Imran Awan seen below with Bill Clinton<\/p>\n
The brothers were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.<\/p>\n Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation\u2019s most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members\u2019 computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The three men are \u201cshared employees,\u201d <\/strong><\/a>meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split their salaries and use them as needed for IT services.<\/p>\n Then in March<\/strong>,<\/a> we noted that House Democrats decided to delay the firing (until today) because their Muslim background, some with ties to Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges<\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u201cI wanted to be sure individuals are not being singled out because of their nationalities or their religion. We want to make sure everybody is entitled to due process,<\/strong>\u201d Meeks said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThey had provided great service for me. And there were certain times in which they had permission by me, if it was Hina or someone else, to access some of my data.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Fudge told Politico on Tuesday she would employ Imran Awan until he received \u201cdue process.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cHe needs to have a hearing. Due process is very simple. You don\u2019t fire someone until you talk to them,\u201d <\/strong>Fudge said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On Wednesday, Lauren Williams, a spokeswoman for Fudge, wouldn\u2019t provide details about Imran Awan\u2019s firing but did confirm he was still employed in Fudge\u2019s office as of Tuesday afternoon.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The bottom line is simple – these House Democrats decided it was better to be at risk of hacking and extortion than to be accused of racism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Then yesterday <\/strong>we reported that Congressional Aides Fear Suspects In IT Breach Are Blackmailing Members With Their Own Data<\/strong>…<\/p>\n The baffled aides wonder if the suspects are blackmailing representatives based on the contents of their emails and files, to which they had full access.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t know what they have, but they have something on someone. It\u2019s been months at this point\u201d with no arrests, said Pat Sowers, who has managed IT for several House offices for 12 years. \u201cSomething is rotten in Denmark.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A manager at a tech-services company that works with Democratic House offices said he approached congressional offices, offering their services at one-fourth the price of Awan and his Pakistani brothers, but the members declined. At the time, he couldn\u2019t understand why his offers were rejected but now he\u00a0suspects the Awans exerted some type of leverage over members.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no question about it: If I was accused of a tenth of what these guys are accused of, they\u2019d take me out\u00a0in handcuffs that same day, and I\u2019d never work again,\u201d he said.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And today<\/strong><\/u>, The Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak reports <\/a>Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with \u201cconsequences\u201d for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches <\/strong>involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.<\/p>\n The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force\u2019s budget to press its chief to relinquish the piece of evidence Thursday, in what could be considered using her authority to attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation.<\/strong><\/p>\n The Capitol Police and\u00a0outside agencies<\/a>\u00a0are pursuing Imran Awan, who has run technology for the Florida lawmaker since 2005 and was\u00a0banned<\/a>\u00a0from the House network in February on suspicion of data breaches and theft.<\/p>\n \u201cMy understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members\u2019 equipment when the Member is not under investigation,\u201d Wasserman Schultz said in the\u00a0annual police budget hearing<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0House Committee On Appropriations\u2019 Legislative Branch Subcommittee.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cWe can\u2019t return the equipment,\u201d Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa told the Florida Democrat.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cI think you\u2019re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences,\u201d Wasserman Schultz said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As one of eight members of the Committee on Appropriations\u2019 Legislative Branch subcommittee, Wasserman Schultz is in charge of the budget of the police force that is investigating her staffer and how he managed to extract so much money and information from members.<\/p>\n In a highly unusual exchange, the Florida lawmaker uses a hearing on the Capitol Police\u2019s annual budget to spend three minutes repeatedly trying to extract a promise from the chief that he will return\u00a0a piece of evidence being used to build an active case.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIf a Member loses equipment and it is found by your staff and identified as that member\u2019s equipment and the member is not associated with any case, it is supposed to be returned. Yes or no?\u201d she said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Police tell her it is important to\u00a0\u201can ongoing investigation,\u201d but presses for its return anyway.<\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n The investigation is examining members\u2019 data\u00a0leaving the network and how Awan managed to get Members to place three relatives and a friend into largely no-show positions on their payrolls, billing $4 million<\/a> since 2010.<\/strong><\/p>\n The congresswoman characterizes the evidence as \u201cbelonging\u201d to her and argues that\u00a0therefore it cannot be seized<\/strong> unless Capitol Police tell her that she personally, as opposed to her staffer, is a target of the investigation.<\/p>\n When TheDCNF asked Wasserman Schultz Monday if it could inquire about her strong desire for\u00a0the laptop, she said \u201cNo, you may not.\u201d After TheDCNF asked why she wouldn\u2019t want the Capitol Police to have any evidence they may need to find and punish any hackers of government information, she abruptly turned around in the middle of a stairwell and retreated back to the office from which she had come.<\/p>\n Her spokesman, David Dameron, then emerged to say \u201cWe just don\u2019t have any comment.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Though on the surface Wasserman Schultz would have been a victim of Awan\u2019s scam, she has inexplicably protected him, circumventing the network ban by re-titling him as an \u201cadviser\u201d instead of technology administrator.<\/strong><\/p>\n Politico described<\/a> him and his wife, Hina Alvi, as having a \u201cfriendly personal relationship\u201d with both Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York.<\/p>\n That baffled a Democratic IT staffer, who said<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t imagine why she\u2019d be that good of friends with a technology provider.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cUsually if someone does bad stuff, an office is going to distance themselves\u201d rather than incur political fallout for a mere staffer.<\/strong><\/em><\/u><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wasserman Schultz resigned as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 after Wikileaks published thousands of internal emails obtained by an as-yet unidentified hacker.<\/p>\n The last 30 seconds of the exchange can also be seen here<\/a>…<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/user3303\/imageroot\/2017\/02\/01\/20170204_Awan_0.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
![](\"http:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/user3303\/imageroot\/2017\/02\/27\/20170301_meeks.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/user3303\/imageroot\/2017\/05\/23\/20170524_DWS.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n