The pay's the same, poke or not. ;-)
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.
NO! It's called accountability. Better to start with a person who was willing to cow-tow to Saddam - and totally destroy the guy's credibility.
McDermott? Wasn't he one of the Slime-Ball Senators who went to Iraq before the war in support of Saddam, and slammed the US and Bush?
Yes
TY
Traitor that he is. (forgot to add that one!)
From the article:
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan concluded earlier this year that McDermott was responsible for the leak...
Looks as though the House was, reasonably, waiting for the court system to issue a finding before proceeding with an 'internal House matter'. It would be unseemly, and honestly presumptious, to issue an ethics ruling with a case pending in Federal court. Now that there has been a finding of fault in this case, the House has grounds to pursue the ethics complaint.
Traitor....he wears the name well.
The pay's the same, poke or not. ;-)
What's the rush?
[Snicker] I can think of a few Congressmen who may be in violation of this policy.
Setting up to go after DeLay.
Just watch.
The US House or US Senate is certainly not required to wait for all court activity to expire prior to dealing with an ethics complaint for one of its members. There are numerous precidents for same. Many, many pending cases come before the House while still pending in court. Ask Enron execs. Perhaps the "pending court case" excuse was used but, in my view, it was ill-advised to hold up hearings until seven years after this clear violation of member trust and federal law. Recall that McDermott never has denied giving this tape/transcript of private phone conversations of House leadership to the media. You or I would have been in front of a judge within days or weeks, not years on a similar violation.
By the way, how come the DemocRAT activists who originally recorded these conversations (with sophisticated electronic surveilance equipment) have never been held accountable? Their excuse was that they just happened upon these conversations and began taping. Ha. There was something much more sinister in all of this and it was probably planned all along to record these private phone conversations of the US Congressional leadership....
I didn't say they were required to, I said that they waited, and that I thought it was reasonable. I still do. The House and Senate have no business meddling in matters currently before the bar.
I didn't say you did. :-]
Since McDermott is now appealing, and the case is still "before the bar" I suppose Congress could "reasonably" wait for the final decision by the courts. I disagree and evidently the House Ethics committee does as well since it is finally moving on the complaint and consideration of McDermott's illegal actions. Again, since McDermott admitted complicity in this matter years ago (while asserting it was his 1st amendment right to hand the tapes over to the NYT's and other media),the House could and should have dealt with him in a timely manner. BTW, McDermott resigned his position as the ranking member of the Ethics panel soon after this issue surfaced -- and didn't wait for a court to find him guilty.
It took 7 years to go through the courts.
I'm sorry .. but if the ethic committee had problems with what McDermott did ... it should have been addressed years ago
I think they'll probably consider whether his "conviction" is a violation of house ethics ... nonetheless, it is a "high crime" and grounds for impeachment and removal ... but that would cut off his financial aid
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.