Friday, July 13, 2018

Statement Analysis: Peter Strzok Testimony



Peter Strzok testified under oath about his text messages to attorney and paramour Lisa Page, 12 July, 2018.  In his testimony as well as his prepared statement and texts, there are many lessons in Statement Analysis present. 

Bias

He testified that he found Donald Trump to be "disgusting" and stated the reason for this. He said that Trump had insulted an "immigrant veteran." This was the cause, he said, of the text messages he sent, while denying bias. 

This was Strzok's verbalized moral standard for his opinion of condemnation; an insult or perceived insult to a person, in his testimony. 

Strzok then had text messages he sent to Lisa Page while investigating Trump read back to him. 

The text messages included:

"F Trump"


In another he wrote that he could  "smell Trump supporters" in a Virginia Walmart. 

He called Trump supporters "hillbillies." 

This is considered today a "racial" and "socioeconomic" slur against impoverished rural people.  It is to classify them as unintelligent and unsophisticated. It gives us insight into the subject's thinking.  

In the most infamous exchange, he was asked about the potential election of Donald Trump, he texted back his assurance: 

"We'll stop him"

This was stated while he was investigating Trump. 

FBI agents are routinely quiet in public about their opinions. This is a cultural unwritten policy that has kept the American respect for the FBI for generations. It was, and has been, an exercise in self restraint that is necessary for impartial investigations. The psychological impact of "giving legs strength" to a bias is known which is balanced by self discipline. It is also used in supervision as a form of processing to avoid bias' influence, 

Fall 2016 

Privately, many agents did speak of their pride of their organization in late 2016, telling their professional counterparts in law enforcement, "you will see justice" in the Clinton private server investigation. When Director James Comey outlined the consistent circumvention of laws and the abuses by Hillary Clinton in setting up a private server and transmitting classified information, besides the destruction of evidence and lying to the FBI, he went on to state that the former Secretary of State did not show "intention" in her malfeasance. 

FBI rank and file morale was palatable. The boasting of non-partisan justice ceased.  The nation suddenly was hit with suspicion of one of its most trusted organizations. 

In FBI training, as well as in federal and state government training, first day of hire has teaching of confidentiality. After the instruction, employees sign a written agreement expressing  understanding and the consequences for breaching confidentiality. 

Medical professionals can have their licenses attached for even the single transmission of a patient's name on a private phone. Social workers are warned of possible fines and even incarceration for a single infraction. For most professionals, maintaining confidentiality is a non issue; it is routine. 

America saw a young Navy sailor go to prison for one year for taking a proud photo of his submarine and sending it to his family. Investigators stated that he had no contact with foreign governments nor of business interest in the technology. He simply violated the statute and went to prison. 

With the release of the Attorney General's report,  the American public learned that hundreds of FBI agents were bribed by journalists and leaked information to harm Trump's candidacy and presidency. This was a blow to the agency, but it was also a blow to law enforcement around the nation. When even one rogue cop is identified, there is a sense of universal blame. It is unjust, but it exists. 

Stepping Aside 

Investigative professionals around the nation routinely recluse or request to be removed voluntarily from investigations where bias or interest is present. If not, their supervisors are likely to take action. If there is any connection, including familiar, personal, interest, or emotion,  for the cause of justice is to be served, and the reputation of the agency or department, the investigator will step aside, including on minor cases. 

Peter Strzok investigated not one, but the two most important cases our nation has faced in our generation.  That he was assigned to both, conflicted and competing, itself was a grave mistake. Yet it now appears, like the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and President Clinton, to have been arranged. 

The Hitler Fantasy Effect

The hypothetical question: "If you could go back to the early 1930's Germany and kill Adolph Hitler, would you?" speaks to the knowledge of the millions lost in a war instigated by the leader of Nazi Germany, and of the Holocaust of attempting to eradicate Europe of all Jews would be prevented. You, the killer, would be known as a traitor and executed for murder. 

To know that one's action, howbeit unlawful, would save lives, is an impetus for much in history, and is presented in both positive and negative context by history. For some events, the victor's history book may greatly differ from the defeated's perspective of history. 

The founding fathers of the United States knew they faced certain death penalty as "traitors" if the war was lost, yet saw their actions as "dutiful resistance" due to a morality, not as a luxury of choice.  Many suffered losses, including some their homes as well as violence towards their wives and children. 

John Brown's violent rampage at Harper's Ferry is another example. 

The shooting of doctors outside abortion clinics. 

Hitler's institutionalized murdering of Jews was for them such a "moral supremacy" that they expressed shock that the world did not applaud and  "thank us" (Nuremberg) for their efforts. The moral blindness appears incredulous today, but not to the guilty hosts.

