Thursday, September 3, 2015

Statement Analysis: Anthony Wiener v Donald Trump

When the then Rep. Anthony Weiner scandal broke, his denials included accusing an unknown person of hacking his account.

He was indicated for deception.  Here, he speaks out again, and his statement is worth viewing as it shows a strange disparity between folly and intellect.

Anthony Weiner is a smart man, in that he possesses a powerful intellect.  This does not make him "emotionally intelligent", that is, with self awareness, ethics, morals, or even common sense.

We saw in the recent "Ashley Madison" scandal that many officials used their work email addresses, including FBI personnel, and even White House personnel.  In the war against police today, some websites have taken to publishing every police officer's name and email address that was hacked.

This shows an incredibly foolish lack of judgement.  One would think that a FBI agent would, in the very least, know that using his .gov address would not be secure, and considering the context of "Ashley Madison" is that of deception in marriage, it shows an even greater blindness and lack of judgement to potential professional consequences.  That which is sometimes seen as 'straight intellect' may lack 'emotional intelligence' during certain points in life.  There is also, at times, a sense of 'invincibility' that comes with employment that has authority.  Authority, itself, is necessary to restrain society, but it is also something easily employed in exploitation.

Hillary Clinton has long shown sociopathic tendencies in her language.  Her deception is often outright, and the language accompanying her deception seems to show a lack of human empathy, but instead, reveals someone who not only holds her own supporters in contempt, but law itself, as only applicable to others rather than herself, with no connection to humility.  To cavalierly dismiss lives lost was just a small insight into something far deeper within her personality.

She has lied, in open statements about the number of devices she conducted personal business on, and the emails (and other documents) show that she accepted millions of dollars for the "Clinton Foundation" from foreign governments in exchange for State Department favors.  "Ruthless" does not even begin to describe her.

She, too, like Weiner, has a well-above average intellect and it is, like his, dedicated to self-gain, void of the interests of others.  The connection between his wife, Huma, and the Muslim Brotherhood is publicly known, but not denounced.

Recently, Donald Trump publicly spoke out  about Huma's connection to Clinton, as well as her connection to Weiner.

When Weiner sent photos of his genitalia over the internet under the name of "Carlos Danger", one wonders:  Where did this superior intellect go?

When caught, his language revealed deception, as he, too, sought to avoid the internal stress caused by the disruption of the speed of transmission of language in the brain.  Here is his method of deception in defending Huma and is fascinating as he is back "on his game" while during the scandal, with 20 microphones so closely placed near his face, he bumbled and stumbled.

Did he not think his language would give him away?
Did he not think that IT would show that no account hacking had taken place?

This was a deceptive man off his game, but here, he recovers using a talent known from the earliest time of deception:  the tangent.

The tangent has been displayed in many ways, including the comical, "But, what about the children?" in satires.  It seeks to avoid a direct confrontational lie, but immediately moves to a new topic of concern.

Here, the elements include something else, as well.  The quotes are from "Daily Mail", as printed:

'So Huma is getting classified secrets … she's married to Anthony Weiner, who's a perv. No, he is! Huma Abedin is married to a bad guy. Anthony Weiner is one of the great sleazebags of our time.
'Do you think there's even a five percent chance that she's not telling Anthony Weiner what the hell is coming across?' 

There are two allegations here:
1.  Anthony Weiner is a "perv" and a "bad guy."
2. Human Abedin is sharing classified information with him.  

Weiner's response:

'I think it's absurd and frankly insulting, not only to my wife, who, when she worked at the State Department had a pretty high security clearance, a higher clearance than even some of the candidates running for president, but it also reflects very poorly on apparently what Mr. Trump thinks about all government employees who have high security clearances, that they are talking about things.  Not only didn't she do that, but even further, she's someone who has worked in government for 20 years and she has a reputation that's completely stellar."

1.  Note that Weiner does not address nor deny the allegation of being perverted.
2.  Note the inclusion of others.

Trump attacked Huma and Weiner. Though some may seek to muffle the chuckle of irony of  this one man accusing this other man of sexual perversion, we follow the words used.  
Weiner defended:
1.  Huma
2.  All government employees who have high security clearance though not attacked.  Hence, insight into his method of deception. 

In bringing in all government employees who have high security clearance, he asserts that Trump is stating that all of these employees are talking to their spouses about security issues.  

What is interesting about this is that Huma did communicate classified high security issues in private settings (something low level state workers would be terminated for and prosecuted). 

Note that by a deceptive means (claiming of attacking all government workers with high security clearance), not only has Weiner avoided the allegation of perversion, but he has sought to unite his wife with a large group falsely "under attack", seeking to engage others in a battle against Trump. 

