Susan Rice Statements Analysis

The President of the United States tweeted that Barak Obama wire-tapped him.  This told us much more than most realize, including:

a.  to say such he must have evidence or reason due to the bold claim; 
b. he avoided media
c. he held Barak Obama, personally responsible and why he would make this leap is important information for the reader/analyst.  

The race to MSM ridicule ensued, especially since "wire tapping" is an old term.  

Eventually, as is the course of life, evidence began its emergence and a single name arose to the public's attention:  Susan Rice. 

She denied knowing anything about any intelligence gathering that included Donald Trump, Trump tower, or his associates.  

Is she telling the truth? 

Beginning with the tweet, Trump runs a business and has done something we all do;  He projected himself into his tweet:  Leaders such as those who have extreme high level successful  show narcissistic traits that emerge, not as "narcissistic personality disorder", which is from childhood, but narcissist traits that come from the success pattern, itself. It is important to understand the difference, especially when investigating and formulating questions.  Those 'drunk on their own success' will sound narcissistic, but different than those who's narcissistic personality trait, formed in childhood, exists regardless of success or failure.  In fact, the latter will not verbally acknowledge or own failure, even in a mea culpa.  

All negotiators will show signals of deception, via withholding information (as well as sensitive praise) which is similar to business, or even medical professionals who cannot reveal all that it upon their minds.  We understand many professionals cannot speak all their minds.  We judge deception via its "quality", including necessity. 

"Mr. President, are you planning to launch missiles at a Syrian airport at 9pm tonight?" would be an obvious appropriate use of withholding information.  

In Trump's verbalized perception of reality in business, as a strong leader, everything happens with his knowledge.  (for an example of this, see the analysis of Chris Christie'd denial of Bridgegate). 

Donald Trump is not a politician and he does not guard his words with careful parsing.  This is shocking to the public in general as it is unusual.  He is "the devil you know" in this sense as he allows us insight into his thought patterns.   His heaviest use of qualifiers comes in, as many call, "schmoozing", with "very very" used repeatedly in praise of others.  MSM wanted him to condemn Vladimir Putin, of whom he must enter into negotiations with.  This would sabotage negotiations and likely endanger lives.  When a politician is willing to pick a fight with another politician to gain electoral points knowing it may cost lives, we are given insight into how deep ambition may run, and how dangerous it may be.  

There is a difference between a fabricator of reality and a polite 'lie' telling your aged grandmother that her blue hair looks nice. 

 He is going to show deception regarding negotiations. 

 His language reveals motive, just as our language reveals our priorities and our motives. 

His motive is not money, nor power, but his language reveals one driven by success.  He takes responsibility for all while pushing subordinates in order to obtain the best, which can lead to conflict. This is not a moral judgement, but an observation.  

He recognizes that in the last 8 years, everything that went on went in the Obama administration flowed from Obama.  Obama controlled everything, from the IRS to the intelligence administrations to the now "resistance movement" existing, still, in high levels of government.  Love him or hate him, he controlled everything, including the news, the IRS, the media and his subordinates and brought "change" to the way the United States conducts itself.  

Donald Trump's tweet avoided all layers of means and went to the source.  Trump recognized the control Obama exerted and is telling us something about himself at the same time: 

Expect the exact same from Trump (projection) and where there is something outside his control, his Obama tweet reveals he will not target the means, but the source.  This is how he perceives power and responsibility.  Expect angry responses from Trump should one 'break rank' and act independently.  It is his trait and his predecessor's trait:  control.  

I have said before that there may have been only a few people who were not surprised when Trump beat Clinton in the election.  Barak Obama may have been one of them.  Go back to his statements made in the late Fall of 2016, and note the dramatic shift in language.  Gone were all the political and ideological arguments wrapped in insults; in came a new (for America) level of personal ridicule and a dismissiveness that would have likely had more effect had he not overused it.  By telling the public that it would be a "joke" to elect Trump would have been effectively dismissing Trump as not worthy of discussion.  By telling the American people day and night that Trump was a "joke", he revealed that he knew Trump was not a joke.  The MSM followed suit, as did Hollywood.   (the others that may not have been surprised were those who took note of the attendance in rallies).  Towards the days before the election, there were only a few statements mixing ideology and insult, with most being exclusively personal insult.  This was to reveal his fear of losing his legacy, in particular, the Iranian nuclear power deal and the government health care.  

Susan Rice was one of the closest advisors and confidants of Barak Obama.   Her statements on Benghazi were deceptive (as seen in analysis and later confirmed in the news).  Regarding the Syrian gas casualties of this week, two months ago she made an interesting statement.  Her boss had drawn a line and used threats should gas be used.  

“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished.  We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”

The boast was that the threat of military force was not needed.  John Kerry later said that "all" gas was removed from Syria.  It is interesting to view these quotes in light of the recent employment of gas. 

Susan Rice and Wiretapping Trump

Today, Susan Rice may be in need of a very good criminal defense attorney.  

Two weeks ago, on PBS, she was told that intelligence now shows that there was surveillance of Trump, Trump tower and his associates who were part of the transition team.  

In her first appearance, here is what she said regarding the allegation:

"I know nothing about this.  I was surprised to see reports from Chariman Nunez and the news on that account today. "

She did not say she did not use surveillance but that she knows "nothing" about "this" (note closeness).  She did not say, "I did not" but uses "knowledge" associated with "nothing."  

