New Twist in McDermott Tape Case

Roll Call ^ | 5/27/02 | Damon Chappie

[Sandy]

So it would seem that McDermott is saying that his First Amendment protections trump the phone call participants' Fourth Amendment protections.

That's Exactly what he's saying. If he can show that the information on the tape was of a significant public interest, he will likely win.

Recall that the Supreme Court granted McDermott's certiorari petition, vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit Court, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Bartnicki v. Vopper decision.

[P]rivacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance. One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy... [A] strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.

[weegee]

Shouldn't the head of an ethics panel know that releasing covertly easedropped recordings prior to a case is unethical?

And what they claimed is on the tape is debatable. The lawyers discuss that the Republicans are aware that this meeting is being held and they are going to hold their meeting but not violate the agreement. They were attempting to stay within the confines of the agreement.

[weegee]

So the old Andy Griffith Show where Opie tapes the lawyer and his client discussing their strategy and tries to go to his dad (the sheriff) with the information was wrong?("Andy Taylor" rejected the "assist" by the way)

Or are we permitted to bug our elected officials (public life and all that)? What about celebrities (or is that a different type of public figure)? What about appointed officials (I didn't elect them but they work for the public paid by our dollars)?

Is there any difference between placing a "bug" in a room and receiving phone calls by scanner? How about between a "bug" not on a phone and one on a phone?

What was Linda Tripp guilty of but a difference of local law? Here in Texas a phone call may be taped if one of the participants of the call is aware of the taping.

I think that it had something to do with Maryland or Virginia law.

JFK, LBJ, and Richard Nixon all taped their White House calls (for "memoirs") using a taping system installed by the Kennedy administration. You think that they didn't record calls to a place that prohibited that act?

[Sandy]

Or are we permitted to bug our elected officials (public life and all that)?

No, we're not allowed to bug them. However, if we happen to innocently receive tapes of conversations that were illegally recorded by a third party, the Supreme Court says that it is our right to disclose the contents of those conversations (as long as it's of a significant public interest, of course).

In other words, it's open season on politicians. If only some resourceful news hounds would start publishing some juicy stuff... :-)

[weegee]

>>Or are we permitted to bug our elected officials (public life and all that)?

No, we're not allowed to bug them. However, if we happen to innocently receive tapes of conversations that were illegally recorded by a third party,

Yeah, but "someone" has to be that person who makes the illegal recording. I am not seeking legal advice on this issue and have/will not made/make such recordings but it takes more than just passing them along to legitimize them.

In a court of law, the jury may be made to ignore certain statements that have been striken from the record and juries may be sought that have not been exposed to broadcasts of legally obtained information. It is definitely a slippery slope to say that we have a "right" to illegally obtained information.

Is there a prohibition on materials that impact "national security" or does the public have a right to know when and where we will strike (reprisals may happen in response to our strikes, gas prices could rise, grocery stores could have a run on canned food and bottled water)?

[tom paine 2]

No remember ? The Democrats are mostly criminals who don't play by the rules. Aren't we smarter than that.

[Lancey Howard]

Weren't these two lying scumbags, John and Alice Martin, somehow in cahoots with the Florida teachers union mob?

[weegee]

...were protected by the First Amendment because the taped conversation was of significant public interest in demonstrating a potential violation of an agreement by Gingrich not to spin his ethics reprimand.

"Public interest" outweighs wiretapping laws and privacy concerns?

The 'Rats plan seems to be "do it and haggle it out in court later". Get caught with illegal foreign campaign contributions? Accept them and treat them like a loan that "should" be paid back.

[weegee]

I don't recall. I do remember that they were politically active in Florida and had met with congressmen before, regardless of what they told the press about "hearing an actual member of the government" on a phone call.

[timestax]

bump

[Tallguy]

OTOH, you would think that Gingrich and the rest would have had the foresight to scramble/encrypt their communications.

It has been theorized on other threads that this cell phone intercept story was just a coverup for a broader illegal wiretap of the Republican leadership. The theory is based on the contention that you can't technically 'hear' all sides of a conference call by tapping into a cell phone frequency that is part of the conference -- In other words, there must have been a illegal landline tap.

[timestax]

bump

[Hostage]

I recall the reported conversation among Gingrich and others was in the context of political strategy during a recess. It doesn't comport with "public interest".

If disclosing "private" strategizing conversations is legal under the 1st amendment, would it not follow that disclosing the targeted information of the Watergate break-in was likewise protected?

And in the latter, although a crime was committed (break-in), the information sought may surely have been in the public interest.

Likewise, the acceptance of the Gingrich tape may constitute a crime, though its disclosure be protected by 1st amendment considerations.

It's important to have a competent attorney's view here. If I happen into a private room or conversation "by accident", then I am not guilty of any crime insofar that I do not disclose information or remove material. But if I should remove such, my "accidental" intrusion becomes secondary to the fact of unauthorized removal/disclosure.

In legal proceedings, it would appear that McDermott's actions were contemptuous of the law, for otherwise the acceptance of the tape would have been turned over to the ethics committee if not returned outright.

McDermott's motive here appears to be similar to that of E. Howard Hunt.

[Bonaparte]

"...a illegal landline tap."

This could very well have been the case. A third party in the carrier network office or a high-end decoder could have been used.

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

BUMP

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump against this Tyrant!!