Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Loretta Lynch Interview Part 2

Talking about the meeting (starts with question cut out)

Lynch: It was still 107 degrees outside. Umm and I was told he wanted to come on the plane and say hello, umm and 

This is part two of the analysis of Loretta Lynch's interview with Lester Holt.  In Part One, Lynch was indicated for deception.  Her specific strategy was evasion, using tangents as tactics. 

Her intellect and verbosity indicate a "Filibuster" deceiver; that is one who will talk through questions, avoid answering them, and when confronted with inconsistencies or outright deception, will appear impervious to reason and continue to introduce new, unrelated topics. 

Here we see this small tactic introducing the weather.  This is another indication of intellect.  

Deceptive people are counting on their audience to interpret their words. 

 Here she does the same:  

'I only talked with former President Bill Clinton because saying 'hi'
 outside where the press was near, was inconvenient due to the excessive heat.'

There are two basic strategies that are successfully used against Filibuster deceivers. 

The first is to let them go on indefinitely, which will produce much information later, including potential attendant crime information. This is time consuming, and requires patience with a later commitment to thoroughly analyze the transcript.  This analysis alone, for example, of a "15 minute rant", can consume 6 hours or more of analysis.  

In law enforcement in which time is limited, a different methodology is used, including strategic patience and confrontation.  For Lester Holt, this would have meant saying to her,

"I asked you why you told Director Comey to change his wording from 'investigation' to 'matter' and you did not answer the question, instead you introduced...why did you need to avoid answering?" 

This takes skilled listening and even some live training for those well trained in Statement Analysis in which audio without transcripts are used, and intensity is used in the exercise where they flag pronouns and sensitivity indicators.  It is stress inducing and it works.  

In her answer, she uses passivity ("I was told") which conceals the identity of the speaker (which may be appropriate dependent upon circumstances) and then introduced the weather as her tangent.  She  claimed he wanted to say 'hi' which is, in context of what happened, a use of "technical truth" to deceive the audience into believing it was a personal, non professional discussion. 

This is similar to the clever child who ate three cookies and told his mother, "I ate one cookie."  

In eating three cookies, it is true that he ate one cookie.  This type of intelligence, when seen in a child is alarming, but if unchecked, will lead to danger for society. 

Holt: Did a part of you go oh no no no no, turn him around?

He heard the passivity, which not only concealed the identity of the speaker, but put the burden of responsibly upon President Clinton in a subtle manner.  

Here, Holt asks a plain question:  'You know this is wrong to speak to the husband of a target of a criminal investigation, so did you say 'no' to the person?'

Yet, that is not what he said. 

We know and are known, even by the questions we ask.  Analytical Interview training is for those trained in Statement Analysis and teaches them to ask open ended, legally sound questions and to use the language of the subject.  

Here, Holt indicates to us (the unintended recipient of information) that he recognizes corruption within his subject.  He asked if only a "part" of her say 'no', with the word 'no' unnecessarily repeated. This is to reveal:

a.  Holt knew this was unethical
b.  Holt knew his subject, Lynch, was compromised in some manner
c.  Holt knew his subject was also conflicted; a "part" of her knowing right from wrong. 

This is a poorly worded question and is more of a "plea" than a question.  

This is not lost on the subject, who began with the habit of speech, "You know", which means her awareness of his presence (intended recipient) and the presence of the TV camera (unintended recipient; the nation) has become acute due to this question. 

The question is, "Did a part of you say 'no' to this meeting?"

Lynch:  You know, at first, my thought was, you know I speak to people all the time. Ah..people in public life people not in public life (interrupted)

a.  "You know" shows increase of sensitivity to this question
b.  "at first" is a numeric, indicating that logic may be at play, and we should expect subsequent and tertiary thoughts or answers. 
c.  "you know" is repeated.  The question was so difficult that it has produced this habit of speech, which is now used to stall to allow the brain to reset and think what words to use.  This is, in a sense, a disruption.  
d.  "I speak to people all the time" introduces the "crowd sourcing" element and is another tangent.

She speaks to people all the time, but how often does she speak in 107 degree temperature to the former President of the United States while his wife, running for President of the United States, is under criminal investigation?

This is thus the "Normal Factor" in Statement Analysis. 


The "Normal Factor" indicates anything but normal.  Some examples:

a.  Allegation:  Child Sexual abuse.  

Statement:  "I am a normal married man."

When a person calls himself or herself "normal", it indicates that either the person, or others, has considered than not normal. 

"Married man" is to say that pedophile cannot be indicated due to the sexual relationship within marriage. 

This short response is indicative of guilt. 

b.  Allegation:  Work Place Theft

"I went to work at 9am and did my usual chores until lunch time.  Then, at 12 noon I ate lunch and at 12:30, I..."

