Then why did he bother covering anything up? Why not just call the police in and tell them he was drunk and had shot Whittington? And then drink a bottle of whiskey in front of them and tell them there was nothing they could do about it because he was Dick-Fucking-Cheney and then shoot a couple of the police officers just to show how he was above the law?
Because - to me - the fact that Cheney tried to hide something seems to indicate that he was worried about the possibility of consequences.
Thats an unusual scandal denial scenario. It has a critical time element to it. In most scandal/scandal denial scenarios (the kind the OP is talking about) the deed is done and time really isnt an issue.
You guys can fight over that scenario if you want but IMO its a waste of time regarding the OP’s question.
Yes, I think you read me correctly.
I don’t see the Cheney mess as being so much a matter of denial as a strategy for dealing with the event. Cheney didn’t deny that he shot the guy. If he had, there might have been a much more intense investigation into the matter and it could have turned into a major scandal if he had denied he was the shooter and it was later proved that he was.
Any drunk that is still conscious and involved in an incident know that delaying the test as long as possible is the best strategy.
I perceive Cheney as evil but not stupid.
Great example of denial and coverup working - Liberace was accused of being gay by the Daily Mail. He sued and won, “crying all the way to the bank” as he said. The thought of anyone believing Liberace was not gay beggars belief. But it was a ballsy call by the Sequined One, and it worked.
To answer what I read in later posts to be the real intent of the OP, I think denial is probably the better strategy, and most of them are successful. My friend in high places tells me the illegality and shady behavior at the highest levels of society is unimaginable to drudges like me that just try to do a good job and carry on. That tells me denials are going on all the time, and stories dwindling away.
More relevant is the incremental strategy as each new turn in the story unfolds. People don’t get to (or don’t have to) choose the strategy all at once. With every new question and encounter and statement they get to choose a little more strategy. Denial seems an even better strategy for incremental decisions, because obviously most of those denials work even if eventually denial stops working. You can only confess once. Well, I guess Dr. Laura and Anthony Weiner went back and forth a few times, but usually, whatever the number of denials, there is only ever one confession (if that).
Denial works providing you are correct in thinking that no further evidence will be forthcoming. Clinton didn’t know about the cocktail dress, or he would have gotten away with it. Nixon forgot that all his conversations were being recorded, and sure enough it turned out he was a crook.
But once you have done everything you can, whether denying or confessing, drop the subject. There are always going to be people who assume guilt no matter what, and neither denial nor confession are going to satisfy them. We see that in this thread with the Cheney example - nothing, literally nothing, will ever stop some people from assuming that there was a cover up of something. But the more attention you give it, the more attention it is going to get.
That was Trent Lott’s mistake when he said that stupid thing about how Strom Thurmond should have been elected when Thurmond ran for President as a segregationist. That was a stupid thing to say, and Lott apologized, But his mistake in that instance was to apologize repeatedly. Because that just gave fuel to people to keep bringing it up and bringing it up and bringing it up. No apology is ever going to satisfy them.
I’ve heard similar things about Clinton and his adultery - he should have just stonewalled it. Not that that was going to stop people who hated his guts from condemning him for it, but eventually he wound up lying under oath about it, and that’s what got him impeached.
Some scandals can’t be survived - John Edwards is dead meat politically for cheating on his dying wife, and whether he denied it (clumsily) or came clean from the outset, he was going to wind up looking like scum. Likewise with Mel Gibson - both would have to drop out of the public eye and hope eventually people will get tired of talking about it.
Regards,
Shodan
We should also list the people who ended up lying about something that wasn’t a crime and going to jail for the denial. Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby come to mind. With federal investigators, the rule should never say anything except through a attorney.
Stewart was accused of insider trading and Libby was accused of leaking classified information. How were these not criminal acts?
There was a time where you could skate if you kept quit. That time is past. Everything comes out. Your phone records come out. Fox has them tapped anyway. They can bribe a person. It can not be hidden any more. So just come clean and it will be the best you can hope for.
