Did Director Comey truthfully report?
In 2016, the FBI
investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for hosting a private
email server in her home, and the illegal transfer of confidential data both to
and from said server. The lead investigator was Peter Strozk.
In 2018, text messages
from Mr. Strozk to the Dept. of Justice's attorney, Lisa Page, went
public. The messages indicated political
bias as well as that the outcome of the Clinton Server investigation was known
prior to the interview with Mrs. Clinton.
We learned that the interview had "no
memorial"; that is, no audio, video, stenography, or even personal notes by interviewer exist. It is not known if this practice has ever been done (or
claimed) before in the Bureau's history.
Upon public knowledge of
the text messages, Robert Mueller removed Strozk from his investigatory team.
When more messages were
sought, officials reported that 50,000 of such were lost to a "technical
glitch."
On 25 January, 2018, media
reported that the text messages had been found.
On 26 September, 2016,
then FBI Director James Comey testified on Capital Hill denying that a conclusion was made prior to
the interview of Mrs. Clinton, who was the target of the investigation.
This contradicts what the
text messages from the lead investigator, Strozk, stated.
Who is telling the truth?
Let's look back at the
question posed to Director Comey and his answer to learn:
Was Director Comey
truthful in his answer?
I. The Statement
II. The Statement With
Analysis
III. Analysis Conclusion
I. The Statement Capital Hill, September 26,
2016.
Q: Director,
did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges related to
classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the
FBI on July the 2nd?
Director James Comey:
"After. But if colleagues of ours believe that I am lying about when I
made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a
conversation about this.
All I can do is tell you
again the decision was made after that because
I didn't know what was going to happen in that interview."
II. The Statement With Analysis
Director, did you make the decision not to
recommend criminal charges related to classified information before or after
Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?
This is an
"either/or" question in which the subject can answer or he can
nullify. The element of the question is
"time"; therefore, nullification is limited to one choice only.
Either it is
"before" or "after", with the nullification being the third
choice, "during."
This would
be unusual given the context of the investigation, but it does happen.
For example,
an investigator could, during break, call his superior to report findings, even
though the interview is not completed.
This is sometimes "concurrent planning" due to safety
issues.
Next note
the inherent accusation within the question.
If he answers "before", it is to confirm suspected
corruption. It is an
"accusatory" question in that it has but "one answer"
should the subject choose to answer the question as stated. Anything other than "after" would
be to raise suspicion (via avoidance), invite further need for information
("during") or indict the investigation as corrupt
("before").
The subject
chose to answer the "either/or" question:
James Comey:
After.
This is a strong answer by
itself.
There is, if true, no need
to add anything to it. It is, of itself,
a strong answer that the collaborating evidence will show one of two
things: it is either true or it is not.
As truthful, it is best to
stop here. The truth within an
accusation needs no assistance or reinforcement.
Each word that follows it, however, indicates
weakness or a "need to persuade" or buttress his assertion.
Psychological Wall of
Truth
The psychological
"wall of truth" is a position of confidence in which the subject
knows the truth and has a level of comfort within it. He knows that no evidence can ever prove
otherwise and anything presented will be, by necessity, false.
The psychological
"wall of truth" is often seen in short answers where no further
information is offered because no further information is needed.
Similar to "yes or
no" questions, we take careful note of every word that follows the
"no" (denial) response as, in the mind of the subject, necessary for
him to be believed.
Truth is an entity of
itself. It is not impacted by time,
culture or opinion. Changing the
wording, setting, or any other element is outside of the impregnable entity.
We now note the first word
that the subject uses after his answer of "after" is:
" but."
But if colleagues of ours
believe that I am lying about when I made this decision,
The word "but"
refutes or minimizes via comparison that which preceded it. The information
that follows the word "but" takes precedence. If someone says, "I
like pizza; but I love lobster", to the subject, "lobster"
is more important.
He said "after"
and then sought to rebut or minimize via comparison his answer for another
purpose which is more important to him:
"But if
colleagues of ours believe that I am lying
about when I made this decision,
He refutes or minimizes
his answer with the words "I am lying."
Embedded Confession
An embedded confession is
when a subject is processing his words and guilt is inadvertently owned. There are many examples of this, including
"for those of you
who believe in my guilt..." (OJ Simpson)
"We hid her
incredibly well" (Kate McCann)
In these two above cases,
the words came from the subjects' own personal subjective internal dictionary.
