Are Members of Congress Accountable for Anything?(Murtha & Haditha)

American Thinker ^ | October 04, 2007 | Clarice Feldman

[vietvet67]

Are Congressmen above the law? The case of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich against Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) tests this basic question.

Of course there are other reasons to ask the same question. In a year when Congressional committees see no limits to what they will subpoena from the executive branch or about what they will interrogate its officers and employees, they rushed to court to keep the Department of Justice from subpoenaing the records of a Congressman caught with tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer.

Bad as shielding suspicious Congressional cold cash from view may be, insulating Congressmen when attacking ordinary citizens, or worse yet active duty Soldiers, is an invitation to tyranny. We are all potential targets if this holds true. Are they totally unaccountable for their conduct against ordinary citizens? I certainly hope not, but if that ultimately proves to be the case in court, I hope we have the strength to demand a change in the law.

The news that Staff Sgt Wuterich was going to be permitted to proceed to discovery in his defamation suit against Congressman Murtha was a cheering note to people like me who have consistently considered the Congressman's conduct unacceptable. As you will recall on November 19, 2005 there was an incident in the then-insurgent infested town of Haditha in which a number of people were killed. Beginning in May of 2006, long before a full official inquiry, and prompted by a very suspect bit of anti-US propaganda in Time, Congressman Murtha hit the media circuit repeatedly. He publicly and falsely accused SSgt Wuterich and the men of the Marines' Kilo Company of being involved in cold-blooded (premeditated) murder and of covering up the events of that day.

[weegee]

Yes. Just ask Senator Joseph McCarthy if HE was ever held accountable for things he said reportedly in a “wreckless and dangerous” manner.

[Diogenesis]

All animals are equal, but those in the US Congress is so much more more equal than others.

[Yo-Yo]

Members of Congress are accountable to the voters of their district. They are shielded from liabel for anything said on the floor of the House or Senate chambers. They are NOT shielded from liabel for anything said on Jay Leno.

[zerosix]

"Are Congressmen above the law?"
In a single word, NO, not if they are dimocRATS: (1) they may attack TSA employees' (2) they may slap Congressional security guards on duty; (3) they may hide cash in their home freezers and prevent FBI from searching their offices for evidence of crimes; (4) they may leave the scene of an accident where a death occurs.

Any others I have left off?

However if they are Reopublican: (1)they will be arrested for tapping their foot or reaching under a stall n a public restroom.

[Wolverine]

Hillary: Misappropriated FBI files
Illegals Chinese money
Illegal campaign contibutions
...

[Suzy Quzy]

Democrats are NEVER held to the same standard as Republicans....NEVER!

[chiefqc]

Not as long as the voters keep electing the same theives and allowing them to make rules that only apply to them and cover their own butts when hey get caught.

[jazusamo]

Excellent article by Clarice Feldman.

Just this morning it has been announced that the Investigative Officer in the Wuterich Article 32 hearing has recommended to Lt. Gen. Mattis that the 17 murder charges be dropped and Wuterich be charged with 7 counts of negligent homicide. This alone refutes Murtha's contention that these Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Murtha Watch Ping!

Code Pinkos

To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.

[smoothsailing]

Good article by Clarice Feldman. I particularly found this segment to be informative:

Wuterich argues,

"there is no indication, nor case law, that would seemingly endorse a view that every single circumstance where a congressman speaks to a member of the media falls within the scope of employment and is thereby entitled to immunity."

The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment.

What can we expect the plaintiff will explore in this limited discovery?

a. He will want to find out where all these statements were made and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews. Three of the interviews cited in the complaint, he notes, were made in Murtha's "campaign office", not his district or D.C. offices;

b. Murtha will be asked to state what legislative responsibilities pertained to his actions. None seem evident.

c. Wuterich will explore whether Murtha commented upon Wuterich "for his own personal gain outside of his role as a representative for his constituents" If he did, his conduct is not cloaked in statutory immunity. In this context, Wuterich notes that Murtha made these statements at a time when he was vying for the role of Majority Leader, anticipating the Democrats would gain control of the House.

d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.

e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.

It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law.

[jazusamo]

All interesting points. I would wager Murtha is not a happy camper about this ruling and Feldman points out just how far his butt is hanging out, I love it.

[Girlene]

Thanks for posting this, vietvet67. Clarice Fieldman has written a good summary at American Thinker of what is going on with the suit against Murtha. More from the article,

..."the District Court in the Wuterich case, make clear that the government may not be substituted for the defendant and move to dismiss under the Westfall case unless it can establish that the conduct was made within the scope of the original named defendant's employment. And establishing that requires more than a perfunctory, conclusory affidavit on the issue:...."

...."In fact that is what the Department of Justice unsuccessfully tried to do in the Wuterich case -- get it dropped without offering conclusive proof that these outrageous statements were made within a Congressman's scope of employment and without allowing the defense to probe the facts by deposition and document discovery to establish that the conduct complained of was outside that scope and that Murtha, therefore, must defend the case on his own dime and be liable for any defamatory statements he made....."

..."The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment."....

Clarice lists various facts that will be explored by SSgt Wuterich's lawyer during their discovery. Her conclusion:

...."I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.

"It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law."

[brityank]

But something is wrong with the law."

This is the gist of where we're at, but I won't hold my breath waiting for Congress to repudiate or revise the laws -- it's not in their (self-) interest. Thanks for the ping, Girlene.

[Girlene]

No problem, brityank. This article was discussed by Rush Limbaugh today.

[Polyxene]

“Liberal-speak G-O-O-D”
“Conservative-speak B-A-D”

[Shelayne]

Great article by Clarice! Thanks for the ping, Girlene.

I will be flabbergasted (and seriously pissed off) if the judge rules that Murtha was speaking within the scope of his role as congressman.

Everytime these cases come up with Democrats, though, I get a sinking feeling. Please, Lord. Let this one be different.

[freema]

d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.

e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

Note this, for the record:

http://dcist.com/2007/10/04/is_the_senate_b.php

[freema]

Ping

[tpanther]

Yes, the judicial system is out of control, (see SF) additionally, the MSM as well as our educational system has been hijacked by liberals too. Shame on conservatives for allowing this to happen without a challenge! ESPECIALLY those in congress!