as a trial lawyer of 3 decades, there are special moments that can occur with an adverse witness on the stand. i call it the “liar’s dilemma. ”
the “liar’s dilemma” occurs when the witness is trapped into a position in which it no longer matters whether they answer in a truthful fashion. they have already discredited themselves. any answer they provide becomes an assist to their opponent. they are trapped.
john kerry, without being in court or subjected to cross-examination, placed himself in a “liar’s dilemma.”
it was reported in the nytimes that former secretary of state john kerry informed javad zarif, iran’s foreign minister, “that israel had attacked iranian interests in syria at least 200 times.” if he did so, it should be considered an outrage and a betrayal of an united states’ ally.
in response to this allegation, john kerry, who responded on twitter “i can tell you that this story and these allegations are unequivocally false. this never happened – either when i was secretary of state or since.” in doing this, he declared that the iranian foreign minister a liar.
mr. kerry, if he truly believed that the iranian government officials are liars, should now come forward and declare that they are an unfit partners for a nuclear deal. after all, they lied about him.
did he do this?
if mr. kerry does not take this position, then he is most likely lying to protect his reputation.
mr. kerry, no matter what he does, is now, a loser.
in sum, a commandment concerning not lying is so important for human beings. as noted above, even allegations of lies can place individuals in circumstances in which they can have their reputations compromised. this story may be proof that lying about a lie will get you nowhere as well. further, this story may evidence the fact that some lies are so damaging that they cannot even be saved by the truth.
if you would like to read more blog posts, click here.