On Watch Live: The Awan Bros' silverscript

[286-2] On Watch Live: The Awan Bros' Gang & National Security Aug 3 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds5IW2iXr-Q

Published on 3 Aug 2017

In this week's edition of "On Watch," JW Director of Investigations Chris Farrell explores the curious saga of the Awan Brothers and the DNC. As Chris explains, this is a troubling issue; the case is not only about government contractors “gaming the system,” but one of national security as well.

 Transcript
0:15
I'm Chris Farrell and this is on watch
0:18
happy Thursday to you sorry that we're
0:20
joining you a couple of minutes later
0:22
than normal our production staff here
0:26
will be browbeaten with sarcasm and
0:28
innuendo by the time we get done with
0:30
that today's presentation but glad that
0:33
you took time out to join us today an
0:37
important topic one that we've heard a
0:40
lot of from all of you communicating
0:43
with us today we're going to talk about
0:45
the Elan brothers their gang and what
0:49
they've been doing up on Capitol Hill a
0:52
particular Debbie wasserman-schultz the
0:56
congresswoman from Florida and former
0:58
DNC chair and the cast's of Democratic
1:01
characters who were using the Allen
1:03
brothers for information technology
1:05
support for years going back to at least
1:08
I think it's 2006 first and foremost
1:11
let's give credit where credit is due
1:15
Luke rosy AK an investigative reporter
1:18
with the Daily Caller is the guy who
1:23
broke this story and for those of you
1:26
who want to go back and do some
1:27
additional research or get all the
1:29
details or develop a timeline watch some
1:32
video I'm gonna refer you back to Luke
1:36
rosy ak it's ro s iak at the Daily
1:40
Caller
1:40
can sees done some tremendous
1:42
groundbreaking work here and really just
1:45
hounded this story really been focused
1:48
on it reporting what no one else is
1:51
reported the large you know the
1:53
mainstream media alphabet-soup
1:57
supposed of news media networks have
2:00
largely ignored this story or they've
2:02
really soft peddled it and Luke rosy AK
2:05
is to be congratulated and the folks of
2:08
the Daily Caller for really pushing on
2:10
this issue
2:10
it's my belief that this along brothers
2:13
gay
2:14
and the story around them is really sort
2:17
of the sleeper story of the last few
2:20
months
2:21
Rosie ACK broke this news in February
2:24
early February and he's been pursuing it
2:27
steadily and frankly that the tale
2:29
itself of the aolong brothers has gotten
2:32
weirder and weirder and more and more
2:34
complicated as time has gone on so
2:38
there's a lot to study and a lot to know
2:39
it's not a quick you know bumper sticker
2:42
or soundbite story but let me cover some
2:45
of the important points so maybe kind of
2:47
provoke some thinking raised some
2:50
questions and then you can go back and
2:52
demand of your representatives and
2:56
Senators and Congress that you want some
2:59
accountability you want debbie Wasserman
3:02
Schultz her staff and her colleagues to
3:06
explain just exactly what was going on
3:09
with Alan his brothers plural two
3:13
brothers their wives and even a friend
3:16
that's what I refer to it as a gang it's
3:18
not just you know a couple of guys this
3:21
is a circle of at least six people all
3:24
involved in a very disturbing
3:26
information technology story that raises
3:30
questions not merely of misuse of assets
3:34
or abuse of equipment and kind of
3:37
abusing the government contracting
3:39
system but in my opinion more
3:40
importantly the other part of the story
3:43
which has to do with this Alwyn gang
3:46
having direct access to House
3:50
Intelligence Committee and Foreign
3:51
Relations Committee servers and emails
3:54
of those members so this is a national
3:57
security concern so let's let's do a
4:01
quick recap of a few of the more
4:03
important aspects of this case and then
4:06
we'll move to your questions so there's
4:08
three Allen brothers they the chief one
4:13
Imran now on got additionally got a job
4:16
as an IT guy working up on the hill for
4:20
democratic staffers principally Jeffrey
4:22
debbie Wasserman Schultz but if you do a
4:25
complete count going all the way back to
4:27
2006 it's something like eighty eight
4:30
zero members of Congress staffers etc
4:35
were all being serviced by uh Juan and
4:40
his IT folks I want men very creatively
4:45
through his contracting with this group
4:49
of Democratic lawmakers started to build
4:52
in additional members of his family so
4:54
the two brothers came on board the wives
4:57
and then another friend and so what
5:00
start of that is kind of a one man I
5:02
t-shirt IT shop grew into an
5:06
organization where people were pulling
5:08
down salaries that were really multiples
5:12
of what the average Hill staffer gets
5:14
