Murtha Watch: Cut-and-run smear merchant wants immunity
I had prayed before the election that I wouldn’t have to pay one more iota of attention to the pork-filled, cut-and-run smear merchant John Murtha. Our prayers, alas, were not answered. Now, this corruptocrat is trying to hide from justice in the Haditha slander lawsuits:
A Marine who sued U.S. Rep. John Murtha for defamation urged a federal appeals court Tuesday to order the Johnstown Democrat to testify under oath in the case.
An attorney for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich told the court that he needs Murtha’s deposition to determine how often the congressman made the claim that Marines in Iraq engaged in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” in the slayings of civilians in Haditha.
A government attorney representing Murtha told the judges that the lawmaker has immunity from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters.
Arguments about whether Murtha must testify was argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
…Assistant U.S Attorney Darrell Valdez, who represents Murtha, argued that a member of Congress is “absolutely immune” from a defamation suit because there’s no circumstance in which speaking to the media is not within the scope of a lawmaker’s employment.
Valdez said it would be hard to find an issue more of public concern than the Iraq war.
But Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson seemed skeptical about Valdez’s argument.
“Are you saying a congressman can say anything that he wants about the Iraq war?” Henderson asked Valdez. She questioned if intent and motive should also be considered.
As always, find the latest at Defend Our Marines.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Murtha Seeks Immunity « The Forum
- The College Politico » Blog Archive » Murtha may have to testify in the defamation suit against him
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Bellyaching Jack Murtha hides behind Constitution
- John Murtha: « Jane Q. Republican
- We’ll correct our story when its propaganda value is gone « DaTechguy’s Blog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Haditha, John Murtha
Riehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoPatterico
» Democrats Attack the CIATigerHawk
» The Blue Dogs are barkingRiehl World View
» Classless Paid Sarah Palin Assassin Mike Murphy (R)
Unfrickin believably hypocritical…too many ways to count even.
FRY THE BASTARD.
Murtha is a total disgrace.
He certainly thinks so.
Not as complete a disgrace as the voters who reelected this scumbag.
When the congresscritters put themselves above the common man they then consider themselves above the very laws they themselves inflict upon the masses. Has happened all through history. Sadly it is now here in full force. Not the first time this has happened and even more sadly, it will not be the last.
Does this mean Bush is “absolutely immune” for any statements he made regarding the Iraq war also? So even if he admitted to the left-wing nutjob conspiracy theory that he lied about all the intelligence he received, that would be perfectly legal?
Anyone else having flashbacks to Lethal Weapon and Mr. “Diplomatic Immunity” ?
Murtha is a worthless piece of crap.
He has an “R” after his name, which negates immunity, absolute or not.
Immunity is included with Democrat party memebership.
That was my first thought when I read this.
Can someone explain to me WTF is wrong with the good people of Pennsylvania?
How can this scum bag keep getting re-elected?
I got your immunity right here pal.
Murtha is a low-life scum and should’ve been dragged kicking and screaming years ago.
It will all come down to a definition of “official capacity” as to whether Murtha will be compelled to testify. Also, isn’t the plaintiff here still under indictment for war crimes?
This will be a test for the judges. I understand the legislative immunity that protects statements made on the floor of a representative body, and the testimonial immunity extended to statements made in court proceedings, but the windbag in this instance was gassing off to reporters, so I concur - hang him! Oh, take a bunch of his money and then hang him.
HMMMM … using that logic then the Dems have no grounds on which to pursue the current administration on anything said leading up to and during the GWOT, Iraq and WMDs, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, etc., etc., etc.
Weren’t they also similarly involved in an integral part of their employment when making those statements, and thus also immune?
I hate Murtha, but he should get immunity. It’s a free speech issue made more important by virtue of his position in Congress.
Remember, it cuts both ways.
So, lying is “acting in his official role as a lawmaker”?
Defamation is “acting in his official role as a lawmaker”?
Saying whatever is needed in order to seem self-inportant, pretend to be some righteous crusader, and slandering courageous Marines to gain publicity and get re-elected is “acting in his official role as a lawmaker”?
Well, that surely explains our Federal legislature. Nice seeing at least one of them admit it. Dangitall, I live in California, so I at least have an excuse for the nutjobs we send to Washington. Pennsylvania, you’ve got some ’splaining to do.
