Wednesday, April 12, 2017

President Trump Interview

Michael Goodwin interviewed President Trump.  It is at the NY Post and is in very short sections.  The analysis is highlighted throughout the quotes. 
1.  On Steve Bannon
Context is important:  Main Stream Media's attack on Bannon is incessant.  Yet, it may be something else that influenced the language here. 
Time Magazine recently called him the 2nd most powerful man in the world and  used the word "Svengali" to describe the relationship between Bannon and Trump, calling him "The Great Manipulator."
When Goodwin asked the president Tuesday afternoon if he still has confidence in Bannon, who took over the campaign in mid-August, he did not get a definitive yes.
“I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late.  I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.
He ended by saying, “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”

The word "but" refutes or minimizes by comparison the words that preceded it.  Some will say "the words following "but" are the most important." 
Trump began with "I like Steve", using the pronoun "I" and Bannon's first name.  
What refuted or minimized his personal like of Steve Bannon?
"You have to remember"
This is to present to the audience what they "must" remember, which is:
a.  "very late" entry into the campaign
b.  "already", "I had already", with the word "already" addressing the element of time.  
c.  "I":  "I'm my own strategist." 
Bannon's role as a strategist was to appeal to the "forgotten Americans" and the "forgotten American ideals" including personal responsibility, freedom, and policy that benefits America.  
Those who believe or agree with what Bannon stood for, should consider what may have happened here:
Donald Trump may have now embolden main stream media's influence. 
Main Stream Media has always influenced politics and politicians, and it was Bannon's message of resistance to such that appealed to many Americans.  
By presenting Bannon close to one who's career's goal has been, as revealed in his language, "success", was to put Bannon in the cross hairs and may reveal to the media the weakness they have sought in the president.  

2.  Main Stream Media 
The president remains hot about the coverage he gets in The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN. When I asked about stories that cited anonymous sources “close to the president,” Trump insisted that “many of those sources are made up and I don’t believe them. Let them reveal their sources.”
It’s fake news and fake sources,” he insisted, adding that’s why he won’t appear on CNN. As for the Times, “they’re a failing, dead paper. Lucky for them I came along. If Hillary had won, they’d be closing up shop by now.”
He is strong on this and this may explain why he by-passes media to go directly to the American people via Twitter.  Note that "fake news" comes before "fake sources", which shows the proper order: presentation based upon sources.  He believes this.  
He’s not impressed by commentators, either. “Pundits, they knew less than my 11-year-old son,” he said. “They haveThey have zero political instinct and zero political talent.
I have written about main stream media's deceptive techniques and have used the CNN headline and video of a black woman calling for rioting in white neighborhoods as a crude example.  CNN showed her as a civil rights activist calling for peace by stopping the video where she says "stop" the riot here.  She went on to urge rioters to take the violence to white neighborhoods.  
I recently spent an hour before CNN in an airpot; not by choice.  The incessant bias was extreme.  
An argument can be made that the president's detractors and main stream media were deliberately seeking to harm relations between the United States and Russia, risking lives to make a political point.  

3. Syria 
Has media influenced the language of a negotiator? 

We’re not going into Syria.  Our policy is the same — it hasn’t changed. We’re not going into Syria.”

His language is that of a negotiator.  This is evident with his use of "very very" in personal relationships.  He is continually preparing for negotiations and by allowing media to attempt to portray any leader in either a positive or negative light may impact his bargaining skills.  This is very likely to be new to his experiences. 

The president called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a “butcher” and a “barbarian” for using sarin gas on his own people, but said last week’s successful missile strike was not the start of a campaign to oust the dictator.

Our big mission is getting rid of ISIS,” Trump said. “That’s where it’s always been. But when you see kids choking to death, you watch their lungs burning out, we had to hit him and hit him hard.

He called the attack, which involved 59 cruise missiles fired from two Navy destroyers, “an act of humanity.

I asked if he, as a new president, found it difficult to make the final decision, knowing the stakes, we are able to gain insight into his thinking. 

Is he, as portrayed, impulsive, thus, dangerous?  

“It’s very tough to give that final go-ahead when you know you’re talking about human life,” he said. “We went back and forth, and also back and forth about severity. We could have gone bigger in terms of targets and more of them, but we thought this would be the appropriate first shot.”

The use of his pronouns tells us that this was not an impulsive act, nor did he act alone.  The pronouns allow us to see both the subtle distancing as well as the unity and cooperation he sees with his military leaders and advisors.  

Main stream media has been reporting the contrary.  Pronouns are instinctive.  Pronouns do not lie. 

Later, he added, “We hope he won’t do any more gassing.”

By using the word "first", he has signaled that, with "hope", there will be a second shot if gas is used again.  

4.  Russia and Putin

Here is where both politicians and main stream media have sought to do the most damage. 

How seriously does he take the threats from Russia, and does he think there is still a possibility for cooperation in the region with Vladimir Putin?

We’re not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly,” Trump answered. “Putin must see what a barbarian this guy is, and it’s a very bad symbol for Russia with this guy gassing children and using barrel bombs.

With Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Moscow as we spoke, Trump said he hoped for Putin’s cooperation, but added, “I don’t know.”

This is rare from politicians.  A narcissist struggles to be seen without an answer; it is personally insulting to the extreme high view of self.  

With the word "exactly", Trump is avoiding provocative statements before any possible negotiations.  The "axis of evil" may help gain elections, but does it produce favorable conditions for negotiations. Those who want to see open dialog with Russia may feel assured here that the influence of MSM is not acute.  

5. On China

How did Trump communicate with the president of China?

Goodwin: The missile strike in Syria overshadowed his two-day meeting with China president Xi Jinping, who brought his wife to meet Trump and first lady Melania Trump at Mar-a-Lago. The leaders ended their first meeting just as the first missiles were launched.

“When I explained to him what we were doing, because of the gassing of children, he understood immediately,” Trump told me.
I asked about their summit, given some of the harsh things Trump has said about China.

Note the word "explained" and not "told" indicates the passage of time, and processing of information in an instructive manner.  This tells us he did not lecture Xi Jinping.  

Did he expect a positive outcome? 

Main stream media may seek to provoke the president by front-loading questions.  "Since Xi Jinping is a communist who is silencing his own people, how can..." or "Since we all know that Vladimir Putin is a KGB thug who kills those who disagree with him, how can the president even sit in his presence and..."

The front loaded questions are harmful to negotiations as MSM seeks to "pick a fight" regardless of what it may lead to, including war.  When this narrative becomes dominant, that is, the overall theme of MSM, the danger increases.  Follow Trump's pronouns.  

I was a little surprised, we had a great chemistry, not good, but great,” Trump said. “I liked him and he liked me a lot. That doesn’t mean we’re going to get along on trade or North Korea, but we had great chemistry.”

Here we see the language of negotiations consistent with his language, yet we also have the pronoun "we", which also tells us how Trump perceived the relationship in light of North Korea's threats against the United States. 

Those interested in such negotiations between super-powers may be pleased with the language in spite of MSM's. 

The difference here, in context, is negotiation.  

There is also something for consideration: 

There is a difference between narcissistic language and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 

Often we are able to see the difference in business or sports/entertainment success:

Success will impact the language, sounding narcissistic, overconfident, etc, but the actual narcissist (NPD) will sound narcissistic outside of circumstance.  Whether successful or not, the language of the narcissist does not change.  


General P. Malaise said...

I like your analysis of Trump..

I do think Trump has been backed into a corner as the ongoing media frenzy attacking S. Bannon. They will go on until Trump silences them or he is gone. Internally the administration has outed some of Trump's picks and replaced them with what could be called obama/clinton picks. I think if Bannon is pushed out the US is lost not so much because Bannon is not there but because of why he was pushed out and who pushed him out.

McMaster is a protege of Petraeus (bad as he doesn't condemn islamic violence).

Gary cohn (democrat and #2 goldman sachs).

Dina Powell (friend of Valarie Jarrett, could it be worse, I don't see how)

Ivanka Trump (Ivanka is a NY liberal and cheerleader for above plants into the administration as well as close friend of Chelsea Clinton, Huma Abedin and Ivanka's lawyer is Jamie Gorelick)

it appears that there has been a coup and Trump isn't winning it. Trump has surprised me with his missile strike (not good) but the media has supported that (proving it was not good) and Trump's detractors have backed off a bit. (McCain decided to vote for the SCOTUS pick, was there a deal there ??)

