Saturday, October 15, 2016

Summer Zervos: Trump Accuser

Did Donald Trump sexually assault Summer Zervos?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth. 

How a sexual assault victim views an assailant in language, allows us to discern truth from deception.  

Barbara Bowman accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault.  The analysis is here and should be read before this short analysis. 

Also, using the search feature will show many cases, both truthful and deceptive, as well as distinctive points in language highlighted by advanced analysis techniques.  

We begin with the presupposition of truth in any account.  If the subject thus walks away from the truth, linguistically, we follow her. 

Was Summer Zervos sexually assaulted by Donald Trump?

Summer Zervos was on the television show, "Apprentice" and has now accused Donald Trump of sexual assault.  

The sexual assault victim has a unique perspective of her abuser, and the language will reflect this.  Intuitively, there is a 'breakage' that exists in language.  This is why the word "we", an intuitive pronoun used millions of times by us, is not likely to be found in a rape statement after the assault.  Due to the serious intrusive nature of sexual assault, including vulnerability both physically and emotionally, the passage of time only shows processing, but does not 'heal the breach' made.  The revile, disgust and overall contempt even when in a 'passive aggressive' format (such as close family sexual assault and incest) the 'disconnect' between victim and abuser shows itself in language.  

As the victim recounts what happened, it is often relatively easy to discern truth from deception.  Yet, we may also view the language of the victim after the assault as the victim relates to the assailant.  Even after many years, there is a 'disconnect' or 'break down' between victim and perpetrator.  

Statement Analysis is used to affirm truthful accounts (like the victim of Bill Cosby's statement showed) but also to protect the innocent against fall accusations.  

First, there is an email by Zervos' cousin, in response to her allegation, and then a response from Zervos while with Gloria Allred.  

Summer Zervos, the former Apprentice star who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump, sent an email to Trump’s assistant in April praising the GOP nominee.
The email and a statement by Zervos’ cousin were released by the Trump campaign Friday afternoon. 

First is email from John Barry, Zervos' first cousin:  

“I am completely shocked and bewildered by my cousin, Summer Zervos, and her press conference today. Ever since she was on The Apprentice she has had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump.  That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no. I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump.”

The cousin's "shock" is sensitive, which perhaps shows some insight into his belief about her character.  The social introduction is complete, which suggests a good relationship, in context.  This may be why he felt the need to describe his "shock and bewilderment" with the adverb, "completely."  

Note that he goes from "my cousin, Summer Servos" (possessive pronoun, title, and full name) to the close, first name only, "Summer."  This suggests affirmation of the complete social introduction (good relationship) and personal closeness.  

After stating the timing (element of time) of change being "Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no." This is reported without qualification or sensitivity.  From one who is close to the accuser, this shows knowledge of the invitation without intent to deceive.  

Note the weak assertion as to motive with "think", which followed the element of time. 

a.  Complete social introduction = good relationship at this time, from the perspective of the author
b.  The use of first name = casual, polite, intimate of knowledge
c.  The statement of a fact (invitation turned down) 
d.  The weak assertion of assigning motive.  

In context, the assertion of motive with "think" is polite and consistent with the author's language towards Summer.  This allows her to talk him out of it (so he can "think" differently).  

It is commonly used when one does not wish to openly condemn another, while maintaining an assertion.  If the social introduction and subsequent use of her name had been otherwise, we might have seen a direct accusation.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The cousin is not deceptive, but believes his own words.  

In 2006, Zervos said in an interview that she left the Apprentice “admiring Donald Trump a lot more than when I arrived.

In the April 14 email, Zervos wrote to Trump’s executive assistant Rhona Graff.

Zervos email courtesy of the Trump Campaign

Here is the email with emphasis and analysis 


I'm certain you are a very busy woman.  I  am in a unique situation being that I am the only former Apprentice who operates a business where Mr. Trump’s supporters can walk in, express their admiration for him and inquire about my experience. Mr. Trump has a great deal of support in Huntington Beach, Ca! He has witnessed both my highs and  lows operating a small business and I am pleased to report that business is good.  Sunny's Restaurant has a long history of making people feel special.  We hire a diverse crew and embrace anyone who is honest while working hard. Mr. Trump is cut from the same cloth. I would greatly appreciate reconnecting at this time. He will know my intentions are genuine." 

