Monday, May 9, 2016

Ted Cruz Public Statements On Affairs

Ted Cruz was accused of having five affairs, which may suggest serial unfaithfulness and deceit.  The difficulty with such an allegation as five affairs is that:

a.  Should he deny all five, if he had one? 

b What if he had an affair but rebuilt his marriage?

c.  what if he had two?  Might people still consider this private?

d.  What if he had five?  

 Should he attack Donald Trump's marital record, knowing that Trump might respond, not with a denial, but with a claim that "it was even more than that" in bragging?

He was in a no-win situation with such a serious allegation. If he said "this is private between me and my wife", it would not satisfy the allegation due to the excessive number five. 

 He issued one statement followed by then another statement. 



“I want to be crystal clear: these attacks are garbage. For Donald J. Trump to enlist his friends at the National Enquirer and his political henchmen to do his bidding shows you that there is no low Donald won’t go. These smears are completely false, they’re offensive to Heidi and me, they’re offensive to our daughters, and they’re offensive to everyone Donald continues to personally attack. Donald Trump’s consistently disgraceful behavior is beneath the office we are seeking and we are not going to follow.”
The clarity he calls upon must be "crystal" in vision.  This is to be 'plain' and transparent.  He then calls these attacks (plural) "garbage."  This avoids a denial. 

The "attacks" now changes to "smear", which is to cover over something to make it appear worse than it is, including one's own reputation.  This, too, avoids a denial.  They are not only "false" but "completely false."  The problem is that we do not know if he is talking about "attacks", "smear" or 5 affairs.  

In strategy, he followed Rubio down the path of name calling, which backfired for him:  


:
“The National Enquirer published a story. It is a story that quoted one source on the record: Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s chief political advisor. Let me be clear, this National Enquirer story is garbage. It is complete and utter lies.
The story is garbage, but this, too, avoids denying the allegation.  He then goes on to attack the source while avoiding the denial:  



It is a tabloid smear, and it is a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen. It is attacking my family, and what is striking is Donald’s henchman, Roger Stone, had for months been foreshadowing that this attack was coming. It’s not surprising that Donald Trump’s tweet occurs the day before the attack comes out. And I would note that Mr. Stone is a man who has 50 years of dirty tricks behind him.
Consider he used the word "smear" as you read his next sentence: 


He’s a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent.


Well let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him.

If by "copulate" he means getting involved in smear campaigns, we would expect him to avoid name calling as this was done repeatedly in the debates:

And this garbage does not belong in politics. The National Enquirer has endorsed Donald Trump, has said he must be President. And so Donald, when he’s losing, when he’s scared, when Republicans are uniting against him, decides to peddle sleaze and slime. You know, Donald is fond of giving people nicknames. With this pattern, he should not be surprised to see people calling him, ‘Sleazy Donald.’

The pattern is similar to many others in deception:  Avoidance and attack.  Avoidance, and seeking empathy.  Avoidance and...

In spite of sounding strong, it is actually weak.   

What cannot be concluded, however, is what he is referring to:  an affair, more than one affair, or the allegation of five affairs.  

Most people would consider five affairs to be serial deceit, or habitual, life long deception, destroying trust.  

Here, if he cannot deny it, we cannot deny it for him.  If he had an affair, he could have said, "I did not have five affairs" and leave it there, but he does not even offer this.  This may be due to not only the avoidance of lies, but fear that proof of his deception might be forthcoming. 

If he is incapable of denying 5 affairs, it may be that he has had even more.  

Deception Indicated.


58 comments:

New England Water Blog said...

Cruz makes his point clearly. While rathumping appeals to him, the trump rat does not. He is making an exception of trump by no hump. Clearly, Cruz is admitting to being the rat f**ker we know him to be.

Andrew said...

Right on the money, Peter!

I'm so glad I found your blog and was able to analyze Cruz' denial objectively. Our politics would be much healthier if more people analyzed candidates' statements using this method.

lynda said...

All that talk and he didn't issue a reliable denial? I want to know what 5 women in their right minds would sleep with him? Ewww factor.

Anonymous said...

Dont most deny affairs? Especially when asked or accused in public. Whats the Adminstrations purpose in releasing so many felons from prison? Non violent drug crime? I agree with Michael Moore's recent assesment of POTUS: deeply disappointed. Maybe James Howard Kubstler is correct saying our Society is now based on fraud and racketeering.

Nic said...

If Cruz had issued a reliable denial, i.e., "I did not have five affairs." My first thought would be [they] got the number wrong.

Q." Is it true you had five affairs? " Or, "It's being reported you had five affairs. How do you respond to the allegations?"

I would expect him to say, "At no time have I been unfaithful to my wife."

Anonymous said...

What kind of govt do we want? A Prez that probably never cheated on his wife, but lied our way into a horrible never ending war? And the current Prez who probably never cheated on his wife, but us enabling & contributing to a fragmented society. Relevent questions of ideology which includes Religious beliefs, business integrity, persinal finances, understanding world history other ethnicities. Theres alot more to focus on rather than the minor. Unless when combined with other signs of pattern dishonesty or corruption providing clearer understanding of candidates mentality.

Deejay said...

This guy is running on VALUES, as if he is a very clean cut person. It is sad that he cannot deny an affair. Five affairs, if true, would make him a complete hypocrite. (Full disclosure here- he gives me, and many, the creeps. GOP should not allow him to run for Prez in 2020.) We, as a nation of nearly 400 million people, can do better than the whole slate of current candidates!

Anonymous said...

He's running a GOP endorsed list of values. To manipulate the Christian right. Illegal immigration is a value, but gotta let them in as cheap Republica labor. The quagmire of Black american violence is a value, but nit an endorsed value. That violence is worsening. Its being enabled by the false narrative of racism & victimhood. News reports of rape or murder rarely mention race of suspect knowing it could alert other potential victims of what to be on alert for. They fly across the globe to 'provide' democracy & freedom, but refuse it in the workplace. Offshore millions of jobs & still wave the flag. These are values also. But the gotcha sex rumors & questions matter more. Absurd

Anonymous said...

Who has time for 5 affairs!
It's ALWAYS the "values and family man."

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Ozzy Osbourne denies relapse caused split

The Black Sabbath singer responds to allegations that drugs and alcohol were behind the break-up from his wife of 34 years

Ozzy Osbourne has denied allegations that a relapse into drug and alcohol abuse was the cause of his split with wife Sharon Osbourne.

Talking to E! News, the Black Sabbath singer said: “I have been sober for three and a quarter years. I have not touched drugs or alcohol in that time. Any reports that I am not sober are completely inaccurate.

The statement followed news that Osbourne had moved out of the family home after 34 years of marriage to Sharon. He is believed to be staying with an unnamed family member.

Back in 2013, Osbourne did relapse back into drug and alcohol abuse before entering an AA rehabilitation programme. He claims to have remained sober ever since.

Osbourne has been married to Sharon since 1982, and credits her with saving him from addiction in the 1980s.

Black Sabbath are set to begin a European tour in June.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/10/ozzy-osbourne-marriage-end-sober-drugs

Anonymous said...

I know, right. He looks like Mrs. Doubtfire.
Maybe he's really funny or something.

GeekRad said...

He never said he did not have an affair, or many. He was repeatedly asked questions that would have made the denial simple to say, but he never did. He is clearly being deceptive.

Lis said...

When the candidate's identity is representing/promoting particular moral values, it is important to note when he is denying those same values in his own private life. It's like when Al Gore turned out to be an energy guzzler. Hypocrisy. Dennis Hastert campaigned for harsh laws against pedophiles while he, himself, was a sexual predator.

Five affairs reveals a pattern, as opposed to a lapse.

Nic said...

Any reports that I am not sober are completely inaccurate.”

It would be interesting to hear the interview without any edits, etc. Interesting that he doesn't address the drug allegation (being clean).

Lis said...

Theres alot more to focus on rather than the minor. Unless when combined with other signs of pattern dishonesty or corruption providing clearer understanding of candidates mentality.

How many instances of dishonesty does it take before you realize the person is dishonest? What is the word of a dishonest person worth? What are the promises of a dishonest person worth?

I wonder if an honest person can actually be found in politics? Would an honest person even have a chance? This is probably a big reason why a lot of people don't vote.

Anonymous said...

I have a little book called "The Almanac of Poor Richard Nixon". I picked it up at a garage sale or something. The book is really old, like 1970's, and it is nothing but exact quotes of Richard Nixon. Oh lord, that book makes me laugh so hard!!! That guy was soooo paranoid and sooo "persecuted", oh my goodness!! GET THE BOOK - - It's fascinating and funny!!! (PS i do not think of him AT ALL as someone who represents the Republican Party. Rather, I think he was some odd fluke who got elected President.)

Anon "I" said...

This reminds me of Abraham begging that the righteous of Sodom not be destroyed along with the wicked. He started with 50 and whittled it down to ten in his bargaining with a very patient God. Although less than ten were righteous, God made provision for the righteous to escape his wrath.

Genesis 18:16-33 King James Version (KJV)

This was bothering me the other day when I was thinking that we have 322 million people, give or take, and we claim to find less than 10 who are fully qualified, prepared, and dignified enough to be president? Something is wrong with this picture.

elf said...

Poor Ozzy :( I still don't think Sharon will ever give up on him, but, I wish he'd stay sober. He's a one in a million singer/entertainer. I saw him in concert in the mid 90s and he was incredible!

elf said...

OT-
everyone please keep an eye out for Carlie Marie Trent #BringCarlieHome missing from Tennessee (US) Carlie was abducted by her uncle Gary Simpson and is believed to be in danger.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

EXTENDED: Exclusive interview with grandma of missing toddler DeOrr Kunz Jr.

