From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:16:47 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:16:47 EDT
> > Let me explain it to you. Im a lawyer. When I appear as an expert
> > witness I still carry the higher ethical responsibility of a lawyer,.
> > I have an ethical responsibility not to in any way mislead the court
> > even by an incomplete answer that is not lying or perjury. If I
> > mislead the court I can be and should be disbarred.
> > There is no question clinton was evasive in an attempt to mislead the
> > court. This was clearly unethical and he was disbarred for it. But
> > the ethical standard for attorneys is a higher standard than the
> > legal standard for perjury. .
> > Vincent Brannigan
> > Attorney
> > Admitted to practice law Md 1975, DC 1977
> Because some prosecutor does not bring formal charges hardly means that
> someone did not commit a crime.
I asked if that was the claim being made one option was
1) he committed perjury , but got a plea bargain
> Looking in the legal dictionary it says
> "PERJURY Criminal offense of making false statements under oath or
> 18 USC 1621
> Whoever -
> (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
> or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
> authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
> declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
> declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
> true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes
> any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
Did you see that word "material" ?? that is the critical phrase
> (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
> under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title
> 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material
the little word "material" appears again
> matter which he does not believe to be true;
> is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly
> provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
> than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
> statement or subscription is made within or without the United
> And here in Georgia
> O.C.G.A. 16-10-70.
> (a) A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been
> administered commits the offense of perjury when, in a judicial
> proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement
see it again?
> The fact that he was not criminally charged and was instead given "other
> choices" does not change the fact that he committed a crime.
> After taking an oath, he gave a statement, A SWORN statement, about a
> material fact
Wh says it was material
> in a lawsuit. A statement he later admitted was not true.
no, he admitted was misleading
> First he said he didn't have sexual relations then he did.
> Call it what you want he lied under oath.
> I have handled 100's of criminal cases where the charges were not brought,
> or went away with NO PLEA OF GUILT or ANY ADMISSION, in exchange for actions
> or agreements on my clients part. That doesn't change the fact that they
> committed a crime. The prosecutor decided that was the best way to handle
Since you are an attorney, you well understand teh need for materiality. you
also understand that If the prosecution has the evidence to convict a perosn of
a crime, they either go forward with a case adn get a convision or they don't .
it is unethical for a prosecutor to make a unilateral declaration that a pweron
has committed a crime when there has been no plea or conviction.
> Oh I am sure that there are those in the current administration guilty of
> some wrong doing. But like I tell my clients, it doesn't matter what
> anybody else does, the issue is still whether you did something or not.
No, actually the issue is whehter they can prove you did it. that is what makes
a perosn gulty of a crime.
> the answer is Bill Clinton committed perjury, he lied under oath.
No the answer is the prosecutor ahd an opportunity and all the evidence to
accuse bill clinton of perjury and declined. It wqas his call and ther eis not
the slightest evidence that he was corruptly influenced. the Difficulty of
proving the materiality of the statement or that it was known to be false and
that the question was asked precisely enouhg to bring the case may have
inflluenced the the prosecutor. Under your analyssi a peosn can be acquitted of
the crime and you would still be able to claim they were guilty. Since the
prosecutor unilaterally controls whehter the case is brought your approach would
> Its not
> even about what he did, its about lying about it under oath.
that he mislead the court is clear and for that he was disbarred.
> With the
> ratings he had and his MTV voters wanting to know boxer or briefs, if he had
> just said, I was weak, I am sorry, I had sexual relations with that woman
> and I was wrong, it would have run on the news about a week and a half and
> it would have been over.
It woudl have been politiclaly more smart. But it is stillnto clear that the
quesiton was phrased with the precison required, or the materiality demanded of
a perjury conviction. He would have in fact been better off refusing to answer
on the groudns of immateriality and I believe he would have been upheld.