That is, providing the superior can write it off as a misunderstanding. An example would be a sinister comment in a suspicious tone followed by an equally suspicious exaggerated wink. It also applies if an implication was made that spurred on illegal or unethical actions. This is true even if the actions clearly only benefit the superior who “wasn’t” in the know.

Most people expect superiors to be held accountable for the actions of the subordinates.īut if they have plausible deniability, the senior officials can’t be held accountable. Which you may or may not frown upon.Īnd I get that. This blame swap alleviates pressure on more senior officials. While it might seem like a minor tweak, the CIA’s definition puts blame on subordinates. Whether the information was actually withheld or not matters little in court if there’s no proof to the contrary.

To the CIA, it’s the act of withholding information from senior officials to protect their higher-ups in the event the information becomes public. And the CIA’s version is the one that became popularized. However, in the ‘60s, the CIA took the term and expanded on what plausible deniability means to them. Even if the plausibility of the denial is suspicious. So if there’s no proof, it’s plausible they could deny it.Įssentially anything illegal or unethical that can be explained away under an innocent and probable guise – true or otherwise – falls under plausible deniability. After all, innocent until proven guilty is the backbone of our legal system. In its broadest sense, the term usually points to a lack of proof. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a “reasonable” conclusion, either. Plausible means you could conclude that something might or might not be possible.īut usually theoretically, superficially, or suspiciously.

Plausible Deniability by Shanna Lauffey