How a woman and mother could strap herself with bombs and sit in a park of women and children to commit mass murder is beyond what Western minds will acknowledge. Yet for the subject, the killer is "rewarded" in the afterlife, according to ideology. 

If x number of people will die this year from lung cancer, will murdering of tobacco producers "save lives"? These are examples where moral impetus is used to pervert justice.  It is often a pragmatic view that says, "whatever means we use, even illegal, are acceptable because of the greater moral supremacy of our cause.

It is often the fuel of the ideology of extremists, cultists and of criminals,  as it is can be a justification for the violent. 

Was the deliberate massaging of the Clinton investigation, including failure to safely and timely obtain evidence, conduct interviews, and prosecute those who lied, as well as the use of a fraudulent dossier for FISA warrants, due to the "Hitler Fantasy" of saving the nation from annihilation at the hands of Donald Trump?

Or, were motives of self interest and ambition primary?

Peter Strzok

It is difficult for some to grasp how an "counter intelligence expert" could commit to writing  such blatant insulting  messages while carrying on an affair with Lisa Page, and not be security minded.  

The affair opened him to blackmail by our nation's enemies. 

He did not pass a polygraph in early 2016. 

 Ignorance and Arrogance can be a lethal combination. 

To understand his confidence (thousands of texts during the working investigation, and specifically about the investigation)  his text messages also reveal he expected to be rewarded by his all-but-certain boss, Hillary Clinton, for his dedication to the investigation's conclusion. One text indicts Barack Obama, while another indicts Andrew McCabe.  He even text'd about a FISA judge. 

He did not indicate any fear consequence. 

His volume and investment of time were extent. 


Strzok's Opening Statement 

What do we know about the subject from this statement?

I.  The Statement 
II. The Statement Analyzed, with Emphasis Added
III. The Analysis Conclusion 


I. The Statement 

“Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official actions I took. This is true of the Clinton email investigation. For the investigation into Russian interference and for every other investigation I’ve worked on. It is not who I am and it is not something I would ever do. Period. I understand that my sworn testimony will not be enough for some people. After all Americans are skeptical of anything coming out of Washington. But the fact is after months of investigations there is simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions."

II. The Statement Analyzed, with Emphasis Added

“Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official actions I took. 

Analysts routinely see language similar to this. Let's break it down carefully:

a. "Let me be clear" begins, not with the pronoun "I" but for the "allowance or permission" of clarity. The analyst immediately is upon guard for "reduced psychological commitment of reliability" due to the absence of this pronoun. 

"Let me clear" is a form of "Ingratiation." It seeks "permission" from the intended and unintended recipients, by the subject. The Intended Recipient (IR) is the immediate audience. The Unintended Recipient (UR) is the camera, or American public. 

Ingratiation is a form of manipulation. Repeated use is to be noted as it may suggest skill in deceptive methods of manipulation. 

Have you seen others begin with a similar  statement? It is likely you have from professional athletes caught using Performance Enhancing Drugs o former President Bill Clinton deceiving the American people.  This calls our attention to the lack of clarity. 

The priority of the statement begins with the Ingratiation Factor. 

It is then further qualified: 

b. “Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official actions I took. 

The word "unequivocally" further weakens the cause of clarity, as an unnecessary and persuasive term. 

"and under oath" is to "swear" via reminder, unnecessarily. By this opening few words alone, the analyst is now prepared that what follows is likely to contain deception. 

This is to say, "You are really really really going to hear the truth" alerting the interviewer/analyst/investigator to the contrary. Its need to persuade is both inappropriate (unnecessary) and excessive. 

c.  "never" use of hyperbole is noted.  It is not something expected from an investigator who is self honest. 

Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official actions I took. 

"defending our nation" is the "Good Guy principle" where one has the need to invoke being "the good mother" (abuse) or the "good person" (unethical, immoral) in Statement Analysis. 

It is also manipulative (emotion) and a tangent. What he did in the Clinton private server and in the Russian dossier, he did to "defend our nation."

This is to invoke, literally, 300,000,000 Americans served.  

Besides making a claim of no bias investigators are not likely to make, he "flag waves" and portrays himself as a "defender" of the United States. 

Next note "official actions", which suggests, in context, of guilt of how bias served him in unofficial manner. This could be anything from promoting only those who agree with him, to the more sinister recruitment for these two investigations, those who would align with his narrative, and be willing to engage in unethical activities, including leaking information to friendly journalists. The qualification of "official" is unnecessary both in general and in context. Everyone acts upon bias "unofficially." Its inclusion being unnecessary is deemed "very important" in analysis and would provoke an investigator's interest into "less official" actions by the subject. He does not make us wait for the immediate context of the two investigations: 


This is true of the Clinton email investigation. For the investigation into Russian interference and for every other investigation I’ve worked on.

