Judge Napolitano: Awans Had Access To 'Virtually Everything' In House of Representatives, Sold Information

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

The rapidly unfolding case against Debbie Wasserman Schultz"s apparent Pakistani IT spy ring already had huge implications for National Security. We now learn that the investigation into the the Awan family encompasses more than just the Democrats they were working directly for.

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox Business Network on Monday where he dropped a new bombshell: not only did the Awans had access to the emails of every member of the House of Representatives, Imran Awan reportedly sold information to still unknown parties, which the FBI is currently investigating.

Napolitano: He was arrested for some financial crime - that"s the tip of the iceberg. The real allegation against him is that he had access to the emails of every member of congress and he sold what he found in there. What did he sell, and to whom did he sell it? That"s what the FBI wants to know. This may be a very, very serious national security situation.

Varney: Wait a second, he was the IT worker along with his two Pakistani brothers, for DWS, and other Democrats in the House - and the theory is that he got access to all of their secrets or whatever, and sold some?

Napolitano: Yes, and this was at the time that Congresswoman Schultz was also the chair of the Democratic National Committee. So at this point I don"t believe they know what he sold, and to whom he sold it - but they do know what he had access to, which is virtually everything in the House of representatives, which would include classified material in the House intelligence committee.

Watch:

  

And as The Gateway Pundit reported Thursday - the Awans were sending sensitive information to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Per Josh Caplan @ GWP:

The explosive claim is backed up by a report in Frontpage Magazine linking the Awan brothers to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Pakistani IT staffers worked for Democrat Congressmen Andre Carson as well.

Frontpage reported:

The office of Andre Carson, the second Muslim in Congress, had employed Imran Awan. As did the offices of Jackie Speier and Debbie Wasserman Schultz; to whom the letter had been addressed.

Carson is the second Muslim in Congress and the first Muslim on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, more critically, is the ranking member on its Emerging Threats Subcommittee. He is also a member of the Department of Defense Intelligence and Overhead Architecture Subcommittee.

The Emerging Threats Subcommittee, of which Carson is a ranking member, is responsible for much of counterterrorism oversight. It is the worst possible place for a man with Carson’s credentials.

Carson had inherited his grandmother’s seat and exploited it to promote a radical Islamist agenda. He has interfaced with a laundry list of Islamist groups from CAIR to ISNA to ICNA to MPAC. Islamists have funded Carson’s career to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. The Center for Security Policy has put together a dossier of Carson’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is the parent organization of many key Islamic terror groups posing a threat to our national security including Al Qaeda and Hamas.

Andre Carson shared the stage at a CAIR banquet with Sirraj Wahaj: an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing who had once declared,” You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.” CAIR itself had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in terror finance.

It’s ironic the Awan brothers cry Islamophobia, when in all actuality, the religion they practice deserves all the scrutiny it receives. Simply put, the Awan brothers are of the Muslim faith sending sensitive information to Islamic fundamentalist group, Muslim Brotherhood.

Watch:

I wonder what"s on that laptop Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of DC Capitol Police over?

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

CNN Confirms Fox's Napolitano - British Intelligence Passed On Trump Surveillance To US Spy Agency

Roughly a month ago, during the height of the mainstream media mania over Trump"s alleged collusion with Russia, Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox and Friends with a startling new revelation, namely that President Obama circumvented U.S. law and employed a British intelligence agency to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign.  Despite Napolitano"s assertion that the information had been confirmed by 3 separate sources, the Obama administration and foreign intelligence agencies issued immediate denials and the mainstream media was all too happy to trash the latest "conspiracy theory" of their competitor network.  Here"s what he said:

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command.  He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice.  He used GCHQ.”

“What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database.”

“So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this."

.@Judgenap: Three intel sources have disclosed that Pres. Obama turned to British spies to get surveillance on Trump pic.twitter.com/IghCFm7qhO

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) March 14, 2017

Of course,  Napolitano"s efforts ultimately earned him a multi-day suspension from Fox News.

