False Statements Law Looms for White House Crashers

This weekend, the U.S. Secret Service interviewed the Virginia couple who somehow made their way into last week's White House state dinner. Two U.S. senators also joined the chorus calling for the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, to face criminal charges.

What law would prosecutors turn to if they decided to pursue a case?

The clearest choice might well be what’s usually called the false-statements statute, or 18 USC Sec. 1001, which allows for the prosecution of anyone who “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.”

Prosecutors have turned to the law in a wide variety of cases. Before his indictment was thrown out, then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was found guilty under the law on charges stemming from his Senate financial disclosure forms. Former General Services Administration chief of staff David Safavian was found guilty under the law a year ago for failing to disclose to the FBI or on a financial disclosure form that he took a golfing trip with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Lawrence Robbins, who represented Safavian, said the false-statements statute could be a natural tool for prosecutors, though the case could cause potential embarrassment for the Secret Service.

“Something tells me that this would not be a particularly attractive case for the government to bring, because the way you would defend such a case, if the facts warranted, is to show the circumstances that would reveal that the people who were supposed to be asking the right questions did not ask the right questions,” said Robbins, a name partner at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber.

Central to any such case, Robbins said, would be what questions the Salahis were asked and what answers they gave. If they lied and said they were invited when they were not, then the government might have a strong case. On the other hand, “Did somebody fail to ask them the right questions and they got through?” Robbins said. “That can make a world of difference.”

Even if they did not outright lie, the government could argue that the couple had a duty to say something more than they did and that, by not doing so, they made a false representation. In that scenario, Robbins said, prosecutors would have to show that the couple had a “duty to speak.”

Bryan Cave partner Daniel Schwartz said the government might consider at least one other factor before it pursues a false-statements case. “While perhaps they could make out a criminal charge,” he said, “it might not be worth it to give them some more time in the limelight.”

UPDATE (5:58 p.m.): Another frequently discussed possibility is that the Salahis could be prosecuted for trespassing. But Mark Goldstone said that is unlikely, given the facts that have come out so far and the D.C. law on trespassing.

Goldstone, a lawyer, estimates he's represented almost 1,000 people arrested at the White House, most in connection with political protests. The D.C. trespassing law, he said, is designed to prosecute "failure to leave a place after you’ve been told that your right to be there has lapsed." No one has said that the Salahis were told to leave and refused.

"I think it has to be more than just, 'Well, you knew you had inadequate credentials,'" Goldstone said, adding that none of the cases he has seen are quite like this one.

The D.C. law is Title 22, Section 3302, available here.

Comments

[tz]

Martha's mistake was to take to the Feds at all - without a lawyer present even before being charged with anything. Don't ever "cooperate", or your mental slip or shading will run you afoul of this law.

What they need to do is erect a TSA station so everyone entering the whitehouse will have to take their shoes off and have things X-Rayed just like the average joe at any airport.

"You mean we have to start living under the same security theater we are imposing on everyone else?"

[kay sieverding]

White House Invitations could be coded with a bar code and then the guests scanned. A guest accepting an invitation could be required to upload a recent photo, drivers license number, even a description of what they will be wearing.

[Voice]

Wow. Good thing you posted the link to the actual statute. Reading *it* it becomes pretty clear that this law doesn't apply to this scenario.

Both of the snippets you included were part of subsection (a):
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Reading down to subsection (c), you find:
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Looks like they're every bit as in the clear of *this* statute as they are of the trespassing statutes.

[DA Citizen]

How is this situation any different than all the illegal immigrants in this country?

Obama stands ready to grant amnesty to millions who have broken the law by being somewhere they are/were not supposed to be.

In particular to this article, illegal immigrants, too, make a number of "false statements."

The Democratic healthcare bill does not mandate the production of documents to prove citizenship-- allowing illegal immigrants to simply self-declare -- and that appears to be quite okay with the President.

As for trespassing? Are not illegals trespassing? Have they not been told to leave?

At least the Salahis are US citizens. Citizens simply accessing their government.

[K3 in Dallas]

Couldn't agree more. When did visiting the White House become such a joke? Seems to me that a few years ago the White House will still respected and honored, and was not viewed as publicity stunt or a party to crash. I think the Sahilis need to be seriously punished for their acts, and the media needs to boycott their interviews. Shame on anyone who pays this couple a penny for their story.

[Ivan White]

Something needs to happen to these 'clowns' that crashed the state dinner or the entire incident will be repeated. Next time 'the crashes' might not be as friendly toward the President!

It would also be of interest to learn what action, if any, was taken regarding the individual(s) who were responsible for letting the couple in.

[Jon]

Hey, remember when Martha Stewart went to prison over some penny-ante alleged insider trading? These two morons can do some time for this.