Leaked phone-call case could cost McDermott $1 million

As reported here, Rep. Jim McDermott has had the luxury of winning big and cheaply in recent elections, facing only token opposition.

But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.

The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.

That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.

Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.

How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.

"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.

Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).

McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.

But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.

Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.

Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.

State lawmakers discuss ending war

As reported here, [t]he (Washington State) Senate was decked in red, white and blue with Democrats and Republicans braced for an emotional debate on the Iraq war that never materialized Thursday.

After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.

They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.

Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.

"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."

He explained why in his floor statement.

Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.

"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."

I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:

1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?

2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?

3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?

Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.

"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.

State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.

Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?