The curious case of Mr. Imran Awan and friends

By Paul Ackerman | Aug 10, 2017

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party had a chairwoman named Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

A congresswoman from Florida, Wasserman-Schultz was unceremoniously revealed by WikiLeaks in 2016 to be dishonest and manipulating the Democratic primary system to prevent candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders from even coming close to winning the nomination over Hillary Clinton. Tearfully, she resigned as party chair, only to be supplanted by interim Chair Donna Brazil, of CNN, also outed by WikiLeaks as unethical and dishonest.

The Washington Post, no conservative outlet, even reported on her offer to provide debate and town hall questions ahead of time1.

“In a leaked trove of emails concerning Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, there appears one with the heading, 'From time to time I get the questions in advance.' The email was written by Donna Brazile, who was then a CNN contributor and a reputable Democratic strategist.”

What does all this have to do with Mr. Imran Awan, a Pakistani-American, and his cohorts? For that matter, who the heck is this guy, and why should anyone care? Pretty simply, because the case is akin to a very corrupted ball of string, and a great deal of government-sourced information from the House network was very likely stolen and transferred abroad by this group.

By the time Wasserman-Schultz resigned as party chair in July 2016, Imran Awan had been employed by her office, and eventually some 25 other Democrats, including members of the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees, as an IT specialist for a number of years. His group had access to the entire House IT system, apparently until February 2017.

She kept Awan on her staff payroll until the day he was arrested last month, having gone to the trouble of changing his job description to “adviser” from technology specialist because he had been barred from the House IT network by the Capitol Police in February.

He started with her on the recommendation of former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) about 2006, and very rapidly, his salary was raised well above the average $40,000 to $60,000 for IT specialists in Congress to $120,000.

Nice job, for which one presumes he must have had quite the resume of IT jobs before, and which would be on file somewhere. You’d be presumptuous to think that such information would be readily available to the public paying his salary.

In fact, as the years progressed, Awan brought along his wife,Hina Alvi, brothers Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, and friends Rao Abbas and Hasid Rana, all as other “IT specialists,” though there are many questions about who actually worked where or at all. No matter, they all were making salaries in the range of $160,000 paid by the federal government.

This family and friends group began buying real estate in 2009, and started a used car dealership as well. None of this worked out financially, and Awan declared bankruptcy in 2011. It is apparent that the businesses were a nightmare of murky finances.

Surprisingly, his security clearance was not reviewed as a consequence of the bankruptcy2.

More recently, Wasserman-Schultz’s pathetic explanation of how she views this entire episode as one of racial profiling and Islamophobia demonstrates yet again her lack of honesty. Every step of the way these characters have violated or circumvented laws and attempted to destroy evidence or obstruct investigations. She refuses to see it3.

Former Clinton lawyer Chris Gowen, now representing Imran Awan, spouted the same nonsense to Politico –as reported by UPI. Do you wonder who is paying Gowen’s fees?

"This is clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney's Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim," Gowen said. "A quick glance at what the government filed in court today confirms the lack of evidence or proof they have against my client."

Lack of evidence? It is very obvious this group was, at a minimum, practicing bank fraud, and sending the proceeds to Pakistan.

Imran, under very dubious circumstances, requested a $283,000 bank wire from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to be sent to Faisalabad, Pakistan, just before he was arrested at Dulles Airport trying to flee the country. An example of racial profiling as Wasserman-Schultz says? I think not.

Then there are recent revelations that Imran et al threatened the renters of his property (a Marine and his spouse, a Navy officer) in Lorton, Va., if they did not give him back smashed computer hard drives and other equipment found in the home. Luckily, they had already turned it over to the FBI.

Among other charges raised by the Capitol Police are unauthorized accessing of the House & Senate IT systems.

Wasserman-Schultz was particularly agitated with Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa when he refused to return a confiscated laptop (found secreted in the Rayburn Office Building, whereas her office is in the Longworth House Office Building, a different structure) allegedly belonging to Imran Awan, but that Wasserman-Schultz tried to claim was her property. This exchange, once again, exemplifies the arrogance and treachery embedded in such representatives.

Wasserman-Schultz: 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.

Verderosa: It depends on the circumstances.

Wasserman-Schultz: I don’t understand how that is possible. Members’ equipment is members’ equipment. My understanding is, 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.

Verderosa: 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 [sic] the investigation, then we’ll return the equipment. But until that happens we can’t return the equipment.

Wasserman-Schultz: I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences4.

Curiously, Wasserman-Schultz is correct, though not in the way she implied: There will be consequences.






Comments (4)
Posted by: Dale E. Landrith Sr. | Aug 15, 2017 07:55

Nice try Ron.  No diversion here the article was written one week prior to the Charllotesville incident.

Posted by: Marvon W. Hupper | Aug 13, 2017 18:00

Another story about a bunch of thugs, then followed be smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: Marvon W. Hupper | Aug 13, 2017 17:58

Another story about a bunch of thugs, then followed be smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Aug 13, 2017 11:04

Just in case anyone forgets what this obvious distraction is for:


"In a disturbing video white nationalist, politician, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke exposed the dangerous truth about Trump’s affiliation with the Nazi march.

Vanity Fair’s Joanna Robinson posted a video on social media where the former KKK leader makes perfectly clear the march and the actions were encouraged by President Trump.

Duke stated at the rally: “We are determined to take our country back,” then said that this was a “turning point” in American history. Duke continued to say: “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”

After Trump finally addressed the attack, Duke reminded him who put him in Office in the first place and Duke did not mince words when calling out Trump."

If you wish to comment, please login.