Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Guest Analysis: Is Swedish Politician Patrik Liljestrom Truthful?

by Lars Bak 

The Swedish politician, Patrik Liljeström, has on his facebook page published a statement, claiming that he has been raped because of his political activities. 

Question for Analysis: Is his account of the event truthfull? 

This is his recollection of the event:

"Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
At the end of July this year, when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening with a party comrade. There the pleasantness stops. On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife. I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia, that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
The few words and opinions the man uttered had a clear connection to me as politically active and therefore it affects us all."

I. Statement Form 

We start with measuring a statement on its form.

A statistically reliable statement will generally dedicate the most number of lines (or words) to what happened. This is because what happened, or "the event" is the most important thing to the subject. Here the politician claimed to be raped. In reporting rape, the priority will be the traumatic event. 

When we measure his statement on "what happened", we find that  most reliable statements' percentage breaks down naturally as such:
25% of the words or lines used will describe what happened leading up to the assault
50% of the words will be dedicated to the actual assault. It is the most important part of the account and anything close to 50% should be considered reliable. This speaks to priority. In such an acutely personal assault, most of the words will be dedicated to it.
25% of the words will be about what happened afterwards, such as calling the police, or getting help.

Anything reasonably close to this is acceptable.

In Liljeglöd’s statement the percentage is:
13% is about what happened leading up to the assault
11% is about the actual assault
0% about what happened afterwards. Instead, the remaining 76% of the statement is dedicated to an extensive speech about the conditions for political activities in today’s Sweden.
Based on this, we deem the statement unreliable in its form. This now puts us on alert for deception.

II. Analysis

Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
Where someone begins a statement is always important. It can indicate the priority and often the reason for the statement itself. 

Here Liljeglöd tells us himself that he will present us with an important matter, having to do with “Democracy as a right”. This is where he chose to begin his statement and we should question if this is his priority. It is an "important matter" that is to all of us "in the long run."

Consider in the context of rape, it is unnecessary to state something is an "important matter."

However, he expresses doubt about this by putting an effort into assuring us that we eventually will grasp the importance. We call this a need to persuade (NTP) which indicates that Liljeglöd himself is in doubt regarding the general importance, making the claim weak. The alleged purpose is sensitive to him, also indicated by the headline ending with a question mark.
At the end of July this year,
Considering that we are about to hear about a rape, it is unexpected, that we are not given a specific point in time; being raped is a highly traumatic and often a life changing event, so we would expect the point in time to be mentioned.  The hormonal response in such events ("fight or flight") leaves a lasting impression.

July this year” might suggest that Liljeglöd does not ascribe any importance to the time of the event. 

It just happened “sometime”. We must now look for, whether Liljeglöd finds the importance in the event itself or in his use of it – what “the important matter” actually is.
when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening together with a fellow party member.
When someone in an open statement is supposed to tell us what happened and then explains why it happened, we always notice it as having the highest sensitivity. It is as if the subject expects us to ask, "why?" when often such a question would not enter our minds. 

The reason why Liljeglöd chose to “wander” home is very sensitive to him; it is unnecessary information as is his mentioning of being alone. 

In analysis, unnecessary information is of double importance, because we must consider, why there is a need to mention it. 

He may withhold information about both his reasons for to walk home and whether he in fact was alone. It would also be interesting to know, what “wandering” means in his personal vocabulary – does it mean to walk straight home or is there some “strolling around” for some reason to it.

We would also want to explore for entry of substances: was he sober?
The language is “passive” in the way, that there is no one acting; he “was invited”. By the lack of pronouns, Liljeglöd removes himself, psychologically, from the statement indicating lack of commitment to it at this point. Liljeström does not commit himself to what he says. With something as horrific as rape, this is most unexpected.
The whole sentence does stylistically resemble “narrative building” or storytelling, which is often found in deceptive statements, rather than a truthful account of “what happened”. It indicates that the statement doesn’t come from experiential memory, but is likely made up.
We make a note of, that Liljeglöd does not tell us, that he walked home alone; he was only “invited” to do it
There the pleasantness stops.
Here Liljeglöd “jump out” of his narrative in order to comment on it. This also belongs to storytelling. Not only does it attribute “drama” to the story: we can be sure, that the idyllic evening will soon turn into something bad. At the same time, it slows down the tempo in the statement, which is also often found in deceptive statements, when it nears the actual happenings, because the recollection of them might be sensitive to the speaker.
On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife.
There is a jump in time here. We can’t say how big it is, but jumps in time suggests withholding or skipping over of information. Yet, it is on his mind enough to show a need to "jump" over it.  

