Appeals court rules against McDermott in taped call dispute

The Washington Post ^ | May 1, 2007 | Matthew Daly

[flutters]

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim McDermott 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.

[Hegemony Cricket]

“Swift Justice”

[E. Pluribus Unum]

NOW they tell us.

[Incorrigible]

Baghdad Jim can illegally phone tap Newt (Don’t believe the story about the old people and the fresh from the store bought scanner for a second) but the President can’t phone tap terorists.

It’s an upside down world!

[Mr. Brightside]

Who appointed the five and who appointed the four?

It would be interesting to see how political the courts are getting.

[K-oneTexas]

Ethics. Democrat. Does not equate. It is not logical to use these two words in the same sentence.

[HoustonTech]

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

Especially since the interdiction was against a Democrat. Get back to me when a Republican leaks tapes from a Dem. /s

[edcoil]

Boy that slap on the wrist is really going to hurt.

And Libby gets what?

[robertpaulsen]

This is old news. Can't we move on?

New rules: Whenever a case is needlessly drawn out with delays and endless appeals, the penalty upon conviction is multiplied by the number of years we've had to wait for it.

For example, in this case, a $10,000 fine and one year in prison results in a $100,000 fine and ten years in the slammer.

Of course, the real result will be a six-month probation, so who cares about my new rule? Unless it's a Republican.

[Brilliant]

“illegally taped telephone call involving House Republican leaders a decade ago...”

Just now getting around to rapping him on the knuckles.

[Bob Leibowitz]

I posted this story on Free Republic two hours ago as breaking news. Free Republic editors moved it from NEWS to BLOGGERS/PERSONAL. The very legitimate news story that moved two and one-half hours before the Washington Post wrote about it is here: McDermott (D-WA), Guilty (Again)!

[bikerMD]

IS it too late to arrest McDummox and send him to Guantanamo with the other supporters of Obama Osama, er uh Barack Obama Homosexabdul Bin Latent.

[Bob Leibowitz]

The story in the Washington Post doesn't report that Boehner offered to settle the dispute years ago.

He wanted an apology and $10,000 donated to charity.

McDermott, the not very fiscal conservative, declined.

As reported in McDermott (D-WA), Guilty (Again)!

[Gritty]

So, when is McDermott resigning? Oh, wait. He’s a Democrat. Never mind.

[CPT Clay]

What is deemed “relief” for this?

Manditory removal from House?

[bpjam]

So much for the ‘culture of corruption’

Shall we await the notification from Madam Pelosi that Baghdad Jim McDermott is no longer welcome in the Democra Caucus because he has again been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be a criminal?

I’ll put a pot of coffee on........

[Publius6961]

So when is this 'Rat going to jail?

Will he be Sandy Burglar's cell mate?

[YaYa123]

"The ruling upholds a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs."

This is more than a knuckle rap, but the dirty rotten bastard has 90 days to decide whether he will take it to the Supremes. If Boehner ever sees a dime of this, I'll be surprised.

[Inquisitive1]

House ethics committee

There are two words that should not be in the same sentence.