Grandma of missing toddler DeOrr Kunz spoke exclusively with Chelsea Brentzel.

The boy disappeared from Timber Creek Campground near Leadore July 10.

She explains what she remembers from that day.

Vt only:

17:07

http://m.localnews8.com/news/extended-exclusive-interview-with-grandma-of-missing-toddler-deorr-kunz-jr/39482978

tania cadogan said...

I wonder how Cruz would answer if asked if he has had sexual contact with anyone other than his wife during his engagement and marriage to her?

Kit Perez said...

This is interesting:

In his first unequivocal statement on a National Enquirer article alleging he’d had at least five affairs, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Monday flatly denied having cheated on his wife at any time during his marriage.

Cruz made the statement about the alleged affairs to Megyn Kelly during a town hall in Wisconsin after the Fox News host asked bluntly, “Have you committed adultery in your marriage?”

“I have not,” Cruz said. “That attack was complete and utter garbage. It was complete lies. And it came from Donald Trump and his henchmen. Those reports, they’re not a little bit true, not slightly true.”

“It’s completely made-up nonsense,” Cruz continued. “It’s simply not true. I have always been faithful to my wife. I love my wife. She’s my best friend in the world. This is the kind of garbage the Trump campaign engages in. You know why? Because they can’t debate substance.”

http://conservativetribune.com/ted-cruz-statement-affairs/

Anonymous said...

He still didn't say "No."
Is it really that difficult to say!

Anonymous said...

". . . .they're not a little bit true, not slightly true." What are we to make of THAT? What an odd thing to add to a denial.

John mcgowan said...

DeOrr Update:

DeOrr Kunz's grandmother continues to hope as new search begins

LEADORE, Idaho (KBOI) — Ten months after DeOrr Kunz Jr., disappeared from the Timber Creek Campground in eastern Idaho, law enforcement is resuming its search for the young boy.

And his grandmother is praying for those conducting the search.

"I want them to be in the right state of mind that if in the event that they do find baby DeOrr that they're going to be OK," said Trina Bates Clegg, the boy's grandmother. "I mean it's something that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives."

The Lemhi County Sheriff along with the United States Forest Service have shutdown the campground where Kunz went missing last summer as well as part of the forest nearby.

The search process of combing through the area is planned to take at least a few weeks.

Months ago, the Lemhi County Sheriff named the missing child's parents as the prime suspects after he felt they were dishonest during multiple polygraph tests while answering questions such as "do you know what happened to him" and "do you know where he is now?"

Deputies are still searching for answers to those same questions. This time around, the family will not be at the campsite assisting in the search.

"There comes a point and time that maybe God is trying to tell us that maybe our family is not supposed to be there in the event they do find him," she said.

The Lemhi County Sheriff is hoping to have the search complete by Memorial Day.

http://kboi2.com/news/local/deorr-kunzs-grandmother-continues-to-hope-as-new-search-begins

John mcgowan said...


Klein Investigations and Consulting

Just now ·

Public Statement : "Our team has reviewed Trina Clegg's interview this past evening with News 8 in ID Falls regarding the DeOrr Kunz, Jr. case. Since the interview we have received a large amount of emails and messages regarding her statement and inconsistencies in previous statements and comments. We are aware of these issues. We thank the public. At this time our team has no comment."

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/?fref=nf

The Vt interview they are referring to i have posted further up.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for posting the links, John.

Anonymous said...

OT - kidnapped TN child

Statements made by the father...

"I have to be strong for my other daughter and for Carlie," Trent said. "But as the days keep passing, it's getting harder."

"There are so many places he could be," James added. "I don't know what story he's told her, because there is no doubt she wants to be home. This whole thing has puzzled our whole family because everything about that morning was normal."

He added, "I want her to know that she's loved. That she shouldn't believe whatever he's telling her. She should get out, run, scream, do whatever she has to do to get away, because there are so many people looking for her. We'll never give up."

"He had access to her every day he was obsessed with her he wanted her and he wanted her all to himself, that's a scary thing to think about," said Trent.

Trent says he doesn't think Gary will hurt Carlie, but worries what will happen once she's home.

"It would be a great moment but then again it be a scary moment because I'm just wondering how she's going to be is she going to be as happy as she was she going to be scared to death of everyone that's what I worry about she just won't be the same," said Trent.

"I have to be strong for my other daughter and for Carlie," Trent told Dateline. "But as the days keep passing, it's getting harder."

Anonymous said...

I wish that someone would take a crack at SA in the Missy Bever case.

tania cadogan said...

Aah i love a good reliable, unreliable denial.
It is so satisfying to hear one and say oh dear, you really should do better than that if you want to convince folk.

Anonymous said...

Outstanding. I am thrilled that you covered this.

It was fascinating to watch Cruz act indignant at the "smears" while never issuing anything even close to a reliable denial. What you've taught us about Statement Analysis allowed us to see right through him.

It was also fascinating to see the women accused of sleeping with him ALSO refuse to issue reliable denials. Their inability to do this was even more telling than Ted's inability to deny. Because, as you point out, Ted was in a tough spot. What if he cheated just once and his wife forgave him, for example? But for a woman like Amanda Carpenter, specifically accused of having sex with Ted Cruz, a reliable denial should have been simpler: I did not have sex with Ted Cruz. She couldn't say it. All she could do was to complain about "smears." Quite amazing.

And finally, it was fascinating to see the media let these liars get away with non-denial denials. Many media outlets reported Cruz and Carpenter statements like "Trump is behind these smears" as being "strong denials." We Statement Analysis fans know better!

Lis said...

I have been practicing statement analysis, working through Saeed Abedini's statement in this article http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/may/ct-interview-saeed-abedini-abuse-allegations-prison.html

I am only an amateur and I would sure appreciate input from Peter or anyone else! Here is what I have so far:

------------------------------------------
I: You’ve been out of prison now for two months. What’s life been like since you’ve returned to the States?

SA: After I got released, it was very different from what I imagined before I got released . I was waiting for more welcome, especially from my family, wife, and the church I went to in Boise, but I didn’t get that. I thought that once I got released from prison, I was going to relax and get time to rest, but the situation got worse. The news, the false accusations—today I can’t feel my freedom yet; it was just like coming out of a prison to another prison.

He compares what he imagined before his release to the reality of what has happened after his release.
The important thing to him was the welcome he would receive, especially from 1.family 2.wife 3.his church
He does not say he planned to rest but only that he would 'get time' to rest
BUT "the situation" got worse.
"THE" news - "THE" false accusations
"it was just like coming out of a prison to another prison" he compares being kept in a cell and subject to brutal beatings under the complete control of others to being completely free but being held accountable for something he did. This is surprising.


I’m very sad that the people who have prayed for me for years, some of them with tears and some of them writing me letters—I heard that 100,000 letters came to prison monthly, so people did a good job. But we couldn’t rejoice together for what God did in my life? That was the hardest part.

He is "very sad" that...
"the people":
who have prayed with (sensitive) him "for years"
"some with tears"
"some writing him letters"
The number of letters that came monthly is specified; the number is important
"SO (sensitive) people (unspecified) did a good job" (I assume he means a good job at doing what was asked of them to get him released.)
"BUT (sensitive, refutes the previous) we couldn't rejoice together for what God did in my life"
"THAT (distancing, sensitive) was (is it still?) THE HARDEST PART"
If he is truly innocent and his wife has truly made false allegations, separating him from herself and their children, ruining his reputation, would 'the hardest part' really be that he couldn't rejoice with the unknown 'people' who prayed for him? The tears of unknown people are more important to him than his own wife's tears?

New England Water Blog said...

“I never abused nobody.”


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/afrika-bambaataa-abused-article-1.2633200

Lis said...

I: What is the status of your and Naghmeh’s marriage?

SA: She legally filled out a protection [restraining] order and filed for legal separation. Now we are in that process.

"She (not "Nagmeh") legally (interesting inclusion of this word) filled out a protection order (it seems strange that he focuses on the act of filling out the paperwork rather than the obtaining of the protection order) and filed for legal separation" (again, the focus is on the filing rather than her decision to be separated- what is the meaning of this? Is it a way to downgrade her actions to just filling in papers? Perhaps he sees foresees undoing these actions of hers?)
"we (unity) are in that (distancing) process (he sees this as a process, how does he see the process ending?)


I: So you felt more support when you were in jail than when you were out of jail?

SA: Yeah. Because people are confused. People now have two different Saeeds. One of them is a hero of their faith; one of them is an abuser, an addicter [sic]. When I talk with some people, I can see the confusion. I don’t believe this confusion is coming from God. This is completely coming from Satan, who wants me to stop preaching the gospel and wants people to stop rejoicing for my release, because it was a big victory for the Christian world. Now with these false accusations, trying to make the churches all around the world confused—it’s clear to me that Satan is behind this.

Yes or no answers are the easiest to use for deception.
"BECAUSE people are confused" is an incomplete sentence.
Confused is a gentle term for people who think he is a liar and wife beater if he is not. Confusion is a very soft way to put it.
How does he define this confusion? "People (non-specific) now (as opposed to before) have (they possess) two different (unlike each other) Saeeds (they are both "Saeed" by name- is this to take ownership of both?)"
I find the way he is phrasing his problem this way very interesting.
These two Saeeds are:
1. "A" hero of "their" faith
2. "AN" abuser, addicter (the proper term would be 'addict' unless he is meaning someone who seeks to addict others?)