It is very concerning that he gives the completely unnecessary piece of information, that the man was unknown; that the man was unknown “to me” is superfluous and makes it double sensitive. 

Is the man in fact known to Liljeglöd? Or is he known to somebody Liljeglöd knows? Why the need to emphasize that the man is not only unknown, but unknown “to me”. Had he consented to some sort of interaction but got second thoughts, angering “the man”? Is it somebody he went along with from the bus stop? At no point does Liljeström claim, that he was alone, and if he can’t bring himself to say that, we are not allowed to say it for him.
I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped
This is not an expected account of a rape. 

Would any rape victim ever speak of a rape as an add-on? 

“By the way, I was also raped”? 

The “brusquely” treatment is mentioned first, showing that it has higher priority for Liljeström. 

We don’t know what lies in “brusquely treated” – was he spoken impolitely to, was he commanded down on all fours, was he yelled at or what? 

“Brusquely”  speaks to intonation and appearance, whereas a rape at knife point is a horrific, violent act. 

Liljeström’s priorities here are so unexpected, that it is hard to believe him. On the other hand “I was brusquely treated” is a strong statement, starting with I and no unnecessary information; it is likely true, but immediately after it, he removes himself from the add-on “and at knife point also raped”, which weakens his commitment to the stated.

on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
Note: his party is named The Left-party

Now Liljeström introduces “pretext”. It is hardly possible to imagine any scenario, where a rapist reveals his “pretext” – “I rape you on the pretext that…”, so “pretext” must be Liljeström’s own assumption. But what makes him make it? If the three alleged utterings are a pretext, then they are per definition not the reasons for raping him; then Liljeström was simply raped because he was raped. It makes no sense. Is he leaking out here, that the story is his own pretext for stating his “important matter”.
The few words and opinions the man uttered
A rape victim is not expected to give in to the rapist in any way or form. Liljeström however allows for the rapist to have his opinions – “I do not consider myself a traitor, but he has the right to his own opinion”. This might be appropriate in a political panel discussion, but it is not something a victim of rape is expected to make room for.
That “the man” only uttered few words seems not trustworthy. 

Did the ““brusque treatment” not include any “utterances”? The entire story lacks detail that would indicate an experienced event. Liljeström does not appear to speak from experiential memory.
had a clear connection to me as politically active
They had not.
“I was a female Left-genitalia” could be aimed at any stereotyped, active or passive, supporter of The Left-party
“the likes of us like it this way” has no political implications whatsoever. Besides it sounds as a trivial cliché from a bad Hollywood prison movie – it resembles storytelling
I was a traitor” could be connected to Liljeström’s political activities. But he doesn’t tell us how. Has he been accused of being a traitor? Has he betrayed someone during his political activities? Does he intend to?
There is no linguistic connection to his political activities; we have two sexually loaded insults and one undefined accusation of being a traitor, which seems incongruent with the rapist’s former utterances. Is this his "brusque" treatment?
and therefore it affects us all.
Again it is nessecary for Liljeström to explain why it is affecting us all, making it sensitive to him. It could be, that he is aware of that the story is only a pretext.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception indicated

Liljeström reports being "attacked", then "brusquely" treated, and used "rape" as an add in or after thought.  

He is withholding information about his decision to “wander” home.
He is deceptive about whether he was alone at any point in time.
He is withholding information about his encounter with the alleged rapist, including the identity.
Being raped is very personal, and victims have strong linguistic connection to it.  

The subject does not.

The subject has no sensory detail given.

Motive: The priority is political publicity.

It is questionable whether the incident is made up in order to propagate a political agenda or if this was a random consensual sexual encounter in which he did not like the way he was treated. Either way, his priority is political.

It is not known if he knows the man of whom he reports, or if the man is a "friend of a friend." The unnecessary information "unknown to me" suggests knowledge and connection.

If you would like to enroll in training in Statement Analysis, we offer seminars for Law Enforcement and business, as well as private, at home study.

Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in the privacy of your own home, and comes with 12 months of e support.

Visit: Hyatt Analysis Services for information, including examples of our work.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Great Mom in Statement Analysis

We recognize two realities; one is within life, and one is within analysis, with the latter a verbalized perception.  

What we say in analysis is not what we say in life.  

"Never hire a _______" is both tongue-in-cheek and it is understood by analysts for what it is.  

In this sense, "I love you" is understood sometimes, not as an expression of an emotion, but in analysis, sometimes it is a signal of the time of death in a murder, and at other times, a verbal signal of a poor bonding or relationship.  

Fair Shew in the Flesh

We find in open statements, that when one writes, "I am a great mother", there is a correlation to child abuse, including both accusations and even formal investigations.  It is seen in the need to assert such, as presented.  

We find this, in various forms, in applications at Methadone Clinics particularly when a baby was born addicted to drugs and suffered acutely through withdrawal.  

We look into this need to persuade, that is, a need to make a portrayal as a good parent.  

There is an olde expression that says, "one is making a fair shew in the flesh" meaning, the "show" is done to satisfy self.  

An exaggerated version of this is when one blows a trumpet to announce how much money one is donated to a cause.  It is done to cause a presentation where self is highlighted.  "Look at me!"

At a supermarket parking lot, a woman viciously tore into her husband about a buckle on the car seat.  She caused a stir from the crowd as she gave an extreme reaction to a minor issue with the message:

"Look at me!  What a great and concerned mother I am! Only I have this high level of concern for my child! You don't love him as much as I do!" 

School teachers often bear the brunt of this.  The more negligent the parent, the more the teacher is blamed and even attacked.  When it is a negligent father, his bitterness can be frightening.  

This often leads to criticizing and tearing down of others.  

The "flesh" refers to self gratification and is often seen in narcissistic statements. The guilt of the negligent or abusive parent is countered by an over reaction to a minor issue.  

The child, as a novelty, becomes the tool for the parent. 

When we encounter, "I am a great mother" in any form, we investigate for a connection to child abuse. 

When we encounter "I love you", we investigate for a troubled relationship, whether it be in a domestic homicide or in child abuse.  

It is the need to use these words that we explore. 

To whom is the subject writing?

When we encounter "...and then I said 'I love you' to my kids and left..." in a police statement, we explore for:

a.  child abuse
b.  neglect
c.  missing information 

In the above, the subject has the need to tell police that she loves her kids.  This is unnecessary information meaning that it is very important to the analysis.  

But did you also notice her "leaving"?

The point of highlighting "left" in an open statement is this:

The person is not thinking of the destination but of the location of the departure. 

The person is not thinking forwardly, but is stalled. 

This is a statement in which the subject tells us that she is deliberately withholding information around the time of departure, likely associated with the children.  

"The Great Mom" in Statement Analysis has its examples.  

Recall in the murder of Hailey Dunn in which her mother, Billie Jean Dunn and mother's boyfriend, Shawn Adkins, failed polygraphs, she made this statement. 

Hailey's mother and mother's boyfriend had amassed a huge collection of:

child pornography
bestiality (sexual arousal in abuse of animals) 
blood lust videos (sex/violence)
and substance abuse. 

The "great mom" had burned a tattoo into one child while moving a violent pedophile into her home, after calling police on him, frightening her now murdered child.  

The mother projected her own "norm" on Facebook when she rhetorically asked,

"Who doesn't have some bestiality on their computer?"  

She carries her norm in her language and sees perversion everywhere.  

The Great Mom is not simply seen in the words "I'm a great mother" alone.  Recall the same mother, reporting to the world that her 13 year old had disappeared boasting of just how great a mother she was:  "...she wasn't just allowed to go out without asking permission...she wasn't allowed to..." 

Rather than focus on the plight of her "missing" child at this critical point, the mother focused upon her own self, and what a great mother she is.  She did not realize how she had slipped into past tense language of her missing daughter.  The need to focus on self in the very moment when all focus should be upon the child is telling. 

Recall the McCanns' early interviews.  They did not claim Madeleine was kidnapped (only their supporters did) and did not talk about what Madeleine would have been going through, hour by hour, with a kidnapper. 

