Monday, March 20, 2017

"Don't Remember" Under Oath

20 March, 2017  1:05PM EST.

The failure to remember is considered by many experts to be the number one deceptive answer under oath. 

Consider, 

"I don't remember" when it is combined with two additional elements to a question that is a "yes or no" question regarding direct contact with the administration of a president of the United States regarding surveillance of an incoming president.  


1.  Lengthy pause 
2.  Dropped the pronoun "I"


What would this suggest?


"Don't remember."  

The subject has the need to consider carefully his answer, and psychologically, he has a need to distance himself from the answer of not remembering.  

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reagan Hazy On Iran-contra
Knowledge Of Diversion Is Denied
February 23, 1990|By Janet Cawley and Linda P. Campbell, Chicago Tribune.

But his deposition did reveal startling gaps in the memory of the 79-year-old former president. In all, Reagan said ``I don`t recall`` or ``I can`t remember`` 88 times in the eight hours of testimony taken Feb. 16-17 in Los Angeles

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

"The failure to remember is considered by many experts to be the number one deceptive answer under oath."

Dr Paul Ekman

"The subject has the need to consider carefully his answer, and psychologically, he has a need to distance himself from the answer of not remembering.

Has the subject, in previous answers/statements, attached themselves, ( psychologically, using the pronoun "I") in response. If that is the case, dropping the pronoun at this part of their reply is noted, and maybe sensitive.
What is the subjects baseline? (Pronouns)

Primarily. What is the question that elicited the reply?, "I don't remember"

Snippets are dangerous.
Context.
What lead up to it?

Are you throwing a curve ball, Peter?

Again, what was the question?
It's not quoted.

To distance oneself, could be (if they are) for numerous reasons.

Anonymous said...

Hillary: "I don't recall"

Turner said...

I saw that and wondered if anyone here did also! Comey answered Gowdy 3x "Don't remember."

Turner said...

He also paused & answered "Can't." When asked to report on something.

Anonymous said...

replying with "I don't know" to a yes or no question is silly. I don't know really means I don't tell.


Anonymous said...

*I won't tell

Anonymous said...

He is under threat?

Anonymous said...

I feel bad for Comey, and have the sense he will say what he needs to, to protect his family.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, I too feel badly for him. I think there is so much more to this than we know.

I hope readers here are listening very carefully, from learning some basic principles of analysis.

My concerns remain in how far compromised we are, as a nation, after 8 years of removing some restraints upon the intelligence community as well as by politicians.

We have moved rapidly ahead towards what we see in Venezuela and in Brazil in terms of morals and ethics.

there is a powerful article by Daniel Greenfield today that I found at Free Canada press (thanks to Harvard University's warning special snow flake warning list).

it is here:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/trump-vs.-obama1

I tweeted it as I think it is important reading.

The advancement of deceptive techniques has joined with the moral acceptance in leadership.

Sadly, I believe we, as a people, are appropriately represented by our leaders.

This is us now.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

What makes the anonymous posters who write, "he only analyzes democrats" or "he is partisan" is that they come here, to this small, insignificant blog where they have 99% (?) of media that supports their moral narcissism.

They come here for discerning truth from deception but cannot control themselves when the truth does not fit their narrative.

They know where to find truth, but only want the truth that fits their moral narcissism.

They were, and are, easily exploited by amoral and immoral politicians who will never meet them, benefit them, loan them money, nor do any good for them, yet they are more zealous in their blind submission than religious zealots.

They yield away their own logic to embrace absurdity, just because it "feels" like they are superior to others.

This is why they post here: the intolerance of false narrative cannot abide a difference of opinion. They could never embrace training. Truth seeking would lead them to logical conclusions. This might cause emotional disruption or signal that their newly adopted morals might not be actually moral nor ethical.

The hypocrisy, above all else, when left naked in the mirror, is too painful; hence they must slash away at others, even if it means anonymously posting until it is deleted and eventually spammed out so they can no longer post.

What a waste of time, energy and life.

Far better to use that which separates us from the animals: reason.

Peter

Marliese said...

