Saturday, April 28, 2018

Tom Brokaw's Statement Analyzed

Linda Vester accused Tom Brokaw of sexually assaulting and harassing her.  The harassment is evident in the context:  power exploitation.

Analysis of both statements is found here. 

 The conclusion is that Linda is telling the truth about what happened.  This is consistent with the accused refusing to deny it, instead, denying only a "romantic" motive.  People who sexually assault others do not have an emotional motive of romance; they exploit.  

Brokaw has now responded with a statement.  We should expect him to say or write, "I did not assault Linda" and/or, "I did not sexually harass Linda."

A small portion of psycho-lingisitc profiling analysis of Linda shows:

1.  She is likely a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
2.  She suffers from some self loathing and from low self esteem, and anxiety, likely from childhood.
3.  The impact, in spite of likely professional intervention, continues.  
4.  The context of the threat to her career increased the suffering she felt. 


Some do not understand the nature of "intrusion" especially upon an adult victim of childhood sexual abuse.  It is, as evident in her language, far more than putting his hands on her without her consent.  It is to bring up unprocessed pain and create a deep sense of vulnerability and one being most unsafe.  This is where depression and anxiety erode at a highly successful professional.  

I think most men reading her statement would consider a "punch in the nose" if Tom Brokaw had done this to their wives, daughters, sisters, etc.  

As both statements are read and analyzed, "Linguistic Human Empathy" is a Principe in analysis in which we:

a.  believe the subject 
b.  seek to enter into the subject's verbalized perception of reality 
c.  allow the statement to guide us, even if outside information conflicts. 
d.  accept out of sequence information knowing that once the analysis is complete, it will no longer be out of sequence; it will make sense. 
e.  force the subject to talk us out of our position. 

For example, in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the analyst must enter the statement with the following presupposition:

Madeleine is kidnapped, held by unknown parties, and that Gerry and Kate are attempting to recover her. They are presupposed to be loving parents left bereft of their daughter; not sociopaths.  

The analyst's presupposition is this and the result was that the McCanns literally talked the way out of this position.  


Will Tom Brokaw issue a reliable denial?

Is Tom Brokaw a predator?

Let this answer come from his own words; not of his alleged accuser.  Let him guide you. 


It is 4:00 am on the first day of my new life as an accused predator in the universe of American journalism. I was ambushed and then perp walked across the pages of The Washington Post and Variety as an avatar of male misogyny, taken to the guillotine and stripped of any honor and achievement I had earned in more than a half century of journalism and citizenship.
I am angry, hurt and unmoored from what I thought would be the final passage of my life and career, a mix of written and broadcast journalism, philanthropy and participation in environmental and social causes that have always given extra meaning to my life.
Instead I am facing a long list of grievances from a former colleague who left NBC News angry that she had failed in her pursuit of stardom. She has unleashed a torrent of unsubstantiated criticism and attacks on me more than twenty years after I opened the door for her and a new job at Fox news.
Linda Vester was given the run of the Washington Post and Variety to vent her grievances, to complain that I tickled her without permission (you read that right), that I invaded her hotel room, accepted an invitation to her apartment under false pretenses and in general was given a free hand to try to destroy all that I have achieved with my family, my NBC career, my writing and my citizenship.
My family and friends are stunned and supportive. My NBC colleagues are bewildered that Vester, who had limited success at NBC News, a modest career at Fox and a reputation as a colleague who had trouble with the truth, was suddenly the keeper of the flame of journalistic integrity.
Her big charge: that on two occasions more than 20 years ago I made inappropriate and uninvited appearances in her apartment and in a hotel room. As an eager beginner, Vester, like others in that category, was eager for advice and camaraderie with senior colleagues. She often sought me out for informal meetings, including the one she describes in her New York hotel room. I should not have gone but I emphatically did not verbally and physically attack her and suggest an affair in language right out of pulp fiction.
She was coy, not frightened, filled with office gossip, including a recent rumor of an affair. As that discussion advanced she often reminded me she was a Catholic and that she was uncomfortable with my presence. So I left, 23 years later, to be stunned by her melodramatic description of the meeting. A year or so later, as I passed through London after covering end of WWII ceremonies in Moscow, I saw her in the office, chatted and agreed to a drink later. (If NY was so traumatic, why a reunion?)  She knew a bar but by that late hour it was closed so she suggested her nearby apartment (not, “Well, no where to go. See you tomorrow").
Again, her hospitality was straight forward [sic] with lots of pride in her reporting in the Congo and more questions about NY opportunities.
As I remember, she was at one end of a sofa, I was at the other. It was late and I had been up for 24 hours. As I got up to leave I may have leaned over for a perfunctory goodnight kiss, but my memory is that it happened at the door – on the cheek. No clenching her neck. That move she so vividly describes is NOT WHO I AM. Not in high school, college or thereafter. 
She came to NY and had mixed success on the overnight news. As I remember her try out [sic] on TODAY did not go well. Her contract was not renewed.
Here is a part of her story she somehow left out. I think I saw her in the hallways and asked how it was going. She was interested in cable start up [sic] and I said I didn’t think that was going anywhere. What about Fox, which was just building up? She was interested and followed me to my office where, while she listened in, I called Roger Ailes. He said, “send her over.”
She got the job. I never heard from her or saw her again. I was aware that she became a big fan of Ailes, often praising his considerable broadcasting instincts in public. But when he got in trouble on sexual matters, not a peep from this woman who now describes her self [sic] as the keeper of the flame for Me:Too.
I am not a perfect person. I’ve made mistakes, personally and professionally. But as I write this at dawn on the morning after a drive by [sic] shooting by Vester, the Washington Post and Variety, I am stunned by the free ride given a woman with a grudge against NBC News, no distinctive credentials or issue passions while at FOX. 
As a private citizen who married a wealthy man, she has been active in social causes but she came to Me:Too late, portraying herself as a den mother. In the intervening years since we met on those two occasions, she had no reason to worry I could affect her career.
Some of her relatives by marriage are very close friends. She couldn’t pick up the phone and say, “I’d like to talk. I have issues from those two meetings 20 years ago?” Instead she became a character assassin. Strip away all of the hyperbole and what has she achieved? What was her goal? Hard to believe it wasn’t much more Look At Me than Me:Too.
I deeply resent the pain and anger she inflicted on my wife, daughters and granddaughters - all women of considerable success and passion about women’s rights which they personify in their daily lives and professions. We’ll go on as a family that pursues social justice in medical emergency rooms, corporate offices, social therapy, African women’s empowerment and journalism. And no one woman’s assault can take that away.
I am proud of who I am as a husband, father, grandfather, journalist and citizen. Vester, the Washington Post and Variety cannot diminish that. But in this one woman piece of sensational claims they are trying.
Tom Brokaw
Analysis

The first thing noticed is the length.  It is 1,043 words.  This is significant because the psychological wall of truth needs a single sentence to stand upon its own merit.  "I did not sexually assault Linda" would suffice. 

It is also significant to analysts who wish to know four things about him:

1.  His Background
2.  His Experiences 
3.  His Motive and Priorities in writing
4.  His dominant Personality Traits 

Length of specific sentences speaks to emotion. Length of the entire statement speaks to its need to persuade.  


It is 4:00 am on the first day of my new life as an accused predator in the universe of American journalism. 
1.  He does not begin with the pronoun "I" which alerts the analyst to the possibility of less than reliable information.  Psychologically, he is distancing himself by not beginning with the pronoun "I" in the statement.
2.  Time:  He begins with "time" and one should consider the specific time is very early.  Is this an attempt to elicit emotion or pity from the reader suggestive of the lack of sleep?  If so, the analyst should now consider shifting of emotion in bringing himself into view as a victim.
In his "denial", he put the burden of responsibility of what happened upon the victim. 
3. Note he uses the word "predator" and "journalist" without rebuke.  We do not expect him to accept something vile such as sexually assaulting a woman. 
4.  Since he labels himself an accused predator, it is the perfect place for him to issue the denial.
Remember the context:  it is not only vile, it is dominant in our culture.  We saw this, months ago, in unnecessary virtue signaling by guilt parties. 

