During an otherwise routine budget meeting for the U.S. Capitol Police on May 18, an extraordinary video was recorded, but it has only now started to get attention since the arrest of Imran Awan as he tried to flee the country. What’s really significant in that video isn’t just Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s threat “there will be consequences” made to the Captain of the Capitol Police. If you listen to DWS, she’s telling the Chief there’s “no ongoing investigation” in which the laptop seized by the U.S. Capitol Police might be held as evidence, even if it may be connected to the Awan case.

Not only is Debbie threatening the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences”, she’s also telling him there is no “investigation” or “case involving the Member” that justifies the Department keeping evidence. She said that four times in less than two minutes.

What is the real message of Wasserman Schultz? She’s clearly warning the Chief that there “will be consequences” if he pushes his investigation outside the limits that Debbie wants to impose. DWS seems to be saying the laptop belongs to someone in another Congressional Office. Or, she’s using the royal Third Person, and the “property” is her own. Either way, she’s saying, it’s off-limits to your investigation, give it up, or else.

If the laptop doesn’t belong to her or one of her own staffers, why didn’t that other Member show up and demand it returned? If it was her “device”, what makes her presume she can dictate to the police what constitutes evidence in the case? By the way, she seems to be stating that neither the “device” nor the “Member” are associated with “an ongoing case.” If it’s her office’s computer, that statement is very much untrue, unless she thought the investigation of the Awans was over.

DWS to Chief Venderosa: “I think you’re violating the Rules when you conduct your business this way. There will be consequences.”

DWS appears to have been referencing a recent House rules change that made records held by the Member the personal property of the Member. On January 3, 2017, the Congressional Record included a little-noticed but potentially significant change to Rule VII of the House.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/01/03/house-section/a...

page H8

Rule VII

(4) add at the end the following new paragraph:
(b) Records created, generated, or received by the
congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident
Commissioner in the performance of official duties are
exclusively the personal property of the individual Member,
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and such Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has control over such
records.”.

DWS seems quite well aware of new Rule VII in her admonishment to the Chief of the Capitol Police on May 18, and here, she may have truly overreached her power, and hanged herself.

That change in House Rule, however, does not give a Congressperson the legal right to demand return of deemed evidence in a criminal investigation. A prosecutor would conclude, it was more certainly an indication that Wasserman Schultz had criminal awareness and intent (and displayed more than a trace of an anger management issue.)]

This has the appearance of Obstruction of Justice pursuant to a real crime. So, tell us, this isn’t newsworthy? With the release of the Sy Hersh audio, there are two significant cracks developing simultaneously in the “Russia-gate” narrative.

[Lots of crappy versions of the DWS video out there on sketchy sites with silly voice-overs. Here’s the URL for an official House of Reps. recording, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfby0FYLBkM&feature=youtu.be&t=1h24m24s ]