Here he identifies the Clinton investigation into "email" (not server) and into "Russian interference", of which he stands accused. 

In the bravado of the statement, he does what deceptive people with guilt often do:  they go beyond the stated boundary. 

"...and for every other investigation I've worked on.

He has now introduced his own guilt of bias into "other" investigations he has worked on. 

This is not only repetition (sensitivity), and unnecessary (sensitivity) but it is to invite scrutiny into the cause of justice in other cases in his career. 

What he did in the Clinton investigation (mentioned first, perhaps reflecting chronological order as one of his priorities) he has done before. 

This is something that we find in criminal statements: as they communicate about a specific allegation, they sometimes reveal other criminal activities previously not known but now open for investigation. 

Gnostic View of Separation 

In Statement Analysis, we flag the "Gnostic Separation" within a statement. 

Humorously, it is "the thin man inside of me trying to get out of the obese body" in a statement.  It is to disassociate one from another and the cause of this verbalized disassociation is guilt. 

This is flagged in varying criminal statements. 

Abusive parent:  "That is not the real me.  I would never intentionally..."

Thieves sometimes refuse to accept that what they did was thievery. They will use complicated rationalization to justify it. This is why we do not use the word "steal" in a polygraph; we use "take."  They do not "steal" anything, but they do "take" or even "reimburse" or "get what was owed to me."

Human nature refuses to take responsibility for guilt. The Gnostic Split indicates guilt. 

Child molesters can sometimes even pass a polygraph if asked, "Did you molest child _____?" because in their verbalized perception of reality, we see that they "tickled" or even "loved" the child.  "I have loved children all around the world" (Michael Jackson) revealing his victims were not restricted to California. 

Domestic Homicides produce the Gnostic (ancient) split as the inability to accept personal responsibility for an unclose murder overwhelms the guilty.  

When it is employed it is a signal of a need to separate from guilt. 

How strong would be the science of Statement Analysis if, when proven wrong, I respond, "you're saying that all criminal analysts in the United States, Canada, Europe and around the world are all wrong!" rather than addressing the point of contention? 

The answer is, "No, this is you addressed; not thousands of criminal analysts."  You'd likely note the need to psychologically "hide" amongst the large crowd.  It is indicative of guilt. 

Compounding Weakness

Truth is strong, deception is weak. Some weakness in language is appropriate, but under an allegation, linguistic strength is sought. 

"I don't think I murdered him. That isn't who I am." 

The present tense Gnostic separation of persons is routinely found in the language or substance abusers.  At any given moment, someone who commits to sobriety, even shortly after using, may say, "I am clean. This is who I am," while avoiding an allegation of substance abuse, for example, on the job. It can be technically truthful, at that very moment in time, even while being used to avoid addressing the allegation. 

If it is found with the future/conditional denial of what one "would not" do, it is to confirm the guilt. 


 It is not who I am and it is not something I would ever do. Period. 

Humans, given certain conditions, are capable of doing much wrong as history and the daily news indicates. 

When a person seeks a heroin addict homeless, sticking a needle in his arm and defecating on the side walk, he may think to himself:

"If I went through the things this guy went through, I could have ended up just like him." This "linguistic human empathy" could lead the person to donating time or money to a shelter. 

Recall John Bunyan, imprisoned watching condemned prisoners being marched to the gallows said, "But for the grace (influence) of God, there goes I.

Yet the other view was classified in the ancient text where another person looks upon the beggarly addict and says, "I thank God I am not like others...", self deceived.

In the statement, the subject uses both techniques:

1. he separates himself, in his entity, from the actions 
2. he elevates himself above the possibility of corruption 

This is not only indicative of acute guilt of wrongdoing, it is self deception. 

The more egregious the crimes, the greater the need to disassociate. 

Analysts will differentiate between distancing language and the acute distancing language of disassociation via the Gnostic Split. 

Disassociation from trauma and disassociation from guilt are distinguishable both in greater and lesser (sentence) context. 

Psychological Wall of Truth and Ingratiation

The psychological wall of truth is an invisible protection for a de facto innocent subject. 

Falsely accused of molesting a child, an innocent man (not judicially innocent, but de facto) will ignore his attorney'a pleas for silence and say, "I didn't do it" and the drive from disgust will not be silenced. His protection is fact. He stands behind something that:

a. cannot be altered
b. cannot be impacted by time
c. cannot be disproven

Truth. 