I was ambushed and then perp walked across the pages of The Washington Post and Variety as an avatar of male misogyny, taken to the guillotine and stripped of any honor and achievement I had earned in more than a half century of journalism and citizenship.
He is accused of something he should simply deny.  Instead, his victim status grows to include the death penalty. 
If you did not feel sorry for him being up at 4am, please feel sorry for him being led to the guillotine. 
Note he also embeds his successes. 
It is regrettable that a life time of success and accomplishment can be forgotten by a single transgression. Yet, rather than deny the accusation, he allows for it and attempt to elicit pity for himself using exaggerated or "hyperbolic" language. 
This is akin to Lance Armstrong boasting how many times he did not fail a drug test, or a criminal rightfully pointing out what bank he did not rob. 
It is "unnecessary information" that is used to persuade. 
If you did not feel sorry for him regarding sleeplessness, loss of reputation and execution, he now uses another technique:  his age. 
I am angry, hurt and unmoored from what I thought would be the final passage of my life and career, a mix of written and broadcast journalism, philanthropy and participation in environmental and social causes that have always given extra meaning to my life.
He is going to die.  Instead of denying the sexual assault, he reminded his readers of this fact: he is statistically closer to death than you, the reader, due to advanced age. 
It is his need to use this tangent and manipulate his readers emotions that we note; not that he is old and is going to die. 
Time
Truth is not impacted by time.  If you break eggs and scramble them, they are scrambled eggs today, yesterday, 2 centuries ago, and 2 centuries from now.  If a culture decides to call them "pancakes" rather than "scrambled eggs", culture cannot change truth:  they are still eggs.  
By invoking this, he could be thinking of cultural acceptance of both sexual harassment and sexual assault. Think:  Harvey Weinstein.  When he was being uncovered, he said he would dedicate his life to destroying the NRA, a club of law abiding citizens who carry firearms.  
When President Trump made an inappropriate joke, the reaction that was most extreme came from Weinstein enablers.  The projection of guilt came in their responses.  
Will Brokaw insist that what he did was acceptable, culturally, in the 90's, during the era of Monica Lewinsky and the outing of "family values conservatives" who were, themselves, transgressors?
Playing "the card" is a tangent. Whatever the card may be, the need for the tangent is noted, but the need for the tangent in light of a missing denial heightens the sensitivity. 