She went further to include emotion into her answer:  "I was surprised."

She knows (present tense) nothing but was "surprised" to "see reports" indicating a need to add (unnecessarily, that is, she was not asked, "What did you feel when you...?") increasing the pressure on the denial.  

From MSM:  'Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Tuesday strongly rejected allegations that she improperly requested the "unmasking" of the identities of Trump associates whose communications were picked up in surveillance conducted by US intelligence.'

"The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes," Rice told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "That's absolutely false."

First, note that she raised the allegation itself, something already asked in the questioning.  This is a form of both repetition (sensitivity) and pause for an answer.  

It is not "false" but "absolutely" false. 

Yet, she also heavily qualified this by assigning a motive to it (political).  This is now a dramatic change from "knowing" of "nothing." 

The Bloomberg report landed amid President Donald Trump's continued accusations that former President Barack Obama—Rice's boss at the time—ordered illegal wiretapping of Trump and his associates during the 2016 election. Bloomberg noted that there is "no evidence to support that claim" and that Rice's alleged "unmasking requests were likely within the law."

Here is now the departure from having no "knowledge" to qualifying it as being not within the law, but "likely" within the law.  

On MSNBC, Rice was said to be under attack for being both a "woman" and a "black woman."  

Statement Analysis:  the Lens for Reading News 

When you see the identity politics enter a defense, it is a diversion and an attack of motive, rather than truth.  The more MSM deception, the greater the ability to discern truth. 

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS, pled the fifth amendment against self-incrimination.  

Susan Rice as asked if she "unmasked" Trump or the Trump transition team.  She answered this "yes or no" question by demanding "open and honest testimony on the Russian connection to the election."  This avoids answering the question and seeks to show that, somehow, Russia was able to "steal" the election away from Hillary Clinton.  To date, we do not know how this was done, and MSM is not addressing:  "Why would Russia prefer Trump to Clinton?" since the uranium deal and the millions of dollars Russia gave to Bill Clinton and to the Clinton Foundation.  

How did Russia interfere?  By wikileaks emails?

Recall the original statement about the emails is that they were fraudulent;  this was not only deceptive, but later recanted.  Did Russia "interfere" by giving factual information?  Is this similar to Barak Obama's use of tax payer dollars of paying for ads in Israel against Benjamin Netanyahu? 

Since Russia appears to be opposing Trump in Syria, will MSM continue its narrative?

Rice on The Surveillance 

Susan Rice said, 

 "We'd only do it to protect the American people, to do our jobs in the national security realm That's the only reason."

Note the distance from "I" as well as the reason why, without being asked, such would take place.  Take this along with the verb tense. 

Lastly, note the single word "only", as unnecessary.  

This sentence is from political   "Mother Jones"; of which you should note the classification of the denial:  'When asked whether she leaked information from the intelligence reports to the public, Rice categorically denied the charge.'

Let's listen to the 'categorical denial.'

"There's no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking. The effort to ask for the identity of the American citizen is necessary to understand the importance of an intelligence report in some instances."

"I leaked nothing to nobody—and never would," said Rice.

If you view (or listen) to Susan Rice' statements, this is a departure from her baseline patterns. 

Consider that Rice is a Harvard graduate and knows what a double negative is.  

Note that she first made a division between "unmasking" and "leaking" in her response. 

Then note the statement "I leaked nothing to nobody" which first asserts, in the positive, "I leaked."

"Nothing" can not exist. 

"Nobody" cannot receive "nothing."

"Leaked" is not "unmasked." Since everyone has their own personal subjective dictionary, Rice is not likely to pass a polygraph should the word "unmasked" be used rather than "leaked." 

Susan Rice was front and center in the Benghazi scandal, lying to the American people about a "video", and she was not alone.  Analysis (and history) showed that she was lying. 

Here is one more recent statement by Rice for analysis denying the accusation. 

"I didn't unmask or leak information about Donald Trump nor his team" would be a strong denial.  This is what we look for and it would be:

a.  simple

b.  short

c.  statistically reliable 

Here is what she said on MSNBC: 

"There were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a US person was referred to.  Um, uh, name not provided just US person.  And sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of the report, and access its significance it was necessary to find out, or to request the information as to who that US official was. 

a.  note the future conditional tense. 

b.  note the disruption in the flow of transmission

c.  note the Hina Clause where she needs to explain, without being asked, why she did this 

d.  note that "sometimes" this was not the need.  We all leak out information as soon as we speak. 

e.  note the passivity used to conceal not only identity, but responsibility.  

f.  See the awkwardness where one drops pronouns or articles.  This is to highlight the disruption of intellectual language flow from a very intelligent subject.  

Question:  Did you seek the names of people involved, to unmask, in the Trump campaign?

Let me be clear.  Absolutely not for any political purposes to spy upon them and expose anything. 

a.  "let me be clear" is a strong signal that what follows is very sensitive to her. 

b.  Not only do we have the decisive 'reason why' explanation, but she includes the words "spy" and "expose" where she began with a pronoun nor an article. 

Remember:  this is a Harvard graduate who knows the English language well.  This 'stumbling' and the use of double negatives indicate a disruption in the speed of transmission of her words.  She is a strong intellect who's flow causes internal stress. 

Two weeks ago she knew nothing about any kind of unmasking.  Now we have heavy qualifiers and explanations of not only what she knew, but what she did.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Susan Rice is deceptive about her role in "wire-tapping" the Trump transition team. 

