On June 1, the three separate law firms representing Sen. Bernie Sanders supporters in the class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the primaries filed a notice to the United States Federal Court that alleges “unsolicited direct contact by your client Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”
The email from the attorneys states, “At 4:54 p.m. today, an individual called our law office from ‘305-936-5724.’ See attached photo of the caller I.D. The caller refused to identify himself/herself, but asked my secretary about the Wilding et al. v. DNC et al. lawsuit. My secretary stated that it sounded like the caller was using a voice changer, because the voice sounded robotic and genderless—along the lines of the voice changers used when television show interviews are kept anonymous. The caller concluded with ‘Okey dokey,’ after my secretary gave the caller public information about the case. After the call ended, a simple Google search of the phone number ‘305-936-5724′ shows that it is the phone number for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office, https://wassermanschultz.house.gov/contact/. See attached screenshot. What just occurred is highly irregular and we will be filing the instant email with the court forthwith.”
One of the attorneys, Jared Beck, told the Observer, “I’ve 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 unclear what repercussions Wasserman Schultz might face if the call is traced back to her office. While there are apps that mask the genesis of calls by showing a different number on the caller ID, these apps generally prevent the use of posing as government offices to prevent fraudulent and criminal behavior. Regardless, the court will likely investigate where the call came from and the responsible party will be reprimanded, whether it was Wasserman Schultz’s office or someone trying to frame her. On June 2, attorneys representing Wasseman Schultz filed a response, denying the call was made from Wasserman Schultz’s office and that they have referred the U.S. Capitol Police to investigate possible fraud in someone trying to impersonate Wasserman Schultz’s office.
This wouldn’t be the first time Debbie Wasserman Schultz crossed a line during legal proceedings. Just over a week ago, a video was released that showed Wasserman Schultz arguing with the U.S. Capitol Police Chief over their investigation into her former IT staffer, Imran Awan, who is currently under criminal investigation along with four other congressional IT staffers for theft of equipment and data. “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences,” Wasserman Schultz told the chief. She was upset that a laptop belonging to her office has not been returned to her because it’s considered evidence.
