What Does “Plausible” Mean?

5 131

I don’t care what anyone says, Highlander was an awesome movie. That flick had it all; invincible swordsmen, riveting fight scenes, gorgeous cinematography, an intelligent script, and even some romance thrown in for the lady-folk. I will concede the argument that the sequels were so rotten they did irreparable damage to the franchise. But the original Highlander; classic.

Oddly, one of my favorite scenes from the movie wasn’t at all central to the plot. It was set at a traveling hot dog cart where two of New York’s finest were inhaling lunch and chatting while the cart owner read a newspaper in the background. The clearly visible headline on the paper read,




The hot dog cart vendor, clearly finding humor in the failure of the New York police to apprehend sword-wielding antagonists, asked a couple of playful but pointed questions.

                    “What does ‘INCOMPETENT’ mean?”

And a few seconds later, still reading the paper and still clearly reveling in schadenfreude;

                    “What does ‘BAFFLED’ mean?”

I would be lying if I said I didn’t hear Tony the hot dog vendor’s voice asking these questions in my head from time to time. In fact, when I’m following politics I hear them…one or the other or both…continually.

But as we learn more about the three (read: 3) scandals plaguing the White House; Benghazi, IRS, and DOJ, another question comes to mind. And yes, in my head it’s Tony the hot dog vendor’s voice I hear.


                    What does ‘PLAUSIBLE’ mean?



We keep hearing that the President has “plausible deniability” regarding his role (or lack of a role) in the three (3) current scandals. The clear meaning of the argument is that if the POTUS wasn’t aware of something he can’t be held accountable for it.

However, in the case of all of three of the ongoing scandals the President should have known. He should have been informed down to the last and most minute detail and he should have been deeply involved in the decision making process. Anything short of being deeply involved shows an unbelievable lack of leadership. And if the explanations provided by the White house are unbelievable, then how can the President’s deniability ever be considered plausible?



  • If President Obama knew about the details of the attack in Benghazi and the subsequent purposefully misleading communications about said attack, he has been lying to the American people since 9/11/2012.
  • If President Obama did not know about the Benghazi attack or cover-up, he is an utter failure as both Commander in Chief and as Head of State.


BENGHAZI SUMMARY: In the case of Benghazi, the President is either lying or he’s abjectly irresponsible in managing the vital affairs of the nation. Either way, there is no such thing as “plausible” deniability. A person would have to be a sycophantic Obamaphile to grant plausibility to the White House position of denial regarding Benghazi.



  • If President Obama knew about the details of the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the POTUS has levels of culpability ranging from horrific to felonious.
  • If President Obama did not know that the IRS was systematically and consistently targeting his political opponents for scrutiny and outright abuse, he is such a poor manager that he would literally be fired from any fast food joint in the nation.


IRS SUMMARY: In the case of the IRS, the President met 118 times in two years with IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. 118 meetings, and at NO TIME did Commissioner Shulman ever mention that the full might of the taxing authority of the United States of America was being brought to bear against political adversaries? There is not enough plausibility in the Universe to make that deniability anything but ridiculous.



  • If President Obama knew about the details of the Department of Justice illegal and unjustifiable investigation of the Associated Press AND Fox News his administration will go down in history as the most tyrannical and Constitutionally abusive in history.
  • If President Obama did not know about the details of the DOJ maltreatment of the press, the POTUS is so tragically uninformed that he has no business running a nation.


DOJ SUMMARY: In the case of the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder seems clearly poised to step down. However, despite his serial incompetence and worse, AG Holder is not the nexus of the problem. His abuse of whistleblowers, potential whistleblowers, and newspersons engaged in legitimate newsgathering activities is deplorable. But it is also consistent with the Obama administration philosophy that political opponents should be treated as enemies.


Intelligent observers and fair minded people will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt vis-à-vis his level of involvement in the current scandals plaguing his administration. But granting the benefit of the doubt should not mean allowing President Obama to slap down plausible deniability like a trump card in a game of poker. He might not have been told about this or that, but that doesn’t mean he is absolved of responsibility.

President Obama and his entire administration are standing around the cart, jamming hot dogs down and looking around befuddled. Meanwhile, Tony the hot dog vendor is smiling and asking leadingly, “Hey President Obama, what does ‘plausible’ mean?”


You might also like