Donna Brazille has recently spoken out about her cheating (giving Hilary Clinton advanced questions) and lying to the American public regarding the 2016 presidential election.
Has she now expressed regret at both cheating and lying?
We need only to listen to her words. Her words, like all of us, reveal our background, experiences, priorities and morals, as well as personality traits.
Wikileaks is, for many, the most "pure" news source in that they present without commentary the information given to them. They present the information without editing.
This means it "reports news" as the news is, with no interpretation nor classification.
During the 2016 presidential election, Wikileaks revealed emails that showed that DNC Donna Brazille sent Hillary Clinton the debate questions ahead of time to give her the advantage.
What her statements reveal is not only how she uses deception, but how she justifies deception.
This week, she has said it is a "mistake I will forever regret."
Was it a "mistake"?
What about what she said about the email?
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.
d. Besides classifying what she does as a "game", she uses the present tense "play." This is a very common form of an unreliable denial that is closely associated with deception.
It is not only an Unreliable Denial, it is also a type of avoidance. She is telling us what she does now.
When asked if one lied, a common response is to avoid saying, "I did not lie" but to say "I don't lie" or "I'm not one who needs to tell lies", and so on.
I analyze statements daily in which this, in some form, is found.
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 Interview, 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.
This is another form of diversion.
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. It shows the need to persuade the listener why she would not lie
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. It is, in this sense, an attempt to portray strength by appealing to women. It is manipulation and it helps classify the subject has a habitual or pathological liar who employs her intellect in deception. Her need to have 50% of the audience (considering a 50/50 gender split) reveals weakness besides manipulation.
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.
She has been accused, via the released email, of sending to Clinton the advanced question. It is very easy to deny. It does not take many words to do so.
This is similar to one writing many pages of a letter or hold a news conference rather than issue a denial. The factually innocent state the truth.
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 revealed..."
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. It is also another indication of the habitual nature of her language.
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.
8. It is important to note that she introduced theft into her statement.
Does she consider what Wikileaks did in revealing this information to be "theft"? Or is it the one who gave Wikileaks the information?
Remember, the party itself blamed the Russians for losing the election; not the material contained itself . This is the equivalent of refusing to answer the message, choosing to blame the messenger instead.
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. It is also another point of attempting to manipulate. Before it was "women" and now it is those who are fans of CNN.
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?
The interviewer sensed that someone other than self, is blamed, as she introduced "theft." Megyn Kelly does not allow herself to be blamed.
Brazille has not denied authorship of the email, but has used deceptive diversion coupled with manipulation and victim status. This is an above average habitual liar.
Here we have the denial for the record. Will she say, "I did not author the email released by Wikileaks"?
BRAZILE: Megyn, I'll say it on the record.
Wikileaks maintains that they have never released false material and that they own a 100% reliable news record.
This statement, "I'll say it on the record" is an unnecessary statement which further delays, via avoidance, the denial.
I'm not going to try to validate falsified information.This avoids saying the material is false. It is a avoidance. She is answering an allegation that has not been made.
I have my documents. I have my files.
She tells us what she possess while using this tangent to avoid the denial.
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.
We now are given the reason why "theft" has entered her language. She does not say it did not happen, nor does she say that the email released is false. She uses many words to avoid the truth. This is something done by one well familiar with deception.
"I never received anything."
a. the past tense verb "did not"
b. identifying the email.
If she never received "anything" from CNN, would this include her paycheck?
Yet, that is not what she said.
"CNN, I never received anything" even this avoids saying "I never received anything from CNN." This is someone willing to even trip over her words rather than be honest.
She also reveals herself as one who does not take personal responsibility for her actions.
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.
When someone holds to a belief for forty or fifty years and suddenly, at the prompting of a politician, "changes", it signals that the public cannot trust them. Here, after the election, she introduces us to her "conscience."
This is where we are able to look into her character, priority, and history.
“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” Brazile said in an interview with SiriusXM host Joe Madison, adding, "If I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”
She qualifies her conscience here, no longer as a "Christian", nor as a "woman" nor even as one who "understands persecution." She now is speaking "as an activist, a strategist" and this is a very important statement.
It is in her role in politics that she possesses a "very clear" conscience for cheating and lying.
This is very important.
Cheating and lying are justified by her when she is an "activist." This is insight not only into her but the party she serves. This is where the ends will justify the means. They know what is best for others and if it means cheating (stealing the election, false votes, breaking laws, etc) and it something that will "clear" a conscience.
The conscience is the "informed decision."
But it is not only in "activism" that both cheating and lying are elements of a clear conscience, but it is in "strategy" that these elements may be employed.
This is where our country's greatest split lies and why we are seeing free speech under attack from colleges.
This is an example of moral narcissism.
The moral narcissist holds that his or her belief is so superior to others that it even justifies violently coercing others into accepting it.
This is why we are under a threat of civil war and why the rule of law is no longer in consideration.
When her hero, Barak Obama, said he was "saving refugees, women and children", and "we don't discriminate on religion, we're better than that", he justified the importation of Islamic fighting age males, and the "refugees" ran between 97% and 99% Islamic, revealing the willingness to lie. We now see this in his followers, and even in judges who were presented with the exact same temporary travel bans, but who took no action when they came from the Obama administration. In Europe, the deceptive officials admit that less than 28% are Syrian refugees, and admit that between 70 and 90% are males, with most 18 to 35 years of age. As Merkel, Obama, Soros, and others sought to bring demographic "change", they have done so by importing a criminal supremacy ideology that is based upon violence, with sexual violence as a specific. This was masked in a way that would appeal to those with the need to feel morally superior to others. "If you agree with me, you are morally above those who do not agree. " In this, host citizens were not told the truth, nor given the choice of whether or not their tax dollars would be taken from them to pay for others; those that Muslim countries refused to take in due to danger.
This is why when you disagree with someone who is a moral narcissist, the rage burns and you are labeled mentally ill (phobic) and morally unfit for their presence (hateful, nazi, racist, etc).
This is how the winds of wars begin; personal hatred and fight for control.
The need to silence opposition is not an element found within truth.
Donna Brazille's most recent statement?
"It is a mistake I will forever regret."
Putting it in email form rather than calling?
Lying about it?
This is a moral narcissist who holds the world in contempt. She shows a strong intellect, well familiar with deception, manipulation and diversion techniques.
Although she attempts to quote the Bible, invoke Christianity and Deity, she must oppose the ideology of Christianity in order to justify her actions and have a "very clear" conscience.
This is a strong indicator of what those around her can expect from her in the future.
She is a habitual liar.