The email is to Trump's campaign and it does not take long to learn the priority.  She is inviting a candidate to the presidency of the United States so people can walk in and express their admiration of him, which is expected.  She, however, adds this:

"...and my experience."

The subject links the admiration for a candidate for presidency with her own "experience."  One might wonder the level of importance that the subject assigns to her role on a television program. 

We next see the advertising sought for the business.  

Then, she praises Trump as sharing the same qualities as her restaurant:  "diverse crew" and the embracing of anyone who is "honest" and "hard working."

She names the restaurant, precisely, and this name is her name.  

She then connects the business that bears her name with the accused (Trump). 

This is a linguistic connection.  Whether or not it is seen as narcissistic or self serving, it remains a linguistic connection that we do not find from sexual assault victims to their assailant.  The  linguistic 'breakage' is acute, final and ongoing, from truthful victims.  

Summer Zervos not only linguistically ties herself to Trump, but does so in terms of praise.  This, too, is not expected language from a victim of sexual assault.  

Lastly, we see a word that is also most unexpected in sexual assault victims, in its form: 


This is a dependent word in analysis, meaning that it does not 'work' unless another word/thought is in mind. 

She did not say she wants to "connect" to Trump, but in order to "reconnect", she must consider her first connection and then employ this word. 

Whatever took place between Summer Zervos and Donald Trump, Summer Zervos wants it to be repeated.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

Summer Zervos is deceptive in her accusation against Donald Trump.  

Here in her press conference, she attempts to explain her email, yet she still gives us a linguistic connection.  Even though Trump is a celebrity, please see the analysis of the Bill Cosby victim for her view of Cosby and its change:  before and after the assault to further understand the breakage that exists between sexual abuser and victim.  

At the press conference Friday alongside famed attorney Gloria Allred, Zervos acknowledged sending the email to Trump’s assistant in April.

“I contacted his secretary in April, 2016 and asked if I could reconnect with Mr. Trump. I didn’t not tell her why I wanted to speak with him,” Zervos said. The former Apprentice contestant continued to say she got a response that the campaign would follow up with her.

Zervos then said that she sent an unreleased email on April 21, 2016 to Trump’s assistant, which she asked to be forwarded directly to Trump. She said that in the e-mail she wrote, “I have been incredibly hurt by our previous interaction.” Zervos said she got no response by Trump to this email.

Please note that if this is to be taken as related to a sexual assault, note:

1.  The word "our" as unity/connection in sharing an experience
2.  "previous" is unnecessary as it is also dependent upon another thought, such as present or future intention of sharing an experience. 
3.  "interaction" is minimizing language and not the language of a sexual assault.

Analysis Conclusion:

The original analysis is affirmed.  

Even in attempting to explain otherwise, Summer Zervos shows:

She was not sexually assaulted by Donald Trump 


Anonymous said...

That was a tough one...not!

Anonymous said...

Assad rejects gas pipeline through Syria's Aleppo intended to circumvent Europe's dependency on Russia. US outsources war.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Trump 2016

Anonymous said...

Repeal the 19th Amendment? Now thats a worthy goal.

Anonymous said...

Hey Democratic Libtards,

Why don't you go have a huddle and talk about how caring you are? A baby a few hours from birth doesn't have Constitutional Rights? Men can use women's bathrooms? Yeah you guys have made a lot of progress--there are now tampons in women's bathrooms!!! Yippeee!!!! Bunch of friggin psychos you libtards are!!!

Anonymous said...

Why don't you go research the Clinton's? They had this whole thing planned out long ago. The accusations against Trump were planned out at the beginning to overshadow Bill Clinton's sex crimes and his pedo island crimes. Watch "Clinton Body Count"...the Clinton's have had 114 people killed. They are calculating scheming cold-blooded ruthless people.

Anonymous said...

men's bathrooms...sorry...liberals put tampons in men's bathrooms

Anonymous said...

WE have 2 choices: Clinton or Trump.

Trump is a perv.

Hillary Clinton villified a child who was raped, enabled a rapist husband, stated a child a few hours from birth doesn't have Constitutional rights?!?! The Clintons have also had 114 people killed.

OK, so which is better? A Perv or a Monster? That is our choice.

