Tuesday, May 8, 2018

AG Eric Schneiderman Denial

Eric Schneiderman has been accuses of sexual abuse and assault by 4 women. 

Schneiderman has been an outspoken supporter of #metoo and with  similar patterns to others accused, he often projected guilt via unnecessary moralizing or "sermonizing."

In Statement Analysis, the "virtue signal" is carefully analyzed for context and sensitivity.  In particular, the need to condemn that which warrants no condemnation is deemed "unnecessary language" as a point of sensitivity. 

The language, itself is also examined. 

In light of these allegations, Schneiderman issued the following denial.  The accusers stated that the contact was not consensual and two reported obtaining medical intervention after being "slapped" and "choked."

Misogyny is not disagreeing with a female politician. Misogyny is a deep contempt for women in general, often experienced by female police officers when arresting a violent male suspect.  When present, misogyny is frightening. The politicizing of this word has impacted its definition for many. For female officers who describe "that look" in the eye and body language of a suspect they attempt to arrest, there is no confusion as to its meaning.  Some describe it as an unrestricted "delight" in seeing a female officer take out handcuffs. 

A government employee climbed ranks over the course of years by using his body size and his deep voice to intimidate female superiors and coworkers.  It was a deliberate exploitation of bodily weakness to obtain his goal of promotion. Several women  described bursting into tears in meetings where he would raise his voice, slam his fist into the table and storm out of the conference room.  This led some females to attempt to pacify him, or "win him over", which did not work.  It is victimology 101 in Domestic Violence, mirrored in the workplace. Two resigned as their health was impacted by the elevated fear experienced.  

If masculinity sacrifices strength to protect weakness, this is an example of contemptuous exploitation of weakness. The instinct of fear was a survival mechanism for the women. 

Eric Schneiderman held himself up as a champion of the #metoo and gave unnecessary "sermons" on the topic.  It is the need to persuade of one's moral supremacy when no such opposition exists, that we find the most easily discernible projection of guilt. There is no opposition party calling for more abuse of women. 


We expect de facto (actual) innocence (not judicial innocence which he possesses) to "stand behind the psychological wall of truth." 

"I did not sexually assault _____."  "I did not assault..." are examples of a direct denial.  

What does his denial teach us?

“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

Here is his statement analyzed. 

“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. 

1.  His denial begins with an affirmation of activity.  

This is his priority; things he has done.  We note:

a. He does not begin with the pronoun "I" in his statement.  This alerts us to a subtle psychological distancing from the statement.  Technically, it increase the likelihood of unreliable information in his statement. 

b.  He does not begin with a denial.  (negative) 

c.  He begins with an activity  (positive) 

The expectation is "I did not" which is to assert the negative in light of context: allegations.  

The activity, therefore, is his priority and we should allow this to be as such for him, if we wish to understand his:

Personality Traits 

We accept or "receive" this from him.  It is his priority (technically) and the analyst should consider that this is a significant part of his personality:  he may define himself by these "relationships." 

d.  "privacy" indicates an expectation between him and the accusers.  At this point in the analysis, the investigator should be considering:  Are there more victims?

It is something that is a priority for him, including the expectation of privacy. As a priority, we recognize the context of one who has been public, vocal and "front and center" in this movement.  Before he denies anything, he must first define himself.  His job, career and reputation are all on the line at this point.  (he has resigned subsequent to the denial). 

2.  "have engaged" and not "engaged" is to elongate time.  This further affirms how important this is to him.  He does not simply relegate it to the past (via past tense verb) but uses it without time discrimination.  It is something done over time, which again should cause the investigator to anticipate more victims. 

3.  "other sexual activities" with the word "other" is a dependent word.  It only works in communication if, at the time of the statement, he is considering activities not addressed here in the statement of "private", "role playing" and "relationships."

What else has he done?

Question:  When is he thinking about "other" consensual activity besides role playing?

Answer: When under accusation.

He has just alerted investigators that there is not only the possibility of "more victims" but activities not described here that are sexual that he is concerned about coming out. 

I have not assaulted anyone. 

This is a denial which, by itself is "not reliable" in that he avoids using "did not" or "didn't", instead allowing for more "time", in his mind, as an expanse.  

I do not call "anyone" an "unreliable" denial because there are at this time, four accusers and only two used their names publicly.  

This is "not reliable" by itself.  "Not reliable" sometimes proves to be deceptive, while for other cases, innocent.  

Note a subtle change of language here: 

I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, 

Did you see it?

He went from "I have not" to "I have never", in a very close (proximity) and similar (accusation) sentence.