This is evident in deep statement analysis but just as evident in routine analysis of someone calling out of work sick:

Caller A.  "I am sick. I hope to be in tomorrow."  

Caller B.  "I'm not feeling so well, I think I have a fever, throwing up all day.  Not sure when will be back in but may go to a doctor..."

The first is sick, states it, and has no need to persuade.  The truth leaves him with a level of indifference. 

The latter is indicating a need to persuade and is "piling on" ("clear, unequivocally and under oath") thinking he will be believed if he just gives enough information.  ("Zanaida Fernandez Gonzalez, or 'Zanny' had perfect teeth..." Casey Anthony)

The psychology wall of truth is so powerful that the principle of "lying about a lie" is more than 99% accurate. 

"I did not take the money.  I am telling the truth."

This subject is going to pass the polygraph.  He did not take the money. 

There is, therefore, no psychological connection between him and the possibility of him taking the money.  There is no intellectual or emotional connection with him being perceived as deception.  Why not?  Because he stands upon truth. 

Allowing for one to be seen as lying is a form of Ingratiation manipulation and a distinct lack of confidence in one's own words. 

"For those of you who believe in my guilt..." OJ Simpson 

Here, the author seeks to ingratiate (or make friends with) his enemies; those who believe in his guilt. (Note the ownership of the pronoun "my" is a confession by pronoun). 

The truth has no relationship with the lie. 

When a subject allows for you to disbelieve, you should follow his counsel. 

It is not only a signal of guilt, it is an attempt to psychologically lessen your oppositional view to his guilt. It is used by habitual liars who have become efficient at manipulation. 

I understand that my sworn testimony will not be enough for some people. 

Here, the subject does not say not stand upon truth (its own entity)  in his hyperbolic claim.  

He allows for his "sworn" (repetition) testimony to be insufficient for "some people." 

It is an attempt to "make friends" (agreement, ingratiation, unify, disarm) with those who read his intense hatred of Trump. He allows for its insufficiency, which is to belie his own assertion. 

This is not only another indicator of guilt, but it is further insight into his dominant personalty trait and likely something those interviewed by him over the years can readily identify. 

He further weakens his denial of bias, by explaining "why" Americans will not believe him. 

He tells us the cause.  

This is unnecessary information. For the analyst, it is of the highest sensitivity as not only "unnecessary" but it is "the reason why", where no such question is posed, nor should any such question be posed.  (3) 


After all Americans are skeptical of anything coming out of Washington. 

He also presents himself as "normal."  He is "every American" because "after all" (similar to "of course") everyone doubts what politicians say. 

a.  Normal indicates awareness of "abnormal" behavior. 
b.  "After all" is to accept without question
c.  "Washington" is to align himself  linguistically with politicians; not disinterested unbiased investigators. It is not only confessional, but it reveals his own perception of his work in politics. This is why he had to "protect" Americans ("our nation") from their own voting choices.  

This is one of the most important sentences for the psycho-linguistic profile which has not been "taken" from the subject, but of which has been "delivered" to the analyst. 

It is difficult to discern if this is delusional ("superhero") or if he sees himself as a major (if not the major) piece of a chess game.  In either case, it is an acute inflation of self importance. 

He is not one to humbly and in obscurity "serve and protect" in self sacrifice, but he is one of  whom he has aligned himself with the highest ranking politicians in the nation.  This is how he sees himself. "Washington" is high profile.  This should help us understand the arrogance within his appearance including his ability to condemn half of the nation he claims to protect. 

How far from reality has he gone is something better determined in the interview process by well trained investigators who will know how to deal with his ingratiation, deflection and tangents. 

Here he will mimic Lance Armstrong's claim of "never" using PEDs because he was never caught.  Armstrong could not say "I did not use PEDs.  I told the truth"; nor can the subject. 

What is his basis for being believed, even by those who will not believe or see his testimony (before given) as insufficient?

Will it be the powerful and impenetrable wall of truth?

But the fact is after months of investigations there is simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions."

The basis for his statement:  the AG did not catch me. 
It is to say, like Marion Jones, Armstrong and so many others, "I couldn't possibly have used because I never got caught in the many blood tests..."

These athletes often employed the element of "time" in their deceptive defense.  Note the subject did the same with "months of investigations." 

Compare this time period with the Mueller investigation into "Russian collusion" that is in its second year and ceased to be about Trump and Russia long ago. As removed from the investigation, it is difficult to ignore this context. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

The subject shows "guilty knowledge" to the allegation of bias influencing the two related investigations. 