This is because it did not exist in their memory bank.  It did not exist because it was not reality.  They did not spend hours stressing over what life must be like for Madeleine; if she had her special blanket, toy or bottle.  This was not a concern, therefore, it did not process in the brain, and was not in the memory bank when questioned.  

They were, however, great parents who worked diligently in dedicating words to show the exact number of meters away they were when they left their little children home alone, unattended.  They devote many more words to self than to Madeleine.  

The innocent parents of missing and murdered children speak one language while those of guilty knowledge speak another.  

The former blame themselves for any and everything, while the latter not only excuse themselves in portrayal as "good" and even "normal" parents, but the deception eventually causes them to go on the offensive and attack. 

The attack can include doubters, and then police and then even to law suits. 

The innocent are left bereft of their children and care for nothing else. 

The deceptive try to conceal their contempt for the world, but it is inevitable.  When one believes oneself smarter than all others in putting over a lie, contempt must come.

In the same sense, they often cling to their supporters but if you listen closely enough, you'll witness the contempt, often passive-aggressive, even as they praise the close circle of those they have successfully deceived.  

Parents who have a need to portray themselves in a positive light would not need to do so unless circumstances gave rise.  This is why we view it in open statements; they choose their own words and what they feel most important to state. 

For training in lie detection for your law enforcement department, business as well as for individual training in home, enroll in our Complete Statement Analysis Course at

Sunday, September 17, 2017

St. Louis Police Shooting: Statement

Question for Analysis:  Did Jason Stockley murder Anthony LaMar because LaMar is black?

We have the first statement from the shooter, after the verdict ended the formal gag order from the court.  

Statement Analysis gets to  the truth. 

In context, a reliable denial must contain:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.   The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"  (only Reid differentiates, claiming that "didn't" is more casual.  Statement Analysis shows both to be equally reliable). 
3.  The specific allegation addressed.  In this case, if he says "I did not kill Anthony LaMar", it would be unreliable.  He did "kill" LaMar, but the allegation is "murder."  

 Jason Stockley,  was found not guilty in the fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect, Anthony LaMar.  

The former police officer broke his silence and said, 

"I did not murder Anthony Lamar Smith. I did not plant a gun.  I can feel for and I understand what the family is going through, and I know everyone wants someone to blame, but I'm just not the guy."

This is a very strong denial.  Note that he does not blame the criminal, which would, in context, further increase the danger to his own life.  

"Black Lives Matter" claims that the former police officer intentionally  murder the suspect because of racism. 

Consider the fleeing suspect, dangerous chase, and refusal to follow orders by a drug dealer, as context, while considering the claim of murder by race.  Stockley continued:  

"It feels like a burden has been lifted, but the burden of having to kill someone never really lifts. The taking of a life is the most significant thing that one can do, and it's not something that is done lightly and it's not something that should ever be celebrated. And it's just a horrible experience altogether. But, sometimes, it's necessary."

Note now, with the word "kill" in an admission, why the denial of "I did not murder" is appropriate.  This is a reliable denial.  

Note next the distancing language from the trauma (being accused and actually tried for murder) with the pronoun "one", along with his own rebuttal ("but") regarding necessity of police.  Note also that the distancing language, in context, is one coming out of the trial, having just been accused of deliberate murder.  It is appropriate to distance oneself, especially in a job where lethal force, in cases like this, is necessary.  

This is to blame the victim without doing so outwardly.  He puts the responsibility of the shooting upon the criminal action of the suspect.  
Some did not agree with  the judge's verdict and thus far, 10 police officers have been injured in the violent protests in St. Louis. 

Protestors did not agree with the judge's "not guilty" verdict took to attacking police and damaging property, claiming that, along with "Black Lives Matter", believe Stockley deliberately killed LaMar because of the color of LaMar's skin, and planted a gun on LaMar.  

The judge who acquitted a Stockley in the killing  is described as objective and well-respected by both prosecutors and defense lawyers alike.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson, who must retire when he turns 70 in December, has ruled both for and against police during his 28 years on the bench.
"He's very methodical and a very objective judge," Jack Garvey, a lawyer and former St. Louis circuit judge told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "He really will review everything before he makes a decision. I don't think he's ideological in any way."
Jason Stockley was charged with first-degree murder in the 2011 death of Anthony Lamar Smith following a high-speed chase in which LaMar fled a scene, and was found with both heroin and a gun.  