Now, some 30 days after Napolitano broke the story, CNN seems to have just confirmed it:

British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.

The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what"s known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.

The European intelligence agencies detected multiple communications over several months between the Trump associates and Russian individuals -- and passed on that intelligence to the US. The US and Britain are part of the so-called "Five Eyes" agreement (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), which calls for open sharing among member nations of a broad range of intelligence.

Of course, we"re quite certain that, as CNN notes, the intercepted communications were merely "incidental" and in no way requested by the Obama administration, but rather, were conveniently volunteered, unsolicited, by British intelligence.  Moreover, we"re sure that British intelligence also had very innocent reasons for "accidentally" happening upon the communication of Trump"s advisors.  That said, we do wonder whether they also happened upon any communications from the Hillary campaign...

Report: British Intelligence Agencies, In Addition to Six Other Nations, Were All Spying on Trump

About a month ago, Fox suspended Judge Nap for suggesting British intelligence had spied on Donald Trump. The media went hysterical, saying the good judge was filled with UFO styled conspiracy theories.

Here was his claim.

A spokesman for the GCHQ at the time called the claims "nonsense", proclaiming “They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

Lo and behold, the Guardian is out with an exclusive tonight -- rebuking the GCHQ denial -- confirming that Obama had received information from the British spy agency, possibly to avoid being detected by people investigating FISA warrants. In addition to Britain"s GCHQ, Mi6 was also involved, and 4 other nations --  as part of the intelligence gathering apparatus called SIGINT -- who then ferried their findings to Obama. The spying nations were Germany, Estonia, Poland and Australia.
 
Another guardian source said both France and the Netherlands were possible contributors to the Trump spying ring too.
 
CNN reporting:

 
The GCHQ became aware of  "suspicious interactions" in late 2015.
 

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
 
It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.

 
In typical spin, the Guardian"s source posited the notion that something improper had taken place between the Russians and Trump.
 

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’
 
“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”

 
The Guardian claims the GCHQ head, Robert Hannigan, passed the information in the summer of 2016 to the CIA boss, John Brennan. In turn, Brennan told the "gang of eight" in the House and Senate that there was evidence Russia was trying to swing the election towards Trump, then reported by the NYT.
 
According to the Guardian, intelligence agencies were progressing in their attempts to tie the hacking of John Podesta"s email box, Russia, and the Trump team.

“They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.”

 
We eagerly await their findings.

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Napolitano: Trump First President to Confront Deep State

Shadow government desperate to destroy uncompromised ‘People’s President’.

Dan Lyman | Infowars.com – March 7, 2017

Judge Andrew Napolitano praised Donald Trump as the first president to challenge the mysterious, controlling ‘deep state’ in the modern American era.

“The deep state has a very wise and shrewd adversary – the man in the Oval Office,” he said. “[It is] the first time in the modern era that the man in the Oval Office has been an adversary of the deep state, rather than a tool of it.”

In an appearance with Lou Dobbs, Napolitano laid out what the deep state is for the general public, and dropped bombshell after bombshell about its power to influence the behavior of presidents, obtain all manner of information about the general public and steer the direction of the country – regardless of which political group is supposedly in charge.

“Really, it’s been around since 1947: the deep state – the part of the government that never charges, regardless of which party controls Congress and which party is in the White House,” he explained. “There are many, many aspects of the deep state; we’re talking about the intelligence community deep state – people in the intelligence community that have access to so much information about everyone.”

“They can manipulate the President of the United States, and if they don’t like what he says, they can embarrass him, and if they want to control his thought patterns and decision making, they’ll keep information away from him.”

“Donald Trump has fallen victim to that, and he knows it, and he knows he has to stop it,” he concluded.

Napolitano asserted that Trump’s call for a congressional investigation into possible wiretapping and illegal surveillance of his campaign headquarters at Trump Tower is a nightmare for the deep state and their enablers in the federal government.

“[It is] the last thing his enemies in the intelligence community want, because if the American public learns that they have access to everything we type and everything we say, they will be repulsed by the power that this deep state group has that Congress gave them – they didn’t create this on their own,” he said. “Congress enacted three pieces of legislation, which, with perverse interpretations of this legislation before a secret court, let’s them gather everything we say in real-time.”

