What really annoys me is –

…Assistant U.S Attorney Darrell Valdez, who represents Murtha,

We’re all paying to defend this pig!

Does anyone know why a government attorney is defending Murtha?

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.

On November 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm, Helene said:
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?

Video clips of Worf saying, “You are without Honor!”

ECS

IMHO, people who didn’t work to keep America decent and free should STFU.

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.

Jet Jaguar, the Eagles and Philadelphia are the other end of the state but I wish Murtha was one of theirs.

On November 19th, 2008 at 9:10 pm, right_on said:

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.

So if a member of congress makes treasonous statements while talking to journalists, then acts on them, would he get immunity?

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.)

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.

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.

On November 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm, Christopher Estep said: I hate Murtha, but he should get immunity. It’s a free speech issue made more important by virtue of his position in Congress.

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.