Also, I don't believe Summer's story. I have had random guys grope me without my permission and there is no way it would make me cry years later or even an hour later. I am not trying to minimize the impact...I believe if someone was doing it repeatedly to someone that could cause them to cry years later, but how come someone has groped me without my permission and it does not make me cry years later, like I just don't ever think about it and if I did I would feel nothing like oh yeah, that subject. I am really just simply asking. If Donald Trump groped me 8 years ago, it would be so far down on my list of problems I would not give a shit, I would have zero emotional reaction if I spoke about it. I might have a minimal reaction like oh yeah, that was gross, but there is no way I would cry over it 8 years after it happened. This makes me doubt it really happened because I just don't believe her emotional affect. I was groped repeatedly against my will in a workplace setting when I was young and that was absolutely disgusting and at one point I did want to cry. Thinking about it now, I have no emotional reaction. Should I have one?

Anonymous said...

Arent the clinton crew vetting their trump accusers?

Anonymous said...

From Summer's BS press conference:

"I never said anything about what we had done at the Beverly Hills Hotel"


She was not groped against her will.

Anonymous said...

Nice try Clintons.

You Hillary can laugh about a 12 year old child who was brutally raped according to medical evidence, You can villify her and call her crazy, say she was mentally unstable and romanticized being raped and beaten into a coma. You can illegally take evidence into your own possession after the correct tested evidence was mysteriously "lost" and contaminate it and travel with it 1200 miles. YOu ruined that girl's life. That girl was raped, brutally raped. And your campaign tries to pass off this bullshit accusation about pervy Donald. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Howd the democratic party drift from working class Americans to abortion, illegal immigration, feminism, homosexuality, drugs, immorality, catch & release criminals, affirmative action, aetheism, ruined inner cities? Anything missed?

Anonymous said...

Why ridicule her comment? Was pretty good.

Anonymous said...

@12:04, Actually you're wrong about catch and release. Bill Clinton signed the 3 strikes law...liberals like to lock em up...unless they're rapists or men invading the sacred space of women's bathrooms. Call me crazy but I don't want some guy in a dress in a bathroom with me...ya get what I'm sayin?

@12:05, yes I agree, her comment was excellent. Just a jealous miserable liberal giving her a hard time

Anonymous said...

Fir a good start just repeal Amendment #19.

Anonymous said...

Anything missed?

Gun-confiscating, hippies and welfare queens on socialized medicine. Geez, keep up :(

Anonymous said...

Women should not be allowed to vote.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that the presidential candidates seem to come from only a couple of families? The Bushes, the Clintons, if Kennedy's son had not died in that plane crash he would have probably run for president this campaign. Maybe even Michelle Obama will try to run next time.

Maybe it would be better if the presidential campaign would have a complete overhaul. Like the X-factor. Anyone can join, there is an audition where candidates need to pass a baseline test of IQ, integrity, emotional stability. And then there are several rounds where people can vote for the best candidate with the best vision for the country. That would be real democracy.

Anonymous said...

HMM, and why is it that gloria allred has become the next best thing to a legitimate
public relations/advertising business ? Wasn't she a legitimate and useful lawyer at some time in the past ?

Anonymous said...

Wow !
A "moochele vs hildabeast" primary !
I await the spectacle !

lynda said...

Anyone that aligns themselves with Gloria Allred, I don't give much credence too.

I would imagine that some women that are coming out about Trump are lying. 15 min. of fame and all that.

It is foolish to believe that ALL of them are lying.

Trump himself has told us, over and over, how many women he has sexually assaulted, demeaned, degraded, groped, etc. There's tapes and video of him SAYING IT. To completely dismiss that is to show that there is a blind hatred to HRC that surpasses shunning him.

I am not making a political statement about either candidate.

I am saying that to believe Trump has NOT sexually assaulted women is stunning to me in light of ALL the statements being released and HIS OWN WORDS

Peter...perhaps you'd like to analyze a statement where the woman IS being truthful for balance?

Peter Hyatt said...

Lynda, if you seek balance, you're in the wrong place, though a simple use of the search feature, or following the link, for example, to one Cosby accuser in this article will allow you to find "balance"; whatever that means to you.

The comments here, particularly the vulgar ones now removed, show how narrative overrules truth.

The longer analysts are in professional study, the less they are concerned about narrative. I have watched the years erode, even self-narrative revealing honesty with one's self.

I have yet to see a single analyst contrary to this.

As to Trump accosting, molesting, raping, etc, and "all women", this is not part of the analysis.

We begin believing the subject's statement. This is the presupposition for all lie detection. For us, it is not a moral stance; it is a scientific stance.

