Posted on 08/23/2004 5:41:51 AM PDT by OESY
Dirty tricks aren't exactly unheard of in politics. But one of the more notorious examples in recent memory neared a conclusion Friday when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply when the information in question has been stolen.
Judge Thomas Hogan ruled that Seattle-area Congressman James McDermott had no constitutional right to leak to the press a tape of cell-phone conversation he knew had been obtained illegally. The case dates back to 1996 and the House ethics committee's investigation into then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Representative John Boehner, a Republican, sued Mr. McDermott, a Democrat, after a Florida couple, using a scanner, recorded a conference call between Mr. Boehner, Mr. Gingrich and other House Republican leaders regarding strategy over the announcement of the committee's finding against Mr. Gingrich. The couple took the tape to Mr. McDermott, who was then serving on the same ethics committee that was judging Mr. Gingrich. Mr. McDermott passed it along to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and New York Times, which put it on the front page. We don't fault the newspapers, which were only reporting news, but as someone responsible for upholding Congressional "ethics," Mr. McDermott was clearly operating in bad faith.
The case has been bouncing around the federal courts for years, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, which sent it back down the line. Judge Hogan will decide next month whether Mr. Boehner will be awarded punitive damages and legal costs.
Whatever the penalty, the judgment is clear: "The Court finds because Defendant McDermott participated in an illegal transaction when he accepted the tape . . . he is without First Amendment protection." If nothing else, at least Mr. McDermott can no longer tarnish the Constitution by invoking it to disguise his political rabbit punches.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Somehow the name of McDermott and the word "ethics" just don't belong in the same sentence. The man is debased.
Great! Does that mean Gingrich is House Speaker again?
A Republican official in Virginia lost his job, and his law license was suspended, and he is still facing legal jeopardy for the same kind of thing, and a Democrat gave him the sign-on info for the conference call.
McDermott would represent Seattle in Congress while imprisoned. They would love having him as a "political prisoner."
remember when Bonior and Mc dermott claimed to be Nam Vets..neither were in Nam!!
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/4/151547
At first I thought the judge had said the second sentence as well ;)
I'm getting a "Reprint Information" page with that URL... got another one?
Unless "convicted" and "prision term" are also in the same sentence.
Of course not. The bottom line is McDermott got away with it. Newt is gone. McDermott is still in office. There will be none of the manufactured outrage you would see in the press if a conservative pulled similar shennanigans. I'm sure unions and liberal 527's will kickback the money he needs to pay the fine.
Some "victory."
ping
!. A one-eyed cat in a seafood store.
2. A man with an erection.
3. Jim McDermott.
Was this in the TV news over the weekend? I was camping. Saw a mention in the politics page of the seattle slimes. They say judge hogan had previously thrown out the case but it was brought back on appeal & the couple who recorded Newt each got $500 fines. I really don't expect to see much on this around here.
Thanks for the ping!
Why, I believe he is.
"I'm getting a "Reprint Information" page with that URL... got another one?"
This WSJ page is in the subscriber's area, so if you're a WSJ online subscriber you can go to this link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109321420181197949,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Freview%5Fand%5Foutlooks
Or, you can go to the WSJ homepage, www.wsj.com and click on the link on the left for "Opinion Main" from which you should see a page with this article's title.
This article also appears on page A12 of the WSJ print edition.
Not to worry, however, as there's nothing additional to see by going to the source other than a line drawing of Baghdad Jim which makes him look FAR more pleasant and easygoing than he is in reality.
Not being someone steeped in the language of law, I am wondering if this ruling has the added bonus of adding the title of "Convicted Felon" to Baghdad Jim's moniker?
If so, pundits could delight in writing about him thusly:
"Convicted felon and U.S. Congressman Jim McDermott today introduced his thirtieth resolution calling for the immediate arrest, internment and summary execution of all persons who are ideologically to the right of Karl Marx. His resolution was met with a standing ovation from the Congressional Democrats, and Party leaders in Seattle issued a press release announcing plans for a ticker-tape parade for him through downtown Seattle, which is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of ardent supporters from the local area"
What ethics?
As I recall they took a plea bargain.
Sorry, no. This was a civil suit, not a criminal one.
Thanks very much for your clarification.
It was a nice thought while it lasted. :-)
Ethics and Baghdad Jim = Oxymoron with emphasis on moron and jimbo.
Agreed. Most criminals continue until incarceration...because they can.
It used to be there
That would mean that the couple at least has a criminal record. That is a relief. I supposed they had gotten off scot free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.