McDermott Owes Boehner $1 Million for Legal Fees
A U.S. District Court judge ruled Monday that Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) owes House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) more than $1 million in legal fees in their decade-long fight over an illegally taped cell phone call McDermott leaked to the media.
Boehner sued McDermott in 1998 after the Washington lawmaker obtained a recorded copy of Republican leaders, including Boehner, discussing the ethics case against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1996. McDermott gave the tape to at least two newspapers, and a federal court ruled in 2004 that McDermott should not have released the recording. Subsequent appeals have upheld that ruling, and in December the Supreme Court declined to hear McDermott's final appeal. Boehner's attorneys had asked for McDermott to pay their legal fees going back to that first 2004 court ruling.
Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Monday that McDermott owed Boehner just over $1 million for legal fees, including interest. In a lengthy statement in response to the ruling, McDermott reiterated his belief that he had been exercising his First Amendment rights by giving the phone recording to the media.
"This has been a long and costly battle but, in the final analysis, the judgment handed down today in the U.S. District Court is a small price to pay in defense of so fundamental a principle, and freedom, as the First Amendment," McDermott said, later adding: "While the amount of damages assessed in this case is significant, I submit that defending the First Amendment is beyond measure and worth every penny."
In his own statement, Boehner said: "Congressman McDermott broke the law, and as a result, he shattered the bonds of trust between our institution and the men and women we represent in the halls of Congress. I remained committed to this case in order to begin restoring those bonds, and to uphold the belief that no one - not even Members of Congress - is above the law. With this decision, the American people can take comfort in knowing that these important principles have been reaffirmed."
McDermott has a legal defense fund that he can use to help defray the costs of the judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the fund raised $65,000 and spent $89,000, including $64,000 in initial payments to Boehner's lawyers at Jones Day. The fund is not required to report how much cash it has on hand at any given time. As of Dec. 31, McDermott also had $612,000 in his reelection campaign account.
By Ben Pershing |
April 1, 2008; 1:05 PM ET
Ethics and Rules
Previous: Congress Will Battle Over Iraq, Economy |
Next: Hoyer's (Sort-of) Superdelegate Solution
Posted by: thebob.bob | April 1, 2008 02:24 PM
I guess Boehner is only for tort reform when it applies to lawsuits against corporations. He has no problem employing an army of those terrible "trial lawyers" when it's for his own benefit. Hypocrite.
Posted by: stewiegriffen | April 1, 2008 03:14 PM
I guess Boehner is only for tort reform when it applies to lawsuits against corporations. He has no problem employing an army of those terrible "trial lawyers" when it's for his own benefit. Hypocrite.
Posted by: stewiegriffen | April 1, 2008 03:15 PM
While the idea of recovering legal fees when you lose a lawsuit makes some sense, why should the amounts depend solely on how much effort the party invested? The amount of legal fees should be limited to some low multiple of the damages awarded. This would discourage bill padding by high priced law firms doing unneeded lawyer hours and overpriced document copying.
Posted by: pasco | April 1, 2008 03:27 PM
Total damages awarded to Boehner in the case were $10,000 actual and $50,000 punitive. Does it make sense that you can recover legal fees that are almost 20 times the amount awarded?
Posted by: pasco | April 1, 2008 03:51 PM
McDermott's cries of 1st Amendment rights apparently turned out to be the political equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I'm glad he lost and is being put in his place.
Posted by: Dan Mosqueda | April 1, 2008 03:52 PM
I wonder if McDermott would be so magnanimous towards the exercise of free speech if recordings linking him to Saddam Hussein prior to his excellent adventure to Iraq - paid for by a Hussein stooge - were to be released?
Of course, the trip was for the chirruns - just sayin.
Posted by: | April 1, 2008 04:05 PM
Baghdad Jim must now pony up for his transgression. It likely won't be too long before more punishment/penalty is metted out for his pre-war, criticize Bush/USA, visit to Irqaq. What makes politicos like him think the way they do? Please, any psychoanalysis is welcome...
Posted by: mrsteevo56 | April 1, 2008 04:33 PM
a criminal democrat (I know it's redundant)must pay. the scum. Boehner is a hero for pressing this as well as the Pete Stark traitor scandal...
Posted by: ldpos | April 1, 2008 05:29 PM
We should all wish that Saddam had paid Mr. Bush to travel to Iraq to see the "truth on the ground".
That might have saved us 4000+ US servicemen and some 3 TRILLION DOLLARS(!!).
And had it not been for the telephone leak, we may still have Newt Gingrich to deal with.
Well worth a million, I think.
Posted by: TheFrog | April 1, 2008 06:57 PM
It's easy for McDermott to say he will be glad to pay the fine to protect the 1st amendment, when he is not using his money to pay for it!! I wish he had pay out of his own net worth.
Posted by: Bruce | April 2, 2008 11:46 AM
Long (and conveniently) forgotten is the fact Boehner was legally forbidden to have that discussion with Newt at the time of the recorded call. That is what made the call newsworthy in the first place.
The call recorded a legal "transgression" committed by the Republicans. Gosh, no prosecution there...not even an ethics hearing...oh, that's right, the GOP-controlled house suspended the house ethics panel.
Isn't this the party that's going to the mats to defend its right to illegally record suspected illegal conversations???
The call was innocently intercepted (a bygone phrase, to be sure) by an alert cell phone caller. That's right, the arrogant bone-heads broke the law on cell phones...
So, in true Rovian fashion, Boehner employs aggressive distraction to relieve his public image.
Posted by: andanotherthing | April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
It is clear that McDermott broke the law and violated the rights of liberties of a peer.
The Supreme Court would not even give this case the time of day as the law is clear on this.
Reading the comments here, about Bush, Iraq, etc. is nothing more than meaningless partisan whining as this case goes back to 1998.
Posted by: Bill | April 3, 2008 12:35 PM
So it's OK to snoop on conversations, as long as you don't agree with the politics of the snooped, and if there's no national security interest. Is that really being argued here? Citizens and senators, snooping on private calls?
Really?
Would it make it more or less reasonable if one of them was calling in from overseas, maybe discussing blowing up - let's just say my city? Would that call have been more or less snoop-worthy?
Instead of my neighbor and your senator, could maybe the NSA should listen to that call? If they were really serious about blowing up something? I think I would almost hope they were listening.
You, listening to my calls or my representative's to make political points? Not so much.
Posted by: headspinning | April 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Re: Bill
Haven't you realized The Frog and others like him/her only want the laws of the land to apply to ones they don't like?
Posted by: Thom | April 3, 2008 09:20 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
An interesting case in light of the Bush Administrations insistence that all domestic communication has no expectation of privacy now that we're "at war".