Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Jill McCabe Statement Analyzed

Andrew McCabe was terminated from the FBI after the FBI's internal affairs (OPR) investigation was concluded. 

The attorney general, Jeff Sessions followed the FBI's formal recommendation for termination.  The bar set for lying to the FBI is high because FBI personnel, some of our nation's best and brightest, must be truthful. Their testimony must have legal weight to protect and serve. 

The subject's words are in italics with analysis following in plain text. Underlining and color coding added for emphasis for the analysis. Mrs. McCabe made this statement in the Washington Post.  



Jill McCabe: The president attacked my reputation. It’s time to set the record straight.


I am an emergency room pediatrician and an accidental politician — someone who never thought much about politics until I was recruited to run for state office after making a statement about the importance of expanding Medicaid. 


We note the subject begins with her current employment (present tense) and as a politician, qualified an "accident."  This is interesting language due to her specific current role as a pediatrician in the "emergency room" where accidents are routine. 

Next note the passive language of "I was recruited" which not only conceals the identity of the recruiter (s) but removes responsibility from her as a politician.  Being a politician is present tense.  

Where one begins is always important to analysis.  It is often the motive for writing a statement. 

Priority Noted

This is a priority for her:  "I am an emergency room pediatrician and an accidental politician."  As a priority, the analyst should consider that the subject, in her verbalized perception of reality, is still a politician.  

Being a politician is a priority of this statement.  Therefore, the analyst should continue to work through the statement considering her work as a pediatrician and a politician as a priority.

Question:  Did the subject write this piece to advance political ambitions? 

Answer:  The statement, itself, must lead us to our answer. 

Please consider that in her statement she only gives us a single issue of which she ran:  to expand Medicaid. 

This is government paid for medical insurance that is financed by taxing citizens.  She ran on "expanding" it.  

As a pediatrician her salary could be impacted by expansion of Medicaid.  

It should also be considered a statement, not about her husband's loss of a job, but to signal her care for those who desire or need more medical coverage than currently offered. 

That is to say, 'My husband was fired because I care about the poor people.'  It is akin to the humorous "yes, but who will save the children?" when a politician wants taxes raised in emotionally shutting down any discussion of costs. It is to say that "you don't love children" or worse, "you hate."  


That decision — plus some twisted reporting and presidential tweets — ended up costing my husband, Andrew, his job and our family a significant portion of his pension my husband had worked hard for over 21 years of federal service. 

This is a very long sentence, indicative of emotion.  

"that" decision is to employ both emotion and distancing language (not "this" decision).  

It was her decision to state what cost her husband his employment.  

Her husband was terminated under the formal recommendation of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility. It was a most severe recommendation.  

She does not mention this office, nor its investigation nor even the allegation of lying.  She blames the termination on 

a.  "that decision."  Therefore, we follow the language to help us enter into her verbalized perception of reality.  

What decision?  She did not run for office. In her verbalized perception of reality, it was not her fault.  She was "recruited" as the passivity is noted above.  This is the first signal of psychological distancing.  The use of the word "that" is the second. 

Next we note her qualification about media reporting: 

b.  "some" 

When one runs for office, one cannot do so without reporting.  This is the publicity, positive or negative that comes with running for office.  Without reporting, the candidate is not known. She cites specific reporting as 
"twisted."

This reporting is given the negative term, "twist" which is to alter.  It is not false reporting.  The negative press she received was due to a very large campaign contribution from Hillary Clinton's close friend, Terry McCaulffe. When most contributions are small, especially in a smaller race, a contribution of $10,000 would be very large. 

It is reported that, in the minimum, the campaign contribution that brought the negative press was in excess of $400,000. We need to know if this is "twisting" truth, or if it was false reporting.  Since we can only "know" what she chooses to tell us, we cannot say that the reporting was false.  

This large donation came to her as her husband was overseeing the investigation of  Hillary Clinton.  

Next we note that it was not only "that" decision but "presidential tweets."

This is to elevate Donald Trump's tweets to corrupt or influence the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, without directly accusing him.  

One might consider this a very clever "political statement" on her part, which brings us to "Greater Context" of a statement.  There is a "greater context" and "lesser context" within analysis.  

Emotional Elements

Not only did she run to help poor people but...

She avoids reporting that her husband was terminated for lying, but adds in her family's own survival and her husband's length of service. 

This is a common political tactic.  

Emotional Risk 

The statement began with the present tense politician.  When a politician speaks of money, it is always a risk.  This is the "greater context" of the statement based upon her opening sentence (priority).  

It is to avoid the possible consequences of a crime, instead focusing upon the possible consequences of what happens to the criminal and his family.  This is to shift responsibility from the FBI, from the investigation and from lying, over to the emotional responsibly to make sure the reader knows how the family is suffering.  

This is seen in "our family" losing a "significant portion" (with "significant" subjective in need of definition) impacted.  

