Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Analysis Exercise: Hilary Clinton Video

Here is a video of Hilary Clinton being asked about wiping the server clean.

There are indicators of deception in her responses.  How many can you identify?  Include your conclusion.


98 comments:

dadgum said...

I am laughing too hard to comment...

John mcgowan said...

"I..We"

"All i can tell you"

"I have no idea"

"(We) turned over everything"

Refuses to answer a simple yes or no question

"To be co-operative as (possible)"

"Did you try to wipe the whole server"?

"I, i, am ,i am!...Stumble stumble stumble, oh dear!

Juliet said...

'Anything we thought...' Lol, that allows for at least a bit of selective thinking.

trustmeigetit said...

So Jared the subway guy will be pleading guilty to child pornography.

I am shocked.

I really thought the raid was just due to his connection to his former employee.

trustmeigetit said...

Hillary will probably be out next president. Only in American can you be shady as heck and still have supporters.

Sad but so true.

Anonymous said...

Bernie Sanders 2016!!

Anonymous said...

Hillary must be in bad shape if she bought the same suit in different colors LOL

Lisa21222 said...

Early on she said she decided (as the "official") which emails were personal, and which were work-related and turned over only the work-related ones. Then she says she turned over the entire server with everything on it so America could look at everything she has done over the last 4 years. So which is it? Did she turn over EVERYTHING? Or "Everything except..."

Anonymous said...

Flipping channels and saw Hillary shaking her head in disagreement to something in the speech.
Rewound the instant dvr and heard her say "The facts are the facts", while shaking her head no. I slowed it down and on reply, one can see her pursing her lips.
So even world class L--rs have tells. Lulz.

Anonymous said...

The following statements made in the presser cause me to have concern….


Hand gesture at the question (she is a wild hand gesturer however)

“I” turns into “we” sharing the blame.

“All I can tell you is, in retrospect…”

“Um I uh ah I have no idea….”

“In order to be as cooperative as possible we have turned….” Sharing the blame

“They can do whatever they want to with the server to find out what is there and is not there…..”

“but we turned over everything that was work related, everything single thing…..”

Anonymous said...

Over lunch I was listening to Rush and he spoke about this comment….'In order to be as cooperative as possible, we have turned over the server,' she said. 'They can do whatever they want to with the server to figure out what's there or what's not there. That's for the people investigating it to figure it out.'

His comments were basically that Hillary won’t “help them put her in jail” and that if they want to put her in jail they have to prove that she did wipe the server clean.

I agree with him. Why won’t she just say “yes I did order the server wiped clean to protect the secrets of this once great nation”. Or why not “that is standard operating procedure in the IT world when retiring a old server, you wipe it prior to physical destruction”?

C5H11ONO said...

http://m.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/national-guard-soldier-wrote-threatening-letter-wa/nnG2h/

The link above is regarding an anonymous note that was proven to have been written by a national guard soldier.

untitled

dear American soldier,

death to you coward women child killer and all of the American military
mohammad will show no mercy on you
attacks will come full force
death is to come to you

I am amazed how they were able to narrow it down to the soldier himself. I can only conclude that the salutation gave it away. Perhaps the spelling of Mohammad since it was in lower caps. What can you glean from it?
Sorry about OT.

Sus said...

She never answered the question if she wiped the server. She used evasiveness tactics like telling what she did turn over, asking a question herself, feigning shock, and joking.

This is difficult for me to say. She has to be smarter than this. One of those emails was so top secret, the FBI wouldn't even have clearance to see it, I don't think. Now they are reviewing it. She sent it out?

Lisa21222 said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/mothers-911-phone-call-released-my-2-year-old-son-we-cant-find-him/

DeOrr's Mom's 911 call released.

C5H11ONO said...

She couldn't bring herself to answer a simple yes or no question. She has probably discussed this with her attorney and he advised her not to answer these questions because in fact, "SHE DID WIPE THE SERVER"!

Bethany said...

She never said "I did not wipe the server."
And we can't say it for her.

However she did say "I have turned over every work related email required" a few times!!
Hahaha

C5H11ONO said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-lives-matter-activist-shaun-king-white-article-1.2330658

--Look there's more like Rachel Dolezal!

With all his twitter comments he couldn't say, I'm black.

Anonymous said...

Mom of Lonzie Barton arrested. There isn't a chance he is alive is there? :(

Anonymous said...

A month ago...

tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tania cadogan said...

Off topic

REVEALED: Josh Duggar revealed as having 'paid almost $1,000 for multiple Ashley Madison accounts' as 37million would-be love-cheats are named by hackers who stole Ashley Madison accounts

A report claims that Josh Duggar had multiple Ashley Madison accounts
Duggar was allegedly looking for 'conventional sex, experimenting with sex toys, one-night stands, sharing fantasies, sex talk,' and more
Among the type of woman he was allegedly looking for were 'naughty girl, aggressive / take charge girl, high sex drive and creative and adventurous'
The second account was reportedly 'paid on a monthly basis until May of 2015,' which is when reports broke Josh had molested his siblings
Josh and his wife Anna were married in 2008 after they began courting in 2007, sharing their first kiss on the altar
The couple have four children; Mackynzie, Michael, Marcus and Meredith

The Ashley Madison hack may have claimed its first high-profile victim.

Gawker is reporting that Josh Duggar allegedly had an account with the site created to help married individuals find people with whom they could have affairs.

The account said that Duggar was allegedly looking for 'conventional sex, experimenting with sex toys, one-night stands, sharing fantasies, sex talk,' and more.

One of the accounts was closed around the same time it was first reported Josh had molested four of his siblings as a teenager.

The revelation came hours after users of the infidelity site were sent scrambling to control the damage - and save their marriages - after hackers exposed them and dumped 9.7 gigabytes of personal data about the controversial seduction forum used by 37 million worldwide.

Names, ages, addresses, phone numbers, credit card details and detailed sexual fantasies have been leaked.

15,000 users have been found to be registered under .gov and .mil email addresses - the official domain names of the American military and government. Other institutions rocked by the leaks include famed educational institutions like Harvard and Yale, and global bodies such as the Vatican and the UN.

Employers from huge companies such as Boeing, JP Morgan, Bank of America and Sony were also said to be part of the list.

The site reports; 'Someone using a credit card belonging to a Joshua J. Duggar, with a billing address that matches the home in Fayetteville, Arkansas owned by his grandmother Mary - a home that was consistently on their now-cancelled TV show, and in which Anna Duggar gave birth to her first child - paid a total of $986.76 for two different monthly Ashley Madison subscriptions from February of 2013 until May of 2015.'




tania cadogan said...

They also report that a second account was created in July 2013 'that was linked to his home in Oxon Hill, Maryland.'

