TRAITOR!
You're either with U.S. or you're with the TERRORISTS!
:
Posted on 05/13/2002 8:30:25 AM PDT by Jean S
More than five years after the leak of a taped phone call sparked an uproar during the final stage of an investigation of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the former top Democrat on the ethics committee - Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) - admitted for the first time in court papers that he disclosed the tape.
McDermott's admission came as a long-running lawsuit brought by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) begins to simmer anew. Subpoenas delivered to former members of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct added spice to the matter, in the form of a potential legal conundrum over whether lawmakers can haul each other into court to answer questions about the inner workings of a Congressional committee.
Boehner, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, filed his unprecedented lawsuit against McDermott in 1998, claiming the Democrat invaded his privacy by leaking a tape of an intercepted 1996 phone call between Boehner, Gingrich and other top GOP leaders in which they discussed strategy for handling what essentially was a plea bargain between the Georgian and the ethics committee and the effect of the deal on Gingrich's bid to remain Speaker.
Details of the phone call were published in January 1997 by The New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Roll Call.
Boehner's lawsuit seeking damages against another lawmaker is believed to be the first of its kind. The case was dismissed in 1998 by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, but a divided three-member appeals court panel reinstated the case in 1999. McDermott appealed to the Supreme Court, which instead ruled in a similar case, delivering a decision that appeared to favor McDermott's contention that the First Amendment protected him against Boehner's charges. Despite that holding, the appeals court refused to extinguish the case and sent the matter back to Hogan for trial.
Now, even as many of the key players in the controversy have shifted roles, the events of the leaked cell phone controversy are being rehashed again, with new details provided by McDermott in a formal answer filed April 12 to an amended complaint by Boehner.
Boehner was on vacation with his family and spoke on a cellular phone during the Dec. 21, 1996, conference call. A Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, said they unexpectedly intercepted the call on a police scanner and decided to tape it because the conversation was intriguing.
In January 1997, the Martins traveled to Capitol Hill with a copy of the tape, making their way through a crowded hallway filled with reporters and cameras just outside the basement office of the House ethics committee and asking to speak with McDermott. When McDermott identified himself to the couple, they handed him a sealed envelope and told him to listen to the tape inside, according to papers filed last month by McDermott's attorneys.
According to McDermott's filing, it was his first and only contact with the Martins. After taking the envelope, he took it back to his office and listened to the tape, recognizing the voices of Gingrich and other Republicans.
According to the filing, "McDermott was surprised to hear Speaker Gingrich discussing with the others how they might spin the settlement of ethics charges and the accompanying sanctions against the Speaker in a favorable light. Congressman McDermott believed that the conversation recorded on the tape, in which the third highest-elected official in the Federal Government and others were discussing the settlement agreement, the accompanying sanctions, and their plans to engage in the type of 'spin campaign' that the settlement was supposed to forbid, was of significant public interest."
After listening to the tape, McDermott called two reporters, Adam Clymer of The New York Times and Jeanne Cummings of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "and invited them separately to his office. He gave each reporter the opportunity to listen to the tape, but it did not leave his office. Neither Congressman McDermott nor his staff made any copies of the tape," according to the court filing.
McDermott resigned as the ranking member on the ethics panel following the firestorm that erupted over the publication of the tape's details. The Martins pleaded guilty to violating the wiretap law and paid a $500 fine.
Now, with the case again before Hogan, lawyers for both lawmakers are engaged in discovery proceedings before expected cross-motions for summary judgment are made later this year. Last week, three Republicans who served on the ethics committee during the Gingrich case,Reps. Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Porter Goss (Fla.) and David Hobson (Ohio), were served with subpoenas from McDermott's attorneys seeking testimony and records.
Boehner's attorney, Michael Carvin, said Democratic lawmakers who served on the panel at the time can also expect subpoenas soon.