This means that there is a change of reality for him.  

The former is not reliable but the change now puts even more unnecessary emphasis upon "engaging in nonconsensual sex."

Investigators may hear allegations of rape. 

As chilling at this may be, what he says next is why defense attorneys do not allow their clients to speak out:  

"...which is a line I would not cross."

What do we know about him?

We know that in his sexual relationships, he has a "line" that most men do not have. 

A "line" between consensual and non consensual (rape) exists in his verbalized perception of reality. 

For him a "line" exists.  This is his personal subjective dictionary.  This is his language.  Remember where he began his statement; not with a denial, but with an affirmation of activity. 

A line exists which means it has to be drawn (defined) and it can be approached but he "would not" (future/conditional) "cross" it.  

While for many no such line exists because no such drawing of a line is necessary, it is for him.  

Objection:  He is accused of nonconsensual sex.

Answer:   Agreed, however, we have the absence of a reliable denial (a) of which said denial was not even his priority (b). 

This is to indicate that he has a line in his mind

Next, we know that he has a need to portray himself as "the good guy" here. 

There is no "psychological wall of truth."

I find this "good guy" principle enters the language of rapists and of child pornographers and molesters. They need to present themselves as moral, when innocences requires no such affirmation. 

Child Molestation Allegation Answered: 

Rather than say, "I did not sexually touch ____", the guilty often use, as a substitute for a reliable denial, an affirmation of their own high moral standing.  Some go as far as to attempt to connect two unrelated elements. 

"I am a happily married man" which means two realities clash, first for the subject, and then for the analyst, but not for innocent people. 

Child molestation is not a result of an unhappy marriage.  The two topics, marriage and sexual perversion, are unrelated.

They are not related except in the verbalized perception of reality of one whose life is "private consensual role playing..." and so on. 

In his activity (priority) he has a line and does not say, "I didn't cross the line" but "would never."

Having the line in his language is the first indicator of weakness, only to be followed by the unreliable future conditional. 

He is revealing the depths of his misogyny.  

Misogyny is contempt for women that can quickly escalate to violence. 

That this subject sexually enjoys hurting women, in the guise of role playing, is indicative of misogyny. 

It is the very thing used by misogynists in accusing others. 

Virtue Signaling is unnecessary moralizing or giving a "sermon" where no such sermon is necessary.  It  reveals the subject to his audience. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Eric Schneiderman's statement is "Unreliable" as he is deceptive.  

He likely has more victims. 

He likely has more allegations than those already stated.  

This is who he is and what his life revolves around:  dominating, exploiting and harming women.  

This is why he has been such an outspoken condemner of abuse of women.  

If you were accused of non consensual sex, you would deny it, but have no need to tell us what kind of sex you have.  


The "line" comment: 

It is an addition to his statement that is likely to have a most chilling impact upon readers/listeners.  For most men, there is no such line in existence.  For those who need a line, they've already indicated something is very wrong with how they view women.  For this subject and his "relationships", a "line" is present and a line is required.  

Now that this is established, consider the unreliable "would never" used. 

For training in deception detection, we offer seminars and in-home study:  Hyatt Analysis Services 

Also see our new You Tube channel 


CQuinn said...

The "...which is a line I would not cross" made me shudder this morning when I heard it. Thanks for the in-depth analysis of this statement.
Unless I'm missing it, he does not address the physical assaults at all. At least two women accuse him of hitting them. One talks about him choking her. It's very telling that these are not addressed in his statements.

Peter Hyatt said...

CQuinn, you;'re the first comment here but expect others to say something similar about "cross the line."

This is a line that does not likely exist in many mens' realities. It only exists in those of whom it is necessary.

I wondered if I had explained it properly The video needs to be properly done:


sonjay said...

Does he have a "line" that he would not cross when it comes to nonconsensual hitting, slapping or choking? If so, he failed to tell us.

I'm wondering if there's anything more to be discerned from his use of the phrase "In the privacy of intimate relationships." His statement means exactly the same thing with that lead-in or without it. So he started his statement with a big double-scoop of unnecessary words -- which, from what I've learned here, indicates heightened sensitivity and/or need to persuade. Peter, you mentioned that his use of the word "privacy" indicates an expectation between him and the accusers. Might it also indicate a unilateral expectation on his part that whatever he did with and to his victims would and should remain "private" forever? Does he perhaps view these accusations as an invasion of his own privacy?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous CQuinn said

he does mention assaults and denies doing so. "I have not assaulted anyone."

he also claims to be role playing with the women. so his definition of assault and assault in "role playing" would need to be explored. while the response "I have not assaulted anyone." leaves out the individuals who claim to be assaulted. who is "anyone"?