Context:  McCabe Family Finance; Readers' Family Finance

This is a risky statement to make in an attempt to arouse pity.  The middle and lower class may be put off by it, while the upper class or elite empathetic.  His net worth is in debate, with one report of $11,000,000 likely excessive, and his salary at $160,000.  Retiring at age 50 is seen by many Americans as a luxury.  His salary may not reach the level of responsibility he held, but it is a livable wage in the reality of most.  Although here she only stated expansion of Medicaid, she did, in her campaign, claim that women earned less than men, though she may have outlearned her husband.  With even an estimate of $300,000 annual salary, one should consider the risk in making her emotional statement including her family, regarding finance. 


For the past year and a half of this nightmare, I have not been free to speak out about what happened. Now that Andrew has been fired, I am. 

It would be interesting to learn why she was not "free" to speak.

  There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation. 

She is now "free" to address the allegations.  Where she now begins is very important.  We expect her to say,

"Andrew did not lie to the FBI" or something similar.  We look for and listen carefully to the falsely accused simply deny the false accusation. 

Instead, she goes back chronologically approximately 30 years: 

Andrew and I met as sophomores in college, at Duke University. He was interested in law (eventually law enforcement), I in medicine (eventually pediatrics). Andrew’s a reliable Republican; I have voted, over time, for both Republicans and Democrats.

Her freedom to speak now, and not before, does not yet include a reliable denial of wrongdoing.  It begins with the emotional setting of their marriage, along with the bipartisan claim.  This is to use both as commonly done by politicians.  Please recall her opening sentence. 

As we have raised our children, I tried to vote more regularly and pay more attention to the issues that affect our community. And with my work in a hospital emergency room in Virginia, I saw the impact of how government decisions hurt my patients, especially when the state decided not to accept the federal government’s funding to expand Medicaid. 

Here we have the story continuing to 
"raising" of children, and the admission of failure to vote "more regularly" with "tried."

Then we have the correlation to her work with government money (Medicaid).  Recall her opening sentence:  pediatrician and politician.

The narrative continues to help the suffering. This is what is commonly called "Virtue Signaling" of which, if you disagree, you want poor people to suffer. 

In analysis, it is "unnecessary information."

Unnecessary information is only unnecessary to us, until we understand the statement.  This is why unnecessary information is deemed very important to the analysis. 

One should ask:

What does meeting as sophomores have to do with lying to the FBI?

What does Medicaid have to do with the allegation of lying, made by the FBI, itself?

The answers are important. These are not rhetorical questions.  The answers are in the language. 

I was providing care in the most expensive setting — the emergency room — and only once a patient’s condition became more serious, because he or she had no other options.

This would lead to the question:  Did she then donate her services, even for an hour?  

The analyst should also consider:  this one patient who became more serious who was out of options: how is this related to her husband's lying to the FBI?



 In addition, our state’s decision was increasing the cost of health care for everyone, ultimately raising prices, premiums and taxes, while thousands of patients suffered. The whole thing just made no sense.

Virtue Signaling and Tangents

Here we have the subject continuing her tangent rather than addressing and denying the allegations.  This is a form of deception that is commonly used, and in detail, commonly used by politicians. 

When Judge Moore was accused of sexual assault of teen age girls, instead of denying the allegations, he claimed it was other "political" issues that caused the allegations.  

The motive is, in this area of analysis, immaterial.  (it can be important later).  What is first needed is the denial of the allegations. 


One day in 2014, 

Her husband was fired from the FBI in March of 2018.  Her denial of his wrong doings became approximately 1988.  She has now brought us to almost 4 years prior to the termination. 

This is a lengthy "delay" or "slowing down the pace of the statement."

This is an indication of deception to come later in the statement. This "one day in 2014" is the language of what cops call, "story telling."  We now see if it is "narrative building" or if it is reliable information:  


an entourage of politicians came through the ER, and a reporter pulled me aside to ask how Medicaid expansion would affect my patients. I did not think any more of it until a year later, when I received a voice mail asking whether I might be interested in running for the state Senate. 

Recall she did not choose to run for office but used passive voice to conceal both the identity and her own responsibility for running for office.  Now, in a parenthetical view, she is revisiting being pulled into what she called "that" campaign.  

In this story telling, she felt the need to explain why an unnamed reporter pulled her aside to ask a deliberate prejudicial question.  The need to explain "why" without being challenged, coupled with the negative (of what she did not think) and the length of time ("until a year later" -chronological) should cause the analyst to conclude deception in this account. Experiential memory works chronologically.  

Next, we have the inclusion of emotion, which affirms the deception: 

I was stunned — I went home and told Andrew, and we laughed about how crazy that idea was.

It was a "stunning" event that she "did not think" of for another year is incongruent with how memory, emotion and processing works. 