Statement Analysis Blog said...



I don't know much about Bannon but the language of competition and the pressure from media is relentless.

Sitting through an hour of CNN was almost unbearable. Heather joked about not being trained as there is no way to shut down the hearing of additional wording.

It is interesting for fans of S/A to consider watching some Ben Shapiro clips on You Tube.

As fans of S/A, they seek truth and Shapiro highlights the battle between reason and emotion well.


Anonymous said...

Re: Trump's actions in Syria, I am shocked at how disturbed and upset the liberals are by this, due to a few conversations I've had with liberals in the past couple of days.
The liberals I've spoken to were not moved by the images of dying/dead children from the chemical attack, and feel "we shouldn't be the world's policeman". When I suggested that even if that is in fact true that we shouldn't be the world's policeman, that we should not underestimate the danger to ourselves here in the U.S. due to chemical weapons and also the breakdown of any civilization spawning rampant terrorism in Syria due to Assad, this is when liberals' true rationale and rage erupts....what they say to this is how angry they are that money used to battle Assad has been taken away from them because it should be used to buy things for them like college educations for kids. (That is when the rage comes out over that specific facet).

I am convinced that if the Holocaust in GErmany were going on in this day and age, and images of people in Concentration camps were shown to most liberals, they would not blink an eye and would feel no compassion and would feel we should just leave the prisoners there to rot. I am not saying this to be controversial either. I believe it, I know it.

I have no problem talking to liberals, hearing out their view (they know I am not going to adopt their view) and stating my own for the sake of an interesting discussion. I would never get angry at a person for being liberal or not be friends with someone because they are liberal--I feel grounded enough in my own views that hearing others does not bother me. However, the liberals I have spoken to are like rabid pitbulls jumping up and down ready to draw blood and none I have spoken to expressed any compassion, distress, or upset regarding the images of death of Syrian children/babies along with the act of the chemical weapon being used.

I am convinced there is a moral crisis in modern times and many liberals are some of the most selfish, intellectually dishonest people I have ever talked to. I literally just lost a friendship for stating that I support Trump's bombing of Assad's airbase. I love how these liberals cannot put themselves in anyone else's's like they see those images of death in Syria from Assad and they are like, well it's not happening to me, so who gives a crap.

Anonymous said...

I try to assume that people are essentially good and naturally compassionate people and that liberals have simply taken a different viewpoint motivated by these better human qualities. I am grounded in my viewpoint and I calmly discuss issues with liberals: this is what has allowed me to see that they are not operating from these core qualities normally considered human (like compassion, empathy, good will towards men), they are operating from a very dark and corrupt place. They claim to be compassionate, but it is pretense, because if you engage with them long enough, their nearly demonic rage spills forth over luxurious entitlements which they see as owed to them OVER spending money on defending chemical gas child and baby victims. This is the horrible reality of liberalism in America. When I say luxurious I am not talking about food, or even healthcare, they are enraged about college educations not being paid for due to money diverted when Trump bombed Syria. This is similar to me the way that they justify abortion by stating that "every child should be wanted", which presumes such sever narcissism like they themselves were so very wanted by their parents/the world that the whole universe must have oohed and aahed when they were born. Also denigrating poor children, etc like if they are poor they should just be aborted. Who the hell do these people think they are? I am disgusted. They would not care about concentration camps if it was going on in modern times...these people are lost in a bubble of self-serving nearly psychopathic narcissism.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Raffaele Sollecito, the ex-boyfriend of Amanda Knox, is seeking $3 million in a lawsuit against prosecutors and jurors for his wrongful conviction for the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in 2007.

Sollecito and Knox were convicted of stabbing Kercher to death in the flat the two women shared in Italy, but the Supreme Court acquitted them in 2015.

When the couple was acquitted, the Supreme Court said that the murder investigation had been characterized by “culpable omissions” and “deplorable carelessness.”

