Skip to comments.HOUSE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE MCDERMOTT
Posted on 12/28/2004 9:01:31 AM PST by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House ethics committee will investigate Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., to determine whether he violated standards of conduct when an illegally recorded telephone conversation was leaked to reporters during a committee investigation.
Committee Chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo., and ranking Democrat Alan Mollohan of West Virginia formed a four-member investigative subcommittee Tuesday to investigate the 1997 incident. McDermott was ranking Democrat on the ethics committee at the time, and the panel was investigating the conduct of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
The incident began when a Florida couple taped Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, who was using his cell phone to discuss the case with other Republicans. The tape ended up in McDermott's hands and subsequently was leaked to reporters.
Boehner sued McDermott in federal court. U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan concluded earlier this year that McDermott was responsible for the leak and ordered the Washington lawmaker to pay Boehner for "willful and knowing misconduct" that "rises to the level of malice." Boehner said the payment could total about $600,000.
McDermott is challenging the ruling in a federal appeals court.
Responding to a complaint filed by Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, Hefley and Mollohan said the subcommittee would consider whether "McDermott's conduct violated the House Code of Official conduct," which requires members to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives."
The investigative panel also will consider whether McDermott ran afoul of a government ethics code, and committee rules barring improper disclosures and protecting confidential information.
Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., will head the panel. Other members are Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif.; Phil English, R-Pa., and Robert Scott, D-Va. The subcommittee will report its findings to the full ethics panel, officially the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Why not just wait and do the investigation posthumiously?
And the sooner the better. :-)
Gee .. it only took what ... 7 years to get around to doing this??
This'll go nowhere. Only 7 years after the fact? Wow, the US Congresscritters are really moving on it, aren't they?
House Ethics did nothing at the time. Why has it stuck its head up so late in the game? Because the law suit has succeeded against McDermott in civil court at the appeals level. In short, the real world has rubbed the nose of House Ethics in the mess it has made on the carpet.
They are setting up to do something, anything, now to try to sweep under the rug a situation of one Member recovering serious damages from another Member for what the latter did in violation of criminal and civil law. House Ethics? BFD.
It took 7 years to go through the courts.
Now that the decision is made, it is the time to bring the needed consequences to McDermott's career.
Isn't McDermott about due for another trip to Iraq? Saddam may need a visit from his friend. Maybe he and Scott Ritter can grab the same flight - they share the same money bag!
Maybe they'd even get around to reading it before they pass it--
They plan on censuring him on June 14, 2419.
Hang on to your hats!
How? The House members and their staff are paid salaries, not by the hour.
I'm sorry .. but if the ethic committee had problems with what McDermott did ... it should have been addressed years ago
At this rate .. how long will it take them to deal with what that traitor did in going to Iraq like he did??
I know. Kinda mute now isn't it? Jeeze the House is real quick - I can feel the wind when they go by. Woooosh!
Why just McDermott? What not 90% of the democratic party caucus? Is it ethical to be a communist and anti-American?
Oh, I know, Free Speech! Anti-American activists do not belong in Congress!
Gee, the House "Ethics" Committee doesn't have a 7-year statute of limitations? Well, at least this silly "investigation" of scumbag McDermott might keep some of the House members out of other mischief. Like spending, spending, spending....
I'm perfectly happy to take what I can get. If they nail Baghdad Jim with a seven-year-old offense, that's just fine with me. It's like what they used to say to us as kids when we were punished for something we didn't do: "Well, if you didn't do it, just consider it as punishment for something you DID do!" McDermott has done more than enough other things to deserve any punishment he gets.
They do have the excuse that what was once an allegation is now a proven crime, although I think even that angle could have been dealt with some time ago.