This is an example of "artificial editing" in her account. Note she is not "a year" later, but only a "few days...":  

In this account, we now learn that it was more than just a reporter happenstance question, but there was at least one phone call she has concealed in her account: 


 A few days later, I got another call: Clark Mercer, chief of staff to then-Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, asking me to at least speak to Ralph, who is a pediatric neurologist. I was moved by Ralph’s story about how he had used his medical background to advocate for the needs of the children he serves.


This is very important.  "Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam" is introduced with his title, first and last name. 

Please make note of all names introduced in the statement. 

Please compare these introductions as they progress. 


I started to become more interested, thinking, “Here’s a way I can really try to help people on a bigger scale than what I do every day.” 

She "started" to become more interested after being "stunned" and going a year without thinking of it.  


While I was considering the possibility, Andrew and I went to Richmond to meet with various politicians, including then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe. 

The introduction uses his title, first name and last name. 
Next note that without being asked, she felt the need to tell us why she went to Richmond.  Instead of writing,

"We went to Richmond and met with..." she reversed the law of economy to give the reason "why" she did this. 

This should cause the analyst/investigqtor to explore other possible reasons for meeting with McAuliffe

Please consider the context:  her husband was the supervisor of the Hillary Clinton criminal investigation:  

The subject of Hillary Clinton never came up — the story about her emails had not even broken when I was first approached by Northam. All the governor asked of me was that I support Medicaid expansion.

Note "Hillary Clinton" and not "the Hillary Clinton investigation" and not

Sen. Clinton
Secretary Clinton

or anything else. 

It is not the investigation that she uses; it is "Hillary Clinton", herself, as a subject. 

This is a "linguistic disposition" that is important to follow.  
I touch upon it in the conclusion.  It is something important in the words of others, as well. 

Never in Statement Analysis 


The word "never" is not reliable. It is vague, and it is all encompassing.  

 Lance Armstrong "never" used PEDs.  He could not bring himself to a specific time where the specific denial is warranted. It can be considered "not reliable" or it can be considered "unreliable" dependent upon context. 

If the allegation (or meeting date) is singular and it is specific, the word "never" moves to "unreliable."

If allegations are over a span of time, and/or are plural, it is "not reliable."  


Since this meeting was memorable (note the color blue as our highest level of sensitivity in its unnecessary need to pre empt the question, "Why did you...?") and the meeting was singular, the unreliable "never" stands out. 

With the deception already indicated in the statement, we find in this sentence a point of truth:

"All the governor asked of mefollowed "Andrew and I."

I believe her. 

I believe that the only question that the governor posed to her was about Medicaid.  

This excludes, specifically:

1.  Communication between them that was not in the form of a question 
2.  Communication with Andrew. 

This wording indicates deception.  

The need to explain "why", without being asked, is unnecessary and a point of great sensitivity.  

It is followed by a change of "people" with the specific separation going from the two of them down to herself.  

Then she limits it even further to only "question" and not communication.

Then she has the unreliable use of "never."

Deception Indicated. 

Investigators should seek to learn the contents of this meeting. The need to parse words carefully here are indicative of one seeking to avoid the internal stress of confrontation in direct lying. 

Remember:  90% or more of deception comes from withheld information due to the internal stress of direct lying. 

If investigators did not suspect criminal collusion from this meeting, Jill McCabe has thus brought it to their attention. 



Still, in thinking about running, one of my first concerns was Andrew and his job at the FBI, where he was the assistant director in charge of the Washington field office. I said to Andrew, “If you think this is going to be a problem for you professionally, even if it’s allowed, I won’t do it.”

He consulted with the ethics experts at the FBI and committed to follow their advice. 

a.  the "ethics experts" are unnamed.  
b.  he "committed" to follow their advice.  She does not say, "he followed their advice."

The continual shifting of responsibility is consistent with guilt. 

In statement analysis, we recognize that the word "tried" in the past tense, means, "attempted, but failed."  The exception is when one is seeking a compliment such as, "I have tried to be a good husband..."

"Tried" is flagged as an attempt to persuade, without the outright deception. 

"I tried to tell the truth whenever possible" is an admittance of lying.  (See Bill Clinton, Oliver North, etc). 

Off to a "Midnight Hockey League" adult game, I told my daughter that "Daddy will score a goal for you."

The next morning, when she asked me I said, "Daddy tried his best to score a goal for you..." and she knew. 

"The patient came in under cardiac distress and the doctors tried to save him..."


We know that her husband only committed to following guidelines rather than doing so.  Now we know more about how the rules were viewed: 

We tried to go even beyond what the rules required — Andrew kept himself separate from my campaign.

The word "tried" means attempted and failed. This, too, may now cause more investigations into the Hatch Act abuses that her husband has been accused of violating. 

The Rule of the Negative

Truthful people will tell us what happened, what they saw, what was said, and so on.  When one tells us what they did not see, what was not said, and so on, in an open statement (not as a result of direct questions), its importance is elevated significantly for us. Crimes are solved this way. 