The issue is not Donald Trump nor is it Hillary Clinton. It is truth.

For the volunteer editing staff, it is an issue of having to read some vile things. Heather has not read the blog in a very long time.


Anonymous said...

Sus, Summer is lying. I have listened to her full statement.

Towards the end she says "I have never talked to anyone about what we did at the Beverly Hills Hotel."

Sexual assault is not a mutual activity as in "something WE did". It is something done to an individual AGAINST THEIR WILL.

Her description of what happened also contains cartoonish rather than realistic details. Mr Trump's clothes are on the bed, and then 15 minutes gets skipped over and he exits the room "wearing his suit". No detail of door opening or closing when he changes. Something is off...there are missing details.
What I think happened is that he made advances towards her and she did kiss him back, laid in an embrace with him and then did decide she didnt want to take it further and that he did stop when she expressed that.

Anonymous said...

If someone thinks they are "one" with Trump then they were not sexually assaulted by him. Truly, it's an insult to people who have been sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is scary...
If some very rich man makes a pass at me and I kiss him back, etc and then years later think gee, that guy was really cocky to make a pass at me just bc he is really rich and I wish I hadnt fooled around with him...THAT IS NOT SEXUAL ASSAULT. IT IS JUST WISHING YOU HADNT FOOLED AROUND WITH A RICH GUY YOU FIGURED OUT WAS A JERK.

Anonymous said...

Agree 2:23.

Basic sensibilty thats not very common today. Whatever happened to common sense? That'd be a long topic for treatise.

Peter Hyatt said...

Sus said...
I'm sticking with Summer's account as she stated it, is true. She is not claiming sexual assault. She is claiming sexual harassment. She is stating that she did not get a job with trump's company because she stopped his advances.
October 16, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Narrative trumps truth.


Anonymous said...

Trump campaign office in NC firebombed. Just reported. He just tweeted.

Anonymous said...

I just saw that! I think it's because he IS winning. I will vote for him...I had a dream last night I voted for Trump. I really want him to win. He tells it like it is. He will be a good leader as long as he doesnt grope anyone.

Anonymous said...

I will be so pissed if Hillary wins. I have never not wanted someone for Pez as much as I dont want her to be Pez!

Anonymous said...

Trump is right...SNL sucks and is not funny...the humor just falls flat, very unsubtle, worst thing Ive ever seen. Youd have to be a moron to laugh at it.

Peter Hyatt said...

sus wrote: I based my comment on reading the transcript numerous times. I will gladly post it if you will comment, and show where there is deception.

Post the transcript and your analysis indicating veracity.

Jon The Layman said...

All this talk about Trump having "sexually assaulted" a woman, simply because he said in a private conversation where he appears to be trying to lighten the mood with "locker room" talk is a bit ridiculous. For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim, so I see that multiple women have now come forward to fill that particular void.

Now, some have presupposed that "they can't all be lying", but that isn't true, strictly speaking.

With the rabid-ness of the liberal MSM, rumors that the democratic party is trying to "Bill Cosby" Trump, conveniently after Bill Clinton's own accusers have re-surfaced to draw attention to his alleged rapes on top of ALL the other lies, particularly with rigging the DNC, then you have to at least give some consideration to the fact that it's POSSIBLE that all these women are lying. I'm sorry if the wording offends some people, but this is really no different than saying that we should really give consideration to the full context and not jump to conclusions, including Bill Clinton as well.

They're both terrible candidates, but I have to admit my pro-Trump bias because he's so non-PC that it angers, who I perceive to be the biggest transgressors in our society at the moment - the regressive left.

But, if evidence does come to light that Trump has sexually assaulted even one of these women (and I see that the definition of what some call sexual assault seems to vary) then that should disqualify him from being a presidential candidate, but so too should the numerous counts of OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION from HRC.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Frankly, neither candidate is Presidential and character is a questionable (or even nonexistent) issue in this election. On one hand, there's Trump, with a history of "womanizing". On the other hand, there's Hillary Clinton, with a history of publicly targeting women who allege sexual harassment or rape by her husband. Neither candidate is a saint. The irony is that Clinton supporters want Trump "held accountable", yet they supported Bill Clinton with the same abuses, including Hillary. Logical?