They did not assign the words to another.
This is key to understanding embedded confessions.
When Dennis DeChaine stood
trial in the murder of 13 year old Sarah Cherry, he claimed to have never met
the victim and that he was alone in the woods. He said, "I was admiring
the deciduous trees and got up as we were losing daylight."
His use of the pronoun
"we", something he had used millions of times in his life, was
consistent with the DNA of his victim in his truck, and was duly
convicted.
"I didn't know my
victim" (Stephen Trunscott
who killed Lynne Harper.
This is a "Pronoun
Confession" where one takes instinctive ownership. Humans are possessive creatures. They take
ownership of what is theirs, and deny ownership of what they do not want to
own. It is estimated that as many as 80% of cold case files contain a
"pronoun confession" within them.
In robbery cases where the
"victim" knows the perpetrator, the pronoun "we" sometimes
slips out.
In one case, an employee
said he was beaten into opening the company safe. "They punched and kicked me and then we went
into the room and they made me open the safe..."
Pronouns are so powerful
that they pre date speech.
Even infants can
communicate the pronoun "my" with the opening and closing of the
hand.
Pronouns take no "pre
thought" and are reliable in detecting deception. We use them millions of
times, therefore, the brain is efficient at processing them to the point of
100% accuracy. Even moms of teenagers
know to listen for pronouns:
"Didn't do it, Mom."
drops the pronoun "I."
When Bill Clinton was
running for office, he was accused of having an affair with Gennifer
Flowers. His wife, Hillary defended him:
"When the man I love and the man I respect is attacked, I am going to defend him..."
Years later, worn down by his behavior, after
the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Hillary said,
"...when the man you respect and the man you love is attacked..."
It took years and much
suffering to eject the pronoun "I" from her statement.
Pronouns guide us to
truth.
Here, the subject (Comey)
allows for the words "I am lying"
to enter his language. This is contrary
to the psychological "wall of truth."
We note the source of these words as critical.
In an argument, one might
say, "you are saying that I am lying" which is to assign these
words to another. This means the genesis or origin of the words "I am
lying" came from someone else.
In Comey's case, it is his
belief that he identifies. Therefore, he
must process the information rather than parroting or quoting someone
else. When one parrots or quotes another,
it is not an embedded confession or admission.
It is to embed in a most
important point of the statement (following the word "but") the
ownership of lying.
When one is telling the
truth, there is no possibility of lying.
The truthful will not allow for this to stand and it does not enter
their language.
When one says, "I
did not take the missing money" followed by, "I am telling the
truth", it is more than 99% likely to be truthful. This is a "Reliable Denial" and it
is to bring the allegation to a halt.
Why? Because it is true. Nothing is needed to defend it.
Here, the word
"but" alerts us to something in juxtaposition of thought: "After" (timing) is closely
connected to "I am lying" in the subject's own language. He does not quote another.
Yet, we continue to listen
to see if his words will affirm the assertion that this is an
"Embedded Confession."
He allows for himself to
be viewed as "lying" and offers the remedy on how to deal with it:
Via private
conversation.
This is not to be
countered by a polygraph, nor investigation, evidence or interrogation.
It is to be countered in a
"conversation" (non legally binding; non-confrontational).
Yet he qualifies this
conversation further:
It is to be "private."
This is to indicate
confidence in personal bearing while in a private setting, while showing the
lack of confidence in words used in the answer.
It is also consistent with
manipulation.
please urge them to contact me
privately so we can have a conversation about this.
What should not be missed
here is the pronouns. Pronouns are
intuitive. We use them millions of times
and we do not pause to ask ourselves, "should I use "I" or should
I use "we"?" It is
intuitive for us.
Intended Recipient in Statement Analysis
If a suspect is arrested
and brought to jail and is talking to a visitor, the conversation may be
recorded.
The suspect is talking to
the visitor, who is the "Intended Recipient" of his words.
His words may also
indicate awareness of the audio-video recording.
Example
When Casey Anthony met
with her mother, Cindy Anthony, while in jail for the killing of her daughter,
Caylee, the recordings were played on television each night. Eventually, Casey
and Cindy recognized the "Unintended Audience" (or
"recipient" of her words) and scripted their message to law
enforcement and the public. Also Casey
was talking to Cindy, (Cindy is the "Intended Recipient") her
awareness of both investigators and the national audience became her
"Unintended Recipient."