Sollecito, 33, has said that the entire incarceration process has traumatized him and that for seven years, his life was kept on hold - almost four of those years were spent in prison. In addition, his family racked up more than $400,000 in debt.

An attempt to claim over $500,000 from the state for wrongful imprisonment in February was rejected by an appeals court in Florence. They ruled that Sollecito contributed to the judicial error by making untrue and contradicting statements during the investigation.

Sollecito plans to sue the nine prosecutors and judges who he says are “ruining his life” with a new law that tests the civil responsibility of magistrates. He is also looking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia, Italy as well as the Florence appeal court jury.

Jurors can only be sued if their conduct is considered to be brutally unfair or malicious, The Times reports. A judge in Genoa was hearing arguments on Tuesday to decide whether jurors should be included in this lawsuit.

Sollecito believes there had been major investigative flaws during his case “and therefore there are precise responsibilities for the investigative phase.”

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I try to assume that people are essentially good and naturally compassionate people and that liberals have simply taken a different viewpoint motivated by these better human qualities.

there is good and evil in all of us, it is IMO a mistake or hubris to think otherwise. It is from this premise that much of the evil perpetrated against our fellows has occurred. when you say liberals would not care if concentration camps were in their midst today they would not care. I agree but it might surprise you to find that most people would not care or would give the same response as not caring in not doing anything about it.

Conservatives tend to be the most compassionate in my experience but few have the courage to risk anything. Liberals don't even get as far as to consider risking anything.

Remember the Rwanda massacres ... there was a UN peacekeeper's general there who witnessed the captured UN soldiers from Belgium. He did not intervene, those soldiers were executed shortly after. The entire time the peacekeepers did not intervene in any significant way in Rwanda. Human nature doesn't change. Those peacekeepers should have stop the massacres or died trying. That general now tries to tell the world how to live after a failed suicide attempt. Belgium is not on his bucket list.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...

the world truly is upside down. right is wrong, wrong is right.

you would think these guilty parties would slink away into the night.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

The concentration camps in Germany were primarily for Jews.

Jews were killed due to an emotional reaction by the Germans. Jews were inconvenience to Nazi ideology.

Concentration camps today are far more numerous organized, profitable, and sanitary. They target those who are vulnerable and inconvenient.

When I was a boy, I was told it was necessary to control the population.

Today, with populations much greater, I am told that immigration is necessary to sustain or increase population.

I haven't figured it out.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous 12:41

I find it amazing that politicians have finally hit upon the one point of exploitation that surpasses all others in terms of success.

People want to feel good about themselves and if you agree with Politician X, you can not only feel good about yourself, but so much so that you can become violent towards those who disagree.

I saw Heather MacDonald on television this morning. Her description of the fear she felt at the rage of the crowd was powerful. This was at an American college, not a banana republic.

Her message had to be heard remotely.

In the name of "anti fascism", these self indulged kids practice fascism, while their professors praise them for it.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

lawsuit against Italy!

What took so long?


Anonymous said...

12:11 willfilly ignorant. Always the same twisted vilification. Many conservatives do not believe the narrative that Assad is behind the chem attack.

Anonymous said...

Why hasnt amassador Haley shown the photos of the torn apart bodies in the street following the Stockholm rampage?

Anonymous said...


Yes, I agree that there is good and evil in everyone, but some, I would say most, people keep an eye on it within themselves, and don't act on evil impulses whereas liberals act on their evil impulses, they never admit they do anything wrong or have ever done anything wrong or even that they are anything less than perfect. They go on the offensive and aggressively attack other people who hold a view that deviates from their own with this attitude like "How dare you!!! How dare you think differently than me"?? They are hungry vampires, they are like rabid pitbulls jumping rabidly up and down to bite the jugular. On top of it all, they all think they are persecuted martyrs but can never explain why they think that, they just want everyone to know how persecuted they are (by the government and there is never anything remotely resembling persecution that has been done to them!!!) For these reasons, liberals are more evil. Just open your ears and listen to them: you will NEVER hear them say they have ever done anything wrong, ever, even something like when I was younger I did some stupid things, but I don't do them anymore. In their view they are perfect all the time. Very scary actually.

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote

"People want to feel good about themselves and if you agree with Politician X, you can not only feel good about yourself, but so much so that you can become violent towards those who disagree."

