Imran Awan

Like most important news stories and every potential scandal involving the Democratic side of government—the Imran Awan case has been greeted with a collective yawn by the main stream media. Sure, you've seen a passing mention of the Pakistani IT Specialist who bilked taxpayers out of 4 million dollars, who was working for past DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) and 20 other Democrat Congresspeople, who was indicted for bank fraud and captured as he tried to flee the country. Why isn't the NYT and WaPO, CNN and CBS dedicating their inimitable investigative skills to this, rather than chasing mirages and leaks in the Russian collusion affair. Because—any investigation would hurt their party of preference—the Dems.

Roger Simon suggests that this is a case where a special counsel might be justified, noting that Awan could be an ISI (Packistan's Intelligence Service) plant. Awan had access to the files of 20 Democratic congresspeople. One can only wonder what he was able to get and did with that information. In fact, the DNC leaks (remember hat DWS was the DNC chair when he worked for her) Simon writes:

... unlike Russiagate, this is an investigation that already has a crime (Awan will be arraigned August 21). It isn't in search of one. It's just trying to find out its extent wherever it leads. That's what special counsels do. And in this case, Sessions should make sure that, unlike Mueller, the new special counsel picks associates on both sides of the aisle. Unlike the biased Russia investigation, this should be even-handed. We want to believe its conclusions in the end.

There are a lot of shoelaces to be tied up here. Among them:

• Why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz keep this man in her employ right up until he was arrested Tuesday night when he has been under suspicion for months. Does he have something on her or other people?
• Why did Nancy Pelosi lie when she said she never heard of Awan? Email revealed by Wikileaks says Awan had access to Pelosi's iPad. (Wiklileaks has never been shown to be inaccurate.)
• What is on the smashed hard drives Awan is trying to retrieve from the FBI? (Oh, those Democrats and their hard drives.)
• Why is Awan suddenly being legally represented at the highest level by Clinton ultra-loyalist Chris Gowan -- a fact-checker for Bill Clinton's memoir of all things? (They are already using the same right-wing conspiracy baloney they used in the Lewinski case.) Does this make sense if Awan's just a low-life fraudster? Why not let him dangle?
• Just what is the relationship, if any, between the Awan case and the unsolved Seth Rich murder? Is it entirely an accident that Debbie Wasserman Schultz's brother Steven is accused of blocking the investigation? Denials from Debbie aren't worth much anymore.
• Where did the Wikileaks come from anyway? Was it really Russia?

That is, as they say, the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As for why Awan was chosen in the first place, well, if there's anything Democrats fear, it's being called an Islamophobe or in any way politically incorrect. Who better than someone of Pakistani origin to do your IT work? It proves just what a wonderful person you are, doesn't it?

The ridiculous Russiagate investigation has yet to uncover any actual crime, has yet to produce one shred of credible evidence of a crime (last I checked, meetings are not a crime), and yielded nothing but hysterical accusations and innuendo. In the Awan case, there's an actual crime that has been committed, along with actual evidence.

By the way, the big time Democrat lawyer who is defending Awan has, of course, alleged "anti-Muslim" sentiment. Yeah, when all else fails the Dems rely on their old stand-by ... Islamophobia.

Let's see whether the MSM does it job. Nah -- they won't.