Semantic Antics

   "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

   "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

   -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass."

   Lawyers are word warriors. They will argue definitions and connotations all day, to convince others that an action is or is not legal, acceptable or appropriate.

   It's a prosecutor's job to frame his or her argument in such a way as to persuade the court of someone's guilt.

   A defense attorney, on the other hand, will use the same information and the same or similar words to persuade the court that the client is innocent, or at least to plant sufficient doubt that an offense was committed.

   In their lawyer training academies, they will switch sides in their practice sessions to gain experience in arguing whatever case they are assigned.

   In doing this, they often play semantic games, arguing that a word does not really mean what you may think it means, but means something else entirely.

   For example, what's the difference  between collusion and conspiracy, or compared to conniving, corruption, complicity, plotting, scheming, collaborating, coordinating, or planning to deceive, mislead or defraud?

   To most people, all of these terms imply actions that are at least immoral and potentially illegal. But legally, according to federal law, collusion is not a crime, while conspiracy is.

   What's the difference? Collusion is a secret agreement to do something illegal, such as to deceive, mislead or defraud.  But until and unless that agreement is carried out, it's not a crime. When it is carried out, it's a conspiracy. The agreement is not a crime, but the act is.

   Go figure.

   For most people, the terms are practically synonymous. But politicians currently are using the word "collusion" every day, while avoiding the term "conspiracy."

   Ask two lawyers for definitions of a term, and you're likely to get three meanings, depending on whether he or she is a prosecutor, defense attorney or a disinterested judge.

   Recently, we have also heard politicians insist that investigators "broke in" to an office to seize "secret" recordings of conversations between a lawyer and his client, in this instance the president of the United States.

   Except that investigators politely knocking on a door and showing a search warrant approved by a federal judge is not a "break-in." And when one party to a conversation records the chat, it's not secret and therefore not illegal, even if the other party does not know of the recording.

   Nevertheless, that does not stop the president's supporters from continuing their insistence that their words mean just what they choose them to mean, and that you can't know what the words mean until they tell you.