Saturday, March 17, 2018
Investigation: Corrupt President or Corrupt Officials
Statement Analysis: The language guides us to discern deception apart from truth, content from tangent, and the ultimate unveiling of the speaker's background, experiences, priorities and dominant personality traits.
As there is a narrowing of the scope of information regarding allegations, there is a spreading of the cast of characters net, revealing a point of demarcation that is emerging.
Either the president of the United States is an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief due to criminal collusion and perverting of the voter process, or those in the widening circle involved in the investigation from the Barrack Obama administration, Republican and Democrat, are guilty of large scale criminality, exploitation and conspiracy to overrule democracy.
It is increasingly coming down to one or the other.
We seek truth and we seek its offspring, justice.
If justice is not served, history and human nature tells us: people, like nations, grow in corruption through successfully averting justice. It is desensitizing for the actors and for the audience. It is how nations begin the long steady decline towards corruption, demoralization and eventually collapse. This leads to armed conflict, revolution and violence as a "re set" button is sought.
There are many issues to observe but keeping our focus on the larger context is best for those seeking clarity.
We have questions that need answers.
Either Donald Trump is guilty of successfully hijacking democracy with illegal and intrusive Russian backing, or many others are guilty of an attempted hijacking of democracy, which is also from Russia, via Christopher Steele, the Russian Dossier, and the FISA warrants. This includes the Clinton server investigation, the Clinton Foundation, the Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting, the announcements by then Director James Comey, and the Mueller appointment and team.
President Versus Swamp or Honest Actors Versus Corrupt Trump?
If Donald Trump colluded, or was blackmailed by the Russian government into changing the actual voting results, he must be tried for crimes against the nation. Russian influence, like American influence in other nations' elections, is not criminal conspiracy or "collusion." False Facebook posts (estimated at .01%) suggest that the Russians sought to sow discord in our democracy. Others may debate its success. We seek to learn if criminal conspiracy was entered into and successfully overruled the democratic voice of the people. This could be treason and carry the death penalty. Our democracy, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, must be persevered with the severest possible consequence.
We note Paul Mannafort, Carter Page and General Flynn, thus far in the Special investigation by Robert Mueller and his team. Will these lead to both criminal collusion and Donald Trump?
Side A: Illegitimate Presidency regardless of success or failure, due to overruling the electorate.
Side B: elected, promoted and/or appointed officials, both Democrat and Republican who sought to overrule the electorate via the perversion of justice.
They are generally accused of seeking to also overrule the democratic will of the people, in favor of candidate, Hillary Clinton. These allegations include the sale of U.S. Uranium, via a third party, to the control of the Russians, "pay for play" donations to the Clinton Foundation, the illegal server, with information sent and received by President Obama, and all attendant crimes.
Regarding this and the Russian Dossier, there is a growing list of those accused of deception, lying to the FBI, perverting justice and destroying evidence. This include Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, and many others. This is Side B, accused of using a false report, bought and paid for by the Clintons, to nullify the election results.
What was the "Insurance Policy"?
Investigators with acute partisan emotion should not investigate the target of conflicted issue. Most will recuse themselves due to the inherent emotional-intellectual blinding that can take place. Others will be removed by superiors before an investigation is underway. It is the American way of justice.
Did James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and so many others, believe that Donald Trump, if elected, would present a clear and present danger to the nation, due to instability as Commander-in-Chief? This would include a very powerful factor in such dilemmas:
the lesser of two evils.
Even if, for example, James Comey knew that Hillary Clinton was corrupt, did he believe her preferable, for the nation, than Donald Trump?
Or did Comey and others genuinely believe Trump successfully changed the voters' will, illegally by criminal collusion with the Russian government? Did they feel they did not have enough time to complete this investigation?
Or was it the "insurance policy" in the event of the unlikely Trump victory?
These questions presuppose ethics; not personal gain or protection.
The American War for Independence: A Matter of Conscience
Remember our founding fathers all faced the death penalty if their illegal and armed resistance failed. John Hancock's large signature for the king to read was the proverbial "middle finger" to the legal and present governing of the colonies.
What caused the majority of farmers, merchants and common colonialists to put down their jobs and risk their lives where they had sworn allegiance with the king? What was the impetus that, if they had lost would have not only ended in their deaths, but history books would have them as a footnote of criminal insurgency.