Josh, 27, lived at this residence with his wife and children while working as a family values lobbyist for the Family Research Council in Washington DC

Among the type of woman he was allegedly looking for, the profile said; 'naughty girl, aggressive / take charge girl, high sex drive and creative and adventurous.'

The birthday listed for the first account is February 3, 1988, and the birthday listed for the second account it is March 2, 1988.

Josh's birthday is March 3, 1988.

The second account was reportedly 'paid on a monthly basis until May of 2015.'

Josh Duggar has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Gawker also reported Josh had an active OkCupid account. He allegedly did not use an actual picture of himself

Ashley Madison, which is known as the 'Google of cheating', has called the data breach 'an act of criminality' and the FBI is now investigating.

The site promises its members complete 'anonymity' and has the motto: 'Life is short. Have an affair'. Now security experts say the data breach will not only end marriages but could also leave people open to blackmail.

The dark web files show the profile of every user, including their name, date of birth, home address, phone number, username and email address.

The hackers have previously claimed to have all profile pictures including naked shots.

Their sexual fantasies are also listed and also a description of the type of sexual partner they are looking to have an affair with.

A separate file allegedly also details credit card transactions although the website strongly denies they ever stored such data on their servers.

The majority of the 37 million users are married men but many of the email addresses have already been dismissed as false.

Ashley Madison doesn't verify addresses which means many users could have registered using the details of others or with made up contact details.

Josh and his wife Anna were married in 2008 after they began courting in 2007, sharing their first kiss on the altar.

The couple have four children; Mackynzie, Michael, Marcus and Meredith.

Meredith was born last month.

Like his parents Jim Bob and Michelle, Josh and Anna do not believe in birth control, and their children are all 5-years-old or younger.

This all comes just one month after TLC announced they were cancelling the show Josh and his family were featured on - 19 Kids and Counting.

The show featuring the Duggar family had been in limbo since May after revelations that Josh molested five children including four of his sisters.

For 10 seasons, it had chronicled the home life of Arkansas couple Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their now-19 children.

It was pulled from the network in May when reports surfaced of the molestations that occurred a dozen years earlier.

TLC also announced it has teamed with two prominent child-protection organizations for an ongoing campaign to raise awareness about child sexual abuse.

The initiative will begin with a one-hour, commercial-free documentary likely airing in late August featuring Jill and Jessa Duggar.

The Duggar family released a statement soon after TLC announced the cancellation of the show.




tania cadogan said...

'Over the last several years people have said to us, "We love your show!" We have always responded, "It's not a show, it's our lives!" Our desire in opening our home to the world is to share Bible principles that are the answers for life’s problems,' wrote Jim Bob and Michelle.

'With God’s grace and help Josh, our daughters and our entire family overcame a terrible situation, found healing and a way forward. We are so pleased with the wonderful adults they have all become.'

They closed by saying; 'We know Who holds the future and are confident that He will work all things together for good. We love each of you and look forward to unfolding the future with peace and joy.'

It was in early May that InTouch obtained and released the damning police report, leading to a statement almost immediately from Josh admitting to the claims made in the report.

'Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends,' Josh, 27, said in a statement.

'I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling.'

Jim Bob and Michelle released their own statement as well, saying: 'Back 12 years ago our family went through one of the most difficult times of our lives.

'When Josh was a young teenager, he made some very bad mistakes, and we were shocked. We had tried to teach him right from wrong. That dark and difficult time caused us to seek God like never before.'

The police report detailed Josh's molestation of five minors in 2002 and 2003.

He was never charged with a crime for the incidents as by the time police learned of the offenses the statue of limitations had passed, and his parents did not notify authorities in an official capacity at any point after learning about their son's actions.

It is also interesting to note that when the family moved into their custom built home in 2006, communal rooms for the male members of the family and female members of the family were on exact opposite sides of the 7,000-square-foot dwelling.

The distance is not the only thing that stood between the rooms either, with any Duggar hoping to spend time with one of their opposite-sex siblings first having to walk by Michelle's office and Jim Bob and Michelle's bedroom, letting the parents know what was going on at all times.

As a final precaution, the journey also requires a walk across an elevated catwalk that cuts through the family's two-story living room, another chance for people in the house to keep an eye on who was spending time together.

It was only when the family was set to make an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2006 that someone reached out to producers and informed them of these prior incidents, leading those producers to contact authorities and notify them of what they had been told.

tania cadogan said...

According to TMZ, the Harpo staff received the email at 7.30am on December 7 and contacted authorities immediately.

Police then called Michelle and Jim Bob at 1.17pm telling them they needed to bring their son in for questioning.

Winfrey meanwhile cancelled the planned interview immediately and sent the family home.

This sequence of events has many wondering how TLC and Discovery Health could have been unaware of the molestation claims. Oprah had the biggest talk show in the country at the time, and no doubt it took a lot of work to book the family on her show.

The network would have been thrilled at the publicity such an appearance would generate for their show. No doubt network executives would have demanded an explanation as to why the interview was cancelled at the last minute.

Meanwhile, it seems TLC has already found a replacement family for the Duggars, premiering their new reality series I Am Jazz on Wednesday night, just hours before they announced the cancellation.

That program follows the Jennings family and their daughter Jazz, a transgender teenager.

Michelle Duggar had previously campaigned against transgender individuals and their rights by narrating a robocall to local voters in 2014 over a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

In that call she compared transgender individuals to 'child predators.'

Little is known about the group behind the leaks but it appears they are more interested in targeting cheating men than women. Avid Media's Cougar Life was left off their target list.

Despite the major security breach all of the companies website were still online this afternoon.

In a statement the Canada-based firm said: 'There has been a substantial amount of postings since the initial posting, the vast majority of which have contained data unrelated to AshleyMadison.com but there has also been some data released that is legitimate.

'Furthermore, we can confirm that we do not — nor ever have — store credit card information on our servers.'

Previously describing the hack as 'an act of criminality', the company said it was fully cooperating with law enforcement to find the hackers.

'The criminal, or criminals, involved in this act have appointed themselves as the moral judge, juror, and executioner, seeing fit to impose a personal notion of virtue on all of society.

'We will not sit idly by and allow these thieves to force their personal ideology on citizens around the world.'

tania cadogan said...

another off topic :)

A Florida cop will not face murder charges after an investigation into the death of his girlfriend, it has emerged.

Michelle O'Connell was found dead in September 2010 at the Florida home of her boyfriend, Deputy Jeremy Banks whose weapon was used.

The 24-year-old mother's death was ruled a suicide by local investigators, but questions were raised about improprieties in the inquiry, in which the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office investigated Banks, one of its own deputies.

Banks has denied any involvement in her death.

A fresh investigation by an independent prosecutor's office was ordered by Florida Governor Rick Scott through an executive order in October 2014.

'Having assessed all of the evidence adduced in the investigations of this case, I reach the inescapable conclusion that whatever suspicions remain as to the manner of death of Michelle O'Connell, the evidence does not rise to the level of probable cause that a homicide occurred,' Florida State Attorney Jeffrey L. Ashton said in a letter to Scott.

The 24-year-old mother was found shot to death at the home in St Augustine on September 2, 2010.

O'Connell's friends and relatives have said that evidence such as a bruise, cut and a broken tooth suggest that she may not have killed herself, but was the victim of abuse.

They stressed that she would never have left her young daughter, Alexis.

'We're devastated,' said Janet Johnson, an attorney for the O'Connell family. 'The family still have the hope of justice for Michelle, but this is obviously a setback on that road.'

Banks's attorney, Mac McLeod, said the investigation was 'solid, professional and thorough,' and said he hopes the O'Connell family gets closure from the findings.

'These aren't happy occasions at all,' McLeod said in a phone interview. 'These are occasions when, in these kinds of circumstances, you hope the truth comes out and appropriate findings are made, and that's what has occurred.'

Meanwhile, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent has been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in investigating the death.

FDLE Agent Rusty Rodgers believed the death was a murder, news4jax.com reported.

Bill Cervone, head of the Eighth Judicial Circuit based in Gainesville, was brought in to examine how Rodgers had gone about his investigations.

Cervone found that even though Rodgers crossed procedural lines, he had not violated any laws.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203695/Florida-cop-not-face-murder-charges-investigation-death-girlfriend-shot-gun-home.html



Child Advocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Child Advocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Child Advocate said...


I can't link from my phone, but I just read Mark Redwine has been officially named a suspect and Dylan's COD was changed to homicide.

Are we finally seeing justice for Dylan? I hope Elaine is feeling some peace.

Child Advocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tania cadogan said...

The death of 13-year-old Dylan Redwine is now considered a homicide, and his father is a person of interest in the case, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Redwine went missing in November 2012 while at his father's home in La Plata County, where he was visiting as part of a court-ordered visitation. His cause of death initially had been classified as undetermined.

In a news release, the sheriff's office said Mark Redwine, Dylan's father, is a person of interest based on evidence collected, inconsistent statements made and his behavior throughout the investigation.

Dylan's remains were discovered in June 2013 in the Middle Mountain area. Officials said early last month that they had identified a person of interest, but did not identify that person.

Mark Redwine told The Denver Post at that time that he thought the person might be him. He could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Former FBI profiler Pete Klismet, who is assisting La Plata County investigators said Wednesday: "Based on my involvement in the investigation, I am in complete agreement with the naming of Mr. Redwine as a person of interest."

Redwine's attorney, Christian Hatfield, told the Colorado Springs Gazette: "If they had any evidence we would have a suspect, and not a person of interest."

Another search of that area where the remains were found is planned for early- or mid-September, the sheriff's office said.

As part of the investigation, Dylan's mother, Elaine Hall, her son Cory Redwine, and Elaine's husband, Mike Hall were cleared of any involvement in the disappearance and death.

Elaine Hall has filed a "wrongful death" suit in La Plata County that names Mark Redwine a defendant.

A motion to dismiss was filed July 22 in the civil case, that motion was denied Wednesday, said Amber Harrison, Elaine Hall's attorney in the civil suit.

The civil suit and the sheriff's office investigation are separate, Harrison said, and recent developments are coincidental. The civil case is ongoing, and a trial date has not been set.

"Law enforcement has conducted their investigation and determined it's the appropriate time naming a person of interest," Harrison said. "Naming a person of interest is not arresting a person, I think we are a long way to the next step."

The sheriff's office is asking that anyone who might have any information that could help in their investigation of Dylan's disappearance and death to call their hotline: (970) 382-7511.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28668519/mark-redwine-is-person-interest-his-son-dylans

Child Advocate said...


Thank you. I apologize for saying he was named a suspect instead of POI.

Child Advocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Child Advocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elf said...

Isn't poi just the politically correct way to call someone a suspect now a days? I'm.not surprised at the announcement. Mark Redwine already told everyone he was a poi.
I hope he gets the death penalty (do they have that there?) Guys like him (crossdressers) enjoy Gen pop too much.

1crosbycat said...

Is there a searchable database with all the Ashley Madison member names? Wouldnt you use a fake name and a secret and dedicated email account? I guess its all in the credit card. You'd think the sleaze site would give tips on that. I feel bad for his wife who should have ryn when she found out pre-wedding. The family really dismissed the severity of his problem.

John mcgowan said...

Ot:

2-year-old boy may have fatally shot his father, Alabama police say

(CNN)A 31-year-old man was found dead and police in a Birmingham, Alabama, suburb say the man's 2-year-old son may have accidentally shot him.

A woman told police she came home Tuesday and discovered her husband dead of a gunshot wound to the head inside their apartment, Hoover police detective Gregg Rector said.

"I can't completely go out on a limb and say it was accidental or how he was shot, but the mother of the child called us and said she discovered him and thinks their son may have shot him," Rector said. "We don't have any indications of an intruder or any indication that the gunshot was self-inflicted."

The man, who Rector identified as 31-year-old Divine Vaniah Chambliss, and the boy "were possibly the only two individuals who were present when the incident occurred," a police press release said.

In an email Wednesday to CNN, Rector said: "This is not going to be a suicide and so far there is no evidence of an intruder or any other third person involved. I can't, with certainty, rule out other possibilities at this time, but this is looking more and more like a horrible, accidental shooting by a child who found a handgun in the home."

Earlier, Rector told CNN, "The gun was owned by the victim; not sure who it was registered to."

An autopsy will be conducted, but Rector wasn't sure when the results would be released.

"This investigation is still in its very early stages and detectives are not completely ruling out other possibilities," the press release said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/18/us/alabama-man-shot/

John mcgowan said...

OT:

I commented on this when it first broke.

WILSON POLICE CHARGE MAN WITH MISSING WOMAN'S MURDER

http://abc11.com/news/wilson-police-charge-man-with-missing-womans-murder/948526/


Original post:

OT:

POLICE: MISSING WOMAN LAST SEEN AT HOME OF FELON

Wednesday, August 05, 2015 04:24PM


WILSON, NC (WTVD) -- Wilson police detectives are searching for a missing 20-year-old woman who they say was last seen at the home of a convicted felon.

More than 24 hours after Isabel Calvo Palacios was reported missing to the Wilson Police Dept., officers were still on the scene at 4710 Ward Blvd.

Crime scene tape surrounded the home that belongs to 56-year-old Gregory K. Parks. Evidence markers were scattered across the driveway and a tarp was on the ground next to a white sedan.

Court records show Parks has been arrested more than 100 times since 1983. The crimes he has been convicted of range from manslaughter to attempted first and second-degree rape.