Napolitano referenced the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as the “secret court” which reviews and approves virtually all requests by the federal government to spy on foreign individuals present in the United States and intercept all of their communications, but these same requests – which are rarely denied – are being used to spy on Americans in shocking fashion.

“One of the FISA court warrants that I saw was, ‘for every customer of Verizon in the United States,’” revealed Napolitano. “That’s 113 million people – including most of the federal government.”

Dobbs and Napolitano discussed the depth to which the inter-agency spying occurs, noting that even Congress, high-ranking military officers, and Supreme Court justices are intimately monitored.

“If they will surveil journalists, if they will spy on U.S. senators, why would they hesitate to spy on a presidential candidate?” concluded Dobbs.

Read more at INFOWARS

The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

February 23, 2017

Last week, The Wall Street Journal revealed that members of the intelligence community — part of the deep state, the unseen government within the government that does not change with elections — now have acquired so much data on everyone in America that they can selectively reveal it to reward their friends and harm their foes. Their principal foe today is the president of the United States.

Liberty is rarely lost overnight. The wall of tyranny often begins with benign building blocks of safety — each one lying on top of a predecessor — eventually collectively constituting an impediment to the exercise of free choices by free people, often not even recognized until it is too late.

(snip)

Enter the outsider as president. Donald Trump has condemned the spying and leaking, as he is a victim of it. While he was president-elect, the spies told him they knew of his alleged misbehaviors — vehemently denied — in a Moscow hotel room. Last week, his White House staff was shaken by what the spies did with what they learned from a former Trump aide.

Trump’s former national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, himself a former military spy, spoke to the Russian ambassador to the United States in December via telephone in Trump Tower. It was a benign conversation. He knew it was being monitored, as he is a former monitor of such communications. But he mistakenly thought that those who were monitoring him were patriots as he is. They were not.

They violated federal law by revealing in part what Flynn had said, and they did so in a manner to embarrass and infuriate Trump.

Why would they do this? Perhaps because they feared Flynn’s being in the White House, since he knows the power and depth of the deep state. Perhaps to send a message to Trump because he once compared American spies to Nazis. Perhaps because they believe that their judgment of the foreign dangers America faces is superior to the president’s. Perhaps because they hate and fear the outsider in the White House.

The chickens have come home to roost. In our misguided efforts to keep the country safe, we have neglected to keep it free. We have enabled a deep state to become powerful enough to control a powerful president. We have placed so much data and so much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable, opaque spies that they can use it as they see fit — even to the point of committing federal felonies. Now some have boasted that they can manipulate and thus control the president of the United States by selectively revealing and concealing what they know about anyone, including the president himself.

This is a perilous state of affairs, brought about by the maniacal passion for surveillance spawned under George W. Bush and perfected under Barack Obama — all with utter indifference to the widespread constitutional violations and permanent destruction of personal liberties. This is not the government the Framers gave us. But it is one far more dangerous to human freedom than the one from which they seceded in 1776.

Read more at Creators

Judge Nap: FBI Just Released “Smoking Gun” Documents on Clinton

While millions of Americans were otherwise occupied with football on Sunday, the FBI discreetly released hundreds of additional documents pertaining to its investigation of Hillary Clinton — the contents of which analyst and legal expert Judge Andrew Napolitano described as “the smoking gun if there ever was one.”

Indeed the nature of the documents and the method in which they were communicated might be sufficient to bring charges against the former secretary of state and failed presidential candidate.

In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs on Monday night, Napolitano asserted the 300 documents — released by an unknown source inside the FBI — evince a tremendously divergent characterization of Clinton’s handling of sensitive information than portrayed by intelligence agencies and the Democratic establishment.

“The highly sensitive nature,” the judge told Dobbs, “was 301 pages of emails, which Mrs. Clinton sent on a regular basis to a non-government person. We have reason to believe that was Sid Blumenthal — with whom she emailed on a daily and regular basis, several times a day.”

