The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Queen Gertrude, Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2
In politics, the phrase “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” from Hamlet often rings true. This line, uttered by Queen Gertrude, suggests that an overabundance of denial or protestation can inadvertently reveal the truth.
Politicians, in their quest to maintain a pristine image, often resort to vehement denials when faced with allegations of wrongdoing. However, history has shown us that these denials can sometimes be the first sign of a scandal brewing beneath the surface. This has implications that can undermine the fabric of our liberal democracy, which relies on both trust in leaders, and that leaders are brought to account.
In this article I examine some of the most famous False denials, and their implications. False denials erode public trust in our politicians and institutions.
Close, but no cigar
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, provides a classic example of a politician denying wrongdoing, only to be later found out. The incident in question revolved around his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. In January 1998, Clinton famously stated in a televised address,
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Bill Clinton
His denial was emphatic, and he seemed utterly convinced of his innocence; at least, he projected such an image to the public.
However, as the investigation progressed, evidence contradicting Clinton’s denial emerged. Lewinsky testified under oath about her sexual encounters with the President, and a blue dress stained with Clinton’s DNA further corroborated her claims. Despite the mounting evidence, Clinton continued to deny the allegations, leading to a protracted legal and political battle that dominated his second term in office.
The truth eventually came out when Clinton, facing the threat of perjury charges, admitted to an “inappropriate relationship” with Lewinsky in August 1998. This admission, which contradicted his earlier denial, led to a significant blow to his reputation. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, becoming only the second U.S. president to be impeached.
Although he was acquitted by the Senate and completed his term in office, the scandal permanently marred his presidency and might be what he is most remembered for. This case is a stark reminder of the potential consequences of false denial.
Sword of Truth
Jonathan Aitken, former Conservative Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, provides another striking example of a politician who denied any wrongdoing, only to be later found guilty.
Aitken’s fall from grace began in 1995 when The Guardian newspaper and Granada Television’s World in Action programme accused him of breaching ministerial rules by allowing an Arab businessman to pay for his stay at the Paris Ritz. Aitken, in response, vehemently denied the allegations, famously declaring that he would fight the claims with the
…Simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play.
Jonathan Aitken
Aitken’s denial was not just a simple statement of innocence but a bold and dramatic challenge to his accusers. He initiated a libel action against The Guardian and Granada Television, confident that he could refute their claims. However, as the case progressed, it became clear that Aitken’s “sword of truth” was not as sharp as he had claimed.
The turning point in the case came when evidence emerged that contradicted Aitken’s version of events. His wife, Lolicia Aitken, provided an alibi, claiming she had paid the hotel bill. However, airline records showed that she was not in Paris at the time, Aitken claimed. This revelation was a significant blow to Aitken’s defence and led to the collapse of his libel case.
After the failed libel action, Aitken was charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The once-prominent politician’s reputation was left in tatters, and his political career was over. Aitken’s case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences when a denial turns out to be false, particularly when that denial is made under oath in a court of law.
Stormy Weather Ahead
With Donald Trump, it’s hard to pick an example; he’s denied so much that later it seems was true, From knowing there was Russian interference in elections to having classified documents.
In 2018, it was revealed that Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had paid $130,000 to Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement to prevent her from discussing an alleged affair with Trump. When the news broke, Trump categorically denied knowing about the payment. When asked about the payment he told reporters aboard Air Force One:
No, I don’t know anything about that
Donald J Trump
However, in the subsequent months, evidence emerged that contradicted Trump’s denial. It was revealed that Trump had indeed reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Daniels. In a television interview, Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, confirmed this. Giuliani stated that the money was
…funnelled…through the law firm, and the President repaid it.
Rudy Giuliani
Despite his initial denial, Trump was later forced to acknowledge the payment, although he continued to deny the affair. The incident resulted in legal troubles for Cohen, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, and it further added to the controversies surrounding Trump’s presidency. This case serves as a clear example of a situation where Trump categorically denied an allegation that was later proven to be true.
Mister Sleepy Cuddles
Alex Salmond, disgraced former First Minister of Scotland ex-SNP leader, provides a notable example of a politician denying allegations of wrongdoing. The controversy surrounding Salmond began in 2018 when he was accused of sexual misconduct by several women. Salmond vehemently denied the allegations, stating,
I have made many mistakes politically and personally, but I have not sexually harassed anyone, and I certainly have not been engaged in criminality.
Alex Salmond
Despite his strong denial, a subsequent investigation led to charges, and Salmond was put on trial for sexual assault. The trial was highly publicised and deeply divisive, causing a significant rift within the SNP. Throughout the trial, Salmond maintained his innocence, and in the end, he was found not guilty of charges in March 2020.
However, the controversy did not end with the trial. While it falls short of criminal conviction, it’s beyond doubt that despite his denials he had behaved inappropriately on several occasions going back years.
In a twist that added another layer to the scandal, Salmond’s lawyer, Gordon Jackson QC, was overheard on a train commenting about the case. Jackson was heard referring to Salmond as a “sex pest” and “bully” but also stated that he didn’t believe his client was guilty of criminality. These comments, which were public and later reported in the media, were seen as damaging to Salmond’s reputation, despite his acquittal.
The Salmond case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences when a denial is false or when private comments contradict public statements. Even though Salmond was acquitted, the scandal, revelations and subsequent comments by his lawyer significantly damaged his reputation and caused a deep rift within the SNP.
In Denial
Nicola Sturgeon, another disgraced SNP leader and ex-First Minister of Scotland, faced significant controversy over her handling of the sexual misconduct allegations against her predecessor, Alex Salmond. This controversy was further complicated by claims made by Natalie McGarry, a disgraced former SNP MP, which contradicted Sturgeon’s account of when she first became aware of the allegations.
Sturgeon had previously stated that she first learned of the allegations against Salmond in November 2017. However, McGarry claimed that she had informed a member of Sturgeon’s staff about an alleged incident involving Salmond in early 2014, three years before Sturgeon said she became aware of any inappropriate behaviour by her predecessor. McGarry reportedly expected Sturgeon to stop Salmond “in his tracks” after she relayed the information.
Despite these claims, Sturgeon insisted that she had not misled the Scottish Parliament and only became aware of the complaints and investigation in 2017. However, as earlier meetings came to light where she had been informed the Scottish Parliament committee set up to examine the Government’s failure to investigate Mr Salmond lawfully questioned Ms Sturgeon’s account of when she first knew about the claims. The committee’s report stated:
The committee finds it hard to believe that the First Minister had no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017.
Scottish Parliamentary inquiry
This incident serves as a clear example of a situation where Sturgeon’s denial was later contradicted by evidence. While Sturgeon was not found to have breached the ministerial code over her handling of the Salmond allegations, she was found guilty of misleading parliament and the controversy raised questions about her credibility, reliability and transparency from which she never really recovered.
His Own Archer Enemy
Lord Jeffrey Archer, a former Conservative Member of Parliament and novelist, is another example of a politician who denied wrongdoing only to be later found guilty. His case revolved around a libel case he brought against the Daily Star newspaper in 1987. The newspaper had alleged that Archer had paid for sex with a prostitute, Monica Coghlan. Archer vehemently denied the allegations and sued the newspaper for libel.
During the trial, Archer’s friend, Ted Francis, provided an alibi for him, claiming that they had been having dinner together at the time of the alleged encounter with Coghlan. This testimony was crucial in securing Archer’s victory in the libel case, and he was awarded £500,000 in damages.
However, years later, in 1999, Francis confessed that he had lied to provide an alibi for Archer. This revelation led to a perjury investigation against Archer. Despite his initial denial of the perjury allegations, evidence mounted against him, including a damning diary that showed discrepancies in his story.
In 2001, Archer was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice and was sentenced to four years in prison. His reputation was severely damaged, and he was stripped of his peerage. Archer’s case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences when a denial turns out to be false, particularly when that denial is made under oath in a court of law.
Pattern of Denial
Politicians, like anyone else, can make mistakes. However, the public scrutiny they face often leads them to deny any wrongdoing vehemently, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
The above examples, and others, do not mean every denial is false, but they do suggest a pattern: the examples illustrate that vehement denials by politicians are often part of a damage limitation and public relations tactic.
Interestingly, this behaviour might be linked to certain personality traits. Some psychologists suggest that sociopaths and psychopaths, who have a diminished capacity to distinguish right from wrong, may genuinely believe they have done no wrong. This belief, this sincerity, this egotistical sense of their own infallibility, can make their denials particularly convincing …until the truth comes to light.
Truth Will Out
The art of political denial is a complex and fascinating aspect of political behaviour. While it can serve as a short-term strategy to deflect criticism, the truth often emerges, significantly damaging the politician’s reputation, and their party by association. The more senior the politician and the more people who believed the denial, the deeper the damage. As observers of the political landscape, we must scrutinise these denials and seek the truth beneath the surface.
Politicians would do well to remember that the cover-up often does more damage than the transgression.
References
- Clinton, B. (1998). Public Statement denying sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The White House, Washington, D.C.
- Starr, K. W. (1998). Referral to the United States House of Representatives pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, § 595(c). Independent Counsel.
- Aitken, J. (1995). Statement on libel action against The Guardian and Granada Television. House of Commons, London.
- The Guardian. (1997). Aitken dropped by the right’s secret club. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/oct/26/uk.politicalnews
- Archer, J. (1987). Statement on libel action against Daily Star. House of Commons, London.
- BBC News. (2001). Archer jailed for perjury. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1446838.stm
- Trump, D. (2018). Statement denying knowledge of payment to Stormy Daniels. Air Force One.
- Giuliani, R. (2018). Interview on Fox News confirming Trump’s reimbursement to Cohen.
- Salmond, A. (2018). Statement denying sexual misconduct allegations. Edinburgh.
- Hamilton, J. (2021). Independent investigation into the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints against Alex Salmond. Scottish Government.
- McGarry, N. (2021). Twitter posts alleging earlier knowledge of Salmond allegations. Private Twitter account.
- The Scotsman. (2021). Ex-SNP MP claims she told Sturgeon’s staff of Salmond allegation in 2014. Retrieved from https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/06/09/ex-snp-mp-claims-she-told-sturgeons-staff-of-salmond-allegation-in-2014/
The Populist's Playbook 