-Caveat Lector-
>From NYTimes Op-Ed page:
December 28, 1998
The Perjury Precedent
By STEPHEN GILLERS
P resident Clinton lied. He must admit it. No respectable Senate
deal is possible unless he does, no matter how hard that may be.
Everything he did was legal, the President has insisted, because
his private definition of critical words -- "is," "alone," "sexual
relationship," whatever -- transformed his misleading answers into
literal truth. Too bad, he says, if his questioners were fooled.
That is just how the justice system works.
This is nonsense, but it's dangerous nonsense. "Don't try this at
home" should flash across the screen during broadcasts of the
President's testimony. Each year, tens of thousands of Americans
give sworn statements in court and depositions. If they follow Mr.
Clinton's example, they're buying trouble. The law of perjury is
not so simplistic that it will excuse a misleading answer just
because it is literally true.
Ask Robert DeZarn, the former Adjutant General of the Kentucky
National Guard. The Army's inspector general was investigating
whether contributions to a Kentucky gubernatorial campaign
improperly influenced appointments to the Kentucky National Guard.
The fund-raising allegedly occurred at a party held at the home of
Billy Wellman, a former Guard officer, in 1990. The investigation
of the party was big news in Kentucky. But the investigators
mistakenly asked Mr. DeZarn whether he had attended a party at Mr.
Wellman's home "in 1991," not 1990, and the witness, who was under
oath, took advantage of their error.
"Yes," he replied.
"O.K. Sir, was that a political fund-raising activity?"
"Absolutely not."
The Justice Department indicted Mr. DeZarn for perjury and proved
he had attended the fund-raiser in 1990. The jury convicted him,
and the judge imposed a 15-month prison term after concluding that
Mr. DeZarn told new lies about his old lies at the trial. On
appeal, Mr. DeZarn argued that because Mr. Wellman also had a party
in 1991, which was not a fund-raiser, his answer was literally true
and therefore not perjury. He relied on the same 1973 Supreme Court
decision that the President's lawyers repeatedly cite.
But in October, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
affirmed the conviction and sentence. In the 1973 case, it ruled,
the witness's literally true answer was "nonresponsive." He ignored
the question entirely, which should have alerted the questioner.
Mr. DeZarn, by contrast, gave responsive and "categorical answers
to questions" in order to mislead.
The court wrote: "A perjury inquiry which focuses only upon the
precision of the question and ignores what the defendant knew about
the subject matter of the question at the time it was asked, misses
the very point of perjury, that is, the defendant's intent to
testify falsely and, thereby, mislead his interrogators. Such a
limited inquiry would not only undermine the perjury laws, it would
undermine the rule of law as a whole."
Mr. DeZarn knew that the investigators were really asking about
1990, not 1991, so his literally true but "contextually false" and
misleading answer was perjury.
The lesson of the DeZarn case can be applied to many of Mr.
Clinton's sworn answers. For example, at his deposition in January,
he was asked if he was ever "alone" with Monica Lewinsky "in any
room in the White House." Like Mr. DeZarn, the President well knew
the purpose of this question. His "categorical answer" denied any
"specific recollection" of having been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. How
can that be, especially since one meeting had occurred only three
weeks earlier?
Mr. Clinton, it turns out, had his own definition for "alone." As
he later explained to the grand jury, other "people could hear" or
even "come in and out at will if they were around . . . so there
were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought
we were." The President had no "specific recollection" of being
alone with Ms. Lewinsky because he didn't know who was around at
any particular time or what it "really" meant to be "alone."
Mr. Clinton's answers were "contextually false" and intended to
mislead, even if we generously assume they were literally true.
This is perjury. The United States convicted Mr. DeZarn for the
same conduct. By insisting his answers were legal, the President
endangers those who think they may copy him. They can't. Making
that clear is an indispensable ingredient in any honorable Senate
compromise.
Stephen Gillers is a professor of legal ethics at New York
University.
_________________________________________________________________
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business
| Technology | Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts |
Automobiles | Books | Diversions | Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today
Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