What does this mean?

The subject not only "allowed bias" to enter the investigation, his statement and texts reveal that his investigations into both Clinton private server and the Russian interference were narrative driven;  it was biased to the conclusion: the cases must match the belief. 

This is to say, "the investigation will be conducted, in time and practice, to assure its outcome."

This is bias. 

This explains the disparity between raiding an attorney's office and waiting for months to pick up evidence. 

It explains permitting lying without consequence. 

It explains allowing for evidence to be physically destroyed. 

It explains using an opponent's financed false evidence to be used in searching for something to "stop" one candidate. 

It explains the confidence in freely transmitting biased and boastful opinions by a high ranking counter "intelligence" official, both personalty wise and professionally.  

It explains corruption, but it does not end there. 

The Subject's Baseline 


The subject does not stand upon truth, nor behind the powerful "psychological wall of truth" but upon the AG's report which repeatedly highlighted bias, but claimed to be unable to "prove" its impact. 

This is akin to boasting of "never failing a drug test" or "I've never been caught robbing the bank before...." rather than issue a Reliable Denial and stance upon truth. 

Gnostic Split

The gnostic separation of "persons" is indicative of acute awareness of guilt in Statement Analysis. 

This is where child molesters don't deny the sexual abuse but claim, "that is not who I am" instead. 

This is found in many categories of crime. "Stealing is not the person I am deep down" and "I would never..." as if above an action, stated while under accusation. These are all indicators of guilt. In the comical presentation, upon being accused of infidelity, the accused answered her accuser's question of "Did you sleep with...?" with: 

"That doesn't sound like me." 

Strzok's driving motive is encapsulated in the small text of not going "bear hunting" for his future boss was thematic, and then the word "impeach" came into his vocabulary after his failure to use his unique authoritative position within the FBI to stop Donald Trump. He would now how to use the very thing that President Obama said did not impact the election to fulfill his narrative: Russian collusion. 

The Russian collusion narrative has been shown to have been projective, with the linking of the Steele dossier to Russia. 

Strzok is well above average in intelligence.  He likely has "bested" as in a contest, many subjects in the interview process.  Investigation of Agent Strzok whether criminal or through the Bureau's version of human resources, is to be prepared to call him on points of deception and evasion.  It is to deliver to him his own game.  It will cause the veneer of invincibility to crack, even as this was evident in his face when questioned about lying to his wife. 

Like others with guilt, Strzok sought a large crowd to psychologically hide within, equating investigating him with investigating or condemning 33,000 FBI employees. We find this in guilty statements from 7 year olds coming home from school, through all manner of criminal subjects' statements analyzed and  investigated. 

It is very likely that Peter Strzok not only violated many statutes within the FBI, but his language strongly suggests criminal behavior. 

The body language of smug, arrogant and condescending is consistent with his opinion of 50 million Americans. It is consistent with his projective condemnation of Trump's insult of an immigrant as his standard of judgment. 

Peter Strzok gave Americans insight into what suspects, guilty or innocent, likely faced. His confidence in deception suggests perversion of justice in cases he was involved in.  

The narrative he, Comey, McCabe, Page and others carried, has been nullified by the growing economy, record low unemployment among African Americans and Hispanics, strong military, standing up to Iran, negotiating with North Korea, and a general "stand down" on divisive identity/tribal politics.  Whatever fears they may have claimed as the reason to "stop him", verbalizing them now would be self humiliating. With unemployment among minorities as record low, claims "racism" has disappeared. In negotiations with North Korea, claims of "Armageddon" have lessened. In jobs the previous president claimed were "not coming back", have been silenced by the return of manufacturing. 

Was Strzok led by the "Hitler Fantasy"? Was there some higher moral ground, whether real or perceived, that drove him?

His language does not support this primary motive. 

Blind Ambition and Self Preservation 

Strzok' language reveals one who was intoxicated with his own self worth and power. His disconnect is to be noted with the boldness of his deception and the lack of remorse. He does not appear to be "ideologically driven" so much as self ambition and a "super hero" fantasy of which he may have used to seduce Lisa Page. He was, and is, an embarrassment to every honorable dedicated law enforcement official in the United States. 

Though in the unenviable position of investigating his future boss' assured ascendency, his language reveals one who was not reluctant, but of one who relishes, like an "adrenaline junkie", power and opportunity. He could condemn half of America with insult, while claiming moral authority over another's singular insult. He would, as stated to his mistress, overrule the democratic vote of Americans, who were, in his linguistic reality, unqualified to know what was best for them. It is elitism but it is authoritative elitism. He, alone,  brings the investigation of General Michael Flynn into question. 

