As we reported yesterday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz “kinda-almost-sorta” acknowledged her own wrongdoing in the events that led to her stepping down as head of the DNC among ethics concerns. While she admitted that as the head of the DNC, she violated information security policy, she managed to outsource the responsibility for her actions. On May 17th in an appropriations hearing on Congress’ administrative budget, Shultz said she had violated the policies “for years and years and years.” And the kicker? She then took the opportunity to blame House authorities for not stopping her and then questioned their commitment to cyber-security.How appropriate.
Speaking of Schultz’s questionable conduct, she now faces some particularly embarrassing allegations of trying to interfere with the investigation into DNC misconduct.
According to BizPacReview, a court filing on Thursday accused former Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of calling the offices of the attorney who filed a class action lawsuit against the DNC and disguising her voice.
The office of attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck claimed in the filing that it received a phone call from a phone number registered to Schultz’s Aventura office. Linking the number to Schultz required nothing more than a simple Google search of the number she made the call from (305-936-5724), which she apparently made no attempt to hide.The caller used a “robotic and genderless” voice changer and asked questions about the lawsuit against the DNC, which was allegedly outed in documents hacked by Guccifer 2.0, and of which Schutz is a defendant.
According to the hacked documents, the suit alleges that the DNC engaged in collusion with the campaign of Hillary Clinton “to perpetrate a fraud on the public.”
“The caller refused to identify himself/herself, but asked my secretary about the Wilding et al. v. DNC et al. lawsuit,” the filing read.“The caller concluded with ‘Okey dokey,’ after my secretary gave the caller public information about the case,” it said. The filing noted the call as “highly irregular” and will be following up with more to come.
You can read the entire court filing *hyperlinked here.*One of the attorneys involved said he’s “never encountered a situation quite like this in my practice, but I have seen situations where one party has made unsolicited contact with lawyers on the other side. In such situation, I believe it is a lawyer’s responsibility, as officer of the court, to make prompt notification to the court of any unsolicited communications received, which is what we did in this case.
It’s not like we’d expect anything less from the woman who lost her previous job due to ethics concerns.