I swear, a slightly looser interpretation of the Truth in Advertizing laws would accomplish what the electorate in America can’t - remove vast swaths of legislators for office.
Murtha spoke his idiotic opinion about an issue that had zero to do with his Congressional duties. I don’t see how any judge with a brain could say that he was speaking in his official capacity as a Congressman and keep a straight face.
Sounds like the defense William “Cold Hard Cash” Jefferson is using to avoid prosecution in his case.
Why didn’t the people of his district get rid of this scumbag?
Helluva of a defense. Hey I’m elected, Now get your hands off of me.
I bet she did.
Trouble is it is all too believable.
—
Is NOW the time for the Second American Revolution?
“Anyone else having flashbacks to Lethal Weapon and Mr. “Diplomatic Immunity” ?”
2 things come to mind….
1: “Big Smile! Big Smile!”
2: “Eenie….meenie…mynie….HEY MOE!”
‘Zona: intent and motive? Henderson’s statement is stunning. What possible kind of “intent and motive” could this jackanapes have had to make the claims he did, speaking as a person who was in a position to know the truth, other than to use falsehood to oppose the war effort and further his own career?
I don’t think either judicial discernment or my Magic Eight-Ball are needed to figure out his intent and motive.
I think I’m going to go read Tom Clancy’s “Debt of Honor” again. I love stories with a happy ending.
Civil lawsuits are too good for this gutless wonder.
The Justice Dept. needs to find its spine, arrest and put on trial this lying seditious snake called murtha.
I’m pretty sure giving aid & comfort to the enemy is still a crime in this nation.
It’s a free speech issue made more important by virtue of his position in Congress.”
There is a big difference between free speech and libel.
And politicians wonder why they are so loathed.
This man is slime, and that is insulting to slime.
Stoopid people reelected him.
Locomotive: I agree with you on all points in #22 - but if Justice went this route, they’d have to round up prob’ly two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and that would…
… oh, wait - I like where you’re going with that. I withdraw my objection. Carry on, by all means.
Fairness Doctrine will stop all hate speech–I heard Chuck Schumer say so.
—
Is it NOW the time for the Second American Revolution?
I suppose Chucky Schumer’s comments that caused a run on IndyMac and it’s ultimate failure are also covered by that inconvenient free speech thingy, too.
Or would the reimposition of the “Fairness” Doctrine have required Chucky to give equal time to an opposing point of view for rebuttal?
I used to say “As dumb as a Florida voter.” Now I use the phrase “As dumb as a Western Pennsylvania voter.”
Khyris said: (#6)
I think, and I don’t have a copy of the Constitution handy, that the immunity only applies to the legislative branch. The reasoning is sound: to prevent legislators from being detained on the way to Congress to represent their state or people for trumped up charges. Unfortunately, it also requires legislators to be ladies and gentlemen who don’t abuse the immunity.
Murtha and the NYT: two of the best reasons to (once again) prosecute treason.
This guy is an absolute turd in the punchbowl. Just another liberal democrap excercising his “personal” constitutional right to spew slanderous, libelous, seditious venom whenever and wherever, without fear of retribution. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. He’s the frickin’ poster child.
I expunge and flush better material than Murtha.
Correct.
The passage to which you are referring is the “Speech or Debate Clause” (found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1).
The question, I believe, is whether or not John Murtha’s interviews with the media would constitute as an essential part of his representative duties.
Politico has an interesting read here.
While I understand his take on the clause, I struggle to understand how Murtha’s comments were part of any official proceeding in the House. Sure, it speaks to his position on the war, but the incident in Haditha (to the best of my knowledge) was not a subject of debate on the floor.
I look at this as the same kind of hubris as Mr. “It’s not your money” to Cavoto. (in another thread). So many of these politicians think they have risen above the law and are no longer mired by its constraints.
How immune will this b@st@rd be from a right cross and a knee to his b@ll3ss groin?
I can understand that Constitutional issues raised here, but slandering a group of people and lying about the source of your information does not really fall under a job description.
Even people with diplomatic immunity can get booted out of the country if they break the law.
I have no idea but there are a lot of Marines that would dearly love to find out.
If the limp wristed wussie Republican congressmen and women could be tough enough they would make the jack ass resign.