By "normalizing" the period of time between 9 and Noon, the subject has indicated a "need to appear normal" meaning that during this time period, something "not normal" happened.

c.  Allegation:  Homicide

"I was taking to her like I aways talk to her."

Particularly in domestic homicide, the conversation that preceded the assault is often what gives us the guilt. "Like I always talk to her" is to say, "This conversation was normal" indicating the need to normalize which tells us:  it was not normal.

Remember the children's story telling hour, 

"Once upon a time, he woke up and it was a day just like every other day..." which causes the children to sit up and pay attention because something "not normal" is about to happen. 

Loretta Lynch has just indicated that this meeting was unique and unlike all the other "people" she has spoken with. 

HOLT: Interrupts her – right but his wife was under investigation by the justice department

Holt does not buy into "normalcy" of the subject's wording. 

Lynch: (continuing speaking during question) ordinary citizens

She introduced the weather, she introduced people, and now she uses "ordinary citizens" which reveals her own elitist status as well as the elitist meeting with the former U.S. President. 

(Interview video interrupted by commentary.  The actual transcripts should be by now subpoenaed for investigation) 

Holt: Did you have any moment where you said, Mr. President, this is probably not appropriate or this is gonna look bad?

Holt does not let it go.  She introduces tangents (weather, people, 'ordinary citizens') but he goes back to what a "part of her" would have to recognize.  

Lynch: Well I will say in the course of the conversation we spoke and it seemed like we were going to say hello how are you and move on. Ah, and then the conversation would..would continue.

a.  First she begins with another pause ("well") to collect her thoughts.  She indicates sensitivity to this basic assertion of only the appearance of impropriety.  

b.  She used the pronoun "we" to unite herself to Bill Clinton under specific context (saying hello)

c. She reported what "seemed like" which now tells us that the actual is different from the appearance. 

d.  She then indicates deception by breaking linguistic commitment of past tense verbs.  

She is slowing down the pace to avoid the inner confrontation (and legal consequence) of direct deception. 

She has, thus far, successfully avoided the question.  

(Holt interrupts) Holt: In this hyper-partisan environment we’re in did you ever once considered recusing yourself from the Clinton Investigation?

This is a "yes or no" question borne of frustration at her refusal to answer a question.  

Lynch: Well that’s always an issue. 

a.  She does not answer the question
b.  She pauses again
c.  She reports what "always" is an issue, which avoids the context of the question:  This was a past event. A reliable answer must use past tense verbs. 

As I said at the time 

Here we have a self reference.  This means she is avoiding giving a current opinion, instead using memory of what she previously said. This is another indicator of one who must keep track of one's own words, rather than work from experiential memory in the free editing process. 

I knew it was going to raise questions in peoples minds.

She reports what she "knew" and then introduces "peoples' minds", with "people" entering her answer.

Question:  Did the subject debate with her boss, President Obama, about recusal?

 So what you do is you always consult the legal experts. You always get a legal answer as to whether or not recusal is required. 

The pronoun change is significant. She was asked about herself, not about "you" (others). 

This topic, which she attempts to distance herself from ("that") is so acutely sensitive, that she must now "universalize it" by taking it from herself, and the past tense, to the present tense of "all people", universally, who are legal authorities and meet with former Presidents of the United States while their wives are under criminal investigation. 

This is very likely more than just "deception indicated" but may be related to the protection of her own boss, and her own unwillingness to take responsibility. 

This simple legal decision (a 'no brainer') is an embarrassment to her.  

She cannot bring herself to say, "I asked the legal authorities" which would be humiliating to her. 

Instead, she uses deception which, itself, is not challenging to discern. 

The pronoun "you" is used when something is commonly done, or universally done. 

It sounds contrived because it is contrived. 

Q.  "Did you rob the First National bank on Friday at 2pm under gunpoint?

A.  "You don't rob banks..."

This subect cannot say, "I did not rob the bank."  

Can Loretta Lynch say, "I followed the advice of legal experts"?

Umm, and had it been that’s what I would have done.

She did not. 

She describes the Tarmac Meeting with President Clinton as if it was a hypothetical event.  

Deception Indicated. 

(Interview video interrupted by commentary)

Holt: Rod Rosenstein wrote in his memo recommending Comey’s dismissal that he was wrong to usurp the attorney general’s authority on July 5th, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case, the Clinton case, should be closed without prosecution. Was Comey wrong, did he usurp your authority?

This is a "yes or no" question.  Director Comey laid out the crimes committed and the findings.  Then he added that although she was guilty of these things, she didn't "intend" to commit these crimes. 