SO TRUE!!! You described it perfectly.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't trying to say that people act on both good and evil. rather that it is in us all and I agree most don't act out the evil as a matter of course. a stable society keeps wrongdoing in check.

Sadly I see the world (the western world) making all things subjective. Once morality become subjective (personal) than anything and everything can be justified.

If you have been following the Jordan Peterson story in Canada you can see we are headed in a bad direction. link below

Anonymous said...

I can't even discuss liberals right now Malaise. Last night I was screamed at by an extreme liberal for a Facebook status I wrote in support of bombing Assad's airbase in this way like I was talking to Glenn Close from basic instinct combined with a rabid pitbull. Then the person screamed at me for having a kid when she doesnt bc her one week marriage disintegrated due to super psycho behavior and when I tried to be supportive I was screamed at some more that if she had a baby it would be retarded and I said my grandmother had my Dad when she was 44 and he has a PhD, he's not retarded and I even cited scientific facts about genetics and I got screamed at some more saying that totally pissed her off that I said if she had a baby it wouldnt be retarded and then got sent 150 texts and then got screamed at that she is "an empath" with antisocial personality disorder and I was just like oh my God you can friggin go to hell!

Anonymous said...

I just cannot believe that someone would become upset talking with you. Hmmmm...

Anonymous said...

Everyone please read the article Ann Coulter just released a few minutes ago. For a needed dose of TRUTH.

Anonymous said...

Yeah 457 Im sure she would never get upset w you lmao nor you w her. I feel
Like someone I knew once called her like 7 different insults including "braying idiot". Yeah Im sure it's just me and anyone else wpuld respond great to her self-professed diagnosis of "empath with anti-social personality disorder". By all means Id love to see someone else deal with it!

Anonymous said...

Yeah like I should have apologized bc I have a kid, listened to a million insults, had crazy pharmaceutical advice dispensed unasked for, been commanded to do like 10 different things, been screamed at about the New York Times, had ALL her issues projected onto me in the strangest way, and psychotically screamed at bc I wouldnt say "yeah your baby will be retarded"! Yeah that's all me. Whatever.

Anonymous said...

Stay away from them. Maybe you'll feel better.

Anonymous said...

Oh I am. Like that was seriously some of the most unhinged behavior and there's no talking to her bc she doesnt listen and she has turned so nasty. Im done.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I can't even discuss liberals right now Malaise. Last night I was screamed at by an extreme liberal for a Facebook status are on facebook ?? ..there is part of the problem. that is definitely a place I don't go to. a liberal run company that uses its users as a product.

Anonymous said...

I hardly ever go on FB that is one reason it was so ridiculous this person jumped all over me for posting one status when they are on FB constantly as the moderator of a liberal FB page that spends all day bashing Trump. Now this person sent me 50 more texts and I haven't even slept cause I was so upset and I just texted back:
" I am not ready to talk or text right now at all. I need time. You were using me as an emotional punching bag, and your excuses/explanations dont cut it. I was dealing with tons of stress and in fact lots of paperwork too. I don't use that an excuse to jump all over someone like an angry pitbull. You said the rudest stuff to me. You act like you are the only one dealing with stress. YOURE NOT. In fact you have no right to presume you have any idea what anyone else is dealing with bc you don't. I care about you, but I am not ready to talk right now. I never want to treated that way or talked to like that ever. Please let me just have some time to decompress and I will get back to you when I am feeling up to it.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I hardly ever go on FB............

read some of this blog to understand the liberal mind.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Malaise, Cool blog! That is so true what it says about how liberals think/operate under the blog entry "Why Do Leftist Hate America?" Very insightful. I'll read more of it. Thanks.

Nic said...

A big part of me wonders if the same manipulating/agitating going on in the US is what we are witnessing in Syria. Trump was correct when he said HC created Isis. Who’s to say that that gas attack wasn't an orchestrated event by interested parties with their own agenda, and children are being used for the ultimate means to end: to prod Trump along. Given what I learned in the last US election, that’s how I'm seeing [it].

