For many, the reason Hillary Clinton inquired about assassinating Julian Assaunge via a drone has become apparent in the emails that have come out. We may also have a better understanding of why '30,000 yoga emails' were deleted from the personal server.
For Donna Brazille, an incriminating revelation from Wikileaks turned up in John Podesta’s leaked emails. It is a message sent by Donna Brazile with the subject, “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”
Megyn Kelly asked her about this.
Question for Analysis: Is Donna Brazille truthful or deceptive?
MEGYN KELLY: You're accused of receiving a debate question whether a CNN town hall where they partnered with TV One that you had this question on March 12th, that verbatim, verbatim was provided by Roland Martin to CNN the next day. How did you get that question, Donna?
The question is "How did you get that question, Donna?" using her first name for emphasis. This brings emphasis to the question itself.
DONNA BRAZILE: Well, Kelly, as I play straight up and with you, I did not receive any questions from CNN.
The Reliable Denial has 3 components but when there is either addition or subtraction, it is no longer reliable. Here we have additions to the denial. Note
a. "well" is a need to pause, showing sensitivity to the question.
b. The present tense language
c. The inclusion of the word "play", which is associated more with "games" than with truthful reporting. That she says she "plays straight up" not only reduces reporting to a type of game, but it suggests that she has not "always" (past tense) "played straight up" with weighty events such as this.
These words added to her denial nullify it causing us to classify it as "unreliable." We now look to see if she will issue a reliable denial, and affirm it truthfully, or if she will show us why she issued the unreliable denial, by further giving us information that includes deception.
KELLY: Where did you get it?
Kelly, the IR, noticed the introduction to the denial, but she also noticed the additional wording, "from CNN."
Since she denied getting it from CNN, the question is, "Where did you get it?"
BRAZILE: What information? Allow me to see what you're talking about.
We note that the question is "where did you get it?" and the question is answered by a question. This means the question, "Where did you get it?" is very sensitive to Brazile. She not only avoids answering it, but then affirms its existence, asking only to be allowed to see it. She wants to know the source.
Note the interview is about the Wikileaks emails that came out.
KELLY: You've got the Wikileaks showing you messaging the Clinton campaign at the March 13th CNN debate.
The IR answers the question allowing for the subject to deny the connection.
"I didn't write that", or something similar, would be a denial.
We note several interesting points in the answer:
BRAZILE: As a Christian woman, I understand persecution. your information is false. What you're -- well, for suggestive e-mails were stolen. You're interested and you're like a thief that wants to bring into the night the things that.
1. "Christian" is similar to the entrance of "Deity" to an answer. This is a strong indicator of deception.
2. Gender is now invoked. This is, in context, "victim mentality status" which, with "Christian" is used to not only avoid making a denial, but to appeal to victim status, specifically, Christians and females.
3. Note "I understand persecution" is in the present tense. She does not say "I am being persecuted because I am a Christian woman." Most (90%) avoid direct lies. She is not being persecuted, nor does being Christian or female part of persecution. This is a deliberate tangent or avoidance, which seeks to change the topic. This is another signal of deception.
4. "Your information is false" does not specify which information she is referring to. This avoids saying, "I did not write that email that Wikileaks reported..."
5. Broken sentences = self censoring. This indicates missing information.
6. Accusation: "you're like a thief" is another avoidance technique in which the "victim" now accuses the "persecutor", though she is unable (or unwilling) to follow through with the accusation. This is another signal of deception.
7. The last sentence is an attempt to quote the Bible. This, too, falls under both "avoidance" and "Deity" are is a signal of deception in her response.
Brazile argued she will not "validate falsified information." Brazile said the e-mail is "altered."
"altered" and "falsified" are different than "fake" emails. It is interesting to note that in her accusation there may be thought of how CNN told the American public that it was illegal for them to read Wikileaks, as CNN read Wikileaks on camera.
KELLY: CNN' Jake Tapper said this was unethical. Someone was unethically helping the Clinton campaign. He said this is very, very upsetting.
BRAZILE: I love CNN.
This is very likely a truthful statement.
KELLY: This is Jake Tapper: 'My understand is that the e-mails came from Roland Martin and said this is very upsetting and troubling.'
That is your old colleague at CNN not Megyn Kelly. Who gave you that question?
BRAZILE: Megyn, I'll say it on the record. I'm not going to try to validate falsified information. I have my documents. I have my files. Thank God I have not had my personal e-mails ripped off from me and stolen and given to some criminals to come back altered. I have my records and files. And as I said repeatedly, CNN, I never received anything.
The subject continued to avoid answering a question and she continued to avoid issuing a denial.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated.
Rather than simply deny the allegation, the subject uses repeated diversion tactics and attempts to portray herself as a victim, rather than directly lie outright.
The deception also affirms that the wikileaks emails from the subject are genuine.