According to The Wilson Times, The NC Court of Appeals overturned his most recent convictions from last year of participating in the prostitution of a minor. The ruling led to Parks being released from prison 27 years early.

Parks spoke with ABC11 by phone Wednesday. He said he had nothing to do with Palacios's disappearance. He said she spent the night at his home and couldn't find her car keys the next morning, so he allowed her to leave her vehicle at his house.

"We were not close friends, just associates. I had known her for 4-5 months on just a casual basis. I wish she would walk up right now and this would all go away," he said. "I allowed her to leave her car there and I explained that to the police."

Two past tense references and minimization. That this is so early on in the investigation. This does not bode well. The minimization is expected if feels he is considered a POI by LE, or, they have said he is.

The past tense language. Does he know she is dead? Does he have guilty knowledge if she is dead? Have LE alluded to it, and this is why the past tense has slipped into his language. It may also be that, he, himself, considers there friendship over and this maybe another reason for the past tense. However, because it is early into the investigation it is concerning that he does reference her in this way.

Wilson police have not identified any persons of interest and are still asking the public to keep an eye out for Palacios.

She has brown hair, brown eyes, and a small frame of 5 foot 2 inches.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Wilson Police Dept. at (252) 399-2323 or Wilson Crime Stoppers (252) 243-2255.

http://abc11.com/news/police-missing-woman-last-seen-at-home-of-felon/904929/

Anonymous said...

Back to the subject at hand... I don't care what Hillary has done, or how much of it she did, or caused to be done, or if she did any of it. Not one little iota. For beginners, she will never be president. A dead gnat on a fly swatter has a better chance at being president than Hillary Clinton has. She is spinning her wheels for nothing. I won't waste five minutes of my time worrying about Hillary, to no avail.

Learn your lesson well, ladies. This country and its' founding fathers was established BY MEN. Our laws were created, enacted, modified, and have been enforced BY MEN. MEN rule in Congress and the House, MEN rule our military and in almost every major corporation; even those women who are on-the-surface serving as professors, judges, lawyers, CEOs, managers, medical professional directors, stock brokers and the like, are beholden to the MEN who push the money-matter and decision buttons and make the ultimate financial decisions. There are very few exceptions. And THAT'S the crux of the matter folks.

Further, philandering whore-mongering Bill has already shot his wad, he will never be given the chance again to have any rule or say so in running the affairs of this country, not even behind the scenes, not as a house husband or a first-man in office. Rest your minds; it AIN'T gonna happen.

NOT a chance in hell that these MEN, the powers that be, will ever allow a woman to run this country. EVER. They'd rather see her dead first. They already supported and elected a black man to the presidency, PROVING they'd rather have a black MAN in office than a woman; even a white woman, not on your life! THOSE were their only options at the time. They chose the black MAN, whom they despise. Give it a rest!

Poor Hillary, in all her brilliance and spending their fortune, ain't goin' nowhere except to a rocking chair on her back porch to mull over all that Bill caused her to lose and her last bitter days of wishing she had hit him even harder when he made a fool out of her so many times while she held on and held on, standing behind him like the little woman is supposed to do, while she waits for her next stroke to bring her down. Besides all that, The Clintons have yet to pay for all those lives they brought down with them. These matters TOO will torment Hillary in the end. All wasted. Nah.. sorry; I can't be bothered with worrying about Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Juliet, your post at 10:39 pm, I am shocked that you would poke religion at the Duggers the way you have in this post. I would imagine that the Duggers are having a very hard time right now holding onto their faith in the face of yet another crisis with their son Josh which reflects badly on them and their lifestyle, no matter how godly they may have tried to live their lives and raise their children.

I've never watched their show and know little about them; but throwing their faith, lifestyle, God, their beliefs, practices or lack of, in their faces is one thing I will not do. They raised a son who grew up to foolishly have low morals, if any; who has not lived in the manner they tried to teach him. This would be tormenting. They did not do this by design or by deceit. I feel sorry for them.

Not every parent is responsible for many of the things our kids do. Even our best of intentions can go astray. If you have grown kids, you should know this by now. If you know God or ever thought you did, you should know He is not the maker or creator of evil, nor is He the one deceiving our kids and destroying their lives. Not fair to throw this at The Duggers in such a derogatory manner. God will be their judge, not you, not me, not any of us.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

anon @ 9:05 another "rolling eyes" here.

CULT: A group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange.
Well, that fits.

Ya gotta love the 'Holier than thou" attitude of the Morality Police when they stop by...

Child Advocate said...

Sadly I don't think so.

Child Advocate said...

I think it is the same thing, along with "under the umbrella of suspicion".

Annonymous17 said...

So what Anon at 9:05 am is saying here is that we all can't judge people like the Duggars who put themselves in the spotlight and behave in ways that belie their faith, but Anon can judge Tania and determine that she is an infidel, a blasphemer of Christ, an enemy of God and soulless. This is the kind of hypocrisy that makes people believe that many Christians are incapable of practicing what they preach. Thankfully, the majority of Christians (real Christians) set a good example for the rest of them. The Duggars did not do this, and made money off their fame, and they deserve our judgment. Anon, perhaps you should go reread your own comment about judgment and being concerned with yourself before you spout hatred toward Tania.

OldPsychNurse said...

Pauses for mental contemplation, repeatedly avoiding answering questions, use of "we" instead of "I" show Hillary is deceptive. It doesn't matter though as libtards will soon allow her to play the "I had no idea" card. The use of the word "we" shows that Hillary has someone whom she definitely intends to blame.

Anonymous said...

OT:

Mark Redwine (finally) named a person of interest in his son's death.
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Dylan-Redwines-Death-Ruled-a-Homicide-322329332.html

Jen Ow said...

Watch out everyone...the level of anonymous sanctimonious ranting is getting infinitely dense, and it is about to collapse in upon itself, creating a black hole of endlessly chastising judgement.

Anonymous said...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Jared Fogle's Victims To Benefit From Groundbreaking Plea Deal
The disgraced Subway pitchman will pay his 14 victims $1.4 million in restitution.


Jared Fogle has agreed to what federal prosecutors are calling a "historic" plea deal in response to the charges he distributed child pornography and repeatedly pursued paid sex with minors.

As part of Fogle's plea deal announced Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of Indiana, the disgraced Subway pitchman will pay a total of $1.4 million in restitution to the 14 victims identified by prosecutors. Fogle faces up to 12 years in prison.

The restitution from the plea deal is the largest cash amount ever ordered for a child pornography or sex trafficking case in the history of the Southern District of Indiana, according to Tim Horty, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Indianapolis.

"One hundred thousand dollars per person is enough to get [the victims] into some counseling service and allow them the opportunity to -- at least in the prostitution situation -- get themselves out of that situation," Horty told The Huffington Post Wednesday.

