Sunday, March 18, 2018

Statement Analysis: Andrew McCabe

The following is the statement released by Andrew McCabe. The analysis is of the statement itself, recognizing that it is a prepared statement; not the free editing of one who is speaking.

The context is important.

The FBI recommended his firing for both leaking of documents and being deceptive under oath.

The recommendation was echoed by President Trump, and followed by Jeff Sessions.

This contexts tells us what we may expect.

We expect a simple reliable denial from the subject, which sets up the legal recourse to follow. Remember, there is no legal negative consequence for one who says, "I didn't do it." When one is accused, this expectation remains whether it is in a written reply or when one is freely speaking freely, as in an interview or open statement. It is also a priority and, if true, will show strength within language, with little, if any, need for buttressing. If one "did not do it", there becomes little that is needed to be stated.

Given the context of both potential loss of pension and possible loss of freedom through prosecution, the Reliable Denial becomes an expected priority. "I did not lie under oath" or "I did not break the law when I..."

The "psychological wall of truth" is very powerful.


What will the analysis show?

I. The Statement
II. The Statement with analysis (emphasis added)
III. The Analysis Conclusion

I. The statement as distributed to media:





STATEMENT BY ANDREW McCABE


I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.
For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President’s tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.
No more.
The investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI’s involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.    
The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.
But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.
Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey’s accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG’s focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday’s comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.     
This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel’s work.
I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.
I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.

II. The Statement With Analysis, Emphasis Added


STATEMENT BY ANDREW McCABE


I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.

This is where the subject began his statement, elevating it in importance. After introducing his length of service, the first "external noun" used is "Russian Organized Crime." It is, therefore, very important to the subject that he bring to his audience's thinking, "Russia." He classifies this as "half" of "that time" (distancing from) as a "street agent." The term "street" agent is interesting. It is not a "Special Agent" (above) but a term that associates with rank and file.

He next introduces another locale, "New York City" after "Russia" associated with "Organized Crime."

It is noted that the President of the United States, who publicly supported the FBI recommendation of terminating the subject, is from NYC, the borough of Queens.

He then reports the "second half" of his 21 year career spent "focusing" on national security. He then states after this "focus" that he was "protecting" "this" (psychological closeness) country from "terrorism."

We have Russian Organized Crime, specifically identified as half his work and nondescript "terrorism" for the second half. He does not state "Islamic terrorism", even though he identifies "New York City" where the famous Twin Towers were destroyed, with thousands of American lives lost.

The "Good Guy" principle of Statement Analysis is noted. This is when one has the need to portray oneself in a positive light; often indicating the opposite. It is often associated with projective guilt. Recall the context: He has just been fired by the U.S. Attorney General, upon the recommendation of the FBI, itself.

In comparing the two halves of his career, we note which came first (which is chronologically listed) and which was given a specific designation.  We therefore see that "Russian Organized Crime" is elevated above "terrorism" in his language.  

This could be due to various reasons. It is interesting to note that he does not say "first organized crime, and then terrorism" but specifically "Russian" organized crime, preceding terrorism that has no such designation. 

For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. 

Chronologically he now moves to a parenthetical view. He covered his entire career, and not goes, sequentially, to the most recent "year and a half" of his career.

He lists his family ahead of himself in priority.

We still wait to hear him deny the allegations which the FBI stated in their recommendation of termination.

One may want to know why he has listed his family in this context of allegations.
Rather than deny the allegations, he takes upon self the status of victim for himself.

This is to employ a tangent to the statement.

Going out of sequence elevates this portion of his statement in importance.

He wrote that his family's reputation has been "assaulted" as well as his "service" to the country. The pronoun "our" is used in the former and "my" in the latter.

Reported: while supervising the Hillary Clinton investigation, his wife received a very large donation from Hillary Clinton associate. It was reported to be disproportionately large compared to other donations and the office sought.

His family has not been terminated nor accused by the Bureau. The donation from Clinton supporter has not been reported to have been illegal. The reports focused upon the conflict of interest of a wife of an investigator receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us.

As we wait for him to deny the allegations, he now uses hyperbole in his statement. The articles are "too numerous to count" is stated in an era of quick data base search capabilities.

The allegation against "us", not "me" are of "every sort of false, defamatory and degradation" continues with hyperbolic language. This is a distinct "need to persuade" rather than truthfully report.

Plurality and Guilt

In Statement Analysis 101, analysts know what moms of young children know: human nature does not like to be alone with guilt. It loves to be alone with credit, but not guilt.

"Tommy, teacher called and said you were disruptive today..." is met by

"Mom! Everyone was..."

This linguistic form of "crowd sourcing" seeks to minimize or dilute guilt by the use of "others."

We follow his pronouns and note how he goes from singular to plural, though only he was terminated and only he stands accused.

The need for "others" is a signal not only of the need to hide or cover oneself (lost in the crowd) but when repeated, will sometimes  lead advanced analysis to conclude a personalty trait that is not "strong on personal responsibility."

This is sometimes seen where one linguistically claims to take personal responsibility rather than one who takes personal responsibility. 

The excuse making begins in childhood and human nature does not change, though the means become more sophisticated, the theme remains. 

We need him to identify what was false; because it is impossible that "every false" accusation was made.  

We also need him to issue the Reliable Denial, long recognized as three simple components:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't" (statistically, there is no difference between the two)
3.  The allegation addressed. 

"I did not lie under oath" would be very strong.  If followed up with "this is the truth", it would be 99.9% likely true stated freely by the subject. Yet even in writing, it is still very strong and likely to be proven accurate. 

Recall as part of his priority, he specified what type of crime he was involved in as a special agent:  organize crime. 

Yet, it was not just "organized crime" but he gave the ethnic or national source to this specific crime:  "Russian organized crime."  He did not designate "terrorism" with any specific type of crime, ideology or national status. 

We may now know why he has employed these words: 

The President’s tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. 

After making "Russian organized crime" a priority and emphasis, he now introduces the tweets (short communications) of the "President." This is another significant "name" (as designated by Statement Analysis principles) after "Russian": identifying the president. The choice of wording is interesting.

He does not deny lying under oath, but that he and his family were under incessant "assault" from articles about them and about him. He does not identify what these endless articles allege, but uses hyperbole to persuade. He now states that "these" were:

a. amplified
b. exacerbated

by the tweets.

To "amplify" it to enlarge or make louder. He does not identify what was alleged, but the unidentified allegations were made louder, or more visible, by the tweets.

Next, they were "exacerbated" which is to say they brought more impact.

It is to bring to question what these incessant every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us" were unless he states them. The avoidance of such, that is, the withholding of this information becomes more convoluted by the pronoun usage.

Who attacked his family in these articles?
What did they claim?
Why did they produce hyperbole?
What impact did tweeting have upon the specific office within the FBI that recommended his termination?

He raises more questions than he answers, and has not yet denied the known allegations.


He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. 

Note "he called for my firing" is a very short sentence, indicative of reliability.

Note the inclusion of "pension" (money) and the repetition of the years of service.

Note the difference in length of the sentences with emotion often producing longer sentences.

Note the use of the word "stripped" as you look over the statement claim of
"Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us."

Note also that he has first ascribed the accusations to "articles" and then to "tweets" but not the FBI's formal internal assessment and recommendation.

This is very important.

Statement Analysis deals with what one tells us, and what one does not tell us.

And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.

He now employs the tangent. It would be interesting to learn how a single statement from him denying the allegation would have impacted the "mission of the FBI", conducting criminal investigations around the country, would have happened.
Had he said, "I did not lie" or "I did not obstruct justice", would FBI agents working on counter terrorism, kidnapping, drug running, etc, throughout the 50 states, been impacted?

The analyst should consider either inflation of self worth, or the unnecessary implement of a tangent using false value.

Note the pronoun change from "my" to "we."

This is where we encounter a tool of deception intended to deflect guilt and create an unnatural alliance.

The FBI, itself, is not under "assault."  

35,000 employees are not accused of lying under oath, illegally leaking out classified information, withholding critical information from judges, partisan political activities, etc. In fact, agents were out doing their work and after James Comey said he was re-opening the Clinton investigation, many were confident that Hillary Clinton would be indicted. Later, Comey publicly outlined her basic offenses, but declared that "no prosecution" should be made.

The Psychological Need for Others

This is the "crowds" ultimate signal of guilt in seeking to align himself with others; here, the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation to mean:

"you don't attack me, but every man and woman of the FBI who defends our nation..."

It is the psychological need to bring an entire army to a fist fight.

It is to change the "victim" to an entire organization.

It is the single most direct linguistic point that tells the analyst that this subject has done things in which he cannot reliably deny nor stand alone and face.

This should be seen in progression, from "I" to "we" (family) to an entity that employs tens of thousands.

It is, in effect to say, "you hate the FBI."

It is similar to inflammatory language commonly employed in politics by politicians with guilt. It is no different than the kindergarten child's claim that "everybody was doing it."

He has:

1. Not denied the allegations yet
2. Not assigned responsibility to the FBI's office that recommended his termination
3. Not stood alone but sought psychological cover of first family and then entity
4. introduced "Russia" into his termination

No more.
The investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. 

As we wait for his denial, we now have a "hina clause"; that is, an explanation of "why", without being asked, this is an attack on the "mission of the FBI."

The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI’s involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. 

We now have another name entering his statement following his termination: Hillary Clinton.

The investigation conducted by the FBI has become more publicly known with the statements made by James Comey, as well as the revealed tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, the failure to memorialize the interview, and the physical destruction of communication devices.

Note two separate issues brought together:

1. The FBI's "involvement"
2. "my supervision"

One might question why this is "involvement" (his word) and not the FBI's "investigation."