Intention:  a 19 year old Navy sailor was assigned to a submarine.  He took pictures on his iPhone of how "cool" it was and sent them to his family.  Investigators found no sharing of information nor contact with foreign governments, hostile actors within the United States, or anyone outside his family.  He spent one year in federal prison.  

Lynch: Well it certainly was an unusual move. Ah, it was.. It was a different.. ah, way to deliver a recommendation to the attorney general. Ah, I had not had any of my other law enforcement agencies deliver a recommendation in a case to me in that way.. before.

(Holt interrupts) Holt: Unusual but it was either right or wrong..was it right or wrong?

He has failed to get her to commit to any ethical or legal standpoint and presses.  

Lynch: .. And well I think he’s going to have to speak to, ah, to why he took those actions.  

She avoids answering the question again.  

Holt: What was your reaction when you heard Comey had been fired?

Lynch: … Well, you know, I was, I think I was as surprised as, ah any American. You know I don’t know the circumstances behind it, and that (Holt interrupts her).

a.  "well" sensitivity point to pause
b.  "you know" sensitivity point to pause
c.  "I was" is now interrupted (self censoring)
d.  "I think" is a weak assertion rather than reliably report her emotion as "surprised"
e.  "any any American" is to employ the Normal Factor, and the crowd. 

Conclusion:  She was not surprised.  

Holt: Did you at any point wish that he’d been fired?

This is a better question.  Comey refused to submit to changing the wording of "investigation" to "matter" and circumvented her to make this public announcement rather than allow her to.  

Holt recognizes the personal insult (or impact) to Lynch. 

Note what it produces:

Lynch: No, I..I ..I think that, ah, umm, you know the FBI director as well as well as the other leaders of the, of the law enforcement agencies of the department carried out their, their tremendous responsibilities under a great deal of pressure.

a, "No" should have been left alone.  
b.  "I, I, I" is the "stuttering I of stress. We use the pronoun "I" millions of times and are experts at using it.  When one stutters on "I" it is an increase of stress and often anxiety.  The more stuttering on I (from a non stutterer) the greater the anxiety.  If it hits 6 or more, it is generally only found in a personal close homicide and the subject is likely to be hospitalized with a nervous breakdown. 

c.  Note she then includes "other leaders" in her response, which then 'crowd sources' her answer, as she did prior. 

We see that the immediate psychological distancing from James Comey in both the language and in the need to "bring in others" to water down or "hide" him in a crowed.  

This is contempt of James Comey and it was what Holt likely sensed in the interview.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Loretta Lynch would not pass a polygraph.  

Loretta Lynch "filibustered" the questions rather than answer them. This is her mode of operation and should be expected to be seen in upcoming investigations. 

Her contempt for James Comey may be something that a prosecutor (grand jury) will use to get her to testify against him in this conflict. 

Comey gave a list of the crimes committed and in doing so, indicated Hillary Clinton of lying about confidential information. 

President Obama was asked when he learned that Hillary set up a private server.  The analysis showed Deception Indicted" as he claimed to "just" find out when "everyone else" did.  We later learned that he and Loretta Lynch used fake names to email her.  

This is backdrop which may help readers understand the stress of this meeting and the anxiety produced by James Comey.  

Did President Clinton threaten both Loretta Lynch and President Obama, should Hillary be indicted? 

The meeting with President Clinton its a source of great stress and anxiety for Loretta Lynch, who normally speaks with fluidity and command of thought.  How ever much she may resent the Clintons for putting so many government officials in difficult places, the contempt for Director Comey may be even deeper and one that may become a factor in future indictments.  She may seem him as not a team player and a rogue to be punished.  


Anonymous said...

Very informative and interesting analysis.

This particular "meeting" was caught by a journalist. Wonder how many meetings like this were not?

Anonymous said...

Trumps passive message to Russia

Tania Cadogan said...

Their own words reveal the truth and condemn them.

Will they continue to deceive and protect those above them including obama and clinton out of some misguided belief that they are worth taking the fall for?

Will they continue to deceive and protect those above them including obama and clinton out of some misguided belief that they will in turn protect those who are protecting them?

Will they continue to deceive and protect those above them including obama and clinton because of some threat, information or hold their bosses have over them, blackmail is such a nasty word?

Will they continue to deceive and protect those above them including obama and clinton due to perhaps some 'payment' in money, services, illegal substances which would see themselves doing serious time?

If they think obama and clinton will confess to protect their subordinates, they are sorely mistaken.
Obama and clinton will toss everyone under the bus long before they race to throw each other under the bus.

Of the two I can't decide who would come out the winner, well the lesser loser.
Clinton and all her deals with the Russians and middle east, all those debts owed when she didn't become president or obama who brought about almost a civil war in America, racial hatred by blacks on whites, demanding that the whites owed them everything for every perceived slight, the silencing of any intellectual discord or questioning, the squashing of rights to support a tiny minority.
Would being an ex president offer obama a bit more protection as he was the leader or would clinton be safer as she was never president but probably did far worse?