Judge Napolitano explained, what “[President-elect] Donald Trump feared and argued during the campaign, and what rogue FBI agents who profoundly disagreed with Director Comey’s decision to recommend against indictment” had been saying all along, is actually true.

And “the information Mrs. Clinton regularly sent to [the unnamed individual] was hacked by foreign intelligence agencies of countries unfriendly to us, and friendly to us — and sources tell FOX News those were Russia, China [both] unfriendly, and Israel, friendly.”

On page 235 in the latest cache of documents, as The Free Thought Project reported, “the FBI admits the Office of Inspector General found classified materials on Clinton’s server. This means the FBI knew about this leak well before anything was made public — and while Clinton was publicly denying it the entire time.”

Napolitano continued, the new information will be “extremely relevant in this time period,” as Senator Jeff Sessions continues to be grilled in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a potential cabinet role as U.S. Attorney General because — pertaining to the freshly released documents — he will undoubtedly be asked, “what will you do with this?”

Dobbs asserted pertinent questions now arise, such as why these had not been released previously, and “why did the FBI director have such a struggle — a Hamlet act — that persisted over a number of months?

“And this evidence … makes it clear that his last judgment on the matter of prosecution was utterly in error, does it not?”

“You’re absolutely correct,” the judge replied, “this is the smoking gun if ever there was one — this ramps up the case for her prosecution.”

However, there are timely caveats to consider with President Obama’s administration in its eleventh hour — and the imperative to prosecute legitimately criminal activity doesn’t necessarily preclude other considerations, including a last-minute pardon for Clinton.

Napolitano noted, however, that if Obama chooses not to pardon Clinton, “the pressure on the attorney general, from the FBI agents who conducted the investigation — who probably posted this stuff last night during the Giants-Packers game — will be very difficult for him to resist.”

Additional germane but unanswerable aspects concerning the publication of the FBI documents tell of the murkiness of the entire investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of a personal server.

Dobbs posited that if the person or persons who published the information came from inside the FBI and acted in a rogue capacity, the intent might have been to ensure an indictment as soon as possible. But the responsible party could also be an Obama administration insider leaking information for the sake of muddying the waters — or perhaps to provide the impetus for a presidential pardon.

As yet, there is no way to tell. However, as the judge added,

“Did Director Comey know about this at the time he exonerated Mrs. Clinton on July 5th, last summer? Did Director Comey tell President-elect Trump about this, when he met with him at Trump Tower last week? Did Director Comey know that this was going to be released when it was, and why was it released during a football game? Was it to gin it up for the senators to ask Senator Sessions about?”

Although Judge Napolitano laments the motivations and players remain shielded now, it’s possible further indicators will come out as Sessions testifies — but as of now, that hasn’t happened.

Some inside the Democratic establishment have criticized the investigation of Clinton as baseless and likened it to a witch hunt — but as this new cache of information reveals, feasible grounds for prosecution have existed this entire time in the transmission and compromise of classified information.

Judge Napolitano Exposes Lies On-Air: US Intelligence Was Behind Hacks — Not Russia

Judge Andrew Napolitano, currently being considered by Trump for the Supreme Court, dropped a bombshell in an interview with Fox & Friends Thursday, saying sources within the U.S. intelligence community — not Russia — had provided documents from the DNC and John Podesta for publication by Wikileaks.

“I hope that Josh Earnest was as much in jest with what he just said, as Donald Trump was when he said during the campaign, ‘do all the hacking you want,’” Napolitano said of remarks the White House spokesman gave, suggesting Trump had been aware of Russia’s putative meddling throughout the election cycle. “No one could have taken that seriously.”

Breaking down the absurdly evidence-free claim by unnamed CIA officials that Russian hackers — official state actors — had penetrated Democratic Party systems to expose information damaging to Hillary Clinton, thereby throwing the election in favor of Donald Trump, Napolitano asked several pertinent questions:

“Look, who had an incentive to prevent Mrs. Clinton from becoming President of the United States? Whose agents had their real identities and locations exposed by the reckless manner? … Who had access to all of this material without having to steal any codes?