It may be that in the near future, the subject's attorneys will lament the disclosing of this statement. The FBI doesn't "involve", it investigated the accusations against Hillary Clinton.

This is similar to an embedded admission on the part of Andrew McCabe.

Under his supervision, the FBI got "involved" rather than "investigated."

Recall Loretta Lynch's insistence to Comey that the investigation be labeled a "matter."

I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. 

Here he identifies, via associative language ("over and over") what the incessant "assaults" were:

he was accused of closing down investigations.

We now need to hear him deny this. Yet, his supervision is cited but he does not want to stand against the accusations alone:

The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. 

This is to shift responsibility for his supervision away from himself and to "portray", again, as an attack on the FBI, itself. 

35,000 employees are not accused.  

35,000 employees were not terminated.

The need for "others" is acute. This is extremely sensitive information to the subject.

He then issues a denial:

Nothing was further from the truth. 

This is an unreliable denial and it avoids addressing:

1. Himself as the accused
2. What he was accused of
3. A connection to the event

He does not say "nothing is further from the truth" but nothing "was" further from the truth.

This is especially note-worthy given the Peter Strzok-Lisa Page text messages regarding the investigation (not involvement), their open partisan stances, and the direct connection to the subject ("Andy") in their messages.

The word "involvement" comes close to an embedded admission of his directives (supervision) and is likely "leakage" within the emotional statement. "Involvement" goes beyond the scope of an investigation. This now leads to many more questions needing answers.

In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.    

Those involved in this dispute should take note of this sentence. In it, the subject tells us he is willing to oppose those who are in the Dept. of Justice, now that he is terminated and under threat of losing his pension and possibly, his freedom.

He reveals that the "entire investigation" was from his "efforts" and that these efforts were opposed by another government entity: the Dept. of Justice.

The wording is fascinating.

Note that he does not say "that the DOJ opposed." This is critical.

He separates specifically from the organization; something he is not wiling to do with the FBI.

It is not the DOJ that opposed his efforts to investigate Hillary Clinton (we do not know if this is only the illegal server, of if he is referring to Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, etc).

It is not DOJ that opposed his efforts, it is people in the DOJ.

The subject is very likely to name names in order to save his pension.

In naming organizations, it is only here, with the DOJ, that he is willing to separate individuals from entity.

This is a vital part of his statement. The specific "people" who opposed the investigation should be very concerned.
The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, 

Social Introductions: 

Statement Analysis recognizes that social introductions give us indication of the quality of relationship. Incomplete Social Introductions, in particular, suggest troubled relationship at this point in the statement.

We have two people introduced here. 

1. "my public affairs officer" is unnecessarily listed, without a name, as a degree of separation from the disclosure of information to media. This is to distance himself from his action and the specific unnamed officer should take careful note of this.

2. Next, we have the shifting of blame, again, to "the Director", without using the name. This "incomplete social introduction" is exasperated below when he uses "James Comey" in the text following.

This is indicative of the issue raised of "personal responsibility." Media reported that in the weeks after the FBI internal investigation recommended his termination, he said he would "torch the FBI"; that is, to "name names." Here we see the linguistic evidence that the subject will shift blame to others.

The "low personal responsibility" may have become a survival technique over the years, but it is evidenced in his statement repeatedly and may be a warning to those within the FBI now, rather than only the Dept. of Justice.


were aware of the interaction with the reporter. 

a. "were aware" is passive voice
b. "interaction" is to avoid disclosure

The passivity is consistent with avoiding responsibility of the action and the use of "interaction" is minimizing language. Both indicative of guilt.

He now characterizes the disclosure of information with the introduction of a change of language;

It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week.

This is the "Normal Factor" in analysis. Even young children recognize,

"Once upon a time, it was a day like every other..." is going to introduce something special and unique. We see this in employment theft routinely:

"What did I do that day the money went missing? Well, I first typed out my report, like I always do, and then I..."

The "Normal Factor" or principle tells us to the contrary. In child molestation cases, "I am a normal man" or "I am happily married!" as deflective defensive technique. It tells us that he is anything but "normal" and he thinks that being married excludes pedophilia.

By the subject telling us what the "Deputy Director" does, he is revealing that he is acutely aware of the illicit action he was involved in, which is why he brings in his assistant and the Director's awareness. He is blame shifting and he is telling them: 
"I will name names."

He now targets another FBI employee. This is why he is seeking to make his termination an attack on the FBI: he is projecting his own attack on FBI (and DOJ) employees:

In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request

He now introduces "Director Wray" and, unnecessarily, adds that his actions came at the request of Director Wray.

Director Wray is now added to the list of those he may turn against to save his pension.

He now uses a tangent, with more "persons" introduced:

The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth.

The identity of the media person is not given, but it is important enough for him to list here among all the people in his statement.


During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.

Here we have reliable information given. We also have some points that others might consider carefully.
But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.
Here is the reality: 

This is to avoid stating a reliable denial, instead introducing "reality", which presupposes fiction, yet, without stating it.


