Here is the latest from the awan scandal – as usual, from’s Luke Rosiak who, unlike virtually all the rest of mainstream media, is doing what an investigative reporter does:  investigating:

A court date for a former Democratic IT aide has been postponed by more than a month after the defendant’s attorney, a former Hillary Clinton aide, said he’s seeking to block prosecutors from using evidence that appears to include a government laptop tied to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Imran Awan, his wife, his two brothers Abid and Jamal, and a friend all worked as IT aides for dozens of Democratic members of Congress. Shortly after WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee’s emails and during the lead up to the 2016 election, investigators discovered indications that they were using a server “for nefarious purposes” and “could be reading and/or removing information,” according to a briefing.

They were banned from the House network in February 2017, but Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Florida, refused to fire Awan. Late one night in March, he left the backpack in a phone booth in a different House building than the one she occupies.

Wasserman Schultz fought to prevent law enforcement from looking at the laptop, threatening a police chief with “consequences” and implying it was “a member’s” laptop. She hired an outside lawyer, Bill Pittard, who specializes in the “speech and debate” clause of the Constitution that is designed to protect lawmakers from persecution for political stances, but lawmakers have used to try to stymie criminal probes in the past.

Now, it is Awans’ lawyers who are seeking the right to keep information in the backpack, including the “hard drive,” from being used as evidence.

Is this news?  Big news?

Well, it involves foreign nationals, access to national security, dozens of Democrats, and the then-chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.  That, it seems to me, answers the question very clearly.

But who, other than Mr. Rosiak and several other non-mainstream sources, is investigating it?  Reporting it?

How can the major “news” networks and newspapers call themselves journalists, yet completely ignore this huge – and growing – scandal?

Would they do the same if these were Republicans?  One look at their nonstop, year and a half long coverage of the still-evidenceless Russia/Trump collusion story tells us otherwise.

And – as I ask over and over again – how can they then wonder why the term “fake news” resonates with so many people?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *