Law school time: Perjury vs. lying to the court

This 3 minute video shows a defendant had made false statements to the court in a defamation lawsuit. Alex Jones lied under oath in a deposition about what was on his cell phone. Jones falsely denied under oath that there was any content related to Sandy Hook on his phone. But no one could know that until his attorney accidentally sent the contents of his cell phone to the attorney hired to sue him for defamation about the Sandy Hook mass school shooting in 2012. Jones lied about the mass shooting many times in his radio broadcasts and in person in public. He finally got sued for defamation for his lies. Jones called Sandy Hook a deep state hoax. He falsely said that the murdered children were crisis actors and still alive.[1] 

In theory, lying to the court while under oath is a crime. In practice, lying or false statements to the court is almost completely ignored (maybe ~99.9999% of the time [~1 in a million]). When lying to the court is discovered, it is usually ignored because evidence standards are hard to meet. Liars always claim they didn't mean what they said or were unaware of what their words meant or didn't know that their statement was false or did not say what they said, or their lie didn't affect the outcome of a civil or criminal lawsuit.  

One source comments on perjury:

Perjury, or lying under oath in court, is often called “the forgotten offense” because it is not only widespread, but rarely prosecuted, especially in America, where it’s been a crime since 1790. According to an article from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, prosecutions for perjury have traditionally been rare, with only 335 criminal cases total from 1966 to 1970.

Most commentators attribute the absence of indictments and convictions for perjury to the highly technical nature of the offense. They point to problems in drafting indictments, in proving materiality of the alleged false testimony and in meeting the stringent evidentiary rules.

But a false statement by itself is not quite perjury—it has to affect the issue at hand, and people are usually not convicted for false statements that don’t influence the court.

That last highlighted bit is a potent shield that protects defendants from liability for lying under oath. The line between a false statement and the crime of perjury is often blurry. The shield in perjury ranks right up there with the power of plausible deniability to protect lawbreakers, especially white collar criminals accused of complex crimes. 

The broader significance for demagogues and elite criminals: 

Difficulty proving perjury + plausible deniability + presumption of innocence

= weak rule of law

The point of this post is not mostly about Jones. His situation exemplifies a far more important and broader point. Lying is common in politics, commerce, religion, society and just about everywhere else. It is very rarely a crime. Sophisticated liars know this. The rarity of penalties for lying constitutes a rationale for lying and feeling no moral qualm about it. 

That is why: 

• Our constantly lying, treasonous ex-president published a book where he proudly proclaimed that he employed “truthful hyperbole” in his business dealings. Because there is no punishment, a businessperson can easily believe that lies are just truthful hyperbole because they do not rise to the level of a punishable effect in a business deal. Lies are legal. Everything legal is sanctioned by society.
• In a recent conversation between Matt Gaetz and Roger Stone, these comments were recorded: “Well, you’re a bullshit artist, not a liar,” Gaetz said. “Correct,” Stone said. “There’s a big difference.”  

What is the difference between bullshit and lies? Usually little or none. But in the minds of Gaetz and Stone, there is a significant difference of some sort. For Gaetz and Stone, bullshit is OK, but lies are less OK to some unknowable degree for some reason(s) that is unclear to me. Maybe it mostly boils down to how people like Gaetz, Stone and the ex-president define lies to favor their own rotten agendas. 

In the case of the ex-president’s business dealings, one can begin to see how difficult it would be to prosecute for tax evasion. He overstates his net worth to get bank loans, but understates the value of his properties to minimize his taxes. It is a win-win for him. 

When one couples lies with plausible deniability and the legal presumption of innocence as tactics in politics or business, one can see how a sophisticated demagogue or a criminal can get away with a hell of a lot of illegal behavior. The courts are simply unable to reach most if it for lack of evidence.

In essence, the rule of law has come to be mostly a protective shield for elite demagogues and criminals, while being a sword for most everyone else. Maybe it always was that way. This points to a basis for sociologist Brooke Harrington’s observation about wealthy people and the law: 

“The lives of the richest people in the world are so different from those of the rest of us, it's almost literally unimaginable. National borders are nothing to them. They might as well not exist. The laws are nothing to them. They might as well not exist.”

Footnote: 

1. In addition to lying about his cell phone, Jones had also testified under oath that his business operations were being deplatformed and he was not getting much revenue. That was another lie. During some of the time he claimed poverty, his businesses were taking in over $800,000/day. When Jones lies, he lays out some real whoppers.