New at Reason

May 29, 2007

Steve Chapman runs down the lessons learned (so far) in the U.S. Attorneys mess.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← I Have Tape On My Mouth… | Main | Kentucky Fried Creationism →

See all 9 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Norm|5.29.07 @ 12:02AM|#

"Innocent people who are prepared to tell the truth don't take the Fifth."

Er... really? I agree that it's suspicious for someone who has been granted immunity to take the Fifth, but taking the Fifth on its own isn't necessarily an indication of anything except a person declaring their right under the Constitution.

Perhaps the author meant to say, "People who have been granted immunity don't take the Fifth." I'm not defending Goodling's behavior (or that of her superiors), but I thought the sentence above was just ... odd.

Maybe I just read it wrong five or six times and on the seventh or eighth reading it will make more sense. :-/

|5.29.07 @ 6:55AM|#

Here's a good rule of thumb: Innocent people who are prepared to tell the truth don't take the Fifth.

People also take the fifth if they believe there's a witch hunt or if the events in question were so long ago they are difficult to remember. The Justice Department may be at fault here, but let's not generalize about all people who take the 5th.

|5.29.07 @ 7:20AM|#

Here's a good rule of thumb: Innocent people who are prepared to tell the truth don't take the Fifth.

Gonna start working for the Giuliani campaign anytime soon, Steve?

Fluffy|5.29.07 @ 8:44AM|#

I think that we don't have to assume that Goodling's quest to staff the Justice Department with clones of herself began at the suggestion of the White House.

After all, it's the reason her law school exists. Her entire legal career is part of a wider movement that makes no bones about the fact that it intends to subvert the Constitution using a decades-long plan to infiltrate the legal system. They're quite open at Liberty and Regent that their intent is to people the justice system with lawyers and judges that will see nothing in the Constitution preventing the burning of witches.

Why can't we just as easily assume that Goodling was just doing as she had always planned?

Caging|5.29.07 @ 11:46AM|#

BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast explains the crime behind the scandal. It's much, much worse than Watergate: http://www.gregpalast.com

The BBC has been broadcasting this information since 2004, but no major American media outlets will touch it. It helps to keep in mind that in the UK, libel/slander laws are much stricter than in the US (i.e. It's a legit story).

|5.29.07 @ 1:46PM|#

Chapman coughed up a lot of libertarian cred with that "Only guilty people plead the fifth", didn't he?

thoreau|5.29.07 @ 2:53PM|#

He sure did, R C.

I gotta say, I've been less than thrilled with most of Chapman's columns.

|5.31.07 @ 11:20PM|#

"I am not a crook!"

EJHammer|6.3.07 @ 3:46PM|#

What has not been clearly explained at any point is why this is such a scandal. The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so he can fire them for whatever reason, or for none at all. I am not saying he should have, but it was not outside of his powers to do so. If I recall, Clinton did the same thing.