Saturday, August 5, 2017

Intellectual Liars: Debbie Wasserman Shultz

The intellect is often seen in the quality of lies.  It is a form of contempt that is elevated through superior intellect and educational development built upon successfully deceiving others.  

An example is seen in audacity.  

"I smoked marijuana, but I did not inhale." 

The audacity reveals not only a lengthy history of deception (from childhood) but an ever growing contempt which leads, in natural progression, to lowered self awareness or "emotional intelligence."

Herein lies the larger strategy for law enforcement, journalists, investigators and interviewers.  

The liar seeks to avoid the internal stress of direct lying by parsing words carefully.  It is as if one is preparing for court where lawyers are well paid for this form of deception. 

             "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is."  

This type of statement infuriates and often fills the interviewer/opponent with resolve.  The audience recognizes the inherent insult and the liar fails to grasp the age old concept of not poking a tiger in the eye.  This is where intellect and experience is subordinated to ego, with inevitable consequences.  

It is an essential technique for investigators in Analytical Interviewing.  

The contempt that liars feels is greatly increased by success which leads to the loss of self awareness.  The feeling of one's own superiority means, by necessity, judging self on a curve, compared to others.  The liar feels superior to others, and this enters the language.  

When kindergarten teachers note a child's ability to directly lie (fabricate reality), they are seeing a personality trait that will only grow with each successful deception of an adult, and it is within the age and sophistication disparity that is most alarming.  The contempt becomes contempt for authority in general.  Contempt for authority tells its victim that he or she is above the law.  It is why all children must be trained not to lie and why even small, arbitrary rules are set for very young children, just as they are within military training:  one learns to follow orders.  In children, the lack of such leads to anxiety, which has many consequences in adulthood.  

As analysts and investigators learn the power of emotion, do not underestimate the emotional impact of inherent contempt upon increasing the focus of the recipient.  

The investigator who is insulted may become even more purposeful, just as liars also know the "ingratiating factor" in analysis seeks to reduce resolve through empathy.  

The subject loses the ability to see just how self is perceived by others.  Here is an article with quotes about the on the fly interview with Debbie Wasserman Shultz and police.  

Note the contempt within the language.  Analysis is added to the article via bold type and emphasis of underlining  and the use of color has been added to draw your attention to specifics within the language.  

To study Statement Analysis, please visit our website:

Hyatt Analysis Services. 

 We offer in house seminars for law enforcement and business, but also a Complete Statement Analysis Course completed in your home. This comes with 12 months of e support. 


Article:  Daily Caller 

Nearly three months after Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) engaged in a terse exchange with Capitol Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa over the ownership of IT aide Imran Awan’s laptop, the Democratic lawmaker is claiming concern over “racial and ethnic profiling.”

Let's start from the beginning.

In February, it was revealed that Imran Awan, an IT specialist who worked for numerous Democrat lawmakers, was under investigation for allegedly “stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network” according to Politico. Four others (three relatives and a friend) are also under investigation.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that “the accused staffers are believed to have had access to sensitive intelligence information related to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as lawmaker's personal information, prompting concerns the breach could be far deeper than initially suspected.”

For five months, Wasserman-Schultz kept Awan on her payroll, refusing to fire him despite other lawmakers terminating his employment. The congresswoman claims she was simply “[standing] up for what’s right.”

After the investigation went public, however, Wasserman-Schultz was forced to redefine Awan’s position as he was no longer permitted to access the House IT network.

 She told the Sun Sentinel that “there are plenty of technological issues that an IT person can assist with. He didn’t have access to the network, but he was able to give us guidance and advice and troubleshoot on a wide variety of other technological issues.
The story took an unusual turn when a piece of hidden technology was uncovered.

The Daily Caller reports that during the course of the investigation, a laptop “hidden in an unused crevice of the Rayburn House Office Building” was found and seized by police. The laptop allegedly belongs to Imran Awan.

However, at the annual budgetary hearing for the Capitol Police on May 18, Wasserman-Schultz grilled Chief Matthew R. Verderosa about the laptop, implying that it was her property.
The partial exchange is as follows.  Please note the articles and pronouns: 

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I’d like to know how Capitol Police handle equipment that belongs to a member or staffer that’s been lost in the Capitol complex and found or recovered by one of your officers. What happens?
VERDEROSA: It’s processed on a PD-81 which is a property record, and depending on the property, depending on how you can legitimately determine ownership, it’s generally turned back over to the owner of a property. If it’s part of an ongoing case, then there are other things that have to occur for that to happen.
WASSERMAN-SCHULTS: So if a member says there is equipment that has been lost, and you find it it would be returned to the member?
The back-and-forth continued, with Verderosa repeatedly noting that if the item in question is “part of an ongoing case, then there are additional things that need to be done.”

