Thursday, September 6, 2018

New York Times Anonymous Statement Analyzed Part One

A psycho-linguistic profile is used to identify important elements of an anonymous author. 

It is that when we speak or write, we reveal many things about ourselves.  The profile seeks to identify four specific elements:

1. The Author's Background 

Is the author a male or female? What is the author's race? How old is the author? Where is the author from? (regionalism) What is the author's intelligence level?

2. The Author's Experiences 

Does the author have a high education?  Military? Medical, legal, technical background? Does he use substances?  

Education level has become more difficult to pinpoint due to the marked degradation of formal education in the United States. For example, a high school graduate, pre 1980, may have better grammar skills than a master's level post 2000.  

3.  The Author's Priority

What does the author want?  What are lesser priorities?

This is a point of very high accuracy in threat assessment. Is this a true "whistle blower", or is the author seeking to cause an emotional reaction in the recipient? Does the author seek cover for criminal acts or guilt?

4.  The Author's Personality 

The author's dominant personality traits will emerge within the words.  Narcissistic, manipulative, low human empathy, low personal responsibility, outgoing, introverted, and even sex may be found in the words. Violent, impulsive, thoughtful, pensive? Mental health issues are often evidenced in the words. 

Statement Analysis has correctly identified the authors of anonymous threatening letters for law enforcement and private sector. 

Next, we look at further elements of an anonymous letter. 

1. Masking

An author will seek to mask his or her identity. This "masking" is noted in emphasis. 

In a recent anonymous threat, the author used common "black urban speak" language.  He was identified as a white low level employee in his company, successfully.  The attempt to appear one race will suggest the other. 

We do not find "double masking" in general in analyzing anonymous authors.  It is to go against human nature to draw specific attention to self when one does not wish to be identified. 

2. Intended and Unintended Recipient 

To whom is the author addressing? Is there, such as in taped jail house video, an "unintended" audience (more important) such as the investigators?

3.  Ingratiation

Does the author seek to ingratiate himself or herself to the recipient?  Or, does the author remain indifferent to the audience, instead focusing on the topic (danger, alert, etc) as priority?  

4. Elements of Persuasion 

Simply, the less "need to persuade" and the greater the linguistic commitment, the likely of reliable information increases.  The "psychological wall of truth" that is in the language of de facto innocents, is also in the language of anonymous authors who write as a "Whistleblower" to alert others to danger and risk.  

The answer to "who wrote this?" is to emerge slowly and naturally. The analyst must be prepared to change viewpoints often until the statement, itself, has satisfied the assertions by denial or affirmation. Any "closed mindedness" or "falling in love with my opinion" will lead to error. This is an inexact exercise,  particularly when compared to simple deception detection.  

What is the Expectation of Accuracy in the Psycho-linguistic profile?

Deception Detection expectation is 100% accuracy.  If there is an error, it can and should be traced and rectified.  Once it is known if someone is deceptive or reliable: 

Content Analysis expectation is 80% accuracy. This means we are often able to identify who did it, when he did it, how he did it, and why he did it.  

Psycho-lingusitic Profile expectation for accuracy is 70% of three of four basic elements (background, experiences and personality traits).  The fourth, "priority" is at 100% expectation of accuracy. 

Correctly identifying 7 of 10 of these three elements is often enough for the recipient of an anonymous threatening letter to identify the author. 

We seek to learn this author's identity through the author's background, experiences, priorities and dominant personality traits. 

Please search this blog for examples, from news stories, on the successful identifying of anonymous authors, including fraudulent attempts to raise money at "Go Fund Me." 

The following is from the NY Times in which a "high ranking senior official at the White House" wrote an op-ed piece published 5 September, 2018.  

Linguistic Disposition is one of the most key points of Anonymous Author Identification. This asks contextual questions of each "person" in the statement: 

"What does the author think of President Trump?"

"What does the author think of himself?"

"What does the author think of others?"  These are "people" that enter the statement.  We recognize them, note the order, and carefully classify the author's disposition (in the words) towards each entry.  It can be positive, negative or neutral, and is context dependent. 

For example, a father reports a young child (incapable of self protection) missing in the woods.  After several hours of searching without finding the child, the father praises the officials for not finding his child.  This is not only linguistic disposition but represents an example of "ingratiation" with police.  It is common for criminals to praise or "ingratiate" themselves into authorities.  This is heard in 911 calls when one is giving an overabundance of detail to sound helpful.  

"What does the author think of his audience?" 

This is mostly discerned by unnecessary information.  Does the author use ingratiation?  Does the author hold the audience in contempt? Does the author think the audience is not intelligent enough to discern deception?  Is the author condescending? Etc. 

What can we know about the author from the words?

Sex in Anonymous Letters 

More males than females write anonymous letters.  

Anonymous letters have a correlation with same sex attraction (SSA) where a desire to "come out" is sometimes found as a priority for the author. 

Sex is not likely found in "Whistle blower" letters unless the letter seeks to protect others from sexual abuse. Here, the motive is a perception of public good: justice or safety.  

Sex is also not often found in female authors.  In female authors we find more of a sense of needing to be heard, raised from emotional bruising or abuse. This could arise from sexual betrayal, but the overriding motive is more to be "heard" which often indicates a sense of silencing by the subject.

Trigger:  Humiliation 

Humiliation is often a trait found in both male and female. It is often later learned that:

Humiliation was the "trigger" which caused the author to go ahead with plans to publish or mail the written statement. 

Many may feel a sense of relief in the processing that takes place in writing an anonymous letter and will not go on to mail or publish it.  
This includes threatening letters.  

With anonymous letters that are not "genuine" whistle blowing letters (hence, "deception indicated") we look for the author to tell us that he (or she) has been emotionally wounded and perceives the need for personal redress. 

Genuine Whistleblower letters will have short introductions (25% or less) and an immediate revelation of injustice or danger (50% or more) and may include concern for personal with regards to anonymity. The last section may present hope or remedy for justice/safety. 

In criminal analysis, someone thinking of theft of his employer, for example, may not go through with it.  Yet, passed over in promotion, the humiliation triggers the action of theft. 

In sexual assault statements this is often found in the words of perpetrators, including in genuine misogynistic violence.  

Hormonal Consequence

"Did you kill my pet unicorn this morning?" is not likely to trigger a significant hormonal reaction (polygraph) in a subject.  This is true of fictional examples and in hypothetical expectation. Hard data and constant exposure to statements proves most effective for analysts. 

Post 2000 education may find the discernment of male and female language to be "offensive." The educational indoctrination of "social construct" overrules critical thinking (and biology) in a reported "higher ethical" cause. 

Oxytocin, Estrogen and Testosterone begins shortly after the 7th week in the baby's development. The mother's voice, sound, music, nutrition, substance abuse, alcohol, overall health, all impact the ongoing development. By 8 weeks, the male and female baby are measurably different. Domestic Violence, causing hormonal response (such as cortisol/adrenaline spike) will impact the pre born child.  

The "hormonal consequence" ("fight or flight") is used in statement analysis and in body language analysis training for military and law enforcement. 

Whistle Blowing Letters

These are anonymously sent with the priority of justice. This is presented by the editorial staff as a "senior high ranking White House official" needing to come forth for higher ethical concerns, and in need of confidentiality.  

The letter, therefore, should be presupposed to be as such.  With this presupposition, we look for its priority and body to:

1. Reveal specific corruption 
2. Seek justice against said corruption.  

If the "whistle blowing" is regarding a president's mental capacity for the position, it should state this as a priority and it should give evidence to the same.  

Please note the universal and historical use of the masculine pronoun, "he" in the general analysis. A switch to "he or she" indicates a move to the minority (female) which can show the analyst's thought process. 

I. The Statement 

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

II. Statement With Analysis 

Statement Analysis 101 teaches that where a person begins a statement is always important and it is sometimes even the reason for the statement. 

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

a. The statement begins with the pronoun "I" which suggests the psychological presence of the author is going to yield reliable information. 

b. The author begins with work status: "I work for the president"

c. The author immediately responds to working for the president with the word, "but."  This is to refute or minimize the statement of working for the president. 


Does the author no longer work for the president?

Does the author still work for the president yet has found his (or her) work marginalized by the president?

Does the author not work for the president, but actually works for those who do work for the president?

The statement is reported by the NY Times to be from a "high ranking" official. 

These are questions left unanswered unless or until the statement itself answers them. 

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

This is interesting: the author links with "like minded" "colleagues" which introduces another "person" in the statement. 

1. "I" 
2. "the president"
3. "colleagues"

These are not "officials" but are "colleagues." 


Is our author of a humble mind?
Or is our author not, perhaps, the "senior high ranking" official claimed? 

Remember, psychologically, the author rebuts his own assertion of working for the president.  


"Colleagues and I vowed to..." is a strong commitment to a specific event in a specific time period. It is not what the author wrote.  

"Colleagues and I have vowed..."

a. "have vowed" reduces commitment to a specific event at a specific time

b. "have vowed" could be over more time than a single event. 

Note "vowed" is a very strong, formal wording. This suggests:

a. the author sought out others to join
b. the author has a need to persuade that this action is a result of an actual "vow"
c. Weakness?  Such a formal oath from "colleagues" and the author may be hyperbole; more of an agreement than a stated oath. 

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

a. The author does not wish to be "alone" in the quest to 
b. "thwart" 
c. The author wishes to only thwart "part" of the president's agenda. 

Expected: In statement analysis, we set up "the expected versus the unexpected."

For example, if accused of shooting someone, we begin with the presupposed stance of a reliable denial: the innocent will say "I did not shoot him."  

In a kidnapping case, we "expect" the biological parents to address the missing child, the kidnappers and any negotiation to regain the child. 

When the expected is absent, we call this the "unexpected."  In an allegation of kidnapping, we do not expect the parent to care for self, the lack of sleep or public perception.  Why?  Because the priority is the child, what the child is experiencing and how to get the child back. When this is not indicated, we discern deception.  There are many examples here, including Madeleine McCann disappearance.  

Vow as a Priority 

Since this is under an oath or "vow" taken over time, and is found in the opening statement (priority) we now expect the author to identify which "parts" of the president's agenda that need to be thwarted by the author and the author's "colleagues."  

The author identifies "some" of the president's agenda and his "worst inclinations."

Therefore, the agenda that has been vowed to be thwarted is expected to be identified; not only as such, but in detail. 

The president's "worst inclinations" should also be identified since it is the reason for the vow and the author's priority.

Question: What if the author does not identify the above?

Answer:  We may conclude that the author's stated priority contains deception. 

If such deception exists, we may know that the author is likely a person who is habitually comfortable with deception. 

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

We now move forward to learn what agendas and inclinations cause risk to our nation, to the contextual level of an anonymous letter. 

This now brings us to classification:  

Is this a genuine "whistle blower" letter? Is the author concerned for the well being of the United States? Or, does the author have competing interests? 

Is this a whistleblower letter to awaken the public to a clear and present danger to the nation?

If so, fulfillment of such will be readily seen and given in reliable terms (shorter sentences; low qualifiers, low persuasion). 

If not, is "I work", with the focus upon the job the most pressing priority for the author?

What are the author's lesser priorities?

The author does not wish to be "alone" psychologically.  It is very likely that he/she feels isolated in position.  This is a theme that we seek from the rest of the statement. 

Will the statement affirm it, deny it, or not answer it?

We let the words guide us. 

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

"the president" is now called "President Trump" which is an appropriate title.  

We hold to the expectation of the "law of economy" where we naturally go from longer to shorter.  "My wife, Heather" should become "Heather" once introduced.  If I repeated, "my wife, Heather" in the statement, it would not only become odious to read, but it would suggest a "need of emphasis" of her status as wife.  Like the "Facebook Love" with its over emphasis of public praise, it suggests the contrary of a content relationship.  

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

We note the need for a psychological move to hyperbolic language. The end of the counsel is to impeach the president. Another "modern American leader" realized impeachment (without removal) in our life time. 

What is this "test" that "President Trump" is facing?

Contextually, note that he is "President Trump" while "facing" a "test." 

Note: the author has the need to separate the president from all other presidents, including President Clinton. Since President Clinton was the last president to be impeached (President Nixon was threatened and resigned), and 

the author included "leaders", we should consider the unmentioned president, President Clinton is viewed in a "positive linguistic disposition." 

contextual "President" facing "test": does the author favor "impeachment"? 

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. 

The Rule of the Negative:  What is reported in the negative is more important to the analysis than that which is in the positive. A reliable witness, for example, tells us what happened; not what did not happen. 

Here, the author tells us what it is "not just" when it comes to the "special counsel."

External Context

The "special counsel" was convened by a release of FBI material by terminated director James Comes.  Statement Analysis of Comey's statement indicated him for deception.  

Russian Collusion 

The FBI used a Clinton financed dossier to obtain FISA warrants to spy upon the Trump campaign. A collusion with the Russian government as investigated would be readily proven by the special counsel with both evidence and the results of planting a spy.  We have learned that the FBI's leadership was corrupt, partisan and had an "insurance policy" (Peter Strzok) to overrule the democratic will of the American people. This is commonly referred to as the "Soft Coup Attempt" of 2016.  

These actors conspired with a discredited (terminated) British spy (Christopher Steele) and with Russian to thwart the lawfully elected president. 

Those associated with the Soft Coup have been either terminated or demoted. The investigation is more than 2 years old, with "Russian interference" publicly dismissed by ridicule by President Obama, and has failed to produce evidence of collusion by Trump.  

It has revealed corruption (Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and more) which withheld critical information from FISA court judges, leaked confidential information and planted false stories in the media (choosing complicit media) as an "echo" of "confirmation." Several hundred promoted agents are under investigation for accepting bribes from journalists, including tickets to sporting or entertainment events.  It is accepted that within the Bureau, agents refrain from sharing personal opinion and speaking to media.  

The disgraced actors, demoted or terminated,  may face indictment of criminal charges.

Hence, the assertion of "looms large" is an expression of persuasion; not the reporting of criminality nor fact. As such, "emotion" should be noted by the analyst. 

The author tells us that this investigation "looms large", which is the language of "persuasion", rather than state what the results will be. 

It looms large to "his" presidency; not "the presidency" nor even him, personally.  

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. 

Taking the negative (rule of the negative)  and the persuasion, we consider the weakness of the assertion: no claim of Russian collusion, indictment, impeachment, removal, etc.  It is expected by one taking a "vow" to tell us what "agenda" is illegal or harmful to America, and how this is to be rectified. 

That the author does not expect the special counsel to reveal collusion is indicated by the dependent word, "just", which compares this to something else.  This is, in a sense, to minimize the acute allegation of conspiring with a foreign enemy government to overrule the democratic will of the United States.  Therefore, the author does not likely believe in collusion between the president and the Russian government to nullify or overthrow the vote of the American people. 

Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. 

The country is divided in a close split and has been for most two party system governments.  The additional and unnecessary word "bitter" is used as another "need to persuade" term, which signals emotion in the statement. 

The emotion of "bitter" is very likely to be projection or "leakage" from the author. 

This is where an author's own thinking is revealed the further he or she writes or speaks. 

Recall when Baby Ayla went missing. The father did not call out to her through police, search, nor use media to find her.  When provoked, he said, 

"contrary to what's being floated out there, I have been cooperating with the Waterville police."

He had not only failed the polygraph and ran out of the police station when showed imagery of the victim's blood cleaned up in his basement, he gave indication that the child was likely disposed of in water.  This is an example of projecting guilt into language; commonly called "leakage" by analysts. 

Justin DiPietro was not cooperating "with" (distance) the police but concealed (deception) what happened to his child. 

The partisan element continues: 

Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

Note the reference to party is "his" party.  This follows "his" presidency. 

Both separate him from the two entities.  It is not "the presidency" nor is it "the party." 

Our author may have a history of supporting partisan politics contrary to this position and administration.  Voting record will likely show "democrat" when discovered. 

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

The author does not say "I know" but "would" (future/conditional). Yet, even "I know" is unnecessary information since we were told, "I work for the president" in the opening statement.

Next note, one of "them" is now employed.  This is now another element of unnecessary emphasis. 

a.  NY Time published this as a high ranking White House official.
b.  The author was a "colleague" of "vow takers" earlier. 
c.  This is an example of needless persuasion and over-emphasis, common in masking. 

If the author does not reveal high crimes, harmful agenda or dangerous impulse that impact our nation, this would affirm a "false priority" or "deception indicated as a Whistle Blower" author. 

Question:  Is the author not a "high ranking White House official" but one who works for (or has worked for)  a "high ranking White House official"? 

Emphasis of Plurality is not necessary since we were told, in the opening that "colleagues" have taken this vow. 

The author is very likely to be alone in this letter. 

The following need to move from "I" to "we" with additional unnecessary emphasis affirms this assertion of working alone:

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

"To be clear" is an unnecessary statement. Allegations of illegal or illicit "agenda" and dangerous impulses or instincts do not require clarity.  

The author has a need to be heard and understood. This is where the author began the statement and is a priority.  Thus far, we have not heard:

a.  High Crimes and Misdemeanors
b.  Illegal Activities Witnessed 
c.  Specific commitment to irrational behaviors 

We have been alerted to the "health" of the republic by the author.  The author should, if making a reliable report on the risk to the public, state precisely and concisely the immediate risk to the  republic. 

What is the first word produced by the author to this "health risk to the republic"?


The author did not write, "this is why" with the word "this" indicating importance or "closeness."  Instead, the author chose "that", or distancing language from the topic of the "detriment of health" of the republic. 

This is to affirm and then deny the importance or priority of the topic presented.  It is consistent with deception. 

is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

We see a change in social introduction context. 

 "Trump appointees" are not "the president's appointees" but "Trump's."

Analysts should consider if our author has worked for an appointee or has a relation to "appointee" (including being one, but not permitted to access "high ranking" meetings). 

The author may have recently experienced a perceived humiliation by the president or by his or her superiors. 

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. 

The "test", the "agenda" the "worst inclinations", the "investigation" (Russian Collusion) now are identified as a "root" in which the author knows that the president is 


This is to be without morals.  This is a trait sometimes associated with sociopathy or lacking conscience. 

Our author does not state, "Trump is amoral" but identifies the "root" or beginning of the "problem."

This is not evidence of high crimes, treason, criminal collusion but is, again, an entrance of emotional language by the author. 

It is not criminal but it is a "problem."

This is consistent with emotional language that minimizes, rather than willingly uses outright deception.  

Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Here we have another introduction to "people" in the statement. This time it is not "to be clear" but "anyone who..." 

This is to seek "others", which is found in crowd sourcing guilt.  It is very likely that our author is concerned about his or her own actions' consequence. 

"anyone" is all inclusive; hyperbole noted.  This further weakens the assertions of the author. 

"Moored" is a term associated with sailing or boating. 

Has our author been on a yacht?
Has our author spent time near water, experiencing storms? 
Does or did our author work for an "official" who owned a yacht or boat? 
Has our author read or been involved in any fiction or non fiction with characters from the sea?  

The author calls these "first principles" that are "discernible." This is to acknowledge that the author believes the president does have principles, but that the author does not "discern" them. 

The decisions are "his"; 

the author has likely been impacted by a decision made by the president. This could be direct or it could be indirect, from a senior official having to make a reluctant decision. 

It is noted that we have not gotten to the "whistle blow" of crimes or illicit conduct/behavior, including those which are without morals.  Yet the author recognizes accomplishments by the president.  

Did you notice the wording?

and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

The change from "his" to 'its" further suggest our author has experienced some form of personal humiliation and, thus far, has failed to identify anything but nondescript conclusions ("the root" and "amoral") without evidence or reliable sentence structure. 

This is to further affirm the intrusion of emotion in the statement of the author. 

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. 

Note there is no claim, "the president opposes free minds, free markets and free people."

It is that he shows "affinity" for, but "little affinity" in our author's verbalized (written) perception of reality. 

Note "espoused" is a language often referring to marriage. It is also associated with emotion and relationships.  

Does our author feel personally humiliated or rejected by the president, or by the "official"? 

Note the order:

a.  free minds
b.  free markets
c.  free people

It is interesting that "minds" comes first.  Note that the president has come out  against:

a.  Censorship in social media
b.  Unfair trade policies with global partners 
c.  in support of "populism", or peoples' voice, including self determination.  

"free minds"

It is very likely that our author considers himself or herself a "free thinker,"

The author's ideas were likely perceived to be under-appreciated or rejected. 

Question:  Was our author "in over his (her) head" professionally? 

Was our author part of an appointment employment that was not merit based?

Our author indicates a sense of betrayal; personally, not nationally. 

At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

The author invokes further hyperbolic language with "best" and "worst" comparisons. 

We must, therefore, have the author identify the specific actions of the president to obstruct thinking (silencing), free markets, and how he has sought to make "bonded" people that are free. 

Please note that the author recognizes national safety and prosperity. 


The Iran Deal, not confirmed by Congress, that has enriched the Islamic Republic of Iran to export terrorism, has been abandoned. 

The Islamic terrorist ISIS has been decimated by orders by the president, as commander in chief. 

The US military has been strengthened, updated and rank and file have received salary increases. 

North Korea is in negotiations to de-nuclearize, which would bring peace to the world if accomplished. 

Germany long refusing to fund its NATO obligation has acquiesced to the president's call to meet its commitment. This came as some of the Soft Coup actors called the president a "traitor" who should be "tried for treason." 

Statement Analysis indicated such for acute projection of criminal (illegal) behavior guilt. 


Black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at record lows. 
Wages have increased without government coercion. 
Major companies announced returns to the United States.
Manufacturing has increased. 
Consumer Confidence is high. 
The president has rolled back thousands of pages of government regulations of businesses.  

The "conservative" ideology encompasses less government interference and strong military. The "progressive" or "left" emphasizes more government interference in both business and in the social lives of the people.  The current "divide" includes lack of physical boundaries and general demarcations.  

The author's claim of "free mind" is key to understanding what may have triggered this (thus far) emotion dominated statement. 

End of part one. 

The author's background, experiences, priorities and dominant personality traits are emerging.  

Upcoming Part Two:  Will the author reveal the immediate danger to the nation?
For training in deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Are you recognizing emerging patterns in the language?

Is it enough to opine, or do you wish to wait for more?

Anonymous said...

Writers of anonymous letters often subconsciously give their identity away in their first sentence(s). In this case the first sentence is the title: "I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration". Another word for resistance is: defense. Does he work at the department of defense of the Trump administration? I also noticed the use of words like "moored" and "looms large" and "sunk low" and "the aisle". They remind me of ships or perhaps the navy/marine. Does the writer own a ship? Did he work in the navy/marine? I think that the writer indeed feels personally humiliated by the president. He is "bitter[...] (...) over Trump's leadership" and "hellbent on his downfall" and even deems the president's actions "detrimental to" his own (i.e. the writer's) "health". The writer's frustrations seem to lie primarily in the president's behavior and leadership style. Complaints about the president's agenda are vague. They only become concrete where the writer discusses Trump's foreign policy. My guess is: the writer is responsible for (works in the field of) some foreign policies within Trump's administration. It's clear that the writer disagrees with Trump's foreign policy. This may have caused the friction between them. The writer thinks he is smarter than Trump. According to the writer, Trump "does not fully grasp" that officials within the administration are trying to undermine him. The writer deems Trump erratic, impulsive, ill-informed and reckless. By contrast, the writer sees himself as an "unsung hero" who knows more/better than the president ("I would know") but doesn't get any credits (he is not “engaged as peer” but “ridiculed as” a “rival” by the president). The writer may be a member of both Trump’s national security team ("his national security team knew better") and Trump's cabinet (the writer knows about "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment"). In the fourth last paragraph, the writer reveals - in my opinion - that he doesn't think Trump is such a bad president: the bigger concern is what the writer has allowed Trump to do to him: Trump made him lose his civility. At the end of his op-ed, the writer mentions the late senator McCain. The writer identifies with McCain (and McCain's hatred for Trump). He thinks "Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them." The writer thinks he himself should be revered. I think the writer may have attended McCain's funeral and - among Trump bashing virtue signalers - felt the urge/courage to write his op-ed.

General P. Malaise said...

keep it coming.


This is to be without morals. This is a trait sometimes associated with sociopathy or lacking conscience.

Would AMORAL also be in the negative? not having morals? increasing sensitivity to the word?

passivity much.

General P. Malaise said...

does one "thwart" a pirate attack? possibly another maritime reference?

Anonymous said...

General P. Malaise, I looked it up: a thwart indeed has a maritime meaning: i.e. a strut placed in a boat or ship to brace it crosswise.

frommindtomatter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TimA said...

If you listen to a Democrat and reverse everything they say, it is revealing. For example if you take this OP ED and reverse it to be about Democrats it seems accurate...

The Democrat party faces a test of it's power, as the Mueller investigation implodes, they may lose even more seats. Trump understands this and is taking advantage of it politically. Democrats want the administration to fail, even if it makes America less safe and prosperous. Democrats feel little duty to the country, it's founding principles, it's institutions. As a group they are misguided, amoral; they detest Trump's idealism, his unscripted postings on Twitter. They are impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective; and they hate that Trump is pointing out their fake news. It's like they're throwing a childish temper tantrum.

Beyond the content, why does this reversal trick seem to work so often? Are speakers projecting their own fears onto opponents, or is it observer bias?

frommindtomatter said...

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can”

Is the use of “we” instead of “they” significant? The author has told us of his involvement already, but when talking of the many Trump appointees he doesn’t use “they”.

From a tactical point of view this letter seems like a bad mistake on the part of the author. If they are a military person or even someone intelligent enough to understand basic strategy then surely they would know that they have just shown all their cards to their opposition. They have just blown their cover.
I don’t think a group of people with combined intelligence would be that stupid to allow one of their group to expose them all. So we either have a lone wolf or the more logical idea that the letter is designed to cause doubt in the average Americans mind. Divide and conquer tactics.


frommindtomatter said...

“I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”.

I am just wondering about the order of “like minded colleagues and I have vowed”

He puts the colleagues first and himself last. He is the “I” in “I have vowed”. There is more distance in his sentence between his colleagues and them vowing.

Are there any other colleagues? Why does he not put himself first in the order if he is the one making commitment by writing the letter?


Anonymous said...


I noticed Adrian used the word "on board" in an unisual way in the previous thread. Is it possible that he is the actual letter writer? Giving us clues such as "the writer is using boat terms" when he himself is "leaking" boat terms like crazy?

Anonymous said...

Omarosa. She's conniving enough that I wouldn't be surprised.

Anonymous said...

Without yet reading Peter's analysis, this is what stuck out to me:

"It’s not just that the special counsel looms large."


"But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable. This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state."

Now, reading.

frommindtomatter said...

Ha Ha,I could never sink to such depths. Please don’t harbour any thoughts it was me.

I was just counting up the types of address given to the President in the statement.

President Trump - 3 uses. Linked to being tested, anti-trade/anti-democratic, Mixing with Dictators.

Donald Trump - 1 use – Linked to “won`t”.

Mr Trump – 4 uses – Linked to leadership, misguided impulses, what he`s done to the presidency, his fear of honorable men.

Trump -1 use – Linked to his “appointees”

Interesting there are so many of them.


Jonathan said...

I have been reading this blog for a while and I'm very new to this fascinating way of thinking.

One of the more interesting problems with the English language is the lack of distinction between "we" that includes vs. excludes the audience. I have seen many high-ranking Democrats write about "our democracy" rather than "democracy" or "the democracy". This author writes about threats to "our republic", not "the republic". Does this suggest 1) partisan affiliation, and/or 2) if not a top official, then someone who is used to speaking in the language of top officials or has internalized their interests, such as a communications professional or think-tank director?

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


Excellent analysis!

Does the author identify as an unsung hero in their service to the country?
Do they feel personally affronted that Trump makes nice with Putin when the author thinks Moscow should be "held accountable" and punished?

I'm looking forward to Part Two!

Anonymous said...

Peter, Adrian is leaking boat terms like an oil spill. He WANTS to tell is the truth about steering his ship of deception through the stormy waters of SA.

Dan said...

"I work for the President".

The writer does not say which President nor which presidency he work(ed) for & we can't say it for him.

I have a good "ear" for style & tone & very quickly into reading the letter, I began "hearing" the voice of Obama reading the letter. It is his style/vocab usage/etc. It sounds like speeches he has given.

Anonymous said...

It totally sounds like Obama. Same vocab &style. The writer is highly intelligent, a leader & someone who has been in a high place of leadership. Someone who has thought deeply about what the Presidency & democracy means. It sounds like Obama.

Dan said...

Even certain expressions of speech are the same as Obama has used.

Anonymous said...

My money is on Fiona Hill, NSC expert on Russia, left out of the President's meeting with Putin recently. President Trump also supposedly mistook her for a clerk at a meeting and asked her to rewrite a memo lol! Definitely could fit the "sour grapes" candidate.

VLW said...

Thanks for this analysis. Lots of food for thought here.

General P. Malaise said...

"first principles" when I see this term I think about those modern training/company policy statements where people take human resource training seminars and then bludgeon their company to death with their enlightenment.

Dan said...

Whoever wrote the letter is highly intelligent & has been in a high position if leadership. It was written by a male. His name is Barack Obama.

Nic said...

I don't think the author will reveal "immediate danger".

I picked up on the : "I would know. I am one of them." future conditional/aspiring versus "I am"/being

I kept reading on for the why/what, but was left empty handed.

Something else I noted, the anonymous letter began with "President Trump" and ended with "Mr. Trump". The impression being that the author is not on first name basis with the president, (proximity). I also note that the author has an expectation of how a president should be/act versus who Donald Trump is.

President Trump
Mr. Trump’s leadership
the president
Mr. Trump’s
the president’s amorality.
the president
President Trump’s
the president’s
commander in chief’s (internal reference) "...comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims."
Donald Trump (in reference to there being adults in the room (inference that he is not))
Mr. Trump (has done to the presidency)
Mr. Trump (being compared to honourable men (McCain))

Whomever the author is, holds McCain in higher regard than Trump.

IMO, The author is working from an agenda as opposed to "Mr. Trump's" leadership style which is to react to new information as it becomes available(“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,”) In my opinion this is a bureaucrat having to deal with a business owner (business owners change their "course" and navigate the waters based on available information (see moored). Bureaucrats follow the "plan"/agenda and do not deviate until the end of fiscal year review/multi-year operational plan review/adjustment.

“moored” - Does the author work for someone with a navy background? Lots going on in the Pacific.

Nic said...

"I am part of the resistance" makes me think of rebellion. Could this be a "junior" executive? i.e., the admin of an executive? Typically they consider themselves as high as their boss in the grand scheme of things (i.e.,the other executives' admins would fall in step with the hierarchy of their bosses. So the admin of the executive VP would rank higher than the admin of the VP.

Anonymous said...

Not bho...not enough "I's".

Buckley said...

But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

There’s a point of view to this that is revealing. First, it’s the only specific department/agency praised. Second, it doesn’t just state what the national security team did or said, but what they “knew”. What “had” to be done also speaks to thinking, that, you would need to be a part of to assert. “To hold Moscow accountable” speaks to why, again, shows thought process, not just actions or comments or political issues.

New England Water Blog said...

Nowhere that I can read does it state that he is a current member of the administration. The giveaway is when he talks about "early whispers". This was an early appointee from the military and now gone. The brilliant blogger Lame Cherry deduced that it is McMaster...

Anonymous said...

more, more

Nic said...

Adrian, I agree. How the author refers to Trump (title or not) is revealing.

They first refer to him as "President Trump" (common reference and expected when addressing a nation). Then they end the op ed with "Mr. Trump", like they stripped him of his powerful position. It makes me wonder if the author has been reprimanded and put in their "place".

Buckley said...

The first five words are “I work for the President”. That seems simple, straightforward, and reliable.

Nic said...


"the president" versus, "President Trump" or "Mr. President".

It makes me think the author works for the office of the president at some level, i.e., their dealings being with people who work for President Trump or whose division reports to the office of the president. In other words, they are attaching more importance to themselves that they truly have.

Anonymous said...

“Anyone who knows him knows he’s not moored...” another nautical reference: moored.

“detrimental to the health” is terminology people in healthcare frequently use.


Sheila said...

One of the things the writer envies is "health". He or she projects onto concern for "the health of the republic".

The writer is ill with a chronic condition.
Is it Hillary?

"walk back"
Remember how Hillary couldnt walk?

Buckley said...

Nic- I agree he shows disdain for the President without a proper social introduction. I disagree with the comments that he is a *former* employee.

Dan said...

I think H.L and Sheila solved the puzzle. It was written by Hillary.
H.L is so smart!

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

THE mistress of a dad accused of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters has claimed he had "rape fantasies" and choked her during sex.

She claims she last saw Chris Watts weeks before his wife Shanann, 34, and girls Celeste, three, and Bella, four, were found dead on a Colorado oil field last month.

He went on local TV pleading for information about their whereabouts shortly after they vanished from the family home in Frederick on August 13.

Watts, who has yet to enter a plea, later confessed to murdering Shanann but claimed he killed her after discovering she strangled their kids.

Now the mistress he met on Tinder in May has said the 33-year-old had a taste for "rough" and "animalistic" sex.

She told Radar: "He would put his hands on my throat during intercourse. Now I know who he is, it gives me the chills. I can’t even think about it.

"But nothing about him alarmed me until he tried to choke me. That freaked me out. He had a rape fantasy. He was very kinky.

"When we had sex it was very animalistic. He just zoned out into a different person. He wasn't the kind of guy who would cuddle and watch a movie."

Watts would visit the woman near her home, around 30 miles from where he lived with his wife and kids, but never told her he had a family.

He has since been charged with first degree murder, killing children under 12, unlawful termination of a pregnancy and tampering with a deceased human bodies.

Watts has been placed under suicide watch in prison and spends 23 hours in protective custody, People reported.

Guards reportedly check on Watts every 10 to 15 minutes to make sure he's okay and to "make eye contact with him".

Watts is also physically searched several times a day as well as a full cell inspection to ensure he "is not hiding any contraband that would allow him to harm himself".

For one hour per day, Watts is allowed to leave his cell and taken to a small room where he is allowed to shower and make phone calls.

ut (sic) it is not occupied by any other prisoners at the same time, and is not allowed commissary privileges, the report said.

A source told People that the the severity of Watts' situation is "beginning to sink in".

According to an arrest affidavit, he told cops he saw "Bella sprawled out on her bed and blue and Shanann actively strangling Celeste".

It added: "Chris said he went into a rage and ultimately strangled Shanann to death. Chris said he loaded all three bodies onto the back seat of his work truck and took them to an oil work site."

Unknown said...

ObMa is not highly intelligent. Lol

LC said...

The Radar Online story about Chris Watts' "mistress" is NOT the same person named in official documents of an affair he was having with a co-worker.

John Mc Gowan said...

"Up to now 32 administration officials including the VP put out official denials and have been taken to the president"

I would love to read these. SA would get to the truth.

Trump officials cry 'Not me!' as he fumes over Times article

Charlotte said...

"Don't get me wrong" That was the first thing to jump at me. It is juvenile and/or ill educated to use in such a serious context.

General P. Malaise said...

"I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

the incomplete social introduction raises the possibility that he is referring to a different president, the author does not consider Trump to be "my president"?

who is the president to this person? presidents out of office are still called president.

Alex said...

I read an early list of denials. At that time all but one were issued by spokesmen. I would like to read direct quotes.

I think the writer purposely changes the way he/she refers to President Trump so as not to sound repetitive. The writing style reminds me of a speech writer.

I believe this was written by someone from the opposition to sow discord and suspicion within the administration. Someone within the Justice Department, a Comey loyalist or Comey himself.

Or, if it is someone on the inside, my early guess is Paul Ryan. He never seemed to be on board.

I want to read more denials.

I also read this morning a Grand Jury is investigating McCabe.


Nic said...

Most of what they report is third party observation.

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

appointee = executive

colleague = staff, so a junior member

This is an underling, close enough to an executive, so they see and hear a lot, but not so close they are in The Office while carrying out their duties.

John Mc Gowan said...

Here are the administration officials who deny they wrote The New York Times op-ed.

Many, as Alex pointed out are from their spokesmen.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: A Justice Department spokesman told CNN that Sessions was not the author.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin: ".@stevenmnuchin1 is honored to serve @POTUS & the American people. He feels it was irresponsible for @nytimes to print this anonymous piece. Now, dignified public servants are forced to deny being the source. It is laughable to think this could come from the Secretary," tweeted Tony Sayegh Jr., a spokesman for the department.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: "From the beginning of our tenure, we have insisted that the entire (intelligence community) remain focused on our mission to provide the President and policymakers with the best intelligence possible," Coats said in a statement, adding that any speculation that he or his principal deputy Sue Gordon wrote the op-ed is "patently false."

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: "Secretary Nielsen is focused on leading the men and women of DHS and protecting the homeland -- not writing anonymous and false opinion pieces for the New York Times. These types of political attacks are beneath the Secretary and the Department's mission," the agency's press secretary Tyler Q. Houlton said in a statement.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson: HUD spokesman Raffi Williams told CNN that Carson "didn't write the op-ed" and also denied writing the piece himself. Williams said he has not gone around asking other officials in the department but doubts it would be someone else at HUD.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley: In response to a CNN question about whether she wrote the op-ed, Haley said, "no."

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue: Asked if Perdue was the author, Tim Murtaugh, a department spokesman, said "no" and referred to Sanders' tweet lambasting the media.
Labor Department Secretary Alexander Acosta: "The Secretary does not play these sophomoric Washington games. He is definitely not the author," a Department of Labor spokesperson told CNN.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie: "Neither Secretary Wilkie nor anyone else at VA wrote the op-ed," VA spokesperson Curtis Cashour told CNN, also pointing to Sanders' tweet.

Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney: Spokespersons for the OMB and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau both denied that Mulvaney wrote the Times op-ed.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler: "That's a no ... Acting Administrator Wheeler supports President Trump 100% and is honored to serve in his Cabinet. He also believes whoever wrote the op-ed should resign," spokesman John Konkus said.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar: "Secretary Azar did not write the op-ed," HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said.

CIA Director Gina Haspel: "No," agency spokesperson Timothy Barrett told CNN when asked if Haspel was behind it.


frommindtomatter said...

Ahoy mateys,

The pronoun “I” is only used four times in the whole text. This seems to be an unusually low number and suggests a lack personal commitment.

“I work for the president” – very vague and does imply they are a senior official. The pronoun only allows for “working”. It could be anybody perhaps his pool cleaner.

I have vowed to thwart – They are prepared to commit with “I” to this.

I would know. I am one of them. – I would know what? And one of whom?

“I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”.

If I worked as Trumps pool cleaner but had colleagues (perhaps the cleaning lady any the chauffeur) I could have vowed with them as my colleagues to thwart Trumps plans (not check his filter and chlorine levels). That covers the first two uses of the pronoun “I”. They tell us nothing more in terms of the authors position.

“The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them”.

“I would know” connects to knowledge of senior officials working against Trump.
“I am one of them” – this can be looked at in two ways. Firstly they compare themselves with senior officials or secondly that they see themselves as one of “them” as in somebody who is working against Trump. As Peter has said it is not needed and is unnecessary information. So the need to convince is there but is not solidly supported in any way.

I would also like to understand “the dilemma”. Whose is the dilemma is it Trumps or is it theirs? I always associate a dilemma with needing to make a choice one way or another but that doesn’t seem to work in the sentence so I could accept its use as meaning a problem, but then again I ask whose the problem is. If they are against Trump then there wouldn’t be a problem with Trump not grasping what’s going on, it may even be to their advantage. Where is the dilemma there?

I could entertain that the dilemma is personal to the author. He does not introduce it as “a” dilemma but recognises its existence with “the dilemma”. He then says that the dilemma is that senior officials are working against Trump. I can`t make sense of this it seems to be conflicting information.

The bottom line is only four uses of the pronoun “I” in the full document and they don’t commit too much.

I think there’s a squall coming


John Mc Gowan said...

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao: "For those who have inquired, this is to confirm that Secretary Chao is not the author of the op-ed," Marianne McInerney, a spokeswoman for the department, said.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry: "I am not the author of the New York Times OpEd, nor do I agree with its characterizations," Perry tweeted. "Hiding behind anonymity and smearing the President of the United States does not make you an 'unsung hero', it makes you a coward, unworthy of serving this Nation."
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: "I did not write and am thoroughly appalled by this op-ed. I couldn't be prouder of our work at Commerce and of @POTUS," Ross said in a tweet that referenced Sanders' statement.
US Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer: "I did not write it. It does not reflect my views at all, and it does not reflect the views of anyone I know in the Administration. It is a complete and total fabrication," Lighthizer said in a statement to CNN.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos: She is "not a Washington insider and does not play Washington insider games. She has the courage of her convictions and signs her opinions," the department's press secretary wrote on Twitter.
Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon: "I am not author of the anonymous @nytimes op-ed. @realDonaldTrump has a clear governing vision for the country and his record of results is remarkable," McMahon said Thursday on Twitter. "I am proud to serve as a member of President Trump's @Cabinet to advocate on behalf of America's 30 million small businesses.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke: "No, he did not," a spokeswoman told CNN when asked if Zinke authored the op-ed.
Other administration officials
American Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman: "Come to find, when you're serving as the U.S. envoy in Moscow, you're an easy target on all sides. Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: never send an anonymous op-ed," Huntsman said in a statement tweeted by a spokeswoman.
FBI Director Chris Wray: An FBI spokesperson said Wray did not author the piece.
National security adviser John Bolton: "As General Sherman said, no," Bolton said, according to a spokesman's tweet.

Alex said...

P.S. I don't consider tweets to be direct statements. I think most of these people have people that tweet for them. This gives them a layer of deniability.

Ooh, an idea for a new reality show, The Battle of the Political Spokespersons.


frommindtomatter said...

I don’t think the author is anyone worth mentioning, someone low on the food chain with little to lose just venting steam. He will have been welcomed with open arms and perhaps even encouraged to give his opinions. This is just more propaganda aimed at casting doubt in the average Americans mind. This could have been a letter from anyone who is against Trump but the fact it can be connected to some kind of “official” means the press can hope to increase its powers of suggestibility to their audience.

What does the author seek to accomplish by having their letter published?

The first half of the document is aimed at character assassination and moves to portray Trump as some kind of wild animal. It seems apparent through their language they hold Trump in contempt and list these qualities in relation to him:

“Impulsive, amoral, lack of principles, impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective, reckless, erratic, half-baked and ill-informed”

I didn’t notice one positive thing said about Trump, they couldn’t even give one positive quality trait.

They move from the mudslinging and turn to the reader softly suggesting that they are to take some responsibility and should bear some guilt for the current situation.

“The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility”.

They use “but” to refute and move the focus to “we” and “us” and tell us “we” have sunk low. We are part of the problem.

There’s more of that type rhetoric but the main focus of the document is on slinging mud in the hope that some will stick.

From the Chinese 36 Stratagems

Kill with a Borrowed Sword:

"When you do not have the means to attack your enemy directly, then attack using the strength of another. Trick an ally into attacking him, bribe an official to turn traitor, or use the enemy's own strength against him".


Lars Bak said...

like-minded colleagues and I...

The "I" here can be part of the group of like-minded colleagues or not be part of the group: "like-minded colleagues plus me...".

If the latter it looks like the author would like to lean on the authority of "the colleagues" - somehow subordinate to "the group". That would speak to a lower ranking person.

If the former, it could be any level, I guess - in Denmark also secretaries (ministers) can call each other colleagues.

frommindtomatter said...

The word “this” appears four times in the whole document and the word “that” appears fifteen times.

This – this country, this chaotic era, this isn’t and this great nation.

That – I am not going to list them all as there are too many but most of them can be removed from the sentences they are used in. A few examples below where the word “that” has been added when not needed.

“and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous”

“The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior”

“In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy”

“Or even that his party might well lose the House”

There are many more in the document.

The use of “this” could have been employed more often but the document has been written in a way to avoid it. The author seems to prefer “that” instead of this”.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

'Writers of anonymous letters often subconsciously give their identity away in their first sentence(s). In this case the first sentence is the title: "I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration".'

Taken together with Peter's revelations, I think the writer is stating he IS a Democrat and he IS part of the Resistance. That's what he sees as his job within the Trump administration.

christina said...

what kind of people take vows? where i live lawyers doctors and priests take vows. “Colleagues” is a way we talk for people when we have been long in a team, a senior can be a colleague when you work with him for a long time.
This person knows more than he is telling, i imagine crazy details on Trumps personality, but he doesnt elaborate, he is sure in his experience that he will be believed without exposing much.

Buckley said...

Agreed, Nic. Why I pointed out the statement about national security team/ holding Russia accountable seems closer to the author’s POV. He was privy to deliberations, not just hearing what people thought.

It also seems to get closest to a motivation.

While he seems to be asserting his concern for Trump’s abilities and fitness, especially in the reference to the 25th amendment, he goes on to talk a lot of politics and issues and his differences withTrump. He is far from proving Trump is erratic to the point of unfitness, though that’s his justification for “going rogue.” If it were just about differing with the President on trade and security, it’s an incredibly inappropriate act, on both the author and the NYT to publish anonymously.

I believe bringing up varied issues is an attempt to mask what department he works in, but it also might mean that while the author has a political background that spans the issues, he’s now in a more specific role. I think we get closest to that role in the sentence But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

I think the NYT is showing their bias is allowing it to be published anonymously. I don’t believe the NYT has lied about the person’s role- it is a current Trump official, it isn’t a Democrat lying about his employment status.

I have my pick as to who it is: someone who used to be an elected Republican but now works in national security. Someone, as Peter pointed out, who has been publicly shamed or called out by the President, but who is reticent to speak out against him, and in fact will (or has) “walked back” his own public criticism of the President.

C5H11ONO said...

The left is incensed when Trump stated Aretha Franklin “worked for me”. This funeral was a Trump bashing funeral where I am certain these words were repeated amongst them. Omarosa attended this funeral. The only one associated with Trump. Now formerly associated. She is alone and bitter and is desperate for attention. The NYT will keep her identity secret because once known who did it lises value.

Anonymous said...

I suspect Lindsay Graham. He hates Trump. Trump won something that he should have gotten. He loves McCain, sees himself as an ally to McCain, because he also didn't get what he deserved. McCain was just as petty as Trump, as in don't let him come to/speak at my funeral, his after-death manifesto still digging at Trump, his daughter playing the same game, instead of remembering her father, she remembering that her father didn't like Trump.
The 'politicians' want Trump gone. they don't look at the good. hopefully the voters will, again.

Anonymous said...

John McCain wrote it.

Anonymous said...

I work....

"Vowed" can be used in a religious context. Not oath, vowed.

President Trump...

"Unlike" possibly refers to more powerful?

It’s not just....

"Bitterly" can be emotion of writer. "Hellbent" again references a higher power
structure: Good vs. Evil.

The dilemma...

Not bad inclinations, but his "worst." A serious battle of good vs. evil in the
writer's mind?

I would know. I am one of them.

Description of "senior official".... Maybe views himself as "senior" to Trump?

To be clear...

"Resistance" is a word used more frequently with unlawful uprisings, not daily American
politics possibly?

But we believe...

Duty (action) is "to" this country, not necessarily for its best interests? Is this a
threat against the republic in bringing up "health?"

That is why...

Religious tone with "amorality." Does the author hold other "morals?" What "first
principles" should guide morality? Belief in a higher power?

Anonymous said...

Although he...

Use of the word "affinity" speaks to an educated person. Free minds, markets, and
people are discussed, not free American minds, free American markets, free American
people. Perhaps someone with a wider scope of freedom without boundaries?

Don’t get me wrong....

Do not misunderstand the essay. Need to cloak identity?

But these successes...

Insults and condemns actions.

From the White House...

Proposing inside knowledge and influence. Elevating self over all and espousing
knowledge over and above top departments and many senior interactions.

Meetings with him...

Impulsive, half-baked, ill-informed, reckless are used to disparage Trump.

“There is literally...

Top officials feel comfortable complaining to the author who they know will be accepting
of such dialog. "Literally no telling" may reference inability to predict what Trump
will do next.

The erratic behavior...

"Unsung heros" use is interesting in light of McCain's death. The people trying to
thwart Trump are even "cast as villians." Dramatic.

Know that...

"We" are "adults" who "fully recognize" and "trying to do what's right" gives an air of
superiority and show need to control.

The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy...

Author does not approve of dialog with certain leaders. "Like-minded nations" goes
unnamed. Which nations might be more closely aligned with the author's goals and
ambitions? It is not expressed leaving it open to interpretation.

Astute observers...

The author wants Russia to be "called-out" and not viewed as a "peer." Who might be
embarrassed? If you are "astute," too, you will see his point?

On Russia...

Acknowledges "so-called deep state" name as existing. Names (or redefines) actions as
being "steady." Not described as elected officials, but takes authority as "state."

Given the instability...

"One way or another - its over" is a very frightening prospect. Control at all costs?

The bigger concern...

"Low" has been used before as in "when they go low"... Our "discourse" has been
"stripped of civility" seems to refer to civility being purposefully laid aside...
other options, short of civility may be considered/anticipated.... again frightening.

Senator John...

"Tribalism" is an infrequently used word in American life. Perhaps someone familiar
with foreign affairs?

We may no longer have...

Lodestar used to cloak identity? We should "revere" men? Religious meaning? Giving
elevated status to McCain's history?

There is a quiet...

Call to unity as Americans. "Resistance" again used. I would consider the author
someone who is deeply humiliated, resentful, and repeatedly threatened by Trump's
actions and someone who believes his ideals to be from higher power. Possibly,
someone who feels themselves morally superior and believes themselves worthy of taking
control... by any means?

Nic said...

We have sunk low with him ...

When I read this, it reminded me of Michelle Obama ("When they go low, we go high."). I'm wondering if the author is a staffer of a different political persuasion? A turncoat?

Anonymous said...

"I (or So and So) did not write that piece." (Rather, I (or They) dictated it.)

Anonymous said...

Early Whispers: The Rise of Feminist Thought in 18th Century America

(essay published in Jan 2013)

frommindtomatter said...

“The erratic behaviour would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes”

“The erratic” – the author fails to connect it to Trump by the pronoun “his”

“The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp”

“The dilemma” – again no pronoun, whose is it?

“But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic”.

“the president” – won`t connect to him with “my” or “our”. The author could still criticise him even if they used “my” or “our” president, but cannot make the connection, although they are prepared to connect with “our duty” and “our republic” in the same sentence.

“That is why many Trump appointees” – "that" not this. Everything the author gives is distant.

What kind of person goes to all the trouble of writing a document which we are meant to believe he has passion about yet will not commit or connect themselves with what they are saying? There is no conviction here.


Buckley said...

A different political “persuasion” from Trump maybe, but not a different party. It’s an older Republican who feels Trump has taken the party astray, which he selfishly thinks gives him justification for not heeding his boss’ directives.

Buckley said...

erratic behaviour

Haha- I don’t think the author is British!

New England Water Blog said...

According to Kasich, McCain was put to death...anyone care to explain his statement?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Ok, so I’m probably cynical- my first thought was is this so-called Op-Ed letter a journalistic stunt? Couched as insider sabotage, it would all but guarantee greater coverage and generate significant press for the Times.

The second sentence in: President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader. Our writer doesn't say the test is "of" his presidency, but "to" his presidency. I think in our writer's mind, he/she is thinking of Donald Trump's right to be President, the legitimacy of being made/declared President.

Trump/or president is referenced 17 times: the president (8), President Trump (3), Mr. Trump (4), the commander-in-chief (1), and Donald Trump (1). Each change in language should have a corresponding change in reality. It's safe to say that the vast majority of people are well-aware of Donald Trump and that he is President. Why does the writer feel the need to keep reminding us who/what Trump is?

Peter tells us that repetition is important. I would expect this Op-Ed to list specific, nefarious actions that are endangering the republic/democratic institutions as alleged by the writer. Instead, there are repetitious, vague phrases: " his agenda", "his worst inclinations", his "impulses", he's "impetuous", "his whims", "his impulsiveness", his "reckless decisions", "the erratic behavior", and "the instability". I think our writer's real issue is that Donald Trump doesn't play by the rules; he won't bow to party pressure or play politics. He's not controlled by political/societal norms and that seems to be frustrating/thwarting our writer and his/her biggest complaint.

This sentence is fascinating to me: "In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of the people"...- The press/media does in fact mass market to people, particularly when your circulation is as big as the New York Times. The writer is offended that Trump is mass-marketing, via mass-marketing, that the press is the actual enemy of the people and not him. Use of the word "notion" denotes contempt. The offense sounds personal to the writer. I would consider if the source is a White House reporter or a banned reporter (CNN or other?).

This letter reads to me a lot like the Ramsey Ransom note. The language is a mix: in places it's almost overly formal and in others, markedly casual (as if our writer can't decide who he/she/they want to be). There's well-developed vocabulary, strong linguistic style, generally good grasp of grammatical construction, mixed with seemingly intentional use of more casual contractions (only 8 in the piece, all appropriately used though). I'm not sure if that's due to masking or collusion. I'm leaning toward masking because the pattern seems to be cyclical: formal, stylized writing, immediately followed by lesser quality writing, and back to more formal.

There are a few surprising errors to me, given the extensive vocabulary in this piece.

1."Near-ceaseless" should be nearly relentless.
2."But these successes have come despite-not because of..." isn't a parallel construction. It should read "in spite of-not because of..."
3. "Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails..."- redundant phrasing.
4. "But in private" should be privately.
5. "Take foreign policy: In public and in private..." should be Both publicly and privately,...
6. “…to impose sanctions on the country [Russia] for it’s malign behavior.”- malignant behavior

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's also interesting which locations/terms command the respect of our writer via capitalization : Oval Office, West Wing, and White House.

There seems to be a number of militarily-themed words as well: working diligently from within, moored, commander-in-chief (lacking respect via lower case although our writer evidences other correct capitalization), executive branch departments and agencies (lacking respect via lower case- used in context with commander-in-chief), first principles, insulate (in conjunction with protecting "operations"), unsung heroes, two-track presidency, allied like-minded nations, allies, expel, boxed, and the lionizing of Senator John McCain (a naval officer and veteran).

The writer chooses to expound on one diplomatic incident and focuses on explaining the situation and how it should have been handled. This incident is introduced by the writer referencing the Two-Track system. In foreign relations, the United States, as well as other nations, engage in Two-Track Diplomacy (“unofficial, informal interaction between
members of adversary groups or nations that aim to develop strategies, to influence public opinion, organize human and material resources in ways that might help resolve their conflict” Our writer seems to have a diplomatic bent and be justice-minded (imposing sanctions).

If our writer is a senior official (a big "if"), I would be looking at those with diplomatic, as well as military, backgrounds. I would be looking at the DOJ and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions specifically as he began as an insider, but ran afoul of President Trump. I would be considering Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as he's the top foreign policy adviser to the President, Director of the CIA, served on the Benghazi committee, and is a Trump appointee with an extensive military background. I would be looking at White house Chief of Staff John Kelly (oversees the Executive Office of the President, extensive military background, close ties to the FBI, and was Secretary of Homeland Security).

I'm probably way off base, so I'm going to read Part 2.