I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey’s accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG’s focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday’s comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.     
This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally.

He now extends the "crowd" beyond 35,000 FBI employees to include "law enforcement", estimated at 1,100,000 employees and thousands more "intelligence professionals."

This is guilt and an acute, extreme need to be only "one in a million who have all done the same thing" as the subject. Literally, it is beyond the "one in a million" number, but should suffice to know that the subject is aware of his own guilt, even as he sought not so much to justify, but to conceal.


It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel’s work.
I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.

He does not deny lying but says he was "distracted" in the midst of "chaotic events." This is the language of emotion.

It is important to note the order of words.

Here he says it was "disappointing" and it was "unfair."

He does not deny lying.

1. disappointing
2. unfair

1. He was "disappointed." This is then made sensitive by the word "incredibly." To be "disappointed" one must have an expectation. The subject expected to be treated differently than he was (direct questions). This is also consistent with his low personal responsibility and shows how emotion can disconnect logic. This is where people are said to have "lost touch" with the rule of law. Before he accuses the process of being questioned "unfair", he reports his expectation was not met, so dramatically, that he experienced humiliation.

He expected treatment different than what he, himself as a field or "street" agent in NYC would have given to subjects. This speaks to his mindset.

2. Unfair is only listed second and has no qualifier. This is to indicate the emotion found within this recall.

Note what this leads to: "it will not erase the important work..."

This is the language of humiliation.

Humiliation fills the subject with resolve.
I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.

He continues to deflect accusations to deceptively claim that the "men and women of the FBI" are accused when they are not. This is an acute psychological need to not only mitigate guilt, but to be "lost in the crowd" of it. That he conflated the accusation against himself as against "the men and women" of the FBI indicates more than just the continued seeking of shelter from the guilt, but its repetition and inflation (emotion) combined with humiliation indicates he will target "men and women" within the FBI, in his attack to defend himself and his reputation and his pension.


Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated.

The subject has specific guilt and likely should not have made this statement.

He does not deny the allegations; therefore, we cannot deny the allegations for him. If he is unwilling or unable to say he did not do it, we are not permitted to say it for him.

He attacks others rather than deny, and he consistently blames others and indicates his willingness to attack those within the FBI and the Dept. of Justice. He may even be willing to cast blame upon a reporter.

He attacks his accusers, rather than deny the accusations.
He assigns motives to his accusers, rather than deny the accusations. These are all indicators of guilt, but also of something else:

Personality.

Lance Armstrong showed sociopathic like tendencies in his competition. He was not only deceptive, but he was the "moral voice" against performance enhancing drug use in his sport. He did not, at any time, issue a reliable denial. He did, however, use two techniques:

1. He attacked his accusers, threatening and making good on threats, to destroy them.
2. He moralized or in Statement Analysis, issued "sermons."

He is a pathological liar who, even when confessing to Oprah, continued to employ deception. He is, today, a good sample for investigators to study deception detection.

However, the language analyzed of Lance Armstrong did not show humiliation as a powerful base. True, he experienced it, but in the psycho-linguistic profile, it was not a priority. In fact, he was "low" on emotion in many statements involving the accusations. This is indicative of life long lying and the expectation of being successful in deception. Those who knew him in childhood could likely testify of such.

This is not the case of McCabe.

Our subject, Andrew McCabe, has also attacked others and he has moralized (or "virtue signaled", though not to the degree of James Comey).

McCabe does not indicate habitual or pathological lying. This is not likely the source that it was in the Armstrong language. With Andrew McCabe, it is something else driving his language.

He does not address the FBI's internal investigation that recommended to the Attorney General that he be terminated. This was reported by the Wall Street Journal and quoted by the Attorney General. The lying was reported by the Washington Post.

Jeff Sessions either had to terminate Andrew McCabe or overrule the recommendation of the FBI. The FBI's "Office of Professional Responsibility" report entered the language of McCabe in the statement but as the internal investigatory unit of the FBI, it was not addressed. This would have created conflict of blaming the FBI itself (entity) while claiming the FBI entity was "under attack" by his termination. According to the Wall Street Journal, it was the Inspector General's report from the Dept. of Justice that concluded that McCabe authorized the leaking of sensitive information to the Wall Street Journal.

Looking Ahead.

Analysis is used to construct the strategy and specific tactics of an interview and is able to predict how a subject is likely to answer questions. It can guide an overall investigation with the dominant personality traits of a subject. In this lengthy statement, we learn that the subject is linguistically signaling his willingness to "torch the FBI", Dept. of Justice and others as a priority due to the volume and strength of these unnecessary sentences.

He attacks the president, but most importantly, he reveals that there are "people" (identity) who he knows personally, who sought to pervert justice by getting him to drop the Clinton investigation. This should be of great concern to others as well as an indicator to future prosecutors that the subject is amenable to making a deal. It also sheds light on the James Comey analysis in which Comey was indicated for deception and that Comey's language showed conflicted ethics.

