Wasserman Schultz Threatened Police Chief

a reply to: daskakik

Except that procedure and laws are 2 different things. Otherwise yeah, totally valid point.

Methinks there is something on that laptop that DWS does not want to get out ...Why her intimidation, of the police otherwise?

a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

This is allegedly the one that Awan had taken off with for some reason. They would not be serving justice to FAIL to investigate this in light of the other stuff surrounding the possible blackmail etc. I agree something fishy had to be going on involving the computer and potential evidence, or they SHOULD give it back. I don't think you can handle the truth if you don't want it discovered. DO you want the truth our not Indigo is the question? I and others both middle and right of your politics suspect NOT..... really seems that way bro.

Maybe it's all the cheese pizza she has on her hard drive? Nude selfies? Embarrassing google search history?
Either way, at this point in time, what difference does it make? The lap top is already out dated and she will definately already own the next greatest lap top in production. Not to mention, if the lap top is ever turned on, all those darned Windows updates she'll have to deal with.

a reply to: daskakik

People need to unite and call all the lying hypocrites out.

Wow she has some crazy eye blinking patterns going on. She alternates between no blinking and flurries of 2+++ blinks.

Her method of speaking sounds very low class to me, almost like trailer park.

She is really off the rails. Can you imagine what the behind the scenes meetings of the principals in this case is like; manic crazyfest!

a reply to: torok67

Sounds good but crying out "where was the outrage" isn't really going to accomplish that. It is basically saying "I don't have to care about that because you didn't care about this".

a reply to: EartOccupant

What a rude bitch.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

This is allegedly the one that Awan had taken off with for some reason.

Nope...Awan is the subject of an investigation by Capitol Police..

In the exchange the COP clearly agrees the laptop was NOT owned by a "Subject of an investigation"...Not even someone "involved" in an investigation as Wasserman clarifies.

She also repeatedly refers to a "MEMBERS Laptop" as in a MEMBER of congress...not an IT Staffer.

"Alledgedly"....The Daily Caller invented that BS and built a story around it.

Watch the video...listen...

That is basic reality..

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

I don't think you can handle the truth if you don't want it discovered. DO you want the truth our not Indigo is the question? I and others both middle and right of your politics suspect NOT..... really seems that way bro.

See above...Politics have nothing to do with the definition of words and what is actually said in the video..

Facts and reality matter...

I don't like Wasserman...AT ALL...

But I am not willing to abuse my thinking centers and spend my integrity to ignore the facts..

"MEMBER"...Not contracted IT Staffer..was the owner of the laptop..

The cop acknowledges and agrees that the owner of the Laptop is NOT a subject of investigation or ASSOCIATED with the investigation.

The IT Staffer you "allege" this laptop belonged to...Is both not a "MEMBER" of congress, and he is very much a subject of an investigation.

And save the personal BS...If you can't refute facts...attack people personally?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: EartOccupant

Pitch fork her. Let the dirty masses massage her face into pulp.

Too late,, she already looks like a can of smashed arseholes

originally posted by: darepairman

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: EartOccupant

Pitch fork her. Let the dirty masses massage her face into pulp.

Too late,, she already looks like a can of smashed arseholes

Yeah well, that's with makeup on her face.
Imagine waking up to that.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

This is allegedly the one that Awan had taken off with for some reason.

Nope...Awan is the subject of an investigation by Capitol Police..

In the exchange the COP clearly agrees the laptop was NOT owned by a "Subject of an investigation"...Not even someone "involved" in an investigation as Wasserman clarifies.

She also repeatedly refers to a "MEMBERS Laptop" as in a MEMBER of congress...not an IT Staffer.

"Alledgedly"....The Daily Caller invented that BS and built a story around it.

Watch the video...listen...

That is basic reality..

It does not matter who owns it. Think about it. If I own a car and someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime and there is possible evidence in it, the police have every right to keep it and investigate. IF the Awan brothers were using that laptop, it is reasonable for the police to keep it and search it IF the warrant is valid. It really doesn't matter who owns it. It is evidence.

a reply to: butcherguy

No man, I don't want to

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

This is allegedly the one that Awan had taken off with for some reason.

