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 — returned — gave 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?
Her attorney does not want this question answered. The objection, however, was overruled.MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope.
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 Clintonemail.com account?
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.
This is a direct question: did they have emails from Clintonemail.com account?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 Clintonemail.com account?
The attorney does not want this answered, but the objection was overruled and the subject had to answer, under oath.MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope of authorized discovery.
'Did they contain emails from Clintonemail.com?' is a "yes or no" question.
For analysis: Did Huma Abedin know that Clintonemail.com 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 Clintonmail.com 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 Clintonmail.com 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 state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her yahoo.com 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 DailyMail.com, 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.”