Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Tweet: John Podesta on Clinton Campaign Team

             Even tweets can present lessons in lie detection. 

People like to hear the truth as they know that when someone deceives, the deceiver must presuppose the audience to be inferior intelligence:  you won't be able to spot the deception.  

The news universally reported that Hillary Clinton's reaction to her declining popularity, particularly among women is that she is considering changing her campaign staff.  

John Podesta tweeted:

"There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

This should be analyzed.  

"There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

1.  He does not state, "Hillary will not be firing staff", or "Hillary is not changing staff" or anything similar which would deny any turnover or termination of the campaign staff, similar to what analysis calls a "Reliable Denial."

Note that "there is zero truth" is to address what is not there, and avoids a denial.  

2.  "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

"...may be reading" is not "what you are hearing" on the news, but specifies "reading" (but does so with the weakness of 'may'), which may suggest the existence of a specific report that has been read. 

Remember:  the 'brain knows what it knows' and if you expected him to say "contrary to what you heard" or "what media has reported", he was specific to that which is "read" and may be leaking an internal report, email, or written communication. 

3.  "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

Note the use of body posture. 

4.  ""There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

"It's" refers to one single thing.  He does not say "reports are wrong."

Need to Persuade

5.   "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

First, he stated that there was "zero truth" to what you "may" be "reading" (note present tense).  "It's wrong" is unnecessary language, since if what it has is "zero truth", it cannot be "correct", or anything but "wrong."  This is a need for emphasis (weakness) that is unnecessarily added to the statement, further bringing the assertion to doubt. 

6.  "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

The word "period" is used (along with a period in the typing) which is to make a conclusion or end of the sentence of communication.  To articulate "period" is to double up on the emphasis, which, in analysis is called, "need to persuade."

Need to Persuade, or "NTP" is a signal of weakness, but it does not conclude deception.  It says that the subject knows he must over emphasize a report because he may not be believed.  

Why might one think he may not be believed?

This could be because of lies told previously, or even the current deception.  It is weak. 

Had he tweeted, "Hillary has no plans to change her team" would have been stronger, but

"Hillary will not change her team" would have been firm.  

Analysis Conclusion:

It is likely, at the time of this statement, that the subject (John Pedesta) is aware of a plan to change some of the campaign staff in some degree or another and that he is attempting to deny this while actually thinking of something he read, which may have been an email from Clinton, herself, or her husband.  

Hillary Clinton did address this with her own denial:  

"I have no idea what they are talking about or who they are talking to.  We're going to take stock, but it's gonna be the campaign that I've got I'm very confident in the people that I have.  I'm very committed to them; they're committed to doing the very best that we can.  We're gonna take stock.  What works, what doesn't work.  We're moving into a different phase of the campaign.  We're moving into a more diverse electorate and different geographical areas so of course it would be malpractice not to say "ok what worked what can we do better, what do we have to do new and different that we have to pull out."  


mom2many said...

"...who they are talking to. We're gonna take stock (x2) ..." I'd be nervous if I was the one who'd been talking.

Tania Cadogan said...

I have no idea what they are talking about or who they are talking to
Everyone has an idea about everything, even if they are wrong.
She tells us she has no idea what they are talking about, since she and her team will be scanning every media going to gauge results, what works what doesn't, what the public want answers on, this does not bode well if she doesn't know what is being talked about.
This seems to be a common theme with her, deny deny deny.
As for who they are talking to, she would and should know who in her team is talking and who they are talking to, selected recipients get tasty leaks of information or disinformation to take back to their masters and also to see what the other camps say and do.
They will test the waters and if the feedback is unfavorable, whatever was planned gets shelved and maybe depending on circumstances and tweaking gets retested and released or binned.
If she is out the loop as she is indicating then it does not evoke confidence in her as a potential president.

We're going to take stock, but it's gonna be the campaign that I've got I'm very confident in the people that I have.
Note the pronouns she uses.
We're gonna take stock.
We is used to show unity and shared cooperation.
Who is the we she refers to?
Herself and her campaign team?
Herself and bill clinton?
What will happen once stock has been taken?
Where will the blame be laid as surely it will.

but it's gonna be the campaign that I've got
but is used to refute, negate or compare something.
Here it relates to them taking stock.
She then takes ownership of the campaign that she's got.
She however says gonna which is future tense rather than the campaign i've got.
She also introduces the word that which is distancing.
Are there issues in the campaign that she will be changing?

