The non-denial denial was not invented by the Nixon administration, but the term was coined to describe their evasions. While the various criminals and unindicted co-conspirators of that era were no slouches, either grammatically or in their practice of dirty tricks, the art has not stood still. New Jersey strongman Chris Christie and his band of bullies have provided a wonderful opportunity for those of us keen on observing political uses of truthful deception in the wild.
My hope is not only to provide a guide for intrepid journalists willing to break from their roles as fluffers and courtiers and draw inferences from public statements for their audience, but also to begin a taxonomy for convenient identification and classification of such deceptions as they emerge from the mouths and mouthpieces of this generation of the soon-to-be-indicted.
Background
Wikipedia describes the non-denial denial:
Non-denial denial is a statement that seems direct, clearcut and unambiguous at first hearing, but when carefully parsed is revealed not to be a denial at all, and is thus not untruthful. It is a case in which words that are literally true are used to convey a false impression; analysis of whether or when such behavior constitutes lying is a long-standing issue in ethics. London's newspaper The Sunday Times has defined it as "an on-the-record statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist's story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true."
The Washington Post editor Benjamin C. Bradlee "is credited with coining the phrase non-denial denial to characterise the evasive Oval Office answers to questions," according to a 1991 retrospective on Bradlee's career in The Times.
The phrase was popularized during the Watergate scandal by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their 1974 book All the President's Men, in reference to evasive statements and equivocal denials by then-Attorney General John N. Mitchell.
The purpose of the non-denial denial (NDD) is obviously to mislead, but in such a way that the statement is factually correct. Why not just lie, you may ask? The answer could probably be elaborated on by an actual attorney, but my understanding is that the implications of blatant lying by someone soon to be indicted may range from being caught in an embarrassing lie a prosecutor can use to undermine any remaining credibility, to creating actual admissible evidence for charges of Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy when judged to be attempts to telegraph testimony to other witnesses and co-conspirators.
Another, perhaps more compelling reason for the popularity of the NDD is the response of the sycophantic stenographers that pass as a national press corps(e). By stubbornly ignoring the actual meaning of the statements they transcribe, they do the lying for their patrons, while saving themselves the effort of thought and research. They merely switch to their he-said-she-said template and the story practically writes itself. In fact, the response of the corporate media cartel to an NDD can provide us with an important tool for quantifying the effectiveness of an NDD.
Menagerie
Here are a few little NDDs I've caught and pinned down. Please contribute your own classifications and specimens in the comments, with so many GOP governors facing subpoenas and indictments, collecting them is fun and easy.
The Deflection
The deflection is credited by many as the father of all NDDs, and vestiges are to be found in most modern specimens. Nevertheless, one can still run across purebred deflections, and they form a staple of many 'arguments' held in the popular dueling soundbite format familiar from Crossfire , Press The Meat, and other network disinfotainment vehicles.
Here is a basic sample (pre-shredded by kossack Jayden) from Lori Grifa, once and future lobbyist and NJ apparatchik. Note the extreme specificity, bolded, a typical hallmark of a deflection that answers a specific question rather than the original charge:
Ms. Grifa notes that while DCA Commissioner, she never met with Mayor Zimmer or The Rockefeller Group to discuss the Hoboken project.
The specifics suggest follow up questions which, in all likelihood will never be asked:
When did she meet with other Hoboken officials? Did she meet with some representative of the Rockefeller group? Maybe she just chatted with her boss David Samson, Christie crony at the Port Authority and partner of the firm representing the Rockefeller Group.
You may also recall another attempt to misanswer the question of Hoboken Sandy relief funds by claiming that the insurance payouts received in Hoboken were part of the state funds Mayor Zimmer claimed were withheld. Zimmer calmly dismantled that one on the air for us.
The 'Not Me'
This class of NDD bears a strong family resemblance to the deflection, but is distinguished by the deflection from the person making the statement, without an attempt to feign denial of the substance of the allegation being non-denied. A classic version of this one is the standard 'mistakes were made' formulation that is an almost universal way of distancing oneself from errors and culpability by using the passive voice. It is often spotted in the company of a non-apology apology (another diary topic in itself).
Here is the Garden State Strongman claiming to take responsibility while steadfastly blaming others. He criticizes a few bad apples out of 65,000 state employees as if the bad apples weren't confined and concentrated in the inner circle of people he personally chose and worked with for years:
The fact is that mistakes were made, and I'm responsible for those mistakes. And I obviously try, every chance I can, to hire the very best people, and I think the history of this administration shows that we have hired outstanding people with great ethical standards who have done their jobs extraordinarily well. In a government of 65,000 people, there are going to be times when mistakes are made. Mistakes were made, and I remediated those mistakes today by the actions that I've taken.
In his response to the release of the infamous emails between his Port Authority hatchet men and his own top staff, he is shocked and appalled, but he does little to clarify whether he is so upset by the content of the emails, or the fact that his gang was leaving so blatant a paper trail. Less arrogant criminals know to speak in code when they conspire.
What I’ve seen today for the first time is unacceptable. I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge. One thing is clear: this type of behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it because the people of New Jersey deserve better. This behavior is not representative of me or my Administration in any way, and people will be held responsible for their actions.
I had no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or execution, and I am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here. This was handled in a callous and indifferent way.
His staff was so callous and indifferent to his presidential aspirations that they left uncoded messages in the electronic record. That is indeed stupid, no wonder he is so stunned and hurt. Poor guy.
Here's the obligatory the ''I'm a victim too" non-apology:
CNN:
As criticisms of Christie's management style of being heavy handed and petty come to the forefront, Christie said, "I am not a bully." But he added that he is "soul searching" about why he created an environment in which his staff felt they had to lie to him.
