Sen. Schumer's Got Some 'Splain' To Do

Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, has some serious explaining to do in relation to the DSCC, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he oversees.

It seems that two of his employees at the DSCC illegally used the SSN of a political opponent to call up credit information. That incident happened back in June. Sen. Schumer kept them on the payroll through the end of August. That's not just a serious scandal, but one with real criminal implications. We're talking identity theft, and obtaining credit histories under false pretenses, among other charges. Felonies.

Katie Barge is one of the names that has surfaced in the criminal investigation into the stealing of MD. Lt. Gov. Steele's credit history via social security number fraud. Barge is the suspended research director of Schumer's DSCC, and was previously the research director of David Brock's Media Matters and a reseracher for the Edwards presidential campaign.

She's going to make a very interesting witness. Perhaps she's been kept on the DSCC payroll because it would not be a good thing to anger this particular person? Given that it is Schumer's operation, it has to be assumed that Schumer has okayed her continued employment.

According to the Washington Times, Schumer's spokesman stated that "Mr. Schumer was not involved in the incident but urged others to 'report it immediately to the authorities.'"

Now, things appear to be hitting the fan, and Sen. Schumer needs to face the music. The story has even made the Washington Post editorial page, although the NYT, Schumer's hometown paper hasn't touched the subject (though that is normal for the Paper of Record to avoid discussing topics that hit close to home).

Others covering this besides Hugh Hewitt:
Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed.

UPDATE:
No sooner had I written that next to last paragraph did Michelle post a new update. People had been trying to contact the NYT Ombudsman (Public Editor) Bryan Calame, and got a snippy response that the editor cannot control the content of the NYT.

Why even bother having an ombudsman at the Times? Calame's assistant haughtily suggests that since the office has "no control" over what's printed, then the office has no role whatsover in questioning the paper's sins of omissions. If Calame's office has no jurisdiction over what's left out of the paper, that leaves him only with the task of correcting and criticizing the errors that are left in. But he can't even do that job.

Recall that when readers challenged Calame about liberal bias in the paper's failure to report on Air America's financial troubles, Calame's idea of good ombudsman-ship was to go ask the Times editors if liberal bias existed--and then to slavishly report that there was none since the editors told him there wasn't any.

Since the NYTimes is hemorrhaging money and desperately slashing jobs, the budget-cutters might as well axe Calame's job while they're at it.

He's a waste of their money and our time and energy.

More to the point, the whole purpose of the position was to improve customer relations with the readership, and if anything, this exposes the sham that the NYT has been trying to pull. If the Public Editor cannot and will not explain the paper's reasoning for not covering this story, it suggests that the editor has no independent authority to act in the best interests of the readers.

Technorati: Schumer; Charles Schumer; identity theft.