Liars with strong intellects will 'turn the tables' and so such things, in order to change the argument away from that which would require a direct lie, to a different topic.  With just a few words, he not only changed the topic far from perversion and disclosure of high security information by his wife, but has built an 'army' of defense against Trump in which he would, in just another sentence, add in "all FBI" employees as well. 

Instead of he and Huma versus Trump, he has portrayed the 'battle' as many thousands of people "attacked" by Trump. 

Liars trouble society, meaning, in the home, in the school, in the library, in the clubhouse, in the business, and in the nation.  The greater the intellect attached to the habitual liar, the greater the capacity for trouble. 

Still, the greater the authority the liar has, the greater the impact of danger that befalls victims.  This goes for the innocents imprisoned by a young, ambitious liar as prosecutor, to the unemployment of entire peoples by the financial persuasion of an industrialist who imports cheap labor, at the expense of citizens who cannot find work, right up to the most critical of all:  the liar who sells out national security and not only emboldens enemies, but who's deception puts weapons of the most fierce impact, into the hands of those who have vowed destruction. 

The broken heart of the one betrayed by the liar, to the company smeared with a false allegation, to the rising insurance cost, to the slander of political rivals, up to billion dollar allotments for the purchase of weapons, lying and false testimony has always destroyed human society. 

The greater the intellect, the more effective the liar.  

Always note the tangent or "red herring" in a statement. 

It is the need to change the topic that we highlight, rather than follow the lead away from the sensitive portion of the statement. 

That Weiner did not use emphasis to defend Huma, instead opting for the majority of his statement to seek to have Trump falsely indict a multitude of workers strongly suggests that he knows that Huma not only shared classified information but may have done so with Islamic connections, also in exchange for "donations" to the Clinton Foundation. 

It will take a very serious and courageous journalist to uncover just how severe the damage to national security that may have transpired here.  This is, at least, a hope of mine, personally, rather than us all learning the extent of damage done through actual deployment of weapons and the severe loss of life it such use would result in. 


rob said...

Quote from article:

1. Note that Weiner does not address nor deny the allegation of being perverted.

I think it shows that at least he has enough intelligence to not try to deny it.

Peter Hyatt said...

I agree, Rob. It is precisely what I thought his intelligence would do, but I did not see him trying to get Trump to falsely indict a mass of government employees. I expected him to defend Huma with more emphasis.

I believe that this target is due to his understanding of how much Huma traded classified information, especially with Islamic organizations.


Child Advocate said...

I have a hard time taking anything The Donald says seriously.

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

It is only mild hyperbole to say that Hillary Clinton would sell nuclear weapons to the Boko Haram if the price were right.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think there's even a five percent chance that she's not telling Anthony Weiner what the hell is coming across?' "

Pretty weak allegation. In the form of a question, "do you think?" Allows for others to think differently. Stated in the negative: "not telling". Five percent? If Trump can't say "she's giving this perv classified information" why should we say it for him?

Anonymous said...

I want to thank you Peter for finally starting to open my eyes about Hillary Clintons' many deceptions. Not abased on your disdain for the Democratic GOP affiliation, but based upon actual lies, manipulation and deception, which disdain you frequently expressed actually was a turn-off; but based on your searching for deception in HER words and actions and not based on her democratic political affiliation. I get it now. Thank you.

I have always admired Hillary's extreme intelligence and perseverance without considering her ruthlessness without borders. It is due to your statement analysis that I am finally seeing her without blinders on. It was not that I am stupid or of low intellect, or fighting endlessly for a woman president and be damned with the consequences; not at all. It was that I was only looking for the best in Hillary, while fighting against the male establishment who would naturally diminish her positive abilities; now not so much. There is more involved than just this.

I was starting to lean towards Donald Trumps' big blow-hard mouth, considering he IS about 90% right in nearly every bash he does, but NOW he has tossed his hat into the Republican nest of liars themselves, so now not much for him either. I might have gone over to his side had he remained an independent, but no, he succumbed to what he must think will be the winning side and be damned with the consequences.

That's it. I'm done with all of them. Not that my one little bitty vote would make a difference anyhow. No way. It would only cancel out YOUR one little bitty vote... All the same, thank you for presenting the deceit of Hillary. ABB

Anonymous said...

I would start taking Donald Trump VERY seriously. I know a little something about his real estate shenanigans and how he got where he is in some of his quick thinking, quiet deals. Some are not a pretty picture. Some have been squished like a bug. He knows when to hold'em and he knows when to fold'em. He is quite the manipulator. Take it or leave it; I have knowledge of what I speak.

