> the whole point of the cover-up is a recognition that a full revelation of the underlying bad act is not survivable
There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction.
There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction.
Panic tends to bias towards action.
Just because there are only two possible outcomes doesn't mean that they are equiprobable. Not all coin tosses use a "fair" coin.
The percentages the comment you're responding to provides aren't probabilities, but damage fractions; 50% isn't a 50/50 likelihood, but 50% damage of the 100% case.
Fair coin flips have 50/50 odds. If we say that you get $100 if it comes up heads, and $0 if it comes up tails, then the expectation value for the money you'd have afterwards is $50=0.5*$100 + 0.5*$0. If it was an unfair coin with 30% odds of coming up heads, then your expectation value is $30= 0.3*$100 + 0.7*$0. And so on. The fact that the outcomes are dollars or damage percentages is irrelevant to the calculation.
* Successful cover up (0% damage).
* Failed cover up (100% damage).
* Don't bother (100% damage).
So if doing nothing and failing to cover up lead to the same result, you might as well give a shot at successfully covering up. Whatcha got to lose?
It is assumed not bothering is 100% damage because the screw up is apparently bad enough to warrant attempting a cover up.
In terms of risk analysis, rationally considering a coverup is in the same ballpark as rationally considering shorting a stock, in the sense that making the wrong call can cost a whole bunch more.
The Dalai Lama literally pulled down a six figure paycheck from the CIA, for example. The government was, is, and will continue to spy on you.
The difference is that if something is successfully covered up for 10-20-30 years, by the time the public finds out about it nobody really cares.
Did you mean "we don't know"?
Indeed, people go out of the frying pan and into the fire all the time.
I think the kernel of truth in the parent post is that the subjects might genuinely believe that the revelation of the original "crime" alone would be impossible to recover from, so they might as well go all in on trying to cover it up.
So, the "marginal cost" of additional penalties from a failed coverup just doesn't seem all that high given the potential upside of a successful coverup.
Murder? Check. Stealing a Snicker's bar? Probably just leave the evidence in place.
What is the threshold where you have to make the call? White-collar crimes feel the only place where you could make the argument that further action on the scene is likely to leave behind more evidence.
Nixon tapes, Iran Contra paper shredding, Enron paper shredding (we got Sarbanes Oxley out of that.) There are plenty of places where further action likely prevented far far worse things.
I think white collar crime is harder now, as evidenced by recent political scandals (fucking up your secure messaging app, bungling PDF's). I dont know of any one who has the technical acumen to fully cover their tracks.
Perhaps if the crash hadn't happened, the people/money on board could have ensured McCord (and the other plumbers) would have stayed quiet instead of telling Judge Sirica that it was a White House operation. Without some significant evidence of intent for the passengers, though, this is a pretty soft argument.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/12/08/dorothy-hu...
> What’s clear, though, is the influence the crash had on the arc of the Watergate scandal. It was a crucial turning point. Howard Hunt, worried his children would be orphans if he spent years in prison, asked his lawyer to meet with Colson and request a pardon from Nixon after a year of incarceration if Hunt would plead guilty and avoid trial.
> Colson spoke with Nixon, as recorded in White House tapes. Nixon agreed to the clemency proposal.
> Four other Watergate defendants, Cuban Americans from Miami whom Howard Hunt had brought to the burglary operation, took this as a cue that they’d be pardoned, too, and also pleaded guilty.
She was found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct, of obstruction of an agency proceeding, and of making false statements.