For a Presidential campaign, neither candidate is addressing the actual issues and challenges facing the United States or its citizens. That lends itself to "Why not?". The character attacks serve as a distraction, likely because at least one candidate doesn't want to disclose their agenda and seeks to divert focus...likely because it involves a Constitutional end-run (think 45 Obama special appointees a.k.a "Czars").

Anonymous said...

Jon, What a thoughtful comment. What a sensitive man you are!!!!!

trustmeigetit said...

I agree. I have been groped at a club before and while it pissed me off, it's not in any way life altering..

I am so fed up with these liars coming out.

Not only is it creating a distraction from the Clinton Corruption, it discredits future legitimate victims.

Anonymous said...

The one thing I think is weird about her story is my ear hears that there is something "off" about the 15 minutes Donald is in bedroom. She sees his clothes on the bed (but she doesnt see him anywhere--she only hears helllloooo), she sits "away" from bedroom, then 15 min later he appears wearing a suit. I dunno...something is just off...some form of temporal lacunae...not saying she slept with him but...I dunno...those 15 min are skipped over....she implies he is not wearing his clothes...then she sits "away" from bedroom...fhe next 15 min gets skipped over and Donald magically appears wearing a suit. This is temporal lacunae. Even getting room service and "sharing" a club sandwhich...this sounds like post-intimacy type behavior. Im not sure I believe her story. I dont like the missing 15 doesnt sound right to my ear.

Anonymous said...

I just read more of the transcript online. I think she did go in the room and that she slept with him. That is my impression from her words, and then there is this:

She says their dinner only involved business and real-estate talk, and that they met the next morning at his golf course in Palos Verdes. “I wondered if the sexual behavior was some kind of test,” Zervos says, “or whether or not I had passed."

What I think this means is that she slept with him.
I think she got pissed when he asked her to wait in a separate room when food was delivered back in the hotel bc she stated Donald did not want the guy delivering food to see her.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Im wrong...I have a high fever...but something is off abt her story

Anonymous said...


You cant figure out something about dinner and time bc there are several temporal lacunae. There is something that is being hidden that the story is being weaved around...literally in terms of weaving around certain segments of missing time.
This is somewhat crass to have to repeat but when she he says "he thrusted his genitals" I dont see how he could have been clothed for her to state it that way. If he were clothed, wpukdnt she have said "he thrusted his groin area or pelvic area"?

lynda said...

Peter said..

We begin believing the subject's statement. This is the presupposition for all lie detection. For us, it is not a moral stance; it is a scientific stance.

The issue is not Donald Trump nor is it Hillary Clinton. It is truth.


I understand Peter, thank you for clarifying. "Balance" was probably the wrong word to use. I think I used it because the analysis was about a POTUS candidate and there are so many reports out now that it's alarming to think that ALL would be deceptive.

Neither candidate makes me want to vote at all. I find it depressing that these are our choices. It's disheartening to realize that instead of talking about our nations trouble, the hate slinging from both candidates, the lies from both, etc. is taking precedence.

Peter Hyatt said...


I understand your frustration and share it. For me, if I abdicate my vote, a criminal enterprise that is likely nothing the United States has ever seen before, gets in office. The tearing apart of our country which has been in earnest for 8 years will gain traction.

I recognize that this is a most volatile topic for many but there likely isn't anyone I wouldn't vote for against Clinton. She makes Herman Goering look mild.


Peter Hyatt said...

Some thoughts on formal training...

One cannot learn Statement Analysis from a blog. One may learn about it, and once in training, can learn from it, but it is best stated by those who enroll.

They look back at their own comments, sometimes with embarrassment, other times with excitement from gauging how far they have come.

Generally about one month in, the student emails me about his or her comments. They have had so many 'aha' moments that they excitedly want to share.

By 6 months they often can pick out comments from trained analysts who post versus untrained. By this point, they see the complexity of analysis and all that goes on behind a simple stated principle.

By a year the foundation begins to set in and after 2 years, they no longer fret over "truth or deception" but are well into content analysis and profiling.

The blog's articles that have analysis are just enough to show that a principle was cited. Even in the first attendance of live training, the new student often expresses surprise at how deeply involved the analysis goes. They are excited at the support of others and quickly grasp that everyone goes through a learning curve.

The analysis here is not thorough, but intended for advertisement as well as information; to inspire the interested reader to study. There is little explanation of principle, just enough to show the reader that guidelines are followed; guidelines that are to be used over and over.

