Re: Perjury and Lying
Just out of curiosity -- did anyone here read the Clinton Administration's rebuttal of Starr's charges, most specifically, of the charges of perjury (Chapter VII)? I rather doubt it, since even most Democrats criticized the rebuttal as too "legalistic."
It certainly makes for dry reading. But I think that Chapter VII, at least, is worth perusing, for an understanding of why what looks to us like bald-face lying is often not considered to constitute perjury in the courts. Perjury, after all, is a legal category, not a moral one. Chapter VII is, basically, a summary of case studies. Here is an illuminating example, which follows a lengthy discussion of the precedent-setting United States vs. Bronston case.
..In United States v. Earp, 812 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1987), the defendant, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, had stood guard during the attempted burning of a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple, and further evidence demonstrated that he had personally engaged in other attempts to burn crosses. During questioning before a grand jury, however, he denied every having burned crosses on anyone's lawn. He was convicted of perjury, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed his conviction, because "like the witness in Bronston, [the defendant's] answers were literally true although his second answer was unresponsive. " Id. at 919. That is, the defendant had not actually succeeded in his cross-buring attempts, so it was literally true that he had never burned crosses on anyone's lawn.The court noted that "while he no doubt knew full well that he had on that occasion tried to burn a cross, he was not specifically asked either about any attempted cross burnings." Literally every federal court of appeals in the nation concurs in this reading of Bronston.
dc.net.
Now, I am no lawyer, but Clinton is. And, to take only one example, I think that Clinton's stress on his use of the word "is", which has provoked so much merriment throughout the land, may in fact help save him against the charge of perjury, given the Bronston precedent.
(By the way, although I have the Clinton rebuttal in my bookmarks, I have just noticed that when I click on the URL as cited in my post, I get "Object Not Found." ??? If anyone is interested, I will try to find a URL that works.)
jbe
|