Nope...Awan is the subject of an investigation by Capitol Police..

In the exchange the COP clearly agrees the laptop was NOT owned by a "Subject of an investigation"...Not even someone "involved" in an investigation as Wasserman clarifies.

She also repeatedly refers to a "MEMBERS Laptop" as in a MEMBER of congress...not an IT Staffer.

"Alledgedly"....The Daily Caller invented that BS and built a story around it.

Watch the video...listen...

That is basic reality..

It does not matter who owns it. Think about it. If I own a car and someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime and there is possible evidence in it, the police have every right to keep it and investigate. IF the Awan brothers were using that laptop, it is reasonable for the police to keep it and search it IF the warrant is valid. It really doesn't matter who owns it. It is evidence.

Correct.
If you have too much money on your person if they stop you, they will take and KEEP that too. It has happened many times to innocent people, and they never got their money back.
She seems to think she is privileged.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: EartOccupant

This thread makes no sense...I don't mean because you invented the word "consequenties" or refer to Wasserman as a function?... "How come she is still in a official function? "

She asked if a laptop was lost, and the member (member is not IT staffer like the Daily Caller -idiot rag- claimed)..if the "Member" is NOT under investigation or associated with an investigation...would it be returned to that member.

Apparently the Capitol Police haven't done so..

Some idiot reporter listened to hours of the most boring budget discussion ever and decided they hated their life so much they would invent a story..

This is allegedly the one that Awan had taken off with for some reason.

Nope...Awan is the subject of an investigation by Capitol Police..

In the exchange the COP clearly agrees the laptop was NOT owned by a "Subject of an investigation"...Not even someone "involved" in an investigation as Wasserman clarifies.

She also repeatedly refers to a "MEMBERS Laptop" as in a MEMBER of congress...not an IT Staffer.

"Alledgedly"....The Daily Caller invented that BS and built a story around it.

Watch the video...listen...

That is basic reality..

It does not matter who owns it. Think about it. If I own a car and someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime and there is possible evidence in it, the police have every right to keep it and investigate. IF the Awan brothers were using that laptop, it is reasonable for the police to keep it and search it IF the warrant is valid. It really doesn't matter who owns it. It is evidence.

Then that is "Stolen Property" and part of an investigation..

The Capitol Police said it was "lost" property..

I don't like Wasserman...don't make me watch and transcribe that video...

Watch and listen...

MEMBER...It was LOST by a Member of congress...NOT Stolen...Not recovered from an IT Staffer under investigation..
MEMBER NOT a subject of investigation..
Member not "involved with" the subject of an investigation..

the best the cop says is "extenuating circumstances" involving the laptop...But he REFUSES to call it evidence..

A whole lot of fill-in-the-blanks going on beyond that.

"If the member loses equipment"
"If the member is not associated with any ongoing case...it is supposed to be returned...yes or no"
"Depends on the circumstances"

Stolen property is definitely "associated"...and not "lost"..

a reply to: Indigo5
You are correct about what was said, but if the laptop is part of the investigation, what does it matter if it was stolen or not.
It may not be evidence now, but what is on it may lead to evidence of a crime.

It sure seemed like the Chief was being very careful with his words. Since we know who he is dealing with, I can't blame him.

a reply to: Indigo5


I don't want to transcribe the video anymore than you do LOL. Okay, I get what you are saying. But ownership is not the issue. I was just replying to your post about the ownership. It doesn't matter who owns it. If they have a valid warrant, it stays with the police. If isn't valid or if the item isn't included in the warrant, then it goes back to the owner. Simple as that to me.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Indigo5


I don't want to transcribe the video anymore than you do LOL. Okay, I get what you are saying. But ownership is not the issue. I was just replying to your post about the ownership. It doesn't matter who owns it. If they have a valid warrant, it stays with the police. If isn't valid or if the item isn't included in the warrant, then it goes back to the owner. Simple as that to me.

I get that...If that was the case, I would think the Cop would have said.."The laptop is part of an ongoing investigation" or that the laptop was "Evidence" in an ongoing investigation...

Instead the Cop never refuted what Wasserman was saying...as close as he came was "Extenuating Circumstances"..