Full appeals court hears McDermott taped-call dispute

KGW TV ^ | 10/31/06 | MATTHEW DALY (AP)

[llevrok]

10/31/2006

By / Associated Press

A lawyer for Rep. Jim McDermott told a federal appeals court Tuesday that McDermott should not be punished for turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters a decade ago.

In arguments that evoked the Pentagon Papers and other press freedom cases, lawyer Christopher Landau said McDermott, D-Wash., had merely received the tape from a Florida couple and therefore had done nothing wrong.

A finding against McDermott could chill the news media's ability to gather information on important public issues, Landau said.

"It's hard to overstate the impact of the case on the media," he said.

Lawyers for 18 news organizations — including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post — have filed a brief backing McDermott, who gave reporters access to a recording of a 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against McDermott in March. The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott had violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call. Boehner was then a Gingrich lieutenant and is now House majority leader.

The full nine-member appeals court vacated the ruling this spring and heard new arguments in the case on Tuesday. A ruling is expected next year.

Boehner's lawyer, Michael Carvin, told the court that McDermott's actions were clearly illegal. He compared McDermott to a "fence" who received stolen goods and then sold them.

McDermott's actions were especially egregious because he received the tape in his capacity as a member of the House ethics committee, who was sworn to confidentiality, Carvin said.

Judge David S. Tatel said that under Carvin's interpretation, the New York Times and other newspapers that published the contents of the tape could be held liable.

"The argument to extend it to the New York Times is quite powerful," Tatel said.

"I'm not representing the New York Times," Carvin responded. "I'm perfectly happy to throw them overboard."

But Landau said a ruling against McDermott would be disastrous for a free press.

"You are basically saying Congress can indict the media if it is deemed they knew the information was unlawfully obtained," he said.

The case is Boehner v. McDermott, 04-7203.

[Springman]

Bump for later.

[talleyman]

Is this the 9th Circus? If so, Baghdad Jim will walk...

[IslandJeff]

nice scenery, great food, strange people

Pretty much sums it up. There are quite a few Real people too, you just have to look for them, as they tend to keep pretty quiet. You can find them south of the stadiums and in West Seattle. Come on back anytime.

[llevrok]

I am to the point now that "restrictions" on the media are starting to sound good

I have thought that for some time.

We have checks and balances in government. There has never been a check on the media. (In reality, there should not be other than me being p*ssed off at them!)

One could argue the "free market" is the check on the media which explains the popularity of FR, FOX News and talk radio, I guess.

[lowbridge]

have no problems using the product of a wiretap to go after political enemies.

The one doing the wiretapping in this case was a Democrat. So that makes it ok.

[vox_freedom]

From article: "It's hard to overstate the impact of the case on the media," he said.

Oh, come on, it isn't that difficult. Just try to overstate it. Go ahead, try.
Times up.

[festus]

In my best snagglepuss voice, "Why yes. Yes it does. Domestic survielance even."