Friday, February 6, 2015

Statement Analysis: Richard Blumenthal



We have seen the recent deception of Brian Williams and his unwillingness to own his lies and seek forgiveness.  He has the rare (less than 10%) outright lie, though he also is deceptive via missing or suppressed information, which is 90% of what most deception looks like.  This is why we let the words guide us, trusting in the words, sentence by sentence.  We must, however, be aware of the 10% or less lie.

Richard Blumenthal is a good reminder.

Brian Williams has lied outright, and has lied via missing information or deflection.  Yet his outright lie is what stuns us.

In this, I have compared him to another outright, bold liar:  Richard Blumenthal.  This was analysis done during the election, updated with reference to another similar character, Bill Cosby.

While running for office, Richard Bluemthal told Viet Nam Veterans that he was in Viet Nam, dodging bullets and knew the danger they suffered, hence, able to serve their needs in an elected office.

He then was researched and found to have never set foot in Viet Nam.

Question:  Is it possible that a Harvard educated Attorney General could boast about his service in Vietnam even though he never went to Vietnam and secured 5 deferments just to avoid going there?

Answer: Yes, and here is his statement:

"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility, but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country." 

That is a comment by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal regarding questions surrounding his past statements about his military service.

By now, you have learned to key in on the word "but" in Statement Analysis, to know the important information in a sentence follows this particular word.

"On a few occasions" remember, the shortest sentence is best. Additional words give us additional information. If a sentence can work without a word, the added word should be noted.

"few" is an attempt to minimize.

"occasions" are instead of formal speeches. This is an attempt to minimize the deception he propagated in order to gain favorable results in an election.

What would you have said?

 Remember, the statements made were in front of not only live audiences, but with cameras rolling. Was this just a "few occasions", or were they formal political addresses with large crowds and media?

Maybe he meant that he said it, off handedly, at a picnic, or something.

This raises an important question about the link between event and memory:

Would you forget that you didn't go to a country, thousands of miles away, while being shot at with weapons that could have ended your life?


If you study statement analysis in an attempt to become a better liar, it will not help you. It is something ingrained within you at childhood; truth or fabrication, and it is habit forming. Even those who read that deceptive people often employ words like "swear, honest to God, swear to God, honestly" and so on, still employ these words, as the brain tells the mouth what words to use processing this information in less than a microsecond.  Think: the brain knows thousands of words, and in a moment, chooses which ones to say.  Lying from childhood becomes "habitual" and continual.  Often, the habitual liar will tip his hand by lying where there is no apparent reason to lie.

"I have misspoken about my service "

No, he said he was in Vietnam and research has showed that he worked hard at making sure he was not in Vietnam, but safely in Washington, D.C, running "Toys for Tots" in the reserves.

"misspoken" past tense is a word used to soften or minimize (neutralize) the word "lied". Misspoken conjures up thoughts of an innocent mistake, rather than an intention to deceive.

"and I regret that"

"that" means distance, "this" means closer, in our language. He instinctively distances himself, not from "lying" or a "lie" but he even distances himself from the softer "misspoken" regret.

Please note that "regret"is an emotion.

He does not own that he lied.  In fact, he refuses to call it a "lie", but telling Viet Nam veterans that he was in the land in which they suffered, and that he also suffered with them, is in his personal, internal subjective dictionary, just a "mis-speak."

Now imagine what his career has been as a prosecutor.

Did he "misspeak" against the accused?  Did he order his subordinates to do the political expedient thing over and above the truthful and honest thing?

He has not owned, nor asked for forgiveness. I think anyone who said that they were in another country only to be caught lying would likely regret being caught. I believe his regret is genuine, but it is not linked to deception, but rather to having been caught.

"And I take full responsibility"

at first glance, this sounds strong. But remember, the shortest sentence is best. "And I take responsibility" is shorter. "full" is the emphasis that he feels he needs to add, thus weakening the statement, however, this wasn't the end of the sentence. The word "but" now employs the most important part of his message:

"but"

This word will now refute or minimize, via comparison, that which preceded it.  The words following "but" are, in context, more important to the speaker:

"but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country." 

he will "not allow"; forbid, control. How can he "not allow"
"anyone" (neutral gender)

This shows the arrogance of a liar.  The language of a narcissist is often laden with "Divine" like qualities.  Recall Bill Cosby's threats against not only his victims, but journalists.  "If I even hear your name..." as if his control over his environment could be invaded by outside influences.

He now expresses himself in terms of divinity; controller over destiny, and over the minds and hearts of Americans who will hear these words. He will not "allow"; language that deludes himself and shows how far from reality he is.

When you read this you can now see why someone with his intellect and place in life can be so utterly void of common sense. Does he have the ability to see how he makes himself sound?  Is someone of such a strong intellect so void of self awareness?

In your life, could you go to your job, or to your family, and simply announce that you were in, for instance, "war-torn Bosnia" during the height of conflict? You know, when they thought you were home, or at school, all that time, you were really dodging bullets in the streets of Bosnia. Your family might look at you and question your validity.