 Prosecutors claimed Stockley planted a gun in Smith's car.

The judge said he pored over the evidence "again and again," including reviewing three sources of video: 

 from a restaurant surveillance camera, 
the squad car and a bystander's cellphone.  
The gun recovered from the car was a full-size revolver that would have been visible on video if Stockley had tried to plant it, Wilson said, because it couldn't be concealed in his palm or pockets, and Stockley was not wearing a jacket.
What's more, Smith's DNA was on a bag that contained heroin found in his car, and the judge said based on his nearly 30 years on the bench, "an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly."

He said Stockley also did not begin shooting Smith when he approached the car, but 15 seconds later, after he ordered Smith to show his hands and open the door.
Stockley talked about the optics, which gives insight into why he puts responsibility upon the criminal, but only indirectly:

"Every resisting looks bad. They never look good. So what you have to separate are the optics from the facts, and if a person is unwilling to do that, then they've already made up their mind and the facts just don't matter. To those people, there's nothing that I can do to change their minds."
The violent protests will continue to make police less likely to stop black criminals, further increasing the risk to black communities.  

The "War on Police" which began in earnest from the earliest days of Barak Obama's tenure, continues to put police in harm's way, as politicians have fueled racism and anger to the point of the absurdity of defending dangerous drug dealers over police. 

update:  Black Lives Matter trashed St. Louis library. 

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Deception: The Psychology of Backlash

Hillary Clinton released a book which was unique in that it posed both the question and the answer on the cover:

"What Happened

Hillary Clinton."

Exerts from the book are fascinating in that she takes the topic of personal responsibility to a new and often shocking level. 

Successful people take ownership of their failures and learn from them.  

The blaming of others is interesting to read.  Here are just those that I've read in exerts online. Her blaming of others teaches us many things about her.  She had not campaigned much in some states, had not written a concession speech, refused to concede until President Obama intervened, and had even spent a great deal of her money purchasing a home for the Secret Service agents to live next door to her.  She even refused to concede until the next day and only under pressure from President Obama.  

Hillary Clinton went into the 2016 election with:

Virtually all of Media Support,
99% (or more)  of Hollywood celebrity endorsements 
A narrative taught from kindergarten  through college 
The worldwide support of politicians, celebrities and media
The support of the political elite including President Obama 
The largest financial backing a candidate has ever seen, including the untold millions and millions through the "Clinton Foundation"
The refusal of the Justice Dept. to prosecute her in spite of publicly stated findings of  crimes
The refusal of the FBI to request prosecution 

Consistent polling showing dramatic victory.  

TV news shows openly joked and ridiculed anyone who dared suggest to the contrary. 

They labeled anyone who did not voice support for Hillary Clinton to be "racist", "misogynist" and even "nazis."  The pressure was such that people reported fearing for their jobs if they expressed support for anyone other than Hillary Clinton at their workplace. 

For some, these fears became realized after the election. 

The pressure was extreme and for many Americans, the shock of what unfolded that night remains.  
Hillary lost.  

Here are just a few of where she placed the blame for losing the election.  

She blamed:

Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the Democratic Primary of whom we learned that the primary was fixed so that Sanders would lose.  

"His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

"Crooked Hillary" came from the unanswered allegations of "Clinton Cash" in which the Clintons are alleged to have pilfered millions and millions of dollars from poor African counties, Haiti, as well as deep times to Russian billionaires and uranium deals.          

From a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Hillary's emails now confirm why Hillary did not issue any denials regarding the Clinton Foundation's exploitative activities.  We may now see calls for a special prosecutor. 

She writes that he impugned her character, made unrealistic promises of free everything to everyone, that put her in the position of being a wet-blanket realist and did little to confront those in his movement who were launching "ugly and more than a little sexist" attacks on her supporters.  
Clinton also points out that Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party and, consequently, may not always have the party's best interests in mind.
"I am proud to be a Democrat, and I wish Bernie were, too," she writes.  Sanders is an international socialist.  