paid so if you're a low-ranking or even
5:18
kind of mid ranking frankly House
5:20
staffer you might be paying being paid
5:23
forty fifty thousand dollars max the AL
5:27
wants are coming in at a hundred and
5:29
sixty K apiece and so you multiply that
5:32
out across each of the persons involved
5:34
and then stretch that out over a number
5:37
of years and there's estimates that
5:40
they've pulled down between four and six
5:43
million dollars in these IT consulting
5:46
fees so that's a pretty nice chunk of
5:49
money obviously and the the cap on on
5:54
consultants and and support staff is
5:58
that they can never earn more than what
6:00
an actual member of Congress earns
6:02
member of Congress earns about a hundred
6:04
and seventy five K so these folks are at
6:07
160 K versus members of Congress so they
6:14
embed themselves in the operation of the
6:17
Democratic IT sort of machine they are
6:20
literally setting up email accounts
6:24
server servicing the servers and that
6:27
they're all working off of they have
6:29
access virtually unlimited access to all
6:32
those accounts and all those servers
6:35
that those members of Congress would
6:36
normally have back
6:37
us too it is a disturbing vulnerability
6:42
and it's a vulnerability frankly that's
6:45
so grave that congressman Ron De Santis
6:49
another Florida congressman has asked
6:52
now that a vulnerability or damage
6:56
assessment be conducted to determine
6:58
just what exactly was going on with this
7:01
al Juan gang and their access to all
7:04
this important information
7:06
some folks are very puzzled as to why
7:08
these folks were kept on so long after
7:10
this February incident you know why was
7:15
the leader
7:16
Imran l1 kept around until he was
7:18
arrested just a few days ago out of
7:21
Dulles Airport here in Washington Debbie
7:24
wasserman-schultz
7:25
kept him on as an advisor after all the
7:29
other Democratic members had really cut
7:31
loose members of the al Juan gang more
7:35
disturbing is the same people used the
7:39
credit union up on the hill to transfer
7:42
hundreds of hundreds of thousands of
7:44
dollars back to Pakistan on top of that
7:48
back in March I believe I mean the
7:52
principal Imran Allen's wife fled the
7:55
country she flew back to Pakistan with I
7:58
believe twelve thousand four hundred
7:59
dollars in cash on her person which is a
8:03
violation of law if you're going to move
8:05
more than ten thousand dollars in cash
8:07
out of the country there was a
8:09
particular claim or notice form that you
8:11
have to file she had not done that and
8:14
law enforcement at Dulles Airport had
8:17
detained her questioned her on this but
8:20
for whatever reason elected to let her
8:22
go and so let's just kind of recap you
8:26
have people with access to sensitive
8:29
government information members of the
8:31
House to different committees the
8:33
Intelligence Committee and Foreign
8:34
Affairs Committee
8:36
they're moving hundreds of thousands of
8:38
dollars out of the country
8:40
there's reporting from Lukasiak that
8:43
there was data being moved out of the
8:46
house servers to another outside server
8:49
we don't know
8:51
that data was or how much but something
8:54
was going on it certainly merits
8:55
investigation and so there's all these
8:59
activities people moving hundreds of
9:02
thousands of dollars and then people
9:05
trying to flee the country whether it's
9:07
a I want wife or he himself
9:09
just this past just this past Monday so
9:13
this is a nest right this is a real
9:17
problem it's a grave issue not just from
9:21
the security perspective but from really
9:25
sort of gaming the system in the in the
9:28
in the contracting world to get this
9:31
much this much access this much business
9:33
to a small group of people under very
9:35
questionable circumstances there's also
9:38
an instance where a retired Marine
9:41
officer married to a currently serving
9:44
Navy officer was a tenant of aa Wan in
9:49
in one of his homes in Lorton Virginia
9:51
which is about 40 minutes down the road
9:54
from from Washington DC sort of a
9:57
bedroom community where a lot of folks
9:58
in government you know either have homes
10:00
or rent properties and these this one
10:05
former service member and an active
10:07
service member in the garage discovered
10:10
all this government equipment laptops
10:13
servers drives and you know they they
10:19
could see that there were US government
10:21
barcodes on them and they're wondering
10:23
what's all this stuff doing here so they
10:26
very wisely called Naval Criminal
10:28
Investigative services and CIS who also
10:31
got the FBI involved and they came out
10:33
to the house and these two folks
10:36
naturally being the good service members
10:39
that they are cooperated fully turned
10:41
over all the equipment and evidently mr.