Deceptive people often tell us what did not happen as a means of "filler"; that is, to avoid telling us what did take place:  



 When the kids and I went door-knocking, he did not participate; he wouldn’t even drive us. He could have attended one of my fundraisers but never did. One day he put on a campaign T-shirt so we could take a family picture and share it with my proud parents. You may have seen it — it seems to have taken on a weird life of its own — but that was it, just a family picture at a swim meet.

The Hatch Act is taken very seriously by the FBI. Its violations are dealt with severely because the American public must trust those who investigate and enforce our laws are not partisan.  

We now know that the accusations of violations of the Hatch Act against Andrew McCabe are viable. 

They must have a reliable denial. 

In McCabe's two public statements, he does not reliably deny lying, disclosing information, or campaigning for his wife.  Her statement affirms this. 

Note "my proud parents" continues the emotional manipulation of her audience.  These words are not necessary and they are not related to her being "free" to deny the accusations against her husband. 

This is "unnecessary" information which is an example of why analysts deem it vital.  

Meanwhile, my campaign received funding from the state Democratic Party and the governor’s PAC — on par with what other candidates in competitive races on both sides of the aisle received

"funding" and not "donations"
from the state Democratic Party "and" the governor's PAC (not "Gov. McAuliffe"

Here, his name is dropped. 

Note "on par" is also unnecessary information.  It includes "other candidates" (plural), which invites comparison. I used the lowest estimate ($400,000) though others reported it to be $700,000+ for a small district seat; there were  50,000 votes in total.  


All those contributions were publicly reported. 

Note:   that some contributions may exist that were not reported. Only "those" (not "these") were publicly reported.  This, too, may invite more interest by investigators. 

The Great Mother 

In analysis, we flag the "Great Mother" or the "good guy" in language as an indicator of guilt.  Mothers who have been the subject of child abuse investigations may indicate such by claiming to be a "great mother."  When we see, in language, one describing themselves as "the good guy", we often find the guilt of bad behavior, illicit or illegal, in the activities of which they show the need for positive imagery.  This is a basic tool of analysis that is used in criminal investigations.  Thieves do not "steal", they often "reimburse" or "balance accounts" because they are "owed."  

Child abusers often blame the child, including in shaken baby cases where they say, "the child would not stop crying" or "the baby would not finish her bottle."  

This shifting of blame is necessary to counter guilt. 

The words "of course" mean to believe without question.  In statement analysis, we cannot believe someone unless they tell us so.  Here we have several principles coming together in one sentence:  

And of course, again, Clinton’s emails never came up — if they had, I would have found that alarming, immediately reported it and likely pulled out of the campaign. I know enough from being married to Andrew for 20 years to know what is right and what is wrong.

a.  of course
b.  never
c. "if they" now allows for the possibility. 
d.  The Good Guy principle of what she would have done.
e.  The employment of emotion with "alarming"
f.  She knows right from wrong.  This is found commonly in guilty statements of crimes where the subject is unable or unwilling to deny the allegation but claims knowledge of morals. It is frequent in statements regarding theft.  

It is similar to the child molester who says, "I am a happily married man" or like Michael Jackson claiming to "love children all over th world."  It avoids specific denial and points to what is most often heard in admissions:

the "Gnostic" view of self. 

This is where someone says, "it wasn't really me.  I am not like that.  I am a good person" as to say there is a "different me" deep down, who did it. 

We hear this often in the #metoo assailants.  "I would never...I am a champion of respect for women..."

We also hear it in advertising...the "skinny person" living inside of me...type of splitting.  "In my heart, I would never hurt someone" or
"in my heart of hearts, I know that I would never steal..." as if there is a different "heart" within me, or in the latter statement, a "heart within a heart."

This is a form of psychologically distancing oneself from guilt. 

Discussions of the Hillary Clinton investigation while receiving campaign donations from her friend: 


This now affirms the deception regarding the single meeting she wrote about:

She was part of the discussions regarding Hillary Clinton investigations.  She was not "asked a question" about it, to her specifically, which is all she can claim.

She will likely fail a polygraph if this question is posed. 

She indicates guilty knowledge of said conversations.  



I lost my race in November 2015.

She still has not said, "Andrew did not lie..." in the form of a reliable denial of which she claims "freedom" to state.  

We continue to wait. 

We are still 2 1/2 years from his termination by the FBI report cited by the Attorney General. 

 It was disappointing, and particularly hard for me because I have always been the kind of person who gives everything her all. But I felt good about my effort and enjoyed returning to normal life. 

Those in training know here that her life was not "normal" after losing the election. This is a word that signals the opposite. 

Also note:  

Almost a year later, everything changed. A reporter called my cellphone on a Sunday in October 2016, asking questions about contributions to my campaign and whether there had been any influence on Andrew’s decisions at the FBI. 

Quid Pro Quo

Her husband was investigating what was considered to be his future boss while her close friend supplied you with money for your campaign.  