But taking depositions from lawmakers as part of a judicial inquiry into the actions and workings of a Congressional committee may pose a whole new host of thorny constitutional issues. Lawmakers are protected from being questioned in court about their legislative activities under the Constitution's "Speech or Debate" clause. The jealously protected immunity generally comes into play in cases where outside parties attempt to obtain Congressional records or testimony, such as the recent failed attempt by the accounting firm Arthur Andersen to subpoena records held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
But the idea of lawmakers seeking depositions from other lawmakers about their service on a committee appears to be unprecedented, according to legal experts.
"Some attempts in the past to pursue cases by deposing committee members have produced knockdown fights in district court over the attempt to break through Congressional privilege. This case may be headed that way," said Charles Tiefer, a former deputy general counsel for the House who argued many "Speech or Debate" cases in the courts.
"Allowing one Congressman to sue another about a committee-related matter while respecting Congressional privileges is like allowing one spouse to sue another while trying to respect marital privileges," Tiefer said.
In other words, what the FL couple SAID they did was bogus. There must have been a landline tap somewhere to capture all sides so cleanly. But evidence of THAT part of the wrong-doing never came out in the proceedings which left the couple $500 poorer.
Michael
A few months back he would have used a different analogy. Likely one involving priests and the confessional. But that's not PC anymore. Hey, speaking of priests which brings up the subject of the church and since this story involves Newt I just read that "former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich is asking the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta for an annulment of his second marriage, which ended in divorce after 19 years".
Turns out Newt was having an affair for 7 of those 19 years. What a pig! I wonder, maybe they heard a lot more on the phone listening to Newt that we know? Anyway, Newt was good at "strategery" but hasn't treated women much better than Clinton did.
Let's see justice, Linda Trip records a telephone call and has an attorney general go at her tooth and nail. The Martins illegally record a telephone cal and pay a $500 fine while the ranking Democrat on the Ethics committee commits an ethics violation by releasing the tape to the press without any sanctions......yes justice.....Democratic Party style.
Baloney -- this is not about *committee-related* matters, but McDermott participating in a conspiracy, violating Boehner's (and the others in the phone call) privacy rights. Boehner is fully entitled to sue the a*****e, Congressional privilege does not cover this. McDermott AND Thurmond both knowingly took possession of illegally-obtained material and rather than turning it over to the authorities, they proceeded to use it to their own devices.
Ethics my Aunt Fanny ....
1. McDermott couldn't have been unaware that disclosure of this material was a felony - he voted for the law making it so.
2. The issue between Gingrich and the Ethics Committee (co-chaired by McDermott - how's that for irony?) was how Gingrich had counted the profits from his book, and whether this exceeded the limits set by House rules.
3. At no point was it contended that Gingrich had done anything outside the law.
4. There were no overweening "national security" issues involved.
5. McDermott's staff stonewalled the FBI, refusing to even testify, and the Clinton "Justice" Department covered for them.
6. As mentioned above, the technology necessary to produce a duplex-channel tape is outside that of a pair of amateur scanner-watchers but not that of a professional detective agency assigned to eavesdrop illegally on opposition politicians.
7. The whole thing was part of a campaign to smear Gingrich in retaliation for the 1994 congressional victories and the Contract With America, a campaign eventually successful in removing his role as Speaker.
This was, in my opinion, the perfect illustration of a truly corrupt administration: a felony knowingly committed by those in the highest offices of trust, originating in a criminal act, abetted by a complaisant media, and covered for and completed by knowing subornation of those sworn to uphold the laws that were flouted. It is this, and not an illicit sex act, that damns the Clinton administration, and for which it will be remembered.
You're either with U.S. or you're with the TERRORISTS!
:
It appears VP Cheney had Clymer pegged right!
After this clear abuse of NSA-style resources and clear espionage by the Democrat party, all future communications by the Republican party used hard encryption. I know this for a fact; I had a friend who helped implement the controls.
This is why Bill Clinton consistently beat Gingrich -- he had advance knowledge of every move.
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.