| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Murtha required to testify in Marine defamation suit |
| 2007-09-29 |
| A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths in Haditha in 2005. A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq. U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments. Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush, said the case wasn't about whether to recall troops from Iraq and she didn't "particularly care" about Murtha's views on the war. She said the law cares only about what Murtha intended when he made the comments. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #15 There are former Marines and ex Marines. Like Johm Murtha, Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex Marine. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2007-09-29 20:06 |
| #14 You know what's really great about this ? All of Murtha's peers, every last Congressman and Senator will be laughing their asses off at the big fool. They prolly have a saying about committing Murthaside or some such. From now on, Murtha walks down the halls of the mighty capitol totally unable to cover his scent, skunk. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-09-29 19:33 |
| #13 The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq. All the more reason why G-Dub should have appointed Giuliani as his 2nd term Attorney General instead of that f***wit Texas hack crony Gonzales. Rudy would have spent his first day storming through the Justice Department's hallways with a bullwhip and a charged firehose. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-09-29 18:09 |
| #12 I was pretty sure the infamous words were uttered on Tim Russert's show, but I just read it was at a news conference. If it were truly debate on the House floor, well, that would be shielded by the Debate clause. End of story. Murtha doesn't even have the legal fig leaf of falling back on the Debate clause. I hope the soldiers clean his clock in court. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-29 16:42 |
| #11 DoJ has a plenty of careerists that would try to give a leftist cover. More like loyal employees who don't want to see their source of funding threatened. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-29 15:32 |
| #10 I really do hope that they beat this turd in court and bankrupt him. He deserves it. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-09-29 15:00 |
#9 The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.I was pretty sure the infamous words were uttered on Tim Russert's show, but I just read it was at a news conference. If it were truly debate on the House floor, well, that would be shielded by the Debate clause. I think the judge's ruling is good here. And it looks like DoJ has a plenty of careerists that would try to give a leftist cover. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-09-29 15:00 |
| #8 Bill Clinton has a second legacy. Now, whenever a federal court hearing is held, you have to mention who appointed the judge. What is never said, though, is because Clinton appointed such a raft of corrupt agitators to be judges, that any decision they might make as a group has to be reevaluated for its leftist political ramifications. Even if he accidentally picked one who is relatively honest, he is still forever stained by association. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-29 13:31 |
| #7 "Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq." Oh, bullshit. The comments weren't made as part of any "debate", they were made in the process of giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war-- i.e., committing treason. And in a serious society, this asshole Murtha would be indicted, arraigned, tried, convicted, sentenced and punished accordingly. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-09-29 13:17 |
| #6 Couldn't happen to a nicer rectal cavity. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-29 13:05 |
| #5 Hopefully, Murtha has some of that Abscam money left for his defense. Oh, wait! That was a bribery sting. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-09-29 12:19 |
| #4 Damn, just think of all the extra graft and chips he'll have to call in if he loses? Not that he won't know who to call.... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-29 10:06 |
| #3 Popcorn, getcher popcorn here. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-29 09:51 |
| #2 I guess he didn't remember the "innocent until proven guilty". Or it didn't fit in his political agenda. Either way, he needs his ass sued off at the very least. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-09-29 09:48 |
| #1 "Would the dirtbag |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-29 08:42 |