Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has the Awan scandal disappeared?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    How does the issue of witness security serves your argument? Such program goes hand by hand with a testimony used in public courts to convict powerful and dangerous figures. It is like when you catch a mafia guy and you give him protection if he chooses to collaborate and betray others. But in such cases even if the ID of the witness is masked the case itself is NOT! Here, you try to argue that Awan is not prosecuted because he is a witness in a case against another powerful figure! WHICH CASE IS THIS? You have ZERO evidence of such case!

    I mean with such BS conspiratorial thinking to explain away the lack of prosecution, one can argue that every person who was not prosecuted by the DOJ is actually a valuable witness in an unknown very important case!
    Those are usually done as "Confidential Informant" and not as public testimony. So, you don't get the name. In matters where national security is involved most of that testimony is redacted and unavailable to the public due to it having a security classification.

    You also continue to ignore the known facts that point to a big, massive, computer system breech within the Democrat party in Congress. Given Wasserman-Schultz was also the head of the DNC during that massive breech, and the lackadaisical approach to computer security the Democrats have demonstrated in general, it is very possible there is more to this than it appears.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pamak View Post

      I do not agree with the second part that it is possible that he turned to provide good intelligence. If that was the case, then you would not even know that he was arrested. Such information would have been a red flag for foreign agencies and the arrested person would not be able to be used as some type of a double agent to provide good intelligence.
      In this case his arrest was already publicly known. If he was giving intel, the best strategy would be to finish the trial, convict him of some charge, and then he disappears off the radar to "prison" that really isn't prison but rather wherever they're interviewing him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Those are usually done as "Confidential Informant" and not as public testimony. So, you don't get the name. In matters where national security is involved most of that testimony is redacted and unavailable to the public due to it having a security classification.

        You also continue to ignore the known facts that point to a big, massive, computer system breech within the Democrat party in Congress. Given Wasserman-Schultz was also the head of the DNC during that massive breech, and the lackadaisical approach to computer security the Democrats have demonstrated in general, it is very possible there is more to this than it appears.
        Obviously, you did not understand what I said: I did not say that the public is aware of the witness name. I am saying that the public is aware of the case which requires the confidential informant and is aware of the actual target of the prosecutors who use such informants.. Here, you cannot even point at any such trial or target. You just speculate that 1 such trial and target exists and 2. such trial has the Awan brothers as Confidential informants. The combined probability of such combination is quite low to take it seriously...
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          In this case his arrest was already publicly known. If he was giving intel, the best strategy would be to finish the trial, convict him of some charge, and then he disappears off the radar to "prison" that really isn't prison but rather wherever they're interviewing him.
          and I say that the FBI had no apparent NO reason to publicize the arrest of Awan brothers and then create a requirement to protect them through a witness program the Awan. If they had a really big case and they knew that there was something suspicious with the Awan brothers, they would have handled it in the same way they handled cases like that of Papadopoulos. You knew NOTHING about his cooperation with the FBI up until the FBI decided to publicize the details and the plea agreement.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X