Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McDermott: Taping Dispute Not Personal (Why isn't Baghdad Jim doing time behind bars?)
Star Tribune ^ | 4/01/06 | MATTHEW DALY

Posted on 04/01/2006 11:04:06 AM PST by Libloather

McDermott: Taping Dispute Not Personal
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer
Last update: April 01, 2006 – 4:28 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. Jim McDermott says his eight-year dispute with House Majority Leader John Boehner over an intercepted telephone call is not personal, but involves a crucial right of voters to know what their leaders are doing.

"Unfortunately, it's portrayed in the paper as Boehner v. McDermott. It really is the government versus the people,'' McDermott, D-Wash., said Friday in an interview with The Associated Press.

McDermott commented three days after a federal appeals court ruling against him in the long-running dispute.

In a 2-1 opinion Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower-court ruling that McDermott had unlawfully obtained a copy of an illegally intercepted phone conversation between Boehner, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and other House GOP leaders in December 1996.

McDermott has acknowledged leaking a tape of the call to The New York Times and other news organizations.

The appeals court upheld a lower-court ruling ordering McDermott to pay Boehner, R-Ohio, about $700,000. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

"The third person in line to be president was plotting a deception on the (House) ethics committee and the American people in private,'' McDermott said, referring to Gingrich, who was heard on a 1996 cell phone call telling House Republicans how to react to ethics charges against him.

"The people have a right to know that,'' McDermott said. "John Boehner says people have no right to know, because it was done in secret.''

McDermott, who estimated his own legal bills at about $430,000, said he has not decided whether to appeal.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: baghdad; bars; behind; dispute; doing; jim; mcdermott; not; personal; taping; time

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., listens to a reporter's question during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington in this Sept. 24, 2002 file photo. McDermott says his eight-year dispute with House Majority Leader John Boehner is not personal, but involves a crucial right of the public to know what their leaders are doing.. (AP Photo/Ken Lambert, file)
1 posted on 04/01/2006 11:04:11 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If he doesn't appeal, what is the penalty for being guilty?
2 posted on 04/01/2006 11:08:11 AM PST by Tony O (hibobbi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Bums are immune to the law.....

especially white liberal bums!!

3 posted on 04/01/2006 11:09:35 AM PST by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (Toon Town, Iran...........where reality is the real fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

$60,000 in damages? How was he damaged?

Talk about running up the bill in legal fees too. What were they writing on, gold paper?


4 posted on 04/01/2006 11:10:15 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Hey.....Baghdad Jim...maybe you can get together with Manuel Miranda and explain to him why,
with you it's the public's right to know
but with him it's about his "intercept".
5 posted on 04/01/2006 11:11:33 AM PST by stylin19a (I never put my foot in my mouth...I shoot that sucker off long before it gets anywhere near my mouth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

McDermott, as one of America's law makers seems to think he is above the law. Too bad this is only a civil case, Baghdad Jim deserves to do some time behind bars.


6 posted on 04/01/2006 11:13:03 AM PST by jazusamo (Excuse me Helen, I'm answering your first accusation. - President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Rep. Jim McDermott says his eight-year dispute with House Majority Leader John Boehner over an intercepted telephone call is not personal, but involves a crucial right of voters to know what their leaders are doing.

Yuh, sure, you betcha. That's why he has tapes of x42 and Her Heinous planning their strategy, too, right? I mean, wasn't he looking out for us so we'd know what ALL our leaders were doing?

7 posted on 04/01/2006 11:13:06 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Maybe he should be censured? Didn't he do basically the same thing they are accusing Bush of doing?
8 posted on 04/01/2006 11:22:17 AM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Libloather

Throw that traitor in prison! I hear Trafficant is getting lonely for some lovin' these days, Baghdad Jim should fit right in.

Into a two-man cell, of course.


10 posted on 04/01/2006 11:34:59 AM PST by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"The people have a right to know that,'' McDermott said. "John Boehner says people have no right to know, because it was done in secret.''
Yeah Jim, and the people had the right to know a lot of things during the Clinton years, too. Like who hired Craig Livingstone . . .

But somehow none of that seemed to matter very much to you.


11 posted on 04/01/2006 11:37:57 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

The legal fees aren't out of line. I'm surprised they aren't higher. That's only just over 91 hours work in 8 years.