Instead I am facing a long list of grievances from a former colleague who left NBC News angry that she had failed in her pursuit of stardom.
This is very likely to impact the victim; no matter what professional intervention says, and the subject likely has acute knowledge of this. 
Why?
The subject introduced us to "predator" in his priority opening lines. 
This went against the presupposition brought into the analysis. He introduced "predation" and it is now on the mind of the reader and the analysts. 
We look, therefore for affirmation of "predator", denial of it, or that the words of the statement will not address it. 
We let him guide us. 
Predators
Predators prey upon victims of prey.  
Predators can spot poor self esteem a mile away.  In years of interviews, this became evident, but more so, in confessions, predators have "confided" in me why they chose the victim they did. They know.  They read body language and see weakness and they exploit it.  This is the opposite of the historical definition of "masculinity."  
"Masculinity" is the sacrifice of strength.  It is to help weakness, not to exploit it. 
Brokaw now reveals, with first his victim blaming but now his insult, the sensitivity we read about in the initial statement by Linda Vester. 
It was a public statement, but I still am conflicted about posting the analysis.  It is done, however, in "block analysis"; not in any detail. 
He now revisits that weakness and he is extracting revenge upon her for coming clean about that which has impacted her ever since. 
Adult victims of childhood sexual abuse carry these scars no matter what is promised them by snake oil salesmen.  Professionals can mitigate the suffering, but it is a life sentence.  The guillotine he references is the end; victims suffer life sentences. 
When an adult victim of childhood sexual abuse has it "revisited" by a predator, it does not take rape to accomplish suffering. The subject not only put his hands on her, but he pressured her in the most intimate part of life:  her sexuality. 
He knew what he was doing, as seen in the follow up contacts as well as in "rubbing her nose" in it here. 
He ridicules her. 
Santa Claus
Many years ago, I received a report of sexual abuse by a bus driver against a man with adult autism. 
His company said, " I know you do not want to know any external details but listen, this is a good guy.  He is almost 90 years old, is a retired doctor and volunteers his time driving. Peter, he looks like and plays Santa Claus!"
It is true:  many adults with adult autism and/or mental retardation misinterpret seatbelt adjustments as sexual abuse. 
It is true:  adults with AA and/or MR are many times more likely to be sexually abused then the general population. 
I went into the investigation presupposing truth when obtaining the statement from the accused.  The victim was non verbal.  
I called Santa. 
I urge investigators to always set up their own appointments. This is where the interview begins.
The company said he is unaware of the allegations. 
I called and when I introduced myself to him, he first said, "why are you calling?" but before I could answer, he said:
"Let me tell you something.  I am a normal male."
I knew. 
We call this "the Normal Factor" in analysis.  Those who have considered themselves or by others as "not normal" use this phrase. 
He went from there:
"These looney tunes, what do they know!" 
He ridiculed the victim.  
The victim had now gone more than 2 weeks without a shower and refuses to leave his home.  He was in the system for more than a decade and had made no accusations.  
The need to ridicule the victim is another red flag. 
Tom Brokaw knows how to aim his venom on a personal and an exploitative manner. 
I now believe Tom Brokaw's words when he labels himself a predator without denial. 
He wants his audience to continue to feel sorrow, not for her, but for him: 

 She has unleashed a torrent of unsubstantiated criticism and attacks on me more than twenty years after I opened the door for her and a new job at Fox news.
a.  unsubstantiated criticism avoids using the word "allegation" as well as "false accusation."  It was not "criticism" it was and is an accusation.  This is need to minimize. 
b. "open the door" is an unnecessary phrase associated with sexual abuse. 
c.  "Fox News" is his version of Weinstein's NRA.  He began with mentioning left wing news sources that he was a victim of, and here he mentions "Fox News"; the right wing news source. Yet, he does not associate them as writing about him. This is for his readers to believe him because "we are on the same side" against "Fox News."
This is to play the "politics card."  We note the need to play it. 
Linda Vester was given the run of the Washington Post and Variety to vent her grievances, to complain that I tickled her without permission (you read that right), 
"you read that write" is in parenthesis.  This is to indicate "private conversation" with his audience.  It is to be noted that it came after "Fox News" (right wing) and Washington Post and Variety (left wing) in contrast. 
Note "I tickled her without permission" is embedded.  He admits this. 
I know how most husbands would respond to him at this point, yet he is old, near death at the guillotine, having lost his status and now is known as a predator. 
The private conversation is to minimize via ridicule.  The need to ridicule to the "left wing" audience is to:
a. inflame against conservatives 
b.  assume left wing readers will join in the ridicule.
This is an example of his contempt for left wing readers.  
Please note:  It is insight into what Linda Vester faced. 
that I invaded her hotel room, 
His choice of wording affirms his status as a knowledgable predator. He entered against her will, no matter how polite she was, and no matter how much he wishes ridicule it. 
He embeds his own confession. 
Here he goes back to motive in his denial. He told us that he did not want a romantic relationship with her when he attempted to get her into sex.  This is truthful. 
accepted an invitation to her apartment under false pretenses and in general was given a free hand to try to destroy all that I have achieved with my family, my NBC career, my writing and my citizenship.
With being accused of putting your hands on someone without their permission, would you use the phrase, "a free hand"?
Note he now invokes more politics:  illegal immigration and citizenship status that is front and center for the nation. 
He is a sophisticated predator in spite of his age. 

My family and friends are stunned and supportive. 
This is an unnecessary element of reaction by others.  Instead, tell us that you did not do it and the accuser is lying. 
It is not the opinion of others, including me, that matters.  It is his own words. 