"When I talk with some people (identity and number of those he talks with is not specified) I can see the confusion" (he does not speak of being confronted with accusations or questions, but rather he 'can see the confusion'. Perhaps he describes people have pulled back from him / lost trust in him?
"I don't believe (he allows for others to believe differently) this (close) confusion (the 2 Saeeds) is coming from God" (he calls divinity into the situation)
"This (close) is completely (weak; attempt to persuade) coming from Satan" (now it is Satan's fault that people can see 2 Saeeds)
"Satan, who wants me to stop preaching the gospel (how does he define "gospel"? should he repent for his sins and seek to change so that he can legitimately preach the gospel?) and wants people to stop rejoicing for my release, because it was a big victory for the Christian world." (He sees his release as a 'big victory' for the whole 'Christian world.')
Now (sensitive) with these (close) false accusations (non-specific), trying to make the churches all around the world (he sees his influence as very large- over the churches around the whole world) confused (revealing the existence of 2 different Saeeds)—it’s clear to me (others can think differently) that Satan (moving the focus away from himself) is behind this (close).

Lis said...

I: You said “false accusations.” Does that mean you are saying that Naghmeh’s accusations are false?

SA: Yes.

(Yes and no answers are the easiest to lie about. He does not state that he did not assault Nagmeh, he does not define what the false accusations are.)

I: Can you talk about the misdemeanor domestic assault charge in 2007? You pled guilty to that, and that suggests there was at least one instance of marital abuse.

SA: I believe courts can make mistakes too. They are not God; they can make a mistake. I talked with Franklin Graham. He asked me to keep silent and not say anything about anyone. Graham encouraged me, “Let other people defend you.” I think the court made a mistake, and I didn’t know that I’d been guilty until three weeks ago. I didn’t know that I got a sentence of 90 days in court until three weeks ago. No one told me.

He does not say that the court made a mistake, only that he believes (allowing others to believe otherwise) that "courts" in general CAN make mistakes, TOO (an admission of his own 'mistake'?)
The courts are not God. (He has said earlier he does not believe the revelation of the 2 Saeeds is from God. Now he states that the courts are not God. We should not place confidence in the courts?)
Franklin Graham is now brought into the conversation to share guilt.
Franklin gave him typical legal/PR advice - remain silent. Franklin encouraged/asked rather than told. The implication is it's Franklin's fault he didn't speak up and say he didn't assault his wife.
"I think (he is not sure) the court made a mistake, ('a mistake' could mean on one detail or anything) and I didn’t know that I’d been guilty (embedded admission?) until three weeks ago. I didn’t know that I got a sentence of 90 days (Did he think it was a different number of days?) in court (did he know elsewhere?) until three weeks ago. No one told me. (What did no one tell him?) (Is it believable that he went through a court process without knowing any of these things?)

Lis said...

I: You don’t remember going to court in 2007?

SA: I did, but it was a time that I had just come to the United States. My English was pretty weak. Everything that happened was between Naghmeh, the lawyer, and the court, so I didn’t know what was going on. They said that everything was okay, that they dismissed everything. So I said, okay, they made a mistake. Then three weeks ago, I saw from the news that I got a guilty charge, and I was shocked.
I completely reject all accusations, but at the same time, I call Naghmeh and [our] children my heroes.

"I did" go to court BUT "I had just come to the United States" (does this mean he did not assault his wife?) "My English was pretty weak" (does this mean he did not assault his wife?)
"Everything that happened was between Naghmeh, the lawyer, and the court" (he was not involved at all in the proceedings? is this believable? Does it mean he did not assault his wife?)
"They" said "everything was ok" who is 'they'? what does 'okay' mean?
SO (sensitive) "I said" (to who?) "okay, they made a mistake" (is he saying this is what he said about the incident? "I said" does not equal "I believed")
"THEN" (sensitive) 3 weeks ago (the liar's number) "I saw from the news (what news?) THAT (sensitive?) I got a guilty charge (embedded confession?) AND (sensitive, missing information?) I was shocked" (Was he shocked that the court found him guilty? Was he shocked that this information was available in the news? Was he shocked that wife abuse is not acceptable? We do not know why he was shocked.)


I: Did you go to jail in 2007?

SA: Just one night, when Naghmeh called 911, police came and asked what happened and I said this is completely wrong and they said, “Someone just called 911, you need to come with us.” I stayed one night in jail, and the day after that was the court hearing, and Naghmeh said, “I made a mistake. He never did those things.” So they told me they had dismissed it.

