Re: Taking The Fifth

1

Wasn't it not approved because of the packaging or some such nonsense?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
2

From the Healthy Policy link, Crawford excluded Janet "sex cults" Woodcock from testifying? Is this like Pensacola Christian complaining that Bob Jones is too liberal?

Also, Woodcock. Heh.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
3

"testifying" s/b "participating in the approval process"


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
4

Was this the creepy anal sex enthusiast/rapist? Or am I thinking of another FDA appointee? Jesus. Can we go back to when it wasn't reasonable to think that everyone Bush has appointed is either insane, corrupt, or hiding some absolutely terrifying personal secret? Cause I'd like to have less of a crawly feeling whenever I read the news.

Man, if it is the same guy, the universe better fix it so he gets punched in the face by everyone he meets, forever.


Posted by: Moleman | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
5

amen. OTC should have been OTC so the fuck head pharmacists cant do shit.


Posted by: Sam | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
6

Creepy anal sex wife-raping FDA guy was David Hager.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
7

Can't keep your Bush appointees straight without a scorecard.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
8

I'm almost (but only almost) sad to hear that his pleading the 5th might have to do with a separate criminal investigation. Left as merely a refusal to explain himself, it would leave me able to believe that someone in the Administration might actually have a sense of shame.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
9

8 -- wouldn't he have to have threat of a criminal investigation, to take the 5th? I thought you couldn't do it in civil cases unless there was a risk of incriminating yourself in a criminal matter. But I ANAL and may be wrong.


Posted by: The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
10

But I ANAL and may be wrong.

If anal is wrong, I don't wanna be right.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
11

neither does David Hager, from the sound of it...


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
12

neither does David Hager, from the sound of it...


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
13

sorry about that... the wierd part there is that i only clicked "post" once...


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
14

Likely story.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
15

But we can't make it available over the counter! Because teenage girls might use it recreationally! It encourages promiscuity! Seeing their friends get knocked up and have babies and drop out of high school and live in poverty is important for the Moral Fiber of Our Children!


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
16

Making birth control difficult to acquire is all part of the conservative christian plot to encourage anal sex!


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
17

Because teenage girls might use it recreationally!

To be fair, it does pack a wicked awesome buzz.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
18

wouldn't he have to have threat of a criminal investigation, to take the 5th? I thought you couldn't do it in civil cases unless there was a risk of incriminating yourself in a criminal matter.

Yes, he would have to be afraid that his anwers might incriminate himself. btw, refusing to attend a deposition altogether on Fifth Amendment grounds is improper. There have to be some questions that he can answer without risk of incriminating himself. One isn't permitted to refuse to answer any and all questions on Fifth Amendment grounds. Then again, maybe he's a fugitive from justice, wanted for heinous crimes under his true name, so he doesn't want to set foot in a deposition, where the first thing he would have to respond to is, "Please state your name for the record."


Posted by: Frederick | Link to this comment | 05- 3-06 7:17 PM
horizontal rule