Moral narcissism and faux moral supremacy will pervert justice and often leads to violence. It is to believe in a cause that is false, fanatically so, to the point where fabrication of reality and the imposition or coercion against those who disagree is justified by the "higher" morality. 

"Antifa" dresses in hoods, reminiscent of the KKK, and commits acts of violence against police, men, women, children, businesses and even animals. They exercise fascism in theory, while condemning it verbally. Where "the righteous are as bold as a lion", the insidious weakness of their morality must hide behind cowardice violence. Interviews routinely reveal the violent cannot define "fascism" or "nazism" but great willingness to engage in violence and silencing free speech. 

Mob Violence 


The psychology of mob violence is such that people will do things in a crowd they'd not do alone. This was not lost on Maxine Waters when she gave specific directions to "go get" others to molest those she disagrees with. Trendy and popular with celebrities, the demonizing of law enforcement has further embolden criminals, demoralized police, endangered vulnerable populations, and has caused the deaths of those who serve and protect. 

Words have consequences. 

Peter Strzok has caused America to despise him.  He made grandiose claims of superhuman influence and boasts of self righteousness  only to reduce himself to a petulant child unable to contain his smirks in spite of coaching and rehearsing to the contrary, refusing to answer plain questions, and refusing to admit to being caught in acute bias. He came close, at one point, where he "virtue signaled" about Trump, but self censored with the help of partisan interjections. 

How would Peter Strzok respond if he was told the following:

"Peter, your wife is under criminal investigation.  The investigators despise you so intently, that they claim they can "smell" your friends and family members.  They are going to "stop her" from what is before her. They have assembled what they call "evidence" from your wife's most wealthy and adamant haters in order to "stop her."

Would Peter Strzok defend this team of investigators as professionals of whom bias would not impact them?

**************************************************

The FBI Academy and its National Academy are the envy of Western world of criminal justice. It has been the repository of cutting edge technology, talented instructors, and competition, both in the United States and Western Europe, for enrollment. 

Men and women in law enforcement, including rank and file in the FBI, are unfairly judged due to the actions of a very small percentage of corrupted employees, politicians who had no investigatory experience and ambitious partisans. 

It will take a house cleaning and it will take  time to see our FBI's sterling and hard earned reputation restored. 

In such as a small example,  I remind readers that we may never know the number of lives saved by preemptive action by our best and brightest in thwarting the incessant threat of Islamic terror. 

We may only offer our gratitude and our undying support knowing that this dark cloud will eventually pass. 

The disgrace belongs to the corrupt; not to the organization. 

For training in Deception Detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  


18 comments:

Kimberly Carroll said...

Thank you Peter for your in depth analysis of the Strzok case. It is obvious that the words and actions of this man are bias and unbecoming of an FBI agent. He is NOT alone and while I am in agreement that there are SOME honest and decent agents, the others involved in attempting to keep President Trump from being elected AND working to have him removed now that he is, MUST also be exposed rooted out. Hillary Clinton and others have gotten away with a vast amount of corruption with the help of the very agencies who were put in place to ensure that laws are NOT broken. I am just glad it is FINALLY coming to light!!

Alex said...

After reading his statement yesterday, I knew it was going to bad, I just didn't know how bad.

“Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official actions I took".

When he says, "not once", does that allow for the possibility that he allowed his personal opinions to impact his actions not once, but two or more times?

Thanks you,
Alex

General P. Malaise said...

"...Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official actions I took. ..."

he uses the words "not once". so how many times? ..every time? just when Clinton or Trump was involved?

Anonymous said...

But he didn't;t point his finger like Clinton!

Sick. Drain the swamp. I'm joining the movement. I was long term Democrat but never a left wing nut job!!!!!

Paul said...

Peter, thanks for the analysis.

Before Congress Strzok made the strong distinction between his dislike for Trump and his work and duty as an FBI agent. If this were truly a distinction for him, I'd expect to see texts not only criticizing Trump but also indicating an attitude that this criticism was separate from his duty as a FBI agent. After all, the texts would show his true opinions apart from needing to persuade Congress and the American people. Also, in my experience people who can control their biases also say things like "but that's not my job here, my job is just to get to the truth whether I like it or not."

We know he strongly expressed his dislike for Trump in his texts but did he also express his duty as an FBI agent to do the job whether it ended up the way he liked it or not? I doubt it since I think we would've heard of it if he had. If there are no such balance of texts this would also be evidence that he actually was being influenced by his biases.

Mike Dammann said...