Wasserman-Schultz persisted, implying that because the laptop was allegedly her property, and because she herself was not under investigation, it should be returned:
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Members’ equipment is members’ equipment. My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members’ equipment when the member is not under investigation. It is their equipment and it is supposed to be returned.

Note the seeking of information by the subject and the avoidance by police 
VERDEROSA: I think there are extenuating circumstances in this case…

The officer remains in the realm of appropriate weakness; it avoids an accusation.  This is not lost on the subject, who now does what liars do when cornered:  they attack.  

There are many examples of such on the blog.  Begin with Lance Armstrong.
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences.
On July 24, Awan was arrested as he attempted to board a flight to Pakistan via Qatar. He was subsequently “charged with bank fraud after a months-long investigation that found he wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan,” reports The Washington Free Beacon.
Politico details the charges: “Awan is accused of attempting to defraud the Congressional Federal Credit Union by obtaining a $165,000 home equity loan for a rental property, which is against the credit union’s policies since it is not the owner’s primary residence. Those funds were then included as part of a wire transfer to two individuals in Faisalabad, Pakistan.”
Fox News adds: “[Awan] pleaded not guilty Tuesday to one count of bank fraud during his arraignment in federal court in Washington, D.C. He was released but will have to wear a GPS monitor and abide by a curfew.”

It wasn't until Awan’s arrest that Wasserman-Schultz decided to terminate his employment.

Following previous reports that Wasserman-Schultz was in “negotiations” with Capitol Police regarding the extent to which they could examine the seized laptop, she told the Sun Sentinel on Thursday that she has allowed an examination to go forward. 

She also admitted: “This was not my laptop. I have never seen that laptop. I don’t know what’s on the laptop.

It is vital to note any unnecessary repetition.  Note the use of "this" versus "that" in terms of psychological or physical closeness versus distance. 

In a sense, linguistically follow the lap top.  

The analyst should ask self:

How else could this have been worded?

If she had no connection to the lap top, how would such innocence sound?

Why does this sound so awkward?

Given her intellect and educational background, what does this awkwardness suggest?

Moreover, the congresswoman said her distress is due to possible violations of Awan’s legal rights:
I had grave concerns about his due process rights being violated. …When their investigation was reviewed with me, I was presented with no evidence of anything that they were being investigated for. And so that, in me, gave me great concern that his due process rights were being violated. That there were racial and ethnic profiling concerns that I had.
The congresswoman released a similar statement on July 26, just after Awan's arrest and termination. Both statements mirror the ones provided by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Marcia Fudge (D-OH) in March. However, Meeks and Fudge didn't wait five months to take action.

Regarding her exchange with Police Chief Verderosa, Wasserman-Schultz added: “I was trying to get more information, I wanted to make sure they were following the rules.”

She also balked at the idea that Awan was fleeing the country because he filled out a form concerning his leave of absence, and bought a round-trip ticket.

This situation is baffling, and it brings to the fore several questions. Why did Wasserman-Schultz imply the laptop was hers? Why did she fight against an examination of the laptop so vociferously? Why has it taken her so long to allow an examination? Why did she continue to employ Awan when numerous others fired him upon discovery of the investigation? Why did she wait so long to reveal the alleged motivations behind her defense of Awan and his laptop?
These questions need to be answered. Perhaps the contents of Awan’s laptop will do that.


Anonymous said...

Being the intellectual you claim her to be, others should not expect her to keep up with her laptop that houses information detrimental to public service.People that smart are known to leave those items lying willy-nilly in crevices to and fro.

Of course, being Jewish and from Florida,latitude is in order.Banking practices are disregarded for Pakistanians and Texans alike.

The jewes will not be blamed for nuthin'!

Tania Cadogan said...

It was hers until incriminating evidence was found whereupon it became the other persons.

Cue a speedy trail of dust into the sunset and much phoning of lawyers.

Anonymous said...


Fox News Host Eric Bolling Suspended After Lewd Photo Accusation

"Mr. Bolling recalls no such inappropriate communications, does not believe he sent any such communications..."

Weak denial?

Ann said...

Hello Mr. Hyatt,

I was wondering if one day you could add a 'list' of colour codes i.e blue for sensitive words,red for deception etc? I like colour coding in S.A.. It does help keep 'track' of what you find in a statement of one is reading/analyzing. I love taking notes from this blog and I enjoy your commentary and humor as well as your seriousness for teaching this very awesome and fun tech. :)


Trigger said...

Why is Wasserman-Shultz protecting Imram Awan so agressively? As for her over the top, extreme issues with Awan's personal computer being held by the FBI....

Is she really taking the moral, legal, and ethical higher ground for Awan as she claims, or is she in panic mode as it appears in her awkward statements?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Hi Ann,

I use Blue for highest sensitivity and red for deception (generally).

