Sunday, October 30, 2016

Human Abedin's Deposition

The following is analysis of Huma Abedin's sworn deposition.  

Q.  “How did you go about searching for what records you may have in your possession to be returned to the State Department?”
HA:  I — I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned — returnedgave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents. And gave them devices and paper.”
The pronoun "I" is used by us millions of times; we are very good at its use.  When someone stutters on the pronoun "I", as a non-stutterer, there is an entry of anxiety in the stutter. 

Note next the word "returned" is used, and corrected to "gave." This means we should consider the former word, "returned." 

Note also that the word "returned" is repeated, increasing its importance. 

One should wonder what the subject knows about the attorneys' examination results of her devices.  
Q Okay. And what devices did you return for your attorneys to look through with respect to federal records you may have had in your possession to be returned to the State Department?

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope.
Her attorney does not want this question answered.  The objection, however, was overruled. 

HA:   My — if my memory serves me correctly, it was two laptops, a BlackBerry, and some files that I found in my apartment.

"If memory serves" is an expression of uncertainty with memory.  Since it is unnecessary we note where it is used and where it is not needed.  This question has produced it.  It does not mean, by itself, that the subject is lying.  It means she has an element of uncertainty.  

"it was two lap tops" is to use passive voice. It avoids saying, "I returned two devices..."

With the signal of uncertain ("memory") and passive voice, we now increase the perspective or lean regarding deception.  We allow the subject to guide us, like a meter, and where the subject strongly commits, the 'needle' leans to truth, and where she does not, it leans towards deception.  Here is an example of a weak answer  that should signal to the Interviewer that she is not telling "all" the truth, but likely some of it. 

Q Okay. The BlackBerry that you returned, is that a BlackBerry that was associated with your account?

HA Yes.

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope of discovery.

HA: Sorry.

MR. BRILLE: That’s okay. Just take a second.

HA : Sorry.

MR. BRILLE: That’s okay. You’re okay. You’re doing fine. Just take a little bit of a pause.

Q Was your answer yes, Ms. Abedin?

HA The answer is yes.

Q Okay. Thank you. And the two laptops that you returned, or you gave to — provided to your attorneys to look through, did they have e-mails from the account?
This is a direct question:  did they have emails from account?

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope of authorized discovery.
The attorney does not want this answered, but the objection was overruled and the subject had to answer, under oath.

'Did they contain emails from' is a "yes or no" question.  

For analysis:  Did Huma Abedin know that emails were on her private devices here?
A: I was not involved in the process. I — I provided them with the devices and the materials and asked them to find whatever they thought was relevant and appropriate, whatever was their determination as to what was a federal record, and they did. They turned materials in, and I know they did so. I couldn’t tell you from what device.

This answer will give us insight into the personality and character of the subject.  
a.  The 'yes or no' question is avoided, making the question, itself, very sensitive to her. 
b.  She begins with the pronoun "I", psychologically, increasing the strength of the avoidant answer. 
c.  She begins her answer 'in the negative', that is to say, she tells us what she was not involved in. 
d.  She stutters, again, on the pronoun "I", which shows that this question has increased anxiety for her.
e.  She was "not involved in the process" which then seeks to remove her from responsibility and place responsibility upon those who were in the process of providing the devices to her attorneys. Here, she blames her staff.
f.  Next, she puts responsibility from her staff or whoever handled this for her, to her attorneys with "whatever they thought" and "their determination."  This is to blame attorneys twice. 

This is what accomplished or habitual liars do:  they go beyond the realm of the question.  She should have quit after blaming the unnamed for the transfer or handing over, but liars 'never know when to quit'.  They have a tremendous need (pressure, anxiety, etc) to persuade or convince, which is why their "yea is not yea" and their "nay is not nay"; it is the inherent weakness seen within deceptive people.  

Analysis Conclusion: Huma Abedin was aware of emails on her devices. 

This is to take the avoidance of the question (sensitivity) added to the shifting of blame three times; once upon someone close to her and twice upon attorneys.  