“The United States Intelligence agents,” the judge answered himself, “who did not want this woman in charge of the federal government and exposing more agents and resources and undercover assets in the Middle East to who they truly are and where they were.”

Napolitano told the Fox & Friends crew one’s feelings about Julian Assange and Wikileaks are irrelevant, given the publishing organization’s track record of authenticity — and that the content of the leaked documents and emails speaks for itself.

Assange “revealed truthful information,” he continued, “no one’s denying that the stuff that he revealed was real […]

“Look, there’s one spy agency, the NSA, it produces the raw data. The FBI looks at it and interprets it one way; the CIA looks at it and interprets it another way. The CIA may have a desire to make Mrs. Clinton look good or Donald Trump look bad …”

“Wait — politics?” one host interrupted.

“Right. Their boss is a Barack Obama appointee … There’s just not enough evidence to point a finger at Moscow.”

Further, on the subject of intelligence assessments, Judge Napolitano noted rivalries between and within agencies, proclivities toward certain political agendas, and competition can color findings and analyses:

“Look, there’s a whole world out there that is below the fold, below the radar scope, that we don’t know about, which is the intelligence community. They have rivalries between them; they have ideological predilections; they have the same shortcomings as the rest of us. And intelligence, raw data — if it were here, it would be difficult for the four of us to interpret it — but I can tell you this: Two groups or two people looking at the same data can read the same thing and interpret it in 180 degrees differently from each other. That’s what happened here.

“So, when Donald Trump says, ‘the Russians did not hack Mrs. Clinton,’ he’s right. Somebody leaked from Mrs. Clinton’s emails — but nobody went in there and altered her operational systems, which is what hacking does.”

Napolitano’s assessment the leaks weren’t hacks — and that someone inside the United States was responsible — is shared by a growing number of people, including former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray.

Murray, a personal friend of Assange, who called the claims of Russian hacking “bullshit” in the Guardian, told the Daily Mail, “Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

On his personal blog, Murray elaborated further:

“I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

“A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they ‘know the individuals’ involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of ‘We know who it was, it was the Russians’ are beneath contempt.”

He added, “The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of ‘Russia’, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.”

But perhaps the strongest assenting voice to Judge Napolitano came from Julian Assange, himself, who emerged from a near blackout on public appearances in an audio interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday to confirm the documents published by Wikileaks did not come from Russia or any Russian State agent.

“Our source is not the Russian government,” Assange decisively told Hannity.

“In other words, let me be clear,” Hannity clarified, “Russia did not give you the Podesta documents, or anything from the DNC?”

“That’s correct,” the Wikileaks founder replied.

Assange also noted in the interview Murray is not authorized to speak on behalf of Wikileaks, but maintained the two are close, personal friends. Murray, like Napolitano, pointed to Wikileaks’ proven credibility in its leaked documents, and explained,

“Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.”

Assange even noted coming forward to denounce the Russian hacking allegations constituted an uncomfortable and unpleasant, but highly necessary, decision. Wikileaks, he explained, does not like to reveal any information about its sources unless the situation unequivocally demands it.

“Here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications,” Assange asserted, “we’ve had to come out and say, ‘no, it’s not a State party, stop trying to distract in that way, and pay attention to the content of the publications.’”

Hannity probed, “So, in other words, when you say State party, it wasn’t another State — like Russia, or some other country?”

“Correct.”

Indeed, the provocative accusations being hurled at Russia — and, now, even against Russian President Vladimir Putin — appear to be once again summoning the specter of military conflict with the West. Critical, reasoned assessments of the CIA’s claims of Russians hacking the U.S. elections — like those of Judge Napolitano, Craig Murray, and Julian Assange — are imperative, lest the country be overcome with evidence-devoid Red Scare paranoia similar to 1950s McCarthyism.

“The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia,” Murray pointedly wrote. “This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries — including of course bigger budgets for the CIA.”