My NBC colleagues are bewildered that Vester, who had limited success at NBC News, a modest career at Fox and a reputation as a colleague who had trouble with the truth, was suddenly the keeper of the flame of journalistic integrity.

He is incapable of outright stating that she lied. Instead, he cruelly goes after her career and implicates her as one having "trouble" with the truth.  This is projection.  
The psychological wall of truth:
"I did not touch her.  She is a liar." 
Instead, he uses sophisticated comparison: 
Her big charge: that on two occasions more than 20 years ago I made inappropriate and uninvited appearances in her apartment and in a hotel room. 
the "scrambled eggs" are not really scrambled eggs because they were made 20 years ago (time). 
He now continues to attack her personally, but in doing so, he is affirming what he did, but only to say "she wanted me to" for the purposes of "career advancement."
This is to affirm his own guilt in exploitation by career advancement: 
As an eager beginner, Vester, like others in that category, was eager for advice and camaraderie with senior colleagues. She often sought me out for informal meetings, including the one she describes in her New York hotel room. 
Without direct lying, which could impeach him, he only attacks her motive as "eager" , repeating this word in the same sentence. One should consider how "eager" the subject was: this is his choice of word, and his choice of repeating it in the same sentence. This is an example of 
"leakage" in analysis. 

I should not have gone but I emphatically did not verbally and physically attack her and suggest an affair in language right out of pulp fiction.

This is an important statement. 
The priority is "I should not have gone" which is to acknowledge his action. 
Next, "I did not verbally and physically attack her" is:
a. qualified unnecessarily with "emphatically"
b.  is to change the allegation from sexual assault to "attack" (think, "eager" entering his language as a "predator")
c. He did not do it with the language of pulp fiction.  I believe him. This essay alone tells me he is far above cheesy pulp fiction.  He denies the type of language he used. He is insulted by the quotes; not about the assault. He is "better" speaking than she classified. 
This is akin to a leaked memo. 
Rather than focus on the content of the memo, the guilty party attempts to make all focus upon the leaker in the "shoot the messenger so we don't hear the message" fashion.
He now seeks to turn former workers against her. He also intimates sexuality by her. This is common in predatory language.  Not all are crude enough to say it plainly, "she was asking for it" (including child molesters) but will use short descriptions of the same. She was "coy": 

She was coy, not frightened, filled with office gossip, including a recent rumor of an affair. 
He then recalls her statement: 
As that discussion advanced she often reminded me she was a Catholic and that she was uncomfortable with my presence. 

So I left, 23 years later, to be stunned by her melodramatic description of the meeting. 
We note the missing information here.  
Objection:  he did not "leave" here, but was "left with being stunned..."
No, follow his language:
"She was uncomfortable with my presence so I left"
Here analysts know he is withholding information at the time of his departure. Rather than say, "I went home" (the brain moving forward), he is stuck at the point of departure. This is missing information being deliberately withheld by him, at this specific point in time.
Recall his line of "The Greatest Generation"?  Here he invokes not only self importance, but to emotionally manipulate patriots.  He is revealing his own status of self importance where she should be denying the accusation. 
A year or so later, as I passed through London after covering end of WWII ceremonies in Moscow, I saw her in the office, chatted and agreed to a drink later. (If NY was so traumatic, why a reunion?)  
Please note "agreed to a drink later" is in passive voice. 
This is to conceal the identity and responsibly of the one who initiated the meeting to drink. 
Note "agreed" is used when disagreement was present. 
He is deceptively withholding who pressed the argument for the meeting. 

She knew a bar but by that late hour it was closed so she suggested her nearby apartment (not, “Well, no where to go. See you tomorrow").
Victim blaming continues but the concern is that victim blaming is taking place in the absence of a reliable denial. 
Again, her hospitality was straight forward [sic] with lots of pride in her reporting in the Congo and more questions about NY opportunities.

He does not say that she sought to have sex with him to advance her career.  Instead, he continues to portray her as ambitious without making the specific allegation. 
This is someone not only comfortable with deception, but one who is efficient at manipulative deception and exploitation.
As I remember, she was at one end of a sofa, I was at the other. It was late and I had been up for 24 hours. 
Sleeplessness revisited. 