This is, therefore, extreme distancing from the question by the subject, hence the conclusion of deception indicated. 

This also provides insight into the 'quality of deception' displayed by the subject; something that began with avoidance but then moved to multiple responsibilities, indicating a sophisticated habitual deceiver.  

We may consider that the subject is not one to ever take personal responsibility and even if blamed by her boss, she will seek to blame someone else; perhaps her estranged husband, disgraced former Representative Anthony Wiener.  

What follows is from a news article on the story. The quotes should be taken in light of the above analysis to see if they confirm or deny the analysis conclusion:  

In the deposition, Abedin also admitted to using her email for “State-related matters.”
The deposition also contained other examples of noteworthy conduct. As Breitbart News reported previously:
During the quizzing, Abedin was asked, “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

Her reply was astonishing.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that . . . that certainly happened on . . . on more than one occasion,” Abedin said during the meeting.
In August, the Daily Caller reported that an email showed Abedin once left one of these burn bags in the front seat of her car:
“Favor” is the subject of Abedin’s July 20, 2009 email to Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s personal assistant. Judicial Watch obtained the records and hundreds more pages of Abedin emails as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department.
“I’m going to have ambassador ride on next drive,” wrote Abedin. “There’s a bunch of burn stuff in the pocket of my front seat.”
Other details beginning to emerge also raise concerns about whether Abedin’s apparent security lapses are indicative of a deeper problem.

As Breitbart News has reported, Abedin has never faced serious mainstream media scrutiny over her background such as Abedin’s myriad connections to the Muslim World League, a Saudi Arabian Islamist “charity.” In 2009, Hillary Clinton herself admitted the charity is one of the Saudi organizations that “continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

Paul Sperry reported in the NY Post about an April 5th of interview of Abedin that was attended by the “chief of the FBI’s counterespionage section:”
On page 3 of their 11-page report, the agents detail how they showed Abedin a classified paper on Pakistan sent from a State Department source which she, in turn, inexplicably forwarded to her personal Yahoo email account — an obviously unclassified, unencrypted, unsecured and unauthorized system. The breach of security was not an isolated event but a common practice with Abedin.
“She routinely forwarded emails from her account to either her or her account,” the agents wrote. Why? “So she could print them” at home and not at her State Department office.
Despite the growing web of concerns, in a statement given to, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said that the campaign continued to support Abedin:
Huma completely and voluntarily complied with and cooperated with the investigation. She sat for a hours long interview. She turned over and went through with her lawyers all of the emails that might possibly be relevant and turned them over to the state department and investigators. There’s absolutely nothing she’s done that we think calls into question anything that she’s done.  She’s been fully cooperative. We of course stand behind her.

Note the deception indicators within Podesta's email.  
"completely and voluntarily" is used first for one under subpoena; then he uses "cooperated", which is appropriate,  but the use of "complied" is against "voluntarily."  

Even the Daily Beast was forced to acknowledge how Huma Abedin’s unique position with Clinton might be protecting her from investigation:
In a normal election year, a normal candidate’s close aide who caused even minor embarrassment to a campaign so near to Election Day would be whisked away as quickly as possible to avoid becoming a distraction.
But Huma Abedin is not simply a close aide, she’s a critical member of Hillary Clinton’s tiny inner circle that protects and — at times — enables the deeply flawed and secretive Democratic nominee.
The new emails were discovered in the course of an investigation into whether Anthony Weiner allegedly exchanged sexually oriented texts and photos with a 15-year-old North Carolina girl, including one message where he said “I would bust that tight pussy so hard and so often that you would leak and limp for a week.”


Hillary said...

Vote early and Vote often! I love it!

Nic said...

I think Comey went rogue. Maybe somebody reneged on a promise? Given Comey's position on the email scandal up to Friday, I can't believe he just suddenly grew a conscience 11 days out from election day.


"...As of Saturday night, the FBI had still not gotten approval from the Justice Department for a warrant that would allow agency officials to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore are still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen...."

Anonymous said...

