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

Skip to comments.

Court rebuffs McDermott in phone case [Rep. Jim McDermott had no right to disclose the contents...]
Yahoo ^

Posted on 05/01/2007 10:14:01 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Court rebuffs McDermott in phone case

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago

Rep. Jim McDermott (news, bio, voting record) had no right to disclose the contents of an illegally taped telephone call involving House Republican leaders a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott, a Washington Democrat, should not have given reporters access to the taped telephone call.

McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee, the panel ruled.

When he became a member of the ethics panel, McDermott "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," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote on behalf of the court. Four judges agreed with him.

In a sharp dissent, Judge David B. Sentelle said that under the majority's ruling, "no one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect in the chain of title," that is, the fact that the tape was illegally obtained.

"We do not believe the First Amendment permits this interdiction of public information," Sentelle wrote on behalf of himself and three other judges.

The ruling upholds a judgment in favor of House Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, who was among several GOP leaders heard on the December 1996 call, which involved ethics allegations against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

McDermott, a Washington state Democrat who was serving on the ethics panel at the time, leaked the tape to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The New York Times,

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gingrich; jimmcdermott; mcdermott; newt; newtgingrich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 05/01/2007 10:14:03 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I’m....so....proud....of.....my.....Congressdolt.


2 posted on 05/01/2007 10:14:44 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

5-4 decision?! Should have been 9-0 (except that this is the DC circuit where the law is what liberals say it is).


3 posted on 05/01/2007 10:16:05 AM PDT by Tallguy (Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Personally, I hope they throw his a$$ in jail.


4 posted on 05/01/2007 10:19:13 AM PDT by scooter2 (The greatest threat to the security of the United States is the Democratic Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scooter2
Personally, I hope they throw his a$$ in jail.

He'll get off with less than the Sandy Burger Comfy Chair Punishment.

5 posted on 05/01/2007 10:20:50 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What penalties does this clown face? Hopefully he will spend hard time with the pimps, rapists, and murderers.


6 posted on 05/01/2007 10:23:35 AM PDT by MovementConservative (Run Fred run.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Does he enjoy immunity from prosecution?


7 posted on 05/01/2007 10:23:45 AM PDT by WesternPacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Gingrich had to pay $300,000. How much will McDermott have to pay, how much time in jail will he be serving and when will he resign? These are rhetorical questions of course. Dimocraps can break the law, steal national secrets, reveal confidential information, meet with the enemy, etc, and wait 11 years for our laughable “legal system” to slap them on the wrist while they ruin the careers of good men. Isn’t this a great democracy?


8 posted on 05/01/2007 10:24:52 AM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
We do not believe the First Amendment permits this interdiction of public information,

What "public information" is that, pray tell?

It was a private phone call.

9 posted on 05/01/2007 10:27:16 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WesternPacific
Does he enjoy immunity from prosecution?

Of course; he's a Democrat.

10 posted on 05/01/2007 10:28:28 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

With Democrats in power in the Congress, there is zero chance of this coming up on the ethics committee for censure or removal. McDermott is probably laughing his ass off. He’ll never serve a day in jail and any fines or legal fees will be paid by some Soros front org. There is NO justice for democrat felons. JMHO


11 posted on 05/01/2007 10:30:13 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Hey Hey First of May - Outdoor shagging begins today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee, the panel ruled.

Especially egregious? In a 5-4 ruling? If barely half of the members of the court can agree that it was an offense, I don't think it was egregious.

Personally, I don't mind that our congress people have to always worry that what they say to each other might someday be revealed to the public.
12 posted on 05/01/2007 10:32:36 AM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

For what its worth, I don’t believe that it should be illegal to intercept cell phone calls. Is someone is sending radio waves through your house and body, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be allowed to receive them.


13 posted on 05/01/2007 10:36:22 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Its what you do with them afterwards thats the problem.


14 posted on 05/01/2007 10:37:35 AM PDT by Badeye (Murron, stop humping my leg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

And it only took 10 years... He should be getting out of jail about now. If only justice was swift...


15 posted on 05/01/2007 10:46:31 AM PDT by tje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
For what its worth, I don’t believe that it should be illegal to intercept cell phone calls. Is someone is sending radio waves through your house and body, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be allowed to receive them.

It probably wouldn't have been technically possible if John Boehner's car had been moving rather than parked. If he had been moving the cell phone would have been skipping frequencies as it moved from cell tower to cell tower.

Frankly, I think this was a trap set by the Democrats since part of Gingrich's ethics plea deal involved agreeing "not to orchestrate a defense". This proved that he violated that portion of his agreement with the Ethics Committee. Boehner was being stalked by that Florida couple (the Martin's) but you can never prove it. What do you want to bet that had other operatives following Gingrich & the rest of the senior House leadership, hoping to snag just such a conversation?

16 posted on 05/01/2007 10:46:44 AM PDT by Tallguy (Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Your telephone wire goes through my yard, I should be allowed to receive those calls too. How about your internet connection, I’m sure that the signal crosses somebodies easment, is that open game also.


17 posted on 05/01/2007 10:48:01 AM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WesternPacific
Does he enjoy immunity from prosecution?

USCon, Article I, sec. 6:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

While Congress sits, he may not be arrested ... I would have to ask a lawyer's take whether or not this means he is immune from prosecution as such. It seems to me that because this immunity was put into the Constitution in the first place to avoid phony political harassment, not to proclaim any MOC may do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no consequences, that McDermott should be made to suffer whatever penalty is deemed appropriate.

18 posted on 05/01/2007 10:49:33 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; HaveHadEnough


The Democrats have an unlimited supply of these. Republicans and the general public actually have to bare the consequences of their actions.
19 posted on 05/01/2007 10:50:30 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Hey Hey First of May - Outdoor shagging begins today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
Your telephone wire goes through my yard, I should be allowed to receive those calls too. How about your internet connection, I’m sure that the signal crosses somebodies easment, is that open game also.

The utilities have an easement through your yard. Sorry. Cell phone calls actually enter my body.

20 posted on 05/01/2007 10:51:41 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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