Oversimplification, newly invented 'rules' (observations), a multitude of missed points, and a driving narrative all conspire for error.

The UK did a study on SCAN which found it not worth the financial investment. They gave a 2 1/2 day seminar and then tested the trainees who came up (if memory serves) about 70% accuracy.

I liken this to teaching someone the basic notes of a piano and after 20 hours of teaching, asking them to hold a concert.

What then, is the value of the seminar?

Much in many ways.

The seminar begins to open the eyes to the science, and is the basis for all training going forward. If the trainee is given support and ongoing training, he or she can, immediately, submit accurate analysis over and over.

We certify after a minimum of 60 hours live training and successful completion of all course material. This is the minimum.

For those who wish to learn, the home course is better than a seminar because the lectures are all recorded and can (and should) be listened to over and over. They work at their own pace and we implore them to go slowly.

In short order, they will begin the process of hopefully laughing at their early commenting and attempts to consolidate principle and are....


They are asked not to be too embarrassed but to be thankful for their growth. They quickly learn the difference between disciplined systematic study and the illogical and messy stitching together 'stuff' they're read on the blog.

Enrolled, they must be supported and have their work thoroughly checked.

Reading the blog is like learning the basic rules of musical notes.

Consider the work to play at Carnegie Hall!

It is an exciting ride to take.


Nic said...

I was informed that he could not have lunch, but that he would like to meet me with him in his office.
Change in language.
“would like” - future conditional being used to describe a past event
“with” - distancing, i.e., ‘my husband and I went shopping on Saturday’ (unity) v. ‘my husband went shopping with me on Saturday’ (would have rather chewed tinfoil/happy wife)

When I arrived, he kissed me on the lips.
“on the lips” extra wording, sentence reads well without the extra wording, extra words being used to persuade

I was surprised, but felt that perhaps, it was just his form of greeting.
“but” - negates that which precedes it, what follows “but” is what is important
“felt” - dropped pronoun, she didn’t feel anything being kissed by Trump (on the lips)
“just” dependent word in play, she is thinking, via comparison of another form of greeting

We sat and spoke.
“sat” - posture, that they sat together shows unity
“spoke” - advised, convey and opinion v. talk conversation/discussion; Trump spoke and Summers listened

As I was about to leave, he again kissed me on the lips.
“leave" - blue highlight, connecting the vert left to kissed
"As I was about" - passive, not yet leaving, delay
“again" - in addition to being kissed the same way before (on the lips - extra wording used to persuade), again separates he and again, wording out of order (he kissed me again), indirect

This is not what I wanted or expected.
Reliable denial, pronoun “I” + past tense verb + allegation; Summers expectations to meeting Trump were not met. She didn’t get what she wanted and the meeting didn’t go as expected.

He asked me for my phone number, and I scrawled it down with a marker.
“and" - missing information
“scrawled" - wrote very quickly/hurriedly because there is no time
"with a marker" - extra wording, unexpected

I left hurriedly and called a friend in New York because I was upset by the kiss.
“left" - blue highlight, connecting the verb left to called, sensitive, where she left is important and on her mind
“hurriedly" - being hurried is by “force”, Summers was hurried to leave
“called" - dropped pronoun
"a friend" - not “my" friend, unknown friend, being introduced for the first time, identity concealed
"in NY" - story takes place in NYC, extra wording, persuading
“because" - 3rd blue highlight, indication of a guilty conscience in play, answering why to an anticipated question about why she left hurriedly

I was upset by the kiss
“by" - the means of achieving
"the kiss” - singular, both kisses were the same; however, only one kiss was upsetting in that it did not achieve its means

Nic said...

Peter said @ 10:10am,
The issue is not Donald Trump nor is it Hillary Clinton. It is truth.

I agree. And further to this, truth is neither negative nor positive. The reaction is.

Nic said...

He asked me for my phone number, and I scrawled it down with a marker.

"with a marker" - extra wording, unexpected; Summer says she scrawled her phone number with something other than a pen, but is used to "mark"

Anonymous said...

I don't have time or energy to go through it line by line, but I figured out what happened:

When Summer is sitting "away from the bedroom" and he takes 15 minutes to "emerge" and to go from naked to clothed in a suit, she has already slept with him. After they slept together, I think she wanted to go out to dinner whereas Trump is trying to hide her from the public eye by making her stay in the hotel room and wait for dinner to be delivered as well as making her wait in a small room hidden from view when the waitor comes up.
After they have sex and he clothes himself she wants to go out, but he wants to just cuddle and watch tele-tele. Then she is upset that he is not taking her out to eat, rather hiding her in the hotel room.