The American War for Independence was not a "revolution" such as understood contextually by events in France. It was an armed resistance movement led by pulpits telling the average man that it was not a choice to fight, but a "duty" as the infringement of government made them no longer capable of providing for their families. Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Rex" was oft quoted while Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was more popular in France, pre war, than it was in the Colonies. The farmers and craftsmen were taught that their ability to pro
In fact, leaders took pains in their correspondence to distance themselves from being "revolutionaries bent upon destruction" and sought to construct future financial and trade negotiations on the premise of successful colonial independence.
The hated "Quartering Act" was, perhaps, the most foolish action of provocation to armed resistance. Consider the size of a man's home and what this armed intrusion meant to his wife and daughters, to grasp the emotional impact. Although I learned of this in school, it was not for many years later, when my daughter was a teen, that I grasped the danger and insult of this Act.
How frightening must it have been to the average farmer or tradesman?
Armed resistance to the most powerful military of its day had to come from deep emotional commitment to not only begin the fight, but to stay the course over years. The Quartering Act would be for many loyalists, or "independents", the turning point.
Did James Comey and others, all act due to conscience?
This is an important question to consider.
This is sometimes called the "Hitler Fantasy Effect" meaning:
If you could assassinate Adolph Hitler, early in the 1930's before he wrought death and destruction upon Europe, would you have done it?
If so, dependent upon the year in the 30's, you would have been executed as a criminal and dismissed as a fanatic, even by the United States.
This is the risk.
The narrative: yes, Trump had amazing business experience, but he is too erratic to be trusted with our nuclear arsenal, therefore, we know he won't be elected but if he is elected, we have "an insurance policy" to get him impeached, convicted and removed from office to save the nation from nuclear annihilation. The other side of this equation is the promise to "drain the swamp"; that is, to remove corrupt actors from government.
In his first year of office, the deregulations, tax cuts and push for businesses to return to America has been successful. Unemployment among black Americans, the increase in take home pay, the growth of 401K retirements, the reinvestment of major corporations into the US, as well as the routing of ISIS, bringing North Korea to negotiate, following the rule of law with illegal entrance into the nation, and other such successes are noted. But ends do not justify means and the main question still must be answered:
Were our votes literally changed or nullified by a Trump criminal conspiracy with Russia?
This must be answered if the rule of law will be maintained by us as a nation.
Does the decimation of the land control by ISIS counter the fears of those who may have attempted the "soft coup" through the Russian Dossier?
How will this impact the actors' statements?
How might it impact the ethical stance (if there was one) taken?
I urge readers to consider listening very carefully to the language and to include this discipline in following the authors on Twitter.
Twitter has become a strong platform for communication and is ripe for analysis.
Those in training know that a different paradigm exists for application, so caution is urged, due to the character limitation.
Avoid, when possible, narrative driven media and read the quotes for yourself. This is very challenging but those who understand the emotional drive within them can exercise self discipline.
Frequently in communication with analysts and friends in Europe, I learn that their opinion of the United States is almost always media driven. Some have expressed surprise when they hear not only a contrary opinion, but read statistics. Like us, they seek truth.
Ask yourself, "Why do I believe this?" and look to statements to guide you. It is, in deed, from the very depths of human nature that we, alone, communicate in complex language. From this immeasurable depth of thought and emotion, the brain chooses the words in a speed we are yet to measure accurately.
Psychological Need for "Others"
This is an oft cited principle within analysis. When the 5 year old comes home from school and mom says,
"The teacher called and said you were disruptive by...", and she is interrupted with,
"Yeah, but, Mom, everyone was..." response, we see how human nature seeks to cover guilt by increasing the "crowd" around him.
Note whenever tweets seek this psychological cover and diffusing of guilt.
Too frequently, those we root for are deceptive while those we believe to be our enemies, didn't "do it." The analyst must remain open and constantly remind himself or herself of natural prejudices.
Over time, the sought for neutrality becomes less challenging. Volume of analysis has a way of "taking over" and with formal training and self discipline, truth is discerned successfully.
Wherever this ends, it must end with justice.
As it unfolds before us, we can look at the statements and discern truth from deception, the reliable denial from the unreliable, and gain ever growing clarity into what is taking place before our eyes.
As relevant statements become available, analysis will be posted.
The language can guide us through the maze and outside the intention of narrative building in media.
up next: Andy McCabe's statement