Scandal: Congressional Democrats Hired Pakistani Nationals As IT Tech Staffers on Intelligence Committees | Feb 15, 2017

Explosive new hacking scandal has Democrats’ fingerprints

– WND

“Remember the hue and cry raised by Democrats over the “Russians” hacking their computer systems during the 2016 presidential election?

How there should be investigations? How someone – a Republican – must be at fault? How whatever interaction Donald Trump ever had with Russia was viewed suspiciously?

And now there are Democrats’ attacks on Trump over Michael Flynn, his national security adviser who was forced to resign this week over conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

Investigate, they demand. Not just Flynn, but Trump, too.

Yet the Democrats are mum over their own explosive hacking scandal, which could overshadow Watergate, Filegate, Travelgate and dozens of other Washington scandals.

The allegation is that Democrats hired tech staffers who were Pakistani nationals, and they likely gained illegal access to secret congressional information.

And that includes classified documents.

Flynn resigned late Monday after reports that he not been truthful with Vice President Mike Pence about his discussions with the Russian ambassador about sanctions.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported brothers Imran, Jamal and Abid Awan had been working for IT departments of multiple Democratic congressional offices. The three brothers had access to various computer systems and pathways.

But then, just days ago, they were abruptly relieved of their duties and banned from the networks because of “suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission.”

The report said 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’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.”

WND made dozens of calls and sent dozens of emails on Tuesday asking members who might have hired the brothers for comment and an update on the status of the investigation.

A spokesman for Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., responded tersely, “Can’t comment on this one.”

A spokeswoman in the office of Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said it was a “personnel matter,” and “that’s all I’m going to say.”

Among the many offices WND contacted, without generating a response, were those for Democrats Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joaquini Castro, Lois Frankel, Ted Lieu, Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Takano and John Sarbanes.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said something must be done.

“I hope we investigate this issue,” he said. “The facts regarding technology procurement and potentially illegal violations of the House IT network by several Democratic staffers is very concerning.”

Philip Haney, a former Department of Homeland Security officer and co-author of “See Something, Say Nothing,” a book about his effort to expose the U.S. governments capitulation to Islamic supremacists, said the case will be a bellwether.

“This particular breach of security will reveal how seriously our three branches of government actually take the threat posed by what appears to be a network of at least five Muslim operatives, who have managed to soak their way into the very heart of our constitutional republic,” he said.

“Let’s hope that this scandal isn’t just swept under the rug, or allowed to fade quietly into the background, like so many others that have, but instead becomes a case study in how our elected officials defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Haney said that in “this hyper-political environment, anything less than unrestrained bipartisan cooperation in a full investigation, followed by subsequent prosecution, if warranted, will be seen not only as an open indictment, but also as a blatant display of malevolent hypocrisy.”

Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage Magazine recently outlined what is known about the breach and the implications.

Imran Awan and his two brothers, Jamal and Abid, are at the center of an investigation into, among other things, allegations of illegal access. They have been barred from the House of Representatives network.

A member of Congress feared that they “may have stolen data from us.”

Greenfield reported that the three Pakistani brothers had worked only for Democrats, including members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was not even a year after eight Democrats on that committee “issued a demand that their staffers be granted access to top secret classified information,” he reported.

There’s a special concern about Carson, he revealed.

“Carson is the second Muslim in Congress and the first Muslim on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, more critically, is the ranking member on its Emerging Threats Subcommittee,” Greenfield wrote. “He is also a member of the Department of Defense Intelligence and Overhead Architecture Subcommittee. The Emerging Threats Subcommittee, of which Carson is a ranking member, is responsible for much of counterterrorism oversight. It is the worst possible place for a man with Carson’s credentials.”

While the Democrats were demanding security clearances for staff members, “three Pakistani Muslims working for them appear to have compromised security to an unknown degree,” he said.

Greenfield asked: “Why were the Awan brothers, one of whom had a criminal record, even allowed to work in such a sensitive position? How did the personnel suspected in this case pass background checks? And was any classified information compromised as a result of these alleged breaches?”

….Continue reading @ WND.com

 

FLASHBACK: Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections & Help Defeat Reagan

– The Federalist

“If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan. That’s no exaggeration.

According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
….Continue reading more @ The Federalist

 

New Reports Say 1980 Reagan Campaign Tried to Delay Hostage Release

– New York Times |  1991

WASHINGTON, April 14— Persistent but unproven accusations that Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign negotiated a secret deal with Iran to prevent the release of American hostages until after the election are being revived this week with fresh accounts of meetings between campaign officials and an Iranian cleric.

One of the accounts is provided by Gary Sick, a Middle East specialist who helped handle the Iranian hostage crisis as a member of the White House staff in the Carter Administration. Mr. Sick, in an article published Monday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, says he has heard what he considers to be reliable reports that a secret deal involving the hostages was begun during two meetings between William J. Casey and the Iranian cleric in a Madrid hotel in July 1980.

The allegation that there were meetings between Mr. Casey, Mr. Reagan’s campaign chairman, who went on be the Director of Central Intelligence, and Hojatolislam Mehdi Karrubi, a representative of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has been reported for the first time by Mr. Sick. Research for a Book

He says in his article that the accounts of the meetings in Madrid are part of an accumulation of information he has developed in research for a book. He says it has led him to conclude, despite earlier doubts, that some kind of discussions took place between the Reagan campaign and Iran.

“The story is tangled and murky, and it may never be fully unraveled,” Mr. Sick writes.

The fate of the hostages was a pivotal issue in the 1980 election. They were taken prisoner when followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s revolutionary Government, seized the United States Embassy in Teheran in November 1979. A military operation to rescue them failed in the Iranian desert in April 1980. The Carter Administration hoped that it might obtain their release either through negotiations or a second rescue mission before Election Day, and Reagan campaign officials were concerned that the return of the hostages could swing the election to Mr. Carter. Charges Are Denied

All those involved in the Reagan campaign, including President Bush, have vehemently denied any effort to delay the return, saying they would neither violate the law by operating outside established Government diplomatic channels nor contemplate anything that would have prolonged the captivity of the American hostages.”

…..Continue reading @ NY Times

 

Surprise: At the End, Obama Administration Gave NSA Broad New Powers

– PJ Media

“This story, from the Jan. 12, 2017, edition of the New York Times, was little-remarked upon at the time, but suddenly has taken on far greater significance in light of current events:

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

One of the central questions behind the Mike Flynn flap that should have been asked but largely wasn’t is: who was wiretapping the general? The answer, we know now, was the National Security Agency, formerly known as No Such Agency, the nation’s foremost signals-intelligence (SIGINT) collection department.

Once compartmentalized to avoid injuring private citizens caught up in the net of the Black Widow (as we all are already) and her technological successors, the NSA was suddenly handed greater latitude in what it could share with other, perhaps more politicized bodies of the intelligence community. Why?”

….Continue reading @ PJ Media