Believe me or not, he always winds up on the top side of the deal in his real estate postering; when and how to make his move and when not too. He is NOT a loser. Not a drinker or party animal, he is quite the calculator, overthinking and parlaying his plans while everybody else is bar hopping or having their evening cocktails. Ha...! Good luck in trying to jump one step ahead of him.

Big mistake to ever underestimate Donald Trump.

Anonymous said...

The above post was made by me.... ABB

thisistrue said...

I love you Peter but I am tired of your defense of Donald Trump. He is a mysoginist and you have daughters. You should care about that.

No brainer said...

Trump will deport 11 million Mexican rapists and Muslim paedophiles. That's a more pressing issue than his sexist jokes.

Anonymous said...

Whatever Donald Trump is or isn't (misogynist?) will have no bearing on Peter's daughters, or yours, or any of our daughters. Based on your misguided assumption that since The Donald is a misogynist, you must believe that just touching Obama on the hand could turn you black?

Personally, I don't give a hoot about his sexist jokes. Are you sure they're even jokes? I'm not. For instance, he despises Rosie O'D, I suspect because she acts like a big mouthed dyke. So? What she is speaks for itself, doesn't it? If he doesn't appreciate that type of 'woman' he has the right to express himself, doesn't he? At least he was being diplomatic when he left out a full-on description of her in his hot dispute with her several years ago. The Donald does not mince words. However, the man obviously has an appreciation for classy beautiful women. REAL women. So?

Actions being louder than words however, as no-brainer says above, his deporting 11 mil rapists and pedophiles means a lot more to me in terms of being sexist, wouldn't you agree? BTW, you already know that Peter is a republication so you might as well get used to it..... ABB

Anonymous said...

Snoopes, your quotation post on 09/03; it would be only natural that McCann would come to the defense of Huma's grand reputation when he has such a low-life reputation himself for deceiving the masses when he claimed he suffered more POW injuries than the other POWs who were there at the time; also when he committed adultery against his sick wife when he came home.

He told massive lies, even lying about and to his own wife at the time while she stood by him every step of the way even to the detriment of her health. He dumped on his wife and married his partner in adultery so bully for lying cheating McCann.

His argument against Trump (also a cheater when he hooked up with Marla and him a married man,) in defense of Huma doesn't mean squat. Enjoyed your post, BTW. ABB

thisistrue said...

Goodness, anonymous 1038, look up rhetorical fallacies and Argument from ignorance, slippery slope and Straw Man attack. Then reread your post. LoL!!! I would have signed as anonymous too! Bless! You'll get there. You just need to work... a bit... more. I despise Obama but that is irrelevant. Where in my comment did I mention him. Do you see the nassive leap you made? Goodness. Take your time. Remember, if I have not said I support Obana, you can't say it for me.

thisistrue said...

ELEVEN MILLION rapists and pedophiles?!? That is hilarious. Please, Please cite your sources. Surely you wouldn't say such things without proof! Composition fallacy... It is just not your day.

thisistrue said...

Please check your statistics and back them up with hard evidence. Otherwise those comments are simply racist. Why? Because you either haven't substantiated them or you can't. However, if you can--with real, authenticated and valid sources, I stand ready to be convinced. If you can't, then you are only hurting your own argument and discrediting yourself. That is fair though, right? If what you or I say isn't true, we deserve to be discredited. If I am wrong, then I want to know! But I do require that you prove it to me with valid evidence. This is fair, no? We wouldn't want people to say just any old thing as if it were true based on their own bias (opinion vs fact). Hopefully we can agree on this simple and logical premise and you will be able to back up your statistics. I stand ready to be convinced that tou have cited facts and not vitriolic racism.

thisistrue said...

Of course he has the right to his opinion! Yes, true, as The Donald. As a presidential candidate is it acceptable that he feels that way towards any woman? Doesn't that question answer itself?

Peter Hyatt said...

I continue to be fascinated by this pattern:

Deception is posted, and evidenced.

I seek discussion, not about politics, but about the deception, and the potential implication. This then moves quickly outside the realm of analysis allowing for observers to not only see trained v untrained, experienced v inexperienced, but it can, to some eyes, help all of us understand what prejudices we bring into analysis.

A good example is some anonymous comments in the entry about the upcoming book on Hailey Dunn. In it, someone quotes Kaaryn's analysis, which is incorrect (about present tense missing persons) and then asks, not if I disagree with a single point, but do I disagree with her analysis, as if the entire analysis is void.


Because the subject has a vested interest in showing that a deceptive person is not deceptive in the case of missing 7 year old Isabel Celis.