He does not answer with yes or no but minimizes with "just one night" and then adds unecessary information to change the focus of the subject.
"WHEN (sensitive) Nagmeh called 911
Police came AND (missing information?) asked what happened
AND (missing information?) I said (telling us what he said rather than what happened)
this (close) is completely (sensitive; persuading) wrong (he does not tell us what is completely wrong. Perhaps he feels being held accountable is wrong, perhaps a minor detail is wrong, perhaps he feels he has the right to abuse his wife; we do not know)
I stayed (body posture, sensitive?) one night (re-emphasizing the minimizing ONE night again) in jail.
The day after that was the court hearing AND (missing information?) Nagmeh said "I made a mistake (what did she make a mistake about? A detail? Calling the police?) He never (unreliable) did those (which?) things." We do not know what exactly Nagmeh might have said or what "those things" refers to. It isn't very likely she called police and reported she was being assaulted by mistake!
"SO (sensitive) they (who?) told (strong) me they had dismissed IT" (what does 'it' refer to?)
He still has not said that he did not abuse his wife. Many abused wives will back down on abuse charges under pressure, possibly Nagmeh felt pressure to back away from charges she made or possibly he is misrepresenting what she said since it is not specific, but either way he himself has still not said "I did not abuse my wife" "I did not strike my wife" or any specific reliable denial.

Lis said...

I: Is there anything you need to repent of in your marriage?

SA: Did you read my letter about this accusation that I released when I arrived in Boise, one month ago? It said I completely reject all accusations, but at the same time, I call Naghmeh and [our] children my heroes, because of their advocating for me and their standing for their faith. I just admire them. Naghmeh is my hero; she stood strong for years. But no, I never abused anyone in my life, and I’ve never been addicted to anything.

He does not answer the question but rather refers back to a letter he wrote. The letter did not contain any reliable denial.
"It said (quoting the letter rather than answering the question) I completely (sensitive; persuading) reject all (unreliable, too broad, non-specific) accusations BUT (sensitive) at the same time I call (again quoting the letter rather than answering the question) Nagmeh and our children my (taking ownership) heroes BECAUSE (sensitive) of their advocating for me (they are his heroes because of what they've done FOR HIM) (heroism is an important recurring theme to Saeed throughout this statement) AND (sensitive) their standing for their (not our) faith. I just (minimizing) admire them. Nagmeh is my (taking ownership) hero; she stood strong (in what? She claims that he instructed her to tell lies in order to manipulate public perception of him, perhaps he refers to that?) for years." (She is his hero because of what she did 'for years' but not for what she is now).
"But (refutes what was said before) no, (what does no refer to?) I never (unreliable) abused (how does he define abuse?) anyone in my life, and I’ve never been addicted to anything."

Lis said...

Anyways, I'm sure I have missed 9/10s of the analysis in this statement, I'd be grateful for any other opinions and pointers from the great minds here.

Horse Chestnut said...

Peter:

Am I the only one who thinks this didn't really happen = click bait?

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/post/144191834144/newlyweds-spark-outrage-for-emailing-to-say

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Family Found a Dead Rodent in Child's Dr. Pepper
​They're now testing the toddler for diseases.


A Katy family says their 3-year-old grandson drank half this soda before they realized there was a RODENT inside. Now they have major health concerns for the little boy. Hear from them on KPRC2 / Click2Houston at 6pm along with reaction from the company.

Giving kids sugary soda can be a bad idea to begin with, but one toddler's treat got downright dangerous when his grandfather found a dead rodent in the half-empty bottle.

Texas resident John Graves handed his grandson, Kayden, a Dr Pepper this past Sunday just after buying it in a local store. He let the three-year-old drink some soda in the car, and later put the cap on without inspecting it. When he opened the 20-ounce bottle again the next day, he noticed the animal floating inside.

Nothing like your grandson drinking half a Dr. Pepper only to find a dead rat floating on the bottle.

Response from Dr. Pepper was....."send us the bottle and we will let you know something in 6-8 weeks!" Are you kidding me? What if my grandson drank poison or disease? This was purchased in Galveston yesterday at Valero on 39th and Broadway. Beware people. Way to stand behind your products Dr. Pepper.

The Graves family immediately rushed Kayden to the doctor, testing his blood and urine for any diseases that rats and mice can carry. Some, including leptospirosis and the plague, can even be fatal. The family then contacted the CDC and Dr Pepper looking for answers.

"I want to get the rat tested to see where it came from, how it got there, if there is any medical concerns we should be concerned about," John Graves told KPRC 2. "You think it's rabies. You think of dirty, filthy rodents. What did he ingest?" In response, Dr Pepper Snapple Group stated that "it is virtually impossible for any foreign object to enter any container during the bottling process," claiming their high-speed filling lines prevent these accidents from happening.

A food safety expert, however says it's not an unusual occurrence. "A mouse can fit through a hole about the size of a nickel," Jay Neal of the University of Houston told KPRC 2. Currently, the Graves family and Dr Pepper are working together to find an independent lab to test the sample.

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food-recipes/news/a38414/dead-rat-dr-pepper-bottle/


Cont..

John mcgowan said...

Cont..

Snipped from another article:

Jay Neal, a food and safety expert at the University of Houston, said while it is not probable for a rodent to end up in a bottle at Dr Pepper’s packaging facility, it is possible. “A mouse can fit through a hole about the size of a nickel,” Neal said. “They don’t have bones, they have cartilage, and they can squeeze through it.”

