Oh, Debbie. What have you gone and done, now?
Florida Democrat and former head of the Democrat National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) continues to beclown herself and drag her own “not-so-good” name through the mud.
The latest display of ridiculous behavior came when she decided to step into the middle of an ongoing investigation of traitorous and criminal behavior by a family of IT workers lead by Imran Awan, who authorities believe has been stealing and selling classified information from various lawmakers for the last few years. Schultz’ current problem with the police who are investigating the various crimes is that they’ve confiscated a laptop that has evidence pertaining to the ongoing investigation. Schultz desperately wants this laptop back, and will go to great lengths to get it.
Just how far will she go?
Well, she recently used her Congressional position to convene a budget meeting for the Capitol police and during that meeting threatened to cut funding (and salaries) to the Capitol police if they did not turn over the laptop immediately.
Wassermsn Schultz is on tape threatening a police chief for not relinquishing evidence in a criminal investigation https://t.co/kr78AZWZdK
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) May 25, 2017
— The Morning Spew (@TheMorningSpew) May 25, 2017
I don’t know about you, but where I come from that’s called… blackmail.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” 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 involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.
The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force’s 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.
Schultz first tired to tell the police chief that he wasn’t allowed to take her team’s equipment, even if it was evidence in a criminal investigation.
“My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members’ equipment when the Member is not under investigation,” Wasserman told the chief during the budget hearing. “We can’t return the equipment,” Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa replied. “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences,” the Congresswoman threatened.
She then spent the next few minutes trying to force the police chief to return the laptop to her, even though he continued to stress that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation and could not be released to her at this time.
What continues to baffle many observers is that on the face of the issue, the Congresswoman has been the victim of an ongoing crime, yet she’s not acting as if she’s a victim but instead as if she’s an accomplice to the criminal enterprises of the Awan family.
You can watch the budget meeting where the Congresswoman threatens to the police chief below (the pertinent part begins at 1:26:30 into the video):
DWS: I’d like to know how Capitol Police handle equipment that belongs to a member or staffer that’s been lost in the Capitol complex and found or recovered by one of your officers. What happens?
Chief: It’s processed on a PD-81 which is a property record, and depending on the property, depending on how you can legitimately determine ownership, it’s generally turned back over to the owner of a property. If it’s part of an ongoing case, then there are other things that have to occur for that to happen.
DWS: So if a member says there is equipment that has been lost, and you find it it would be returned to the member?
Chief: In a general sense, yes. You have to be able to positively identify the property and be able to establish ownership.
DWS: If ownership is established…
Chief: If it’s part of an ongoing case, then there are additional things that need to be done.
DWS: But if a member owns the equipment, and there is no ongoing case related to that member, then the equipment is supposed to be returned.
Chief: In a general sense, yes.
DWS: No, I mean in a specific sense. If the member loses the equipment, says they lose the equipment, and it is found by the Capitol Police, it is supposed to be returned.
Chief: If ownership has been established, it will be returned. If it’s subject to an ongoing investigation, there are additional things–
DWS: OK, but not an ongoing investigation related to that member. If the equipment belongs to the member, it has been lost, they say it’s been lost and it’s been identified as that member’s, then the Capitol Police are supposed to return it.
Chief: I can’t give a yes or no answer on that, because I know–
DWS: It’s a simple yes or no answer. If a member loses equipment and it is found by your staff and identified as that member’s equipment and the member is not associated with any case, it is supposed to be returned. Yes or no.
Chief: It depends on the circumstances.
DWS: I don’t understand how that is possible. Members’ equipment is members’ equipment. My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members’ equipment when the member is not under investigation. It is their equipment and it is supposed to be returned.
Chief: I think there are extenuating circumstances in this case, and working through my counsel and the necessary personnel, if that in fact is the case, and with the permission of through the investigation, then we’ll return the equipment. But until that happens we can’t return the equipment.
DWS: I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences.