Plausible Deniability

Plausible Deniability is when a person knows fully that they have leveraged their influence to skew the outcome of a situation to benefit themselves or the interested party or parties they represent, however in order to hide their furtive actions in back room deals, manipulations and power plays, they pretend to be unaware that it was their actions that brought about the situation, in order to avoid accountability, or other negative repercussions of telling the truth.

One good example is when a politician circumvents responsibility for regime change in a country by having plausible deniability, although it can be demonstrated that they’ve planned, chosen and installed a puppet government in order to be able to leverage the relationship in such a way as to benefit the interests of that politician’s associates and home country.

Helping Hillary Clinton to avoid accountability (by extension her employer, the U.S. government) of course is facilitated when the U.S. State Department, U.S. media and Clinton's opponents never question her on the topic of her interference in a sovereign country's elections.

In May 2015 the U.S. State Department made public 7,945 private emails of former U.S. Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Some 391 emails address or mention Haiti.

“The most interesting aspect of Clinton’s Haiti emails so far, however, is what’s not there, a gap in them from Dec. 15, 2010 until Nov. 23, 2012.

What can account for the sudden 23-month break?

An educated guess would be that U.S. censors want to hide Washington’s intervention and pivotal role in determining the outcome of Haiti’s sovereign elections following the first-round polling on Nov. 28, 2010.

In December 2010, Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) had announced that the winners of that first round were Mirlande Manigat and Jude Célestin, the candidate of then President René Préval’s party INITE (Unity). But through the Organization of American States (OAS)—dubbed some years ago by the Cuban government Washington’s “Ministry of Colonial Affairs”—the U.S. managed to overrule Haiti’s CEP and have third-place finisher Michel Martelly replace Célestin in the runoff.

Ricardo Seitenfus, a Brazilian professor of international affairs who was then the OAS’s Special Representative in Haiti, called the foreign intervention an “electoral coup.” After publicly expressing his dismay, Seitenfus was fired.

As the democratic uprising in Egypt was erupting, Clinton traveled to Haiti on Jan. 30, 2011, to pressure Préval’s government to bow to the OAS’s override of Haiti’s sovereign electoral council. After brief defiance, Préval folded. Martelly went on to win the Mar. 20, 2011, runoff, a contest with the record lowest voter participation (less than 25%) in a presidential election not just in Haiti but in the Western Hemisphere since 1945.

Haiti’s CEP, constitutionally the “final arbiter” of any election, never agreed with the election’s results. In July 2015, the 2011 CEP’s director general, Pierre Louis Opont, publicly admitted on Haitian radio that the Haitian electoral council’s results had been changed through the intervention of Hillary Clinton, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, and the OAS.

[…] The U.S. Embassy’s strong backing of the Martelly/Lamothe regime on Clinton’s watch as Secretary of State, which ended on Feb. 1, 2013, may also explain why the emails remain classified and hence missing from the State Department’s FOIA site.”

The mysterious gap in Hillary Clinton’s Haiti emails By Kim IvesSep 16, 2015

Given that Clinton had a hand in installing a puppet government in Haiti, is it fair to conclude that she may have some influence with this government? What if her brother gets a sweetheart mining deal? Can she plausible deny influencing the Haitian government to approve the deal?