Yes, we think that is fair to say.
To say the very least.
(From American Greatness)
I wrote about the spy-novel details of the case in April, and those following the meticulous reporting of the Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak are no doubt familiar with the details: Five House information technology aides employed by more than 40 congressional Democrats allegedly made over 5,000 unauthorized logins to House servers, logging in with members’ usernames and passwords, including those of members for whom they did not work.
Over the course of nearly a year, House investigators watched the five IT aides, who also happen to be immediate family members, make what they later termed “excessive logons” to one server in particular—the one belonging to the Democratic caucus.
The five aides, Imran Awan and his wife, Hina Alvvi, his brothers Abid and Jamal Awan, and Abid’s wife, Natalia Sova, exhibited a pattern of behavior that House investigators deemed an “indication that the server is being used for nefarious purposes,” noting further that the login activity reflected a pattern designed to conceal the identity of the user…
…In a memo marked “urgent,” House security officials warned offices that they may have been subject to IT security violations, calling the IT aides “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives,” and urged members of Congress to withdraw computer credentials and change the locks on their doors.
None of this explains why, on Tuesday, the Department of Justice agreed to a plea deal with one of the aides—Imran Awan—charging him, bizarrely, with one count of bank fraud…
Huh? We are also confused.
…House investigators also found that Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, accessed the Democratic caucus server 291 times, and accessed servers belonging to offices which did not employ her. Why were charges against her dropped?
What of the threats made by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) that U.S. Capitol police pursuing this case would face “consequences” if they did not turn over a computer belonging to her, despite their pleas that the computer was important to the ongoing investigation?
But most importantly, how did the Department of Justice come to such drastically different conclusions than House investigators, particularly given that the House sergeant-at-arms and the inspector general are nonpartisan actors far more familiar with the House IT systems, protocols, and policies?