This is the compromising and why the Hatch Act is important and why her language has shown sensitivity and delay. 



This could not be further from the truth. 

Unreliable Denial 



In fact, it makes no sense. 

The phrase,  "in fact" is similar to "of course" in which something is alleged to be "fact" and not in question. 

Considering the context:  your husband is investigating Hillary and you took a large sum of money from Hillary's close friend (this money needs to be investigated), we expect:

a.  A reliable denial
b.  No need for buttressing through unnecessary language'
c.  No need for emotional manipulation through narrative building about romance, child raising, etc. 



Andrew’s involvement in the Clinton investigation came not only after the contributions were made to my campaign but also after the race was over. 

The element of this sentence is "time."

Therefore, "time" becomes essential. 

a.  When did Hillary Clinton set up a private server?
b.  When was Hillary Clinton accused of selling influence to foreign actors?
c.  When did Uranium One sale to Russia take place. 

In an attempt to use time as an element, she puts herself in a very precarious position.  '

It is awareness of this position that needed assistance with, "in fact" and it makes "no sense."

There was much time before any formal investigation took place and this statement will be compared to the text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, particularly including Andrew McCabe.

It has taken her a long time to get to this point.  Imagine the short statement: 

Andrew was wrongfully fired. He did not lie.  He did not discuss the Hillary Clinton investigation with Terry.  I did not discuss the Hillary Clinton investigation with Terry.  Andrew did not violate the Hatch Act. 

It would be a very short statement without the need for college years, children raising, and specifically, the meeting she cited with Gov. McAuliffe

This is how liars are caught.  They need to persuade us, rather than stand upon the psychological wall of truth.  She needs to emotionally influence us, becuase there is no wall of truth standing to protect her. 

This is why.


"I did not lie to the FBI.  I told the truth" ends everything.  There is nothing to add to it. 

In a free statement, this is 99.9% reliable.  

The weakness of language continues: 


Since that news report, there have been thousands more, repeating the false allegation that there was some connection between my campaign and my husband’s role at the FBI. 

After the 2016 election, I thought for a while that it was all over — at least now that President-elect Trump won, he would stop coming after us. How naive that was. After then-FBI Director James B. Comey was fired, we knew that Andrew could be the next target of the president’s wrath.

Then the president started tweeting about how the contributions to my campaign made it clear that Andrew (and all the senior leadership at the FBI) were corrupt and that he should be removed. 

Here she gives the allegation of corruption.  Here we must hear a denial.  

She does not.  

Instead, back to emotional manipulation employed including Christmas: 

It went one step further in the days before Christmas, when the president made threats related to my husband’s retirement.
To have my personal reputation and integrity and those of my family attacked this way is beyond horrible.

Emotions cited to arouse pity. 

Yet, all it takes is a simple denial.  


 It feels awful every day. 

Feel sorry for me.  I won't deny that the FBI investigated him and recommended his firing, I want you to feel sorry for me. 

I tried to help poor people. 

My family has lost a substantial portion of my husband's retirement. 

How can we survive?

Personal:  how can I sleep?


It keeps me up nights. 

Andrew McCabe is facing indictments.  Analysis of his statements indicate several things:

a.  he is deceptive
b. he does not appear habitually deceptive 
c. he implicated James Comey (who has been indicated for deception)
d.  he is likely to seek a plea bargain in testifying against Comey

Added to this is now the indicators of guilty knowledge on the part of the subject.  

She has signaled guilt in specific points, including the meeting with the governor of Virginia, of which she may be asked to polygraph over. 

She is the "Good Guy" here, even as she changes language.  She is now wiling to take responsibility for running.  The smaller  context tells us why: 

I made the decision to run for office because I was trying to help people. 

She was drafted into it (corruption); 
She decided to get into it (good guy Principle) 

Instead, it turned into something that was used to attack our family, my husband’s career and the entire FBI.

The deception continues with the psychological need to hide among 33,000 innocent employees of the FBI. 

This weakness is something she likely saw her own children use when they came home from school and said, "yeah, but mom, everyone was...":

This affirms guilt.  It is the "crowd sourcing" of guilty parties and can be indicated plainly (above) or in pronoun changes from "I" to "you" in statements. 

She now begins the distancing language while continuing the emotional manipulation using children. 

Nothing can prepare you for what happens when your life is turned upside down by current events. Nothing prepares you for conversations you have to have with your teenage children. 


"You" in analysis. 

"You" is used in distancing language.  Sometimes it is used when a subject is describing a commonality with others. 

"When you practice a lot, you get good at it" is used in sports regularly. 

Here, however, how many readers have received huge contributions  and who are married to someone in the FBI who just happened to be investigating Hillary Clinton?  

This is not common to any recipients in the article.  It is to distance herself from the events.  We look for the return of the pronoun "I" for more reliable information. 

In unique situations, the use of "you" indicates a form of deception in which one wishes to make a statement, but cannot do so without lying.  In avoiding the direct internal stress of outward lying, they subtly distance themselves from the reality. 

