Lying isn’t what it used to be

[Valin]

Power Line:

Paul Mirengoff

February 7, 2015

 

Lying used to be an offense that caused people to stop trusting and believing you. Now, it’s a “mistake” that’s to be weighed against the liar’s virtues before deciding if he is to be trusted.

 

I noticed this in my law practice. When I first started out, you hit the litigation jackpot if you could show that the opposing party had lied about any semi-material fact. If you showed this in the pre-trial stages, opposing counsel usually would settle the case for peanuts. If you showed it during trial, the judge or the jury would slam the lying party.

 

As time went on, I noticed that judges and juries were less impressed by a showing that a party lied. To take but one example, in my last trial, a case I handled for a friend last year, the judge (who was generally excellent and who decided the merits in our favor) was dismissive of evidence that demonstrated dishonesty by the opposing party.

 

The turning point, I think, was the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky matter. President Clinton was revealed to have lied under oath in a legal proceeding. But most people considered him a good president and the lie was about a private, sensitive matter, his sex life. Thus, Clinton was able to ride out the storm (though he later lost his law license).

 

(Snip)