Russia:   This is listed separately from Vladimir Putin because of the deals between Hillary and Russian businesses who donated millions of dollars to the "Clinton Foundation."  The ties between Hillary and Russia must be understood in context, when we view the actions of President Obama and why he told Hillary to concede in light of Susan Rice's "unmasking" deception. Putin:  I never imagined that he would have the audacity to launch a massive covert attack against our own democracy, right under our noses-and that he'd get away with it", she wrote.  President Obama's justice department had already done an investigation and knew this was not true, which is why he insisted that Hillary concede. 

Of Barak Obama, she blamed him for not calling a national news conference to announce that their "democracy was under attack" and in danger.  Recall the personal animosity between Obama and the Clintons as seen in a snap shot after he was first elected and became angry that Hillary addressed him by his first name.   


"I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack. Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat in time. " White People

As one woman pointed out:  Hillary called the husbands, sons and brothers of women "deplorable, nazi, sexists" and fully expected women to have more loyalty to her than their own families.  

Hillary blamed white people in general, including white women who she labeled misogynists.  

Here is a lesson in advanced analysis:  Projection.  

You can identify a racist by following the language.  It guides us to the truth.  Those who incessantly "see" racism everywhere and anywhere are projecting.  

Racism is something that can be evidenced in language.  It is a deep personal animosity based upon race.  

Those who are not racist do not carry heavy racist thoughts.  

Those with racism do carry heavy thoughts, and it becomes evident in their language.  

Recall the analysis when a most privileged young man in law school, who comes from a wealthy background and name drops politicians says that he lives "every day" with the "burden of my skin color", he reveals himself as such. It goes beyond exploitation and reveals a deeply embedded insidious racism.  

Projection in Analysis Training:

In studying deception detection, honest people struggle, at first, to identify deception.  They simply project their own honesty on to others and it takes training to overcome.  When it moves to content analysis these "trusting" analysts do quite well.  

The exception is often found in law enforcement and this is because they deal with deception every day, all shift.  

"To the pure all things are pure; to the froward, all things are froward

Jill Stein 

This one came as a bit of a surprise, as it seems there is no end to casting blame upon others. 

In 2016 Jill Stein (Green party) received 1,457,216 votes.  Was she a "misogynist" too?  Were the 1.4 million who voted for her misogynist?

She blamed James Comey and the FBI 

"If not for the dramatic intervention of the FBI director in the final days we would have won the White House."  Comey declined to recommend prosecution, which in looking back was all but  perfunctory since Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton and would not have prosecuted.  "I don't know quite what audience he was playing to, other than maybe some right-wing commentators, right-wing members of Congress, whatever." 


This is a word, like "racist" and "nazi" that has lost its meaning.  When actual misogyny is evidenced in criminal investigations, it is frightening and most always deadly.  

"This has to be said.  Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election.  Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."

This builds false narrative and makes assertion of "sexism" against the one who defeated her. She sees "sexism" everywhere because she is sexist; that is, she demands to be voted for based upon her sex.  

"I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president," she said during a CBS interview. "It doesn't fit into the stereotypes we all carry around in our head. And a lot of the sexism and the misogyny was in service of these attitudes. Like, you know, 'We really don't want a woman commander in chief'." She could not accept that voters did not want her as commander in chief.  As to the computer scandal and Wikileaks document dump, she did not address what was in the emails, but claimed the emails were selectively released.  This is not true.  Wikileaks does document "dumps" of massive files.  Selectivity comes from the journalists who present the material.   





But there is one place she assigns blame that I wish to link to deception and backlash: 

                                    The media. 

Hillary blames the media that was, by most estimates, more than 95% extremely favorable to her.  But it was the media's stance towards Trump:  they routinely invented news stories, hence, "fake news" entered our lexicon, as they did everything they could to demonize him personally.  This is the main point of this application of Statement Analysis.  


"Many in the political media … can't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump, from providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people's lives combined."

Statement Analysis Lesson: 

Media did not have "bias" towards Hillary.  Main Stream Media ran a campaign of psychological warfare.  

It incessantly presented anyone who disagreed with them as "white supremacist", including black conservatives. 
It portrayed a religious zealotry-like demarcation between "good and evil", labeling anyone who disagreed with them and Hillary as unworthy of life.  Coming off 8 years of incessant racist stirring (racism) and the "war on cops" (a war on authority), America appeared weak and feeble to resist.   When absurdity was introduced, millions quickly fell prey.  This is not "bias" but the results of psychological warfare, 24 hours per day; 7 days per week .  At any hour, tuning in, for example, to CNN meant endless personal contempt for one candidate, while gushing praise (feeding questions) for another; all presented as "news" and "journalism." 

