Where a special counsel is clearly needed

Roger L. Simon writes at PJ Media that we need a special counsel to investigate the crimes of the Pakistani IT employees of top Democrat officials.

Further, unlike Russiagate, this is an investigation that already has a crime (Awan will be arraigned August 21). It isn't in search of one. It's just trying to find out its extent wherever it leads. That's what special counsels do. And in this case, Sessions should make sure that, unlike Mueller, the new special counsel picks associates on both sides of the aisle. Unlike the biased Russia investigation, this should be even-handed. We want to believe its conclusions in the end.

There are a lot of shoelaces to be tied up here. Among them:

Why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz keep this man in her employ right up until he was arrested Tuesday night when he has been under suspicion for months. Does he have something on her or other people?

Why did Nancy Pelosi lie when she said she never heard of Awan? Email revealed by Wikileaks says Awan had access to Pelosi's iPad. (Wiklileaks has never been shown to be inaccurate.)

What is on the smashed hard drives Awan is trying to retrieve from the FBI? (Oh, those Democrats and their hard drives.)

Why is Awan suddenly being legally represented at the highest level by Clinton ultra-loyalist Chris Gowan -- a fact-checker for Bill Clinton's memoir of all things? (They are already using the same right-wing conspiracy baloney they used in the Lewinski case.) Does this make sense if Awan's just a low-life fraudster? Why not let him dangle?

Just what is the relationship, if any, between the Awan case and the unsolved Seth Rich murder? Is it entirely an accident that Debbie Wasserman Schultz's brother Steven is accused of blocking the investigation? Denials from Debbie aren't worth much anymore.
Where did the Wikileaks come from anyway? Was it really Russia?

Read more here.