Comments on: Dirty Democrat files: Baghdad Jim finally forced to pay up Update: Boehner statement added

By: Michelle Malkin » Video: Baghdad Jim McDermott rails against conservative “indecency”

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:13:55 +0000

[...] The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs. A court had to force McDermott to pay the money — now up to $1 million. It’s unclear how much he has [...]

By: Chuck

Chuck — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:30:04 +0000

The last great mook (lgm) really is off his meds with double BDS. Gingrich never got charged with a felony or anything like it. His book deal was held to be completly legal. Much like a recent Demoncrat. The tape content proved nothing other than some folks were trying to help him defend against scurrilous charges with no real weight behind them.

By: pokenhorn

pokenhorn — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:41:15 +0000

The biggest threat to this nation is the Democrat Party. It is infested with traitors, liars, Marxists, and socialists. When will some leader who values our traditions step up and take on these unspeakable Democrats?

By: DBNinKY

DBNinKY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:09:00 +0000

On April 1st, 2008 at 2:41 pm, governmentdrone said:

“…News stories at that time indicated that the intercepted phone call was indeed a cell phone call.”

Thanks for responding, Gov, and thanks for the info! I was genuinely unaware that scanners could pick up cell calls.

By: graysonret

graysonret — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:16:29 +0000

Reading this guy’s statement made me dizzy from all the spin. It all comes from the meeting entitled, “What can I say to make myself look good?” And, please, Mr. Congressman, don’t tell me about the Constitution. You wouldn’t know the Constitution if it came up and smacked you on the head! You are definitely a “Me first, party second, country third” politician that is tearing down this country.

By: Leaning Straight Up

Leaning Straight Up — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:19:50 +0000

Rep Jim “Baghdad” McDermott finally is forced to pay for his crimes…

Pay up, you cheapskate crook.

Dirty Democrat files: Baghdad Jim finally forced to pay up

Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott will have to fork over the $1 million in legal fees he owes GOP Rep. John Boehner in the protracted leaked tape case…

By: Dimsdale

Dimsdale — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:45:55 +0000

Infiltrate the school systems. Check. Outlaw God. Check. Indoctrinate against patriotism and respect for legitimate authority. Check. Subvert the justice system to the goals of world socialism. Check. Assume control of the organs of government. Check. Render the American Constitution subservient to the prevailing socialist movements of the day. Check. Control all media and the flow of information. Check.

Aww, now you’ve gone and done it! You revealed the super top secret Democrat manifesto!

Now EVERYONE is going to know! The Antiamerica Criminal Liberties Union is going to have to come up with another secret plan now.

My intellectual chumbucket needs refilling, so I hope you will continue giving me putridly overripe “arguments” to chop up.

That was just beautiful. Music to my ears.

By: fulldroolcup

fulldroolcup — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:38:39 +0000

Help us out here, lgm.

You seem to think the tape is “proof” Gingrich committed a crime. A federal crime? If so, just give us the citation under the US Code.

Next, tell us what the elements of that crime are, and where they are met on the tape.

BTW: read this:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/index3.html

Jan. 10, 1997 — The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution report on an intercepted cell phone conversation indicating Gingrich may have violated his Dec. 21 agreement with the panel not to orchestrate a GOP counterattack against the [ethics] charges. In a telephone conversation taped that day, and subsequently obtained by the two papers, the speaker is heard reacting favorably to strategy concocted by GOP operative Ed Gillespie.

So…who orchestrated….who concocted?

And about the ethics case itself, read this, and ask yourself why, if Gingrich committed a felony, the Clinton justice dept didn’t charge him with one.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/january97/gingrich_1-17.html

My intellectual chumbucket needs refilling, so I hope you will continue giving me putridly overripe “arguments” to chop up.

You got “proof”? Prove the case, Mr. SmartyPants!

By: reine.de.tout

reine.de.tout — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:48:55 +0000

Baghdad Jim McDermott said:

McDermott called the court fight with Boehner “a long and costly battle,” but said the million-dollar judgment was “a small price to pay in defense of so fundamental a principle, and freedom, as the First Amendment.”

Because of the 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

OK, so, what’s his take on the Jefferson case, where the search of Jefferson’s office (a space owned by the citizens of the U.S.) has been declared to be improper?

By: Wiretaps for Me, But Not for Thee | OpenMarket.org

Wiretaps for Me, But Not for Thee | OpenMarket.org — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:45:42 +0000

[...] was akin to wiretapping aimed at a conservative colleague. Now, he has the chutzpah to depict himself as a First Amendment martyr for doing so, even though a federal appeals court ordered him to pay damages for invasion of privacy. I [...]

By: BlameAmericaLast

BlameAmericaLast — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:25:16 +0000

Oh, and I forgot one more thing…

This is Pelosi’s “most ethical congress” too!

I’m impressed.

Not.

By: AlohaGuy

AlohaGuy — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:20:46 +0000

The content of the tapes is not secret, but it is inadmissible. Find out the content (transcripts are on the web) and say Gingrich is innocent.

I doubt any of you is able.

See lots of references to the fact the NY Times published them, but no actual transcripts yet. Seems to me if I recall correctly the call was a discussion of ethics violation charges against Gingrich. This is like taking $90,000 in bribes from the FBI – oh wait it’s not anything like that.

By: Chief RZ

Chief RZ — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:11:27 +0000

Democrat, then a senior Member of the House Ethics Committee, leaked to the media a tape of a conference call. This is a correct usage of the word leaked. lgm. No one said this call was secret. Chard is correct. When Democrats leak Secret documents, they also trot out the first amendment. No.
This story is not about if someone is innocent of whatever was leaked or not. It is about privacy.

By: lgm

lgm — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:53:51 +0000

The content of the tapes is not secret, but it is inadmissible. Find out the content (transcripts are on the web) and say Gingrich is innocent.

I doubt any of you is able.

By: zorro

zorro — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:51:12 +0000

Here's what I read concerning McDermott's defense fund...

Prosecutors said Al-Hanooti was responsible for monitoring Congress for the Iraqi Intelligence Service. From 1999 to 2002, he allegedly provided Saddam's government with a list of U.S. lawmakers he believed favored lifting economic sanctions. DeCesare said McDermott was invited to go to Iraq by the Church Council of Greater Seattle and was unaware of any other funding for the trip. In 2004, McDermott returned a $5,000 contribution made to his legal-defense fund by a Detroit-area businessman who also was a donor to Life for Relief and Development, the group Al-Hanooti worked for. McDermott returned the donation after the businessman, Shakir al-Khafaji, admitted financial ties with Saddam's regime.