Desperate attack: Fox declares it may be illegal for Rep. Matheson to vote for health reform
March 05, 2010 11:54 am ET by Adam Shah
In an appearance on Friday's Fox & Friends, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed that it may be illegal for Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) to vote for the health care reform proposal because of his brother Scott Matheson's nomination to the federal bench. After being asked if it puts "more pressure on the congressman, the brother, to vote no on health care, because now it's being exposed," Napolitano declared: "Yes. There's a statute called the honest services law, which basically makes it a crime to do the right thing for the wrong reasons."
Don't bother trying to figure out what Napolitano is talking about. It's a bizarre and baseless claim.
The larger point here is that there is no evidence that, if Rep. Matheson voted for the health care reform proposal, it would be for the "wrong reasons." In fact, basically everyone involved in the nomination has stated that the idea that Scott Matheson's nomination has anything to do with Rep. Matheson's vote is ridiculous. According to Politico, Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guranteed [sic] Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Politico also reported that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said."
But you don't have to take the White House's and Rep. Matheson's word for it. According to Politico, a spokesperson for Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah said the exact same thing: "Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson's nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time."
To be clear, neither Napolitano nor anyone else has pointed to any evidence whatsoever that Scott Matheson's nomination may cause Rep. Matheson to cast his vote on health care for the "wrong reasons." Indeed, all available evidence indicates that the nomination and Matheson's vote have nothing to do with each other. Nevertheless, Napolitano has launched the desperate attack that if Matheson votes a certain way on the health care reform bill, he may be a criminal.
But, hey, look at the fun a cable channel can have spreading crazy conspiracy theories when said channel has NO ACCOUNTABILITY!
The statute, though, may be problematic, though, if it is too broad, because this guy would not be able to vote for many things, and that just doesn't seem to make sense.
"18 U.S.C.A. § 1346
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 63. Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses (Refs & Annos)
§ 1346. Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
It seems this has been constructed by the court to apply to public officials and bribes and such. That must be the connection, and it has been used before to convice people in public office. So, Napolitano is right on that point. However, he really needs to be careful because it seems it is about to be overturned.
See this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804410.html.
He may have expressed interest, but when the announcement came is of curious timing. Sorry.
You may be right that there is nothing to it. But in terms of perception, timing oftentimes is everything, is it not?
I really am not trying to attack you here, though I expect something attacking in return. I hope you won't attack, but rather see my comment as food for thought.
Personally, I'd love to see the media move to a simple reporting of the news without all the analysis and bias.
Surely you are familiar with the statistics that point to huge numbers of dems/liberals in the press. Since that is apparently fairly accurate, how can there be no bias when they are allowed to do more than report the facts?
To answer your question more directly though, it is too much when they intentionally tell a full fledged lie and there is malice behind it. Small inaccuracies won't count, nor will good faith efforts to report something, even if an opinion. There is a Supreme Court case out there called New York Times v. Sullivan. It addressed this issue in the context of libel.
But again, do not tell me that ANY news network has squeaky clean hands. Do not tell me that the majority of those in the press are not liberal.