5.Dean’s February 1997 Motion for Acquittal/New Trial on Grounds of Prosecutorial Abuse and the Role in Such Motion of Efforts of Prosecutors to Deceive the Court in Responding to her Original Rule 23 Motion [b5]
A point that runs throughout materials referenced on this page is that Independent Counsel attorneys sought to mislead the courts in responding to the claims of prosecutorial abuse Dean raised in late 1993 and early 1994, and that, in context, the efforts to mislead the courts constituted not simply weak or absurd arguments, but false representations as to what Independent Counsel attorneys had actually done and what their motivations had been –false representations made in circumstances where government attorneys were obligated to tell the truth.Some of these instances are addressed in the profile of Bruce C. Swartz and a number of them are discussed in Section B.6 and Section B.7infra.
As noted above, in February 1997, Dean filed a renewed motion for acquittal or a new trial raising issues that had not been identified in her original Rule 33 Motion of November 1993 and also arguing that the Independent Counsel had endeavored to mislead the courts in responding to her original motion.Independent Counsel Thompson refused to respond to the allegations in this motion, instead filing a motion to strike Dean’s motion.In such motion to strike, however, the Independent Counsel denied that Independent Counsel attorneys had endeavored to mislead the court in responding to Dean’s earlier motion.This, too, was not merely a weak argument, but was a false representation made in circumstances where government representatives are required to tell the truth.
As observed in my letter to Thompson of March 26, 1997 (at 14 n.12 on 15), “[i]n a context where the government has an obligation to reveal the truth, this statement reflects your word of honor that you have investigated these matters and have concluded that in fact Independent Counsel did not attempt to mislead the court …”I would allude to the quoted material in my letter to Thompson of August 13, 1997 (at 43) , there noting that such statement was “manifestly false.”I present these quotations of my prior statements not to suggest that the prior stating of these points adds validity to them.Rather, I note them for purposes of the reader’s appraisal or Thompson’s observations (addressed in Section B.10) suggesting that no one had ever questioned his integrity.
As discussed in Section B.8, the Department of Justice would later impliedly adopt this representation in seeking to cause the issues raised in Dean’s February 1997 motion to go unaddressed.