Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 12
Page 1 of 1

Warring Congressmen: Who Will Pay These Attorneys' Fees?

Boehner v McDermott

Admin Support Clerk
USDA Forest Service
Wed Apr 2, 2008 10:39 AM

Post Reply

If this was a private conversation between these folks and they were discussing private matters, then I think that the law does apply. However, this was a conversation between publically elected officials and they were talking about business matters. Are we the kind of society that allows our elected officials to conduct dealings in secret? I certainly don't want my elected officials to conduct "Secret" business behind my back. Apparently they had something to hide. Unless this is a matter of national security, the business our elected officials have is also our business. If it is a matter of National Security, then they should all be fined for talking over an "Unsecure Line".
I don't think Rep McDermott should pay a penny!
(I will point out that I disagree with many decisions
Rep McDermott has made and as a Washington resident may never vote for him, however he did the right thing this time)

Re: Boehner v McDermott

Managment Analyst
Garrison
Wed Apr 2, 2008 11:27 AM
Although this conversation did involve business, it was of a private nature (go to link in this article for more info). In addition, the conversation was between individuals within the same party. There are times when both parties discuss various issues when the other party is not around. I see no problem with either party planning/startegizing in private.

In a lot of states, it is illegal to record a conversation if you're not one of the parites talking. Why should this be any different? I don't believe that politicians should be above the law, but they shouldn't be excluded either.

Re: Boehner v McDermott

LER Specialist
DHS
Wed Apr 2, 2008 11:42 AM
I don't think the law makes a distinction between private and public subjects when it forbids the unauthorized interception of "wire, oral, or electronic communicaiton" and the disclosure of those communications. Your response suggestst that you approve of illegal eavesdropping on public officials. I can't help but wonder how you feel about wiretapping efforts designed to intercept terrorist communications. My bet is that you would oppose that type of activity. If so, I also can't help but wonder why you might be more threatened by the private communications of public officials than the private communications of terrorists.

Re: Boehner v McDermott

Civ
DoD
Wed Apr 2, 2008 12:26 PM
The content of the conversation is irrelevant. The crux of the case concerned illegally obtaining and taping of a phone conversation and passing that info to another, who stupidly provided it to the media. What a circus!

Re: Boehner v McDermott

Aviation Safety Inspector
FAA
Wed Apr 2, 2008 3:17 PM
I'm willing to bet your feelings would be diameterically opposed if the victim had been a democrat whose private phone conversation had been illegally taped and then passed on to the media by a republican.
I'm also willing to bet that you're one of those who think President Bush's attempt to intercept calls from terrorist was illegal, and yet you think Boehner's calls are fair game. See any dicotomy in this thinking?

Re: Boehner v McDermott

General Engineer
DOT
Wed Apr 9, 2008 10:01 AM
I think that both Bush and McDermitt should be held up to the law. The major difference however between the two is that one was against private citizens, some of who were not accused of doing anything.

Warring Congressmen: Who Will Pay These Attorneys'

Project Manager
HUD
Wed Apr 2, 2008 10:51 AM

Post Reply

What a FOOL!!!!!!!!
And he will probably be allowed to pay it out of OUR (the taxpayers' pockets)!
How nice it must be to be a member of a protected elite! When are we American voters going to get so fed up with these actions that we start getting rid of the miscreants in our own home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim

Management & Program Analyst
Exec Branch
Wed Apr 2, 2008 11:08 AM

Post Reply

Believe me, as a blue state Republican, I'd love to see him voted out - but unfortunately, the libs in my neck of the woods love him.

Telephone Calls and Privacy

Retired Fed
DoC
Wed Apr 2, 2008 3:13 PM

Post Reply

This case, plus the recent controversy over the Govt "listening in" Patriot Act, raises an interesting question.

Way back when I was a kid in the Paleozoic, we were on a "party line" where calls were not dialed. Instead, an operator answered when the handset was raised to place a call. She would ask "number please?" and you would just tell her the phone number being called. After that, all other parties sharing the single phone line could listen in just by picking up their phone! This was considered discourteous, however, and was discouraged but was not illegal.

The question I have is, when did ordinary telephone conversations, which share a common bandwidth of some kind, make the transition to "private conversations", i.e., similar to those conducted face-to-face in an actual private setting such as a living room?

Is there now a "reasonable expectation of privacy" where there was none before? If so, why?

Any lawyers in the house?

Re: Telephone Calls and Privacy

Emp
DoD
Thu Apr 3, 2008 7:55 AM
Retired, you need to bring yourself into the 21st century. Gone are the party lines, so your argument is moot. Check your state's Official Code. Chances are there is some reference to the illegal interception and taping of private citizens conversations, videotaping, etc., without their knowledge........or language to that effect. It doesn't matter that they were elected officials.

A Just Decision

Adjudication Officer
DHS/CIS
Thu Apr 3, 2008 9:30 AM

Post Reply

Rep. McDermott should have known the nature of the information given him was illegally obtained and should never have released it. The judgement against him is appropriate as he violated the law. As to where he obtains the funds to pay the judgement, let's hope it is his funds and his alone! Maybe Pelosi and her entourage of cronies will help him.

attorneys fee

ACCOUNT SPECIALIST
anthc-dehe
Thu Apr 3, 2008 12:21 PM

Post Reply

I hope people of United States are not paying for the million dollars.

Total Comments: 12
Page 1 of 1

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.