“Despite Wasserman Schultz implying she is exempt from rules of evidence and police procedure, her property (laptop) will be remanded until such time the criminal indictment gets a disposition.”
In yet another bizarre behavioral display by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D – Florida), her seeming entitlement beckons ethics committee scrutiny and investigation. On May 18, 2017, Rep. Wasserman Schultz came out swinging at US Capitol Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa, insinuating she will block his police department from receiving federal funds if her property (impounded as evidence) is not returned to her.
As a US Congresswoman, Wasserman Schultz ought to know better. There is no wisdom in impeding a justice proceeding, and it certainly engenders a criminal action for someone to threaten a public servant. Chief Verderosa has 31 years’ experience in law enforcement and comprehensively knows how to run a criminal investigation. One of Chief Verderosa’s responsibilities as a US Capitol police executive is “ensuring that organizational objectives are met.” I hazard to guess he does not take threats lightly, whether the agitator wears a Congressional lapel pin or not. No one gets to divide and conquer because of perceived entitlements.
Property belonging to Wasserman Schultz is currently impounded and held by the Capitol regarding an open criminal case which is mounting and yet to be adjudicated, as is the customary law enforcement protocol. Despite Wasserman Schultz implying she is exempt from rules of evidence and police procedure, her property (laptop) will be remanded until such time the criminal indictment gets a disposition. Wasserman Schultz’s connection to the police investigation stems from her staff IT guy having sticky fingers, dubious integrity, and potential blackmail of congressional members. In the aggregate, the Awan clan was compensated $4 million for their “services.”
With other law enforcement agencies’ forensic and technical gurus, the Capitol police are mounting a criminal case against Imran Awan, a Pakistani who is suspected of a massive cyber-security breach and theft of government property (government laptop containing data found concealed in a federal building cranny). Awan allegedly conspired with his wife, Hina Alvi, another Democrat’s staff member responsible for IT work. In an apparent family affair, Awan, Alvi, relatives Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, and Rao Abbas all conspired to funnel data produced by Congress to external sources, culminating in an investigation by the US Capitol police.
Awan’s dirty deeds were all under the auspices of his boss, Rep. Wasserman Schultz. In February 2017, Awan was effectively barred from the US House IT network, pending the investigation.
In the annual police budget hearing, Wasserman Schultz inquired, “So if a member [of Congress] says there is equipment that has been lost, and you find it, it would be returned to the member?”
In measured diplomacy, Chief Verderosa replied:
“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 the investigation, then we’ll return the equipment. But until that happens we can’t return the equipment.”
The most appropriate thing for the Capitol police to do is to concede nothing until the case pinnacles with an arrest or closed otherwise. Nothing in the interim should be regarded as extenuating circumstances. Nothing!
Nevertheless, Wasserman Schultz carried on like a petulant teen:
“I don’t understand how that is possible. Members’ equipment is members’ equipment. My understanding is that 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.”
It sounds as if she was borrowing parts of a diplomatic immunity clause.
It is believed Wasserman Schultz was implying the equipment should be returned to her since she is not the subject of the investigation. The cat-and-mouse antics in this scenario are pathetic.
She is already aware of the investigation of her IT staff member (and his four co-conspirators), including the use of Congressional equipment. Therefore, hypothesizing her office equipment is “lost” is offensive to police investigators and the citizens whose tax dollars purchased said equipment. The congresswoman’s arrogant grandstanding further sullies her reputation, similar to her actions during the DNC in which her role in sabotaging then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was discovered. She resigned the DNC chairperson title after being outed for her nefarious activity. Yet, she still serves. Seems to be protected by some of that Teflon used by her friend, Hillary Clinton.
Unmoved by Chief Verderosa’s qualifications, Wasserman Shultz retorted: “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences!” Therein is the rub of the century. Rules, rules, rules…the very purpose of lawmakers’ existence. Somehow, this woman’s oblivion, arrogance, hypocrisy and petulance persist. The chief’s business is the people’s business, and rule of law mortars retention of anything deemed of evidentiary value to any criminal case. She made it personal, unfortunately. In a huff, she walked out after adjournment, while all others shook hands and maturely chatted amongst themselves.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz has been in government studies since high school, thus she should readily recognize how criminal justice matters are processed. How does a member of Congress merit a seat with the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, deciding funding allocations for US Capitol police, if one appears indifferent to the investigatory procedures and rules of evidence? More succinctly, she is a lawmaker on Capitol Hill.
Violations of Law?
I believe the following United States Code (USC) applies best given the circumstances we are discussing herein. 18 USC § 1503 Influencing or Injuring Officer or Juror Generally precisely holds: “(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.”
Did I hear “BINGO”?
Further, 18 USC § 1521 Retaliating against a federal judge or federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title specifically holds “Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in any public record or in any private record which is generally available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of an individual described in section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.”
I emphasized language in this particular statute to indicate applications relevant to Wasserman Schultz’s hypothetical claims we mentioned earlier, the part where she said, “So if a member [of Congress] says there is equipment that has been lost, and you find it, it would be returned to the member?” Via police confirmation, she knew nothing was lost and her verbal prodding concretely acknowledges this fact. Pretend play is best left for children, not elected persons in official proceedings.
Additionally, 18 USC § 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and committees is part and parcel language relating to Wasserman Schultz allegedly demanding return of her property during an officially convened House Budget Subcommittee hearing. Federal Obstruction law encompasses: “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years.”
Do we have a culprit?
The preceding federal code (“Obstruction”) is also referred to as “Perverting the course of justice” and has language explaining that an offense is “committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party.” Technically, Wasserman Schultz hasn’t physically prevented justice, but she is perilously at the borderline, was asserting (abusing) her Congressional authority, and officiously directed “there will be consequences” to a federal official (police chief) in the course of a recorded Capitol police budget conference. How else are her remarks to be construed?
Ethics Committee
If ever there was a solid reason to convene an elected political official before the House Committee on Ethics, this is it. To suggest withholding budgetary allocations for the US Capitol Police Department while seated in official capacity as a House Budget Subcommittee member, whose personal dilemma engendered abuse of her authority, warrants scrutiny. Perhaps another resignation is coming down the pike.
Part and parcel, Wasserman Schultz’s woes also include being slapped with a nifty lawsuit stemming from her role in “allegedly rigging the 2016 Democratic Primary for Hillary Clinton,” effectively destroying Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential aspirations. So be it.
Play with fire, you get burned. Obstruct a presidential campaign, get slapped with a lawsuit. Browbeat the US Capitol police, face ethics complaints and/or criminal charges. She may have her property back when justice is done with it. Perhaps the waiting period can be optimized by serving her constituents; given the reputation, I cringe at the thought.
As reported by Politico, Wasserman Schultz went so far as to change Awan’s job title to “Advisor” (formerly “Technology administrator”), a move which reportedly stunned another Democratic IT staffer, who declared “I can’t imagine why she’d be that good of friends with a technology provider. Usually if someone does bad stuff, an office is going to distance themselves” and not risk political blowback for a support person.
What’s your take on this Wasserman Schultz vs. US Capitol police dustup? Is she trying to protect Awan? If so, why? Hillary-related material in the mix? Something stinks, and the US Capitol police will fumigate the Hill’s halls despite the consequences.
