September 1998 

 

by Mark W. Gehan

As I write these words, President Clinton is preparing for his grand jury appearance. Like many of you, I am curious to learn what his testimony will be on this most tawdry subject.

From a lawyer's point of view, the president has only two choices: He can appear before the grand jury and testify truthfully, or he can decline to testify on the basis of one or more constitutional objections. His attorneys are obviously dealing with political realities as well as legal considerations.

One of the most distressing aspects of the entire national conversation, which has gone on for the last eight months, is the utterly cynical notion that truth is a fluid concept, and that the testimony of witnesses -- even the president -- can be modified so as to provide a political safe harbor. It is primarily the pundits and "spinmeisters" who have engaged in this speculation, but inevitably the legal commentators have been drawn into discussions of what testimony might be acceptable.

Our legal system relies upon the premise that attorneys will be honest with the courts and that we will do our utmost to require the same honesty from our witnesses. Truth is not a matter of tactics. It is required under any circumstance. We should be ashamed when telling the truth is considered to be one of several options.

As the curtain now rises for the last act in the Lewinsky investigation, we may each have our own opinion of what the final lines should be. However, we should all agree that we are entitled to an accurate recitation of the facts if any recitation is made.

 

MARK W. GEHAN of St. Paul is president of the MSBA. A partner in the firm of Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, he received his J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School and recently served as special master in the historic Minnesota tobacco litigation.