| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Baghdad Jim Bagged |
| 2007-05-02 |
| I'm sure this will be blaring from all the network news programs tonight... WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim McDermott was dealt a potentially crippling blow Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled that he improperly made public an illegally recorded telephone conversation involving senior House Republicans. In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia discarded McDermott's claim that he was simply exercising his First Amendment right by turning over the tape 10 years ago to reporters for The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "If the First Amendment does not protect Representative McDermott from House disciplinary proceedings, it is hard to see why it should protect him from liability in this civil suit," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the majority. Tuesday's ruling was just the latest installment in a high-profile case that has been ricocheting through the federal courts for nine years. The narrow verdict by the Court of Appeals upholds an earlier decision requiring McDermott to pay more than $700,000. Ouch! Time to put a bigger For Sale sign on your office door, Jim? An earlier court decision ordered McDermott to pay $60,000 in fines and reimburse legal fees to House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. That cost has soared beyond $650,000. Boehner, who is the highest-ranking Republican in the House, said he was pleased with the ruling. "As I've said many times, when you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you've gone too far," he said in a statement. "Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of our country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated." Boehner sued McDermott in 1998, accusing him of violating his right to privacy for making public a telephone conversation involving Boehner, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other senior Republicans who were discussing ethics allegations against Gingrich. The cell phone conference call was recorded by a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who stumbled onto the conversation while listening to a police scanner. In oral arguments before the appeals court in October and in January, Boehner's lawyer argued that McDermott could not claim First Amendment protection because he was a senior member of the House Ethics Committee at the time he received the tape. As a member of a committee that conducts most of its work in private, Boehner argued, McDermott was duty-bound to protect sensitive information, much like a judge or an Internal Revenue Service agent. Jim must've thought he gets some kind of exemption from being ethical, seeing how he's on the Ethics Committee and all... The court agreed. "When Representative McDermott became a member of the Ethics Committee, he voluntarily accepted a duty of confidentiality that covered his receipt and handling of the ... illegal recording. He therefore had no First Amendment right to disclose the tape to the media," the decision said. McDermott said in a statement that he and his lawyer were reviewing the decision. He has 90 days to decide whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But he condemned the decision, suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on free speech. ...not to mention, his wallet. "By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today sharply limited the free-speech protections of the First Amendment in violation of binding Supreme Court precedent," he said. So appeal it. Spend some more money. The court did say that if McDermott were not a member of Congress, he would have been fully insulated by the First Amendment. Maybe should've resigned, Jim? Judge David Sentelle disagreed with the majority, writing in a biting dissent that an Ethics Committee investigation into McDermott found that he violated the "spirit" but not the letter of the rule. Moreover, Sentelle mocked the court's reasoning, saying that McDermott -- or any other citizen -- would be protected for distributing information even if it was illegally obtained by someone else. "The tape in question had never become the possession of the committee, although the Martins may well have intended that it do so," Sentelle wrote. "Nor is it by any means pellucid that the tape was 'evidence related to an investigation' within the meaning of the rule at the time the Martins turned it over to McDermott. The release by McDermott was not in violation of an unambiguous rule." I tried, Jim! I really tried!! Free-speech advocates have closely watched the case. Lawyers for 18 news organizations -- including major television networks, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post -- offered briefs in support of McDermott, arguing that a Boehner victory could have a chilling effect on public expression and the media's effectiveness. Yep, always "chilling" when one of their own gets it in the neck... |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #9 IIUC - it would be illegal to use campaign funds to pay for a personal fine. Pay up, asshole! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-05-02 19:19 |
| #8 Glolugum - this may be a rare instance where such worries are worthless. First, consider the result, then factor in the time, hassle AND expenses involved over 9 years as pointed out above. In other words, there's probably not that much profit left to make the lawyer (probably lawyers!) all that "richer". This doesn't begin to measure up to the tobacco shysters, let alone the Breck girl. |
| Posted by: Unomomble Guelph4369 2007-05-02 18:14 |
| #7 There is a downside to all this. Some lawyer is now richer by $700K since the fine goes to pay "legal fees". |
| Posted by: Glolugum Tojo6235 2007-05-02 16:44 |
| #6 Since I am a political geek, I remember the episode pretty well. Far from being innocent scanner hobbyists, the Martins were politically active Democrats. They must have know that a) they could listen to old AMPS cell phone call with their scanner and b) a lot of Republican bigshots were nearby. The fact that they a) recorded the call and then b) immediately drove the recording to DC to turn it in to the 'authorities' was nothing more than a low down dirty trick. I mostly care about public policy, especially regarding the War against radical Islam. I try not to care too much about partisan politics. However, this episode is one of many that has made me more partisan because it shows the dems have far more tolerance for corruption and dirty tricks while the GOP tends to purge its malcontents. |
| Posted by: JAB 2007-05-02 15:26 |
| #5 In other news, the Seattle papers are in shock over this turn of events......and the associated blogs are full of indignation over this chilling effect on free speech. sad thing is, his legal expenses are probably coming out of our pockets since he is in office. |
| Posted by: USN. Ret. 2007-05-02 15:17 |
| #4 "The cell phone conference call was recorded by a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who stumbled onto the conversation while listening to a police scanner." Ahem, how many scanner are sold with recording devices? |
| Posted by: Fester Thosing6525 2007-05-02 15:07 |
| #3 This is a classic case of what is wrong with the American Judicial System; The crime was from 1998, nine years ago. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-05-02 14:35 |
| #2 Jim must've thought he gets some kind of exemption from being ethical, seeing how he's on the Ethics Committee and all... nice tu, what a shock to this demoCrap's system, hardly a court or msm org has ever ruled against them.. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-05-02 13:57 |
| #1 Yea, it is always "chilling" when a democrat gets nailed, but a "victory" when a republican gets it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-05-02 13:45 |