“As the person in charge I take full responsibility for what happened. It was my responsibility to make sure such things don't happen, they did anyway, and I take responsibility for that. As soon as I became aware of this I took steps to assure they never happen again. But, having said that, I have no independent recollection of personally having anything to do with the events (meetings, memos, emails, orders, statements, etc) you mention.”
Terms like “no independent recollection” are particularly useful when the questions center on matters in which you suspect confirming evidence may exist or is likely to surface later in the investigation.
When confronted with proof of prior knowledge, you can go back to your original answer;
“I believe I testified that I had no independent knowledge. Of course, at some point I learned about it by reading of it or being told about by others. But until then, as I testified under oath earlier, I had no independent -- that is personal -- knowledge of the matter.”
If asked who told you, you reply, “I don't recall.” If you want to get fancy you can throw that question back at the questioner;
“But if you know you know and can refresh my memory on that maybe we can move past this issue.”
Such a reply, while appearing pretty checky under the circumstances, is actually a safe gambit, since you know that no one told you, that you knew all along – something your questioner can't prove.
How sweet is that? “I don't recall” -- the lie that cannot be proven. No one can look inside your head and prove or disprove the state of your memory. So say it as often as you must to keep your ass out of jail -- “I don't recall.” It's a dodge that, while it may wear thin with prosecutors, is the gift that keeps giving for the guilty.
3) The “You know I am precluded from answering...” Gambit This technique only works if you can credibly claim to be in possession of state secrets or privileged executive matters.
When using this technique it is extremely important that you appear “pained” that you cannot simply answer the question. As you “struggle” with your response be sure to insinuate that your answer, were you free to provide it, would fully support your claim of innocence.
“Sir, there is nothing I would love more than to answer that question. But, as you know, I am legally precluded from doing so.”
This technique, if properly deployed, not only protects inconvenient truths, but can recast you from suspected perp to hostage of circumstances beyond your control. (“If only I were free to answer...”)
A variant on this gambit is the “I can't answer that because it involves a matter that part of a pending investigation,” technique. This can be used by those of you involved some way in law enforcement or law enforcement agencies.
There are two “pending investigation” dodges.
1) “I can't discuss anything that's currently under investigation.' 2) “That's a part of a matter from which I am recused.
Those of you working in law enforcement, including the Dept of Justice, are in a prime position to employ this technique to your benefit. If you have prior knowledge that someone is fixing to put you under oath about something you'd prefer not being asked under oath, simply open an internal “investigation” into the matter. If that isn't enough, recuse yourself from that investigation too. Now you've erected two firewalls between having to decide whether to tell the truth and go jail, or commit perjury and go to jail.
4)Taking the Fifth This is your last-resort gambit. When someone refuses to answer, “because it may incriminate me,” it's a surefire way to appear guilty as sin. So, use this gambit only when techniques 1 through 3 are unavailable to you.
Such circumstances may include:
When hard evidence has already been presented that proves you did it.
When your co-conspirators up the chain of command warn you that any reduced punishment you might negotiate in return for your testimony against them, will pale in comparison to what they'll do to you when they they get their hands on you.
When your co-conspirators up the chain of command can credibly assure you that you'll be “taken care of” in return for your silence.
One final rule of thumb to keep in mind. The old saying, “The truth shall set you free,” is misleading as it ONLY applies when the “particulars” of your case allow it.
Sometimes the truth will NOT set you free, quite the opposite. In such circumstances you need to avoid telling the truth as though your freedom depends on it... which it likely does.
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.