There is no way in hell I believe she entered, Trump was naked and from some invisible location says "helllooo", then says and does nothing further for 15 minutes and then she sits away from forward....Trump emerges fully dressed in a suit. Sorry, don't buy it....that's not the way things happen when people are recalling things...time doesn't just "disappear".

Anonymous said...

The story begins with missing time. I believe during this time they slept together. Bed, clothes on bed, Trump mysteriously "missing", we hear only his voice "hello", she sits away from bedroom, Trump finally emerges 15 min later wearing a suit.

How could Trump lay down and cuddle and watch tele-tele wearing a suit? Wouldn't he have at least had to take off his coat and tie before laying down? When she says that while watching tele-tele he thrust his genitals, I don't believe he was clothed or at least was only partially clothed at that point or she wouldn't have used that phrase. I think what happened is he attempted to sleep with her a second time and that's when she was like "You're trippin dude." like to say, I'm all set I don't want to do it again, let's get some food".

Also, couldn't a tele-tele be considered a "light"?????

Anonymous said...

I don't get the marker thing, but it means something. Also ironic that she says she "scrawled" the number (which implies that she knew she wrote it quickly and messily) but that she then acts put off that he complains of her penmanship writing the number down bc he had trouble reading it.

Perhaps she did not want him to be able to read it????

Anonymous said...

Here's the media showing their racism against Ben Carson, categorizing him as "hostile" as they scream over him and he attempts to be heard in his soft-spoken manner. Ben Carson knows how to separate conjoined twins, that newscaster looks like all he knows about is how to put on gay-looking glasses...

Anonymous said...

Also, when Summer is brought up to the bungalow, she states the guy who brings her up "opens the door".

"Tele-tele" I believe could be considered a light, since it is a form of light

What this means I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Eeew. Ick.

Anonymous said...

I am literally sick the past few days and I think it may be from having thought about, considered, and analyzed Donald Trump's sex assaults/advances/escapades/whatever they are along with Hillary Clinton rape laughing tape.

Anonymous said...

Extra sickened as I am presently in another discussion with an individual who is saying Hillary allegedly didn't laugh at getting the child rapist off...having to convince people that yes she did in fact laugh. All these things are making me sick to my stomach.

Anonymous said...

What is making me sick to my stomach is that there is a large group of people (liberals who are Hillary Clinton supporters) who hear Hillary Clinton laughing about getting the rape victim off, yet they keep saying she didn't laugh at the victim. I cannot keep quiet and end up having to step by step explain to them that Hillary Clinton took the wrong piece of the evidence (after crime lab tested the right piece and found blood on it), took it into her possession (which is illegal), transported it 1200 miles on her own person (illegal), and had it tested by an expert and that Hillary is on tape laughing about the fact that the expert couldn't wait to come testify about how "unjust" it was to be trying to the child rapist based on the results of having examined the wrong and useless piece of evidence that Hillary brought him (after the crime lab had thrown away the right piece of evidence after testing and finding blood on it that was evidence of the rapist's guilt). I need to explain to these people that that is in fact laughing at the victim and that that is in fact an evil maneuver she used. What is wrong with people?!?!?! Obviously that is a horrible thing Hillary Clinton did,,,for an indigent client....she transported the wrong piece of evidence 1200 miles and then laughed about how hilarious that is that the wrong piece of evidence didn't have evidence on it and she would be able to get her client off. What is wrong with people?!?! HOw is that funny???? HOw is that ethical? Any of it?!?!!?!?!?!?

Anonymous said...

Liberals have no empathy.
How would they feel if God-forbid they were a child rape victim, the crime lab has the rapist's underwear and have cut out the material that has evidence on it, it tests positive for blood, this will be used to convict the rapist. Then evil Hillary comes along and takes the remaining piece of underwear (the part the lab has determined was useless for testing because it has no evidence on it) and travels 1200 miles to have the WRONG PIECE OF EVIDENCE TESTED by an expert and comes back bwahahahahahaha "there is no evidence of a rape"!!!!!!

