1. Stop lying and begin speaking the truth, however inconvenient and/or incriminating
or, do they:-
2. Enlist/cajole/coerce others to lie on their behalf?
By definition, a liar is one who tells lies, so the 2nd answer must always be true, because, if they cease telling lies, they can no longer be accurately called a liar.
This phenomenon can be seen in all manner of people, from serial killers to naughty children; a lie is immeasurably more potent (and believable) when it is supported by a third party, especially one who is otherwise regarded as being truthful.
The methods of manipulation can vary from deception to bribery, strangely though, the moral argument is often employed, 'it's for the greater good', 'that person deserves to be blamed' etc. This moral justification is most odd, because by knowingly joining such a subterfuge, the previously honest party becomes a liar too.
There is an added bonus to the tactic of enlisting others to confirm an untruth.
Responsibility for the lie can then be diverted towards such a collaborator, as if it was they who first initiated the falsehood.
As we approach four months from the Skripal poisoning, Boris Johnson has finally got OPCW to join his scheme of apportioning blame for chemical attacks, rather than simply confirming they took place. His previous attempt at garnering support from Porton Down, for the party narrative did not succeed particularly well, but politicians have a habit of ignoring history.
Determining who is guilty of using chemical weapons is a fine a laudable notion, but the OPCW track record is poor at even establishing if such events have occurred, much less at who might have carried them out. They appear to accept 'open source' reports i.e unattributable hearsay; as evidence and even regurgitate statements from al-Qaeda's white helmets, as though they were credible witnesses.
The most ludicrous piece of 'evidence', which shows a roomful of supposed victims piled on top of each other, is laughable in it's naivety. Chlorine is an extreme irritant and the notion that people would lay down and wait to die with eyes and lungs burning, and not run to clean air, is as unbelievable as the assertion that Assad would use gas when the battle was already won.
Chlorine is also a heavy gas, so how did it find a way up into these apartments (unless the chemical was already stored there).
The outrage and ridicule that resulted from the preposterous claims of Western governments was no surprise to many of us, but Boris & co are nothing if not persistent, and as a way of preparing for the next 'chemical attack' and the subsequent strike against Syria, enlisting the collusion of OPCW is a steady preliminary move, but I still prefer option 1.
Stop telling lies.