If polygraphed using her own words, she is not likely to pass.  

If formally investigated, it is very likely that Susan Rice will be amenable to a negotiating to the point of self-preservation.  

The threat of prison terms can undo the most loyal of soldiers who, once holding a high level of importance, face the new reality of being inconsequential or a "pawn" under sacrifice for another's successful avoidance of consequence.  Being inconsequential is most unbearable. Often, to ensure silence, there must be a 'carrot at the end of the stick', or a reward, upon release. Some powerful persons have had success in this, but it is risky.  

This is something every investigator should seek to learn prior to the interview:  

Does the language show a distinct lack of willingness to take responsibility?

Does the language show a distinct trend to blaming others?

The difference between the two may be the difference between obtaining an agreement, or having to go full press court.  The difference can come down to personalty trait. 

The narcissist (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) sees himself as not to blame, ever. 
The successful narcissistic type, shows narcissism due to success, but it is not engrained in the personality; it is often dependent upon success, and even where failure is eventually accepted, some time may elapse.  

The difference between the two should not be blurred by investigators/analysts. 

For training, contact Hyatt Analysis Services.  

Tuition payments available to law enforcement.  

Seattle Mayor Responds to Rape Allegation

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray responds to rape allegations

A 46-year-old Kent man is suing Seattle Mayor Ed Murray over allegations of rape. 

Through his attorney, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray denied allegations of child rape hours after it was reported that a Kent man is suing Murray over claims that he “raped and molested” him as a teen.

Although the public thought that the mayor would respond, his attorney spoke instead. 

Here we have insight into what his attorney may believe about his client: 

Bob Sulkin, a private attorney said,

“The allegations are false.  He has not engaged in any inappropriate conduct with a minor. And I don’t think it is a coincidence that these allegations have occurred in the midst of a mayoral campaign. Think about it, for 30 years nothing is said. And all of a sudden an accuser comes — who apparently, as reported, has a long criminal record — and makes these allegations.”

1.  He states that the allegations are false, not that he did not rape the teen. 

2.  We now know that the attorney believes that there was conduct with a minor, only that it was not, in the attorney's subjective dictionary, "inappropriate."

3. Next:  the alleged victim's motive is attacked:  political. 

4. Then, we note that the attorney attacks the victim, personally. The accuser is demonized. 

Attacking the accuser pointedly is often an attribute of habitual liars. 

These latter points weaken the assertion that the allegations are false.  

5.  Time

Note that rather than make a denial of the action, he points to the passage of time.  This is a form of diversion.  

Sulkin further said that the lawsuit, submitted April 4, is not the first time such allegations have been made against Murray “in an effort to undermine him.” He argued that those previous allegations were investigated and found to be not credible.

“Unfortunately, defending these types of lawsuits is now the cost of being a public figure, especially a public figure like Mayor Murray who has taken such important stands on cutting edge issues of the day,” Sulkin said.

Sulkin did not take any questions from the press after making the statement Thursday afternoon. Murray told The Times that he will “vigorously fight” the allegations.

Analysis Conclusion:  His attorney does not believe his client is innocent.  

Note that sexual abuse of minors can often lead to illegal and inappropriate behavior.  Here, the attorney uses it to discredit the alleged victim, rather than deny the actual allegation.  This gives us our insight into his need to persuade rather than truthfully state.  

Allegations against the Seattle mayor

The Kent man — referred to as D.H. in court documents — alleges that the interactions with Murray began when he was 15 years old and regularly rode Metro bus no. 7 in the Capitol Hill area in the mid ’80s. At the time, the teen had dropped out of Nathan Hale High School as a freshman. He was a troubled youth who was homeless, using drugs, and whose parents were also addicted to drugs. According to the Times’ report, the man — then a teen — was addicted to crack-cocaine. Court documents state that the teen met Murray on the bus and the two “developed a friendly interaction.” Murray was 32 years old at the time.

Murray was aware of the teen’s age as the relationship between the two allegedly turned sexual over time, court documents state. That relationship was allegedly based on Murray paying the teen $10-20 for sexual acts, often at Murray’s Capitol Hill apartment. Court documents go further into detail about the interactions and describe physical aspects of the allegations as evidence. D.H. was below the age of consent during the time of the alleged acts, and therefore the mayor is being accused of child rape.

Since the incidents in the ’80s, Murray has accepted collect calls at his home from D.H., the lawsuit alleges.

The court document also addresses something that Sulkin spoke about Thursday — political motivations of the lawsuit, which states:

Natural speculation would lead some people to believe that D.H.’s actions are politically motived — which is not exactly true. In this regard, D.H. is disturbed that Mr. Murray maintains a position of trust and authority, and believes that the public has a right to full information when a trusted official exploits a child. To the extent that D.H. has any political motivations for outing Mr. Murray, they stop there.

The recent allegations against Mayor Murray aren’t the first. The Times further reports that within the past decade, two other men have accused Murray of sexual abuse. The men have said the abuse occurred in the ’80s when they, too, were teens in the Portland area and before Murray moved to Seattle. Their stories, as reported in The Seattle Times, are similar to the tale told in the recent lawsuit — troubled youth who entered into sexual relationships with Murray.

Both men tell The Times they would be willing to testify publicly.

The lawsuit states that the plaintiff’s attorney intends to depose Murray within 90 days, and that “D.H. believes that it will be hard, if not nearly impossible for Mr. Murray to deny the abuse” and that “D.H. would be shocked if Mr. Murray does not recall exactly who he was.”

Language's Impact Upon Behavior

Chanting "Allahu Akbar" has  impact in mobs.  

The BBC recently posted this short video that you may find interesting:  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k5zp0#play

In it, it shows the expectation of the brain and some of the insight we have on the millions of millions of processing that the brain does.  It is a marvel of creative engineering beyond our limits of science to date.

Even as we learn more, we recognize the vastness of the unknown.

What is the impact of language upon behavior?

When a student curses at a teacher, there is a distinct change within the classroom that is not conducive to learning.  When this is excused as "cultural", there is gain and there is loss.  The gain is by the politician or elitist who uses this to appear to be more "moral" than others.

The loss is the students' learning and future earnings.

1.   Language has an physiological  effect upon the hearer.  Simply tell someone that they have won the lottery and watch their pulse quicken.  There is an emotional impact, and there is a physical impact. The same goes for, "give me your money!" in a hold up.

Consider the physiological impact of three simple words upon a child.  These words can impact the child's immune system, psychological well-being and even his or her later success in life.

"I love you." 

Consider how these three words, spoken in childhood, may impact the adult's immune system for 70 years onward.  

This is, in a sense, to show a reaction in just one person.  What is the effect upon a crowd?

2.  Language Enforcement.  Today, the same moral elitists has constructed laws regarding "hate speech" or "hate crime", as if sticking a gun in someone's stomach and stealing his money is somehow worse if you use a slur to accompany it.  

The only gain here is to the politician who exploits victims of crime for political advantage:  virtue signaling.  

Two hockey players slug it out, brutally pounding each other's face.  
Consequence?  Law and order may be restored to the ice. 

Yet, if one of them whispers a specific word to the other, a word that a politician condemns (but loves), expect:

1.  A lengthy suspension
2.  Loss of income
3.  Condemnation from ownership
4.  Condemnation from press
5.  Possible dramatic career impact for player and his family, including being traded, unsigned, etc.  

The Loss 

The loss is societal and myriad.  Everything from the tyranny of "thought policing" to the additional court and legal costs, to the racist application right down to Canada's attempt to implement Sharia blasphemy laws which outlaw criticizing a criminal supremacist ideology.  This is similar to armies prosecuting soldiers for "hate speech", as if they should watch their words before killing the enemy.

Today in colleges across America, free speech is all but eradicated.  The assault upon speakers who disagree with the political elite's narrative are not only shouted down, but worse:  emotions churn leading to violence.

Most striking is the attack on masculinity and how male collegians are in need of "safe spaces", that is, a psychological position of always being agreed with.  These young men become unhinged at the possibility of disagreement and react emotionally.  The idea of the university being a place of the free collision of ideas is as foreign as basic mathematics are to the students.  It is here, perhaps, that the power of main stream media is most realized.  Readers here cannot imagine Statement Analysis being defended by claims of racism, phobia, immorality

3.  Language impact upon behavior.

Consider the classroom where one student openly curses at his teacher.  Now consider what the impact upon the class is when no punitive action is taken:  the single act of disrespect will now place the teacher in a position of vulnerability.  With no punishment meted out, other students prone to rebellion will pick up the pace, while the more respectful students now view the teacher with a subtle contempt, or in the last, a lack of respect.

Now take this and move it to two more scenarios:

a.  Police
b. Military

a.  With police, what impact is upon society where a 12 year old boy can walk up to a police officer and call him vile names?  I often revisit the themes of America's two most under paid professions:  law enforcement and teaching.  The lack of respect police received from the White House for 8 years directly led to deaths.  How did it begin?

Barak Obama used words to send a signal to police throughout the country, that would be consistently increasing for his 8 years:  blame.

Police were to blame for the arrests of blacks and it began in a simple arrest in New England where, without any fact known, the police officer was condemned with implied racism.  The great divide began. 

When a violent criminal was shot by a police officer (who is no longer a police officer and may not be alive today if not for his defensive use of lethal force) a lie emerged where politicians quickly embraced claiming the suspect put up his hands and said, "don't shoot." 

Eventually the investigation and testimony of witnesses proved this to be a fabrication but this mattered little for the politicians who would benefit from the lies.  Being elected because one is seen as "more virtuous" or "more moral" than his opponent, even when it is based upon a lie, gives us insight into a character who is willing, literally, that blood be shed in trade for votes.  

Here, no matter where you are politically, listen to the arguments.   This short video is regarding an organization who's genesis is deception.  

What comes from the corrupt communication?

What currency exchange results from counterfeit currency? 



Yet, what of the boys witnessing the 12 year old telling the officer that he has sex with his own mother?

Consider the danger of the lack of respect of authority, in general, not only to those boys witnesses this, but then to their friends, and their friends' friends.

b.  Military.  Consider the risk to lives and even national security when contempt for military begins verbally.  

As confidence is eroded verbally, in a leader, those who's lives may depend upon trust, is not brought in question.

4.  Language impact upon morals.

Sexual grooming often begins with words.

The perpetrator uses words to introduce, desensitize and eventually exploit his victim. He may introduce other methods and today, television makes this easy for him, as moral codes from the Golden Era of Hollywood have been replaced.  What was shocking in the 80's brings a yawn to a desensitized culture today.

It was once said that the relationship between a man and woman was so vital to society's generational success that it was best guarded in the legal form of marriage.

Exploitation was guarded against, by society mores, and not politicians.

One only need to watch a couple insult each other, as good-natured teasing can easily lead to passive-aggressive insult, undermining a foundation of respect which can reach its breaking point.

On Facebook, astute readers can almost predict divorces based upon the level of public adoration one spouse places upon another.  Those who describe their lives, for example, in unrealistic glowing terms are often those most hurting, or near the precipice of default.  

Scott Peterson, after murdering his wife and child, described his marriage, as "glorious."

Indeed.  

Even within intimate and positive relationships, a few undisciplined words can bring much harm.  Of incessant talkers, it is guaranteed unless self restraint can be habitualized, but one must be cognizant of this to even begin to facilitate change. 

5.  Mob Violence

When laws are discarded routinely, there is always an increase in crime and violence. 

Historically, the American War for Independence was not a "revolution" in the modern sense of the word.  It was a resistance movement in which the conscience was appealed to, and the refusal to submit to tyranny (years before "Common Sense" sold in any significant numbers in America) was that a governmental body that did not have legal jurisdiction was interfering with a man's duty (not right, nor privilege) to provide for his family. This resistance, reluctant to disobey law, was a necessity, as the foreign unrelated parliament used coercive means to extort. The language of the Declaration of Independence is heavy in wording to show respect for the rule of law.  

When laws are not enforced, crime increases. 

When crimes increase, so does the danger to police. 

 For police, the "Ferguson Effect" has meant self preservation. 

 For citizens of such cities, it means increased criminal violence.  The only beneficiaries are politicians.  

What is a "sanctuary city"?

It is where a poor, hardworking Mexican women with their children are hiding in a church, as to not be deported by a cruel and heartless government?

In Texas, it means that murderers, rapists, thieves and other criminals who's record precludes them from gainful employment in Mexico, can run to a new county, and be paid money to do nothing.  

A question that needs to be asked:  

Why does the nation of Mexico object to a border wall?  

A nation can only exist when it is a nation of laws, no different than any other human organization.   When respect for the rule of law is downgraded, criminal behavior is upgraded.  If it should continue, including the suspension of mathematics, the result is what we are seeing in Venezuela.  This nation moved decade after decade into socialism; where the government was responsible for the people which meant:

Each newly elected politician must promise more. 

The "more" must be paid for, so it is dependent upon not only never ending increases of taxes, but upon population growth. 

Bankruptcy, poverty, and violence will be the repetition of history. 

Laws of Immigration. 

People who have immigrated to the United States have done so, historically, in a legal and orderly fashion.  

My family did. 

They needed to assert that they would be a benefit to the United States, not a drain.  

In my neighborhood in New York, immigrants were known for purchasing and flying the American flag.  They made no demands, but came to contribute.  They embraced citizenship.  As a boy in our Bicentennial year of 1976, if you told me that Americans would have to apologize for wearing the American flag in America I would have considered it humor.  This is a distinctive point in just how successful the psychological warfare has been:  you apologize for being you.  

                        Words have power to change behavior.   

Millions of people now say things that they believed to the contrary for their entire lives.

Why?

Because politicians told them to.  

They fell for the "virtue signaling" and feared being "left out" of the "new moralism."  

This also echoes national socialism's early attraction. 

Nations are now learning that being a welfare state and not having borders cannot be sustained in spite of the cheerleading of the elite and the unthinking masses and media who fall in line.     

We routinely suspend drivers licenses for habitual minor offenses.  Why?  Because it shows a disregard for law, in general.  This is a pattern that society has long recognized as a danger.  It is why small, and sometimes even arbitrary rules are used in schooling, education and military:  it builds a disciplined mentality.  

Chicago calls itself a "sanctuary city" where its citizens (those who have not left) are in harm's way because its political leadership is "more moral" than the rule of law and has become a "sanctuary city" for criminals.  Under single party rule for decades, on every level, it grows in both danger and in debt, month after month, as its schools teach their children how to remain in victim status so as to guarantee single party rule continues.  People do not vote against their own "entitlements."  

Its laws against guns are as strict as can be and the result is few law abiding citizens can protect themselves. 

It appears that criminals shooting each other are not registering guns, nor taking firearm safety courses. 

 Its police are out numbered, exhausted, underpaid, demoralized and have been demonized by the political elite.  

It does not take much to see the psychology of mob violence take over.  Words are used to enflame emotion which leads to violence.

Today we see deliberate attempts to lead political rallies into violence with paid protesters deliberately using provocative speech.

When one feels so morally superior to another that he or she cannot even "abide" a difference in opinion, we are headed towards violence.  This form of moral narcissism is so popular today that it controls millions of people, like a psychological warfare more successful than most would ever have believed.  

When emotion overrules logic, the result is bankruptcy of both accounts and ideas. 

Absurdity 

Women's rights groups lobby in favor of Islamic tarrusch.  
Animal rights groups lobby for the sale of body parts by Planned Parenthood. 
In the name of free speech, organizations named after "liberty"  lobby against free speech. 
As anti-fascists, fascist techniques of coercion are employed in protest at colleges and public settings.   
A man who asserts he is a man is a bigot.  
Yesterday, California's drought is the result of global warming but today's  California's floods are the result of global warming. 
The former vice president of the United States says ISIS was created by global warming. 

                 The cost of psychological warfare?

Psychological warfare in the United States has now echoed what we saw in Nazi Germany with the obedient press, school system and elite's imposition of "new morality", with science be damned.  

A Jew's blood was different than a German's and we'll break the microscope if we must.  

Violence 

It may lead to civil war in America and Europe which is something now commonly spoken about, but beneath this,

               Freedom of speech continues to erode. 

Threats are followed by violence as the political elite inspire to do so.  The talk of "now uniting under the democratically elected president" is gone, replaced with distinct calls to violence, including "blood in the streets" while being funded by billionaire anarchists.  

Urban flight, urban debt and urban crime continue its pattern and impact. 

In some locales, police are understaffed. 

In all locales police are underpaid.  

How routine is it for those who live in risk must hold second jobs? 

"White privilege" is leading a downward trend in life expectancy of whites, while giving an increase to suicide.

Urban schools continue to churn money over racist curriculum.  

College students turn violent rather than exchange ideas. 

Questions are limited due to fear of answers.  

Evil communication corrupts good behavior.

We often study the words to know what happened, but we also study the words to learn what is likely to happen.  

The incivility exampled from the political elite continues through celebrities and to through media. 

Perhaps the most classic example is the CNN Report

"Residents Try To Heal" regarding rioting from the sister of the armed person shot by police. 

Sherelle Smith: 

“Burnin down shit ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down shit we need in our community."

CNN reported that she was trying to stop the rioting.  Here is the quote without CNN editing:  

“Burnin down shit ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down shit we need in our community.
Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit!  We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”


Is an edit like this any different than Dr. Josef Goebels?

For journalists and bloggers who are committed to the truth, consider formal training. 

Hyatt Analysis Services offers both seminars and in home training.  

Get past the narrative and report the truth.  The West, in general, is in dire need for actual journalism.  

Anonymous Spam Emails Exercise

Here is an anonymously sent email.  What do you know about the author(s)?

or...

Are you ready to ask Thomas for a photo and to send him money for a plane ticket to visit you?

We look for many things in an anonymous letter but 4 specific elements:

1.  Background 
2. Experiences 
3.  Priority 
4.  Personality traits

We also look at the use of "masking" his or her identity.  This is the 
"mask" itself, while we also look beneath the mask, at the author, himself.  

Hello Dear,

My name is Thomas from USA and i'm a Geologist.

I understand this is not the appropriate way or platform for such form of introduction, but i am only taking the chance to see if i will be lucky to get a response from you.

I am looking for woman who is honest and sincere in wanting a serious relationship,someone kind and caring, with a good sense of humor,someone who knows how to treat a man and make him feel that he is important to her.Most importantly,someone who does not lie or play head games.

I am a widower,my wife died some years ago and I have been single and alone since then.It is time now to let go and move on.I have been blessed with a lovely daughter whom i cherish so much and she is 16years old.

I am a happy person, responsible,honest, considerate, caring,sincere,serious and  have a good sense of  humor.Please let me know if you are interested in having a serious relationship with me.Age or location is not a barrier.All i need is TRUE love.

Am sorry if i invaded your private space. Apologies. I would be glad to share more about myself with you and send you some of my pictures.

With Love,

Thomas

The address sent from was to undisclosed;

 sgtdebra1414@163.com

From: "Thomas"<info@kleimsrhubli.org> Date: March 25, 2017 at 12:46:25 AM EDT To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: Hello Dear Reply-To: <sgtdebra1414@163.com>

Teaching Statement Analysis

I do not know if there has been a greater instructive element in the analysis of a statement than actually teaching Statement Analysis.  It is with this in mind, that we have an announcement for analysts and analysts in training. 

I have taught, in one way or another, my entire adult life; from substitute teaching to kids' guitar, chess, coaching sports and plenty in-between, but there is something distinctly different in Statement Analysis live instruction.  

I'd like to share some insight into this magical world of analysis that is marvelously exciting.  Recently, we have tackled the challenges of deception detection, content analysis (details on what happened), anonymous author identification and Employment Analysis.  The latter are based upon allowing the identity and personality of the author (and applicant) to emerge naturally through the language.  

When the Dept. of Justice reported that 40% of thieves of companies actually planned theft during the  hiring process, this startling finding did not include the popular and successful theft via legal exploitation:  fraudulent claims of injury, discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and so on.  We show business that in the application process, those who intend on cashing in against the company often indicate before they are hired. 

Consider the steps of teaching analysis.  

Begin with the simplest:  gathering a class to teach analysis through a statement in which the instructor knows the outcome. 

To be successful, the instructor must cite principle, its application, and show the students how the statement, itself, is the actual teacher.  

Consider next those in attendance.  

Some are brand new to the world of analysis while others come with decades of successful experience in both using and in teaching analysis.  The former benefit from the latter. 

Now consider the IQ of those in attendance.  Routinely, analysis teams consist of members with stronger intellects than my own, just as many have experiences where I lack.  

See the emerging challenge?

The instructor must be "on his toes" quite a bit here. 

Repetion

In the world of analysis, repetition is gold.  

I had a statement that is marvelous for teaching that I presented in Seattle, WA, some time ago.  Even after using it over and over, for years, one attendee, who has reached the level of professional expertise but was new then, found a single point no one else had, myself included, in all the years of analyzing it.  

This is the expected. 

Those who must transcribe their interviews (or videos) find this work terribly tedious and time consuming but only learn later that, like the process of osmosis, learning patterns and choice of language, has become a deep part of one self.  The hours that felt vain end up with an instruction that the analyst may even wonder, "how did I know that?" without realizing why a particular pattern was recognized.  It is invaluable.  

Truth is Boring

The first complaint is, "hey, can we please analyze a truthful statement now?" is followed by a second complaint:  "These are boring, can we go back to deception now?" Although comical, it does reveal something to the untrained:  this element is why lying feels awkward.  I do teach truthful statements, eventually, to students, but this is more of a test to make sure they are not "seeing deception" where no deception exists.  

Even while teaching a statement the instructor knows well (what happened, when, why, how, etc) and the outcome (confession) learning continues.  The greater the audience' talent and intellect, the greater the capacity for learning. 

Cold Calling Time

Continue upward with pressure:

Now take a statement submitted by law enforcement and begin to teach it "cold", that is, without prior analysis nor information from the detective.  

More pressure?

Make sure the detective who knows the case file is present and will refuse to divulge information.  

More pressure?

Invite not only experienced investigator/analysts, but instructors.  

This is a recipe for dramatic increases in learning!

The Linguistic Detective 

One final layer of pressure to add in:

Take a team of 12 experienced, intellectual analysts and instructors, include local, federal and state investigators, add in business experience, psychology experts, legal experts, medical, security, etc and present:

A statement mailed to a business that threatens the business with harm (including terrorist threats) and tell the class of experts:

We will successfully assess the level of threat and

we will reveal the identity of the author, himself.  This role of "Linguistic Detective" is both thrilling and fulfilling, with the "thrill" element so strong that it takes time to just process it.  To take an anonymous letter and identify the author is the ultimate expression of our work.  It takes tremendous self discipline and commitment to following principles, which have to be both memorized and with the experience of long term application.  Linguistic pattern recognition can only take place through extensive time.  

What makes the professionals on our teams so special is not their IQs, intellects, areas of expertise and their record of success.  These are all traits they possess in abundance. 

What makes them special; what makes them elite is singular:

It is their humility.  

Humility is a powerful element.  

When you see a man or woman at the top of his or her game, acting like a kid at Christmas, over learning something new, eager to learn and eager to encourage learning in others, you are seeing some of our nation's best and brightest at work. 

I once read that "smart people make others feel smart" and perhaps it is a bit of a stretch, but I get the point:  they do not have a need to use another to feel smart or secure in what they do.  Their comments towards others are always encouraging and even corrections are done with the meekness of one who is grateful for their own learning.  

I have had consistent feedback from new attendees who express both surprise and gratitude for the way they were encouraged in the live training.  

As an instructor, I routinely go into the training cold, and I seek talent and expertise and as I go, although attendees express thankfulness for the learning, I often thank them, wondering...

Do they know how much I have just learned from them?

The learning is not the volume that I received while spending lengthy hours transcribing audio. That learning was invaluable and it was significant.  It slowly seeped into me. 

This is learning that is eye opening, head scratching, "wow!" moments that have become regular, but never routine, nor lessened in exuberance. 

Religion and Politics 

In the years of instructing, plus the years of attending training sessions,  I have yet to see a political or religious dispute within a session. 

Why is this?

Those who enroll in training are a distinct type who come from all walks of life, but share a single driving element that seeks truth. 

I have yet to participate or witness a narrative driven analyst.  Among these professionals, I have never heard, "yes, I see the point but I...", with the injection of personal narrative overruling truth.  Among these, I know personally, are individuals with strong opinions in life, but in analysis, they submit to the statement to learn the truth.  Bias is owned and it is dissected so that its impact can be minimized and eradicated.  

We are beginning a new program where trained analysts will be offered the benefits of teaching in controlled, supportive settings.  

This means that those who have worked hard and have become successfully certified in "Statement Analyst I", will be offered short teaching slots within the live training, using statements that the new teacher knows well.  This will allow these professional men and women the opportunity to grow in ways that Statement Analysis instructors have; it is something unique and something powerful.  

Getting Started on the Road to 100% Accuracy 

Attending a seminar is to set in motion the beginning of a very exciting career move.  

When one is enrolled and under the support of Hyatt Analysis, success can begin on day one after the seminar.

How?

The new analyst knows the basic chords of the guitar.  It is all he or she knows.  He is not ready for The Royal Albert Hall. 

He is, however, equipped with the support of generous professionals who will not only correct the work, but before a suspect is arrested, the new investigator (or human resources, or journalist, or...) is going to have the work proofed.  

In a criminal case, the analysis will not be submitted or used until a professional's eyes have reviewed it. 

This new analyst is going to begin his career batting average of 1.000 with his very first case. 

Hyatt Analysis Services offers:

Training:

Law Enforcement Seminars 
Private Business Seminars 
Training for social workers in child and elderly abuse investigations.  
Security and Vetting 

Training at home (approximately 6-12 months) 
Tuition payment plan for Law Enforcement only  

We offer subcontracting services for:

Employment Analysis to weed out the deceptive and those who intend to exploit. All the questions the government will not allow you to ask, we get answers to without asking.  Those who will abuse, rob or exploit your company, risking both money and reputation, we identify before you hire them. With others, we give you the specific questions to ask in order to hire the best and brightest. 

Those who apply for a job who intend to later file suit, or who have criminal history that you cannot spot, is revealed within their own language.  

Any company with turnover at the entry level is at the highest risk for legalized exploitation.  

For Law Enforcement:  we show how to discern those who will be excellent civil servants from those likely to bruise the reputation of the department by the use of unjust violence or other inappropriate behaviors.  They harm their community and bring disrepute to law enforcement everywhere.  

Anonymous Author Identification for businesses and individuals under threat.  This can save money, insurance, reputation and legal costs. 

Litigation Assistance 

We assist attorneys with far more information than a polygraph can reveal.  

Journalism 

Journalists are given full analysis and the exclusive use of the analysis.  

Investigative Television

News programs who wish the truth in specific cases where analysis can show truth from deception. 

Isabel Celis Remains Found

Police have confirmed they have found the remains of a six-year-old girl Isabel Celis who  was reported missing by her parents in 2012.

But at a press conference last night, Chief Chris Magnus dramatically confirmed that police had found human remains in a 'remote' area which were matched to Isabel via DNA analysis.

Isabel's parents have been deceptive about what happened to her. 

Here is the father's 911 call which is out first indication that he scripted his call:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/sergio-celis-statement-analysis-of.html

Please search "Celis" for more articles indicating deception, including their televised appearance.  

Statement Analysis Training Opportunities

Statement Analysis is the science of analyzing words for both deception and content.  

The formal training is challenging but any committed intelligent person who applies himself can become proficient at detecting deception, given the necessary experience in training. 

Initially, training is done in both seminar and in home setting, via MP3 lectures and workbook.  With this comes a free invitation to our live online training at Go To Meeting. 

It is here where the student not only gets to put his work to the test, but to work with other analysts via submitting comments and questions.  

Most who attend their free session end up with at least a one year subscription to the training.  I often warn new enrollees that it is "addicting."  

It is. 

The thrill of solving a case is special, but when the analysis leads to a conviction for dedicated law enforcement professionals and for society?  It is beyond thrilling; it is deeply satisfying.  

We now offer several different live on line trainings designed for accommodating both differences in time zones as well as differences in experience.  Students from the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Bosnia, South Africa, Australia and so on, are bringing valuable background, experiences and knowledge to our teams.  

Those who have spent at least a year (60 hours) in live training move from deception detection to content analysis to psycho-linguistic profiling.  Here, they work on anonymous author identification and threat assessment analysis.  This means that an anonymous threatening letter will reveal 4 things about the author:

1.  His background--sex, age, race etc
2.  His experiences in life and work, personal and professional, military, civilian, socio-economic status, education, intellect, etc.
3.  His motive or priorities
4.  His distinct personality traits.  

The anonymous author reveals his identity in the statement. 

Their success is something to behold. 

Company Receives Anonymous Threatening Letter 

An angry employee sent an anonymous letter to a company after an event in which the company went through re-structuring, including both terminations and promotions.  The "trigger" (a profound event that causes one to write and mail an anonymous letter) was this combination:  some losing their jobs, while others being promoted. Our author was not promoted.  

This week, an experienced and top quality Statement Analyst instructor and investigator emailed me regarding recent challenging work. 

He said that he had now gone through 3 full rounds (18+ hours) of analysis of the exact same statement with teams.  His conclusion at the end of the first round was correct:  he identified an author of an anonymous letter.  His work was sound. 

He wrote to address the value of repetition and how amazed he was that by the third round of analysis  he had found so much more content, even though the author was already identified.  On top of this, some of the distinct principles that apply only in anonymous author identification have now been more embraced due to the understanding that comes through application.  (This is different than non-threatening anonymous author identification, such as "whistle-blowers" who's motive is different than one who makes a threat).  

I readily agreed. 

Because of this, students and analysts have inquired about attending more than one training session per month, thus this announcement.  

We will now offer additional online training dates per month in which a 2nd yearly subscription will be available at 50% off.  

With the yearly subscription, the analyst knows which day each month his training is and knows that if work or personal schedule preclude attendance, the investment is not lost; it may be made up in another training session, or added to the subscription.  

If your department will host a seminar, or if you wish to study at home, go to Hyatt Analysis Services  for more detail, as well as search this blog ("training").  Tuition payment plan available for law enforcement.  

Please note that our Advanced Course is not for sale to the general public.  This is only for those who have been successful in the "Complete Statement Analysis Course."  Without this foundation, the material will not be understood, and can lead to error.  

For those with professional licenses, CEUs (Continuing Educational Units) are available through the accreditation of University of Maine in our live online training.  

In this training you will work with a team no larger than 12, and will work on statements (including some live, confidential criminal cases) to learn:

Did the suspect commit the crime?
If so, why did he do it?
When did he do it?
How did he do it?

From there, the advanced analysis will produce a profile which allows the investigator to commit to not only an overall strategy, but to ask specific questions (tactics) to bring about a confession or an admission. 

The pinnacle of this work is the "Linguistic Detective."

As others have said, the ability to identify the author of an anonymous threatening letter is tremendously satisfying.  

It is here that we not only assess the threat level, but we do so not only based upon the strength of the language, but upon the specific personality traits of the author.  

Here is where the varied background of team's analysts presents richness, including therapists, business experts, security, lawyers, and other professionals who rely upon communication. They are mixed male and female, each with their sex' unique perspective and understanding. 

 Combined with law enforcement, as one said recently:

"I would not want to be a criminal coming up against this team."

The formal training begins with commitment.