It has not abated.  Recently, CNN ran a male journalist saying that although Trump was using the "right words" in Houston while comforting hurricane victims, "his words rang hollow." As proof he offered, "he does not hug children."

Later they ran a video and claimed that Trump deliberately and callously avoided a handicapped boy in a wheelchair.  

It took a citizen journalist to show the false editing; Trump had spent more time with the boy than with others.  


We are looking at an element of language where obsession overtakes the language.  

There is a short analysis here on the blog of a retired FBI agent who wrote a defense of Amanda Knox.  In advanced analysis, it is now used for psycho linguistic profiling.  It shows the acute use of hyperbole which then becomes absurdity.  His obsession with Knox eventually cost him employment.  

He repeatedly referred to his former career as the basis for his argument while ridiculing anyone who disagrees with him for not having his resume.  

Lesson:  What is the impact of repetitive hyperbole and personal attacks?

Answer:  the opposite of that which was intended. 

As an exercise, count the number of points he makes where he referenced actual evidence. 
Then, count the number of points he makes about his background.  

Compare the two.  

This is where we see the point about the media and Hillary Clinton. 

What was the psychological impact upon the nation of the relentless ridicule of one candidate and the incessant praise of the other?

Note the pattern there:

1.  His background 

2.   Insulting those who disagree with him
3.  Comparing his background with those who disagree with him 
4.  Hyperbole 

The reader is left wondering, "does this person believe his own words?"

This is the opposite of what he intended.  

It is as if to say, "believe me without question, but if you do question me, you are a person unworthy of life.  I do not need facts.  I do not need the case file.  I do not need to interview the investigators.  I know that every rule of every investigation by every investigator was broken."  

This is where it tips from extreme hyperbole over to absurdity.  

Hillary blaming the press has truth.  In this sense, the press did help elect Trump.  With 99% Hollywood and around the clock support by media, and the non-stop demonization of Trump, how is it possible that she could have lost?

The answer is found in deception.  

The psychology of deception also includes:

Contempt for the recipient. 

Pathological Liars hold the world in contempt.  They have learned, from childhood, that they are "smarter" than everyone else, including teachers (authority).  This is what good investigators use against criminals:  the ego.  

This is why guilty people often take the polygraph to their own detriment.  

The liar has a need to persuade that grows with time. 

It goes from 

Need to Persuade eventually to hyperbole and eventually to absurdity.  

The contempt for the recipients eventually causes them to demonize. 

When they are exposed, the hatred explodes in offensive attacks. 

This is the pattern of pathological liars.  

It is why, in 1943, a team of psychologists predicted Hitler's suicide.  

It is why liars, when accused, attack others, such as filing fraudulent suits and destroying lives.  This is what Lance Armstrong did. 

This is Hillary's time of explosion.  She is attacking even former allies.  She was delusional in thinking that she could use sexism to win the presidency.  This presupposed, as one woman explained:

"Hillary called our husbands, sons and brothers 'racist', 'deplorable' and 'misogynists.' She thought we would have more loyalty to her than our own families."

Many people did not vote so much for Donald Trump as they voted against Hillary.  In her campaign as well as in her defeat, her language revealed that she "carried" (volume, frequency) racism and sexism.  She "sees" it everywhere.  This is projection.  This incessant repetition of "misogyny" should be compared to Trump's inappropriate crude joke; something most people have either done or laughed at in private.  Hillary's contempt is now shown in failure.  Successful people own their failures and grow from them.  In the "Art of the Deal", Trump repeatedly failed in life, but would not quit.  

The objection that Hillary was a successful senator and secretary of state is answered by the fact that we would not even know her name if not for her husband.  It is the basis of her election and appointment.  What she did as senator and as secretary of state may now become the object of intensive investigations.  

The incessant psychological warfare from the media and elite impacted the election.  As America was divided, it still held to groups who wished to debate issues in a civil setting.  It is here that media's deceptive techniques may have tilted the election.  

There are those, like me, who believe in small government and politicians staying out of our social lives.  These believe in equality under the law, the rule of law and equal opportunity for all under the law.  They do not believe in equal outcome; that is up to the individual.  

