Question: Is Bill Clinton truthful about his denial concerning his family's foundation?
Statement Analysis will find out. Or, perhaps, it will depend on what the meaning of the word, "is" is.
Former President Bill Clinton — whose family foundation has been criticized for accepting millions of dollars foreign donations from governments that had State Department issues resolved thereafter while Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State, issued a denial on NBC News.
Statement Analysis teaches that when one truthfully denies something, the denial is simple, and in three components, including pronoun, past tense verb, and specific answer to the allegation.
When one adds to this, it weakens the denial, and when one avoids a denial, while using additional wording in an attempt to make it sound stronger, it is likely deceptive.
While most former presidents speaking fees go down quickly after leaving office, his actually went up as far as $500,000 for one hour speech.
What could make one speech worth a half a million dollars, along with a private jet to transport him, and a major donation at his family's "charity"?
What of the Saudi government, known for its denial of basic human rights, particularly to women? The Clintons report that the Saudi government gave between $10 and $25 million dollars, leading one to ask, "How might you not know such a varied difference?"
Worse, however, is the record that apparently has been meticulously researched: terror sponsoring governments and businesses from some of these states, having issues with the State Department, donated millions of dollars and had the State Department issues "resolved" to their satisfaction.
This all happened while Bill Clinton's wife was working for the State Department as Secretary of State.
"There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy. That just hasn't happened."
A reliable denial is very simple but when it is added to and avoided, it is most unreliable.
First, "no doubt" is in the negative.
"in my mind" is where the "no doubt" is, allowing for doubt to be elsewhere
"Never" is not a substitute for "did not" and is commonly used by deceptive people.
The "knowingly inappropriate" that gives no "doubt" in his mind, is then restricted to "in terms", that is, "taking money to influence any kind of government policy", suggesting that there may be other knowingly inappropriate things that are in his mind.
It is not only an unreliable denial, but is a deceptive response that reveals that if more digging is done in the "foundation", more illegal or "inappropriate" things will be found.
Following news of the allegations, pressure has built on the foundation to fully disclose its foreign donations, and last month, the organization said it would restate five years of tax returns due to foreign government grants being omitted from them — an oversight the former President said was simply a mistake.
Five years of tax returns must be redone because foreign government grants were "omitted" is explained this way:
"The guy that filled out the forms made an error," he told NBC. "Now that is a bigger problem, according to the press, than the other people running for president willing to take dark money, secret money, secret from beginning to end."
Note that articles do not lie. Five years of returns redone because of the foreign "donations" (plural) was "an" error. This makes it singular, while "forms" is plural as well as "donations" and "years."
For this to not be willful deception, one would have to believe that a single omission caused five years with omissions from plural foreign sources and...I stop here.
Next, note the tangent: "other people running for president" is similar to a child caught in school who points out what other kids are doing in order to change the course of consequence from himself to others.
Clinton has also been criticized for giving high-priced speeches across the world while his wife was secretary of state.
But he said he had no plans to stop the lucrative practice, even if she is elected president.
"I’ve got to pay our bills," he said. "And I also give a lot of it to the foundation every year."
Clinton, however, suggested he could step down from the foundation if his wife returns to the Oval Office.
"I might if I were asked to do something in the public interest that I had an obligation to do. Or I might take less of an executive role," he said. "But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."