“I believe that I did the right thing, and I would do it again”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in the middle of a spreading scandal over her use of Pakistani IT aides, who were given access to the computers of numerous Democrat politicians and the DNC.
Shultz retained those aides, in particular Imran Awan, right up to the time Awan was arrested while trying to flee the country. Congressional Republicans have called for Wasserman Schultz to testify about the relationship.
Kimberley Strassel notes that this is The Scandal That Matters:
Yes, it is weird that Ms. Wasserman Schultz continued to shield Imran Awan to the end. Yes, the amounts of money, and the ties to Pakistan, are strange. Yes, it is alarming that emails show Imran Awan knew Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s iPad password, and that the family might have had wider access to the accounts of lawmakers on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees.
Yet even if this never adds up to a spy thriller, it outranks most of the media’s other obsessions. The government, under the inattentive care of Democrats, may have been bilked for ages by a man the FBI has alleged to be a fraudster. That’s the same government Democrats say is qualified to run your health care, reform your children’s schools, and protect the environment. They should explain this first.
Wasserman Schultz has been quiet about the scandal, until now. In an interview with the Sun-Sentinel, Debbie denied any wrongdoing and stands by her decisions:
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz defiantly stands by her decision to keep an information technology aide on her payroll for six months after he was banned from the House network and fired by other members of Congress.
“I believe that I did the right thing, and I would do it again,” Wasserman Schultz said Thursday in an exclusive interview with the Sun Sentinel. “There are times when you can’t be afraid to stand alone, and you have to stand up for what’s right.
“It would have been easier for me to just fire him,” she said….
And, she said, she believes he may have been put under scrutiny because of his religious faith. Awan is Muslim….
“I had grave concerns about his due process rights being violated,” she said. “When their investigation was reviewed with me, I was presented with no evidence of anything that they were being investigated for. And so that, in me, gave me great concern that his due process rights were being violated. That there were racial and ethnic profiling concerns that I had,” she said….
Wasserman Schultz said the Awan case is getting so much attention from conservative media outlets because they’re attempting to distract people from the investigation into whether President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. “Any opportunity they can to pull people’s eyes and ears away from that they take.”
Luke Rosiak at The Daily Caller, who had been ahead of everyone in investigating Awan, reports on the latest denial:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz never actually saw the computer she fought to block the Capitol Police from examining as evidence in a criminal case against her IT aide by saying it was hers, she told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Thursday.
She threatened “consequences” on May 18 for the chief of the Capitol Police unless the laptop was returned — despite police contending it was needed to help determine whether a staffer may have violated the House’s cybersecurity.
“This was not my laptop. I have never seen that laptop. I don’t know what’s on the laptop,” she said Thursday. She said it was Imran’s laptop but purchased using taxpayer funds from her office.
After the exchange with Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa, Wasserman Schultz fought to block access to the laptop so vehemently that she hired an outside law firm to argue constitutional issues, an exceedingly rare step.
To say Wasserman Schultz doesn’t get it would be a huge understatement.
Republicans need to push hard on this, because the mainstream media won’t and the Democrats will circle the wagons.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.