A complex human: Understanding the power of guilt as seen in projection.

Like many others in public service, it is also reliable that he has done many good things in his career, for the nation. He reliably reports this, even though the context is: "forget my crime and remember the good." This is why "unfair" enters his language; it does not seem fair that he was treated the way he treated criminal suspects. This is the "thou art the man" David moment when Nathan gave David the story of one who stole a neighbor's lamb and served it for dinner to his house guest. David projected guilt by declaring not only payback (fair) but the death penalty for the rich thief. Nathan said, "thou art the man", that is, you, the King, have just pronounced the sentence to be executed.

David said, "I have sinned" which is to submit to the pronounced sentence.

McCabe does not indicate pathological lying but one who is now in earnest to clear his name, gain his pension and, possibly, seek justice by blaming others. His guilt is acute and it is personally felt. This is not "sociopathic like" in response. The guilt deeply moves him.

He reveals an acute political pressure that has caused an emotional reaction. He may have even sought conviction of Hillary Clinton and was torn, not only by internal pressure from the Obama Dept. of Justice, but like Peter Strzok recognized, Hillary was set to be his new boss.

The ethics are complex, difficult and he indicates both this difficulty and his own need to cover his guilt. It is very difficult for him to see how one case (Clinton) could taint his entire career.  

It is as if to consider: After 21 years of dealing with criminals, how did this one person's crime destroy his 21 years?

The subject does not present strong on personal responsibility, but this may be a "learned characteristic" from his bureaucratic climb within an organization that became increasingly politicized as he ascended. We would need more sample, outside the context of this accusation of corruption, to know if it is personality driven. It does not, at this time, appear as such. He appears reactionary by the degree of emotion.

I believe he may have begun his career ideallistticlaly and honorably but likely resents the Clintons as so many of their close supporters have come to rue the day they became entangled with them. I believe that he likely has a very good record (not perfect) up to the point of the Clinton corruption investigations.

The Clintons, too, should be aware of his high level emotion that is evident in this statement. James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Wray and others associated with the Clinton investigation are all possible targets of McCabe's earnest drive.

His words indicate humiliation. The need to begin with his career, and to reference it repeatedly give us this information, but it is within the specific wording that we see how precious his name is to him.

Russian Collusion Investigation

His tangent that he was terminated to thwart the "Russian investigation" is not indicated as a position of strength in his language. It does not create the emotional reaction but is an "add on" given without detail. This means the subject's commitment to blaming his termination as an attempt to stop the Russian investigation is not strong. He, himself, does not believe it but it may be a tool not only of distraction (tangent) but a temporary delay for the defense he has planned. One should consider this as a possible "olive branch" to those involved in the "insurance policy" controversy, but if they fail to find criminal collusion in the election process, it will not stop his self defense.

Humiliation

Humiliation is one of life's most powerful "triggers" in criminal activity.

When one experiences humiliation, they can go for decades replaying the situation in the mind saying to oneself, "if I could do it all over again...you know, I should have said..." as if it happened yesterday. This is a signal of humiliation. It is often the trigger for illicit behavior and is also used as justification for criminal action.

When one is considering theft against his employer, for example, he may hesitate as he weighs the possible consequences. "I don't want to lose my job. I don't want to go to jail..." Should his boss humiliate him, this could lead him to a state of emotional blindness, negating the negative external consequences, and go ahead with his theft.

We find humiliation behind stranger rapes, for example, where the rapist felt "humiliated" by rejection (even if not from the victim) and acted out in rage.

We find humiliation the trigger of planned terrorism. The terrorist may plan and plan, but to actually go through with it often requires humiliation.

Anonymous Threatening Letters may be thought of, and even written out, but most people will eventually tear them up. 

What causes the author to actually mail the letter?

Analysts are trained to look for the point of humiliation in the statement and if not found, in the interview itself, after the author has been identified.

There is generally a point of humiliation where the author could bear no more, and went through with the planning and execution.

Andrew McCabe's statement is one of humiliation.

He became entangled with Hillary Clinton first, through his work, but then upon accepting a large donation from the Clinton compatriot, he allowed his family to be drawn in.

The investigation, itself, could have had the same effect. Few believe that Hillary Clinton "forgot" she was not supposed to delete 30,000 emails, and was "befuddled" to the point of not knowing that a private server, porous as it was according to Comey, was not legal. Or that using "bleach bit" to erase information, or to physically destroy information, was "normal" business as usual. The investigation connected to the illegal server included hacking of the server which raised the question, "Was this deliberately porous?" for investigators. This included having to investigate or ignore the major donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign actors who gained favorable status from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Once the home server was opened, it meant trained professional investigators would begin peeling back layer after layer.

What would they do with the information?

These are not decisions made by "the FBI" or "the men and women of the FBI."

