The WH Suborned Perjury in the Clarke Case

[stopbush]

It's simple - if the bushies had his manuscript AND had his 2002 intelligence briefing and knew that the two were in conflict with each other but didn't inform Clarke of the same and allowed him to give that false information to the 9/11 Commitee, then they (the WH) suborned perjury, which is a crime in and of itself:

From the Dept of Justice Website
1752 Subornation of Perjury

To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.

To secure a conviction for subornation of perjury, the perjury sought must actually have been committed. United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 376 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 124 (1995). The underlying perjury must be proved under the standards required by the applicable perjury statute. Thus, if section 1621 applies to the underlying perjury, the two witness rule must be met, but not if section 1623 applies to the underlying perjury. United States v. Gross, 511 F.2d 910, 915 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 (1975). Physical coercion need not be proven in prosecutions for subornation of perjury. United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 320 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 796 (1996). Conspiracy to suborn perjury may be prosecuted irrespective of whether perjury has been committed. The two witness rule does not apply in conspiracy prosecutions. Solicitation of perjured testimony also may be prosecuted as obstruction of justice irrespective of whether the perjured testimony took place. United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1395 (11th Cir. 1984).

Because the crime of subornation of perjury is distinct from that of perjury, the suborner and perjurer are not accomplices; however, a person who causes a false document to be introduced through an innocent witness can be held liable as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir. 1993).

The attorney's ethical obligations when confronted by a client who wishes to testify falsely are discussed at length in Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).

See this DOJ document:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01752.htm

[rock]

1. Interesting legal point that is brought up often on TV

No court member (lawyer or judge) may allow testimony that he knows is a lie. Nice take.

[sallyseven]

2. I just e-mailed

this to frist. That should make him get his shorts in a twist. I used a fake town and zip in Tenn. because they don't read mail from out of their district or their states. I have a zip code book and can get around that little piece of deception.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. In a nutshell, the WH wants Clarke to be convicted of perjury for lying to

Congress that the WH lied to them, to the 9-11 families, to the "American People", and to the world.

Hey, what about the fact that the WH STILL LIED?!!!! No conviction of perjury changes that major truth.

[Bandit]

4. Well they are back-pedaling in a hurry now

Some lawyer must have told them that this is something they don't really want to pursue. It is interesting though that since they have brought this up it is possible that someone may just follow the path you have layed out and pursue subornation of perjury charges against the Whitehouse. There would have to be Perjury in the first place though and I don't believe there is any grounds for such. I think the man told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[stopbush]

5. Exactly. The bushies are in a *lose-lose* situation on this. n/t

[bigendian]

6. Only problem is the political impact.

For the less astute, it is enough for the Republicans to seek to declassify information that they CLAIM will discredit Clarke.
I wager this is a ploy to discredit Clarke without actually proving he lied.
Info remains classified; they claim he perjured himself.
Info is declassified; nothing there but by this time no one but people like us are paying attention. Many will have the impression that he committed perjury. Facts are the enemy of this administration. Emotional manipulation is their forte.

[Spazito]

7. Bill Frist put the WH in a bigger no-win situation than they were in...

before. I suspect he was a loose cannon and did not check with anyone before his rant.

By saying and doing what he did and then backing off, he has now put the perjury charge front and center for the WH to answer. Condi and the other bootlickers have been on countless shows saying Clarke is lying, it is now time for them to put up or shut up.

Combine this spurious outburst by Frist with Condi's refusal to testify under oath and it becomes painfully obvious to anyone with one eye and half an a**hole that there is no credibility amongst any of them.

[Jim__]

8. I'm not sure that would be subornation of perjury

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm only guessing. But my understanding is that subornation of perjury is actively allowing perjury to be committed. In this case, it would seem that at the worst, the White House passively allowed it to occur - I wouldn't think that's subornation of perjury - but I'm not sure. It would be great if you're right. Do you have a background in law?

[stopbush]

9. I don't have a background in law. I've been involved in contract

negotiations in the music biz, so I have a deep interest and RESPECT for the legal under-pinnings of democracy. The subornation thing just sort of popped into my head yesterday...I probably watch too much TV.

I think that if the WH knew that Clarke was about to make false statements that they were legally bound to tell him in advance. You can probably throw out the 2002 intelligence briefing and concentrate solely on the contents of his book and the written testimony he provided to the 9/11 Commission. The WH had his book for months and probably had his written 9/11 testimony for days if not weeks. If they felt that there were gross inaccuracies in either, they should have red-flagged them and informed Clarke of the same, ie: "that my be your opinion, but we disagree...and we would certainly advise you not to say that under oath."

There could also be a case made that Clarke's 2002 testimony was indeed false, but that Clarke was inaccurate only because the WH gave him false or misleading info and told him he could present it as truth. In this case, I think Clarke would be totally innocent with the WH only a bad source and not involved in suborning perjury.

The other scenario is that both the WH and Clarke are being mendacious. In that instance, both would be clearly guilty of perjury (Clarke) and subornation of the same (the WH). My money would go on Clarke as being the innocent party here - after all, the WH has Ted Olson as their top legal adviser, and he isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the car lot. I'm sure there are plenty of angles he failed to think about before allowing the WH minions to get out and publicly air their conflicting stories.

Of course, the Devil will be in the details. Clarke could have made erroneous statements in 2002 that weren't technically lies for any number of reasons. We know that this WH "doesn't do nuance," and this will be their downfall. Shooting from the hip is one thing when the target is fish in a barrel. It's quite another thing when you're facing down the fastest-gun-in-the-West at 100 paces.

I'm afraid the Jr High-Schoolers in charge of the WH have opened Pandora's Box with this one.