The man was not "cleared". He remains in jail for the conviction of "sexual assault of a minor" which was upheld, and a new trial for the charge of rape is pending.

Nic said...

Social Media Blackout? FBI Emails Are Not 'Trending' On Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed, Or Snapchat
They are not known as 'weapons of mass distraction' for nothing...

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...


Interesting pronoun use considering her husband was not involved. I wonder if she was the only one that "woke" up? Was her husband at work when she concocted this lie?. Therefor, we see the sharing ("we") of guilt.

Massachusetts cop’s wife faked home invasion, blamed Black Lives Matter activists

A Massachusetts police officer’s wife faked a robbery, vandalized her own home and blamed the alleged crimes on Black Lives Matter activists, officials said.

Maria Daly faces charges of filing a false police report and misleading a police investigation for the faux burglary she staged earlier this month, CBS Boston reported.

Daly, who is married to an officer on the Millbury police force, claimed in an Oct. 17 police report that robbers busted into her home and stole jewelry and cash in the middle of the night.

The burglars spray-painted “BLM,” shorthand for Black Lives Matter, on the side of the house before dashing off with about $10,000 worth of loot, she told police.

We woke up to not only our house being robbed while we were sleeping but to see this hatred for no reason, she wrote on Facebook after she reported the “crime” to cops.

The cop’s wife continued: “If you would have asked me yesterday about this blue lives and black lives matter issue my response would have been very positive. Today on the other hand I have so much anger and hate that I don’t like myself.

But officials grew suspicious when details in the investigation didn’t add up.

“Something wasn’t quite right,” Millbury Police Chief Donald Desorcy told the TV station. “I think that was pretty obvious and as a result of that investigation, the officers did their due diligence and followed through with the investigation that we had.”

Daly’s husband was not involved in the faux crime and has not been charged, police said.

Desorcy said Daly likely was motivated by her family’s financial problems, he told the Worcester Telegram.

Trigger said...

My heart goes out to those citizens of Sweden who must suffer the consequences of a government gone wrong.

Clinton News Network said...

former Assistant Director of the FBI Thomas Fuentes said, “The FBI has an intensive investigation ongoing into the Clinton Foundation.”

He added, “The FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive unified case and be coordinated, so that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin and her role and activities concerning secretary of state in the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play, that’s still being looked at and now.”

Anonymous said...

Needs to be a wide public relations campaign notifying the world of the dangers of visiting Europe. No more vacationers.

Anonymous said...

Is Huma a spy?

Anonymous said...

no just a Muslim Brotherhood operative.

Anonymous said...

This is just a last minute way of hijacking the election! oh, really???

Remember this last minute indictment?

Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush's claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

When it came, Clinton seized on it, saying for example, "Secretary Weinberger's note clearly shows that President Bush has not been telling the truth when he says he was out of the loop." Clinton added, "It demonstrates that President Bush knew and approved of President Reagan's secret deal to swap arms for hostages."

Powerline blogger Paul Mirengoff wrote, "What goes around comes around."

He concluded:

The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a "culture of corruption" that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush's poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election.

Anonymous said...

A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a “crime family” and argued top officials hindered the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of State.

During a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom heaped praise on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump before taking aim at the Clintons.

“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”
Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”

He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

“The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” he said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”

“God forbid we put someone like that in the White House,” he added of Clinton.

Kallstrom also said that FBI Director James Comey and the rest of the FBI’s leadership were responsible for holding back the investigation, not the rest of the bureau.

“The agents are furious with what’s going on, I know that for a fact,” he said.

Anonymous said...

How does the Attorney General of the United States plead the 5th Amendment protecting her from prosecution when she, herself, is the prosecutor STILL in office?

Can someone please explain this to me?

lynda said...

After reading the last sentence of your analysis Peter, I would not believe anything Weiner says. For anyone to give him a platform where he is quoted, to me, would be for the sole purpose of increasing the HRC hate and possibly affecting the outcome of the election. no one in their right mind should give a shit what this twisted pervert has to say as he is a liar. We Talk about violence in language?That's one of the most disgusting, violent sentences I have ever read..Weiner should be buried so deep in jail that he never sees the light of day again.