We hear this often in 911
calls. Sometimes the caller may even
say, "I know you are recording this."
For further examples, see:
Police investigators often
call this "scripting" or "playing to the camera."
The subject is speaking to
the 911 operator ("Intended Recipient") but is also speaking to the
investigators who will be investigating the caller ("Unintended
Recipient") intentionally. The
designation of "Intended" and "Unintended" is a Statement
Analysis principle that examines the change of language and purpose. It is only
"unintended" technically for this classification.
Ingratiating Factor
In Statement Analysis, we
recognize the "Ingratiating Factor" in language.
This is where a subject
"ingratiates" himself into the audience (recipient) often using
flattery in an attempt to be "on the side of police" or the
"authorities." The flattery or
ingratiating words indicates the opposite.
For example, when DeOrr
Kunz' toddler son went missing, he extensively praised law enforcement and
authorities for not finding his son. He linguistically
"ingratiated" himself into the "good guys" (officials)
which highlighted his need to be seen as a "good guy." He was deceptive about what happened to his
son and he exposed his own need to be seen in a positive light. This is the
"Ingratiating Factor" in analysis.
This is also seen where a
killer may not only praise law enforcement but put himself into the
investigation as "helpful" including "searching" for the
missing person he had killed. This is
why "memorials for the missing victim" are video taped. The killer has a psychological need to be
seen in a positive light. This need,
itself, is where we focus our attention.
When an innocent parent's
child is not recovered, the parent is not pleased with law enforcement, but
impatient and upset.
Appropriate vs
Inappropriate
Ingratiation is noted as
"Inappropriate" (the above examples) or as "Appropriate"
under a specific condition: the subject
is already on the same "team" as the "good guys."
This is often indicated in
conspiratorial crimes, particularly financial.
Director Comey ingratiated
himself in the following:
But if colleagues of
ours
While giving this
testimony, he was "on the hot seat" with the question, by its
own wording, to learn if he had perverted justice on behalf of Mrs.
Clinton.
He called them
"colleagues" which units him with those who may think he is lying.
He affirmed this position
with the pronoun "ours" here.
He is indicated for
"Appropriate Ingratiation"; that is, he is identifying those he sees
as colleagues who believe he is lying.
He wants to deal with them as colleagues, in "conversation"
that will be aside or hidden from the public, as "private."
This indicates that he is
not only answering the question (Intended Recipient) but he is now addressing
at least two persons ("colleagues" is plural) as Unintended
Recipients, of whom he wants to have "private" communications that he
classifies as "conversations."
This is to indicate that
under the word "but", there are those that he is specifically
addressing that are government officials.
The profile of this answer
is for a different study and outside the boundary of the Analytical Question:
"Is Director Comey truthful?"
One may consider the
boldness of this offering, in context, to have "private
conversations" regarding the self-stated, "I am lying."
believe that I am lying
about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we
can have a conversation about this.
The pronoun "we"
shows "unity" and "cooperation." It is so powerful that in sexual assaults,
the language of unity and cooperation is ejected from victims' statements once
the sexual assault has taken place.
Pronouns are instinctive,
powerful and accurate.
"We drove
to the woods and he raped me. He
drove me to my house and I called police..."
Here, they drove
"together" ("we") but once he raped her, "we" did
not drive home, but "he drove me", intuitively distancing herself, as
victim, from him, the rapist. It is an
indicator of veracity.
To the contrary:
"We were out
at this party and everyone was drinking.
He raped me. Then we went
back to my house and he left. I cried and... "
The use of the pronoun
"we" after the assault indicates deception. These often lead to confessions as the
subject is confronted with the word "we" as well as the unnecessary
use of "left" (his departure) is examined in the interview process.
All I can do
This is self-limiting. He
is moving from the free editing process to
a containment of information. He
is restricted from going further.
Yet it what comes next, we
find an even greater source of information.
Question: Who made the decision to not recommend
charges?