Eight of Fogle's victims are still minors; the remaining four are "now adults in desperate straits," Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven DeBrota told reporters Wednesday.

Though Horty was unable to go into specifics for privacy reasons, he told HuffPost of the victims' circumstances, "You can imagine — life situation in general: Parents who were not particularly supportive, no financial means to even carry on with some of life’s basic necessities."

Horty also noted that "a couple of families had multiple victims."

The U.S. Attorney's office anticipated the victims will apply the restitution to needs like counseling, housing and education.

"It sounds like a lot of money, but it’s our opportunity to help make the victims whole,” Horty said.

Shortchanged victims not uncommon
Fogle's estimated net worth of $15 million means his victims are likely to receive the full amount of restitution ordered. According to attorney and former U.S. federal judge Paul Cassell, that's not often the case for victims of sex crimes.

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

...

Cassell told HuffPost not only do many abusers lack the wealth to make the restitution payment, victims are only eligible for it if they can enumerate specific loses -- like property, income or employment -- as a result of the abuse.

"The current laws in this country do not currently cover emotional distress — [victims] would have to file a civil claim," Cassell said. A victim incurring $100,000 in counseling costs as a result of their trauma could, for instance, present that as an enumerated loss.

"Frankly, I think it’s one of the flaws in our restitution structure," Cassell said. "A victim of child sex assault has suffered an immense trauma, but the current laws take a different approach and only covers what’s considered ‘out of pocket expenses.'"

Restitution payments -- or in some cases, damages from separate civil claim against the abuser -- are used at the victim's discretion and are not taxed.

“If these victims here had theoretically taken Mr. Fogle to civil court for a tort or personal injury claim, what they recovered would not be subject to taxes,” Jim Gliday, an Indianapolis-based tax attorney, told The Huffington Post. "I’d be really, really surprised if that was different in a criminal case."

Though neither the courts nor the U.S. Department of Justice systematically tracks restitution awards, a department spokesman told The Huffington Post a $3.68 million reward ordered for child porn restitution was -- "to the best of our knowledge" -- among the largest in the nation.

A Florida court in 2009 ordered Arthur Staples, a Virginia-based deputy sheriff convicted of child porn trafficking, to pay a victim $3.68 million in restitution. Staples incidentally had an estate of roughly $2 million, but the U.S. Supreme Court would later toss the award.

According to the New York Times, Staples ultimately paid his victim less than half of the originally ordered amount.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jared-fogles-victims-to-benefit-from-groundbreaking-plea-deal_55d4db3ee4b07addcb4538c3?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000021

Anonymous said...

OT - Peter, can you please give us your thoughts regarding the Patrick Kane rape allegations? I find his attorney's conduct and statements very interesting.

http://deadspin.com/patrick-kanes-lawyer-is-arguing-with-people-on-facebook-1724570340

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/09/patrick-kanes-alleged-rape-victim-reportedly-has-bite-marks-leg-scratch-source

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/new-details-emerge-in-allegations-against-nhl-star-patrick-kane-20150809

Jen Ow said...

I saw this clip last night, and busted out an obscenity when she dared to act as though she thought that 'wiping' meant "like the screen, with a cloth".

As if that reporter's question was the first time she had heard the term 'wipe/d' in this whole debacle.

You would think as long as she's been lying, that she would be a little better at it.

Jen Ow said...

I'm glad to see that Mark Redwine has been identified as a person of interest, and I hope to see him face justice for what he did to Dylan. I think of Elaine every time I see an update on Dylan. This small victory is a long time coming for her. I think back on listening to Elaine on the blog radio show during the first weeks that Dylan was 'missing', and how she listened as Peter carefully laid out his analysis of Mark's interview. She was so receptive to the analysis, but also insistent that she wanted hope for a live Dylan. Her parting words broke my heart.

I'm a little surprised Mark Redwine is still alive. Considering his mental state months ago when he was hallucinating swat teams were coming after him, and his alcoholism, it seems likely that he is on borrowed time. I want to see him held accountable, and I wish they would just charge him already. I think he would give it up in a second the moment he realizes that he's finally run out of options. He almost gave it up to Dr. Phil!

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
OT - Peter, can you please give us your thoughts regarding the Patrick Kane rape allegations? I find his attorney's conduct and statements very interesting.

http://deadspin.com/patrick-kanes-lawyer-is-arguing-with-people-on-facebook-1724570340

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/09/patrick-kanes-alleged-rape-victim-reportedly-has-bite-marks-leg-scratch-source

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/new-details-emerge-in-allegations-against-nhl-star-patrick-kane-20150809
August 20, 2015 at 12:53 PM

I had hoped to hear him make a statement, himself.

Peter Hyatt said...

Tania's execution was set for dawn, yesterday, but the whole "what time is it in the UK" thing messed it up.

Stay tuned.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

For the Hilary, or Hillary analysis:

Some of you have caught the change of pronoun being very important when she goes from "I" to "we" in an attempt to 'share' guilt and/or responsibility.

Self censoring: cutting oneself off, mid-sentence

I was hoping, however, that the change of language would jump out at someone.

trustmeigetit said...

I agree! He's my choice..at least at this time

Peter Hyatt said...

I note a number of comments about "cults" here.



We often use the word "cult" when we disagree, or do not understand something, but best to define cult before using it.

Cults have a central figure to follow and will very strongly oppose critical thinking, often elevating emotion above reason, even to the point of denying scientific evidence before them. The Japanese once held their emperors to be divine, but all died. This sacrifice of reason is central to cults.

The cult seeks to control the conscience with unwritten laws; unwritten because the cult leader seeks to control the conscience and by keeping in writing precepts, the cult leader becomes limited. He seeks power beyond any set boundary. When laws are clearly established, one may accept them or not; but have freedom to choose. This is not a cult.

In opposing critical thinking, the cult often severely penalizes any opposition, demanding complete and unwavering acceptance of its leader's doctrines, putting loyalty to the cult above family and any other institution, including the Church, disallowing any member the right to change one’s mind and leave or seek change without dire consequences, as well as essentially demanding complete capitulation of conscience of doubtful converts.

Those who do not agree are morally "inferior" and should be "punished" ranging from death to social isolation.

The center of a cult is the disengagement of reason and the elevation of a single entity, like the charismatic personality.

An ideology can be a cult, with many charismatic personalities behind it, and will demand submission and adherence even against reason.

The key is control via subjugating reason.

I'm not a fan of labeling something a cult easily, just to satisfy a need to insult.

Jen Ow said...

I watched it again looking for a change of language and I noticed that the emails went from 'emails', to 55, 000 'pages' that were turned over.

Buckley said...

The way he asking about "wiping" or erasing the server and she "jokes" about wiping with a cloth?

Pretty sad evasion. The whole thing reminds me of Nixon and the tapes.

