A "Watergate" style scandal alleging the State Department was responsible for a break in at a former employee's office completely fell apart after its progenitor was given a platform on Fox News. Fox guest Cary Schulman, a lawyer representing a former investigator at the State Department's Office of the Inspector General named Aurelia Fedenisn, was forced to confess he was only "joking" about allegations that the State Department was responsible for a break in at his office after admitting he had no evidence to back up his claims.
On June 10, CBS News reported on allegations of misconduct among State Department employees. Fedenisn, who is represented by the Dallas law firm Schulman & Mathias, provided the documents to CBS and discussed the allegations with Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
Schulman publicly questioned whether the State Department or supporters of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been responsible for a recent break in at his office in which a computer and box full of files were stolen. The Daily Caller, TheBlaze.com, and others quoted Schulman saying that "strongholds of support within the State Department" may have been involved.
On July 8, Schulman joined guest host Martha MacCallum on Fox News' America Live to discuss the break in. In a segment hyped as "'Watergate' Style Spy Claims," Schulman admitted he was "joking" about his allegations after acknowledging he possessed no real evidence to suggest the State Department's involvement in the break in. He concluded by warning that "we should take a hard look at" the State Department if they were to determine there was no involvement by State Department employees in the break in.
SCHULMAN: Well, first of all they were in the office multiple times over the weekend coming back and forth. So they came in one time, got a computer, left, came back got another computer and you can see how casual they are. I'm not pointing any fingers at the Department of State, but let's take a look at the facts with regard to the Department of State. One, we know that we're looking for someone who has committed crimes in the past. State Department? Check. Number two, we also know that the burglars left behind blood evidence and were caught on the video - so we know we are looking for someone that has botched big jobs before. State Department? Check. And number three, we know that, essentially, the burglars have been unwilling to come forward with evidence of the crimes voluntarily and we don't know their whereabouts. Check, check. Now I'm not saying that it's the Department of State, but I'll tell you this: if the Department of State calls off this investigation and then later publicly comes out and says they've investigated it and they've determined they did nothing wrong then I think we should take a hard look at them.
Even MacCallum was skeptical of these claims, asking Schulman, "do you have any evidence that links [the burglars] to the State Department, to the administration, to any of the people that would be directly affected by the investigation and the case that you're bringing for your client?" Schulman conceded, "No I don't. All kidding aside, I was joking earlier. I don't know who did it."