When will Republican Congress and Senate representatives grow some balls?
Cameron … count this old Marine in that total …
I hate it, but when they talk about considering ‘intent and motive’, that’s ‘thought police’ action. I wouldn’t want it applied to myself, so I can’t condone it even for a scumbag like Murtha.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between Murtha and Barney Frank is that one served in the Marines.
They’re both a political nightmare. They’re both incoherent and unhinged.
I would move out of either’s district if they were ever to represent me.
Seriously. I would sell my home and uproot my family to get as far away from these two as possible (while remaining in America).
On November 19th, 2008 at 3:50 pm, MrOlympia said:
When will Republican Congress and Senate representatives grow some balls?
—————————————
Soon, I pray. No way, no how, should Murtha be given immunity.
You said the words, Sir. Now prepare to eat them.
It sort of makes me wish that dueling was still fashionable, and legal. If a Congressman has carte blanche to defame an ordinary citizen or soldier, the only recourse for that citizen or soldier would seem to be obvious.
ECS
Article I Section 6 of the Constitution states:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The question is… did he ever make any of these statements outside the Session of his respective House?
On November 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:
It sort of makes me wish that dueling was still fashionable, and legal.
————————————-
Now there’s an idea. I would pay to see how Murtha would handle an old-fashioned duel.
I’m thinking, cry and run.
INcorrect. I am familiar with this clause, and this protection applies ONLY to speech given on the floor of congress, in congressional session.
The freedom from arrest does not pertain specifically to speech at all, but rather they are free from arrest while on the way to, during, and from congressional sessions. Except in specific cases such an arrest IS allowed, including treason… which making a fraudulent propaganda war against the U.S. military could very well be considered.
Murtha was not giving a speech or debate in either house for these comments, and is therefore subject to the full extent of the law. The semi-colon formulation makes these two distinct concepts, linked only by the fact that both of them have to do with legitimate legal punishments.
I will be the first to admit however that the treason account would be impossible to prove as knowing and willful, because he very well could have believed what he said. Merely reckless actions would not be sufficient for a sedition conviction.
Because defamation isn’t a felony, that just means he couldn’t be arrested so long as he could maintain a fillibuster.
“A government attorney representing Murtha told the judges that the lawmaker has immunity from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters.”
Rarely have I seen so much bullsh*t crammed into so few words.
He wouldn’t necessarily be arrested either for a civil case, unless he refused to respond/testify, in which case a warrant could be issued for ignoring a subpoena, obstructing justice, contempt of court etc.
But my question still stands… since this “immunity for anything said anywhere in the commission of government duties” was not the constitutional priveledge for legislators, but rather something otherwise fabricated from whole cloth… if it is upheld/recognized then should it apply to all government officials?
You’re right, it is free speech. But it is also correct that recompense can be awarded for libel and defamation of character, that is the result of that free speech. Our laws should apply to all citizens.
I’ll assume you read my last post in its entirety, including the last paragraph. I, too, believed that this applied only to the floor or in committee. We’re on the same side here.
However, Politico’s piece does raise an interesting question regarding how the SCOTUS has previously interpreted the article.
Um… The clause states:
…which is why it is colloquially called the “Speech or Debate” clause.
Is there a way to revoke Rep. Murtha’s former Marine status? I know “once a Marine, always a Marine”, but there must be escape clauses–on both sides.
Thanks for the Constitutional discussion. I took one class in Constitutional Law in college–and it showed me that I should not go into law. I guess the point in law would be was Congress in session (their rules on that seem pretty generous). Unless they were specifically in recess (like the month they take off before elections to campaign), it can be presumed nowadays that they always are, I’m afraid.
Treason charges won’t work. If we didn’t do anything to Hanoi Jane for her tour of North Vietnam while we were fighting them, I don’t see what we can do for blowhard speechifying bake in the US.
Off Topic, sorry.
Khyris, Salt, dominigan–since you have facility with the Constitution and discuss relevant points. Do you know of anything that would allow the federal government to run/mandate a health care system for other than its employees (civil service and military)?
Kevin K …
He has earned the disdainful title and distinction of being an EX-Marine …
Only when I think of decaffeinating him.
Hrm… I hate getting off topic, but to attempt to answer your question to the best of my ability: No, I do not know of anything that would allow it.
