"I do not recall" is weasel-wording for "I'm not going to say whether or not I did it, so that even if you can prove I did it, you can't tack on a perjury charge". By saying that you do not recall, you are not necessarily denying that you remember, only that you are not putting a memory into words...

Even though "remember", "recall", and "recollect" are considered synonymous in common use, they have nuances of meaning in various disciplines that make "recall" the one most commonly used as a perjury dodge. As a loose summary of the nuances: to remember is to bring a memory to mind in a useful way; to recollect is to remember in a way requiring more effort to organize; to recall is to put a memory or recollection into words. As a result, "I do not remember" can mean "I am not bringing it to mind". "I do not recollect" can mean "I am making no effort to usefully organize my memories". "I do not recall" can mean "I am not putting my memories into words". None of the three denials inherently implies the absence of a memory or inability to access a memory if enough effort had been applied; but all of them are usually interpreted by jurors as a lack of memory.

Some defense lawyers coach clients to make no effort to "recall" anything until unimpeachable evidence is presented. It is effectively a license to commit perjury, at the risk of being somewhat transparent in your lack of outright denial. The most effective trick is to use all three variations (remember, recall, and recollect) in different sentences. Juries assume you're using them interchangeably, so that it sounds like your memory is really blank on the issue; however, you may still be using them with their nuances: some things you don't remember, other things you remember but don't recollect, and most things, you remember and recollect, but have decided not to recall. It's a very sneaky, devious, "get out of jail free" card for almost anyone attempting a cover-up.

One document that has been frequently circulated to demonstrate the proper use of the technique happens to have been written by Hillary Clinton as a declaration in one of her corruption cases. Because memory is notoriously difficult to disprove, it became common in the last administration's scandal investigations to directly deny memory without preference for the word "recall". Here's a couple of lists from The Progressive Review tallying the number of times the "Amnesiac Defense" was used in scandal testimony:

The list goes on to quote The Washington Times tally of dozens of creative ways that Bill Clinton denied memory, a total of 267 times, his favorite phrase being "I don't remember", uttered 71 times-- all in a single deposition. It's probably not fair to single out the Clintons in this, because it is a relatively common tactic, but they happen to be the ones caught in dragnets most often in recent history.

The problem with the "I do not recall" defense is that you can't get away with applying it retroactively; that is to say, if you issue an outright denial in court, you can't often get away with saying, "I only denied it because I didn't remember it" later on, even if it's true. The general wisdom is that no one's conscience would allow any sane person to cross a moral boundary without etching the infraction into the memory; except perhaps those with reduced capacity. Such general wisdom is often enough to convert a retracted denial into a perjury conviction, but NOT usually enough to convert a consistent failure to "recall" into perjury.

I've always thought the legal system has this backwards. When I honestly have no memory of something, I'll usually deny that it ever happened, and only later when my memory gets jogged will I admit I was wrong. I'm not likely to say "I don't remember that" unless I do have a vague memory of the situation, but for whatever reason I might have forgotten some details, and admit that whatever I'm supposed to have done might be at least remotely within the realm of possibility. The legal system seems to assume my brain works the opposite of the way it really works, but hey, it probably "takes a brain surgeon" to figure it out, and I don't qualify.

A belated failure-to-recall claim is not likely to work much better for Judge Gonzales than it did for Scooter Libby. However, a good lawyer might successfully argue that as a former Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court, Gonzales knew instinctively that to get away with a cover-up he'd have to say "I do not recall"; therefore, his failure to use that phrase from the beginning could be construed as evidence that he honestly didn't remember. It's a Chewbacca Defense, even if it's true, so I wouldn't wager a wooden nickle on its chances of success.

Reagan did not "fire" 93 attorneys when he entered office. The Reagan administration replaced 71 attorneys during his first year in office, and a total of 89 during the first 2 years, just like Bush and Clinton did. I'm pretty sure that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was able to persuade the administration to keep the attorneys in his state and a few others. Of course, this was in good old days when Moynihan, Reagan and Tip O'Neil would chat over a cocktail at the end of the day.

link

Thanks for the link. My mistake. As for the "firing" euphemism, I was using it in the more generic and not derogatory sense. The point is, though, that there is a tradition of replacing most if not all US attorneys when a new President of different party enters office. Everyone knows this. All the appointed US attorneys know this. The results of the elections give plenty of notice for those US attorneys to wrap up their cases or to build continuity to pass the case on. This situation is quite different though.

And yet another employee of the AG's office has fallen on her sword. Monica Goodling submitted a terse, 3 sentence letter of resignation today.

I'm going to defer to others here. How will no longer being an employee of the AG affect her testimony?

One would hope that since they are perfectly legal “political firings” Rove would be involved – not that it is any business of the Congress, who to date have found exactly NOTHING illegal in the actions. Only idiots who failed to just say it like it is from day one (Gonzales).