SALT LAKE CITY - Rep. Chris Cannon contends laws that protect him from suit over comments he makes in Congress also shield him from being sued for allegedly disclosing confidential terms of a sexual-harassment settlement.
Former Cannon field worker Crelley Mackey filed suit in 1998, alleging Cannon"s comments to reporters violated terms of a settlement she reached in a sexual harassment case against the congressman"s office.
Mackey had claimed Cannon"s former chief of staff, Charles R. Warren, pressured her into an unwanted physical relationship. Cannon was named as a defendant as Warren"s employer.
Cannon claimed his post-settlement interview with The Salt Lake Tribune was an attempt to set the public record straight.
Attorneys for the Utah Republican have asked a judge to dismiss Mackey"s lawsuit based on the Constitution"s speech and debate clause, which says "speech or debate in either House shall not be questioned in any other place."
However, Mackey"s attorney, Roger Hoole, said the law meant to protect speech on the House and Senate floors "was never intended to be used in this type of a situation - simply to protect a politician or a member of Congress from making misstatements to the press
Hoole cited a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court holding that the clause did not shield a legislator who made statements to reporters that were similar to what he said on the floor of Congress.
Cannon attorneys Richard Bradford and Kim Buhler contend the clause has been expanded in recent years to grant immunity for legislative acts related to personnel actions.
The Supreme Court also has held the clause extends beyond floor speech and debate "when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of (congressional) deliberations," they wrote in their request for dismissal of the case.
Cannon believed the interview cleared his way to serve effectively as a member of the Judiciary Committee, which was then close to initiating impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, the filing said.
What was with our goddamn media then.