Then there are those who want some government involvement in our social lives.  These are those who want to guarantee equality of outcome, which leads to legalized discrimination.  These could have gone either way in the voting. 

What happened? 

The incessant insult of contempt and demonization backfired just as the need to persuade went unchecked.  The incessant insult backfired just as what happens when the escalation of "Need to Persuade" goes unchecked.  

Main Stream Media and elite insulted Americans into thinking, in many different wordings, the same message: 

"If they need this much to convince me, they must be doing something wrong." 

Bill Di'Blasio wants to assess financial penalties up to one-quarter of a million dollars to force people into accepting a male who thinks he is a female, as a "woman."  

The coercive factor has a psychological impact. 

Politicians tells us that if we do not accept the 20 to 30 year predictions of "Global Warming" (though we struggle to predict weather patterns longer than 2 days) we must be "evil" and may even face prosecution. 

In the same vein, if we do not accept that "Islam is the religion of peace" we (in the West) face coercive measures, including incarceration, by the elite.  

How "true" must the claim be if it warrants such extreme measures to implement it?

This is the doubt that liars, themselves, bring to recipients which indicates the inability to conceal contempt.

 Then there are those who have fallen most prey to politicians' deceptions and are readily identified because they will go as far as echo absurdity in order to be among the "in" crowd. If calling a mentally ill grandfather the "woman of the year" or embracing pedophilia as "cultural diversity" means being popular, they are all in.   These are "progressives" who use tyranny to impose their ever-changing ("progressing") beliefs upon others.  What they hold dear today will be condemned by their own children tomorrow, simply because their children, if  also become "progressive" will reject any conserving of ideas from yesteryear.  Like those who believe Trump can do no wrong, these are those who would vote for Hillary under every and all circumstances and who openly declare anyone who disagrees as the enemy.  These are those who, if they continue,  will lead America into a  civil war of bloodshed.  They are religious fanatics of whom "leftism" is their religion and statism their god.  With their moral impetus and abandonment of reason, they are the most dangerous. Interestingly enough, with all of Hillary's claims of independence and feminism, it is now well known that she takes no personal responsibility for anything. 

Those who build successfully are the opposite.  They embrace and learn from their failures.  

Objection:  Isn't being a US senator and former secretary of state someone who has experienced success? 

Answer:  If not for her husband, we would never have even known her name.         


Statement Analysis Lesson Conclusion:

Liars have a need to persuade because they do not have the psychological "wall of truth."

This "need to persuade" goes beyond a simple defensive posture that even truthful people embrace contextually.  

When the need to persuade (NTP) becomes acute, it enters the language in frequency and in sensitivity.  

When the NTP becomes extreme, it now runs in two parallel themes:

1.  Embracing of Absurdity 
2.  Demonization of Disagreement 

It is that in both the absurdity (illogical, unreasonable) and in the wording used to demonize disagreement that we find contempt. 

The contempt's specifics are determined by the carrying of words. 

The racist "sees" racism everywhere.  Even when decrying racism for profit, one reveals one's own racism. 

The sexist "sees" sexism everywhere.  Even when decrying "sexism", Hillary demanded votes based upon her sex.  She "carries" sexism in her language; that is, both volume and repetition.  

America failed Hillary. 

The pattern of linguistic psychological warfare is recognizable over time:

1. Need to Persuade
2. Hyperbolic language and repetition 
3. Extremism
4.  Embracement of Absurdity, including suspension of reason, fabrication ("fake news"), immediate abandonment of life long beliefs  ("evolving positions")

5.  Demonization of Disagreement including coercive measures including threats, social isolation, loss of employment   
The impact, when it goes "too far" is often the opposite of that which was intended:  the backlash.


Regrettably, when one is falsely labeled something for a very long time, the rage that builds can prove to be self fulfilling.  This is a similar pattern found in "Sensitivity Trainings" where the attendees are often left with more anger and contempt than when they entered the training.  

Deception has its cost and whether personal, business or even national, the need to persuade rather than truthfully report is a powerful influence upon the recipients.                        

    Those who are habitual in deception hold the world in contempt. They carry contempt, in specific terms, in daily language.  To discern such, one need only to listen.