It is equally absurd; showing how out of touch a deceptive person can become over the years. A young liar may be good, but a liar who reaches the age of a grandparent has a lifetime of practice at deception but ego overrides and causes them to look foolish.

"to take a few misplaced words"

Here we have a change in language, from misspoken to misplaced. A change of language represents a change in reality. When the girl kissed the man, the man fell in love with the woman. Notice the change? She was a girl, but once they kissed, she became a woman.

Where there is no justification for the change, it is likely deception.

"The car ran roughly. I ran out of gas. I left the vehicle on the side of the road."

It was a car when it went, but now that it cannot transport, it is a vehicle.

Here, we have a change. His words were "misspoken" but now, are not "
misspoken at all, but were "misplaced", meaning, put into the wrong place.

This means that he stands behind his lies and reveals what his regret is:

That he spoke his lies in the wrong settings. Had there been no cameras running, he could have used his "Vietnam" experiences to persuade vets to vote for him and if called on the carpet, he could easily deny.

He will not allow someone to "take" these "misplaced" words.  To him, the words are no longer "misspoken", as he affirms their validity:  they were just in the wrong place, and this was done, not by him, but by someone else, of whom he will not "allow", as if he has control over others.

But because the cameras were rolling, it is hard for him to watch and listen to the lies he told.

He takes "full responsibility", but he has provided service to his counrty. The use of the word but suggests that he doesn't take responsibility at all, because he feels that he has a record of service to his country after all.

This politicians statement regarding the lies he told about his service in Vietnam reveal that he is a chronic, life long liar, who thought he was above being questioned, and is still in denial about his own mortality.

In his election, he asks for those who do not know him to trust him, while those who know him, and know, for example, that when he was 18, he was running Toys for Tots and not dodging bullets.

Profile

The arrogance and deceptive nature of the statement issued by Blumenthal tells us that this is a man who has long lied without  consequence and that he has been a man of authority, who has had much success in exerting his will over others.

11 comments:

GetThem said...

OT ------- This keeps coming up and it's driving me insane because I can't figure out how to SA it.

People say "yah, no" before answering a question. They say BOTH things!! I just made a sales call and asked for my contact. The receptionist said "yah, no, she's not in until this afternoon." How can you say "yah" and no in the same sentence? Help all your smarties out there please!!!

Buckley said...

You know, I think they mean you know, and say the you with a drawl.

Buckley said...

Or maybe the yeah is acknowledgement of what you said, and the no is that she can't meet your request.

john said...

OT:

Armstrong's longtime girlfriend lied to the cops after he struck parked vehicles, police say

(CNN)Former cycling champ Lance Armstrong struck two parked vehicles as he drove home from a night of partying but wasn't charged until his longtime girlfriend said she wasn't behind the wheel, according to police in Aspen, Colorado.

Read More:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/03/us/lance-armstrong-cited/


911 call of alleged Lance Armstrong hit-and-run
Cycling champ accused of running into parked cars


http://www.wbaltv.com/sports/911-call-of-alleged-lance-armstrong-hitandrun/31106800?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=WBAL-TV%2011%20Baltimore%20-%20wbaltv11&Content%20Type=Video&linkId=12177296

Buckley said...

he will "not allow"; forbid, control. How can he "not allow"
"anyone" (neutral gender)

This shows the arrogance of a liar. The language of a narcissist is often laden with "Divine" like qualities. Recall Bill Cosby's threats against not only his victims, but journalists. "If I even hear your name..." as if his control over his environment could be invaded by outside influences.

He now expresses himself in terms of divinity; controller over destiny, and over the minds and hearts of Americans who will hear these words. He will not "allow"; language that deludes himself and shows how far from reality he is.


How very interesting! I saw that phrase in a (since deleted) comment and didn't think much of it. Good to know its significance- thanks :)

Anonymous said...

Ugh and he's my (who I didn't vote for) Senator :(

New England Water Blog said...

Blumenthal is that most contemptible kind of liar who still tries to hold his ground when caught. He does not own up in the way someone who truly "mispoke" would do. When I was growing up this mispoke garbage only worked up until about age 4. After that you became responsible for what you said, this kind of excuse did not exist. That a lying piece of garbage like this can dupe the public into trusting him sickens me to no end. Other than that I have no strong feelings on the subject.

tania cadogan said...

off topic

Defense attorney Jose Baez has learned the hard way that winning a high-profile murder trial may not always translate into a big pay-out.

The Florida lawyer best known for successfully representing Casey Anthony has been cheated out of nearly $400,000 as part of his former client’s bankruptcy settlement, it was revealed today.

Anthony, who was acquitted in July 2011 in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, filed for bankruptcy in 2013 claiming $1,000 in assets and $792,000 in liabilities, most of them legal fees.

According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline, the trustee overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings has allowed the 28-year-old Anthony to keep $500 worth of personal property, including clothes, jewelry, a camera, a bike and some furniture.

An unemployed Miss Anthony filed for Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy in January 2013.

Her listed debts owed to 80 creditors included $500,000 for attorney fees and costs for Jose Baez; $145,660 for the Orange County Sheriff's office for a judgment covering investigative fees and costs related to the case; $68,540 for the Internal Revenue Service for back taxes, interest and penalties; and $61,505 for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for court costs.