These are decisions made by a small circle that began with the Director, assistant director, and specifically chosen personnel, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, with findings routinely reported back to McCabe. This is not unusual nor unexpected in a high profile investigation that concerns the entire nation.

The leadership of the FBI made the decision, perhaps under great pressure from the Obama Dept. of Justice, to not recommend Hillary Clinton for prosecution. 

This stunned the nation as Comey laid out the crimes committed.

The nation also watched as a young navy man was imprisoned for taking a picture of his submarine and showing it to his family.  

The absurdity is not something lost on the intellects of Andrew McCabe or James Comey. The pressure they felt may have been immense and may be more than we might expect. The tweeting by Comey indicates projective guilt and his defense of McCabe should also be considered in light of the investigation and an attempt at unity. This statement by McCabe addresses this element.

To compound all of this was the extreme partisan tones of the investigators as revealed in both text messages and in connections, including personal.

Like James Comey, Andrew McCabe reportedly "took notes" of his conversations with Trump. This stands in stark contrast to the official interview of Hillary Clinton which was not recorded, transcribed, video taped, or even that notes exist. The lack of memorial, by itself, is scandalous.

Andrew McCabe is open to negotiation regarding this widening scandal and is not likely to back down to threats or even overtures of unity from others, such as James Comey.

As this plays out we will learn that either President Donald Trump is, as claimed, a tool of the Russian government, treasonous to the United States as he criminally conspired to delete votes, or...

The corruption is, as described, by President Trump and the "swamp draining" is begun in earnest and those associated with the Hillary Clinton investigation lied to Congress, to the FBI, and acted in a criminal conspiratorial manner to protect the person they believed would be their future boss.

This action, if true, would be justified by them with the belief that Donald Trump posed a risk of nuclear annihilation.

As time goes by and the economy continues its growth and should the president experience success with North Korea, the justification will become more and more difficult to use.

If these officials acted in an illegal manner for Hillary Clinton:

Did they do so reluctantly because of pressure from the Obama administration?

Did they do so willingly to protect the nation from their belief of nuclear annihilation?

Did they act solely to promote and protect self, believing that they were now investigating their boss, who will be elected by landslide?

The question: Did they do so because they knew the Russian Dossier was true? This question has been answered by James Comey's testimony of "salacious and unverified."

Andrew McCabe statement indicates the anger of humiliation. The subject looks back upon a 21 year career and is angry. He sees others who have amassed great wealth, including book deals and speaking fees and has suddenly lost, at age 49, a retirement package of more than 1 million dollars.

Yet his reputation is very sensitive to him, and as a trained attorney, it is not expected to see such as lengthy statement full of emotion (note length and hyperbole).

This is a man driven by humiliation. He is under acute pressure and stress. He faces not only the loss of his retirement account, but possibly loss of personal freedom through a criminal investigation.

If so, his willingness to negotiate should be well noted.

His attempt to classify the accusations against him as an attack on the FBI are very likely projection of his own tactic.

I do not know if he actually said he would "torch" the FBI, but the theme is in his statement and with the presence of humiliation, if tested, it becomes "probable."

It is very difficult to satiate humiliation or to control someone under its spell.

It is the number one trigger that moves people from thought to action in many forms of criminal and retribution action. A subject under humiliation is filled with resolve and is considered a "loose cannon." They are capable of going to extremes, including with a lack of self preservation due to the blind rage felt.

His statement about not erasing the work he was privileged to be a part of included the words "will be revealed in the end."

I believe him. It is directly related to his work on the Clinton case and it has likely brought him into self conflict. If he was, in deed, coerced in any manner by the Dept. of Justice, James Comey, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and anyone else, he will likely reveal it.

If he has evidence that all of these actors were in the moral right because Donald Trump worked with Russia and changed the votes of America, he will reveal likely it.

It would take a powerful mitigating factor to take the subject off this course of revelation.

In human nature, humiliation is very difficult to assuage in all circumstance.

This statement is one of humiliation and deception.

It is the worst possible combination.



21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hopefully he doesn't end up like Vince Foster.

Anonymous said...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-sen-rand-paul-on-face-the-nation-march-18-2018/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab5i&linkId=49402916

Transcript: Sen. Rand Paul on "Face the Nation," March 18, 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions accepted the recommendation of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility and fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe on Friday, just hours before the career FBI employee was eligible for retirement. President Trump celebrated McCabe's ouster, a move many said could send a chill through the ranks federal law enforcement.

Sen. Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, joined us to discuss his reaction to the firing, the reasoning for McCabe's dismissal and Paul's plans to oppose Mr. Trump's nominee for CIA director, Gina Haspel, over concerns about her level of involvement in the agency's torture program in the early 2000s.

The following (in link) is a transcript of the interview with Paul that aired Sunday, March 18, 2018, on "Face the Nation."

Anonymous said...

The Trump campaign need not have "changed the votes" in the election. That's only one potential crime. Conspiring with a foreign government to impact the election can be a crime even if no votes were changed, especially if Russians gave the campaign anything of value, like opposition research or paid for Facebook ads they created.

ima.grandma said...

