mysteryman wrote:
Quote:Also,Jim McDermott committed a CRIME,in the legal sense ,AND the ethical sense,but the dems rallied around him and wont even let him be brought the ethics committee.
Why is that?
I repeat the same questions. If it was a crime in 1996 why has the GOP never once brought it up to the ethics committee in 8 years?.
As for the "crime", I think you need to learn what a civil suit is first of all. Then you need to read the entire piece you posted. Try this part...
Quote:the federal statute does not prohibit the receipt of an illegally obtained recording.
Then your post again...
Quote:First off,its ILLEGAL to record a phone call without permission of the parties on the phone.
They turned the tape over to Jim McDermott,and he then turned it iver to the NYT.
By accepting the tape,he was guilty of abetting a crime,and by giving it to the NYT he was guilty of another crime.
McDermott didn't record the conversation so he didn't commit a crime there.
No federal crime against recieving the tape so he didn't commit one there.
I don't see any fed crime in turning a tape over to a reporter either.
Let me repeat my question.. What crime?
You might want to pay attention to the reporting in the story you posted.
The case of McDermott is pretty close to the 3 points that USSC ruled on in Bartnicki
Quote:In holding that the First Amendment right to disseminate information was the more weighty interest, the court noted three important facts that would distinguish cases like Bartnicki from those cases where the right to privacy would prevail.
First, Vopper and Yocum had nothing to do with the illegal interception and recording of Bartnicki's and Kane's conversation. They learned about it after the fact and never found out who intercepted the recording.
Second, even thought the interception was illegal, Vopper and Yocum obtained the tape lawfully because the federal statute does not prohibit the receipt of an illegally obtained recording.
Finally, the subject matter of Bartnicki and Kane's conversation was a matter of public concern. Stevens cited the months of negotiations and public debate over the proper compensation of public school teachers.
I addressed the first 2 points earlier. In the case of a member of congress conspiring to get around the ethics committee. I think that would be very much a public concern since it deals with the faith of the people in their government.