The staff should have said there were smoking gun emails, those stupid, callous liars. The environment of above-the-law arrogance took its toll, and the whole point of planning the Ft Lee shutdown in person was obviated by that brief email exchange. Hubris fells another tyrant.
The Snarkbite
Well known to adolescents, this one recently reached a professional practitioner's level in the rightly immortalized Road Cone NDD from the boss of bluster himself, Mr. Christie:
Christie was asked at a press conference if he’d had anything to do with the closures:
I moved the cones, actually, unbeknownst to everybody I was actually the guy out there in overalls and a hat. You cannot be serious with that question
Obviously it does not answer the question, revealing its Deflection ancestry, but that is just the beginning. It not only mocks the questioner with the intent to intimidate, it also executes a full 180 on a regular NDD by not even being a denial, but an admission so palpably absurd that it has the effect of denial mixed with ridicule. This one was so wonderful and egregious that kossack
jamess was moved to pen a whole diary about it:
"Basically Christie was trying to warn the Press off from asking any further questions". Thanks dude.
Of course that kind of smackdown is not without its risks and when the documents came out, the gov was forced to non-apologize for that wisecrack too.
The 'Prove It'
This one seems to be increasingly popular. Many recent sightings feature the word Information, and when you see this distinctive marking, you can generally complete the identification without further parsing. A handy trick for quick identification is to replace the word Information with the word Evidence, or Proof. If the statement sounds guilty with those words, you have a 'Prove It ' NDD on your hands.
If there is any information that you know about the decision to close these lanes in Fort Lee, you have one hour to tell either my chief of staff, Kevin O'Dowd, or my chief counsel, Charlie McKenna.
And I told them that in an hour I was going to go out in a press conference. And if no one gave me other information to the contrary that I was going to say that no one on my staff was involved in this matter.
Over the course of the next hour, Kevin and Charlie interviewed each member of my senior staff, came back and reported to me that they all reported that there was no information other than what we already knew that had been testified to by Senator Baroni regarding this incident. I then questioned Kevin O'Dowd and Charlie McKenna directly, since they are the only two who report directly to me, and they assured me that they had no information that would change my ability to be able to say that no one, in response in Angie's (sp) question, on my staff was involved in this matter.
This extended quote not only shows the emphasis on information/evidence, but also begins to telegraph the alibi to other conspirators, even going so far as to remind them that Christie is asking these questions with an eye to his own testimony. The careful refusal to have any direct contact with other staffers is also an important strategy to make sure he is insulated by a second level of hearsay and potential fall guys. The phrasing of the deadline also clearly suggests what the answer should be. 'I'm doing this in one hour unless one of you is insane enough to give evidence against me'. This looks especially suspect in conjunction with his public statements of the mutual loyalty he expects (and the implicit promise of rewards or retributions):
I've had a tight-knit group of people who I trust implicitly. I have no reason to believe they weren't telling me the truth. It is heartbreaking to me that I wasn't told the truth. I'm a very loyal guy, and I expect loyalty in return.
And the artful use of cutouts to shield himself from direct communication with proven participants plays a more important role than merely giving him an extra layer of witness his lawyers can call liars. It launders knowledge into hearsay, which points to another subspecies of NDD.
The Radical Skeptic
This slippery little specimen is a favorite of philosophers and post-modern epistemologists. It almost always turns on the question of knowledge, and how we know what we know. True knowledge, one can argue, is absolute certainty, applicable to mathematical axioms like 1+1=2, and little else. Do I know I exist? Do I know my socks are wet? What is wet? What is being? I may suspect or hope I exist, I may believe in Santa Claus or the puddle I am standing in, but the human sensory and cognitive apparatus is a tricky thing, and I am loath to make a claim of certainty based merely on perception and belief.
And so I sat and met for two hours yesterday with Mr. Sampson -- General Sampson -- and again, I'm confident that he had no knowledge of this, based upon our conversations and his review of his information.
And don't you love how he is calling the AG just 'General', like he's anything more than another hack for hire.
A Hybrid Specimen
Here is a hybrid statement from the real estate developer Christie wanted to do the Hoboken development project. It is such a beaut that kossack blip1944 did a diary on it. The NJ Governor sent his capo, Lt Gov. Kim Guadagno, to shake down Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer in a supermarket parking lot for the project in exchange Hoboken's share of the Sandy relief money he controlled.
We have no knowledge of any information pertaining to this allegation if it turns out to be true, it would be deplorable -- Statement from the Rockefeller Group
Note the combination of 'Prove It' with the Radical Skeptic, topped off with a classic subjunctive disapproval; 'Nice town you got there it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.'
Here's how The Guardian elided 'Information' from the NDD and did the actual lying for the Rockefeller Group PR organ:
Rockefeller officials released a statement on Saturday, denying any knowledge of the arm-twisting alleged by Zimmer.
This is why you hire
professional flacks, if you can.
As my fellow connoisseurs of the art may notice, I omitted the Liberal Media/Tinfoil Blogger attack from my collection. It is used not only by the unindicted, but especially by 3rd-party water carriers, Faux News fluffers and even some Very Serious kossacks. While specimens may be found in superabundance, the classification as NDD is shaky despite the superficial resemblance to the Deflection, since this 'shoot the messenger' defense tends to evaporate once the subpoenas start to fly. One does not pin a household moth among the exotic lepidopterae.
8:58 AM PT: Update: Economaniac remembered the exact phrasing of Kim Guadagno's beautiful 'Not Me' NDD, so I was able to track it down:
"Being a Sandy victim myself makes the mayor’s allegations particularly offensive to me,” she said. “I deny any suggestion made by Mayor Zimmer that there was ever any condition on the release of Sandy funds by me.”