Clinton of the two has the longer history of really dirty laundry that tide pods can never clean, unexplained deaths linked to her and hubby, the rape allegations, her supporting a paedohhile and concealing incriminating evidence, fraud, state secrets and dirty deals.
Obama has the birther scandal where he claims to have been born in Hawaii as opposed to Kenya yet claimed all the benefits of being a foreign student, the lifestyle which could not seem to be be supported by his income as a student, the fact no one seems to really remember him as a student with little mention of him from fellow students or lecturers, the fact he seemed to have been chosen from the get go as a president to be and given a chit load of help and finances to get there.

Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...

There is also the issue of if one of the subordinates talks and throws obama or clinton under the bus

First one to roll over and talk wins the prize, now whether that prize is immunity from prosecution or, a mysterious murder/suicide/disappearance is the question.

Given how much is at stake by the main protagonists will that alone be enough to have the subordinates take the fall?
How can you go into the witness protection program when it could be the very people running that program that wouldn't think twice about a 'little accident' happening.
Misguided loyalty, blackmail or simple threats to ones family.

I think this is also why the left and MSM are constantly attacking Trump.
He isn't one of them.
He is no lawyer, he has zero political experience, he has messed up in business multiple times, he has business smarts in knowing when to offer stupidly low to get the deal he really wants, tiptoeing round the niceties is not in his lexicon, he will say what he means and if that means knocking a few noses out of joint to get whoever round the table, he can't be threatened or blackmailed because we know he hasn't been faithful, he loves the ladies.
He is the antithesis of every politician.
He can be brisk, stubborn, loud and annoying,everything a politician isn't.

The left want one of their own in or at worst a republican or centre right who will follow the same rail tracks on doing this and saying that and everything stays pretty much the same.
You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours and snouts in the trough.
Circling, circling, always circling round the political dance floor, dancing the same steps clockwise or counterclockwise, till the tune changes and the dance continues with the same steps except going the other direction.

Time will tell, watch the skittles fall.

Anonymous said...


Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has been accused of non-consensual sexual contact with his former hair dresser, according to a report released Wednesday by the Missouri House Special Investigative Committee on Oversight.

He has categorically denied any illegal actions or non-consensual contact.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Peter, would you please review this story here and see if that McDonald's manager who got into an altercation with a customer is being truthful? You could probably find some more about the story by searching the manager's name.

Anonymous said...

Manager is truthfull

Anonymous said...


Kentucky gov. apologizes for comments linking teacher protests to child abuse

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin has apologized to those offended by recent remarks insinuating that walkouts by teachers have left children unsupervised and vulnerable to sexual assault. He also thanked supporters "who understood" his comments on the protests that forced the closure of more than 30 school districts in his state.

"I apologize for those who have been hurt by the things that were said was not my intent whatsoever," Bevin said in a video message Sunday. "For those of you who have been hurt, it is my absolute sincere apology to you, it is not my intent to hurt anybody in this process but to help us all move forward. together."

Bevin had come under scrutiny after he told a reporter children left at home could be susceptible to sexual assault or even be poisoned.

"I guarantee you somewhere in Kentucky today a child was sexually assaulted that was left at home because there was nobody there to watch them," Bevin said Friday in a video tweeted by WDRB-TV reporter Marcus Green.

"I guarantee you somewhere today a child was physically harmed or ingested poison because they were home alone because a single parent didn't have any money to take care of them. I'm offended by the idea that people so cavalierly and so flippantly disregarded what's truly best for children."

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin on the teacher rallies today. “I guarantee you somewhere in Kentucky today a child was sexually assaulted that was left at home because there was nobody there to watch...

Habundia said...

If those children were left home alone and nobody to watch them who would be the (sexual) assaulter then?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

the quotes are contaminated, most likely due to police interview(s). there seems to be stuff he is consciously leaving out but that what he does say has the markers of veracity.

he uses the article "the" for 1) "the house", 2) "the lady", 3) "the gun" where expected it would be "a" house, "a" lady "a" gun. this could be due to contamination or his grammar.

C5H11ONO said...


Anonymous said...

Hi. Does anyone here read gateway pundit or breitbart? If so, has viewing been intertupted by fake google virus warnings or fake walmart or amazon prize notices? Looks like these two websites are being hacked.

Anonymous said...

Piers Ploughman 1367 AD

Anonymous said...

Anonymous with the intrusive pop ups...

are you on iPhone?

If so, clear your history. It is on a lot of websites. I did some research and clearing history helps. also don't leave your browser open. it is how info is stolen.