When her son, Justin killed Baby Ayla, Phoebe DiPietro wanted the public to believe there was a kidnapping.  She knew the truth. 

"When someone is casing your house and when you're waiting for the police to call you about your granddaughter..." as if it was a normal thing to happen to most people.  This was "deception indicated" as her granddaughter, kidnapping and house are all very personal to her, alone. 


Nothing prepares you for the news crews staking out your house, your back yard, your place of business. Nothing prepares you for the fear you feel every time you receive a package from a stranger.

These are all technically "unreliable" but in context, they are deceptive.  

I have spent countless hours trying to understand how the president and so many others can share such destructive lies about me. 

The pronoun "I" returns.

One would like to know a single lie about her that has been told.  She did not tell her audience what lie has been told, and then issue a denial.  

She ridiculed and she told family stories and invoked Christmas, but she did not address nor deny an allegation, thus far. 


Ultimately I believe it somehow never occurred to them that I could be a serious, independent-minded physician who wanted to run for office for legitimate reasons. They rapidly jumped to the conclusion that I must be corrupt, as part of what I believe to be an effort to vilify us to suit their needs.

Please remember exactly where she began her free statement to defend her husband:  herself as a pediatrician and a politician. 

Know Me:  This is important to her:  Recognition, while free to defend her husband. Note this as a them. 

Throughout this experience, my work has been a sanctuary. I walk into the hospital, and everybody there knows me as a professional. The patients know me as a doctor and not a news story. It is not easy, but I have to put all of our challenges aside to focus on the patients and families I treat. 

Now that I can speak on my own behalf, I want people to know 

She is "now" (time) free to tell us that Andrew did not lie, and that he did not pervert justice for Hillary. 



that the whole story that everything is based on is just false and utterly absurd.

The need to ridicule the allegations rather than deny them is indicative of guilt. 


She is acutely aware of why they raised $500,000 as a defense fund: 


No matter what the path ahead, I have faith that our family will get through this. 

Her family, like the 33,000 FBI employees, do not stand accused of wrong doing.  


Despite everything, we are closer than ever. Andrew and I have amazing children and a support network that knows who we truly are. We will not allow ourselves to be defined by a false narrative. 

Analysts recognize the language here, which is personal and regrettable. 


While I have no intention of running for office again, I believe in what my campaign stood for, and I still hope we can see our way to Medicaid expansion in Virginia. The patients who inspired me to run continue to come to the ER every day, and they need our help.

Analysis Conclusion: 

Deception Indicated. 

The language is indicative of guilty knowledge of her husband's lies, and the influence of the donation in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. 

 She has, very likely to her own detriment, invited closer scrutiny into the connection she and Andrew had with the Virginia governor and with Hillary Clinton. 

Priority:  Politics

Our subject's priority is confirmed:  she revisits herself as a politician and reports, in the negative, what she has no "intention" in doing.  

Intentions often change in life and that she reported it in the negative ("the rule of the negative") increases its importance.  That she began her statement with "politician" indicates it as a priority. 

Although she is deceptive in her statement we note that the priority of "politician" is likely the reason she wrote this. If the emotional manipulation continues to generate the type of support that she hopes for, this intention is likely to change. 

She has collected more than one-half million dollars for her husband's legal defense fund, as he is likely to face criminal charges over not only his lying to the FBI, but also areas that may include corruption, criminal collusion (conspiracy), breach of confidentiality and other allegations related to the Hillary Clinton investigation ("matter") and the allegations of FISA court abuses.  

If there are no indictments, or no further consequences, I won't be surprised if  Jill McCabe decides to run for political office. This statement does not defend her husband, does not identify the allegations, nor deny them.  

It is an emotionally laden political statement that inadvertently may have the opposite affect she intended.  

If investigators doubted whether or not she had guilty knowledge of the Clinton investigation, she has likely removed any such doubt from them.  

Her sensitivity to the investigation, in particular, goes beyond the outer context of the Hatch Act, which is of low priority for her. 

She should be very concerned.  The timing and amount of the donation are tangents that investigators are not likely to miss.  

Like others, I believe she and her husband rue the day they met and got involved with Hillary Clinton.  Note the language she used. 

This is why defense attorneys insist their clients do not make public statements.  

To train in deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 


25 comments:

MizzMarple said...

My apologies for the off topic:

Peter did a previous statement analysis of Nathan Carman (who is back in the news today).

Peter's Analysis: http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/02/nathan-carman-issues-denial.html

----------------------------



April 3, 2018 12:50 pm


Nathan Carman Refuses To Answer Questions About Firearms

CONCORD, New Hampshire — During a probate hearing in which the judge warned Nathan Carman that he needed to get a lawyer, the man rescued at sea in 2016 refused to answer questions about a gun his aunts allege he may have used to kill his grandfather.


http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-nathan-carman-court-appearance-20180402-story.html


------------------------------

crosbycat said...

