Friday, April 20, 2018

James Comey Memo


The following is an exert from the Comey memos. 


"I had dinner with President Trump in the Green Room at the White Houae last night at 6:30pm...I explained that he could count on me to always tell the truth. I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don;'t do weasel moves."

Readers may recall his "weasels and liars" tweet and now may understand more into his dominant personalty traits. 

The narcissism is pronounced.  This is not "success narcissism" statements in which someone becomes more egotistical with success.  His statements reveal a disconnect with reality of his audience.  He stated that he wrote his book on "ethical leadership" for the "young people" of America, so that they can "learn ethical leadership from me."

The title, alone, is fascinating. 

He talked openly about "falling in love" with his own opinion. He did not see how the public would react to such; it is his norm. 

The narcissist doesn't "see" what the audience sees.  He lacks "emotional intelligence" or the general "self awareness" of the perception of others.  This is sometimes evident when a narcissist is confronted and appears unfazed. 

The Rule of the Negative:

This is a critical element in Statement Analysis.  Truthful people will tell us what happened, what they saw, what they thought, etc.  When someone tells us what they did not see, say, etc, it rises in importance.  

When a sentence is quoted in the negative it is also seen under the "Rule of the Negative"


What one tells us in the negative increases importance or sensitivity.  What we tell our children not to do has more weight than telling them what to do. This is human nature.  The "thou shalt nots" are more weighty and memorable than the affirmatives given. 

"Don't Throw Rocks" on a large plate glass window will provoke the thought of throwing rocks.  This is human nature and how we see the negative.  Even lies spread quicker than truth.  

Comey wrote in his memo that which not only appears juvenile (he is very intelligent) and self serving, but should be considered carefully. 

It is interesting to note that he did not take memos during meetings with Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch or Hillary Clinton. 

In the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, there is "no memorial of the interview."

This means that there is no recording, no transcript, no notes, nor even memo of a federal criminal investigation of the upmost importance to the American people and the future of the Republic.  

The criminal investigatory interview has no tangible evidence of it except the memory of the interviewer, Peter Strzok, and the subject, Hillary Clinton.  The reader is likely familiar with Strzok's personal opinions of Donald Trump who was running for president of the United States against Hillary Clinton. 


"I had dinner with President Trump in the Green Room at the White Houae last night at 6:30pm...I explained that he could count on me to always tell the truth. 

Here he "explains" which suggests ongoing conversation.  

Next, we have The Rule of the Negative exampled three (3) times in single sentnece: 

I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don't do weasel moves."

1.  sneaky things
2.  leak
3.  weasel moves

Recall the "after thought" email of a meeting with Barack Obama by Susan Rice in which we see the "Unintended Recipient" analysis element in action. 

Here is the same.  I likened this to mafia boss John Gotti receiving the tip off that his meeting house was being secretly recorded.  He then tells the underbosses of the criminal organization, 

"We are not Cosa Nostra. We do not do anything illegal.  We do not do shake downs.  We do not extort.  We do not murder.  We are a legitimate business" to the squelched chuckles of his audience. 

The "intended recipient" is literally the underboss mafia.  The "unintended recipient" is the wiretapping investigators for the government.  

What Comey's memo notes state he did shortly after being fired. 

Comey's Motive 

Comey reveals, via projection, his motive and his intention in taking notes.  He took notes because he was going to do something "sneaky" by "leaking" out his notes in which would appear, especially to Assistant Director, Andrew McCabe, to be a "weasel" or self serving move. He broke the unity between them.  

"Mob Boss" 

After overseeing a lengthy investigation into the Hillary Clinton scandals, including the Foundation, Pay for Play selling US favors in exchange for millions of dollars of donations, setting up an illegal private server, transmitting classified information, lying to the FBI, and physically destroying evidence, he had spoken with Trump for a few minutes and called Trump a "crime boss."  

Note the element of projection in his narrative language.  

Deception Indicated

Analysis of statements by James Comey has shown deception, as it also has with Andrew McCabe and Loretta Lynch.  

Comey has angered Andrew McCabe and Loretta Lynch, and he has angered Democrats, Republicans and former FBI and intelligence professionals.  It may be that his book tour is a fund raiser for facing criminal charges to come.  