He said it’s not common for consumers to see something like this in a product because of so many checks and balances in the system, and due to the speed at which products are packaged. “It’s washing the bottle, it’s filling the bottle, it’s putting the cap on the bottle, it’s putting the label on the bottle, all in less than 15 seconds,” Neal said.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/family-says-dead-rodent-found-in-dr-pepper-bottle

......................

From "Snopes"

While Graves' story has not been explicitly disproven, skeptics pointed out that it showed many similarities to a man's 2015 claim that KFC served him a battered, fried rat, a story that was later revealed to be a hoax. It was also similar to a woman's 2005 claim that she discovered a severed finger in Wendy's chili, which later unraveled under scrutiny. Yet another, similar claim was disproven after experts said that Mountain Dew (and other soft drinks) could dissolve a mouse, thanks to the acids that incorporated into their flavoring agents to give them a tanginess and bite. In this case, the rat depicted appeared merely to be drowned, but in no way visibly decomposed.

As of 11 May 2016, Dr. Pepper dispatched a courier to Graves' location to collect the rat and purportedly contaminated Dr. Pepper bottle for independent third-party testing; Graves refused the pickup attempt. No information is currently available as to whether Graves and the brand managed to come to an agreement about circumstances under which the specimen could be tested, and the claim remains unproven.

http://www.snopes.com/rat-found-in-dr-pepper-bottle/

Anonymous said...

Are there tiny, quarter-size rats running around the Dr. Pepper factory? Is it a new supersonic breed with suicidal tendencies?
I smell a rat, but a much bigger one on two legs.

Nic said...

Those reports, they’re not a little bit true, not slightly true.”

I'm not a little bit pregnant, not slightly pregnant.

Part of me wonders if Cruz and his nameless wife, aka best friend in the world, have an arrangement.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Right, it wouldn't be the first time a spouse has stood by her cheating husband, especially when he's a powerful politician and there is (or was) a good chance she'll be first lady.

Anonymous said...

OT:
Can you analyze this statement Trump gave in response to allegations that he raped a 13 yr old decades ago:

"The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated.

“There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

Nic said...

Lis said:
I: What is the status of your and Naghmeh’s marriage?

SA: She legally filled out a protection [restraining] order and filed for legal separation. Now we are in that process.

"She (not "Nagmeh") legally (interesting inclusion of this word) filled out a protection order (it seems strange that he focuses on the act of filling out the paperwork rather than the obtaining of the protection order) and filed for legal separation" (again, the focus is on the filing rather than her decision to be separated- what is the meaning of this? Is it a way to downgrade her actions to just filling in papers? Perhaps he sees foresees undoing these actions of hers?)
"we (unity) are in that (distancing) process (he sees this as a process, how does he see the process ending?)


SA: She legally filled out a protection [restraining] order


He attaches the pronoun "she" to legally (formalizing) filled out a protection order. He does not use his wife's name although he question specifically referenced her in name.

She v. Naghmeh = distancing

She legally filled out a protection [restraining] order
The word legally is extra wording, protection order is legal in of itself. Maybe in the past she sought protection from the family.

Order is important:
She ... legally.... protection order (against him)

He is saying the police stand between he and his wife. He has to go through the police to get to his wife.

legal separation
Formal and procedural as opposed to separation by incarceration, talk about a separation or a verbal and informal separation (staying with family).

Nic said...

I’m very sad that the people who have prayed for me for years, some of them with tears and some of them writing me letters—I heard that 100,000 letters came to prison monthly, so people did a good job. But we couldn’t rejoice together for what God did in my life? That was the hardest part.
.


people
not family, not friends, unidentified

tears
something that must be seen, emotion perfectly placed
story telling

some of them with tears and some of them writing me letters — I heard that 100,000 letters
some x 2, sensitive
some (nominal amount) becomes 100,000
hyperbole

But
refutes that which came before, what follows is what is important.


for what God did in my life

Conclusion: deception indicated in regards the public support he received in prison. He “blames" God for what happened (in his life).

Nic said...

People now have two different Saeeds. One of them is a hero of their faith; one of them is an abuser, an addicter [sic].

I'm with you, Lis, "addicter" is unexpected.

People now have two different Saeeds.

1) abuser
2) addicter

addicted is being enthusiastically devoted, so does being an addicter mean someone who seeks to addict others?

Well said, good catch. Sounds like seepage (intent) to me!

Nic said...

Lis, I meant to quote you above: "someone who seeks to addict others"

Nic said...

apologies for omitting analysis to:

for what God did in my life

what
does not say "what" is. Distancing.

God
spirit

did
the factual act of something done by, in this case, a person

did in my life
my identifies whose life he speaks of.

In his life, "God" did not abuse his wife.
In his life, "God" did not put him in jail.
In his life, "God" did not have him released from jail.

"God" did not do [it].



Nic said...

