Perjury: just a "technicality"

The Coffee Shop
22

Question for the Legal Beagles of the forum…

Scenario A: I make an affirmative statement that is factually false under oath before a Grand Jury. The fact of the falsehood is later revealed.

“At the time of the murder (in New York) I am certain that I was in Los Angeles.” – “Oh, okay, I really was in New York after all.”

is this perjury? Does it matter whether I reveal the falsehood myself or whether it is discovered by opposing counsel?

Scenario B: I claim that I do not recall that an event occurred. I later claim to remember the event.

“I don’t remember wearing my tweed jacket that night.” – later: “Oh, yeah, I did wear my tweed jacket because it was unusually cool that night!”.

Is this perjury? Does the intent behind the earlier “non-recollection” factor in? Does it matter whether the “aha!” is spontaneous or forced by contrary evidence?

Not saying either of these parallel the Clinton/Rove cases. Just pondering whether or not there is any wiggle room in Perjury law to account for the genuine fallability of the human mind.

FWIW, Clinton should have just told the truth about Monica. It was tenuously relevant at best to the case against him, he could easily have spun it as a “mistake of passion” to the public, and he would not have given the opposition a genuine crime to hang him over.

And just to keep the “waffle” iron hot, I’ll even note that based on the excerpt Tyrius quoted, one could argue that Clinton didn’t lie based on the definitions fed to him by his lawyers. One could argue that, but it’s clear that his actions would likely have gotten him fired and possibly his butt sued off at any private company around here. I doubt his lawyers’ definitions would help me much were I in a similar scenario and being tried by anyone other than a Senate up for reelection…

23

Question So the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined … by the court?

How were sexual relations defined by the court?

24

Ken,

Of course there is a difference between lying to the american people on TV and lying to a grand jury. One is a lie the other is a crime. But keep in mind that people are mistaken in their testimony all the time. Dates and conversations are particularly difficult to recall and particularly where someone is trying to recall the first time they heard or discussed something. Testimony can be mistaken and wrong without being perjurious. Similarly a statement can be mistaken and wrong without being a lie. The difficulty is trying to determine if someone’s testimony was simply mistaken or perjurious. Thus, you look to the significance of the mistaken recollection and whether there is a strong motive for testifying falsely. Where the mistaken recollection is significant and there is a strong motivation for false testimony, perjury is more likely than mistaken recollection.

25

Just to stir the waters, is there a difference between:

Clinton: “I. Did. Not. Have. Sexual. Relations. With. That. Woman” – later: “(sob) I’m sorry. (sob) I lied about that. (sob)” Public statements.

Rove: “I don’t remember meeting with so-and-so.” – later: “Oh yes, I do remember meeting with him.” Grand jury testimony.

Understood. I don’t have the actual G.J. testimony handy for Clinton. Am I mistaken that he did not make equivalent comments while under oath?
I was replying to your post. I understand that Clinton committed perjury. If you really don’t see any difference between the content and significance of the statements by Clinton and Rove, I can’t help you.

26

FWIW, Clinton should have just told the truth about Monica. It was tenuously relevant at best to the case against him, he could easily have spun it as a “mistake of passion” to the public, and he would not have given the opposition a genuine crime to hang him over.

Of course. It’s the cover-up that kills you, not the crime (paraphrasing Nixon?).

27

Read the link, there is more info there and not just on that singular issue. They pointed out other “inconcistencies” with his two testimonies.

I’m not going to opine on how the court defined “sexual relations”. I’d have to look through the proceedings to figure it out and I don’t have time to read the whole thing right now.

28

Just to stir the waters, is there a difference between:

Clinton: “I. Did. Not. Have. Sexual. Relations. With. That. Woman” – later: “(sob) I’m sorry. (sob) I lied about that. (sob)” Public statements.

Rove: “I don’t remember meeting with so-and-so.” – later: “Oh yes, I do remember meeting with him.” Grand jury testimony.

Understood. I don’t have the actual G.J. testimony handy for Clinton. Am I mistaken that he did not make equivalent comments while under oath?
I was replying to your post. I understand that Clinton committed perjury. If you really don’t see any difference between the content and significance of the statements by Clinton and Rove, I can’t help you.

==========

I do see the difference in content and significance, but I’m just not sure whether the nature of the “lie” in question matters when discussing perjury (see my other hypothetical post).

I’m working on not-enough-information on Rove. Clinton’s case is easy. He made a factually false assertion, akin to saying “the sky is green.” In the Rove case, I’m not sure whether not remembering something, then remembering it later constitutes perjury ASSUMING he genuinely didn’t remember (also assuming that’s even the question).

Now, as to the question of whether the topic of the lie (sex with an intern vs. discussing outing a CIA agent) is more significant… well, Clinton might have run afoul of various sexual harassment laws. Rove might be running afoul of espionage laws, and possibly getting folks killed. IF the discussion in question actually factored in to her “outing”. Clearly getting folks killed is a bigger deal than illicit sex (assuming the illicit sex didn’t also get folks killed, but I won’t go there).

Neither is relevant to the perjury charge.

If atg is right, and she’d already been outed by someone else, then the significance of the topic of Rove diminishes considerably. Likewise, if the Clinton sex was consensual, then the possibility of it being harassment diminshes considerably.

Still not relevant to the perjury charge.

