Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

McDermott pays Boehner for boner

Old 03-28-06, 03:04 PM
  #1  
X
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
McDermott pays Boehner for boner

I can't believe how long this bonehead move of McDermott's took to be decided. I wonder if he'll appeal to the Supreme Court?

Congressman Loses Appeal in Phone Taping
Mar 28 1:34 PM US/Eastern

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.

In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The lower court had ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.

McDermott, D-Wash., leaked to The New York Times and other news organizations a tape of a 1996 cell phone call The call included discussion by Gingrich, R-Ga., and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner, R-Ohio, was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.

A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have "a huge chilling effect" on reporters and newsmakers alike.

Lawyers for 18 news organizations _ including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post _ filed a brief backing McDermott.

But Boehner's lawyers said McDermott's actions were clearly illegal.

By leaking the tape McDermott "chilled the free speech of others," namely Boehner and Gingrich, lawyer Michael Carvin said.

A spokesman for McDermott said Tuesday the congressman had just received the ruling and was studying it.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/28/D8GKO3I85.html
X is offline  
Old 03-28-06, 04:06 PM
  #2  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
10 years?! Meanwhile Red Jim has been eating up tax $. Wonder if he'll resign now that he's been shown to break a federal law.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-28-06, 04:20 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Not a chance. His district in WA will applaude him.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-28-06, 11:54 PM
  #4  
X
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
A little more on the subject. Looks like it may go to the Supreme Court in another 10 years.

Mar 28, 6:07 PM EST

Congressman Loses Appeal in Phone Taping

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.

In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.

McDermott, D-Wash., has acknowledged leaking a tape of a 1996 cell phone call involving Gingrich to The New York Times and other news organizations.

The call included discussion by Gingrich and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.

A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have "a huge chilling effect" on reporters and newsmakers alike.

Lawyers for 18 news organizations - including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post - filed a brief backing McDermott.

But Boehner's lawyers said McDermott's actions were clearly illegal.

By leaking the tape, McDermott "chilled the free speech of others," namely Boehner and Gingrich, said Boehner lawyer Michael Carvin.

In a written statement, McDermott said he respectfully disagrees with the majority ruling.

"My position rightly defends freedom of the press and free speech in America," he said. "The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders."

McDermott's lawyers are studying the decision and will decide whether to appeal, the congressman said.

Boehner hailed the ruling, but said he expects the case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he's spent between $600,000 and $700,000 in legal fees, but has made many efforts to resolve the issue out of court.

Three years ago, Boehner said, he spoke to McDermott and offered to drop his civil suit if McDermott promised to admit he was wrong, apologize to the House and donate $10,000 to charity.

"We could never come close to an agreement," Boehner said.

The case stems from a tape that a Florida couple made in December 1996 and later gave to McDermott.

McDermott, then the top Democrat on the ethics panel, leaked the tape to the Times and other newspapers, which printed partial transcripts in January 1997.

Gingrich was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House; he resigned his seat in November 1998. The Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, pleaded guilty to unlawfully intercepting the call and were each fined $500. McDermott resigned his seat on the ethics committee.

McDermott was never charged with a criminal offense, but Boehner later filed a lawsuit accusing McDermott of violating state and federal wiretapping laws. A federal judge ruled in Boehner's favor in 2004, a ruling that was upheld Tuesday by the appeals court.

"Because there was no genuine dispute that Representative McDermott knew the Martins had illegally intercepted the conversation, he did not lawfully obtain the tape from them," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in an opinion shared by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.

In a strongly worded dissent, Judge David B. Sentelle called the majority ruling "fraught with danger." Just as McDermott knew the phone call had been illegally taped, so, too, did the newspapers that printed it, Sentelle said.

Under the majority ruling, Sentelle said, "no one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect in the chain of title."
X is offline  
Old 12-06-07, 11:45 AM
  #5  
X
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case so McDermott is on the hook for damages and attorney's fees.

Court Backs Ruling Against Congressman

By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press
Monday, December 3, 2007; 5:45 PM

WASHINGTON -- For Rep. Jim McDermott, it was the most expensive telephone call he never made.

McDermott, a Washington state Democrat, faces fines and penalties topping $800,000 for leaking an illegally taped telephone call a decade ago.

The Supreme Court Monday refused to hear McDermott's request to review the case. The decision, made without comment, ends a legal fight that had stretched for nearly 10 years.

The court left in place a federal appeals court ruling that McDermott had acted improperly in giving reporters access to a recording of a 1996 telephone call in which Republican leaders discussed the House ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

The decision also upholds a previous court ruling ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $800,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and an estimated $800,000 in legal costs for Boehner, who filed suit against McDermott in 1998.

McDermott created a legal defense fund in 2000 and has been receiving contributions ever since. The fund received nearly $32,000 in the three months ended Sept. 30, according to records in the House clerk's office, but its current balance was unavailable.

McDermott's spokesman said Monday he did not know how much money was in the account. The exact amount McDermott owes is the subject of a separate dispute being heard in federal court.

Despite the setback, McDermott reacted with characteristic defiance, declaring in a statement that he was disappointed by the court's decision but proud of his actions.

"I knew when I asked the Supreme Court to review this case that the odds were against me," he said. "Nonetheless, I thought that the constitutional principles presented _ the First Amendment protection of truthful speech and the separation of powers doctrine _ warranted the court's attention. I pursued this case based on my belief in the people's right to know, and I continue to believe it was my sworn responsibility to vigorously defend that right."

Boehner was equally certain that he was correct.

"As I've said many times: When you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you've gone too far," he said in a statement. "Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of our country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated."

Boehner called the long legal battle "the right fight for the right reasons" and said he was pleased to see it reach a successful conclusion.

Over the years, Boehner said, he made a number of attempts to settle the case with McDermott. He insisted on three conditions: that McDermott admit he was wrong, apologize to the House and make a $10,000 donation to a charity. McDermott refused.

Boehner's lawyer, Michael Carvin, said the decision vindicated Boehner's contention that McDermott "had no First Amendment right to disclose someone else's stolen speech."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 5-4 decision last May, said McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee at the time of the leaked call. []

Boehner was among several GOP leaders heard on the December 1996 call, which involved ethics allegations against Gingrich. Then the House speaker, Gingrich was heard on the call telling Boehner and others how to react to allegations. He was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House.

A Florida couple taped the call and handed it over to McDermott, who leaked the tape to two newspapers, which published articles on the case in January 1997.

The case is McDermott v. Boehner, 07-439.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120300703.html
X is offline  
Old 12-06-07, 06:01 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Man, McDermott is such a tool. I doubt this will get much press, though.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-06-07, 06:24 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The most memorable thing in Dr. Jim McDermott's career:

Remember a few years back when he was being critical of Bush's 'military service?'

He said he had served in Vietnam and knew the rigors of war. Come to find out - he never left the United States during the Vietnam War. He was in ther service - stationed in San Diego I believe.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-06-07, 11:45 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
He was also one of the first to head over and hang out with Saddam. The west side of Washington is pretty looney.
kvrdave is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.