I: Is there anything you need to repent of in your marriage?

[snip]

I just admire them. Naghmeh is my hero; she stood strong for years. But no, I never abused anyone in my life, and I’ve never been addicted to anything.

Peter said:
The word "just" will creep into the subject's language in less than a micro second. It is highly significant.

It is used to compare one thing with at least one other thing.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.ca/2013/11/but-were-just-friends.html

__________


But
what follows is sensitive, important

no, I never abused anyone in my life,

no

what is stated in the negative is important
Peter said: always listen to what one tells you in the negative. It is often more important information than what is told in the positive. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lg3PKnwt4vwJ:statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/noting-negative.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Never
never does not mean no

**now we have a double negation making what he says very sensitive. Two negatives make a positive.

The interviewer specifically addressed repenting "anything" in his marriage.
He denies (unreliably) abusing "anyone". He does not deny abusing his wife.


and I’ve never been addicted to anything.

never doesn't mean no
anything generalizes, he is not being specific






Nic said...

Lis said:
heroism is an important recurring theme to Saeed throughout this statement)


I agree, Lis. It would be interesting to learn how he defines "hero".

He describes one of his identities as "a hero of their faith". So noble?

But when people identify someone as a hero and award them for heroism, it's for being courageous.

Could it be that his wife and kids (who he describes as heroes, too,) have been courageous in the face of danger? As per:

"Naghmeh is my hero; she stood strong for years."

posture is sensitive/tension

for years
He gives us a timeline for how long she had been courageous. As in on-going "heroism".

Nic said...

Anonymous at 9:13

That quote came from DT's lawyer:

'The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, more likely, are politically motivated,' Garten told DailyMail.com in a statement. 'To be clear, there is absolutely no merit to these claims and, based on our investigation, no evidence that the person who has made these allegations actually exists.'

In a followup telephone interview, Garten cited a litany of specific indications that the lawsuit is a hoax perpetrated by 'someone with some level of legal background.

The address listed on the lawsuit exists, he said, but 'there is no indication or record that that person' named as the lawsuit plaintiff 'ever resided there. So we believe it is a false address.'

He also said the phone number listed on the lawsuit papers rings to voicemail and publicly available records tie it to another person.
'There is no record that the phone number is tied to the person who has made these allegations,' he said.
'We believe that this person does not exist.'

...

The suit details claims made by a woman named as 'Katie Johnson,' who says her net worth is $278, leading her to request a waiver of the filing fees.
'This is not a "pro se" filing,' Garten told DailyMail.com, referring to the legal term for someone who petitions a court without an attorney.
'This was written on legal paper with margins and line numbers. It's properly captioned. It has no typos. It has footers. It cites statutes.'
'This has all the hallmarks of being drafted by someone with some level of legal background,' he said, 'and 'this was filed to not leave fingerprints.'
'I mean, there's a section titled "material witnesses!" This is not someone with $278 to her name.'
He suggested that the lawsuit filer pleaded poverty 'because unless you pay in cash, the filing fee traces back to someone.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564767/Donald-Trump-furiously-denies-woman-s-claims-raped-tycoon-billionaire-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-sex-parties.html#ixzz48SN5VPrz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It would be interesting to hear "Katie Johnson" make the allegation and then see what Donald Trump says.

Skeptical said...

Perhaps Ted Cruz thought his behavior was part of the qualifications necessary for becoming President of the United States.

http://www.lifedaily.com/past-u-s-presidents-who-were-rumored-to-have-had-mistresses/11/

http://listverse.com/2015/02/24/10-scandalous-presidential-affairs-weve-totally-forgotten-about/

tania cadogan said...

The rat claim made me snort.
Anyone who has ever seen How It's Made or similar programmes, will know the bottling process is stringent and fast

The bottles are first cleaned by filling them with de ionized water before being filled, the bottles are inverted to let the water drain out, it then moves to filling and capping and labeling before boxing and storing.
The whole process is very fast and since it is a food item there will be various cameras and sensors to catch anything that shouldn't be there such as metal, glass etc.

There is no way a mouse could get into the bottle unnoticed since the bottle is transparent, not be detected whilst being cleaned, nor being filled and labelled.
With the machines and staff, it would have been noticed.

I have included a link to a video which gives you the general idea although it is slowed down considerably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNYJG3WFPak


A simple post mortem will reveal if said mouse was alive or dead before it got in the bottle (fluid in the lungs. Dead mice don't breathe)


if he refuses to allow it to be examined then it will guarantees he is hoaxing.

Paul Flanagan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lis said...

Thanks so much, Nic, for looking over the statement! You caught some important things that I missed.

I feel like there's a lot more in his whole statement that gives me pause.

I am starting to wonder if he has taken his worldview as a Muslim, like his mindset did not change when he decided to be a Christian, but he just transferred his allegiance and is trying to live the Christian life by the same principles. I don't know if that makes sense lol!