Peter Hyatt said...

Interesting observations and questions.

Sonjay: "privacy" is a good question. It is very important to him and may indicate a messiah like mentality where he had an expectation of privacy similar to those who say, "I will not allow people to..." expressing control over others.

General, without Heather holding the camera, the video is off, but we'd need to know who "anyone" is but also what an ":assault" is.

I think we can explore his "line" with much material.


Bobcat said...

Excerpt: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

"About four weeks after they became physically involved, she says, Schneiderman grew violent. One night, they were in the bedroom of his Upper West Side apartment, still clothed but getting ready for bed, and lightly baiting each other. As she recalls it, he called her “a whore,” and she talked back. They had both been drinking, and her recollection of their conversation is blurry, but what happened next remains vivid. Schneiderman, she says, backed her up to the edge of his bed. “All of a sudden, he just slapped me, open-handed and with great force, across the face, landing the blow directly onto my ear,” Manning Barish says. “It was horrendous. It just came out of nowhere. My ear was ringing. I lost my balance and fell backward onto the bed. I sprang up, but at this point there was very little room between the bed and him. I got up to try to shove him back, or take a swing, and he pushed me back down. He then used his body weight to hold me down, and he began to choke me. The choking was very hard. It was really bad. I kicked. In every fibre, I felt I was being beaten by a man.”

She finally freed herself and got back on her feet. “I was crying and in shock,” she says. She recalls shouting, “Are you crazy?” To her astonishment, Schneiderman accused her of scratching him. At one point—she can’t remember if it was at this moment or in a later conversation—he told her, “You know, hitting an officer of the law is a felony.”

After the incident, Manning Barish left the apartment, telling him that she would never come back. “I want to make it absolutely clear,” she says. “This was under no circumstances a sex game gone wrong. This did not happen while we were having sex. I was fully dressed and remained that way. It was completely unexpected and shocking. I did not consent to physical assault.”

In the following days, Manning Barish confided to three close female friends that Schneiderman had hit her. All of them have confirmed this to The New Yorker. “She was distraught,” one of the friends, a high-profile media figure, says. “She was very, very upset. This wasn’t a gentle smack. He clocked her ear. I was shocked.” She notes, “Michelle had mentioned that he drank a lot, and that he changed under the influence of alcohol, but I’d never anticipated that he would be violent.” The friend describes Manning Barish as having seemed “sad” and “torn,” because “she’d really wanted the relationship to work.”

The novelist Salman Rushdie, who dated Manning Barish before Schneiderman did, and who has been her close friend for nearly fifteen years, says that she confided in him as well. “She called me and told me he had hit her,” Rushdie recalls. “She was obviously very upset. I was horrified.” In his view, Schneiderman’s behavior does not fall into the kind of gray area that should remain private. “It was clear to me that it crossed a line,” he says. Rushdie, who describes Manning Barish as “a very truthful person, in my experience,” advised her to stay away from Schneiderman."

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Katprint said...

For lawyers, and especially lawyers in New York with a criminal law background, "assault" has a specific legal definition which is different from the general meaning that most people would assume. Hitting or choking someone -- which he doesn't deny -- is not "assault" under this definition unless it causes a physical injury.

New York Penal Law article 120.00:

"120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor."


So, in New York, someone who non-consensually choked, slapped, punched, kicked, spit on or otherwise attacked someone else has not committed an "assault" unless it caused "physical injury". IMO that is why he said he had not "assaulted" anyone as opposed to saying that he had not hit or choked anyone.

John mcgowan said...

“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged (x2) in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

His internal subjective dictionary explanations would be a gold mine to analyse.

Lucia D said...


Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Schneiderman acknowledges "role=playing" and "consensual sexual activity" (intentionally vague). What does he define as "sexual activity"? Verbally, to him, role-playing is distinct from sexual activity as he categorizes them separately.

"I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex..."- Engaged in? That phrase sounds like one who indulges himself in something, as opposed to I did not sexually abuse/sexually assault/rape any woman. He makes an obvious distinction between sexual activity and sex, so I'd want him to define the difference. What about non-consensual sexual activity? In not addressing that, he is addressing it as the role-playing is indeed separate from sexual activity (his own verbalized perception in his statement), with the "role-playing" being the unprovoked physical abuse of the woman. Verbally, to him, the "role paying" comes before the "sexual activity"-it's the precursor to, the warm-up.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

"...which is a line I would not cross."- Would not is future tense conditional and is not the same as "I did not cross". Schneiderman delineates a line he "would not cross". So, what other "lines" has he crossed before or he would cross? He's alluding to lines drawn by the woman, in defining this particular line. Notice the minimizing, legalese? Nonconsensual sex sounds so much better in black and white than Rape.

tania cadogan said...