He should be prepared to have both McCabe and Lynch testify against him.  

Some readers have taken exception to my evolving opinion about Andrew McCabe. 

McCabe appears to be an investigator; not a politician.  He had a distinguished career fighting crime.  His language is very different than James Comey's.  Although more sample is needed from McCabe, it may be that McCabe's corruption came very late in his career, beginning when they accepted $700,000+ of Clinton cash for his wife's political run.  They may have felt safe in doing so, in campaigning and even in lying.  

Yet I believe we will see indictments and arrests forthcoming.  

We will continue to follow the language. 

The "Russian Collusion" narrative appears to be another example of projection where one makes a claim against another, of the very thing they are guilty of.  

The Russian Dossier was financed by Hillary Clinton and it appears it was Peter Strzok's "insurance policy" along with McCabe, Lisa Page and others, should Hillary not win the election.  

This now appears to be a conspiracy (collusion) with Richard Steele and Russian operatives entered into by the corrupt investigators and political leaders. 

Please consider this when you hear the "crowd" defense of

"Attacking me is attacking the entire FBI" or

"attacking me is to make war against law enforcement everywhere..." arguments.

Guilt seeks a crowd to hide within.  

It is like a teacher committing a crime and claiming that "teachers everywhere are being attacked" or "education, itself, is on trial!" rather than allow the focus of guilt intensify upon self. 

James Comey said he made a critical decision based upon the polls that showed Hillary with a clear win in the White House.  Had she won, none of this material would have come out. 

Deception takes a tremendous toll. 

A host of retired FBI personnel are now publicly condemning James Comey and expect to see charges brought against him.  

A criminal report was filed against Andrew McCabe.  

Based upon the language of distance, we should consider that McCabe is likely to testify against Comey. 

For training in deception detection, please enroll at Hyatt Analysis Services 






21 comments:

General P. Malaise said...

I explained that he could count on me to always tell the truth. I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don;'t do weasel moves."


funny how he did all those things.

who having a meeting with the President is going to actually say these things to the President? Then while writing them down doesn't see the foolish light it shines back on him.

Peter you are correct that he doesn't see himself as others do. he lacks introspective.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

"I explained that he could count on me to always tell the truth. I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don;'t do weasel moves."

1. Comey used "explained", which is different from "assured". We explain when we're teaching someone something new, instructing in the way a thing should be done, giving directions, or trying to get out of trouble.

1. "I explained" is 10 words away from "the truth" here. James Comey didn't tell Donald Trump that he always told the truth. He told him that Trump "could count on [Comey]...". That's the language of persuasion and manipulation. Why would an honest man need to explain the degree of his honesty. Comey proceeds to buttress his persuasion by listing all the things he doesn't do, while failing to state the one thing an honest man does..."I always tell the truth." or even "I tell the truth.". Instead he relies on the very weak "...he could count on me to...".

2. Since Comey won't say that, I want to know what his internal definitions are for "sneaky things" and "weasel moves". His need to tell me that he doesn't do specific detrimental things, when no one else has broached those things, tells me that he does do those things.

3. It's interesting how he leaks, even while asserting "I don't leak".

Anonymous said...

Tim,

What does the word "evidence" mean to you?

This document that you posted a link to specifically states on page 01 "This report recounts the information collected in this investigation. It is not intended to address potential inconsistencies in, or the validity of, the information related herein." This quote says it all.

Page 02 begins the summary of Strzok's MEMORY of the interview, not a transcript, not verbatim language. The document is a collection of pieces of information put together...SUMMARIZED. We don't know whether information contained in the document refers to actual evidence or not. What we do know is that HRC wasn't under oath during the interview, meaning that the statements made by HRC were not sworn to. That makes everything she said in the interview questionable from the standpoint of being admissible in court.

Anonymous said...

Hey Peter Jim Comey is the one who testified that there is "no memorial" of the interview. They do not even have notes from it. Even CNN dont claim that a memorial exists. All they have is the "recollection" of corrupt and disgraced FBI agent and Billary herself.

Peter Hyatt said...

There is no memorial of the interview by Peter Strzok of Hillary Clinton.