I have a tough time considering the "statements" of celebrities and politicians as valuable. Do you really believe it is THEM who wrote the scripts? Most likely if deception is detected it is due to a lawyer or PR person writing it for them who within those statements expresses doubts in his own client's credibility.

Mike Dammann said...

If I am innocent of something, but knowing much of the population due to being influenced by the media believes I am guilty... what do I do?
a) Let a media professional or lawyer write a script for me and become that script.
b) Be dumb enough to let my own statements stand on their own.
Yes, knowing me, I might be insane enough to do B. As I have done before.
But I am sure 90+% of the world's population won't.
Which is why anything stated by celebrities or politicians is IMO not their own words. SO statement analysis would not analyse THEM. But rather those who wrote the statements for them and also how those who wrote the statements perceived the ones they wrote the statements for.

Alex said...

I have read a lot of stupid things celebs have said. If they are paying someone to write that drivel for them, then I think I'll load up my truck and head for Beverly, Hills that is. LOL

Alex

Willow said...

@ Mike Dammann. We truly are news-fed with scripted reality. The statements are deceptive in many layers.

Mike Dammann says: "I have a tough time considering the "statements" of celebrities and politicians as valuable. Do you really believe it is THEM who wrote the scripts? Most likely if deception is detected it is due to a lawyer or PR person writing it for them and ..."

This one is from M.D., too:

..."Which is why anything stated by celebrities or politicians is IMO not their own words. SO statement analysis would not analyse THEM. But rather those who wrote the statements for them and also how those who wrote the statements perceived the ones they wrote the statements for."

Peter, when do we see you blogging here on astronauts and space missions?
Your conclusion and the whole process of analysis for Richard D. Hall this year
were heavyweight material by any standards.

Anonymous said...


Wow, this photo captures the FBI guy's attack dog persona !

Anonymous said...

Peter thanks for the analysis of Strzok's statement.
To me, there's a distinction to be made between the 'impact' personal opinions have on and the 'influence' on judgment. 'Impact' is immediate, in the moment; whereas 'influence' is the longer-term effect that follows the 'impact'. Strzok made sure we all knew he was aghast at the insinuation that his personal feeling would have intruded on his professional conduct. That's not the point; we're human beings to the idea that our personal opinions don't impact us day to day simply doesn't reflect reality. The question is to what extend we allow those opinions to inform and influence our judgment and actions. He deftly avoided addressing that in his statement and kept it at the level of bravado and 'righteous outrage'. He reminds me of Col Nathan R. Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, from "A Few Good Men"; he's a man of high position and responsibility who deeply resents having his judgment questioned by people whom he deems unworthy of even holding an opinion of his decisions in the first place. Strzok's demeanor during the hearing and the words he spoke reflected his absolute disdain for having to explain his judgment in his professional conduct and for anyone who would even assume the right to question his conduct. The fact he and Lisa Page communicated in such an open (and yes, biased) way on US government issued phones about both personal and professional matters reflects an environment at the DoJ where they obviously felt safe from any scrutiny or questions about their professional objectivity or personal conduct.

As far as Strzok is concerned, not even Congress rates a modicum of respect. For him, we are the great unwashed American public that "sleep under the very blanket of freedom I provide and then question the manner in which I provide it".

He's just an arrogant self-righteous ass that think's he's the smartest, most capable person in the room no matter where he is. He's perfect, his judgement is perfect, and he's above the natural failings of human nature. The rest of us just have to get in step with that reality and accept it.

OnceaMainer said...

Yes! I thought the same thing when I heard Strzok’s response to a Trey Gowdy.... immediately reminded me of “A Few Good Men.”

Peter Hyatt said...

Strzok’s narcissism is aggressive.

I may post the entire statement but will go on record here:

In his official role, he’s gone well beyond ethical boundaries and has committed crimes.
He does not possess restraint.

His open contempt make him an easy mark for a seasoned federal prosecutor.

It’s difficult to imagine how he ever received merit promotions.

My guess is 2009-2016 were his most prosperous years.

Leftism is a cult. He quickly joined early and capitalized on it.

Yet I believe that criminal cases he was involved in must now be scrutinized for perversion of Justice.

Without restraint, filled with ambition and fueled by faux moral supremacy, I won’t be surprised to hear families of those convicted demand re-opening of cases.

The arrogance and contempt Americans saw was his best presentation.

Imagine what suspects, without benefit of video, experiences.

Peter

habundia said...

The murder of little Jessica, kidnapped and buried alive by a pedophile

After serving little more than a year for sexual crimes against children, on the night of 24 February 2005, pedophile John Couey, 47, kidnapped little Jessica from his Florida home. They will find it again after 22 days in the forest pit. The crime, of which the child's father was unjustly suspected, has started a campaign to increase penalties for pedophiles.