10:43
Allen went nuts in in in communicating
10:46
with the former Marine and his Navy
10:50
spouse you know being very upset that
10:54
this equipment have been turned over to
10:56
law enforcement so that's another
10:59
segment another facet of this story and
11:02
then I'll mention one more piece
11:04
the story that I think is fascinating
11:06
and then we'll move to some questions on
11:10
this topic and perhaps others and that
11:12
is you can you can look this up on
11:17
either c-span YouTube or just google it
11:19
up you can see Debbie wasserman-schultz
11:22
questioning the chief of the Capitol
11:26
Hill police force in a committee meeting
11:30
and the chief is up there just giving
11:33
the usual sort of update on on Capitol
11:35
Police activities answering questions
11:38
about about what they do and how they do
11:41
it and budget questions all the sort of
11:43
normal routine updates that the chief
11:45
would provide to an oversight committee
11:48
who's responsible for watching what they
11:50
do and and funding them but at one point
11:54
in the questioning Debbie
11:56
wasserman-schultz
11:57
really kind of drills down on the chief
11:59
and she's asking very pointed questions
12:02
about information technology gear
12:05
equipment laptop servers etc and the
12:09
chief knows exactly what she's talking
12:11
about this is one of these sort of
12:12
unspoken moments and he says well look
12:16
you know we've got an open investigation
12:18
it's a criminal matter we're looking
12:20
into it and until we resolve this we
12:25
can't release or give up any physical
12:28
evidence and ms Wasserman Schultz
12:31
becomes irritated and you can see the
12:34
temperature kind of go up and the
12:36
intensity of a questioning increase and
12:38
she essentially demands or at least
12:41
makes a very strong statement about how
12:43
she is desirous of having her her IT
12:49
equipment it's a laptop and other a gear
12:51
I guess I don't know particularly which
12:53
equipment it is but she wants that stuff
12:56
returned now and the chief respectfully
12:59
but also forcefully says look I can't do
13:02
that this is part of an investigation we
13:05
need to look at the gear to determine
13:07
you know vulnerabilities what was lost
13:09
how it was stolen who had access all
13:13
those sort of basic interrogatives that
13:15
any
13:15
a legitimate police investigation would
13:18
want to answer and then at some point a
13:21
little further on in the conversation
13:24
it's clear ms Wasserman Schultz is not
13:27
happy with this and she kind of snaps at
13:30
the death the chief and in this sort of
13:33
veiled threat says to him well there'll
13:35
be consequences for this now what does
13:38
that mean who knows but the point is you
13:42
have a member of Congress really
13:45
pursuing this line of questioning and a
13:47
very sort of defensive almost paranoid
13:51
way and pressing the chief on an issue
13:54
that clearly he's not going to move on
13:56
because he has an open criminal
13:57
investigation and then there's a sort of
14:00
veiled threat about consequences now you
14:03
know I I have yet to see anybody stick a
14:05
camera in ms Wasserman Schultz's face
14:08
and say you know what are the
14:10
consequences you have planned for the
14:12
chief that's an important question so to
14:16
me this is one hell of a scandal I mean
14:18
this is this has all the components of
14:21
something that normally you know the
14:25
Justice Department would be pursuing
14:27
very aggressively there would be a grand
14:29
jury impaneled this really needs to be
14:33
pursued vigorously not just from sort of
14:36
the fraud aspect of this whole thing
14:38
with the Elan brothers and and their
14:41
circle but obviously the national
14:43
security part of it is very disturbing
14:46
so again hat tip to Luke Rosie act for
14:51
bracelet breaking the story back in
14:53
February rest assured Judicial Watch
14:55
we've already filed requests for
14:58
information and ours went in back in May
15:01
once the story really started to develop
15:04
so we'll pursue our track of
15:06
investigation as well of course but this
15:10