We only have his recollection in a summary, but they did not video her, audiotape her or Strzok's notes.

Even a rural court would not accept "the battery died" without consequence either to the case and/or investigator.

To conduct an interview with the former Sec. of State, running for the highest office of the land and make certain there was no trail is overt and bold corruption.

This only is possible when one believes Hillary was to win the presidency knowing there would be no consequence.

The FBI is the envy of the western world's law enforcement. A few corrupt bad apples are claiming an attack against all. This is an example of "crowd sourcing guilt" in analysis.

It is an attempt to unify and rally the troops. It projects acute guilt.

The link is for the summary for the public record, accessed through the FOIA. The interview was conducted without any recording.


Peter

Peter Hyatt said...



The point is:

1. There is no memorial of the interview with Hillary Clinton; only the recollection of the two parties. You claim there is and give a link to the recollected opinion not the transcript, recording or notes taken.

You might want to reconsider your claim in light of that even the most anti-Trump media does not make the claim of a memorial existing.


2. Re: the recording is proof of what one said and that attitude of a judge towards an investigator who did not memorialize the interview.

I referred to an actual event that I witnessed in court.

This was a small court in a rural state of a case no one would recognize. Even at this low level, it mattered to a judge that justice be not perverted.

The case I wrote about in the article is one of national and International importance.

Corruption, if not remedied, desensitizes and grows. The end result is the break down of civilization.

Interesting that in a formal investigator interview, Dir. James Comey and/or Andrew McCabe had it done without memorializing it.

Yet, in casual meeting with the President, he took notes and leaked notes.

As to your prior post: no notes, nor even a memo of a federal criminal investigation" exists.

If you read the entire article, you will see that I included that only recollection and opinion exists. In this recollection, of which you posted the link, there is no recording, transcript or even actual notes by the investigator.



Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Peter Jim Comey is the one who testified that there is "no memorial" of the interview. They do not even have notes from it. Even CNN dont claim that a memorial exists. All they have is the "recollection" of corrupt and disgraced FBI agent and Billary herself.

April 21, 2018 at 11:33 AM Delete


the poster was not seeking info; just attention from narrative. This is not the place for him. There are endless websites to visit and post that will follow his narrative. It is very popular.

Here is for truth.

Even citing an inner statute is to attempt to push an agenda.

The interview was not recorded on purpose.

When we see some of these players in handcuffs, at minimum security federal prisons, we won't be splitting words.

The FBI will have its honor restored. It needs to have the leadership cleansed, with good professionals promoted from within.

I know my opinion on McCabe is not popular, but consider the impossible position he was in.

1. He loved his job.
2. He was an investigator, not a politician.
3. He was under pressure from Obama and Lynch to corrupt the Clinton investigation 'for the good of the country'
4. He was under pressure from Comey, who threw him under the bus, anyway.
5. His wife was given $750,000 from Hillary while he was investigating Hillary.
6. He was certain, as was all of Media, that his new boss would be Hillary.

He did the wrong thing, yes, but this does not erase the 16 or 17 years of dedicated service.

Everyone who gets involved with the Clintons gets destroyed.

McCabe's language and Comey's language are vastly different. Comey is comfortable lying, and projects his guilt. He is both a "weasel" and a "liar" who is so deeply engrained in narcissism that he cannot control it.

I continue to believe McCabe the good guy who did a bad thing, under impossible pressure. If more sample proves otherwise, I will abandon this posture.

Put yourself in McCabe's position. He loved the FBI. He was on the ground and worked upward.

If not for Hillary, he might be Director today.

This does not excuse him, but seeks to put myself in his shoes.


Peter

Trigger said...

Great postL!

James Come appears to be all the things that he says that he is not.

sneaky, leaker, liar

How convient that he doesn't take notes when meeting with Democrats, Obama, Clinton, and Lynch. He only takes notes when meeting with president elect Trump.

James Comey is not the man he wants me to thing that he is. It will be interesting to see what transpires next in this drama.

Can we expect more cover up behavior and childish denials from this hack?

General P. Malaise said...

Tim said...
I simply


Tim if you followed SA you would probably chose different words. "I simply .." is one such example.

please define alt-right. I see the term often but never a definition.