In fact, I would say it is in direct opposition of the 10th amendment (Federalism).
However, that hasn’t stopped the federal government from getting directly involved in education, so I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting any protection from public health care.
First of all, the S.Sgt. is suing him for libel. Libel requires either knowlege or reckless disregard for the truth, spoken so as to be widely publicized, that is the proximate cause of material injury to the reputation of the S.Sgt.
Legislators and lawyers/witnesses/judges in court have immunity for libel, but only within their specified spheres. Legislators only get immunity while they are on the floor, so to speak. Those in court only get immunity while in court.
It’s well settled that libel outside of the forum is not protected by the immunity. Prosecutors have been successfully sued for libel during press releases, even though such speech was immune during the actual case proceedings. Murtha’s just stalling in the hopes that the publicity blows over.
As a note to an above comment, you cannot be arrested in a civil case.
RE post 56, any sort of nationalized healthcare would be under the authority of the commerce clause, like everything else. Go read Wickard v Filburn, which is still good law.
Murtha is an unpaid Lobbyist, and congressional Representative for Al-Qaeda.
RE: Salt #51
Yes, I understand we’re on the same side here, but I think you’re missing the importance of the grammatical construction… the semi-colon indicates a contextually related but independent assertion.
The first half of that before the semicolon indicates that they can not be arrested during transit to, from, or during the congressional session. It does not confer a blanket immunity at all. If the congressman robs a bank on the way to session, constitutionally he could be arrested because it’s a felony. Similarly if he lights up some marijuana in the back of his limo on the way to a session (misdemeanor posession charge), he may not be arrested at that time, but he most assuredly can be arrested later.
The second half is contextually related in that it also specifies when a member can be subject to legal jurisdiction, but it is seperate in defining specifically what crimes are “uquestionable,” namely a speech related crime committed on the floor of the house. Not to or from. There. He may not be questioned about a speech given in Pennsylvania only while he is on the way to or from session, but he most assuredly can be questioned for any speech given anywhere not on the floor of the house at any other time. And questioning in terms of legal procedings has nothing to do with being subject to arrest, otherwise all legal proceedings and investigations (questioning) would have to halt during whatever time of day a congressman happened to be travelling to work.
The position that Murtha is taking by merging these two clauses in this sentence would imply that officers may only do their work on nights and weekends? Patently absurd.
This semi-colon formulation is more easily understood when viewed in the context of all the other articles of the constitution. Take a look at the first amendment. Many semi-colon seperated clauses, but they all use the “or” formulation rather than the “nor” formulation because they are independent. If we just ignored the semicolons (as would be necessary in granting Murtha his fantastic immunity), then it would be perfectly constitutional to create a law that prohibited the free exercise of religion so long as that law simultaneously abridged freedom of the press and freedom to assemble and freedom to petition for redress of grievances. It was this very lack of a semicolon that served as foundation to second amendment opponents who claimed there was no inependent distinction between a militia and the right to arms, incorrectly nullifying the “individual right” idea. If comas can indicate independent phrases as the court recently ruled, semicolons most assuredly do.
In un-legalese speak, the complete sentence very plainly says:
“Can’t be arrested on the way to, at, or coming back from a session for minor violations. Also, speech on the floor is never a crime.”
The clause says nothing about the legality of speech “on the way to” or “on the way from” or “not in congress, but in an official capacity.”
The judge’s question worries me. The United States or willing public figures are not the plaintiff and merit is not under review at this point. It signals a willingness to grant Murtha an overarching right to engage in political discourse.
Had she instead asked, “Are you saying a congressman can say anything that he wants about private parties people outside political discourse, collateral damage be damned, as long they were not his political target?”, she’d have sounded adverse to Murtha’s position.
Her question tell me she’ll let slimy worm Murtha off his hook.
Screw this disgusting piece of rat feces and his immunity. Unfortunately, the phony, left wing, judicial system in this country will probably give him what he wants. This country is sick.
Kevin K #53
I agree with Salt 100%. Generally liberals attempt to use the Declaration of Independence to shoehorn arbitrary programs into law, even though that document has no true legal standing.
There’s two parts to getting it passed, the first of which is the P.R.
Basically they claim that such-and-such as education, healthcare is indispensible to life, or the pursuit of happiness, and therefore is guaranteed as a fundamental human right, which therefore can not be “abridged” by the government standing “in the way” of guaranteed healthcare, education etc. It’s a crap argument, but the most activist judges seem to tolerate it even though it wouldn’t really hold up in court alone.
The other half is the legal/financial back-door. While it’s unconstitutional to run the system federally, generally the fed will bribe/extort its programs into existence. Remember, education is a state run program… Congress just writes laws about distributing tax funds to the states. If the laws that congress writes state “x requirements must be met to receive y funds” then the states have the option of either complying with federal guidelines, or refusing federal funding. Not much of a choice, so the states end up parroting whatever the fed tells them to set up, but that the choice merely exists makes it officially a state program and therefore passes muster on the 10th amendment.
Similar inverse logic strategy is used when liberals talk about “revoking tax exemption” for churches. Technically, churches are not “tax-exempt” because that would imply they ARE liable but the liability is declined as some sort of favor to them. The truth of the matter is that it is unconstitutional to write a tax-code law with respect to a religious institution without balatantly violating the first amendment. Because tax code laws DO cite this non-liability explicitly in unclear language, liberals treat it as a law subjectable to revocation just like any other tax law. The origin of these non-liability clauses were specifically to prevent constitutional challenges so that the entire law would not be struck down for all tax liable entities because the law “could” be applied to a religion. Instead they just wait for the religious entity to perform some non-religious function (according to the liberals’ definition) and then declare them subject as any other private secular organization. The “revoking tax-exempt” line is just the P.R. half of what is actually “invoking tax liability”.
sclawstudent (#58) and Salt (#56)
Thank you. As I thought/feared. Glad to have comments by those more versed in the Constitution than I.
And thank you Khyris (#63). (Your comment wasn’t up when I composed my thank you.)
One other interesting tidbit about the Speech and Debate clause… it explicitly says “in any other Place.”
While I’m not holding my breath for THIS congress to do it, it is constitutionally legal for the congress to consider censure or even expulsion for committing defamation or other forms of speech-related fraud on the floor… so long as they do so in congressional session.
Murtha thinks he is part of a some sort of “ruling class”. I say roast the disloyal slug.
I think we’re in agreement. Your take is exactly how I would want it to be interpreted. I just hope the court has the same point of view. I have low expectations in that regard.
Appreciate the response, especially since I am obviously not a lawyer.
Although this, of course, does little to relieve my concerns about a government run health care system. I presume that the fundamental question with regards to commerce clause would be in the proof that a government-run health care would be something that directly affects interstate commerce?
“…government attorney”..
Murtha gets a tax-payer (my $$$) funded attorney.
The Dark Side keeps using my money….
I would rather have ‘my’ Marine use my money…
C-CS
An excellent point and one that is often under reported.
Bribery/Extortion seems to me to be an adequate description. We need more state legislatures to show some backbone.
Thanks Salt,
I am not hopeful either… c’est la vie.
An interesting twist on the healthcare deal though is that Democrats have steadfastly stonewalled any attempt to allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines. This fact could be convincingly argued to undermine the “interestate” argument of the commerce requirement, and would provide some delicious irony…
I’m not hopeful for that either, and it wouldn’t stop the bribery-of-state-programs approach, but if it did work, I would most definititely LOL!
I love the potential irony, but I’m sure they’ll amend that to put the word “private” before health insurance. In their view, federal health care would cross state lines by its very nature.
But if health care could be part of the commerce clause… where does it all stop? What else can the U.S. determine is “good for interstate commerce” and therefore under their domain?
United States v. Lopez is the only case I could find that limited federal reach by means of the clause. …have to do some more digging.
Self-correction to #72. :: sigh ::
Hmmm. We sent bricks to Congress to help them build the Border fence. We sent tissues when they whined. What can we send to Murtha? Duct tape? Maps to Western Pennsylvania, to show him the way out of DC? Tin foil for more hats?
Shoe horns to help him pull his foot out of his mouth?
-liberty and justice for all
-granting immunity would be a travesty of justice
The Marines deserve our total respect,
and Murtha should take his place along side other notable traitors!
A real man would face the fire.