I'm very confident in the people that I have.
Very is a qualifier word, which when removed does not change the intent of the sentence.
She feels the need to convince the public she has confidence in the people that i have.
Note she doesn't call them a team only people.
What is her definition of people?
is it all, some or none of her campaign team and she instead refers to bill and chelsea?

I'm very committed to them; they're committed to doing the very best that we can.
She takes ownership of being committed to them, who is the them she refers to?
Note though she doesn't tell us they are committed to her.
They are committed to doing the very best we can
Very is a qualifier word which weakens the statement.
She doesn't tell us they are doing the best They, she instead uses the pronoun We
Who is the We she refers to since it shows unity and shared cooperation.
I wonder if there is dissent in the ranks given the way her campaign is going, the trickle of tops secret emails etc.
Is she telling them it's my way or the highway, she knows best perhaps?

Tania Cadogan said...


We're gonna take stock She repeats this phrase making it sensitive.
Will she be having a clear out of all those who disagree with the way she is running things?
Will any who question her judgement be shown the door?
What stock will they be taking?

What works, what doesn't work.
There are no pronouns to indicate ownership nor does she tell us she refers to as what works and doesn't work.

We're moving into a different phase of the campaign.
Note the pronoun we're which indicates unity and shared cooperation.
Why does she not take ownership of moving to a different phase of the campaign since she is the candidate?
Is this a case of minimising her own role so that should she fail to get the nomination she can then blame everyone else for her failure, a case of abrogating responsibilty and passing the buck.
A presidential candidate is supposed to take responsibility, to be a leader, to take charge, yet we see her sharing the load.

We're moving into a more diverse electorate and different geographical areas
Her electorate base is not as fixed as she expected.
All those she thought would vote for her because of her name and that she is a woman are now considering other candidates.
She thought she would be a shoe in since obama is soon to be an ex president and she is shocked that she isn't.
If she doesn't get in as the candidate, it will be the fault of the electorate and the fault of the cities, counties and states.
This is her excuse for having to change her campaign, the people aren't doing what they are supposed to.
Note also the pronoun we're. Why doesn't she take ownership of moving into a diverse electorate and geographical areas? she is supposed to be in charge.

so of course it would be malpractice not to say "ok what worked what can we do better, what do we have to do new and different that we have to pull out."
So is hghlighted in blue as it explains why something was done or happened.
Of course is used to make the listener/reader accept without question what the subject is saying.

it would be malpractice not to say "ok what worked what can we do better,
An interesting choice of word there malpractice
Why would she used that specific word rather than silly or dumb?
Is it due to her legal background?
Is it due to all the questions about her behavior, language and inactions as well as rampant denials?
is she concerned that she could face malpractice suits and criminal investigations?
The word malpractice relates to what worked and what can we do better.
Who is the we she refers to?
What does she mean when talking about what worked and what didn't?
Since the allegations against her are not dying down despite her best efforts, is this what she is referring to in relation to what we can do better?

Tania Cadogan said...


what do we have to do new and different that we have to pull out."
Note the pronoun we again.
She likes to share out the blame and responsibility.
What is the difference between new and different and pull out?
we have to pull out. is this perhaps an embedded admission?
Her pulling out at this stage would certainly be new and different.
What options does she have left for her campaign for the presidential nomination?
This is a tighter fight than she expected.
The electorate are not following her plan.
All the scandals are up front and centre and they are not dying down.
If anything, they are getting worse, even to reports she could face criminal charges.
If she though bill had problems, she will leave him standing.
Will she quit citing personal reasons and retire to lick her wounds?
Will she give up her hope of ever being the first female president because she is soiled goods, too many dirty secrets waiting to come out, perhaps a watergate pt.2

Maybe they will pin their hopes on chelsea perhaps running for office, if the kennedys could be the first family, and the bush's having two presidents in their family, why can't the clintons have the same status and social standing?
Bill is remembered for his sexual liasons and his lies, hilary for benghazi and having top secret emails on a private unsecure server.
not exactly a good family legacy.

She is taking stock to see if her campaign can be salvaged and if not can she retire from the race with dignity and hopefully no charges against her.

Tania Cadogan said...

Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders scored decisive victories in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary – as Ohio Gov. John Kasich surged into a second-place finish and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was fighting to stay in the race with Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush for third.

After months of campaigning in the snow, the battle for the South now begins -- and the runners-up will be looking for new life, and in some cases survival, as the winners celebrate.

