Twisted Reality

This is perfect for April Fool's Day. I think Jim McDermott comes off looking quite foolish.

Here is another example of a liberal twisting the law and morality to suit his personal agenda.

On Tuesday, I wrote about Jim McDermott being slapped down by a federal appeals court for his blatant disregard for the law.

Yesterday, McDermott was interviewed by the Associated Press. He tries to justify giving a tape of a private conversation, one that had been made illegally, to The New York Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Roll Call.

These fine, upstanding media outlets all proceeded to publish stories that relied on information from the illegally taped private conversation.

AP writes:

A Florida couple used a scanner to record the conversation and gave a tape to McDermott, who leaked the contents to the Times and other publications. The couple, John and Alice Martin, later pleaded guilty to unlawfully intercepting the call and were fined $500 each.

The old couple paid out $1000 as punishment for their illegal activity, yet McDermott believes he did nothing wrong.

..."I met these people for 60 seconds to 90 seconds in a crowded room. They handed me something, said, 'We'd like you to hear this,' and walked away. That's why I say I received it legally," McDermott said. He added that he had never met the Martins before they gave him the tape and has had no contact with them since.

What? The Martins don't even get a Christmas card from McDermott?

But Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the majority, called McDermott's defense "quite implausible," since he knew how the telephone call had been intercepted.

"It is the difference between someone who discovers a bag containing a diamond ring on the sidewalk and some who accepts the same bag from a thief, knowing the ring inside to have been stolen," Randolph wrote. "The former has committed no offense; the latter is receiving stolen property."

"Quite implausible." I'd say that sums it up quite nicely.

McDermott said the ruling turns constitutional law on its head.

"If you accept that logic, Nixon would still be president, Watergate would just be another hotel and domestic spying would still be unknown," he said.

It is so inconsistent the way the lib media circle the wagons and whine about a chill wind blowing and warn about free speech being squelched and moan about "domestic spying," while they simultaneously trample on the privacy rights of others on a regular basis.

They turn a TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM into an evil abuse of power, yet they want the freedom to go above the law and abuse the privacy of individuals.

In effect, McDermott argues that anything goes, including illegal activity, as long as it suits his agenda.

GUESS WHAT? IT DOESN'T.

The media are not above the law. McDermott is not above the law.

McDermott is a leaker and I'm glad that the court is standing up for the right of privacy.

It makes me very uncomfortable to hear McDermott attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

It's so unseemly.

Ah, Corruption!