Plausible deniability originally was a legal concept. It referred to lack of evidence proving a allegation of a legal nature. Standards of of Proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “more likely so than not” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” If your opponent/accuser lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true. Plausible meaning believable.Because many lawyers are in politics, they brought this higher standard proof with them diminishing the morality, ethics and integrity of government.This has evolved into the current government Standard of Morality. It has evolved to include a denial of blame as well as a denial of guilt.
Most of us in America are taught and instilled with a Moral Standard of Absolute Right and Wrong. That is to say, that as we go through life we have a per-conceived notion as to whether anything we do or say is “right” or “wrong”. (Think fable of George Washington’s “I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the Cherry Tree”)And, for the most part, the majority of us go through life with an inner compass of knowing right and wrong, and presume that most other persons, especially those we trust, have the same or very similar Moral compass.
However, Elected Officials, Government Officials and Lawyers adopted a different, more flexible, Moral Standard. Almost all of these aforementioned persons approach everything with a “what can I plausibly deny” Moral Standard. That is to say, these folks do a “reward vs likelihood of being caught” calculation/assessment in assessing virtually everything they do. Further, these people then take steps to minimize the likelihood of them being caught before, during the actual act. And the destruction of evidence is an attempt to create plausible deniablity after the act has been discovered or alleged. (e.g. Missing IRS emails 2014)
This is why they rarely put anything controversial in writing. This is why if they are forced to put something in writing, it is usually in the form of a form letter. This is also why they most often have you talk to an underling or an agency bureaucrat so they can plausibly deny knowledge of the conversation or be able to say the underling or bureaucrat mis-stated their position. In the Courts of the State of Minnesota and many other states, members of the audience are prohibited from recording (video or audio) while court is in session. (Yes, you can ask permission but then 1) it is usually denied 2)The Court is put on notice that it must be more vigilant in what it says and does) In this way, only the court reporters transcript evidences the record and such documents can and are often altered to remove evidence that otherwise could not plausibly be denied.
Elected officials and high ranking government bureaucrats also build plausibility right into the hierarchy of their office. Senators and Representatives have a chief of staff (who doews not have to face election) that handles most of the activities that must be “plausibly denied”. Another example is the US Department of Justice Attorney General taking the political heat for decisions not to pursue certain criminals(like banksters and IRS officials who discriminated against conservative groups) Sheriff’s Departments often utilize a Deputy Sheriff for such persons. In this way, the elected official can deny knowledge and/or culpability for their underlings. And, in the worst case scenario, the unelected second in command, can take the fall with the understanding that they will “be taken care of” as understood quid pro quo.
Yet there is an dire consequence to America that results from this Morality of Plausible Deniability. Each of us who have been indoctrinated with a moral standard of absolute right and wrong are handicapped when dealing with a person who practices a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability. Folks that practice a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability do not wear signs disclosing such. Therefore, until our presumption that another person adheres to a same or similar moral standard as our own is proven wrong, we presume that their Moral Standard is the same as our own.
And, as a result of the nature of our interactions with Politicians and Government Officials, awareness of their betrayals may take a long time to realize. Whereas the Moral Standard of a person that cheats you on a car or some other personal interaction is quick and apparent, betrayals of trust by Politicians and Government Officials are more usually not that speedily apparent. In fact, an American Citizen that only interacts with a politician socially or one or two times more personally will likely never ponder, let alone deduce, whether said politician has betrayed their trust or not.
This has been hard to define than I anticipated. I would appreciate any feed back to refine this definition.
President Bill Clinton practiced a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability as demonstrated in his responses about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. For example, before the blue, semen stained dress was found, Bill Clinton believed he could plausibly deny having sex with “that woman” and, therefore, denied the allegations. Bill Clinton also tried to plausibly deny he had sex with Ms. Lewinsky by trying to assert that “oral sex was not sex”, and therefore he did not lie under oath. In another act meant to create plausible deniability, then President Clinton had his “bagman” Al Gore go to the Tibetan “Vow of Poverty” Temple to pick up a brief case containing $100,000.00 in illegal campaign contributions eventually traced to Red China. It is alleged that the $100,000.oo was the pay off for President Clinton orchestrating access to the Red Chinese to our GPS and Rocket Stabilizer Gyro technology. Technology which now allows Red China to successfully target mainland USA with which was previously its wobbly, crash and burn long range rockets.
President Richard Nixon practiced the Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability when he stated “I am not a crook” when confronted with the Watergate Scandal. President Nixon then resigned and by act of his appointed successor President Gerald Ford never had to testify under oath and therefore could continue to plausibly allegations about his role in the Watergate break in.
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps you should contact your local elected officials and let them know. If you are afraid of repercussions, snail mail it anonymously and ask them to respond in the local paper or their own monthly/quarterly internet newsletter. Even if this article refers to something outside you geographic area, it still likely applies to your location. Remember all those taxpayer training junkets we taxpayers send the bureaucrats on? They all learn the same “livestock management” techniques to use on WE THE PEOPLE.
And that leaves WE THE PEOPLE with this conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy.
Finally, this article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I, Don Mashak, seek no leadership role. I, Don Mashak, seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar
Keep Fighting the Good Fight!
The Cynical Patriot
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE
WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF
Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
Term Limits #TermLimit
Justice in Minnesota #JIM
Critical Thinking Notice – This author, Don Mashak, advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author, Don Mashak,… unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.