Monday, May 4, 2015

Is President Clinton Truthful in His Denial?

Former President Bill Clinton called attacks on his family foundation politically motivated.

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.  

Ben Curtis/AP

Former President Bill Clinton called attacks on his family foundation politically motivated.

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. 

Deception indicated. 

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.
APRIL 29 2015 FILE PHOTOMark Lennihan/AP

Hillary Clinton’s family foundation and its list of donors have come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks.

"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."


sidewalk super said...

Hee hee,
Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know more about "the guy" who filled out the forms.

"The guy" means that the person who filled out the forms is male. Clinton must know who filled out the forms if he can tell us his gender.

If he knows who filled out the forms, why not use his title? The aide who filled out the forms? The assistant who filled out the forms? The accountant who filled out the forms?

Even "the man who filled out the forms" would be a more committal statement than "the guy who filled out the forms."

"The guy" is distancing language. Clinton wants to place himself as far as possible from these forms.

He also knows exactly who filled out the forms (or at the least, which all-male department was responsible for them).

Despite knowing who is responsible for this "mistake", Clinton does not want us to know who this person is. He will not name the patsy, not even by title or department.


Anonymous said...

One more thought on "the guy":

"The guy" is not only distancing language designed to conceal information, it is also derogatory in the context of this man's profession.

He is not the "accountant" or the "aide" that filled out the forms, because titles are indicative of professional respect.

He is "the guy that filled out the forms," like "the guy that made my hamburger" or the "guy that snaked the toilet."

In this case, he is "the guy" responsible for the tax filings of a multi-million dollar foundation. Since it is not "the guys" (plural) who made "a mistake," he has held this position for at least five years.

Clinton wants us to know that this is not a professional tax preparer, it is just a "guy."

"Guys" make mistakes, professionals commit fraud.


Lemon said...

My favorite: "..anything knowingly inappropriate..."
Bill is the gift that keeps on giving.

Anonymous said...

Wrong Anon. Com'on now. I use the phrase all the time, "you guys" which includes both men and women who work for me. I do it more often when I do not want to point out the one guy in the group who did the deed in question, diplomatically spreading it around so that attention is not drawn to just the one guy;

or on occasion two or more "guys" may have been involved in the unsavory deed where a lot of feathers might have been ruffled; thereby sparing the guilty guy(s) the humiliation of pointing them out by name. "You guys" is the clever way of dropping the hatchet without chopping any heads off.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Ms. Lemon,

what a post!


Anonymous said...

Yep. Sure was!

Love that post. Says it all.

Anonymous said...

BTW, if Hillary really wanted to appear deceptive, she could have (and should have) had a face & neck lift and a dermabrasion during the time she was not so visibility in office. I would have.

Seriously, she looks like something the cats dragged in, not to mention tired and old. The media could have had a field day with 'did she or didn't she?'

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous, if your post is tongue firmly in cheek, it is a gem.

Botox and deception?


Unknown said...

Yes, Lemons!

It amazes me that Hilary has the nerve to run for office with all of their skeletons bulging out of every closet, drawer, and cabinet. It's an insult to our collective intelligence as a nation!


'Oh btw, our foundation just 'restated' 5 years worth of tax returns because our foreign government donations were 'omitted' by "the guy" (singular) who filled out the forms (plural), and made an error. (singular, yet 5 years)

Geez, it could happen to anyone! (Especially anyone who's running for President. I mean, what do records of foreign government grants have to do with THAT anyway!?)

Anonymous said...

Yeah Peter, it was tongue in cheek, although serious too. Hillary's a mess. Now that I think of it, she could use a little bed rest too.

But then, I'm a firm believer in cosmetic surgery, dermabrasions and botox, IFF the situation warrants it and one (male or female) of Hillarys age is in the public eye; in Hillary's case (and Bills') their worn out appearance definitely does call for a little costly intervention.

Deceptive? Hell yeah. So what's new?

Anonymous said...

Wrong Anon. Com'on now. I use the phrase all the time, "you guys" which includes both men and women who work for me. I do it more often when I do not want to point out the one guy in the group who did the deed in question, diplomatically spreading it around so that attention is not drawn to just the one guy;

or on occasion two or more "guys" may have been involved in the unsavory deed where a lot of feathers might have been ruffled; thereby sparing the guilty guy(s) the humiliation of pointing them out by name. "You guys" is the clever way of dropping the hatchet without chopping any heads off.

"You guys" does include both genders. That is not what Clinton said. He said "the guy," which means it was a man.

If you are the victim of a mugging, and you tell the police "the guy ran that way!" would the police expect to find a woman? Would they need clarification, or would they know that it was a man?

If a woman's husband tells her that the person who called him is "the guy he went to dinner with last night," and she later discovers that this person was a woman, was her husband deceptive about it?