isn't going away this is not going to be
15:12
forgotten members of Congress on the
15:15
other side of the aisle are now sort of
15:17
paying attention and waking up to it
15:19
I mentioned congressman Ron de santis
15:21
asking for a damage assessment or a
15:24
vulnerability you know what's been lost
15:26
and what's going on
15:27
so there's more and more tension to it I
15:30
encourage you to do your own
15:32
investigation do your own reading on
15:34
this look at the Daily Caller
15:36
and what the reporting has been look at
15:38
other sources and then ask your members
15:42
of Congress I mean this is really the
15:44
call to action here you can know about
15:46
something that's as crazy as this as
15:49
this story is but you need to demand
15:52
action from your members of Congress
15:54
both in the house in the Senate to get
15:56
to the bottom of this story Ms Wasserman
16:00
Schultz has dug her heels in she is
16:02
non-responsive
16:04
you know she in my opinion she needs to
16:06
go under oath and answer questions if it
16:09
needs to be an audit done of the
16:10
finances concerning the owl wants this
16:13
damage assessment needs to be done
16:14
there's a lot of unanswered questions
16:16
here
16:17
rest assured Judicial Watch will pursue
16:19
it and I have a very strong belief
16:22
obviously Lucca Rosie I could Daily
16:24
Caller will be on this as well so that's
16:27
a recap it is imperfect it is incomplete
16:31
but given our time and circumstances
16:35
that sort of brings you up to speed and
16:37
I'll shift over now to my colleague Matt
16:40
who's gonna give me some questions from
16:42
you and we have a lot starting with Lori
16:44
see there are conflicting reports in the
16:46
ah-1 brothers case the marine that found
16:48
the hard drives never mentioned any
16:50
damage to the equipment but the media is
16:51
calling them quote smashed our drives do
16:55
we know the current state of these hard
16:56
drives we don't particularly I've seen
16:59
varying reports I don't know that if a
17:02
news story doesn't affirmative least a
17:05
say that the drives are damaged that it
17:10
means that they're not damaged if you
17:12
get my my my distinction here is that
17:16
I've seen reporting that says that they
17:19
were damaged in some way certainly they
17:20
were left in a cabinet in a garage that
17:23
isn't normally the way in which house
17:26
information technology gear is stored
17:29
and maintained so that there's reason to
17:31
believe something weird was going on but
17:34
I do know that forensically both the FBI
17:38
and see is and in a number of commercial
17:40
vendors out there can recover
17:43
information from drives that are damaged
17:46
so if there was an effort to to damage
17:50
this in some way to prevent it being
17:51
looked at or read I have high confidence
17:54
that the right folks can get to it and
17:57
see what was on there what else
17:59
Peggy wants to know why didn't their
18:01
salary alone raise a red flag yeah
18:04
that's a very good question right
18:06
there's been interviews conducted of
18:08
other Democratic IT staffers so other
18:12
folks up on the hill working for Dems
18:15
who have similar positions to what the
18:18
AH ones were doing and evidently at
18:21
least according to these reports there's
18:24
some frustration on the hill there are
18:27
folks who said hey look I could never do
18:29
what they did their business practices
18:32
were irregular they were very protective
18:36
of their clients if I had done a quarter
18:39
of what they had done I would have been
18:41
arrested there's a lot of great stuff
18:43
from other interviews again I'll point
18:45
you back to to the gross yak where the
18:48
exam interviews not of you know
18:50
Republican House staffers or Republican
18:53
members of Congress but other damps and
18:55
what in internal to their caucus to
18:59
their world how things were handled and
19:00
it was a red flag there was an enormous
19:03
amount of money going to them some
19:05
people have suggested that there was
19:07
some sort of either who knows some sort
19:09
of gray mail or black mail or you know
19:13
holding some information I'm using
