TPMDC

Former U.S. Attorney-Turned-Congressional Candidate, To Talk Radio Host: I Could Sue You For Defamation

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Mary Beth Buchanan

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Mary Beth Buchanan, a former Bush-era U.S. Attorney who is now running for Congress in Pennsylvania against Democratic Rep. Jason Altmire, may need to work on how she handles criticism of her tenure in office. Buchanan called into the radio show of local talker Marty Griffin, and apparently threatened him with a defamation suit.

Griffin had just hosted Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, former Allegheny County Coroner, and prominent Pittsburgh-area Democrat, who had been prosecuted for alleged corruption by Buchanan. Democrats had accused Buchanan of launching a political prosecution -- the announcement of the charges had come close to the 2006 election, and became a data point in the U.S. Attorney scandals of late 2006 and early 2007. The charges were ultimately dropped.

During his interview, Wecht alleged that the case had cost $20 million to prosecute. Buchanan called in to take serious exception to this, saying that it could have only been $500,000 at most -- and told Griffin that he better get his facts right. "And you know, we still have defamation laws in this country. And to the extent that you keep repeating things are flat-out wrong, you're running afoul. That case could not have cost the government more than $500,000, and that's on the outside."

"So you're saying you're going to sue me?" Griffin replied. "Is that what you're saying, Mary Beth, because Dr. Wecht and others are suggesting? So you're gonna run for Congress, and you're threatening to sue me because we're suggesting that the case cost $20 million?"

"I'm saying that you have to know what you're talking about before you start repeating things," Buchanan replied.

Griffin challenged Buchanan to provide information on the salaries of all the people who had worked on the case, saying that he didn't believe it was only $500,000. Which led to this amusing exchange:

Griffin: Are you gonna answer my question?

Buchanan: I am answering your question, if you would shut up and let me talk.

Griffin: Oh, so this is how you're gonna run? Telling people to shut up and threatening them with lawsuits?

Buchanan: Listen, if you want the facts, I'm here to give them to you. If you hear want to hear yourself talk, then why do you even invite people to come on and be guests?

Griffin: Go ahead, Mary Beth.

Buchanan: Okay, thank you.

Griffin: You sound very defensive to me. It's a long road, Mary Beth, to run for office. This is just the beginning. This is just your toe in the water.

Believe it or not, they both seemed to have cooled down at least somewhat by the end of the interview, and Griffin invited Buchanan to appear on the show again.

Comments (43) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

February 18, 2010 5:51 PM   

Good luck with that thin skin problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:05 PM   

the real issue is, how does she make it this far with a bid to hold public office?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:08 PM   

If she were a real politician she would have challenged him to a duel. Just ask Zell Miller.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:15 PM   

Oh that's rich. "And you know, we still have defamation laws in this country. And to the extent that you keep repeating things are flat-out wrong, you're running afoul" Well then lets start suing a whole lot of right wing talk show hosts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 10:54 PM    in reply to Jimmy Blue

A Tea Bagger in eastern Washington state said she wants to hang Democratic Senator Patty Murray. She first denied saying it, then claimed she was taken out of context. She wasn't taken out of context.

I believe it's illegal to threaten harm to a public official. So why doesn't Buchanan go after that dangerous loon? Oh, right: the loon threatened a Democrat, so it's protected speech.

Buchanan: invoking law in effort to bully and silence isn't especially classy. And a lawyer should know that it's ethically out of bounds, and potentially an abuse of process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:16 PM   

I'd like to see her sue. Then maybe we'll get the truth of the political prosecutions during the Bush Administration. I want to see her try. You know she won't; it would cost her too much. Anyway, if she worked for the Bush Team, you know she's one lying BITCH!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:32 AM    in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend

Oh no it wouldn't cost too much. Just $500,000. And that's at the outside.
Does she advocate tort reform? Of course she does, she's a GOPer. It always comes down to who's ox is getting gored.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:20 PM   

Ms Buchanan is the US attorney who hounded Tommy Chong. Maybe someone should ask her about threatening to throw Tommy's son and wife in prison if he didn't plead guilty.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:45 PM   

After World War II, women who collaborated often had their head shaved to mark their shame. Does anyone have a set of clippers?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 6:59 PM   

Since we still have defamation laws in this county why does she not sue Limbauch, Hannity and Michael Savage? I hope that Jason Altmire head that and used it against her challenging her on that point to condemn right wing talk radio.

She sound like a woman with anger management issues.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 7:09 PM   

I am assuming this woman is a Republican, although that is far from clear. After all, if she was involved in the politically motivate US Attorney scandal during the Bush administration, doesn't that imply she was a political enemy of Bush?

I could assume she is Republican because she is running against a Democrat, except I don't know if there is a primary in the future.

Yes, I could google it, but I shouldn't have to.

Really, TPM, do a better job.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 7:19 PM    in reply to farnsworth

She kowtowed to Cheney/Bush/Gonzalez by just the type of corrupt prosecution that Cyril Wecht underwent.

She is a petty thug. Given just enough power to be dangerous while possessing just enough intelligence to be a threat to society.

Great combination, and perfect CV for a GOP candidate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 8:49 PM    in reply to farnsworth

You mean you have never heard of Mary Beth Buchanan?

I wouldn't brag about that.

She was a pretty notorious Bush Justice Dept incompetent known for her politically motivated prosecutions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 10:17 PM    in reply to nanorich

So I should have automatically known she is a Republican?

Wow, how shameful for me not to know! Would flagellation be a suitable penance, or should I just kill myself?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 1:23 AM    in reply to farnsworth

No flagellation. Just give TPM some credit, because they broke the attorneys scandal, and they've covered Buchanan and the Wecht case pretty thoroughly. If you're not familiar with the fired US attorneys scandal, you are absolutely on the right site for finding out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 2:43 AM    in reply to ericf

I wasn't reading TPM at that time. They may have done a very fine job of breaking and covering the story, and if so, kudos to them.

But from a journalism standpoint, they should have included all pertinent information in the story, not assumed all their readers knew everything about her. Especially since it is years later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:15 AM    in reply to farnsworth

Check the wiki.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:18 AM    in reply to farnsworth

Did you not follow any of the Bush Justice Department political appointee scandal?

Perhaps you might have used more informative sources for current events, rather that criticize TPM for not spelling everything out for you.


The internet is a wonderful thing for beefing up research skills. It has been shown that one retains information better by actually looking up stuff yourself, rather than demanding others provide with information you could easily look up yourself.

For instance, have you heard of this thing called The Google. Curious people speak highly of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 10:07 AM    in reply to farnsworth

I agree with you farnsworth. This was poorly written.
I read it several times trying to figure out if Buchanan was a GOP or not.

I was here when TPM did the fantastic job on the US Atty scandal, however Buchanan's name did not surface at that time. Even though, the point is well taken, that her actions smack of the political partisian that was at the core of the scandal, there was no way to discern she was GOP based on the way this write out was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 8:51 PM    in reply to farnsworth

Yes, she is a republican, and she is one of Shrub's appointees as USA.

The scandal here seem to be that the number of cases she filed against Democrats far exceeds the number filed against Republicans, in an area of PA that's mostly Republican voters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 7:17 PM   

Any chance that Dr. Wecht is going to sue for malicious prosecution?

I'd contribute to any fund with that in mind.

This venal, arrogant, inflated self-worth piece of GOP dung deserves jail time...not election to the House.

If that sounds judgemental...SUE ME.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 7:33 PM   

So how much did the case cost?

Could you report that TPM?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 10:57 PM    in reply to rbeats

The person who would best know would be Buchanan. So ask her to put up or shut up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:45 AM    in reply to JNagarya

Come on now. The lady said it was $500,000 at the outside. Do you doubt her veracity? How could you have any doubts about her honesty and competence? Doesn't working for the Bush administration lend enough credibility?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 7:37 PM   

In 1964 the Supreme Court said, "The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth." So you can publicly lie about another person as long as you say you believe your own lies and did not act out of malice. The bar for defamatory speech is set so high in the US that in effect lying is protected speech.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 5:46 AM    in reply to KennyBoy

It's not that the bar in law is set too high to censure lying, but it is the application that sets the bar high enough to make lying protected speech.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 10:10 AM    in reply to KennyBoy

Kenny does that apply here...isn't libel written defamation vs. speaking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 7:52 PM   

This is just so comical, but of course the right wing media does not point out the absurdity of the thin skinned repukes. They whine and blatantly lie and when called on it they threaten to sue for defamation, which is unavailable to a public figure like this fool, or they lie some more. Where is the media calling out this fool and pointing out that she and other repukes are unfit for the offices that they seek.

By the way, she f*cked her mother in the outhouse behind their house. She can sue me. I'll see her in court and I hope there is a winner gets attorneys fees statute in Pennsylvania. Please sue me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 8:01 PM   

why would this woman be offensive to todays republican voter?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 9:06 PM   

Far be it for me to defend a Republican, but, 500K to 20 million is quite a spread, you think?

I think some kind corroboration is in order.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 11:00 PM    in reply to chard

The person to corroborate is Bushanan: she's the "expert" in the situation, and she should know the amount -- except that she doesn't seem all that certain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 9:07 PM   

Far be it for me to defend a Republican, but, 500K to 20 million is quite a spread, you think?

I think some kind corroboration is in order.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 9:15 PM   

I live in Altmire's district and while I've been unhappy with some of the things that he's done (he seriously pissed me off with Health Care but so has the rest of the gov't so what's the difference, really) there is not a snowball's chance in a sauna that I will vote for Mary Beth Buchanan. The idea is absolutely ludicrous.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 11:13 PM   

There is no way they spent only $500K on Wechts prosecution. They spent years on it. $20million sounds like a lot of money but I would be shocked if they spent only $500K.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:00 AM    in reply to aikbay

Wecht had to spend a couple of million on his own legal fees fighting this. I saw him on TV say he would be working the rest of his life to pay his attorney fees. Then he said something about how much it was costing taxpayers. It was after he said this that she dropped the suit. STILL she got on TV and said she just knew he'd done something illegal. OK....???? What a disgrace to our system she is!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 11:48 PM   

I'm not sure where Dr. Wecht is getting his figure from, but if you go to the Wikipedia page for Buchanan you can see that "...the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law issued a subpoena for all documents related to the case of Dr. Cyril Wecht..."

I'm sure there was a LOT of time paid going over all that paperwork that led to the original 84 count inditment. Heck, the Dr. illegally charged the county $3.95 for faxes! Better lock him up soon.

Trial 1 ended in a mistrial. She wanted his head, so she was going for it all. However, "..in the end, Buchanan was forced to forgo a new trial and dismiss the remaining charges against Wecht due to the new judge overseeing the case tossing the majority of the government's evidence against Wecht.

In deciding to exclude the evidence, the judge referenced 4th amendement violations committed by Buchanan's office in the improper execution of the government's initial warrant to search Wecht's office.."

Oh yeah, the good ol' Buch DOJ.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 12:04 AM   

You just have to love a Bush Administration lackey accusing other people of lying—and claiming to know what their actions cost.

Truly an irony two-fer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 5:03 AM   

She's another one with that blank "nobody home" look in her eyes. I'd pick her for a Republican in a moment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 8:55 AM   

She and John Ashcroft went after Tommy Chong for selling glass 'bongs', which are legal to sell everywhere except 3 states; PA is one of those states. Watch the documentary on how they went after him. She's a joke-another Bachman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:40 AM   

LOL, thats what the bottom feeding blood sucking attorneys do best. Sue Sue Sue! What a joke.

Jess
www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 9:44 AM   

Mary Beth's responses reflect the Republican plan for the next election:
Obscure facts,
Conflate,
Attack anyone who attempts to use facts,
Attack anyone who questions your assertions.
The strategy is simply warmed over Bush/Rove.

One of the reasons it works so well is that the Democrats are fraid-y cats.

But, yeah, if it works, why not stay with it. The Repubs are winners (even at the expense of the public, but, yeah, the voters get ignored when they vote Democratic, too). I guess it gets down to theatre. The Republicans simply offer better theatre.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 12:43 PM   

If I'm understanding this post - Mary Beth, a former USAtty, is saying that someone being "flat out wrong" when reciting how much it cost gov to pursue a case, would allow HER to bring a defamation case?

Geez - that's what passes for talent in the Republican legal ranks? Seriously?

jeeminitly

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 19, 2010 4:30 PM   

"if you would shut up and let me talk".

Oh! the friendships that phrase hath cemented!

[and by 'cement' I mean 'shoes' and 'river', contextually]

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on