I will cover this in detail in the 2nd volume on missing children, it is just that Hailey is getting her own book due to the volume of appearances by her mother.


Thanks, you are correct... said...

Trump will deport a bunch of Mexican rapists and Muslim paedophiles. That's a more pressing issue than his sexist jokes.

Anonymous said...

The Snopes entry, which has been deleted, talked about more than McCain's defense of Huma against Rep Michelle Bachmann (not Trump). Even before the McCain narrative, it asserted:

"claims that her late father, her mother and her brother were all "connected" to Muslim Brotherhood have no factual basis to them."


thisistrue said...

I was wrong. There is no defense of Trump on this blog. My assumption was erroneous.

TommysMom said...

Peter,your description of Ms Clinton is right on.
If there are any statements surrounding the deaths those that happened during the Clinton reign,they would make interesting articles for your talent.

I was in the D.C. area during the Watergate investigation from which Clinton was fired but not charged. I was still there when all of the deaths surrounding their time there occurred. I cannot not for the life of me understand how this disgrace to all womanhood could ever be considered as a candidate for the highest office of this once great country.

TommysMom said...

Thought for the day.

Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

TommysMom; ref your post yesterday at 12:55: Wasn't Watergate during the Nixon Admn, not the Clinton Admn? The Clinton Admn affair was Zippergate. Pardon me for saying so, but your next post at 1:05 as well, seems to bear out that you don't know what you're talking about either.

Relative to the mysterious list of deaths that occurred that have been related to the Clintons by rumor, which you seem to be alluding too, including that of Vince Foster; many did not occur during the Clinton Admn, most were lumped into their charge by innuendo while Clinton was Governor of Ark, derived at by speculation and lose accusations most likely. I once had a copy of that list, forgot now who they all were; in any case all were rumors, nothing was substantiated. True or false; I don't know and neither do you.

You cannot understand "how this disgrace of a woman could ever be considered as a candidate...." ? Well, I can. Hillary Clinton per'se is not a disgrace; she is a VERY brilliant woman, a slick politian, well learned in her field and a charge-ahead person of high self-esteem with blinders on looking straight ahead, with that being for her own benefit. Be damned with her maneuverings and manipulations; she has earned the right to be in the position she is in. Hillary has many fine qualities.

HOWEVER, it was during the Clinton Admn, which Hillary had a part in, that welfare was cut so drastically in this country, and at a time when our coffers were still wealthy and bulging (Bush destroyed all that); that in doing so the Clinton Admn caused millions of unemployed people with small children to have to start walking the streets homeless and hungry and without one dollar of assistance from our wealthy welfare system. For THIS, God still has yet to exact our punishment. It's coming, count on it; God is not a liar. We CANNOT turn away the homeless and hungry. They did, and caused others to do it. For THIS we all will pay.

Hillary has kept her close personal aid under her wing, HUMA, who IS a threat to our national security. Trump is right about this and so is Peter. Huma is an idiot and has already proved herself to be just by staying with this POS she lays with. Of COURSE this simpleton will do anything Weiner asks her too. Only a fool would think she wouldn't. Duh....

Lastly, the worse thing Hillary did during the Clinton Admn was to stand by her man after he had proven time and time again over and over to be a cheater, a liar and an adulterer of mass proportions. These actions have threats to our national security. All the worlds' eyes were on Hillary and she did nothing other than give Bill a black eye when she beat the hell outta him. Can't say as I blame her. Such humiliation, I felt sorry for her. I still do as she has wasted her life, her womanhood and her femininity on Bill Clinton, whom I'm convinced she once loved; intending to one day become president so she can prove that she can do a better job than he did. It's a power thing.

BUT; We can make it on our own now, and even better than with most men hanging onto our coattails; women of any backbone will not take this serial cheating, blowing the family money and making fools out of them. She did. I can see taking control of the situation and the money with a one or two-time cheater so as not to break up your home and wreck your childrens' lives, but what Hillary did by looking the other way defies all common decency and logic. The fact is, she set women back in this country by fifty years, back to our grandmothers' day. All this, with her eye on the prize, that being to one day be president. I don't doubt that she IS qualified; however, one wonders, what else might she do to be president? ABB

TommysMom said...

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.


“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

TommysMom said...

Well I for one cannot see anything about Ms Clinton that is fine. I am certainly entitled to my opinion as are all who comment here.

Anonymous said...

That's what he said while promoting a book entirely about Clinton. Here's what he said 10 years earlier:

"But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:

“Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said."

Anonymous said...

TommysMom; yes you are entitled to your opinions, and I admire and respect them. Who knows, you could be more right in the final analysis than I am. Sincerely, ABB