The color coding you may be referring to is used in the SCAN technique (, a well respected school of analysis.

I think the overall coloring is valuable but above all else, "blue" coloring, limited to only two points, is the most valuable.

The full color coding of SCAN get overwhelm the eye. Using orange, for communicative language, however, can be very helpful in both homicides and fraud.


I think this is perhaps better viewed as "moral narcissism" but in an exploitative manner, as politicians do. It does not mean she isn't a moral narcissist, but more importantly, she uses it to exploit others.

She says she protected the computer because she was concerned about "racial and ethical profiling."

It doesn't get much better than that to example how to hide criminal, immoral or unethical behavior behind words.


Ann said...

Thanks for the reply and info,Peter. I agree if colour was used 'everywhere',it would look like a rainbow and it would bug you eyes out lol.


Tania Cadogan said...

The important stuff would be lost in the wash of colors.
Keeping to two colors apart from black means it immediately stands out.

Ann said...

Yes,that is true Tania.

What is it called when someone says something like "Anyway, until today, as I said before",that kind of wording throws me off more then just saying 'anyway' or ' as I said before'.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Ann, the full color use belongs to SCAN, so without written permission to use it, I don't.

It is quite effective once one becomes used to it.
It can overwhelm the eye, but with pattern recognition, its value is especially noted in areas that analyst sometimes miss.

all things being equal, I sometimes use it myself, and think its value could help in domestic homicides more than in other areas, but it belongs to SCAN and the SCAN analysts love it. The other specific (language) is change of language being designated.

Cutting it down to two colors is best for the simplicity of the blog, though.


Rauyne said...

I am a SCAN analyst and always use the full color analysis. It was overwhelming at first but I find it to be normal to me now. Are there many SCAN trained analysts here? I think I have read that there are a few. I know Peter is. Who else here?


Ann said...

I understand.

Have you done more on 'unique' words other then 'just,because,to,so' and so on?

As in in double underlined words,what would be the reason for that?


Ann said...

LOL Libtard Police

I'm sure almost every Pres has said something behind closed doors,not just the ones where media get's a whiff of it lol. Media will go after anything that will get them attention,lies or not. Truth is not what they're after.


Hey Jude said...

So what's your take on women, Anon? Do they get a better rating.than men and dogs? :-D

Ann said...


Giving 'advice' like that is not a good thing. It's not good if a man treats a lady like crap,though giving that kind of 'advice' doesn't help others when you're still holding grudges over every man.


Jon said...

@Ann, exactly.

Both men and women need each other, and the only ones that get hurt are the ones who have too much pride to admit as much. Which is why feminism is so destructive, because it spouts the lie that women can have it all. They can have a job, they can get any man they want, they can do anything a man can but only better, they can put off having children till later in life... feminism doesn't just hurt men, but it has a longer lasting destructive effect on women who believe all of these lies.

Feminist women end up being alone, particularly ones one believe the divisive clap-trap by anon above, all because of PRIDE.

Much like how Christian's are more aware of their own sinful nature, both men and women who let go of their PRIDE, will end up being happier for it.

Jo said...

As for the anti-Trumper with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, you just need to get over your singular hate for a man who has buffoonish tendencies and an inability to talk well.

Although I like Trump for his ability to infuriate those that form the new secular leftist orthodoxy of smug virtue signalling, I'm not emotionally invested in the man. Heck, he's made plenty of mistakes like installing his family in close positions and his constant criticisms of AG Jeff Sessions, probably one of his few genuine allies. If Trump committed a crime, then he should be punished for it, including if he actually sexually assaulted a woman. (He didn't - all of his accusers have gone deathly silent, and none of their stories added up - there are literally no victims of his so called "pussy-grab").

Now you asked what if Obama had said one of these "locker room" talks in private? And you know what? I don't think people would give a damn, the only difference being the indifference shown by the illiberal left who felt the need to cover for all of his misdeeds.

You might find this strange, but we actually have objective standards with which we hold people and don't go in for this identity politics BS where we have to defend a person simply because they're on our "team".

If it's wrong it's wrong! And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done plenty of wrong!

Anonymous said...

Jon, do your platitudes bring you comfort?

"Get rid of you pride and it will make you happier, and etc etc."
"Both men and women need each other."

I can only pictures these statements written with a colored background traveling down my facebook feed.

Bringing comfort to those snacking behind a social media screen.

You know not of what you speak, Jon.

I surrendered my pride. I remember listening to him talking to a friend of ours who was seated next to me, unbeknownst to me a slight smile had formed on my face, now that I think of it, it was probably a look of adoration, of course subtle, and I noticed him stealing sidelong glances at me, and each time he did it I would quickly get rid of the smile and put a neutral look on my face and look away as if I had better things to think about.

