5 ms·

"It sounds like Solicitor General Verrilli made a lie of omission in the court. Is that considered a lie under oath? " Actually, AFAIK, this is incorrect. I'm

"It sounds like Solicitor General Verrilli made a lie of omission in the court. Is that considered a lie under oath? " Actually, AFAIK, this is incorrect. I'm trying to find a later article i read a few days ago, but apparently Verrilli was not aware of any of this when he made statements at oral argument, and once he became aware, he fought a large internal fight to make sure his statements about giving defendants evidence stayed accurate. Ah, here we go. At least for the first part of what I said, see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/politics/us-legal-shift-may-open-door-for-challenge-to-secret-wiretaps.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/politics/us-legal-shift... "The move comes after an internal Justice Department debate in which Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. argued that there was no legal basis for a previous practice of not disclosing links to such surveillance, several Obama administration officials familiar with the deliberations said." (and about the oral argument prep failure here) "As a result, Mr. Verrilli sought an explanation from national security lawyers about why they had not flagged the issue when vetting his Supreme Court briefs and helping him practice for the arguments, according to officials." So A. It seems he wasn't aware B. Once he was aware, he put a stop to the practice. Now, this doesn't excuse any of what has happened here, but as far as anyone knows, he didn't intentionally mislead anyone. Note that unlike a lot of folks involved in all of this, Donald Verrilli is the least likely to be involved in anything hinky or lie to a court. He's a true believer in the system.

zaroth 13y ago
How else would you expect Verrelli to explain what happened once it became obvious what he told the Supreme Court was not true? It's the solicitor general's responsibility, as it is anyman's responsibility when testifying in court, to ensure his testimony is accurate. He didn't say, "as far as I know, this is what I think we might collect." The Government made a persuasive argument that collection was limited specifically to the extent required to dismiss the case. This was not an honest mistake, it was a material misrepresentation of fact. There is no plausible deniability here. I think it's appropriate to discuss what the ramifications should be, but it's naive to think Verrilli was not aware. I think it's also reasonable to question whether Chief Justice Roberts was also aware Verrilli was shoveling shit, seeing as how he appointed every judge currently serving on the FISA court.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "It's the solicitor general's responsibility, as it is anyman's responsibility when testifying in court, to ensure his testimony is accurate. " While true, i'm not sure what you expected him to do here. He asked and checked with his prosecutors. They told him they were doing something that they were in fact not doing. I guess I wouldn't expect the guy to personally check all of the many prosecutions here. There has to be some level of trust allowed for. At that point, I would just expect him to correct it if he was wrong. "I think it's appropriate to discuss what the ramifications should be, but it's naive to think Verrilli was not aware." So this i just flat out disagree with. You are basically calling him a liar who is covering his ass. Talking with people who know him quite well, i'm basically told he would never do such a thing, and that he did in fact, do what the article says. With all due respect to your opinion, i choose to believe them over you :) If that makes me naive, so be it. (FWIW: I certainly don't expect you to trust me on this, i'm just explaining why I hold the opinion I do)
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    > He asked and checked with his prosecutors. They told him they were doing something that they were in fact not doing. He is responsible for that. Either the individuals who induced him to commit perjury should be prosecuted, or, if he cannot reveal who those people are or is unwilling, then Verelli is just as guilty.
revelation 13y ago
There is a level of importance where "not being aware" or "not intentionally misleading" stops being acceptable. It simply doesn't matter if you lied intentionally or due to plain and simple incompetence.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  While i don't disagree that it matters, I also personally think it's a stretch to call this incompetence. It's like saying the president should know every detail of what individual FBI agents do on a daily basis. Essentially, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't have taken the same approach to preparing for argument that he did here.

zaroth 13y ago

How else would you expect Verrelli to explain what happened once it became obvious what he told the Supreme Court was not true? It's the solicitor general's responsibility, as it is anyman's responsibility when testifying in court, to ensure his testimony is accurate. He didn't say, "as far as I know, this is what I think we might collect." The Government made a persuasive argument that collection was limited specifically to the extent required to dismiss the case. This was not an honest mistake, it was a material misrepresentation of fact. There is no plausible deniability here. I think it's appropriate to discuss what the ramifications should be, but it's naive to think Verrilli was not aware. I think it's also reasonable to question whether Chief Justice Roberts was also aware Verrilli was shoveling shit, seeing as how he appointed every judge currently serving on the FISA court.

DannyBee 13y ago
"It's the solicitor general's responsibility, as it is anyman's responsibility when testifying in court, to ensure his testimony is accurate. " While true, i'm not sure what you expected him to do here. He asked and checked with his prosecutors. They told him they were doing something that they were in fact not doing. I guess I wouldn't expect the guy to personally check all of the many prosecutions here. There has to be some level of trust allowed for. At that point, I would just expect him to correct it if he was wrong. "I think it's appropriate to discuss what the ramifications should be, but it's naive to think Verrilli was not aware." So this i just flat out disagree with. You are basically calling him a liar who is covering his ass. Talking with people who know him quite well, i'm basically told he would never do such a thing, and that he did in fact, do what the article says. With all due respect to your opinion, i choose to believe them over you :) If that makes me naive, so be it. (FWIW: I certainly don't expect you to trust me on this, i'm just explaining why I hold the opinion I do)
- Zigurd 13y ago
  > He asked and checked with his prosecutors. They told him they were doing something that they were in fact not doing. He is responsible for that. Either the individuals who induced him to commit perjury should be prosecuted, or, if he cannot reveal who those people are or is unwilling, then Verelli is just as guilty.

revelation 13y ago

There is a level of importance where "not being aware" or "not intentionally misleading" stops being acceptable. It simply doesn't matter if you lied intentionally or due to plain and simple incompetence.

DannyBee 13y ago
While i don't disagree that it matters, I also personally think it's a stretch to call this incompetence. It's like saying the president should know every detail of what individual FBI agents do on a daily basis. Essentially, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't have taken the same approach to preparing for argument that he did here.