If they're gonna charge her, I wish they'd go ahead. I shudder at the thought of a Bernie vs Donald general election choice.

Buckley said...

Asks, not asking

Jen Ow said...

I also noticed that she says that 'we' turned over the server, and it now up to the investigators to 'TRY' to figure out what is on it.

This seems to confirm that steps were taken in an attempt to hide what was on the server...if she expects investigators will have to 'try' to recover what's on it.

Buckley said...

Can we start a pool as to when we're going to learn the name of the lackey tech nerd (read: fall guy) who's to blame for the whole mess?

My guess is in between the Iowa caucus and the NH primary.

Jen Ow said...

Just heard on the radio that Josh Duggar has admitted that he was indeed unfaithful to his wife, and also that he is suffering from an addiction to pornography.

Jen Ow said...

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/20/josh-duggar-ashley-madison-statement-infidelity

Jen Ow said...

Statement from Josh Duggar:

"I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife.

I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him.

I brought hurt and a reproach to my family, close friends and the fans of our show with my actions that happened when I was 14-15 years old, and now I have re-broken their trust.

The last few years, while publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country, I was hiding my own personal failings. 

As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences. I deeply regret all hurt I have caused so many by being such a bad example.

I humbly ask for your forgiveness. Please pray for my precious wife Anna and our family during this time."

Buckley said...

Comparatively, a pretty good confession/apology.

Can we be done with the Duggars now?

Sus said...

Scary, huh? I stopped in the Republican tent at the state fair the other day. I was curious to see how much they were pushing Trump. Not at all. No bumper stickers. No signs. I even asked, and they chuckled at me.

Anonymous said...

Tell me again how it was just innocent curiousity of an overly sheltered teenager? He is a sex addict. It's clear. He was a predator and may still be a predator. Call it a hunch but I believe he should be investigated for child porn with that porn addiction of his. I know sex addiction is very common but I still cannot help but wonder if he was molested as a child due to the early onset.

Sus said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/15/report-valerie-jarrett-orchestrated-hillary-clinto/?page=all

I don't trust Klein. His sources are always nonexistent, shady at the best. But the fact is the White House can't seem to give a reliable denial to the accusation.

Sadly, it all shows how and why my Democratic Party is lying and going after each other. I'm from Illinois. We have had three or four (I can't remember) recent past governors in serve prison time. President Obama and Hilary Clinton seem pretty "Chicago Politics" to me.

Buckley said...

Compare Duggar's "confession"/apology to Brian Williams, for example; Duggar was much more upfront.

"I became unfaithful." Could be stronger but is an admission of guilt. I don't think we expect him to say six months ago vs six hours ago, nor would I expect him to be thinking "I'll be unfaithful tomorrow" even if tomorrow he changes his mind. He calls himself a hypocrite since he preached morals to others while immorally breaking his vows.

I don't really care for him either, and I'm not his spouse, so forgiveness isn't mine to give. As I said, comparatively, I think he was fairly honest in his admission/apology.

Buckley said...

Sus, I don't put much faith in Klein either, but I've been wondering why all the stories lately about Biden jumping in. The WH gunning for Clinton could explain the Biden shift. Also, the State Dept saying ask the White House about a rationale for what the State Dept is doing speaks volumes, too.

Brooke Kaelin said...

Here's the transcript of the Clinton interview if anyone wants to use it. I don't have Juliet's skills but I tried hard on it. There are several places where it was difficult for me to hear the interviewer. So, there's my disclaimer :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interviewer: FBI believes that you tried to wipe the entire server. Did you try to wipe the entire [inaudible] so there’d be no email, no personal, no official, wipe the whole thing.

Clinton: Well, well, my personal emails are my personal business, right? So I, so we went through a painstaking process and turned over 55,000 pages of anything we thought could be work related. Under the law, that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions. And as I just said over 1,200 of the emails have already been deemed not work related. Now, all I can tell you is in retrospect if I’d used a government account and I had said you know, let’s release everything, let’s let everybody in America see what I did for four years we would have the same arguments. So, that - that’s all I could say.

Interviewer: Did you try to wipe the whole server?

Clinton: I-d -I-I’m n, you know I don’t, I have no idea that’s why we turned it over, we

Interviewer You said you were in charge of it. You were the official in charge, did you wipe the server?

Clinton: What like with a cloth or something?

Interviewer I don’t know

Clinton: Well, no

Interviewer You know how it works digitally, did you try to wipe the whole server?

Clinton: I don’t know how it works digitally at all. I do not have any -

Interviewer So you did not try, you did not try?

Clinton: And I know you want to make a point and I can just repeat what I have said

Interviewer It’s a simple question, [inaudible]

Clinton: In order to be as cooperative as possible we have turned over the server, they can do whatever they want to with the server to figure out what’s there, what’s not there, that’s for the, you know people investigating it to try to figure out but we turned over everything that was work related, every single thing. Personal stuff we did not, I had no obligation to do so and did not.

Buckley said...

Good job, Brooke!

Clinton: What like with a cloth or something?

Interviewer I don’t know

Clinton: Well, no


Ah, so she is able to answer a question directly!

Anonymous said...

Juliet, you write of the Duggers as if you know them personally, as if you've lived in their home with them, ate with them, slept with them, know their teachings, can read their hearts and minds, have helped to feed and dress their little girls, have walked a mile in their shoes and helped to support them.

You know nothing about the lives of the Duggers and how they've raised their children other than what you've read and the deliberate conclusions and miscalculations you've drawn on your own as if they are indebted to you personally. You act as if they've murdered somebody while living off the taxpayers money, yet they've been entirely self-supporting throughout their marriage and have hurt no one other than themselves, if anyone at all.

You falsely accuse them of being in a cult (Jeff Warren runs a cult of interrelated child marriages, imprisoning women and children; Jim Jones ran a cult imprisoning 915 adults, men, women and children; there are a couple of Amish communities (not all Amish) who live cultish practices), but you call them cultish just for trying to live protestant Christian lives according to their free will religion of choice. You speak of them as if you are on a Salem witch hunt ready to burn them at the stakes.

These parents are not responsible for Joshs' actions, he is a grown man, 27 yrs old. He has brought tremendous shame on his parents, his wife and his entire family. So far he has proven to be a bad seed like so many more grown children grow up to be, outside the boundaries of their parents teachings; no matter how hard they tried to raise him right, and no matter how hard they tried to deal with his problems, but this doesn't mean they don't love him and his siblings.

Perhaps they did not deal with Joshs' molestations of his sisters as you or I would have. I would have sent his ass off to boarding school permanently the first time he did it and would have gotten counseling for him and the girls right then; and wouldn't have discussed it with anyone else either at my church or with any friends or family; but this is not the way they chose to deal with it. They really didn't know how to deal with it at the time and sought the advice of others. They must realize now this was a big mistake. I guess you've never made a mistake?

It was/IS Joshs' choice if he decides to cheat on his wife and continues to make a fool of himself. However, Buckley is correct, his apologies are to his wife and to his parents, not to you or anyone else. So, what's your beef exactly? -ABB

Brooke Kaelin said...

Thanks Buckley,

I never realized how much dulled listening I do until I tried to transcribe. Apparently my brain edits other people's speech automatically, replacing words that don't make sense to me with words that do, and changing incorrect articles, etc. It's weird. I always thought I was a good listener but transcription and SA have proven otherwise!

Brooke Kaelin said...

Hillary Clinton Analysis, Part 1:

Interviewer: FBI believes that you tried to wipe the entire server. Did you try to wipe the entire [inaudible] so there’d be no email, no personal, no official, wipe the whole thing.

This is SA so I’ve been working with written statements instead of body language. However, during the time the interviewer is explaining the accusation Clinton does something very telling. She turns both her palms up. Never believe anyone who says something to you with their palms up. Palms up is begging to be believed. Honest people don’t need to beg to be believed. They assert their innocence directly and if there is a palm gesture, it’s palms down (“Hands down!”) with authority. She also has an expression of contempt and disgust on her face while she does it.

Clinton: Well, well, [my] personal emails are [my] personal business, right?

Where a subject begins their statement is important. In response to the accusation that she tried to wipe the entire server she begins with a question (which is a signal of dishonesty) and makes reference to her personal emails. Not wiping the server, but her personal emails.

So, her brain is focused in on those emails, they are more important to her than the question of whether or not she wiped the server. This would also be the expected place to see a reliable denial if she were innocent. “I didn’t wipe the server!” In the entire interview, Clinton never issues a reliable denial with regard to wiping the server.

So [I], so [we] went through a painstaking process and turned over 55,000 pages of anything [we] thought could be work related.

The two “So’s” there show the highest level of sensitivity in Statement Analysis. Clinton is explaining what she did without being asked. (Did you wipe the server? We went through a painstaking process because my personal emails are personal...) She also self edits and changes the pronoun “I” to “we”. She may be seeking to share guilt and responsibility, or she may have worked with other people during this “painstaking process”. She also turned over 55,000 pages, not emails. Why the change of language? What made the emails become pages? Did she print them out, hoping she could remove anything she didn’t want to turn over and then try to wipe the server so that the pages would be the only evidence? A change of language represents a change of reality. If the emails didn’t really become pages at some point it’s an indication of deception.

Brooke Kaelin said...

Part 2:

Under the law, that decision is made by the official. [I] was the official. [I] made those decisions.

“Under the law” is interesting but what exactly was “that decision”? The decision to wipe the server? The decision to painstakingly sort through 55,000 emails/pages? She takes ownership of the decision, whatever it was with “I was the official” and then “I made those decisions.” Both truthful sentences. A single decision has also now become multiple decisions, reflecting another change of language.

and [I] had said [you] know, let’s release everything, let’s let [everybody] in America see what [I] did for four years [we] would have the same arguments.

This if - then statement made me laugh. *If* she had said let’s release everything, let’s let [everybody] in America see what [I] did for four years

The truth creeps in - she never said let’s release it all and be transparent, but if she had...

then, we would have the same arguments.

What arguments? Arguments about the server being wiped, or arguments about what was personal vs. business? Or is she saying that even if she had said OK, release everything she still would have removed everything she didn’t want others to see?

So, that - that’s all [I] could say.

“That’s all I could say” pops up again, making it doubly sensitive and showing (twice) that information is being withheld.


And as [I] just said over 1200 of the emails have already been deemed not work related.

Starting a sentence with “And” indicates missing information. She follows it with “as I just said” showing awareness of her audience and a need to self-reference to support her argument. The pages have become emails again. The emails have already “been deemed” (by her royal highness - because she was the official and made those decisions) to be NOT work related. Any time someone uses a negation (something said in the negative) it’s very, very important. She didn’t tell us what the emails were, only what they were not. This is a lie. There are 1200 vital missing pieces of information that she doesn’t want anyone to see.


Now, all [I] can tell you is in retrospect if [I’d] used a government account

“All I can tell you” popping up in her language is an admission that there are things she cannot tell us.

“If I’d used a government account” Well, now I’m wondering what she sent on her other email accounts, the non-government ones.

Brooke Kaelin said...

Part 3:

Interviewer: Did you try to wipe the whole server?

Clinton: I-d -I-I’m n, you know [I] don’t, [I] have no idea that’s why [we] turned it over, [we]

A reliable denial would have been great here, but instead we get lots of self-censoring followed by an “I don’t know”. Then she says “That’s why we turned it over.” Did she have to turn it over because she tried to wipe it?

Interviewer You said you were in charge of it. You were the official in charge, did you wipe the server?

Clinton: What like with a cloth or something?

Wow, she’s actually going to try and play stupid. Thankfully it doesn’t fly, even she realizes it and corrects herself immediately with “well, no” (below - during this part of the interview both she and the interviewer were speaking at the same time).

Interviewer I don’t know

Clinton: Well, no

Interviewer: You know how it works digitally, did you try to wipe the whole server?

Clinton: [I] don’t know how it works digitally at all. [I] do not have any -

This is funny. She really doesn’t know how it works and she has no problem giving a reliable denial about it. Yet she’s had several chances to issue the denial that she didn’t wipe the server and she can’t do it.

Interviewer So you did not try, you did not try?

Clinton: And [I] know [you] want to make a point and [I] can just repeat what [I] have said

Here she’s going to avoid the question by trying to turn it around on the interviewer. “I know you want to make a point.” The sentence starting with “And” shows missing information. Then she continues “I can just repeat what I have said” which is another self-reference.

Interviewer It’s a simple question, [inaudible]

Clinton: In order to be as cooperative as possible [we] have turned over the server, [they] can do whatever [they] want to with the server to figure out what’s there what’s not there that’s for the, [you] know people investigating it to try to figure out but [we] turned over everything that was work related, every single thing. Personal stuff [we] did not, [I] had no obligation to do so and did not.

In order to be as cooperative as possible.

So there were some areas in which it was not possible to be cooperative.

[they] can do whatever [they] want to with the server to figure out what’s there what’s not there

This is an admission. The investigators are going to have to try to figure out what’s there and what’s not there.

She continues the sentence with but, making what comes after even more important to her than what came before.

but [we] turned over everything that was work related, every single thing. Personal stuff [we] did not, [I] had no obligation to do so and did not.

This is a direct lie. “We” turned over everything that was work related. Qualified by “Every” “Single” and “Thing.”

Personal stuff we did not. (Again, she’s telling us what she did not do, making it very sensitive).

