Nudity Means Trouble for NSA Chief Clapper

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, is trying to avoid a federal perjury charge by saying that he gave the “least untruthful” answer to a question while under oath. “Least” is an adjective which modifies the noun “untruthful.” We in the law business call this kind of a defense a “confession.” Then he claimed that perhaps he understood the word “collection” in a way different from that understood by the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee. This won’t work either. One court has said:

“Hyper-technical parsing of ordinary English words and sentences has been rejected in prior cases. See, Matter of Fieger, 887 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. 2008) (discipline imposed for calculatedomissions on application for temporary admission); Smith v. Johnston, 711 N.E.2d 1259, 1264(Ind. 1999) (even if literally true, counsel’s affidavit created potential for misperception and wasthus prejudicial to administration of justice); Matter of Fletcher, 694 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind.1998) (although judge’s inquiries were not “perfectly phrased or formulated with pinpoint precision,” Court found respondent actively concealed facts from judge); Binder v.Benchwarmers Sports Lounge, 833 N.E.2d 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (even if technically correct,counsel’s statements were calculated to mislead opposing counsel). Respondent’s hide-and-seek approach to the RFAs [Requests for Admissions] reflects a gaming view of the legal system, which this Court has soundly rejected. See, Smith v. Johnston, 711 N.E.2d at 1264.”

I pulled this quote from an attorney discipline case in Indiana. An older partner had the hots for a law clerk who had been a minor actress. When she rebuffed his advances, he obtained a copy of one of her films, made a screenshot of a nude scene, and sent an e-mail around to her new employers and potential clients. In his defense, he claimed he suffered from depression. As if it made a difference, she claimed that she used a body double for the nude shots.

While the facts of this case have nothing to do with Director Clapper, the rejection of “hyper-technical parsing of ordinary English words” means trouble for him in case of an indictment. The statute of limitations is five years, by the way. Unless the lie was part and parcel of a conspiracy, in which case the statue is effectively unlimited.

I know another attorney who was accused of trying to humiliate his ex-wife by filing a lawsuit against her to recover sums she and her family fraudulently obtained from him. “If I was trying to humiliate her,” he said in defense, “I would have published her nude pictures on the Internet.” The complaint was dropped soon after.