Very interesting. Its strange that she, her husband, Comey, Clapper are all tweeting and writing at a time when they are in danger of being investigated and prosecuted.

Bobcat said...

"When we see, in language, one describing themselves as "the good guy", we often find the guilt of bad behavior, illicit or illegal, in the activities of which they show the need for positive imagery. This is a basic tool of analysis that is used in criminal investigations.
... the "Gnostic" view of self. This is where someone says, "it wasn't really me. I am not like that. I am a good person" as to say there is a "different me" deep down, who did it. ...
We also hear it in advertising...the "skinny person" living inside of me...type of splitting. "In my heart, I would never hurt someone" or "in my heart of hearts, I know that I would never steal..." as if there is a different "heart" within me, or in the latter statement, a "heart within a heart."
This is a form of psychologically distancing oneself from guilt."


Sounds like the people promoting the 'beautiful inside and out' and 'godly people of faith' surrounding Amanda Blackburn.

Bobcat said...

"someone who never thought much about politics until I was recruited"
vs.
"Ultimately I believe it somehow never occurred to them that I could be a serious, independent-minded physician who wanted to run for office for legitimate reasons."

Unknown said...

Anonymous Bobcat said...
"someone who never thought much about politics until I was recruited"
vs.
"Ultimately I believe it somehow never occurred to them that I could be a serious, independent-minded physician who wanted to run for office for legitimate reasons."


that sentence is damning. on the bright side she said "independent-minded physician" and not "independent-minded woman" ...distancing from the other politician.

habundia said...

When someone says "it is a false lie", would that make it true?

Anonymous said...

Ot

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/youtube-shooters-brother-describes-what-likely-motivated-attack

YouTube shooter's brother describes what likely motivated attack
..

Reliable denial accompanied with minimising

While the shooting was originally thought to be a domestic incident, more information is coming out about the shooter's possible motivation. Now her family is speaking out.

The YouTube shooter's brother confirmed her name was Nasim Aghdam and speculated what likely lead to Tuesday's shooting.

He did not want to be identified but says she lived in San Diego and would speak to her mother every day.

The family hadn't heard from her in a while so they tried visiting her Friday, he says.

When they didn't find her, they reported her missing Saturday.

This morning at 2 a.m - a cop in Mountain View told the family they found her in Northern California.

The brother says he warned them to keep an eye on her.

"She had a problem with YouTube...
We called the cop and told them there's a reason she went from San Diego to that, so she might do something.
I didn't know she had a gun.

I didn't know she'd start a fight.
The cop told us they'd keep an eye on her
After 12 hours the shooting happened.
She got killed, the other 3 people got hurt.
I did my best to avoid it but looks like cop didn't do their job," he said.

Trigger said...

Great post.

This post saddens me. The lack of a reliable denial is disturbing when considering that Jill McCabe's image of being a virtuous politician is important to her. The timing of of her decision to run for office coupled with the acceptance of a single sum of "funding" is questionable.

"he is likely to seek a plea bargain in testifying against James Comey"
In light of the fact that Andrew McCabe is basically honest and has lost a significant amount of income, I hope that he does plea bargain. He should have an opportunity to be truthful about James Comey's agenda without fear of conviction of violating the Hatch Act.

Andrew McCabe has had knowledge of the rules and regulations of the FBI long before President Trump was elected.

tania cadogan said...

Will they continue to protect hillary who will never become president or hold political office again or, will they tell the truth and do a deal to protect themselves whilst throwing hillary under the bus?

Any protection they had for committing the nefarious deeds on the basis hillary would get in and it would be justified and covered up went out the window and over the hill when the voting public didn't buy her lies, her flip flopping and the excuses for the non diseases that she has, which even now manifest themselves when she can't manage a simple flight of steps, slipping/falling twice within seconds of each other.
Bill's infidelities, the rape allegations which keep surfacing, the deal done with Russia involving uranium, the deals done with muslin countries, the scratch my back and i'll scratch your back deals, the donations, the charities.
She is a liability that still bitches about losing the election she bought and paid for and she blames everyone and everything but herself.

Will they decide to cover their own asses and do a deal or will they decide to cover hers with no recompense as she has nothing to offer?

Anonymous said...

Great analysis. I was hoping you’d do this one after I read her statement yesterday. The one thing that stood out to me was all the “you” statements but of course there was so much more indicating deception.

D

trustmeigetit said...

ITs amazing to me how much of a story she tells. Like let’s give you all this side history but I’m. Ever gonna actually deny anything but end it by blaming Trump.

It’s amazkng the corruption and how many people Hillary paid.

No wonder instead of traveling and meeting with voters she was going to parties with the rich and famous.

She was sure she bought her seat.

So beyond grateful she did not win.

I have full belief she would have worked hard to turn us into Venezuela. Rich on one side and the rest of the normal humans on he other side of their entitled walls.