Why does this strike me as one of the most evil maneuvers I have ever heard? You could make a movie about this and this person would be a friggin villain!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

It is making me absolutely sick to think polls are saying she will President. I can't stand even looking at her.

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 8:50,

Or maybe she wrote her number down in i.e., lipstick?

He scolded me about my penmanship because it was difficult for him to read my telephone number as I had written it for him.

Anonymous said...

Nic, That is interesting...I wouldn't have thought of that and I think you are right. I think she did write the number with lipstick. Both "black" and "marker" are unnecessary details which makes me think she did not in fact write it with a marker but rather with something else quite a bit thicker than a pen. I bet it is lipstick but she can't say that bc it makes it seem more romantic.

Anonymous said...

How come when I get sick it always feels like someone hit my knee with a hammer? I have even asked a doctor this and no answers.

Peter Hyatt said...

The passive-aggressive comments are not instructive.

This is a blog of learning and also of advertising for training, hence my reply to encourage formal learning. There are too many errors to address and deconstruct. It is so poorly done that new readers could be brought to disregard the science. In this sense, it is 'false advertising' and invites correction so severe (and time consuming) that it is best to 'start all over again' and attempt to learn analysis point by point.

One of the problems that such represents is that it is not presented for learning/correction, but of thinly veiled political narrative and bias, and the employment of a few principles to support a conclusion.

This is not a place for ignorance.

For those who wish to further political narrative at the expense of truth and principled science, please post elsewhere.

Peter Hyatt

lynda said...


Oh, I won't abdicate my vote..for any woman to not vote is a slap in the face to all the women before me that were beaten, arrested, harrassed, etc. for me to GET that vote! :)

Peter said,
"One of the problems that such represents is that it is not presented for learning/correction, but of thinly veiled political narrative and bias, and the employment of a few principles to support a conclusion."



Peter Hyatt said...

I wouldn't be surprised to have 9 fake accounts and 1 genuine account regarding Trump. The issue is "what did this statement tell us?" I analyzed him years ago.

I had jokingly said that NY Times was holding auditions for "victims" of Trump. I was wrong.

It is ABC.

Former Miss America or Teen Miss America or something like that, posted that ABC contacted her wanting to know if Trump had molested her 20 years ago.

She said she intends on telling the truth: that Trump was a gentleman towards her.

She may or may not understand that if she does, she is not likely to be on the news.

Human nature being what it is, consider what such fishing for victims does, psychologically, to the recipients. They are offered a chance to be noticed in life, perhaps to relive a former fleeting moment of fame. They will be relevant, on TV and important.

There is an old movie on Julius Reuters on TCM starring Edward G. Robinson that should be played next to main stream media's vicious use of deception and the Third World techniques they have adopted.

There are few places to find truth now...very few. I intend on keeping the blog one such place. I don't always get the time to comment as I have the last few days, but for the most part, people seek truth, for truth's sake. Although volunteers spend a lot of time deleting, there is still much encouragement to be found from people of common sense, reason...and who can respectfully disagree, as we could, once upon a time, in our country.

Anonymous said...

He won't because he's voting for Trump.

Me2l said...

"Peter HyattOctober 18, 2016 at 10:00 AM
The passive-aggressive comments are not instructive.

This is a blog of learning and also of advertising for training, hence my reply to encourage formal learning. There are too many errors to address and deconstruct. It is so poorly done that new readers could be brought to disregard the science. In this sense, it is 'false advertising' and invites correction so severe (and time consuming) that it is best to 'start all over again' and attempt to learn analysis point by point. "

This is so good! I've tried on many occasions (ineptly) to express that thought, but it's always taken as criticism. Far from it!

SA is fascinating to me, and the more I observe of its application, the more I realize it must be done correctly, which requires proper learning and study.

Some of the "analysis" performed, claiming to be SA, can cause a new reader to form misconceptions and laugh at the technique, when what they're seeing is NOT SA but a self indulgence of those who enjoy writing fiction.

Peter Hyatt said...

Best is to not respond to those comments...eventually, they are deleted.

In a time when our country is ripped apart, those with narrative who twist analysis principles to fit the analysis will not have their comments remain here. They are free to start a blog and post their nonsense. They are in the vast and broad majority and can feel comfortable there. They have the support of 90% media, the political elite, the moral narcissists, and all the social media sites. They don't come here for truth nor for learning.

This is a place for truth.

Let's borrow a phrase and call this a "safe place" for truth. :)