I wonder too, Peter. They make it difficult to read comments since most of them don't want to pick a name. I finally decided to skip all anonymous comments. If you don't want to be identified by a name, you have nothing of interest to say.

Sandee said...

Peter wrote

"They were, and are, easily exploited by amoral and immoral politicians who will never meet them, benefit them, loan them money, nor do any good for them, yet they are more zealous in their blind submission than religious zealots."

So well-put Peter. I bet that individual is also exploited by "immoral or amoral" people also. It seems strange they come here seeking truth while fighting for the right to remain blind to the truth. My guess is that this individual is deeply conflicted.

Anonymous said...

. If you don't want to be identified by a name.. you have nothing of interest to say..........
........WOW.......

no IDea said...

Certain anonymous posters bait and dare others who may disagree, then belittle those who challenge them. It is non-productive to attempt to show high intelligence with such arrogance. Any replies are subject to ridicule, which is the reason some responders don't wish to identify their remarks.

Anonymous said...

Pick a card, any card!!!! Different names. Same person.

lynda said...

Peter Hyatt said

"What makes the anonymous posters who write, "he only analyzes democrats" or "he is partisan" is that they come here, to this small, insignificant blog where they have 99% (?) of media that supports their moral narcissism. "

_______________________________________

A while back, I had asked about how SA would apply to trump and some of his, on the record, exaggerations, contradictions, lies, etc. I was most interested in his comments about women. It wasn't to bash, it was because I was genuinely interested and I had noticed that other politicians were analyzed, so I posted particular statements to see what people thought. They were all deleted. I was disappointed but it's not my blog. It's not my opinion that people seek here.
It's Peter's blog and he can do and say anything he wants to on it. He can analyze or not analyze anything he chooses and if somebody posts something that he doesn't want to promote or indulge, he has every right to take it off HIS blog. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to come here at all.

lynda said...

Peter said
"Far better to use that which separates us from the animals: reason.

*and our ability to accessorize! lol

Anonymous said...

Very simple math. Dont claim a pursuit of truth if inherently and operationally biased.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...


RE: Anonymous @ 4:39 PM March 21, 2017

Anonymous Anonymous said...

. If you don't want to be identified by a name.. you have nothing of interest to say..........
........WOW.......
_________________________________________
For someone reading and posting on a blog dedicated to the practice of reading and listening carefully to people's statements, you completely missed the point.

Marliese at 11:56 AM said...

"I wonder too, Peter. They[numerous Anonymous posters] make it difficult to read comments since most of them don't want to pick a name. I finally decided to skip all anonymous comments. If you don't want to be identified by a name, you have nothing of interest to say.
______________________________________
Marliese is making an observation that is it difficult to follow the conversational thread due to so many posters using Anonymous as their name. It is difficult for both the named posters and the numerous Anonymous' to tell who is being responded to. A large percentage of Anonymous comments are trolling. Peter has asked, requested, invited, suggested to posters repeatedly to choose a name. Those who refuse to do so are usually the troll comments. Many posters here have a limited amount of time to read and comment for discussion's sake. Those who are here to learn and intelligently, civilly discuss make it a point to choose a name. Like Marliese, it's my general practice to skip Anonymous comments because they're either trolling or not serious enough about discussions to choose a name. It's called respect for Peter and your fellow posters. I have a busy life outside this blog and when I come here for a break, I'm not going to wade through Anonymous posts. If you have something you feel is worth saying (and you must or you wouldn't have posted), why wouldn't you choose a name /invent a pseudonym so that others can address you?

a.n.o.n. said...

Perhaps it is because there are certain Anonymous posters who reply with belittling comments that are meant to ridicule & berate others' opinions.

mom2many said...

"Seems reasonable" is just as much a fiction as anything else. Where is the evidence Davey was directly accused and denied involvement?

When LE cannot even release the 911 call because of the investigation, it is apparent that more sensitive aspects of the investigation is kept from public eyes. To do otherwise would harm the outcome.

Davey was declared cleared two days in -- weeks before the suspects were identified and arrested. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no investigation into any connection between Davey and unknown perps at that time. Therefore, the conclusion that Davey was uninvolved because he was cleared, when that has not been publicly reaffirmed since the arrests, should be considered irrelevant.