29

I read the link, and my reaction was pretty much: meh…

It’s clear he was trying to use as many legal technicailities to avoid having to reveal his affair, and of course being a vague as possible. Did he perjure himself? Nothing in that link looks that blatant to me, and he wasn’t convicted in the end. Compare to a situation where Libby claims he learned of Plame from reporters, when in fact he learned it from Cheney and then fed it to reporters. Not only is that a baldfaced lie, it speaks to his motivations for revealing Plame’s name in the first place.

30

Well I guess Clinton’s memory either really sucks or he was lying through his teeth in answering this question on Jan 17:

Question At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?
Answer I don’t recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they’d bring me things on the weekends.

Then on August 17 he answered slightly differently:

Aug. 17
Clinton read a statement to the grand jury that said in part: “When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997 I engaged in conduct that was wrong.” In addition, Clinton admitted that he had been alone with Lewinsky on Dec. 28, 1997, just three weeks before his Jan. 17 deposition.

I guess 3 weeks is a long time to remember whether or not you were alone with someone much less when you were probably getting head at the time.

And yes, I agree wtih you that it’s looking pretty clear that Libby lied too. I’m not blaming one person to protect another. I just don’t understand how you can look at one and say “meh…” and look at the other and say it is a “baldfaced lie”.

31

Reading the entire section, not just the part you selectively quote makes me say meh. A baldfaced lie would have been Clinton saying “no, we were never alone”

32

"Who, it was proven, was already “outed.” So what? "

C’mon ATG, you know better. There’s all sorts of info that is classified that you can find in open sources. That doesn’t make it alright to divulge it if you know it or should have known it to be classified.

33

Not to mention that “known to the KGB” doesn’t mean “open sources”.

34

c’mon guys. cut it out. this thread is about Clinton. Just like the threads about WMD, Harriet Meirs, Social Security, cocaine abuse, FEMA, Haliburton and mischevious college girls.

Bush is having problems in these areas because clinton lied (YES, LIED) about getting his knob polished by a corpulent intern. Had Clinton just stood up, admitted that got hummed by someone even uglier than his wife, the country would not be in the position it presently is.

Had Clinton just come clean with the Grand Jury, Bush’s Approval rating would not be around 28%. He would be much more liked and respected.

If Clinton would have just admitted that he diddled Paula Jones, Senator Frist wouldn’t be dealing with sorting out his current problems with the SEC.

If Clinton would have been more forthright about Whitewater, Tom Delay would never have fallen in with those nasty people in Texas and Florida. And he would not be presently indicted and awaiting trial.

The crap that is going wrong in this country is completely the fault of Bill Clinton. The Big SATAN.

Quit trying to change the subject.

35

Well honestly, if you can’t look at the situation and say that he lied and committed perjury then I think you lose all credibility in this discussion.

36

LIAR!

Hillary is way uglier than Monica
.

37

**Nonsense, and we’ve already been over this. The CIA suspected that Ames had leaked her name to the Russians, but her identity wasn’t publically known. Rove/Libby’s leak not only exposed her, but also revealed the “company” she worked for prior to being reassigned (supposedly to the State Dept.) as a CIA front.

As you said we have been over this and I am convinced of two things.

1.) Valerie Plame was not a covert agent at the time and was not for the previous five years and revealing her name was not a crime. The previous five years is key to the assumed violation of the law. Sorry, but being a desk jockey at the CIA doesn’t qualify you to be the next James Bond. Besides, there is evidence to suggest her identity was an open secret.

2.) Given #1, telling someone her name was not a crime. So Rove, Libby, Cheney or anyone else you want to hang, are off the hook. So much for that.

38

1.) Valerie Plame was not a covert agent at the time and was not for the previous five years and revealing her name was not a crime. The previous five years is key to the assumed violation of the law. Sorry, but being a desk jockey at the CIA doesn’t qualify you to be the next James Bond. Besides, there is evidence to suggest her identity was an open secret.

Plame was still undercover, her cover was a State Dept desk job. Her identify as a CIA agent was CLASSIFIED. And your last sentence is patently false.

2.) Given #1, telling someone her name was not a crime. So Rove, Libby, Cheney or anyone else you want to hang, are off the hook. So much for that.

Good to know you’re so much smarter than the special prosecutor…oh wait, you aren’t. So much for that.

39

Plame was still undercover, her cover was a State Dept desk job. Her identify as a CIA agent was CLASSIFIED. And your last sentence is patently false.

Sorry big boy but YOU are flat wrong. You know not from which you speak. Nice try though.

Good to know you’re so much smarter than the special prosecutor…oh wait, you aren’t.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere?

40

Well honestly, if you can’t look at the situation and say that he lied and committed perjury then I think you lose all credibility in this discussion.

Come on, you and I both know that Clinton was being evasive when he said it was possible that he and Lewinsky were alone together but he didnt remember (and when he says that with Curie in the adjoining office he didnt consider that “alone”) But in order for it to be perjury it was to be a direct lie (I wasn’t alone with her) and it had to have material bearing onthe Paula Jones case (which I’m not convinced it did).

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonaloneperjury.html

41

Sorry big boy but YOU are flat wrong. You know not from which you speak. Nice try though.

Nice refutation… I like the way you back it up with facts.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere?

Dont flatter yourself. It just amazes me that stupid partisan hacks can dismiss this whole affair in 20 seconds. If it were that obvious, there wouldn’t have been a 2 year investigation.