Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Advanced Analysis: Unintended Recipient



An aspect of analysis is the "Unintended Recipient."

A basic  example of such:


a suspect speaks to a visitor in jail, with the visitor being the "intended recipient", while scripting his language towards the police, who, he knows, are recording his conversation.  

We are able to profile, in some cases, the identity of the "unintended recipient" based upon the language by the subject, in Advanced Analysis.  
Det. (ret) Steve Johnson 

Cindy Anthony spoke to her daughter, Casey, in jail knowing that each video would end up on television later that night.  While Cindy spoke, Casey was her "intended recipient" of information, but the national television audience was targeted as the formally, "unintended recipient."

In one of these conversations, Casey revealed that her daughter's remains would be located "very close" to the home.  

Another way of seeing this is if a seasoned and intelligent investigator gives a speech and the transcript shows him to be anything but intelligent, since he is intelligent, the answer must, by necessity, lay elsewhere. 

We note "scripted language" and "narrative building", which police often call intuitively, "story telling." 

Analysis used:  Linguistic Disposition of his audience reveals that the normally strong vocabulary used by the detective is not employed and we find that the transcript was of a speech given to junior high students.  

We may learn what the Detective thinks (linguistic disposition) of young teens in the analysis.  His speech is very different than the one he gave to peers.  


The Senate Judiciary Committee released a redacted top secret email Monday that Obama administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice appears to have sent herself just minutes after President Donald Trump took office.


The email contains Rice’s impressions from a January 5, 2017 meeting on “Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election” between then-President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, and “intelligence community leadership.”
In Unintended Recipient analysis,  we note "unnecessary information" as well as to note "scripted language". which is essential to unintended recipient analysis. 

Full text is here

This is a portion of the email: 



President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

Here is the email again with emphasis added. 

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

The Unintended Recipient:  national audience.  

Question:  Does the email reveal consciousness of guilt?

Doing things "by the book" is an unnecessary statement in context. That it is repeated is to increase sensitivity.  That this is information given to the FBI is unnecessary information. 

Why would a president need to tell law enforcement to work "by the book"?

Answer:  as unnecessary information, it is deemed 
doubly important.  As it is repeated, the sensitivity level goes up.  That the subject (author) had the need to accentuate this from the President via the word "stress" is to increase it even further. 

It is akin to the surveilled crime boss saying, "Remember guys, we don't steal or break any laws in our business..." while speaking into the known tipped off  hidden recording device. 

The focus is Susan Rice (author) clearing her boss, President Obama.

The word "stress" is repeated (sensitive) and it is also unnecessary. There is no reason for the President to tell the Director of the FBI:

1.  you don't do anything illegal 
2.  I need to repeat this to you
3.  In fact, I need to stress this to you.  

This is, in effect, a form of distancing from both James Comey and the intelligence community.  

To clear him, the unnecessary information is given new accentuation: 

a asking about
b. initiating 
c. or instructing

This is to expand the President's denial of "not" going "by the book" moving to Unreliable.  Please see prior analysis of President Obama's denial of interfering with law enforcement investigation into Hillary Clinton. 

a.  "asking about" is now seen in light of inquiry confirmed by the Strzok-Page text messages in which "POTUS" wants to know everything they are doing. 

b.  "initiating" This unnecessary emphasis invites investigators to learn of an initial action taken by the President. 

c.  "or instructing" now brings the President to a point of authority.  This unnecessary expansion of the denial suggests that portions of the investigation may have been not at the request, but the directive, of President Obama.  This is the type of unnecessary information that literally guides investigations into areas they may not have considered.  

It is to push the denial from "collusion" and "interfering" to actual authority and leadership.  

This is something that will likely involve the Tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in which investigators sought to learn the "leaker" rather than the investigation of criminal conspiracy between the husband of one under investigation, and the ultimate authority in indicting Hillary Clinton. 

The language is beneath the profile of Susan Rice.  She is well educated and highly intelligent.  This is consistent with some other talking points of hers that have been analyzed.  She is put into a position of discomfort.  The repetition may be seen as rudimentary and unlike what we would expect from her. 


Analysis Conclusion:  

The email reveals consciousness of guilt. 