19:16
quotes you know hostage not literally
19:18
but controlling or limiting access to
19:20
things that would have put members of
19:23
Congress in a very bad light that's a
19:26
speculative kind of hypothetical but
19:29
it's not unreasonable given the
19:30
circumstances what else so Debbie
19:33
wasserman-schultz
19:34
sounds like she did threaten the police
19:36
chief what else does there will be
19:39
consequences mean yeah a great life yeah
19:42
I mean I can assure you if you go and
19:45
look at that video clip or she says that
19:47
it is not said with you know
19:50
heartwarming
19:51
than endearment right she is clearly
19:54
leveling with you what I call it a
19:58
threat or warning or she's delivered a
20:03
message to the chief that you know he's
20:06
on her or yes he is on her list and you
20:11
know there's no other way to interpret
20:12
it now what that means in in in sort of
20:18
real consequences I don't know but it
20:21
certainly doesn't look good it doesn't
20:22
sound good you can view the video for
20:25
yourself and make up your own mind I
20:26
have a question from dot G what's
20:30
holding up any kind of investigation
20:32
from looking into this
20:34
now there's one interesting aspect to
20:36
this it may be Debbie wasserman-schultz
20:41
it may be others connected with this
20:44
case but it's been raised that the
20:47
materials that would have been on any
20:51
laptops or servers would be protected
20:55
under the speech or debate clause and so
20:59
just a quick refresher in civics you
21:02
know if remember the house
21:03
there's down on the floor of the house
21:05
or it's conducting business even in
21:07
their office they enjoy a certain
21:10
immunity right so somebody on the house
21:13
if you or I said something about a
21:16
public figure or a private person that
21:18
that otherwise would be defamatory if
21:23
you either said something or or wrote
21:27
something published something that was
21:29
negative or defamatory in other words
21:31
without proof or if it was scandalous in
21:35
some way you or I would be sued a member
21:39
of the house of the Senate if they're on
21:41
the floor can say anything literally
21:46
they can say whatever they'd like and
21:48
they have absolute immunity from
21:51
prosecution and so that that ability to
21:54
use language that way obviously goes far
21:57
and wide right and so the idea also
22:00
traditionally is carried over to the
22:03
person's office space for example there
22:07
was great upset when a particular
22:10
congressman was accused of all sorts of
22:14
corruption and crimes they had raided
22:16
his home they had done a number of
22:19
things to pursue him criminally because
22:21
of his corruption but the question came
22:23
up could the FBI go into his
22:25
congressional office and there was a
22:27
tension there between the co-equal
22:29
branches of government can the executive
22:31
act upon the legislature and so one of
22:36
the arguments being made or at least
22:38
part of the foot-dragging and this
22:39
investigation is that the IT gear
22:43
whether it's laptops servers whatever it
22:46
is that that is in subway protected by
22:50
the speech or debate Clause and that
22:53
attorneys representing those members of
22:55
Congress are negotiating with the
22:58
Capitol Police and perhaps others FBI
23:01
would be an obvious other law
23:02
enforcement agency to negotiate access
23:07
to the to the gear to see what's on
23:10
there personally I think it's kind of a
23:13
stretch to me it looks like somebody
23:16
trying to hide something trying to hide
23:18
some communications or contacts ms/ms
23:24
Wasserman Schultz has already been
23:28
embarrassed based on her emails back
23:32
during the presidential campaign you'll
23:35
all remember that she was essentially
23:37
thrown out or fired as DNC chair some
23:42
very unpleasant sort of scandalous stuff
23:45
that was in her email that resulted in
23:47
her removal so I mean it isn't a huge
23:50
leap of logic to imagine that there are
23:54
other emails there are other files
23:57
records etc on these pieces of IT gear
24:02
that would be embarrassing awkward if