"my family and I"
"our reputation" 
"we" have said nothing 'never' wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about "us."

Humiliation is a public failure involving abasement of pride and dignity; with it comes a loss of status and standing. Humiliation is a two player process, a victimizer and a victim.

Their (family) situation is a private failure of their own doing amounting to painful self-realization. They victimized themselves playing a dual role. This is where the deception comes into play.

Anonymous said...

Humiliation is the currency of the blackmailer

ima.grandma said...

True enough. The blackmailer is the only one to gain, no matter how much the humiliated pay.

Rudy said...

This stands in stark contrast to the official interview of Hillary Clinton which was not recorded, transcribed, video taped, or even that notes exist.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/09/02/fbi-publishes-notes-its-interviews-with-hillary-clinton/UQPZcZpHb3MiY1AkQuXHKP/story.html

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Statement_on_FBI_-_Clinton.pdf


Anonymous said...

Great analysis!

It's amazing how few perps or media analysts understand how weak these kinds of statements are. Whining about accusations that you aren't willing to deny seems crazy. But the psychological process is easy enough to understand, thanks to you. They act indignant, try to *suggest* their innocence, but try to avoid directly lying. And it leads to what look like, at least to the trained eye, ridiculous statements in which they don't even say they didn't do it!

I hope you are right about McCabe's willingness to name names.

He must be angry at the Clintons and the rest of the extended anti-Trump cabal by now. They ruined his reputation by inducing him, one way or another, to violate laws, ethics, decency, patriotism, etc.

Peter Hyatt said...

The emotional intensity of the language suggests that Andrew McCabe is an honest person. He may have been pressured into this position by powers outside of him, but I do not get the sense of a pathology of deception.

Rep. Adam Schiff's language is important for those who wish to learn.

McCabe and Schiff will example polar opposites. Whereas McCabe is not skilled in deception, Schiff shows a recklessness which makes discernment less challenging, but also puts him into a category of rarity.

President Donald Trump's language is incessant in deception each time a negotiation element is present. As he learns politics, I expect this to continue. One should always consider, "What does he want?" and "Why does he do this?" no matter how they feel about the political issue or him personally. When it comes to allegations, the negotiations are not in play.

James Comey's language indicates a much higher degree of projected guilt. He does not have McCabe's awkwardness or actual outrage. Comey's outrage is artificial editing (see the unnecessary elements).

We are in yet another position where samples are generously supplied for us.

For those who are in training, please take advantage of this in your submissions.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

No memorial of the Clinton interview is corruption.

What concerns me about this is the expectation of James Comey, as director, who gave this order and was not hindered by fear of consequence.

Trigger said...

Great, great post!

You are so right, Peter. Andrew McCabe is conflicted and needs resolution. I hope that Andrew McCabe's integrity wins out and allows him to change his guilt and humiliation into confession and peace.

He is hanging over a caldron of boiling oil fueled by the pressure of the influence of the Clinton machine. The man needs to fess up and acknowledge his part in this charade that President Trump is a Russian puppet.

I hope that the fear of consequences loosens up some tongues so that others are exposed and made accountable for this fabricated "dossier" in an attempt to rig a presidential election, then used as an attempt to sabotage the elected president when the plan fails.









Anonymous said...

OT: Good example of "Expected":

Speaking at the press conference [video below] Mark's mother said, "My name is Lisa Lynne Dombrowski. We arrived at your beautiful island of Bermuda on Wednesday.

"My son, my wonderful son, my cherished son, Mark Dombroski, is a member of the St. Joe's University rugby team. He's a freshman. He's 19 years old. He was participating in a rugby tournament here.

"As of late Saturday night, early Sunday morning, Mark went missing. We dearly love our son. We cherish our son. My other sons, my husband, we love him dearly. We want him back. We thank the citizens of Bermuda. People have been with us, shoulder to shoulder, throughout this ordeal. They're helping us. They're with us.

"The citizens, the police, business owners looking at surveillance cameras for 10 hours are helping us trying to find our son. We dearly want him back. We ask if you could please, if anyone has any bit of information that might be relevant, please, please contact the authorities and help bring our son back.

"Today is the Feast of St. Joseph. My son is a freshman at St. Joseph's University. It will be a wonderful thing if on St. Joseph's feast day if God please would reunite us with our wonderful son."

rob said...

In his statement he is keeping with the democratic/media narrative, Russia somehow got Trump elected, and I was doing my best for the country to expose it.
No evidence, just the same story.
He knows he was wrong, he knows his wife was wrong to take the money. But everyone was doing it, was playing by the Clinton rules, so how is he now the one exposed?
Low man on the totem pole. Hate it for you.
He shouldn't get his retirement, he should be prosecuted, just like the rest of us would be.

rob said...

Anonymous said...
Hopefully he doesn't end up like Vince Foster.