Nic said...

You live by the sword. You die by the sword.

Weiner's computer was used for a reason. Rumour has it, it was "bleached", but not effectively. I'm betting there is a treasure trove of damning information hidden therein.


Peter Hyatt said...


people rarely lie outright; they lie via withholding information.

Interviewing a liar will almost always yield much information. Not interviewing a liar is a critical error and can destroy an investigation. Where Weiner may lie, particularly to protect himself, will be surrounded by much reliable information.

Once, on CNN, a "former FBI terrorist analyst investigator" said in a dismissive manner that interviewing Casey Anthony was a complete waste of time.

He could not have been more in error.

Liars provide us, even as they lie, with great detail and often contain information we would not have learned any other way.

Liars provide us with embedded confessions, yes, but more importantly, content analysis.

This is where those with some deception detection training fail if they do not go on for deeper training, including on to Psycho-Linguistics.


Breaking News! said...

Anonymous said...

Hillary is abusing religious scripture. She compared her email scandal suffering of black people and said everyone should "rejoice in their suffering".

Anonymous said...

She compared her email suffering to the suffering of black people and perverted other scripture as well for her own sick needs.

New England Water Blog said...

As the genius political blogger Lame Cherry points out, there is only one likely reason those emails would be on Weiners computer. When they were a couple he and Huma collected the info for blackmail purposes, just in case...

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 12:44,
650,000 Emails Found On Anthony Weiner's Laptop; DOJ Blocked Foundation Probe
The WSJ touches on something fasctinating: Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation, these people said. So where did that trail go? Apparently nowhere.

The Washington field office was probing financial relationships
involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board
member, these people said. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and
his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to
register as an agent of a foreign entity. The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said.

In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.

Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career public integrity prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter.
Needless to say, the probe into the Foundation faded.
[end snip]

Nic said...

The last rumour I read around the email found on the Weiner's PC was it was NYPD who put pressure on Comey to reopen the investigation. (NYPD, along with the FBI are investigating Weiner.) IMO, this is a credible rumour for two reasons: PD in many states have endorsed Trump (there is no love lost between Clinton and LE,) and the underlings in the FBI are furious with Comey for what he did and how he has portrayed them in the public eye. Then there is Lynch who has plead the 5th. If this is true, The People are retaliating.


Anonymous said...


Blackmail, just in case. That's the only way anyone with half a brain would knowingly stay involved with the Clintons.

Anonymous said...

Emails snips and snipes from Hillary, captured Wikileaks

These damning statements allegedly written by Hillary
What ceiling cracking information is of the 650k emails, Diddler INC.
She must be twirling in her vomit, if this isn't a hoax.

She states she is detached from society.

Will O cancel the election so all and everyone will be Perfectly Clear?

Anonymous said...

If Huma saved email by forwading to husbands address then maybe it was for self protection. Kinda like saving the blue dress.

Nic said...
John Podesta's Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ's Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails

In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton's Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.

For those who missed it, this is what we reported previously:

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.
As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.


equinox said...

Hi Peter, it's been a long time.
This reminds me of the Charlie Rogers case where she claimed three men broke into her home and carved gay slurs into her skin. This woman also forgets how hard it *should* be for someone else to write clearly on a struggling person. And again three attackers. The clown angle almost makes it humorous although I suppose the real clown posse doesn't think so.

Anonymous said...

She protected her husband's computer from the FBI because she knew it was filled with evidence of sexual perversions.

Me2l said...

voluntary compliance

LAW -- the act of obeying a particular rule or law, or of acting according to an agreement without being forced to:

Voluntary compliance with safetyrecommendations is more effective than increasedregulation.

TAX -- in the US, the systemof collecting taxes that trusts people to honestly report the income on which they owe tax:
The reduction in tax rate will also promote voluntary compliance on the part of taxpayers and reducetax evasion.