24:04
they were to be made public what else
24:06
Franklin Ellis a question why was Awan
24:09
released for presumably on bail correct
24:12
and if he was a known flight risk since
24:15
he was fleeing the country
24:17
was arrested could you said to shed some
24:19
light on that yeah I don't have a good
24:20
answer for you I wish I did there are
24:23
parts of this story that because it is
24:26
an ongoing law enforcement investigation
24:28
and because there's been growing
24:31
interest really thank goodness in the
24:35
whole saga law enforcement that could be
24:37
very forthcoming and so you know there
24:42
are certainly circumstances where if
24:45
he's out on bail a condition of that
24:50
would be that he's surrender his
24:52
passport right so the the particulars
24:57
are the details of how that's being
24:59
pursued I'm not privy to we're watching
25:03
it like you are and we'll certainly
25:04
pursue every open-angle what else we
25:08
have some people asking about Jeff
25:10
Sessions how does he fit in into this do
25:13
you believe that he will be looking into
25:14
the Allen brothers and debbie Wasserman
25:16
Schultz yeah I mean if I would the
25:19
Attorney General I would certainly make
25:22
sure that the FBI was examining this
25:27
very closely that the appropriate the
25:31
United States Attorney's were looking at
25:35
it I would encourage you know a vigorous
25:39
investigation I don't know that the
25:42
attorney journal needs to personally
25:44
involve himself in this but I think that
25:47
you know he needs to let his staff know
25:49
that this is an important and serious
25:52
matter and it requires attention and I
25:55
think that the Attorney General were to
25:57
express himself that way all the people
25:59
in his chain of command within DOJ would
26:02
get the message what else do we have if
26:05
one person Sharon sorry not Sharon Gina
26:10
F asking so who has custody of these
26:14
hard drives and all this evidence rights
26:16
right now it's my belief that there are
26:18
two parties that have custody of this IT
26:23
gear one is the capital police and we
26:28
know that because Debbie
26:29
wasserman-schultz
26:30
was confronting the chief of the Capitol
26:34
Police over that and two would be the
26:37
FBI and so they may have sort of
26:40
cooperative joint custody of it in the
26:43
sense that they're both working on it as
26:45
sort of a task force I don't know but we
26:49
we have public press reports indicating
26:53
clearly Capitol Police has something and
26:56
just based upon the NCIS FBI visit after
27:00
the home in Lorton we know that other
27:03
gear was recovered there let's go for
27:06
one or two more I think we do have time
27:08
for one more
27:10
where's the media in all of this this
27:13
seems like a very important story that
27:15
the American public should really know
27:16
about yeah I just don't just you know I
27:18
always say whatever you want to check
27:20
the the outrage factor just reverse the
27:24
letters right behind the members behind
27:27
the politician so if you had president
27:29
Trump's White House IT guy being someone
27:34
who's trying to flee to Pakistan after
27:39
transferring hundreds of thousands of
27:40
dollars and having access to all sorts
27:44
of things that he shouldn't have and
27:46
then hanging around on the payroll after
27:49
his wife flees the country just reversed
27:51
the ours and Di's and watch her the
27:54
reaction is I mean this is hard and fast
27:57
real live you can cite the the criminal
28:01
statute sort of investigation versus the
28:04
nebulous Russia Russia Russia nonsense
28:07
and so if anybody wants to take time
28:10
energy money effort manpower and apply
28:14
it to something I suggest you know the
28:17
Department of Justice special counsel
28:19
gorilla can do this as well go take a
28:21
look at debbie Wasserman Schultz and her
28:23
colleagues and the Allen brothers and
28:26
their gang if you want to pursue
28:27
something that really has merit start
28:30
there thank you again for joining us
28:33
this Thursday
28:34
hope to see you again next week I'm
28:37
Chris Farrell on watch
28:40
you
28:40
[Music]