Wow. Debbie Wasserman Schultz continues to dig herself deeper into a hole of corruption.
Last week we told you about how she had attacked and threatened the D.C. police chief because he had confiscated one of her office laptops during an investigation into a family of likely traitors who handle the IT issues for a handful of Democrat Congressmen, including Wasserman Schultz.
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.
Schultz continued the assault this week and moved from harassing the police chief to harassing the Hill’s IT department. What could she possibly be angry about? Well, she blames them for letting her break government technology rules. Here’s the problem, the Congressional IT department explained the guidelines to Wasserman Schultz’ people but since she was relying on criminals who were stealing government secrets, they didn’t tell her about the rules. Does Wasserman Schultz blame herself for hiring criminals? Nope, she blames the IT department for not making sure that she wasn’t breaking the rules.
In a recent hearing she berated the Congressional IT department head for not making her obey the rules that the department had told her about.
“If a member is using an application outside of the House infrastructure and the protection of the, [of] our cybersecurity network, they’re in violation of House policy?” she asked John Ramsey, the House’s information security officer at the hearing on the legislative branch’s budget, in the previously unreported May 17 appropriations hearing.
“Of the House Policy 17, yes ma’am,” Ramsey responded.
“So Members are not supposed to be using Dropbox?” Wasserman Shultz asked.
“Not according to the policy,” Ramsey replied.
Wasserman Schultz then blamed House authorities for not stopping her and questioned their commitment to cybersecurity.
“I am more than happy to admit that I use Dropbox. I have used it for years and years and years. It is not blocked. I am fully able to use it,” she said.
When asked why they would let her use Dropbox if she wasn’t supposed to be using it, Ramsey replied that his office communicated to EVERY congressional IT aide the various policies and procedures that they were supposed to be following. Apparently, Imran Awan and his family of corrupt IT technicians decided not to tell Wasserman Schultz about these rules. So has Wasserman Schultz ever expressed any anger or upset at Awan or his family? No. In fact, when the whole shocking story broke, instead of firing Awan, she simply demoted him to “adviser.”
Again, Wasserman Schultz is not acting like a politician who is trying to discover just how much (or how sensitive) information Awan moved out from out of the secure Capitol Hill servers. Instead, she is acting like someone who has something to hide and is attempting to protect herself as opposed to stopping a potentially disastrous data breach.
Imran Awan is suspected of funneling sensitive House data offsite onto secret servers wholesale, federal employees have said, which is a much broader breach but one that technically overlaps in some ways with how Dropbox works.
After Awan began working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, three of his relatives, including a 20-year old brother, as well as his best friend, appeared on other House members’ payrolls at salaries on par with congressional salaries. They have collected $4 million since 2010 despite being rarely seen.
House authorities told members’ chiefs of staffs on Feb. 2 that the Awans were targets of a criminal probe, and other members fired them.
Even with the serious charges leveled against Awan and his family, Wasserman Schultz continues to hinder and obstruct the ongoing investigation against him. Instead of helping to unravel this seriously dangerous situation, she is choosing, time and again, to attack the very people trying to figure out what has happened, and just how dangerous the situation actually is.
Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz trying to keep the truth from coming out? What is she trying to hide?