Ann said...

What is wrong with what Jo said? I saw nothing wrong with what he had said. Get your ninnies out of a bunch and get into reality. Not everyone's going to drop their belief/standards for every time you 'bitch' what a man did to you in your past to make you bitter.

I enjoy this blog and sometime the comments. Though 'flooding' it with angry hormones and pity play doesn't belong here. This is about statement analysis,not an Anti-Trump website.

Ann said...

It's not right when a man treats a woman like crap,though it's normal to feel/except and move on. Turn it into something positive,as abusive types will and are trying to turn others into a bitter person who is 'stuck' in the past. Their game is to make others angry and themselves 'feel better' about themselves.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousAugust 7, 2017 at 2:23 AM
Peter I wonder why you do not do an analysis on Pres. Trump. There are tweet and speeches and recorded comments.

This is a right wing blog. SA is applied only to the left.

Anonymous said...


MichaelAugust 7, 2017 at 2:25 AM
I bet you are a Democrat,you insect.

Awww. The tolerance of right wingers. So inspiring.

rob said...

There is a lot of crazy on here.
If you don't like this site, leave. It's Peters. He can analyze what he wants. or not.

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

off topic

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Lawyers for a man suspected of killing his millionaire grandfather in 2013 met with a judge Monday in a lawsuit over the sinking of his boat with his mother onboard.

Nathan Carman's boat sank last year during a fishing trip with his mother. He was rescued after a week on a life raft, but his mother was never found and is now presumed dead. Since then, Carman has been at the center of a number of legal matters. He has denied any involvement in his grandfather's killing and has said he didn't sabotage the boat.

Carman's insurance company is refusing to pay an $85,000 claim for the boat, saying that Carman made "incomplete, improper, and faulty repairs" to the vessel the day before it sank and that he knew it was "unseaworthy."

Lawyers for Carman and his insurer met Monday behind closed doors with a federal magistrate judge in Rhode Island to discuss the case. Carman, who lives in Vernon, Vermont, was not seen at the courthouse, and both sides declined to comment after the hearing.

A court filing later Monday showed the judge issued a pretrial order that sets deadlines for discovery and other pretrial matters for Carman and his insurer.

David Farrell, a lawyer for the insurer, the National Liability & Fire Insurance Co. and Boat Owners Association of the United States, told the court in a filing last week that he anticipated that Carman's "criminal wrongdoing" and "illegality" will bar his insurance claim.

Farrell wrote that Carman's actions regarding his mother's death and his grandfather's homicide, "potentially similarly motivated by" Carman's possible multimillion-dollar inheritance, are all within the scope of what the insurer might explore as it assembles evidence in the case. He proposed deposing Carman by video in the federal courthouse.

In email correspondence attached to the filing, Carman's lawyer, David Anderson, said he objected to that plan, telling Farrell, "I told you that just because he had Asperger's and the tabloid press has had a field day with him, I was not going to agree to have him be treated any difference (sic) than any other litigant."

Lawyers for both sides agreed in the email exchange not to release any video deposition publicly.

Carman and his mother, Linda Carman, 54, of Middletown, Connecticut, left a marina in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, on Sept. 17 on a fishing trip. He was found alone in a life raft eight days later about 100 nautical miles (185 kilometers) south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.

Police in Connecticut have described Nathan Carman as a person of interest in the 2013 unsolved slaying of his 87-year-old grandfather, John Chakalos. In April, a judge denied a request from Carman to seal from public view a warrant that revealed police at one time considered Carman a suspect in the crime. Carman was never charged.

His family filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire last month accusing Carman of killing his grandfather and possibly his mother to collect an inheritance now valued at around $7 million.

Anonymous said...

Loose threads coming together.

DNC server "hack"
Shawn Luca's death
Seth Rich's death
Leaked emails to Wikileaks
Bogus "Russia hack" narrative
Awan scandal
Lawsuit against the DNC
More lawyers dying - Berantein Wisenant (not sure of spelling), Peter Smith I believe and also a Haitian official who was about to testify against the Clinton's
Beck lawyers digging into lawyer deaths and discovering a possible link to Mayo clinic selling organs on the black market.
Wasserman-Schultz doth protesting too much and threatening police with "consequences"

Maybe it's all unrelated. Maybe if the MSM would do its job properly, people wouldn't have to speculate so much.

trustmeigetit said...

A simple search would show you hale has actually done Trump...

rob said...

Post by second 'rob' was not me. If you can't come up a username, use anonymous.
thank you.

rob said...

I'm gay xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

rob said...

My husband says "hi"he says I'm his"rock"...I LOVE HIM SO MUCH,gay?yes PROUD?YES xxxxxxxxxxx