12 posted on 04/01/2006 11:47:31 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"The third person in line to be president was plotting a deception on the (House) ethics committee and the American people in private,'' McDermott said, referring to Gingrich, who was heard on a 1996 cell phone call telling House Republicans how to react to ethics charges against him.

This baloney has gone on so long I don't recall the specific *deception* McDermott thinks was being cooked up. My memory is that there was some kind of deal worked out that Gingrich agreed to as part of his punishment (undeserved ... but that's another story), there was some part or other that he wasn't to discuss with anyone? And the fact that he and Boehner were on the phone together, somehow this was to be construed as violation of that agreement? One of you FReepers, I'm sure you can clue me in on the details I'm missing.

I cannot believe McDermott would rack up all these legal fees and waste so much time and energy on an issue where he simply cannot prevail. Caught in a lie his own self, and to sit here and pontificate on the public's right to know when in fact, he breached all ethics his own self.

13 posted on 04/01/2006 11:58:38 AM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony O

It's either censure or a drop-kick from the House for this leftist louse, preferably the latter.


14 posted on 04/01/2006 11:58:39 AM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
McDermott said the ruling turns constitutional law on its head. "If you accept that logic, Nixon would still be president, Watergate would just be another hotel and domestic spying would still be unknown,'' he said.

There is one big difference: Nixon wiretapped himself. McDermott wiretapped Boehner.

15 posted on 04/01/2006 11:58:50 AM PST by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

It went to the SCOTUS 2x and every aspect of this was hyper litigated. I don’t' think $600k in legal fees is impossible given the amount of time and procedural effort this has been through. I give Boehner a lot of credit for hanging on through all the delays and diversions this one has had. It’s sweet to see McDermott take it in the wallet for this – and I’m hoping there is some way he cannot use campaign funds to pay the fine.

 

My main thought about this matter has to do with the innocent old couple that first intercepted the call. At the time this came out – there as a press conference held by the couple and their attorney – and they supposedly explained how they had captured the call while on their way to a shopping mall. What was most intriguing about their statements is that they were totally devoid of any techno-jargon, any slang or shorthand phrases common to the scanning/technoid community. It seems to me that if you were sophisticated enough a scanning enthusiast to be driving around with a scanner and a handy tape recorder while on trips to the mall, it wouldn’t be unexpected that in your press conference you might drop a few remarks reflecting familiarity with scanning (type/brand of scanner, frequencies scanned, and other jargon). Yet these people used very plain language and never slipped in a word or phrase that made you think they were truly the ones who captured the conversation in the purported fashion.

 

I have always believed that the democrats had an Anthony Pellicano-type crew monitoring Gingrich and they captured this recording somewhere else, or via other means, then used the old couple (amiable dunces) as a cut-out in the true chain of responsibility.

16 posted on 04/01/2006 12:40:47 PM PST by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

HA ha...
and the RATS take another one in the...

17 posted on 04/01/2006 12:42:11 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

McDermott ought to take a page out of McKinney's playbook and claim he lost his appeal because of racism. Trust me, the Dims would buy it.


18 posted on 04/01/2006 12:58:30 PM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Robwin
I think thats why McDermott was the on chosen to do the leaking. His moonbat constituents wouldn't care less.
19 posted on 04/01/2006 1:35:44 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA

Its a lot of money spent by both sides on a junk case.

It is out of line.

This should have been one of those "get lost" - said by attorney to plaitiff cases.


20 posted on 04/01/2006 1:41:24 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Yet these people used very plain language and never slipped in a word or phrase that made you think they were truly the ones who captured the conversation in the purported fashion.

As I recall, Gingrich & the others were having their last conference call before the agreed-upon silence period was to begin. They were totally acting within their agreement.

IIRC, the Martins said their children had gotten the scanner for them for their birthday, and they were just starting to get used to it. It was all fun & games until they captured these baaaaaad Republican congressmen hatching their evil conspiracy to follow the agreement. Then they just HAD to tell the world of this nefarious plot.

21 posted on 04/01/2006 2:57:35 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Getting to Yes by Fisher & Ury)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

OK, I'm confused here... I thought illegal wiretaps were bad? LOL


22 posted on 04/01/2006 6:00:20 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Wow. That sick scumbag looks like Frankenstein or something.


23 posted on 04/01/2006 6:07:21 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson