Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing

Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter

Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau

Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter

Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau

Carl Weiser,
Blog editor

Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

McDermott's side

Not to be outdone, here is what Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., had to say about his role in the taped call case with Rep. John Boehner that ended today:

"More than 200 years ago, James Madison, father of the Constitution, authored the First Amendment as a bulwark against the suppression of free speech by the government. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas would later write: 'The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.' More than ten years ago, Republican political leaders attempted to breach this bulwark by thwarting the free flow of truthful information to the American people.

"This has been a long and costly battle but, in the final analysis, the judgment handed down today in the U.S. District Court is a small price to pay in defense of so fundamental a principle, and freedom, as the First Amendment. Because of this protracted legal challenge, the First Amendment is stronger today, and shielded by new case law that will buttress its capacity to protect the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance long into the future. Knowing this, I am proud of my role in defense of the First Amendment.

"The implications of this case and its threat to the First Amendment were well understood from the beginning, and led 18 national news organizations to file briefs and alert the American people to the stakes involved.

“Ban Snooping, Not Free Speech.” (Washington Post Editorial)

“First Amendment on Trial” (Wall Street Journal Op-ed)

“Mr. Boehner is harassing a political opponent with a suit that threatens to trample on free speech and Congressional prerogatives.” (New York Times Editorial)

"Similarly in the courts, concerned jurists like U.S. District Court Judge David Sentelle recognized the case for what it was: ‘Abrogating Representative McDermott’s First Amendment protections because he violated the ‘spirit’ of a rule contravenes the well-established principle that vague restrictions on speech are impermissible because of their chilling effect ... and because of the need to eliminate the impermissible risk of discretionary enforcement. Plainly, subjecting a Member of Congress to liability for violating the ‘spirit’ of a rule burdens political speech in the vaguest of ways, leaving the Member to 'guess at [the] contours' of the prohibition.’

"Although a sharply divided court ultimately favored Mr. Boehner in his legal battle, the First Amendment won the war, because this case articulated and affirmed the right of journalists and others to publish truthful information without fear of reprisal. As a noted Republican Senator from Idaho, William E. Borah, once said: ‘If the press is not free, if speech is not independent and untrammeled, if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen.’

"While the amount of damages assessed in this case is significant, I submit that defending the First Amendment is beyond measure and worth every penny. A mere 45 words in length, the First Amendment has defined our commitment to freedom for two centuries. And with the end of this case, another threat against the First Amendment has been met and turned back."


at 5:31 PM, April 01, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...


Hamilton County Republican Party .com


at 6:38 PM, April 01, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

McDermott is having a bad week. First, we learn Saddam paid for his trip to Iraq, now he loses a major court case.

at 7:49 PM, April 01, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

ah boo hoo hoo,Jimmy...give my best to Tariq Aziz next time you ring him up!

at 10:48 PM, April 01, 2008 Anonymous Award-winning CincyJeff said...

Perhaps Saddam Hussein has some relatives who can give McDermott some more cash.

at 11:15 PM, April 01, 2008 Anonymous Steve Beren said...

Steve Beren, GOP challenger against Jim McDermott, April 1, 2008:

Today is April Fools Day, and it is time for Jim McDermott to stop fooling around. It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes McDermott from office. Jim McDermott should cut a check, pay the fine, and resign now! The time has come for McDermott to go. When you look at the record of this case, you have to conclude that McDermott has placed himself above the law. A member of congress ought to be a citizen representative, with the highest ethics and deepest patriotism. McDermott's unethical behavior, unworthy of any citizen, is absolutely unworthy of a member of congress. His flagrant disregard of his legal and ethical responsibilities disqualify him from office. Of course, this is the same McDermott who opposes our troops and opposes a victory strategy in the war against Islamic terrorism. So when McDermott puts himself above the law, it's hardly surprising.

at 7:04 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

So it's illegal to wiretap the phone calls of GOP lawmakers who are conspiring to supress their shady politics... ...but at the same time our GOP puppet president makes it possible for our government to wiretap ordinary American citizens without a warrant.


at 7:22 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, leave the man alone--his only concern was checking on Iraqi children...
Honestly, this is why this country is in trouble at the top--the politicians think we are utter imbeciles.

at 7:29 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The weird thing is, the other day when Jimmy called his good freind Osama up, Barak Obama answered the phone!

at 8:05 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

McDermott may or may not have to pay, depending upon the appeal. But let's remember what he did - he revealed Newt Gingrich's deception and sleaze in accepting a multi-million dollar book deal (some would call it graft) from Rupert Murdoch. Gingrich tried to spin gold from that sleaze and John Boehner was helping him. Both Gingrich and Boehner were aware of the ethics penalties imposed upon Gingrich and, this is important, Boehner was conspiring with Gingrich to avoid that penalty. It's that simple. McDermot released the info -- but don't forget John Boehner's role in this mix - again, John Boehner was helping Gingrich avoid the penalty.

at 9:23 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

It amazing to me how corrupt the republican party is. I'm sure with this judicial win, Johns arrogance will only push him to grab as much spotlight as possible and proclaim himself defender of american rights while he and his party live by their own set of rules. Enjoy this win my greedy neocon neighbors, there aren't to many wins left in your short term future.

at 9:38 AM, April 02, 2008 Blogger Matt Hurley said...

Anon says: "So it's illegal to wiretap the phone calls of GOP lawmakers who are conspiring to supress their shady politics... ...but at the same time our GOP puppet president makes it possible for our government to wiretap ordinary American citizens without a warrant."

ME: This is hilarious. April Fools Day was yesterday...

"Ordinary" Americans don't place calls to terrorists when they are on holiday in foreign countries. THAT is who the warrentless wiretapping program is monitoring. Let me assure you that your conversation with Aunt Matilda is not that interesting and surely would be a waste of time to our intelligence operations. Characterizing that program as wiretapping "normal" Americans is a sham and you should be ashamed of yourself. That you do so anonymously doubles the cowardice.

I just find it delicious that Democrats are against "illegal" wiretaps of terrorists, but think it is a-okay to illegally wiretap American citizens. Irony...it's what's for dinner.

at 11:03 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Matt Hurley said...I just find it delicious that Democrats are against "illegal" wiretaps of terrorists, but think it is a-okay to illegally wiretap American citizens. Irony...it's what's for dinner. 9:38 AM, April 02, 2008"

Typical wRong wingnut whacko spewing the elephant dung propaganda, PERIOD !

Miss door matt sure can make one hurl !

Totally clue-less !

If the, 'culture of corruption', wiretaps were legal then there would be no need for immunity, now would there ?

Leave it to the foot-tapping, flip-flopper's to try and defend the indefensible !

No one tapped the boner conspiring to cover up for Newt, it was intercepted by a radio scanner by accident !

Matty can't get any traffic to her own blog so she trolls, PERIOD !

PATHETIC 'HypocRite' !


at 11:19 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...


William E. Borah, once said: ‘If the press is not free, if speech is not independent and untrammeled, if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen.’

So McDermott believes that we should not fear when talking on the phone, and we should not be shackled, yet that is exactly what he tried to do to Boehner and others who would otherwise speak freely.

Speaking of pathetic hypocrites...

at 11:22 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, if the courts ruled against mcDermott, and McDermott calls the ruling a victory for the First Amendment, does that mean McDermott is against the First Amendment?

at 11:59 AM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re : Matt Hurley 9:30am

If you "know" he's a terrorist, put the basis of your knowledge in an application for a FISA warrant.

If you're "sure" he's a terrorist, start listening and apply for a warrant within 7/3 days (i don''t recall the retroactive application deadline.)

Virtually no application for a warrant has ever been denied.

How hard is it to comply with this law.

at 2:35 PM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Imus B Somebody said...

yup...the newtster caught all kinds o'hell for his million dollar book deal...what a greedy SOB...then Hillary comes along after she's elected and pockets 8M for her warped biography.you go girl!
Dubl-standard? Nah.Of course not.

at 8:21 PM, April 02, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The foot-tapping Bold Typist will be always be at McDermott's side in time of need.

at 10:56 AM, April 03, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Senator's Husband Admits Paying for Sex

Associated Press Writers

TROY, Mich. (AP) -- When Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter were named in sex scandals, the lawmakers largely shunned the public eye before discussing allegations of marital infidelities.

But Sen. Debbie Stabenow mostly kept to her schedule Wednesday, hours after news broke that her husband told authorities he had a $150 encounter with a prostitute.

With the scrutiny directed at her spouse, Stabenow vowed to work through what she described as a family matter. She participated in meetings with fellow Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, listened to a briefing on health information technology and met with constituents.

"I have to say we are tough in Michigan and resilient and working hard to bring new opportunities and new industries," Stabenow said in a speech on the Senate floor about Michigan's struggling economy.

Some of her words could have described her own struggle.

Her husband, Thomas Athans, 46, was stopped by police who were investigating prostitution at the hotel, according to a police report obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press under the state Freedom of Information Act.

Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network, apologized in a statement issued by his attorney and said he "fully cooperated with law enforcement. My family and I are dealing with this matter in a personal and private way."

at 8:15 PM, April 03, 2008 Anonymous CincyCapell said...

Jeff Capell got played again. He took yet another low ball 'settlement', because he knows that he would never win at trial. Again. First he 'settles' for the 'right' to send letters to county workers homes-which he could have done without a 'settlement', then he looses big to Si a couple of weeks ago. Now he get a "big" "settlement". Wow Jeff, a whole $10,000! After Finney's fanny fa took his expenses and then his cut, did you even have enough left to fill up your gas tank?

at 11:56 PM, April 03, 2008 Anonymous FoolBuster said...

This CincyCapellImpersonator must be a real embarrassment to intelligent liberals who don't want to see their side look so stupid. First of all, she might be interested in learning that the private information (including mailing addresses) of law enforcement officers is considered private and not subject to public disclosure. So no, Finney/Capell could not have mailed those letters without the agreement. In all likelihood, Finney/Capell were still never given the addresses, and would have had to deliver the letters to county officials for them to address.

The County initially denied Capell the right to send an anti-tax letter to counter the pro-tax letter written by Leis. The County also had denied the anti-27 group the right to hold the same press conference that the pro-27 group held.

As a result of the settlements, Capell got to send his anti-tax letter, with postage paid by an outside party. The anti-27 group got to hold the press conference. And Capell's attorney's got paid $10,000 for their efforts. Yeah, I bet that Jeff Capell is sitting home right now crying over this "loss" and petrified to read the latest rantings of his jealous stalker!

at 10:20 AM, April 04, 2008 Anonymous CincyCapell said...

Jeff Capell plays sockpuppet once again, patting himself on his back and kissing Finney's big fanny. Jeff just can't win in court. The county employees threw his "letter" away in the trash unopened. Some 'victory'.

Enjoy your chump change Jeff, maybe you will win one of these days.

at 7:58 AM, April 07, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Cincyidiot ever consider that the biggest victory might have been the negative PR this case generated against Si Leis, just when he was relying on his goodwill to pass a tax increase? Nah, that seems to be far beyond his/her mental capacity.

at 4:07 PM, April 07, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Negative PR??? Nobody heard about this case until it was settled.

at 12:02 AM, April 08, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:07 - maybe if you lived in Florida last year. This lawsuit got several straight days of tv coverage when it was filed and a lot of ink.

at 11:35 AM, April 08, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Capell the sockpuppet, That 'lawsuit', which you and Finney could not win, received little attention anywhere, except in the blogoshpere. 99.99% of Hamilton County residents have never heard of you or your silly lawsuit. They voted against higher taxes, and those in the 'burbs didn't want to pay for what they believe to be strictly a City problem.

at 10:22 AM, April 09, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:07 and 11:35 is CincyIdiot again. The same guy who said the plaintiff's lost the lawsuit even though they got everything they wanted plus a $10,000 check. Now he wants us to believe 99.99% of Hamilton County residents didn't see the news for 3-4 straight days and didn't read the Enquirer, both of which heavily covered this lawsuit when it was filed.

at 3:58 AM, April 10, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff 'Sockpuppet' Capell,

You got nothing. that check went straight into Finney's pocket. HamCo and Si were not found guilty. You got no verdict and set no president.

You lost, dummy. If you thought that you could have won, you would have gone to trial. You didn't.

Blogs aren't 'the news'.

Post a Comment*

Links to this post:

Create a Link

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home

Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Who's News
Roller Derby Diva
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
High school sports
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff