May 29, 2007
Steve Chapman runs down the lessons learned (so far) in the U.S. Attorneys mess.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"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. :-/
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.
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?
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?
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).
Chapman coughed up a lot of libertarian cred with that "Only guilty people plead the fifth", didn't he?
He sure did, R C.
I gotta say, I've been less than thrilled with most of Chapman's
columns.
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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245