"The guy" means it was a male. Clinton knows it was a male, and that's why he called him the guy.

"You guys" is plural, and can share blame in the way you describe. "The guy" is singular, and does not share blame.


Anonymous said...

Okay KM, have it your way. But I happen to know differently since I AM in the business world and frequently feel called upon to parse my words so as not to create further havoc than already might exist, thereby wishing to refrain from pointing a guilty finger. First, the one (me) running the show has to consider the eventual consequences and must weight their words carefully. However, generally, I know exactly who did and said what, and you can bet that the guilty party(ies) does get their shakedown privately, with a fair warning that they were spared this time but may not be so lucky next time.

The use of the word "guy" OR guys could mean one or more at any time, depending on how far the one using the word wishes to go in (not) identifying the guilty party, or it could mean one woman sharing info with another woman that might have led to the trouble while the spiderweb grew larger and might have encompassed the whole room; all started by ONE woman. I might add, women are good at doing that. I know, I work with them (and men) and have for years.

Having said that; apparently you aren't aware that men are even bigger trouble makers than women: Well my dear, they are. Understand; not parsing words and looking the other way could lead to the entire office staff walking out then hell would be to pay. And YES, these are 99% professionals.

In the case of Bill Clintons' use of the (singular) word "guy", don't bet the farm on it being just ONE guy he was referring too; after all, it WAS Bill Clinton using the word. It could have been a group of TEN guys and SIX women and an entire department who did the dirty deed for all we know. You are implying that you believe Bill in this one instance? Don't! Bill is Bill and Bill knows. We don't.

Red meat said...

Cosmetic surgery? Botox? Nah, all she needs is a little foundation.

Anonymous said...

And what kind of foundation would you be referring too? A spiritual foundation uplifting, a good uplifting bra, a Kim Kardashian padded butt uplifting garment, a tummy in-shoulders back uplifting corset, or liquid make-up foundation?

Simple answer: All of the above, PLUS cosmetic surgery, botox and dermabrasion. Don't forget the hair. The HAIR. It's a mess, she could use a little uplifting there too.

I know women around Hilary's age who appear (and act) 10-20 years younger than she does and they didn't get there accidentally. All in good taste, of course.

Her parsing words might appear a little more credible if she looked the part. She doesn't.

Anonymous said...

You couldn't be referring to a non-profit foundation since the Clintons already have those, right?

I tell ya what amazes me, and this is that no media has reported; the many perks AND PAYOLA Bill Clinton (and Hilary) rake in for managing their family foundation. It is STAGGERING. Just think of all the easy money that flows into their foundation from all over the world!

So I looked into it. I decided a few years back that what we need is a good non-profit organization for helping the elderly with their medical co-pays, etc., considering that some of them cannot scrape by hand to mouth and have no where to turn; further, after researching I could not find one single foundation in this country that is dedicated to helping them.

I wanted to know what would be involved in setting one up and found it would be easy as pie. Not only that, but highly lucrative on a personal level if properly managed.

I ALSO learned that the directors and trustees of these foundations (non-profits) pay themselves handsomely for managing the stream of money that falls into their hands. And I DO mean handsomely!

They pay themselves a large percentage fee (off the top!) for managing their non-profit, plus auto and travel expenses, eats out, motels, dry cleaning, hair salon services, even in some cases their clothing; as well as charge off exorbitant rent on lavish office spaces, attys to help them keep their nose clean, or appear to do so, and on and on the list goes; and this may include members of their family that hold positions within the organization, which they ARE allowed to appoint to their board.

Some of these non-profits are so big and wealthy, particularly well-oiled family owed ones, that their directors and trustees do not have other jobs, they work exclusively full time 'managing' their foundation and charge off VERY high annual salaries. I tell ya folks; in the right hands it is pure gold!

As for what they do to "manage" their high-roller foundation? They live high off the hog. All they need is an employee-secretary (or two) to keep up with bank balances and deposits and the log books as to what comes in and goes out and make a twice annual report to the gov'mt! Hell, who knows if anyone within the govm't ever checks them out. I read some of the scant one-page reports and none of them ever had any feedback.

Believe me, the Clintons are rolling in the dough off their foundation(s). As for me, I concluded that setting one up could become way over my head so I canned the idea.

I just hope George & Cindy Anthony never reaped the rewards they thought they would when they set themselves up to scam the public with their get-rich non-profit scheme. I know they did purchase themselves two new shiny red cars right after they established their foundation and took a couple of expense paid trips; I just hope this is ALL they ever got out of it. But when you are thinking of the Clinton Foundation, THINK BIG and you'll be right.

Red Meat said...

Haha! I'm glad you got my pun.

Attacking Clinton for her looks snacks of desperation on part of her opponents. It will backfire though, and help her with female seniors, the largest voting bloc of all :)