Search This Blog

Sunday, August 20, 2017

So Why Did Debbie Do It?

A Pakistani-American IT staffer for congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his wife and two others have been indicted by the federal government for bank fraud and a whole host of other charges.  These people were part of a group of Pakistani American guys who worked on the computer systems for a bunch of Democrats in congress.  As such, they had access to confidential and perhaps classified information.  About six months ago, the congressmen were warned that the FBI suspected that the computer guys were allegedly taking information from the computer systems and selling it to foreign intelligence agencies, most particularly the ISI (Pakistani intelligence).  All of the congressmen fired the IT workers in question except for Debbie Wasserman Schultz who kept them on the payroll until they were arrested this past week.  The charges do not include espionage, although there is talk in media stories that this may get added later.

So why did Debbie keep them on the payroll.  Why did she continue to give them access to her computer systems?  It's an interesting question.  The most common answer is that she did not want to fire them because they are Muslim and she did not want to look Islamophobic.  That's actually the "official" story that comes from Wasserman Schultz's office.  It's a total indictment of the congressman.  This is not a situation in which there was no reason to fire the guys.  The FBI said that it suspected wrongdoing by them.  How can a member of congress just let such a person have continuing access to Capitol Hill computer systems?  The explanation is the rough equivalent of someone saying that she got mugged by members of a gang of Muslim men but she didn't report it because she didn't want to look Islamophobic.

Another explanation that I have seen hinted at in the media is that Wasserman Schultz was allegedly romantically involved with the guy she kept on her payroll.  I don't believe that.  There is no evidence to support such a conclusion other than the non-firing itself.

I really can't understand any reason why Wasserman Schultz would keep the guy on the payroll.  It merits an investigation by Congress.

No comments: