Murtha wants Marines’ defamation suit tossed out
posted at 7:19 pm on November 19, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Lawyers for Rep. John P. Murtha will appeal a recent ruling advancing a defamation lawsuit brought against the Pennsylvania Democrat by a U.S. Marine under investigation for killing Iraqi civilians.
Justice Department lawyers representing Murtha on Nov. 16 filed notice that they planned to appeal a federal district court judge’s Sept. 28 ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed and ordering Murtha to give sworn testimony in the case.
Why are Justice Department lawyers representing Murtha? If anything, they ought to be prosecuting him.
Here’s the answer:
If the court determines Murtha indeed was acting in his official capacity, the U.S. government could be substituted as the defendant — a move that would effectively neuter the case because the federal government cannot be sued for libel.
But Wuterich’s lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, said Monday that the deposition now likely will be delayed, pending a determination from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court will have to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to hear Murtha’s appeal at this stage or if it should wait until a lower court determine’s the fate of Wuterich’s lawsuit.
If that defense flies, then Dollar Bill Jefferson really was just keeping his cash cool.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Jesus! Did we really endow our legislators with such power?
Babs on November 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I want Murtha tossed out on his a$$ .
Mojack420 on November 19, 2007 at 7:25 PM
The concern I have is this…… whether in a federal building or not during the interview, that piece of work is a Representative 24/7. Could this be his defense? Funny how he dares use the law asking for the case to be dropped but he hung on for months asserting my fellow Marines’ guilt. Coward is too good a word.
MNDavenotPC on November 19, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Get bent, you treacherous sod. You opened your fat mouth to stab your fellow Marines in the back for petty political gain so you get to have your name dragged into the light in a (hopefully) very public trial. What a weasel. And to think, this man once led Marines! Oh, how the mighty have fallen…
Militant Bibliophile on November 19, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Looks like they endowed themselves with such power. I’m thinking it’s well past time we take a long hard look at what else Congress may have given themselves and take a bunch of it away.
Oh and Murtha sucks.
Buzzy on November 19, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Eat it, Spanky. Every. Last. Bite.
CurtZHP on November 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM
What’s not clear to me from this is which court determines whether Murtha was acting in official capacity?
peski on November 19, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Whatever happened to Semper Fidelis?
Tony737 on November 19, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Why not? What could possibly represent a Congressman’s “official capacity” more than the votes he casts in Congress. And that’s what the bribe was for, right?
logis on November 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Wade on November 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Why doesn’t Murtha just apologize?
bnelson44 on November 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I still don’t understand why he is being represented by Justice Department lawyers - at least at this point.
If they make the unfortunate decision that he was acting in an official capacity, it would make sense. But then again, if they decide that then the case gets thrown out so why would he need a lawyer?
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 7:40 PM
How about a military tribunal?
MadisonConservative on November 19, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I’ll bet he does. He doesn’t seem the sort to take it well when it’s him on the receiving end.
Because he’s an arrogant ass who will NEVER apologize for viciously defaming our troops. Because he really doesn’t see what he did wrong.
Vyce on November 19, 2007 at 7:40 PM
What the federal courts may declare is that it is fair to lie, steal and cheat as long as you do it is as a U S Senator. The courts will reinforce what as been common knowledge for years. Who actually votes for scum like Murtha?
volsense on November 19, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Why doesn’t Murtha just apologize?
MNDavenotPC on November 19, 2007 at 7:42 PM
In order to apologize (truthfully, at least), you have to believe what you did is wrong. He honestly doesn’t see what’s wrong with calling our troops cold-blooded killers.
amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM
For what? He wasn’t trying to say anything truthful or factual. He was trying to hurt the President and the war effort. He succeeded in both.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM
How I long for the day when we have a President that will look straight into a camera and say:
“Treason will not go unpunished. Traitors will be met with the justice their acts have earned.”
And then to tell walking disgraces like this P.O.S. - “You have betrayed your bothers, and I see no reason not to pardon any one of them that decides to address your betrayal”.
Let’s see how quickly he starts to beg for forgiveness when he actually has to face the consequences for his actions.
Jimmy Carter was the worst President ever, his general pardon and failure to punish treason sowing the seeds of the stupidity we have to deal with today. Because of Carters actions idiots like this can commit treason and stay in the House. Even lead the House. It makes one feel ill.
Voidseeker on November 19, 2007 at 7:48 PM
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…HotAir=Best screencaps ever!
JetBoy on November 19, 2007 at 7:49 PM
When we let them twist and bend and degrade the laws for their own favor. And they do. And they have for quite some time. And they will. For some time to come. Because, generally speaking the population really is as stupid as they think we all are. And that’s the sad truth.
Griz on November 19, 2007 at 7:49 PM
he should suck it up and face the music. if he gets away with it, THAT would be a slap in the face of the military, whom he has betrayed.
madmonkphotog on November 19, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Not just our legislators: all government employees. They don’t pay into Social Security. The rationale is that they don’t take it. Of course not! Who needs $800 a month when they have that nice 3500 coming in?
True story. When I did plumbing work I went to some tacky-assed 10000 sq. ft. McMansion to plumb the bar in the basement. The owner? A retired mail carrier. He needed help to write the check. Couldn’t spell “thousand”. Yeah the bill was inflated. Heh.
HerrMorgenholz on November 19, 2007 at 8:12 PM
In all seriousness, I don’t see the downside to this. Once the opposition is calling United States troops “Nazis” because they don’t like the President’s policy, then how could the bile possibly become WORSE?
Sure, you’d have protesters protesting for his release. But, again, what would be new about that? Are millions of normal people with jobs going to suddenly decide to join the moonbat parades for the sake of John Murtha? I just don’t see it.
logis on November 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Spot on, my friend. His intent, and that of his party, has been obvious since shortly after 9/11.
PatrickS on November 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
If “in cold blood” Murtha spent half his time going
after suicidal Islamfascists,who actually did murder
three thousand plus innocent American’s, in actual
“cold blood”, then Murtha would be a good asset on
the War on Terror,instead,he say’s something about
the honour of the United States Marines,and like a
true Liberal to form,wastes eveybody’s time,and the
court’s time,but in this case I hope,after it’s all said and
done,I hope the Marines honour is restored.
canopfor on November 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I resent the use of my money to defend this Neo-Com before a determination. Maybe the law has little to do with justice and common sense but, how does spouting defamations in a T.V. studio qualify as “official capacity”. That is a real stretch!
MCPO Airdale on November 19, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Just curious but when was the last time a politician was successfully sued for defamation?
SoulGlo on November 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Oh,on a plus note I hope the Liberal’s
keep parading and yapping like Murtha,
voter’s will see there true colours
before this election,and it will save the GOP
all kinds of money they would of spent on commercials!
canopfor on November 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Wait… if that’s the theory that Murtha is operating under, then doesn’t it follow that whatever acts Murtha falsely and maliciously accused the US troops of doing while on duty would also be imputed to the U.S. government as a whole?
In other words: Murtha is arguing himself out of a libel suit - and into a charge of treason.
logis on November 19, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Now look here! All you people out ther writin all these bad thins about Mr. Murtha need to just put a stop to it! He is a congressperson and he is smart! Smarter than ordinary folks like you or me! Senators and congresspeople have special needs not like us! They r under constant stress from all the desison makin and tryin to keep us all safe and fed! They all work hard for da money they all take from us and all sum of you ever ever du is complane! Just stop it now! We need ta just tank da good Lord for congresspeople watchin over us! Senators and congresspeople like Mr Murtha can not be bothered or tied down to little thins like the law! they is just too buzy and too impotant to follow laws and rulls like they are ordinary! They r special and day got stuff with ther names on it to proov it too! I mean big stuff! Not no little stuff! Big stuff like buildins and airports and roads with cars and trucks goin back and forth everywhere! You dont got no buildin named after you! Me neither! So, they must be impotant just cuz ah that!! So wat if he dun said somptim on TV that seemed not rite! That poor man got so much on his mind tryin to fix our problems that we dun make for all ourselves!! Why on dis here earth shuld he hafta worry bout wat he dun says bout anythin!! That poor man always havin to worry bout every little thin, like, if he is beein taped when he talks,, if da bribe is real or if it is a trick agin,, we just dont understand the stress of congresspeople is under!! I say let him be!! So let them alone now!! I mean it!! Just let em be now!!
JellyToast on November 19, 2007 at 8:39 PM
“Chesty” Puller was unavailable for comment
Wade on November 19, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Once the opposition is calling United States troops
Nazis.
logis on November 19,2007 at 8:13PM.
logis:What blows my mind,is the not quite clear thinking
of the left,when they,call their own citizen’s in
uniform, “Nazi’s”.I’ve watched President Bush,and
for the left to besmirch,and label him is outrageous.
For the Left,to paint the right,in this term “Nazi”,
the left track record isn’t to good,the left has to
answer,on American soil,Waco,Ruby ridge,and at gun
point(assult rifle,another phrase lib’s like)taking
at the time,the little Cuban boy,all those tactic’s
were used by the left,and the Liberal’s have the
nerve to use that label,Nazi.
canopfor on November 19, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Murtha needs to answer for what he has said. It was false, and gave aid to an enemy we are currently fighting overseas. An enemy which is driven by words like Murtha’s to kill US military. He needs to explain why as an elected official of the USA this was done. He needs to provide the American people with what information he was acting upon when he heralded false information in reference to Marines using specific language to describe war criminals.
That is the least he must do, unless he is decent enough to resign for being the coward he truly is.
Hening on November 19, 2007 at 8:51 PM
I think the employees of NDIC do…
Jaibones on November 19, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Pardon me but I must have dozed off. Has treason become so easily accepted?
Teddy Roosevelt wrote in 1915, “…there has been a distinct degeneracy in the moral fiber of our people owing to…peace propaganda, a distinct increase in moral flabbiness,a distinct increase in hysteria and sentimental untruthfulness.”
Why is this liar Murtha not being indicted on charges of high treason for aiding an enemy in time of war?
oldleprechaun on November 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Of course he does. He doesn’t want to be forced to answer questions under oath in a court of law.
eanax on November 19, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Murtha, what happened to finding out the truth? There is no better way then the courts, you liberals use the courts every chance you get.
Well, you will have your day in court, and you can proclaim your innocence, and the court will decide…good luck.
right2bright on November 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM
While I’ll never put anything past the courts, this really should be open-and-shut. The Speech And Debate Clause grants Congresscritters and their staffers absolute immunity for statements made as part of “legislative acts” — floor debates, committee meetings, that sort of thing. It provides no immunity for statements made as part of “political acts” — talk shows, stump speeches, yadda yadda.
Murtha’s remarks were made at a press conference and in subsequent TV interviews. There is absolutely nothing “legislative” about those activities.
Centerfire on November 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM
I LOVE using the courts against libs. YES!
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Obviously, when Murtha was making the rounds on the MSM news and cable shows, those venues were a logical extension of the floor of Congress where his comments are protected.
danking70 on November 19, 2007 at 9:19 PM
(close sarcasm) forgot the tag
danking70 on November 19, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Ruth Baeder-Meinhoff Ginsberg prob. had to loosen her bowtie at the thought of this going to trial. It’s over Ruthie. ACLU has seen it’s day.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I still don’t understand why he is being represented by Justice Department lawyers - at least at this point.
There was probably such a long lineup of Clinton leftovers eager to defend Murtha that Bush just didn’t want to appear to be partisan and deny them the privilege.
drunyan8315 on November 19, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I’ve always thought Americans were supposed to be protected from the government bullying them. What defense does the government have that Murtha doesn’t have?
Bacchus on November 19, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Look, there’s no easy way to get rid of this guy. He has earmarked huge sums of money for his pet projects in Johnstown PA and has created many jobs because of it. He’ll continue to get the votes to keep him in his congressional seat, and as long as he knows he’s safe from being voted off, he’ll continue to get away with all kinds of crap.
So, either get a group of congressmen to rally against him, or hope that this defense does not pan out.
RMCS_USN on November 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Conceit, personified.
Speakup on November 19, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Someone needs to stomp his ass before he gets too old to realize what is going on.
TheSitRep on November 20, 2007 at 2:05 AM
It will do us all a world of good to see that he spends the rest of his days locked up or hounded.
oldelpasoan on November 20, 2007 at 8:16 AM
The Constitution MAY have.
From the WWW:
“CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY UNDER THE SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE
To ensure free discussion of controversial issues in Congress, the framers immunized members of Congress from liability for statements made in House debate: for their “speech or debate” they “shall not be questioned in any other place.”"
N. O'Brain on November 20, 2007 at 8:27 AM
My son is a Marine.
John Murtha is an ex-Marine.
N. O'Brain on November 20, 2007 at 8:28 AM
No. They gave it (immunity) to themselves.
“It’s nice to be the king.” - Mel Brooks
Texas Nick 77 on November 20, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Hoist them on their favourite petard.
Texas Nick 77 on November 20, 2007 at 8:47 AM
Yes and no. Article I, Section 6 of the Constiution immunizes senators and representatives from slander/libel claims “for any Speech or Debate in either House.” Which is fine, you really wouldn’t want to stifle debate in Congress. However, once they are outside of Congress, they are liable just like the rest of us.
In 1960 Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. called a woman named Esther James all sorts of bad things in a speech in the House. She was not happy but he was protected. But then he went on and repeated the accusations on TV. She sued and he lost, eventually having to pay almost half a million dollars.
I don’t know if Murtha will win or lose on the merits of the case, but his constitutional argument is pretty weak.
Just another useless factoid.
factoid on November 20, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Well, if you ignore the fact that the terms “Speech and Debate in either House” relate only to events specifically defined elsewhere in the Constitution. And then assume that whatever dolt who drafted this meant to write instead the words: “…communication of any sort and in any place,” but slipped his quill…
Then yeah, pretty much any aphasic, dyslexic, myopic and congenitally brain-damaged liberal would deem this a perfectly valid defense.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM