In training, I use the humorous but relevant:
"I am happily married" statement.
It is reliable on its form.
It is a strong sentence.
Even if incorrect, this subject believes his statement.
If he is knowingly deceptive, he is a rare 10% category liar and poses a danger to others.
"I am very happily married" introduces sensitivity. Perhaps the subject is more happy than he was previously.
Perhaps he is more happy than he anticipated.
Sensitivity does not cause us to conclude deception here. We do not know the source of sensitivity. It could be deceptive, or it could be something else, including the thoughts above.
We do not...yet...know. Let's progress:
"I am very very happily married" will cause us to pause and consider,
"Why the need for emphasis?" Is there something wrong here? He has a "need to persuade", weakening his assertion. What's going on?
"I am very very very happily married" now produces doubt, even in the undiscerning.
This subject has 3 points of sensitivity to his sentence and has raised concern.
"I am very very very very happily married" now suggests divorce.
To communicate, his brain produced 4 points of sensitivity.
This is context dependent and although the above seems a bit silly, if you follow the principle and ask the appropriate questions, you'll come to the truth.
Those in training understand what a "promise" or "guarantee" in a statement indicates and the repetition following it.
Recall our original quiz.
Some of you recognized the fictitious cover-story I placed upon the statement with the change of language.
This was done in an attempt to cause the investigator/analyst to neutrality or indifference in analysis.
How many points of sensitivity can you find in the following denial?
Each point should be identified and classified; use a short explanation when necessary.
What is your conclusion?
Is it reliable?
Is it unreliable?
It is "not reliable", meaning we need more sample?
Is it "Deception Indicated"?
President Barack Obama denied knowing anything about the Hillary Clinton private email server. His original statement, prior to the Chris Wallace interview is here.
A server was set up that would be outside government oversight. The technology was both high and it was porous.
Statement Analysis previously indicated him for Deception on "when" he learned of it.
Later it was revealed that he was emailing her under a false name, at the private server.
This is his denial in a live interview to Chris Wallace. What does it reveal?
This was a most important investigation for our nation. Did a Secretary of State, now running for our nation's highest office, set up a private form of communication to by-pass government oversight?
If so, why?
Allegations of quid pro quo corruption, outlined in "Clinton Cash" would indicate that countless millions of dollars have been exploited, national security compromised, and government favors sold. The subject, Barack Obama, also had much of consequence: his legacy was under threat.
If corruption has been found, it also would indict the President along with senior officials in the Justice Dept, and in the FBI. It would be, potentially, the greatest corruption in our nation's history.
Analysts learn "hormonal association" in statements while both detecting deception and content analysis. The hormonal association or "response" is vital to the polygraph and it should be "measured" in analysis. The context is key. If you were home playing ping pong when someone on the other side of the country (where you've never been) was murdered, and you accused, you are going to have a reaction, but it will be measurably different than of something "closer to home." Recall Richard Blumenthal's reaction to being caught fabricating being on the other side of the world from a place he never set foot in. This type of lying is rare (less than 10%) but his defense tells us of likely corruption while prosecuting others. It is frightening as it is sociopathic like.
For one to flippantly say, "'I just killed a person', am I lying?" has no or "low" hormonal association for someone who is non-violent and has not killed anyone. The subject may have just read a news story (there is no such thing as a linguistic vacuum) but there is no "consequence" for this lie.
This is why fictional statements should be avoided in analysis. The writings of great literature show a strong connection with human nature, but as a subject, the fictional writer does not have the same physiological response that an actual suspect or accused does.
Here is the quote from President Obama. It is acute for analysts, and it reveals much.
"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,” “Full stop. Period. I guarantee it."
Here is the statement with emphasis.
"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case, “Full stop. Period. I guarantee it."
What did you find?
Only using basic Statement Analysis techniques to answer the Analytical Question about truth or deception:
Did you note how many "assurances" he needed?
b. "guarantee" repeated, increasing sensitivity?
c. "Full Stop"
Did you note the psychological distancing from commitment by going into the present tense, "is"?
Did you notice the need to expand the answer, similar to the use of the word "never", with "any" investigation?
Did you notice it was used twice, increasing sensitivity?
Did you note the "Rule of the Negative" employed in an open statement?
Did you notice it was used twice, increasing sensitivity?
Technically, he is not lying...due to present tense.
Although we have confirmation of this deception, it is useful for study and instruction. Psychologically, he is doing something few in the population does: he is psychologically owning his own lie.
His need to persuade is "off the charts."
The psychological wall of truth is not destroyed; it did not exist.
Subsequent analysis of Director James Comey indicated deception as did Asst. Director Andrew McCabe.
Since that time, we have seen acute government corruption, weaponizing and politicizing of various government entities, including the IRS, by the Obama administration. The loyalty to narrative is a form of religious zealotry, or cultism. It overrides laws, ethics and morals, claiming a "higher cause."
In statement analysis we recognize statements that show moral authority and we recognize statements that claim moral authority needlessly, revealing the sensitivity.
Without indictments, arrests and convictions, it may take decades, if ever, to restore confidence in what has become a two-tier level of justice.
Corruption breeds corruption or "lowers the bar" for the next generation of elected official and soft promotions to adjust to the new level of "acceptable " lying.
Corruption is corrosive when tolerated.
Rank and File has suffered unjustly due to the corruption of a handful of leaders.
Former Director of the CIA, John Brennan told us that Donald Trump was guilty of many crimes, including "treason", yet no formal criminal complaint or report of said crimes was made. That he had our nation's most vital secrets, certainly he would have knowledge of such crimes. Yet, he was using his security status for personal gain, instead of national security.
This further eroded confidence in America's intelligence community.
The "Insurance Policy" soft coup attempt chilled Americans, both liberal and conservative. Such things, many thought, did not happen here.
The projective nature of language told us that there was, in deed, a collusion with Russia, except it was not from Trump, but from Hillary Clinton (D) , John McCain (R) , Barack Obama (D) James Comey (R) Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and many others, working with a willingly complicit and unethical press to overrule the democratic vote of the American people.
The high level promotions within the FBI eventually brought Rank & File to despair, as 33,000 employees now suffer from the illicit and likely illegal activities of a deceptive few. Those who serve and protect, mid 2016, believed corruption would be countered by convictions. More than a few confided, "you'll see!" Their confidence was in their bureau's ability to obtain justice, lawfully and ethically.
When James Comey outlined the illegal behavior of Hillary Clinton in setting up an illegal server and transmitted classified information, he added a new element to the stinging list of wrongdoing: "intent."
It was a clever innovation that is not a legal standard. The young navy man who took a photo of his submarine to boast to family learned that "intent" has no place in the statute as he sat in prison. Unlike Sec. Clinton, he had no connections with foreign governments, enemy or friend. America saw confirmation that there here was one standard of justice for an Elite, and another for a minimum wage military personel.
Projection & Self Preservation
We only later learned that Comey, himself, had used his private cell phone to transmit sensitive government data. His "virtue signaling" ("unnecessary moralizing" in Statement Analysis) indicated his guilt. His "ethical leadership" tour indicates a linguistic level of guilt yet to be investigated.
His public statement betrayed the FBI and America and it demoralized Rank & File, even as it did in an America of which many grew up idolizing the FBI.
“POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing”was a "lost" but then "recovered" text between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page read in September 2016 as former FBI Director James Comey prepared a briefing on the email investigation case.
Following with our humorous opening,
President Obama is
"very very very very very very very very very very" sure of himself.
Deception Indicated in what may prove to be the most critical test of our nation's ability to continue under the rule of law.