By Michelle Malkin
Sep 28, 2005
Have you heard about what New York Sen. Charles Schumer's meddling minions tried to do here in my home state of Maryland to embarrass a Republican opponent?
Don't bother with The New York Times if you want details. Since revelations of the scandal first broke a week ago on the national wires and in the rest of the New York media, the Times has failed to print a single word about the Dems' invasive -- and obviously illegal -- dumpster diving.
Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a rising star in the party, is considering a Senate bid for the Maryland seat being vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes next year. Apparently threatened by the prospect of a strong, popular, black Republican candidate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee got down and dirty. Two of Schumer's staffers on the committee, including a former top researcher for David Brock's left-wing "think tank," obtained Steele's confidential credit report by using his Social Security number, which they had reportedly culled from court records.
Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes a maximum two-year prison sentence for the crime.
Democrat spinners would have you believe that the two staffers involved in the apparent fraud, Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, were young and inexperienced workers. They're soft-pedaling the incident as an "isolated" occurrence on par with a high school prank. But Barge has been around the block, including stints as a researcher for Sen. John Edwards' failed presidential bid and as research director for Brock's Media Matters for America.
The two henchladies reportedly owned up to the act in July, were suspended with pay until Aug. 31, as the New York Post's Deborah Orin reported, and resigned earlier this month. Their dealings are being investigated by the fraud and public corruption section of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., with help from the FBI -- which, according to Steele's staff, told the lieutenant governor that he was an obvious "victim of a crime."
Law enforcement officials are taking this criminal intrusion into private records deadly seriously. But left-wing partisans are nowhere to be found. Steele's staff tells me that longtime crusader against identity theft Sen. Schumer, who denies having any knowledge of the scheme, has still issued no apology for the abuse of Steele's personal data. And there has been no outcry from the ACLU, the champions of clean campaigns, or any major national newspaper editorial board.
(Protecting privacy only seems to matter to liberals when it comes to 14-year-old girls seeking abortions behind their parents' backs, illegal aliens seeking sanctuary from the police, and registered sex offenders objecting to community registration requirements.)
Needless to say, if it had been Republicans involved in this outrageous breach of privacy and the target had been a liberal minority politician, it would be front-page news. When asked by readers why the Times had not covered the story, ombudsman Byron Calame's office sent this obnoxious reply:
Dear Reader,
Thanks for writing and raising this issue. This office has no control over what is printed in the paper. It seems your message would be better directed to news-tips@nytimes.com.
The Times, it should be noted, is the same paper that happily received and printed a front-page story about an illegally obtained tape recording of a conference call with Republican leaders in 1996 that was leaked by Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington. McDermott's leak was condemned by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan last year as "willful and knowing misconduct [that] rises to the level of malice in this case." McDermott is busy raising money from lobbyists for his defense fund -- a violation of House rules that the Times' ethics mavens have blithely ignored.
Jaded journalists will shrug off what conservative author and talk show host Hugh Hewitt has dubbed "Chuckaquiddick" by arguing that "everybody does it." If that is so, they should be leading the charge to find out who else at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been doing it. And to whom they have been doing it.
Technorati Tags: Democrats, Michelle Malkin, Politics
7 comments:
Maybe Malkin should focus on contacting the right people, instead of slamming the Times Ombudsman, who handles the opinion pages, for not being able to comment on the newsroom activities, which are completely different.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a self-proclaimed pundit to actually understanding the workings of true journalism.
There are plenty of people deserving of being slammed.
Interesting to note that you neglected to deal with any substantive material in your comment, choosing instead to merely chastize Malkin for what you believe is not "contacting the right people." However, in most newspapers, the Ombudsman has dominion over the entire publication, including the news pages. The Omsbudsman is the in-house critic of the operation, taking sides with the offended, not defending the guilty.
I suspect that Michelle Malkin fully understands the Omsbudsman's role.
What's to comment on? She's accusing the NY Times of bias. I don't disagree. She's right that these are two criminals. They're being investigated by the FBI. The system works.
She says no major newspaper editorial board has commented on it. I guess the Washington Post, which ran an editorial on it Sept 23, only counts as a major newspaper when it runs something unflattering of Republicans.
I'm not convinced Ms. Malkin understands much of anything.
I guess the Washington Post, which ran an editorial on it Sept 23, only counts as a major newspaper when it runs something unflattering of Republicans.
Well, let's go ahead and count the Post as a major newspaper, and let's further assume that what you say about its editorial is correct. That doesn't really qualify as thorough commentary on the event by liberal news media, now, does it?
Her point is valid. When only one of the major liberal newspapers in the nation comments on a political crime perpetrated by operatives for a Democrat cause, that speaks very loudly.
For the record, the Post is not liberal. It's editorial page may be a little left of center (although they are for the war, and for keeping troops there), but among the major newspapers (WSJ, NYT, LAT, WP) you have one righty, 2 leftys, and one moderate.
The only reasson some call them liberal is b/c they don't drink Republican Kool-Aid, like the Washington Times. Don't believe everything Bill O'Reilly tells you.
And Malkin didn't say anything about major liberal newspaper editorial boards (in which case she'd be right that none had written about it). She said no major editiorial boards.
The Post is not liberal?????? Oh, please. They are liberal in the commentary section, and liberal in the news coverage, as well.
And which "major editorial boards" have addressed this?
Post a Comment