General P. Malaise said...

Tim said...
"General"; Google it, I'm not your secretary.


typical of those who throw around terms yet haven't the knowledge or conviction to back them up.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Tim said... no notes, nor even memo


this is a factual statement as there was no record made or kept of the meeting/interview conducted with hillary clinton during an investigation into criminal activity on her part. even the mainstream legacy news covered this.

General P. Malaise said...

Tim said...
Anonymous General-

Nope, media has referred to them as notes, report, record, memo.

From Fox: "Note that, it is standard for FBI interviews not to be recorded, so there is no transcript, but agents take extensive notes and they form the basis for the written report known as the "302."

NBC, ABC, Boston Globe, Denver Post, The Hill, they all have headlines and articles stating that the FBI released their "notes" from the interview to Congress.


that is a false narrative that is being played now that Hillary didn't win. at the time the story was different most likely because most thought Hillary was going to win easily. they did cheat enough for the to believe that to be the case.

General P. Malaise said...


below is how it played in 2016

This time, however, the trick exploded, injuring the FBI, its Director James Comey, and Clinton. The summaries indicate she suffered from an intense bout of selective amnesia due, she says, to a concussion she suffered in 2012. The FBI did not record this meeting nor administer an oath to tell the truth, which violates two “normal protocols,” former FBI assistant director James Kallstrom told Megyn Kelly.

Clinton allegedly said she would have refused to be interviewed if it were recorded,

Anonymous said...

the practice is corrupt.

they record interviews routinely (most) but when they don't want to, they don't want to for a reason

They reserve the right? haha. I guess that worked out for Hillary.

Someone thinks a conclusion is a "memorial" of the interview when the FBI itself says it is not a memorial.


https://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/11/why-the-fbi-doesnt-record-interrogations/

CNN said...

Hey Petr, did you know Hillary Clinton refused to be interviewed if it was recorded and if it was under oath?
Did you know that she deleted 30,000 interviews?
Did you know she used Bleach Bit?
Did you know she used hammers and tools to smash iPhones and androids?

This was all because she did not want anyone reading her yoga emails. I dont blame her.

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want to see this turn into a tangent.

Agents records many (some say "most") interviews. They do reserve the privilege of not recording them and using only a summary form. I have not heard of, or from, any that did not take notes during an interview, whether e-recorded or not. The Hillary interview took place under terms dictated by the subject, herself. That the agent did not take notes (therefore, no record or "memorial") is corruption in play.

The poster insisted that a conclusion is a "memorial" when it is not. I wrote that it was left up to the "recall" or "memory" of the two present. Dir. Comey himself said "no memorial exists" of the interview. When conclusion was seen as "not memorializing" his argument changed to practice. Hence, the revelation of motive.

The poster will not be persuaded by fact and simply changes language to fit narrative. He needs to post elsewhere.

Others, please keep it clean.

Peter Strzok is very likely to face serious consequences, legal, far worse than the public humiliation.

I do not have a crystal ball but I believe we are going to see indictments, arrests and convictions with incarceration, that will shock the nation.


Peter

Anonymous said...

you guys see this? https://reason.com/archives/2018/02/08/donald-trump-shouldnt-talk-to-the-feds-a

it says you should never be interrogated because if you forget something your screwed.

Anonymous said...

and this


https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/james-comey-testimony-fbi-defense-clinton-interview-doesnt-add/


Obama told them to clear Hillary and they did

Anonymous said...

haha it is only standard for them to not record an interview when they need to not record an interview. otherwise they do

Anonymous said...

You're missing the point 7:05. There was no memo of Comey's interview with Clinton because he gave her a pass. It doesn't matter if there was a meeting or not: there's no memo of Clinton. When Strzok wrote 58 pages about Clinton, not a memo. When Comey wrote a half dozen paragraphs about Trump, memo. Got it?

Skeptical said...

I think James Comey's behavior is based on fear. When one considers how many "friends of Bill" have died under unusual circumstances, I think he is/was looking for a way out. I found this on line and was astonished. This many deaths probably can't be put on an actuarial chart. I hope he's not the next Vince Foster.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/04/06/the-clinton-dictatorship/