I truly believe that The Establishment is working very quietly to chip away at Trump’s veneer. Did someone give Spicer talking/reference points (per Hitler reference)? That door was already opened and he just walked through it. Bannon was shuffled... I believe KA Conway is next.


Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Peter Hyatt said...

Sitting through an hour of CNN was almost unbearable. Heather joked about not being trained as there is no way to shut down the hearing of additional wording.

CNN proves that real journalism is dead. News is dead. Now everything is opinion made to look like news. "Anchors" are nothing more than actors being paid very handsomely to read from the script.

My economic prof taught us to look at anything that is a line as a monopoly, or oligopoly. Reuters/AP/CP are owned by the same entity. That entity also has major holdings in cable networks. It's no wonder "everyone" is saying the same thing. So it must be true, right?


Nic said...

Peter Hyatt said...
The concentration camps in Germany were primarily for Jews.

Jews were killed due to an emotional reaction by the Germans. Jews were inconvenience to Nazi ideology.

What I have learned is that WWII was the war of the jews. There is a fundamental disagreement in the Jewish community. It boils down to Zionist v. Orthodox Jew (OJ’s believe there cannot be a Jewish state until after the Jewish messiah comes/they do not accept Jesus Christ as the messiah.)

In 1918, Israel was created by the Rothschilds to be their Zionist Jewish state (with the intention to rule the world). To make a long story short in 1917(?) the Brits were losing the war. Lionel Rothschild offered British Prime Minister Lloyd George to bring the US into the war in exchange for Palestine. But the Arabs owned Palestine. Essentially the British parachuted free opium and hashish to the Turkish troops with the intention to distract the troops from fighting. It worked. Enter the Balfour Declaration (easily searched and you will see that [it] was addressed to Rothschild). It has been argued through the last 75 years that it wasn’t the Brit’s to give away and there is a ton of information how this land has been divided up to what we know it to be today (see the Arab revolt/Arab-Israeli war/1949 cease-fire agreement). The Zionist mission was to migrate all jews to Israel, except that the Orthodox Jews didn’t buy into the Zionism “propaganda". They were very happy with their (rich) lives/life style, art, businesses, etc. Enter Hitler and his National Socialism (NA) party which wasn’t gaining much traction. The Zionists approached Hitler and proposed a merger, essentially to finance the NA and elevate the party. He got to be the “face” of the new party and they would "fund it". Hence the Nazi party party was born (NA) + (ZI).

The Nazi’s mission was to force the anti-zionist jews to accept Zionism. This is what the concentration camps were about. Camps were actually run by zionist jews. Their mission was to conquer anti-zionists or be rid of them with the intention of having only one grand party in the world (One World Order).

The rabbit hole is not singular. It's a very deep network. You could get lost for days in the labyrinth.

Does anyone else see any strong parallels from then to now? Legalization of marijuana/“war” on drugs (distraction) and FEMA camps/Agenda 21? Propaganda (MSM). The tearing down of the second Amendment which will never work because there are hundreds of thousands of long guns that have been handed down through the generations that the government will never know about.

The Federal Reserve is privately owned and they are the ones manipulating precious metals (gold) and fiat (US dollar). Their mission is to get everyone from using "cash" and on-line (credit cards, ATM cards). Easier for them to see what people are doing/ability to "yank" everything without any say.

Think about what has been revealed via Wikileaks (NSA’s monitoring of, literally, everyone via technology).

It all appears rather hopeless doesn’t it.


Nic said...

Reference my 9:13 am post and Trump being "prodded" along. Maybe it's "us" being prodded along. Maybe Trump's "win" was nothing more than epic gas-lighting. The reason why I say this is because talk has always swirled around Trump about being POTUS. He was even on Oprah Winfrey decades ago talking about (not) running. [They] say no one "wins" POTUS, they are chosen. Maybe Trump isn't as accidental as he appears to be.


hennie Wilson McCarley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hennie Wilson McCarley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jens Dahl said...

Hi Peter,
Now that we've had the Comey show and Trump's press conference, I was wondering, could you analyse those? We now have to directly conflicting accounts about which conversations took place and what was said in them, so (at least) one of them must be deceptive.
And should tapes turn ever up, we can check if the analysis was correct ;)
Best, Jens