months. And was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on.
We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don't call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't a hill worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter.
They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.

LANKFORD: You gave impression that the campaign was somehow using the language as the FBI because you were handed the campaign language?

COMEY: I don't know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the federal bureau of

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Friday, November 3, 2017 12:42 AM

Quote:
Donna Brazille Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

"When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign."

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

...On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. B

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 3, 2017 3:58 AM

Michael Malice
?
@michaelmalice

Today marks the first day since 1992 where Democrats are not scared of Hillary Clinton
5:14 PM - Nov 2, 2017

SHINYGOODGUY

Friday, November 3, 2017 2:30 PM

Is this The Swamp or the Deep State?

SGG

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 3, 2017 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Is this The Swamp or the Deep State?

SGG

I understand the Deep State to be the bureaucratic lifers in the federal govt. Non elected types who " run the country ", regardless of who wins elections.

The Swamp, in contrast, are the established elected political officials, their cronies, the lobbyists, and the incestuous ties with K street / Wall street , all around.

How's that sound ?

SECOND

Friday, November 3, 2017 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I understand the Deep State to be the bureaucratic lifers in the federal govt. Non elected types who " run the country ", regardless of who wins elections.

Today, at 4 o'clock in the morning, Trump becomes aware that the Deep State won’t break the law for him — and he’s really, really not happy about it:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems. People are angry. At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!
4:11 AM - Nov 3, 2017 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926406490763784194

Trump’s tweet means that Trump may have finally accepted that he can’t legally order the federal government to go after his political opponents.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Friday, November 3, 2017 10:09 PM

And Elizabeth Warren agrees it was rigged

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.ht
ml?sr=twlead110217donna-brazile-dnc-book0446PMVODtop

Considering that Donna Bazile fed Hillary the debate questions ahead of time, it's hardly honest of her to NOW portray herself as somehow unbiased. Truly, something has turned: The deep state is jettisoning Hillary, and the rats are jumping off.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THGRRI

Friday, November 3, 2017 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And Elizabeth Warren agrees it was rigged

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.ht
ml?sr=twlead110217donna-brazile-dnc-book0446PMVODtop

Considering that Donna Bazile fed Hillary the debate questions ahead of time, it's hardly honest of her to NOW portray herself as somehow unbiased. Truly, something has turned: The deep state is jettisoning Hillary, and the rats are jumping off.

True, it was rigged towards Clinton. She took control of the DNC in the primary before she was nominated. You're not supposed to do that. While we are learning more of the details regarding this, and learning more on just how fucked up the demarcates are, it's not new. We saw reporting on this in real time.