I had no obligation to do so and did not.

This is a true sentence. She did not have any obligation to turn over personal emails and she didn’t. BUT

Over and over she is justifying the removal of personal emails... all in response to the accusation that she wiped the server. No one asked her about the emails she deemed personal, but they should, because she removed a whole bunch of stuff investigators need to see under the guise of “personal”. Then she had someone try to wipe the server for her.

Deception indicated. All over the place.

Juliet said...

Proud - your
in able - unable

Brooke Kaelin said...

I probably shouldn't qualify "palms up" with never because occasionally it can happen. If you are questioning an innocent person and they tell you they didn't do it repeatedly, and you refuse to believe them...then you may see begging to be believed. But if they start out that way....nope.Don't believe it.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Hillary really didn't know what it meant "to wipe it clean." Maybe she's not that computer savvy. I know I didn't know what it meant until now. Actually, I still don't. I wouldn't begin to know what I'm supposed to do to "wipe it clean." Seriously. True story. -ABB

Buckley said...

She was tech "savvy" enough to ( or get someone to) put a server she owned that routed State Dept emails through it instead of the state dept server. If she made the decision to do that with little to no knowledge of servers, I find that more disturbing than her deleting a bunch of controversial emails.

Anonymous said...

My post above was not quite what I meant to say. I meant to say that when his acts of pedophilia became known even though it was years later, it destroyed his family... and etc. AND it did. You get my point... T/Y

Anonymous said...

You make an excellent point Buckley and it could be that you are right. But then, I did the same thing. I have my office computer set up for me at the office and a personal computer set up at home, just as I have fax and copy machines set up in both places. I can and have used either or both for business or personal emails whenever I chose as this is more convenient for me.

If I had to go to my office every time I wanted to send or receive something business related I'd have to go down there at midnight. Maybe Hillary was just making it more convenient for herself, like I did. I lot of business people I know also have business related computers at home and work from there too.

Heck, I don't know what Hillary may have done! I'm just guessing. -ABB

Juliet said...

Above for anon at 7.56

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's right, Juliet; that twisted little poem you posted that you recommend for children? That says it all; just CURSE AND BLAME the parents, and before them, their parents. That's as good an excuse as any, right?

Nobody is responsible for themselves and their deliberate actions at all, are they? I get it, it's all the parents fault. No wonder the world is in the mess it's in.

Oakley A said...

RE:THE HILARY CLINTON VIDEO
Indicators of deception: 1. Rapid change in pronouns
2. She asked a question to a question and didn't wait for an answer
3. A lot of stopping in sentences and deflecting.
"So we went through a painstaking process" May indicate sensitivity to what the process was.
4. She changed words from "anything we thought could be work related (with a qualifier), under the law. to "everything work related".
She gave no reliable denial.

Brooke Kaelin said...

"Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Anonymous said...

Well said Juliet.

Peter Hyatt said...

Brooke,

fine work on the Hillary video.

The change of pronouns and the change of language speaks volumes.

For all:

What does this video reveal (via the words) of HC's personality?

Peter

Anonymous said...

So, Peter, will all future comments on the Duggars be censored and/or deleted from now on on this blog about discerning truth from deception??

Juliet said...

Peter's blog, Peter's rules, though Anon's remaining posts are not very representative of the conversation. :) But there we go.

Anonymous said...

Brooke, such a fine job of SA, Peter, HC is a textbook sociopath. Glib, glib, glib.

Peter Hyatt said...

Even avoiding body language analysis, her words reveal someone who has no connection with laws, nor submission to laws. This is a person who believes she is entitled to her own laws.

She is frightening.

Good post:

Buckley said...
She was tech "savvy" enough to ( or get someone to) put a server she owned that routed State Dept emails through it instead of the state dept server. If she made the decision to do that with little to no knowledge of servers, I find that more disturbing than her deleting a bunch of controversial emails.
August 21, 2015 at 7:59 PM

Peter Hyatt said...


August 21, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Brooke Kaelin said...
Part 3:

Interviewer: Did you try to wipe the whole server?

Clinton: I-d -I-I’m n, you know [I] don’t, [I] have no idea that’s why [we] turned it over, [we]

A reliable denial would have been great here, but instead we get lots of self-censoring followed by an “I don’t know”. Then she says “That’s why we turned it over.” Did she have to turn it over because she tried to wipe it?

Interviewer You said you were in charge of it. You were the official in charge, did you wipe the server?

Clinton: What like with a cloth or something?

Wow, she’s actually going to try and play stupid. Thankfully it doesn’t fly, even she realizes it and corrects herself immediately with “well, no” (below - during this part of the interview both she and the interviewer were speaking at the same time).

Interviewer I don’t know

Clinton: Well, no

Interviewer: You know how it works digitally, did you try to wipe the whole server?

Clinton: [I] don’t know how it works digitally at all. [I] do not have any -

This is funny. She really doesn’t know how it works and she has no problem giving a reliable denial about it. Yet she’s had several chances to issue the denial that she didn’t wipe the server and she can’t do it.

Interviewer So you did not try, you did not try?

Clinton: And [I] know [you] want to make a point and [I] can just repeat what [I] have said

Here she’s going to avoid the question by trying to turn it around on the interviewer. “I know you want to make a point.” The sentence starting with “And” shows missing information. Then she continues “I can just repeat what I have said” which is another self-reference.

Interviewer It’s a simple question, [inaudible]

Clinton: In order to be as cooperative as possible [we] have turned over the server, [they] can do whatever [they] want to with the server to figure out what’s there what’s not there that’s for the, [you] know people investigating it to try to figure out but [we] turned over everything that was work related, every single thing. Personal stuff [we] did not, [I] had no obligation to do so and did not.

In order to be as cooperative as possible.

So there were some areas in which it was not possible to be cooperative.

[they] can do whatever [they] want to with the server to figure out what’s there what’s not there

This is an admission. The investigators are going to have to try to figure out what’s there and what’s not there.

She continues the sentence with but, making what comes after even more important to her than what came before.

but [we] turned over everything that was work related, every single thing. Personal stuff [we] did not, [I] had no obligation to do so and did not.

This is a direct lie. “We” turned over everything that was work related. Qualified by “Every” “Single” and “Thing.”

Personal stuff we did not. (Again, she’s telling us what she did not do, making it very sensitive).

I had no obligation to do so and did not.

This is a true sentence. She did not have any obligation to turn over personal emails and she didn’t. BUT

Over and over she is justifying the removal of personal emails... all in response to the accusation that she wiped the server. No one asked her about the emails she deemed personal, but they should, because she removed a whole bunch of stuff investigators need to see under the guise of “personal”. Then she had someone try to wipe the server for her.

Deception indicated. All over the place.

Peter Hyatt said...

"Deception Indicated" with "all over the place"...

well said.