4 ms·

I feel like history and law bears out my answer: yes. Isn't that the definition of plausible deniability?

• mcphage 9y ago
  Denial becomes a lot less plausible when you consider that Comey did not end the investigation, and was fired for it. But no, being vague in your implications is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Laws are evaluated by humans who are adept at seeing through bullshit, not computers.
  • ethbro 9y ago
    Aware of the complexities, but Clinton wasn't impeached by the Senate despite giving a knowingly false statement. While being vague is not a get out of jail free card, it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one.
    • mcphage 9y ago
      > it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one It is, I agree. However, when the speaker—in this case Trump—behaves as if the coyly hinted at meaning was correct, then there's no room left to hide behind "oh but that's not what I meant". In Trump's statement was a strongly implied—yet unstated—threat: If you don't drop this investigation, then you'll lose your job. And what happened? When it became clear that Comey wasn't dropping the investigation, he lost his job. Trump has no wiggle room in claiming an alternate meaning, because the clearly implied meaning was what he did.
• mcphage 9y ago
  Imagine this: You're walking down the street at night. You pass a man, who calls out to you. You notice that he's got a gun in his front pocket. While he places his hand on the gun, he tells you that he really could use some money, whatever you have on you. Which you proceed to give him. Did you get mugged? Or did you instead give $200 and your phone to your new best friend?