Anthony became nationally notorious after she was accused of murdering her daughter Caylee, whose badly decomposed body was found six months after she went missing in June 2008.

Suspicion fell on the girl's mother because she did not report her daughter missing for a month and was seen at the time partying.

Anthony was arrested and put on trial for Caylee's murder but in July 2011 was acquitted of the killing and went into hiding.

In August 2013, Anthony agreed to pay $25,000 to her bankruptcy estate to avoid having to write her life story.

The newly released court documents show that money went to bankruptcy trustee Stephen Meininger and his attorneys.

A year after the trial, which had kept Americans glued to their TV screens for six weeks, Baez published a tell-all book titled Presumed Guilty chronicling his experience defending Anthony, once dubbed 'America's most hated woman.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943096/Lawyer-successfully-defended-Casey-Anthony-murder-trial-loses-400-000-legal-fees-declares-bankruptcy.html



tania cadogan said...

off topic

Rafaele Sollecito appears to be morphing into Amanda Knox - the woman who helped him murder his ex-girlfriend - as the duo prepare for yet another appeal against their convictions.

Sollecito was re-convicted along with his former lover, U.S citizen Knox, of killing his former partner Brit, Meredith Kercher, in November 2007.

The pair's appeal against those convictions will now take place next month, a year after they were found guilty over the death for a second time.

It seems unlikely Knox, who now lives in the U.S, will ever be returned to jail for the crime as she has repeatedly refused to return to Italy. If she is convicted again, Italy is likely to request to extradite her but her longstanding battle to prove her innocence has made her a cause célèbre in the U.S who may ignore political pressure to send her back. Sollectio on the other hand has no cards to play. He remains in Italy and authorities have his passport.

Ahead of the appeal, Sollecito appeared on Italian TV State Rai1, and with his long-flowing chestnut-colored hair he looked very similar to his co-offender.

He again maintained his innocence, saying: 'If we look at the facts objectively, we'll see officers made several mistakes. Investigators never went further in looking at many things.

'I still cannot believe I might go to prison for something I did not do. I have suffered threats and pressures by investigators. They locked me in a room for 15 hours and questioned me for a long time, threatening that I would not be allowed out of prison.'

Sellecito said 'I can still not shake off this sword of Damocles', and also said he believes '100 per cent' that Knox did not kill Kercher.

Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years in jail by the Appeal Court in the northern city of Florence and Knox received 28 years.

Sollecito and Knox were first found guilty of murder in November 2009.

The killers' convictions were later quashed after experts said forensic evidence had been contaminated and they were released. Prosecutors then appealed that finding and the case was re-tried in March 2013.

In January last year a court upheld the original verdict, but the pair remained at large as under Italy's legal system, any verdict reached after a second appeal but be ratified by the highest court.

Since the last verdict, Sollecito, 30, has stayed in Italy. He was ordered to remain there after being found near the Italian border with Slovenia and Austria hours after being found guilty for the second time. He has since completed a degree in information technology.

Knox, now 27, lives in West Seattle and works as a freelance reporter. She has completed a degree in creative writing.

Kercher, 21, was found dead on the floor of her bedroom. Some of her belongings were missing and Knox reported an apparent burglary to police.

Detectives concluded the supposed break-in looked staged and Knox became the prime suspect.

She then implicated Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner she worked for. The duo were arrested along with Sollecito. Mr Lumumba was later released when evidence pointed to Rudy Guede's involvement.

Guede was then accused of committing the murder along with Sollecito and Knox. In October 2008 he was found guilty of sexually assaulting and murdering Kercher.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942707/Is-Raffaele-Sollecito-turning-Amanda-Knox-Italian-bears-striking-resemblance-ex-girlfriend-insists-pair-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html



tania cadogan said...

off topic

The owner of a python which killed two young boys in Canada is to be charged over their deaths, his lawyer has said.

Jean-Claude Savoie is facing two charges of criminal negligence causing death.

Four-year-old Noah Barthe and his six-year-old brother Connor were found dead on 5 August 2013 after the African rock python escaped from its enclosure in an exotic pet store owned by Mr Savoie in Campbellton, New Brunswick.

According to police, the 45kg (100lb) snake escaped through a vent and slithered through a ventilation pipe.

Its weight caused the pipe to collapse and it fell into the living room where the boys were staying for a sleepover with Mr Savoie's son.

Post-mortem results showed they died from asphyxiation.

Although African rock pythons are dangerous and can kill large prey, they do not usually attack humans.

Nevertheless ownership of African rock pythons without a permit has been banned in New Brunswick since 1992.

Permits are only given to accredited zoos.

Mr Savoie has been released from custody following his arrest on Thursday.

He will appear in court to faces the charges on 27 April.

http://news.sky.com/story/1422977/owner-to-be-charged-after-boys-killed-by-python

TheElderOne said...

I thought of this quote while reading the article here. "My brother once told me that nothing someone says before the word 'but' really counts." It seems to apply well here, it also helps as a filter.