Unknown said...

Andrew McCabe may do a plea bargain if it keeps his wife out of prison. I think the likelihood that they could put both in prison with what they have now.

The McCabes might be counting on a friendly judge and avoid a plea since there are so many progressive judges installed be the previous administrations.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Note the expected concern. Family (parents, guardians)as of yet to make a statement/plea

boy, 5, disappears from home wearing only his pajamas

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) is searching for a young boy who disappeared from his home wearing only his pajamas.

TBI reports that 5-year-old Joseph ‘Joe Clyde’ Daniels was last seen on Tuesday night at his home off of Garners Creek Road in Dickson, but family thinks he disappeared early Wednesday morning. According to authorities, he’s autistic and non-verbal.

TBI currently has multiple Agents and Intelligence Analysts on the ground, supporting local search efforts. Our Command Post is on scene and we're also using our plane as an additional search tool.
If it’s at nighttime and it’s dark and he scared and he’s running, or whatever the situation, he could be terrified right now … so much open land and ponds, it’s hard to even fathom the situation,” family friend Lyndsay Estes told NBC4 Nashville.

http://www.crimeonline.com/2018/04/04/urgent-autistic-boy-5-disappears-from-home-wearing-only-his-pajamas/

From another article.

He's out here all alone cold, scared and probably hungry," said William Nicholson, Joe Clyde's uncle. "We need everybody who can come out here, please help out and try to save this little boy, try to find him and get him back home with his loved ones."

The family said Joe Clyde has a history of running off, but he is usually found quickly. This time he took off while everyone was sleeping.

"I can't imagine what that family is feeling right now," said Dawn Reynolds, a neighbor. "You know there's no words to put, the way they feel, and my heart breaks because you know, you hope and pray, that he comes home and we find him."

http://www.wsmv.com/story/37878606/endangered-child-alert-issued-for-5-year-old-boy-from-dickson

Anonymous said...

She should be very concerned. The timing and amount of the donation are tangents that investigators are not likely to follow.

Is there a typo in that sentence?

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

I think what is being said is that the investigators are unlikely to get lost or distracted by following the tangents.

Alex

Peter Hyatt said...

I corrected the sentence; thank you.

This subject shows more ease in deception than her husband.

I believe both of them, along with many others, including President Obama, rue the day they ever met and got involved with Hillary Clinton.

Although this may be controversial, I feel sorry for these players. They were given the assignment of investigating one who was to be their boss; one of whom they knew was deeply corrupt, and personally vengeful.

It was a "no win" situation for all of them. James Comey's reluctance and internal struggle are most evident in his "re opening" of the case and in his conclusion in which he listed her guilt but claimed "no intention."

A kid who took a photo of his sub and showed his family spent a year in prison. He had no connections with any government, spies, or anyone.

If anyone had "no intention" it was him.

I continue to urge all readers to watch and listen to the language of "Clinton Corruption."

It is a learning opportunity extraordinaire. Don't let partisan thought keep you from the truth.

Peter

John Macgowan said...

These are the most interesting articles on the Internet.

Anonymous said...

“Here’s a way I can really try to help people on a bigger scale than what I do every day.”

Does she doubt her ability to help people as a doctor? Is she frustrated with how her career turned out? She compares herself to another doctor/politician and looks for purpose and meaning, and possibly, money.

Her introduction of meeting with "Governor Terry McAullife" is listed as title + name.
Avinoam Sapir would probably say that indicates a personal, emotional introduction as opposed to a more formal name + title introduction.

Peter Hyatt said...

Personal would require possessive pronoun.

Peter

John mcgowan said...

Father arrested for the murder of his son, Joseph.

Anonymous said...

"They rapidly jumped to the conclusion that I must be corrupt..." Possible embedded confession?

Anonymous said...

"Personal would require possessive pronoun."

Thank you for pointing that out. I should have thought of that before putting my ignorance on display.

Hey Jude said...

"I said to Andrew, “If you think this is going to be a problem for you professionally, even if it’s allowed, I won’t do it.”"

"Even if it's allowed" - following the meetings and phone calls, she had considered that her husband might be professionally compromised if she ran for Senate, and that it might not be ethically sound to allow herself to be 'recruited' - early on, she had it in mind there was potential for her campaign to negatively impact his career. While claiming that "Andrew and his job at the FBI" was one of her first considerations, she (inconsiderately) put responsibility onto her husband to decide whether it would be a problem for him professionally. As she had that concern she could have attended to it without bothering him. She put a lot on the line considering she wasn't even a regular voter.

ericb said...

Question: when referring to “virtue signaling” behavior and language, could this be considered as sort of a contemptuous and disdainful sense inside? It’s a judgment of those whom she feels is at odds with her and it is an attempt on her part to brow beat or pole her opponents in a more indirect, perceived less hostile, way? This is great stuff that really gets the wheels turning. Thank you.