Answer: We always let the subject speak for himself.
believe that I am lying
about when I made this decision
Here he said, "when I
made the decision" with the focus of the sentence upon the element of
"time." He does use the words
"I made this decision" but now there is a change:
is tell you again the decision was made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen in
that interview.
a. Passive Voice
Here, the "decision
was made" rather than saying "All I can do is tell you again that I
made the decision after..."
Passivity is used to
conceal identity and/or responsibility.
"The gun went
off."
"Rocks were
thrown."
"Someone got
punched."
We then note that
passivity is either appropriately used or inappropriately used.
In a mob scene,
"rocks were thrown" conceals the identity and responsibility for the
throwing of rocks. If the subject,
within a crowd, does not know who did it, this is an appropriate use of
passivity in language. Here is an
example of one entering "passive voice" (longer than a single use of passivity)
"I was telling my
wife that I was sorry. I heard a gun
shot and she was on the floor."
Everything he says is
truthful. He is, however, lying by
omission. The passivity of the scene excludes that he pulled the trigger. Yet,
it is true that he told her he was sorry, he did hear a gun shot and his wife
did hit the floor. The passivity is
inappropriately used which seeks to conceal his responsibility.
Comey now changes the
language to "the decision was made."
The analyst/reader should
now consider why he has the need to move from,
"...when I made the decision"
(associated with the words, "I am lying") to the passive voice which
distances himself from responsibility of the decision.
"I know that I did not shoot the man" is very different than
"I did not shoot the man."
In the former, the subject asserts knowledge; but in the latter, he
denies shooting.
The "element" of
the first sentence is "knowledge" in stead of a denial. It is a subtle method of shifting the topic
and is used skillfully by intelligent liars.
Comey did not directly
state, "I made the decision" instead opting for the element of
time to dominate: "when I made..."
This subtle difference is
amplified by his need to move into passive voice.
Mr. Comey is a very highly
intelligent and educated man. He may
have a personal internal dictionary in excess of 35,000 words.
When he spoke, he went
into this vast dictionary and in less than a microsecond of time, he:
a. chose what information to give; what not to
give
b. what order the information is given
(priority)
c. what words of 35,000 to use and what words
not to use
d. what verb tenses to conjugate
e. where to place each word next to another
(syntax) to communicate what he wants his audience to grasp.
This extreme speed of
brain transmission to speech is what gives deception detection its basis for
success.
He offers "I am
lying" followed by a remedy.
Then, he shows us the
highest level of sensitivity in speech:
He explains
"why" he did something where no such explanation is necessary:
All I can do is tell you
again the decision was made after that because I
didn't know what was going to happen in that interview.
This is both
"sensitive" in analysis as unnecessary but also due to redundancy.
He would not have been
asked as a follow up question to "after" with
"Why did you wait
until after the interview?" because it is unnecessary information.
Unnecessary words are only
unnecessary to us; they are not unnecessary to him.
He, himself, has a need to
persuade that he made the decision "after" that acute and in need of
support.
It is like saying, "the
reason I did not steal from the bank is because it would be stealing."
It is absurd to think that
he would know the outcome of "that interview" before the interview
took place. It is this absurdity that affirms the analysis.
It is to acknowledge that
he knew the content and result of the interview before the interview.
This cannot be separated
from the release of information that stated that "no memorial of the
interview exists."
Analysts recognize that
the color "blue" is used in the highest level of sensitivity in
language.
1. It is sensitive because he explains
"why" without being asked.
This indicates he anticipated the challenge.
2. It is elevated in
sensitivity in that it is information of no consequence.
If someone is handed a box
and is told, "you don't know what is in the sealed box until you open
it" they would not feel the need to state, "I opened the sealed box because
I did not know what was in it"; it is presupposed.
It is like picking the
numbers of the lottery and later offering,
"I picked the numbers
randomly because I did not know the numbers that were going to be drawn."
This statement would
immediately lead to an investigation.
The need to explain why
(1) and the need to explain that which warrants no explanation (2) indicates
that this is the highest point of sensitivity for the subject: pre knowledge.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated.
The subject
knew that no criminal charges were going to be filed against Secretary Clinton prior to the
interview.
The subject
knew what the interview was going to contain as well as the outcome.
It is very
likely that there is a connection between certain members within the audience
and the subject, regarding the context of the foregone conclusion of "no
charges." This implicate guilty knowledge among some within his
"Intended" and/or "Unintended" audience.