The email suggests that both Susan Rice and President Obama are very likely willing to blame James Comey and the intelligence community in a future investigation or Grand Jury appearance. 

It extends the possible culpability of President Obama from collusion and interference, to actual direct responsibility in ordering  some aspects of the investigation.  

The investigation is likely plural, including not only the illegal home server, deletion of 30,000 emails, the use of "bleach bit", physical destruction of communication devices, but also into the Uranium One sale to Russia, Russian collusion into aborting the sitting president (Trump) as well as the donations to the Foundation which led to face-to-face meetings with Secretary Clinton as well as favorable outcomes to the donators.  


16 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.crimeonline.com/2018/02/13/hear-moms-frenzied-911-call-after-her-daughter-cherish-perrywinkle-disappears-from-walmart/

Ot

Hear mom’s frenzied 911 call after her daughter, Cherish Perrywinkle, disappears from Walmart

Includes transcript

General P. Malaise said...


" ... every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ ...."

does the parenthesis around `by the book` mean Rice is distancing herself from the comments?

she gives priority and elevated importance to the "Intelligence" community by capitalising. she is closer to and has more respect for them (not necessarily a good thing since they are being partisan). it could also indicate that the administration was working closely with intelligence, more so than that law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Those are quotation marks. Parentheses look like (this).

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Those are quotation marks. Parentheses look like (this).

yes you are correct.

Peter Hyatt said...

We should consider reluctance on the part of Rice.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Great article! You should check out Trey Gowdy interrogating Hillary Clinton--it's entertaining!

Anonymous said...

I agree with the CYA aspect of the email, but the key piece is about the Russia investigation and the sensitivity is about the "national security" perspective mentioned after the passage.

Remember, Susan Rice's incoming replacement, that she would need to share national security info with, was Michael Flynn. Since he was a subject of the investigation, what was she ordered to do in regards to sharing info about the investigation involving the very person taking her national security role?

Anonymous said...

@12:33, The guy who killed Periwinkle should be thrown in a pit and torn limb from limb by lions. What a sick piece of sh&T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I just listened to a few minutes of the Periwinkle 911 call: What a trashy horrible bitch: She sold her daughter for McDonald's food and clothes and whatever else and let the perv take the daughter into the dressing rooms twice and didn't say anything "because she didn't want to seem overprotective"?!?! What a perverted TRASHY BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The investigation is likely plural, including not only the illegal home server, deletion of 30,000 emails, the use of "bleach bit", physical destruction of communication devices, but also into the Uranium One sale to Russia, Russian collusion into aborting the sitting president (Trump) as well as the donations to the Foundation which led to face-to-face meetings with Secretary Clinton as well as favorable outcomes to the donators.

Based on what? The other parts of the email provide a clear context.

Amelia Kornprobst said...

She said that Obama began the conversation “by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.'”

“The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book."

“From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,”


The investigation should continue 'by the book' however, the national security aspect might not continue "by the book" because some of the very people being investigated (Flynn, for example) are the ones who would receive information about the investigation.

This comes after the redacted paragraph:

“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.”

Unclear what was in the redacted paragraph. Either they were told to inform the incoming team as they normally would ("by the book") or they were told to make exceptions. If they (FBI and DOJ) changed their mind on that decision, they should inform the White House.

She uses "by the book" to contrast that which is done as expected (the investigation) with that which is not or might not be (informing the new White House).

Peter Hyatt said...

A contextual view:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456435/rice-email-reveals-plan-dont-tell-trump-hes-being-investigated


Bobcat said...

OT:

Interesting samples from the Florida school shooter, and a youtuber who reported his threat.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/the-fbi-was-warned-about-a-school-shooting-threat-from?utm_term=.tfp427nYJ#.fgPAWm6jq

Anonymous said...

susan rice has done nothing since her abhorrent association with bho
at great expense to all of us but lie, lie, and more lies for her boss.
She is the bought and paid for all purpose stooge for bho. Will her
obscene fawning never end?
,,

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't know but think Susan Rice will not take the heat alone.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Peter Hyatt said...
I don't know but think Susan Rice will not take the heat alone.

who ever goes after her and cabal may end up the new McCarthy. I'm for using the patriot act here.