The people of Pennsylvania that want this man representing them must be desperate, for he brings nothing but dishonor to them!
Pennsylvania, one state that I will avoid ever having to visit or spend money in, good-by Hershey products.
The people are pathetic, ignorant morons to elect this disgrace of an ex-Marine.
Right on . . . that state is a liberal slime pit. Any people that would elect this disgusting jackass after he calls them racists and red necks are blatantly stupid.
It is known around the NFL, that Eagle fans are probably the most vile, unruly, hooligans in the league. Them and the “Raider Nation”. It isn’t surprising that the likes of them reelected Murtha. I guess this proves that rednecks are indeed stupid.
Come Murtha. Face it like a marine.
As a member of our so called prestigious congress he and others should what the hell they say. On that, i say drag the butt head out back and shoot his a$$…figuratively of course.
But by all means he is liable all disparaging remarks, no one should be allowed to make liale comments without penalty.
So if a member of congress makes treasonous statements while talking to journalists, then acts on them, would he get immunity?
Even away from the halls of congress, there would be no reason to talk to this fat piece of humanity, other than the fact he is a congressman…that is, unless you wanted to offer him a bribe.
Treason is specifically excluded from the protection, but as we’ve been discussing here, there’s a question as to whether or not the immunity extends beyond the floor of the House.
While it was not ruled as treason, Sen. Mike Gravel was not protected by the clause when he released a copy of the Pentagon Papers to a publisher in 1971 (Gravel v United States). Of course, now I’m wondering how that is not treason… Publishing top secret documents would seem to fit the crime in my opinion.
(Sorry- I’m picking up a lot of trivia from all this speech or debate research.)
Khyris, Salt, and sclawstudent - your intelligent discourse made my day.
Rooster, not sure about this but I think Hershey moved it’s manufacturing to Mexico.
Jet Jaguar, the Eagles and Philadelphia are the other end of the state but I wish Murtha was one of theirs.
Does anyone know why a government attorney is defending Murtha? I’d prefer to see him spend his own money for his defense, not ours.
Better yet I’d like him to be forced to stand before our brave Marines and get what’s coming to him. Yeah, I know I’m dreaming.
Ellington Ptotocol.
I think the people of Pennsylvania are self-loathing, ignorant, immoral, unprincipled fools for continuing to elect such an anti-American, hateful, bigoted, racist butthole like John Murtha to represent them. Dittos to the American people who seem content to allow Murtha & Co. to infest our government. Long ago this “person” should have been drug out of the Senate by irate American patriots and neutralized, but no one seems to care enough about their country to do anything to preserve it.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t do that, nor did I sit at home to allow the America bashing scum to win in the last election.
IMHO, people who didn’t work to keep America decent and free should STFU.
Video clips of Worf saying, “You are without Honor!”
ECS
RE fgmorely #86
Essentially this was a protection put in place for the benefit of Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington type unwealthy congressmen, so that they could not be subjected to continuous frivolous suits and be forced to spend their campaign funds to fight them: election sabotage by bankruptcy. Plus, not making congressmen destitute provides SOME incentive for them not to go all-out corrupt looking for handouts… not saying it’s effective but at least it’s something.
It would be nice if the government could sue Murtha to cover its legal costs if he’s found liable, but that would create a conflict of interest in the commission of his defence.
It is better this way…. besides, a porker like Murtha has plenty stashed in his warchest that removing the provided public defense wouldn’t hurt him much… plus he could always go whining to some fictitious arab sheik for $50,000.
For all of the next elections - NO INCUMBENTS, none of the time. We took a Congressman who’s been a screamin’ liberal and make him an even bigger screamin’ liberal Senator - Udall of Colorado. How stupid can voters be. He has been fat-catting for years, and these dummies voted for him again. Gee, methinks we are in for a bumpy ride!
I only wish I had time to knock on the door of every Murtha-bot and ask them, “Just WHAT were you thinking?”
The obvious answer is, they weren’t!
What really annoys me is -
We’re all paying to defend this pig!
Come on, now.
Don’t put all of us Pennsylvanians in that poke.
I was in the next district over and was disappointed I couldn’t vote against this pig.
Phil English was our rep and not a terrible bad guy. Certainly not the best.
He lost to a woman using conservative sounding stuff like Family values.
He was just too close to Bush.