March 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM

I agree with that. It should be his biggest concern.

Anonymous said...

His biggest concern should be that he doesn't end up like Agent Levinson or Bruce Ivens.

Trigger said...

I remember how smug and self-assured Mr. Obama looked as he sat and watched as Donald Trump was Inaugurated. I thought, what has he secretly planned for Donald Trump's future?

There was no information about the fact that James Comey and Mr. Obama had a confidential meeting right before the Inauguration.

Was something discussed in this meeting with Mr. Obama that gave James Comey the confidence he needed to feel unhindered by any legal, moral, or ethical consequences, in his efforts to get a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Donald Trump?

Is this an orchestrated, well executed, effort to overthrow an elected president by a group of strategically placed Democrats in the chain of power?

If it is, indictments are in order.








Anonymous said...

Fascinating analysis, Peter, I appreciate your work. Looking forward to reading more statement analysis from you. Do you have book out you have written or one you would recommend on this subject?

Anonymous said...


And what is the difference between russian meddling and the ongoing governmental
destruction put in place by the previous president ?

trustmeigetit said...

The more we learn it seems like there are so many hands in this corruption with Clinton.

It amazes me how many loyal supporters she stil has. But also I realize how she was protected of her crimes. So many involved means that many go down with her.

I think this is why she felt she would win. She wasn’t even trying but rather spent her time having parties with the rich and famous.

But then we know what the DNC and there were those hidden videos released (Project Veritas) where DNC hired companies who’s only goal was the create chaos at Trump
Rallies to make Trump supporters look bad and they also talked about bussing people around to vote multiple times. Yet we are told she won the popular vote.


It’s unreal these videos exist yet not a thing has been done. Like just brushed under the rug.

Same with this same org releasing videos of Planned Parent Hood execs talking about selling baby parts. Yet supporters still claim it doesn’t happen.

There so s clinch proof that everything with Trump has been about stopping him. Because he is not one of them and make it clear he would end it.

Now would I marry Trump. Hell no. But as a President I think he has the best intentions.

I also hope he has people protecting him he can trust. The more people loose the bigger the odds get he is in harms way. He is a threat.

Congress make average salaries yet all are beyond wealthy. Yes others have other incomes or rich spouses but they are all taking extra. That I am sure of. Voting on their own raises and having no recourse for not doing their job. Talk about a power trip.

The bottom line was if he collided with Russia with wire tapping a an entire team of peole hell bent on taking him down.... it would be known.

But it’s not. Because it did not happen.

I supported Trump because I want a wall. We all know drugs and weapons come across daily that are illegal. America is their money. Take it away and you put them out of business.

Same with human trafficking. They can’t get across they can not charge people for help.


These 2 things alone will change the dynamics.

And sadl, Mexico can be great if they get the right leaders. And as far as cartels running things. Easy solution... the leaders are rich and living in large homes. Take them out. After a while, being a leader will mean uncertain death. They are evil beyond imagine so sorry if I am about death with out a trial. Look the sheer level of totrue they take pride in and you should agree.

The wall will put them out of business.

trustmeigetit said...

Above I mentioned Project Veritas.

They get a lot of flack for video taping people with out their knowledge. But these are not people talking crap about a friend. These are people using roles of powers for evil or corruption.

So I for one support this.

Wanted to share a few videos to put some
Things in perspective

CNN admitting the Russian lie they push is BS

Planned Parenthood exec talking about selling baby parts

DNC hired firms to disrupt the election.

https://youtu.be/jdP8TiKY8dE

https://youtu.be/MjCs_gvImyw

https://youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs

Nic said...

In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau,

When I read a statement carefully worded such as this one, I am reminded that just because something falls within the boundaries of the “rules”, it doesn’t make [it] ethical. This sort of statement screams “loophole”to me, ergo sensitive.

Peter said
He expected treatment different than what he, himself as a field or "street" agent in NYC would have given to subjects. This speaks to his mindset.


Or how he believes he is being treated? i.e., Front line “grunt worker", made to take the blame — because "sh!t rolls downhill” and in the hierarchy scheme of things, he is at the bottom of the "pile"?

Peter said:
His statement about not erasing the work he was privileged to be a part of included the words "will be revealed in the end.” I believe him.


So do I. If he is being made a fall guy and is going to jail for his “loyalty”, then what does he have to lose? As in: “If I go, then you go.”/There is plenty of blame to go around. It could be, too, that he is scared out of his wits/afraid for his life and that of his family. Kind of like when a celebrity goes "clear" from the CoS, they do not go into hiding. They make themselves as public as possible for safety reasons.

Did they do so willingly to protect the nation from their belief of nuclear annihilation?

Emphasis mine. Believing and knowing are two different mindsets. I “believe” [they] “knew” Trump was not a clear and present danger in regards to nuclear war. This excuse, imo, is just more play on the hysterical propaganda propagated by main stream news to garner political (right/left) empathy from the observer.