I don’t think that is right. It’s too late and I’m too lazy to posts links and research but I think she went to jail for lying to the investigators, not for the insider trading. Yes, what she did under the law, the way it was written, was a criminal act. Again, the lying [denial] was what did her in. It was not the actual act of insider trading.
Libby was just a tool for a guy with no moral compass. Cheney begged Bush to pardon Libby but by that time the legacy of Bush’s presidency was so beyond repair that for once he stood up to the guy that was real problem that he finally had the guts to say “no” the the criminal/creep.
The Stewart case is evidence on the side that denial doesn’t work. But again, I’m not certain, and am just asking, what side actually works as the best defense?
I’m pretty sure that if Stewart and Libby had following the strategy of admitting to their actions at the outset, the prosecutors would have thanked them for their civic spirit and convicted them based on their admissions.
The reason the prosecutors went for other charges was because the people involved kept denying any wrong-doing and it was too difficult to make a case for the original charges without somebody confessing. The prosecutors went instead for lesser charges that were easier to prove in court. So denial may not have been a complete victory but it did mitigate the outcomes.
There’s nobody seriously working to expose Travolta’s gayness, no person or cause that would really benefit from an exposure. If anything, the only value is as ongoing celebrity gossip.
It’s not a crime so there’s obviously no law enforcement agencies looking into his possible homosexuality.
But if you eliminate law enforcement, the next most serious form of investigation is journalism. And I’m sure there are plenty of celebrity journalists who have been working on Travolta. Exposing a closeted major star is exactly the kind of thing they do for a living.
Okay, so there would be a scoop bonus for someone who, say, got photos of him in flagrante.
But then it would be done, just as if he admitted it. “John Travolta is gay!” “Yeah? I thought so.”
His career wouldn’t be over. There would be no ongoing story. (Quick, name the last closeted major star who was exposed. Remember what a big deal that was?)
Whereas with political corruption, major corporate malfeasance, and the most serious crimes, there are going to be people who have an interest in exposing the truth and resolving the matter per se–not star-hounds for whom the story is the product, almost as good either way it goes, and duration X notoriety is the key equation.
Stewart is simple. She wasn’t an insider. The guy who told her the information may have been committing a crime, not her. Samuel D. Waksal was convicted on securities fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bacanovic
Libby as only convicted of lying to the FBI. Note that Richard Armitage was the person who disclosed Valerie Plame CIA status to Robert Novak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician%29#Role_in_Plame_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#.22Plamegate.22
Neither Libby or Armitage was ever indicted for outing Plame. Frankly, I don’t think the DOJ wanted to use Plame as a test case, since she was driving her car to CIA headquarters every day. The only foreign intelligence services who didn’t know she was a CIA employee were either incompetent or just didn’t care.
Plame’s position with the CIA was classified. Libby got convicted on 4 counts and served 30 months in jail.
And all the convictions for all for lying to investigators, not for outing Plame. If he had just told investigators that he told Miller about Plame he would would have walked like Armitage did for telling Novak who was the one who actually published her name.
This was a case where denial was a very bad idea.
Denial does not work. Face the music and be honest and you will get some backing from the people. But once you start lying, the people see you as a liar. So you bare guilty of what you did and also a big fat liar.
I don’t think that’s what it is. A non-insider can be convicted for acting on inside information. Happens all the time.
The reason Stewart wasn’t prosecuted for insider trading is because it was far from clear that the information she received qualified as inside information under the law. She was not told anything at all about the company (ImClone). All she was told was that the CEO (Waksal) was selling his own shares. She correctly surmised that Waksal himself was acting on inside information, but she did not have that actual info.
You are ignoring the fact that broadcasting Plame’s job put a lot of spy organizations in jeopardy. Brewster Jennings was an important cover organization. It was involved in gathering nuclear info on Iran’s programs. There was plenty of dangerous spillover from the Plame outing. It was a horrible un-American act. It was illegal and the perpetrators got away with it. That does not make it right.