Tell them you'd be happy to talk to them any time they want, at their convenience, at your office. Your secretary will provide coffee and pastries and they can ask as many questions as they want about anything they want. (Make sure the press knows about this "offer.")
But – and this is critcally important – besides not being put under oath, you also don't want a transcript made of your answers. Explain that you want the conversation to be open, frank and relaxed, and feel and that a transcriber would cause people to “pull their punches,” and stifle the kind “openness that can put all these groundless accusations to rest once and for all.”
The real reason, of course, is that the last thing you want is a transcript of your answers, since you know you're guilty and that it's almost certain your answers won't exactly jive with subsequently discovered “facts” and the testimony of others.
When such “contradictions” materialize – and you know they will -- you need to be able to “deny ever saying anything like that,” and be able to accuse your interrogators of “twisting” your words and “taking them out of context.” Without a certified transcript of your original testimony, they'll be screwed. (Better them than you.)
To review: - No oath means no perjury. - No transcript means not having to “amend” your earlier answers to fit newly revealed “facts.”
2) Seek refuge in “The Fuzz Zone.” If gambit #1 doesn't pan out, and you are forced to testify under oath, prepare well ahead of time. In particular spend some quality time with your attorney going over what “facts” are okay to remember and which you need to “forget.”
(Noteworthy: Since your attorney can never be forced to rat on you, this is one time during the process you need to break down and tell the truth. Your attorney can then help you decide which truths can free you and which will land you in the slammer should you “remember” them under questioning.)
But you must deploy this tactic selectively to avoid damaging your credibility.
For example, let's say you are asked this kind of question:
“How long have you served as (insert your job title or position here)?
Consider softball questions like that as an opportunity to prove your truthful nature by answering them honestly. Doing so will show that “you're not afraid of the truth.”
But, there are questions that you cannot answer truthfully without putting yourself in legal jeopardy.
For example, say you are confronted by a document key to the allegations against you:
“Your signature is on this document. Did you read it before you signed it?”
Here is where to dive for cover in the “Fuzz Zone.”
“Yes, that's my signiture. But I sign a lot of documents during any given day. Aides prepare them, bring them to me, provide me a summary of what they involve and, unless something raises a red flag, I sign them. Some times I read them, but often I do not. I just scan them and sign them. If I read every document put in front of me all day that's all I'd get done. In this regard, while that is my signature, I have no independent recollection of this document.”
The Fuzz Zone, you see, is where memory “fails” you. It's your ultimate legal redoubt, a safe place where you can lie under oath with near complete impunity.
When asked a question that requires forgetfulness you gain entry to the Fuzz Zone with answers like this:
“I have no particular recollection of that meeting.” “I don't recall that conversation.” “I have no independent recollection of that.” “I do not believe I said that.” “I don't recall making that remark.” “I have no memory of seeing that memo.”
Shouldering Responsibility without Shouldering Guilt If you were the head of an agency or organization at the time of the matter being investigated you can still enter the Fuzz Zone, but must do so with greater care. In particular you need to avoid answers that make it appear you are trying to avoid responsibility for things that happened under your command. When faced with a question where forgetfulness may lead to such suspicions, be proactive -- assume responsibility first, then “forget.”
Stephen Pizzo has been published everywhere from The New York Times to Mother Jones magazine. His book, Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, was nominated for a Pulitzer.
