peanuts take the 5th

It makes me wonder if anyone thought about possible conflicts of interests at the time, because apparently this guy was a Bush administration appointee to the USDA panel charged with overseeing the quality and safety of peanut products.


Usually I stand by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I found my principles overruled after I saw this

He even used the 5th to refuse to eat his own brand of peanut butter

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...40974#29140974

There may be an advert before the video.

These sorts of monkey trials are infuriating for several reasons.

First of all, everybody- and this includes the questioners as well as the questioned- absolutely knows ahead of time that not a single question will be answered.
Especially in a case (like this one) where criminal prosecution is likely, any competent attorney (or even an avid watcher of L&O) will advise the client to take the Fifth.
It's not only standard procedure but really the only sane legal advice.

Secondly, knowing ahead of time (as they certainly do) that the respondents are going to be "perp-walked" through the invocation of the Fifth, the questioners are free to craft inquiries designed to portray the subjects as ruthless and callow criminals...which they very well may be.
It's the legislative equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

Finally, this is all much ado about nothing.
Even if Parnell admitted outright that he knowingly shipped contaminated product, that panel has no jurisdiction to do anything about it.
Not a single thing they could do.
Complete waste of time and outrage.
Posturing for the constituents, nothing more.

Parnell will get what's coming to him- not as quickly or finally as in China, perhaps- but these proceedings won't have anything to do with it.

I led with the conflict of interest issue, which is what I hope this "monkey trial" highlights. People that have a personal stake in a certain field don't make impartial candidates to be part of the government oversight of said interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

I led with the conflict of interest issue, which is what I hope this "monkey trial" highlights. People that have a personal stake in a certain field don't make impartial candidates to be part of the government oversight of said interest.

---

You mean like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd?

What personal interests are you talking about with the two you chose?
While elected people differ slightly from appointed people ALL elected officials and appointees should recuse themselves when conflicts of interest crop up, no exceptions.

This will be the answer to every question you raise involving actual conflict of interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

What personal interests are you talking about with the two you chose?
While elected people differ slightly from appointed people ALL elected officials and appointees should recuse themselves when conflicts of interest crop up, no exceptions.

This will be the answer to every question you raise involving actual conflict of interest.

---

Apparently you gave the Fannie/Freddie/Senate Banking Committee/bailout go 'round a miss.

If I need to explain all that to you, then you've no business responding, even though it is your thread.

In fact, I've thought better of it - forget I even posted.

Carry on, peanuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Apparently you gave the Fannie/Freddie/Senate Banking Committee/bailout go 'round a miss.

If I need to explain all that to you, then you've no business responding, even though it is your thread.

In fact, I've thought better of it - forget I even posted.

Carry on, peanuts.

---

While elected people differ slightly from appointed people ALL elected officials and appointees should recuse themselves when conflicts of interest crop up, no exceptions.