Homosassa, two thousand inhabitants on the homonymous river that cuts the county of Citrus, in Florida. It is the night of 24 February 2005 when the little Jessica, 9 years old, is forcibly taken from the bed of her house in the woods. Her eyes are purple and she is holding a purple colored plush dolphin won for her by her father at a fair only a few days before. "Shut up or ends badly": the kidnapper drags her with force and after a few minutes I am inside a trailer parked on the other side of the road.
The doubt that it is a nightmare, for the child becomes hope as soon as the man throws her on the bed and finally terrifying disillusionment when the man's slimy hands rest on his little body of baby. That night, little Jessica Lunsford is raped by John Couey, 47, and a past of thefts and child abuse. After having abused her, the man closes her in the closet, from where the next day he will let her out to rape her again.
Meanwhile, the small community of Homosassa woke up with news of the disappearance of little Jessica. Several teams of volunteers challenge the frost of the countryside while the police unleash the dogs. The hypothesis is that little Lunsford has been kidnapped from her bed asking for a ransom, yet the phone is silent. Among the volunteers, solicitous as a few, there is also the 47 year-old Couey, the same man who only a few hours ago made Jessica believe that he would bring her home, has led her to get locked up in two trash bags and then he threw it alive in a ditch under the brown leaves of Homosassa. The baby died choked after several minutes of agony. First, however, he tried to save his life by making holes with his tiny fingers.

The investigations
It takes about a month from that dramatic February day and the sequestration passes from the first page of national newspapers to the third of local newspapers. Investigations into the child's father, long believed to be his daughter's murderer, ended up in a dead end. Jessica's face is destined to become one of the many anonymous faces on milk cartons, when the police announce an arrest. It is a middle-aged man, he has been pinched to grow cannabis, but has a criminal history of pedophilia. Sentenced to 10 years in prison for assaulting a child in his bed, kissing her, during one of the many burglaries, he returned free for two years. In 1991 he was arrested again in Kissimmee on charges of caressing a five-year-old boy. Also this time, due to the less restrictive laws regarding pedophilia, it is released soon.

habundia said...

The woods and the caravan
In front of the investigators, Couey denies any connection with the kidnapping of little Lunsford, while the prints and other elements are compared with the findings of the scene. But it is another detail that attracts the attention of the investigators. It is a bloody mattress found by the agents in the trailer closet of Couey's sister, Dorothy Dixon, at West Snowbird Court in Homosassa. The DNA matches that of Jessica and on March 17, John Couey is arrested. He collapses after a few hours, taking the policemen to the place where he buried the child alive. The body of little Jessica sprouts from the black bags from the bowels of the Homosassa countryside. In the hands tied with an electric cable, he tightens the little purple dolphin.

The condemned to death
The arrest explodes the case again. "A missing child raped and killed by a pedophile." He was at liberty ": the newspapers are unleashed against the less restrictive Florida rules that allowed a man like Couey to harass and kill children. Meanwhile, celebrated under the eyes of the national press, the trial leads to a death sentence for kidnapping rape and murder in the Lunsford case. In 2009, the sentenced person died of the consequences of an anal cancer, before the sentence could be applied.

The battle for change
After being long guilty of kidnapping his daughter, Mark Lunsford denounced the alleged errors of the sheriff's office in the investigation of the case. "Jessy was seen alive in Couey's trailer, if they had investigated before, she could have been saved," he said. Since then, Mark Lunsford has begun a campaign to promote more sexual criminal controls with minor victims after release. The 'Jessica Lunsford' Act, which prescribes restrictions on free pedophiles, is now an active law in 44 states of America.


When reading this added article to a case I was surprised to see the writer writing in first person when talking about the crime itself........what does this say ?

habundia said...

The writer's first language isn't English I have to add

Randie said...

Peter,

Is this a form of "blaming the victim"?

"After all, Americans are skeptical..."

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I find it amusing that Peter Strozk is attempting to portray himself as a man of such formidable character and personal restraint that he would not "allow" his personal /political opinions to affect his FBI work...all while he's emailing his FBI co-worker lover on an FBI-issued device over an FBI-secured network, freely "vocalizing" his personal/political opinions in context of both the election and the electoral process, with it being not only documented, but retrievable by others (notably, the FBI). How stupid is that! Or perhaps it's arrogance, and the expectation of being able to outwit or verbally outmaneuver anyone should he/they be caught. In that case, it's ignorance gone to seed.