“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

He is into BDSM and thinks of himself as a Master or Dom(dominant)
For women it is Mistress or Domme
The line he would never cross would be the safe word, a word decided by the two of them before beginning, a word distant from the no, stop, don't.
A word such as a color, maybe traffic lights, green is go ahead, amber would be ok but go easy or slow down and red for stop when the Dom stops whatever they are doing.
Despite appearances, it is the submissive who is control, deciding what is OK, what is be careful and when to stop.
Any good Dom or Master would stop immediately.

I would like to know what his definition of assault is given the role playing which would involve the infliction of pain, demeaning, name calling etc.
Perhaps a slap would be OK but a punch would not.
Perhaps light choking applying minimum pressure would be OK but choking hard such as strangulation would not or asphyxia play.
It would depend on his personal preferences as to how far to go, light right through to almost torture.
It would also depend on the woman/submissive and how far she wants to from light spanking right through flagellation, rope tying bondage etc.

I have not assaulted anyone.In his head it was not assault regardless of what went on.
He may have been thinking BDSM and the woman may have been vanilla (not into BDSM) or only into gentle role play.
In his head it was consensual as it was role playing and for the woman who was not prepared to role play to the same degree or did not want to role play st all and thus both see it as assault, which it is.
It would be like the difference between a feather and a chicken :)

I have never engaged in non consensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”
Never does not mean did not.
What is his definition of non consensual sex given his sexual predilections?
i suspect it would mean not stopping when the safe word is said regardless of what he is doing.
What is his definition of sex?
It doesn't mean penetration with a penis, remember bill clinton.
Sex could be different things to different people.

The safe word is the line he would not cross.
Note he says I have never engaged in non consensual sex<
which is a line I would not cross.”

Would is future conditional which makes me wonder if he has crossed the line before but given what has come out, he would not cross the line again, he would stop when the woman says no/says the safe word or, makes it clear that she is vanilla and is not interested in role playing.

The majority of people are vanilla and, apart from gentle role play such as doctors and nurses or blindfolds and scarves maybe even the dreaded furry handcuffs.

For him it involves hitting, choking and strangulation and more, perhaps rape scenarios.

“In the privacy of intimate relationships
As Attorney General of New York he would not want his sexual activities to become public as Joe Public would be shocked and not vote for him.
He has to appear vanilla to get the votes, especially of god fearing conservatives.
He had power both in the senate and then as AG, it is reflected in his sex life.
It is all about power and domination.
There some that have power and dominance in the real word via jobs yet want to become submissive.
It is a way for them to release their stress to let someone else give the orders or a change.
I wonder if he is a member of a club?
He would expect, demand that his partner says nothing, it is his dirty little secret.
There will be more coming out the wood work.

Anonymous said...

A German 89 year old granny in prison for denying holocaust. PRISON!!!!
What a mess in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: What should someone do, according to SA, if they had a story to tell that noone would ever believe, a true story much stranger than any fiction anyone could ever come up with?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Wow and none injured. Driver didnt seem bothered? No one arrested, what? Employees not allowed to talk? But citys instagram manager is there.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps one should first seek what the rules of "engagement" are and the fine "line" in the sand drawn before the smackdown, eh?

Anonymous said...

I cant believe my comments got deleted! I dont usually crack myself up, but I was laughing so hard I cried at my funny comments!

Anonymous said...

What should someone do if they have a story to tell that would never be believed? In fact, not one aspect of the story would be believed bc it is THAT strange?

Anonymous said...

It sucks so bad, bc the story is so friggin strange, I would not believe it if it had happened to someone else & they told me about it. I probably wouldnt believe a word of it.

habundia said...

SA doesn't tell you what to do. SA seeks for truth and detects deception. SA analyses the words spoken/written, it's not some kind of oracle that anwsers the question "what do i do?"

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Yes, I get that SA is not an oracle.

post it and see if you get a response.

Anonymous said...


Investigators find "missin" camo jacket, toys at Kunz apartment.

Habundia said...


ex FBI director James Comey gives interview on Belgium tv.

Peter Hyatt said...


How many reviews of 27 appear to be fraudulent t? (Shills)

Hey Jude said...

'How many reviews of 27 appear to be fraudulent? (Shills)'

At least 26, possibly 27.

Habundia said...



I see no reliable denial........"it never happened"