“We are going to make America great again,” the victorious Trump told cheering supporters Tuesday night. “We are going now to South Carolina. We are gonna win in South Carolina!”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, though, is staying behind -- returning to his home state after a disappointing sixth-place finish with a mere 8 percent of the vote. He told supporters he planned to make a decision Wednesday on the way forward with the viability of his campaign now in serious doubt.

The rest head to the Palmetto State, each facing a unique challenge: Trump aims to hold his front-runner status after cementing it in New Hampshire on the heels of his Iowa loss. Kasich, while getting a big boost out of Tuesday’s contest, will look to demonstrate he can play beyond New Hampshire. And as Cruz and Bush look to build on their performance, Rubio is vowing to improve after a rocky debate seemingly disrupted his momentum.

"That will never happen again," Rubio told supporters Tuesday, referring to his Saturday debate performance.

On the Democratic side, meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is facing the prospect of losing her front-runner status if Sanders can close his polling gap in South Carolina and beyond.

The Vermont senator voiced confidence at his victory rally Tuesday night.

“Tonight we serve notice to the political and economic establishment of this country,” Sanders said. “Now it’s on to Nevada, South Carolina and beyond.”

The Clinton campaign tried to cast the candidate’s primary loss in the best light, saying in a memo that the outcome was “long expected” and prospects for future victories remain “very good.”

“I want to say I still love New Hampshire and I always will,” Clinton told supporters at a Tuesday night rally. “Now we take this campaign to the entire country. We are going to fight for every vote in every state.”

For the winners of both contests Tuesday night, New Hampshire was a comeback after each came in second last week in Iowa.

Tania Cadogan said...


Trump won decisively, towering over the Republican field with 35 percent of the vote after 92 percent of precincts had reported results early Wednesday. Sanders was crushing Clinton 60-38 percent with 93 percent of precincts reporting in the Democratic race.

Kasich clocked in second with about 16 percent, while the battle for third remained a fierce contest.

With 12 percent of the vote, Texas Sen. Cruz had nudged ahead of former Florida Gov. Bush and Florida Sen. Rubio, who both had 11 percent. However, the margin between the three was still too narrow to project who would finish third, fourth and fifth in the Republican race.

Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina finished seventh with 4 percent of the vote, while retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson finished eighth with 2 percent.

For Kasich, his time in the state appeared to pay off and the second-place finish gives a major boost to his campaign, especially after he finished a distant eighth in Iowa last week.

It also dealt a blow to Rubio, whose strong, third-place finish in Iowa eight days ago gave him momentum that lasted until Saturday, when Rubio stumbled in the debate amid withering attacks from Christie.

The closeness of the race for third, fourth and fifth places still might end up prolonging the Republican nominating contest because it complicates the establishment’s efforts to coalesce around a single consensus candidate.

Yet the person who tripped up Rubio in Saturday’s debate, Christie, was mired in single digits in Tuesday's race, leaving him to weigh his options back home.

Exit polls suggest Trump was aided in large part in the state by independents. They showed 36 percent of the state’s influential independents were backing Trump, leading the field among that bloc.

On the Republican side, Trump led virtually every poll in the state in the run-up to the contest.

And on the Democratic side, Clinton consistently trailed Sanders going into Tuesday’s contest. But the margin of victory for both Sanders and Trump was substantial.

Clinton herself has pushed back on reports that the campaign may be looking at a shake-up in the near future – but the speculation is sure to mount following her Granite State loss.

From here, the campaigns head next to Nevada and South Carolina, which hold the next two contests before Super Tuesday at the beginning of March.


Anonymous said...

> we have to pull out

Embedded confession?

JenB said...

Hillary sounds like she's planning a shake-up!

I wonder about how we must adjust statement analysis to the medium of a tweet. If one is attempting to make a statement in 140 characters or less, one may compose and then rewrite extensively, in order to fit everything in one tweet (particularly if one is speaking as a PR person). The most character-efficient way of stating something may not accurately convey the underlying context and meaning. How useful are tweets for analysis, given the length restriction?

trustmeigetit said...

Hillarys speech reminds me of a few merger talks where they tried to avoid saying people would loose their jobs.

Things like "we are going to evualate" which months later turned into laying off many people.

Hillary is making plans

Later it will be that she had to make changes for the success of the campaign.

I still don't understand who would vote for her. I mean most of us, if we sent confidential company info in personal emails would loose our jobs. Instead she's running for president?

I would expect her to be seen as a complete joke.

I am baffled she has any support at all.

Tania Cadogan said...

In tweets, due to the limited number of characters, only what is important to the subject gets included