As I got up to leave I may have leaned over for a perfunctory goodnight kiss, but my memory is that it happened at the door – on the cheek. No clenching her neck. 
He invoked, unnecessarily, "remember" in his language. He can only tell us what he remembers.  He then offers what "may" have happened.
He remembers the exact seating pattern but not kissing her. 
Note "door" is reflective of her language here. 
Note "No clenching of her neck" is to evict the pronoun "I" from his sentence. 
He does not tell us who did not clench her neck. 
Given the context of his statement, the ejection of the pronoun "I" is indicative of deception.  He, psychologically, removes himself from the denial of this action. 
"I did not clench her neck" would be reliable on its structure. 
Gnostic View
"there's a good person inside of me"
The "Gnostic View" of self is found in deceptive people when they have done something wrong.  It is not "who" they are, which is to say "someone else inside me did it."
It is perception.  It is me saying, "A tall, young thin man is inside of me trying to get out."  
It is consistently used in guilty statements as one seeks to remove themselves from guilt. It is to deny the character, but not the action: 
That move she so vividly describes is NOT WHO I AM. Not in high school, college or thereafter. 
The wording indicates guilt, but the caps of emphasis show self awareness. It is not his image, but he did it. 
She came to NY and had mixed success on the overnight news. As I remember her try out [sic] on TODAY did not go well. Her contract was not renewed.
Here is a part of her story she somehow left out. I think I saw her in the hallways and asked how it was going. She was interested in cable start up [sic] and I said I didn’t think that was going anywhere. What about Fox, which was just building up? She was interested and followed me to my office where, while she listened in, I called Roger Ailes. He said, “send her over.”
She got the job. I never heard from her or saw her again. I was aware that she became a big fan of Ailes, often praising his considerable broadcasting instincts in public. But when he got in trouble on sexual matters, not a peep from this woman who now describes her self [sic] as the keeper of the flame for Me:Too.
I am not a perfect person. I’ve made mistakes, personally and professionally. But as I write this at dawn on the morning after a drive by [sic] shooting by Vester, the Washington Post and Variety, I am stunned by the free ride given a woman with a grudge against NBC News, no distinctive credentials or issue passions while at FOX. 
As a private citizen who married a wealthy man, she has been active in social causes but she came to Me:Too late, portraying herself as a den mother. In the intervening years since we met on those two occasions, she had no reason to worry I could affect her career.
Some of her relatives by marriage are very close friends. 
It could not have happened due to degrees of familiar separation. This is, in a sense, contempt for his audience. He continues to blame her for not telling the predator that he did not like being prey: 
She couldn’t pick up the phone and say, “I’d like to talk. I have issues from those two meetings 20 years ago?” Instead she became a character assassin. Strip away all of the hyperbole and what has she achieved? What was her goal? Hard to believe it wasn’t much more Look At Me than Me:Too.
He now plays the "Gender Card" invoking women's rights.  This is another Harvey Weinstein duplication: 
I deeply resent the pain and anger she inflicted on my wife, daughters and granddaughters - all women of considerable success 
"considerable" success is more ridicule of the victim. He is both skilled and without human empathy towards his victim. 
and passion about women’s rights which they personify in their daily lives and professions. 
Misogyny is frightening.  It is not disagreeing with Hilary, it is from childhood and it is danger to women.  He is an exploiter who uses this card as well. 
Recall the context:  all he needed to do is give one sentence.  We did not need his list of accomplishments or his dividing of Americans, but...
our subject did. 
Here is more Messiah Complex.  Not only is this in the language of Richard Blumenthal who told veterans he was in Viet Nam when he wasn't, but in the language of Jill McCabe who accepted $750,000 dollars from Hillary while her husband was investigating her. Jill invoked saving people from the lack of medical insurance.
Recall the two men in Starbucks.  They were going to have a "real" meeting about a "real" plan that would also save the world. 
These are all indicators of guilt via the need to justify.  It is in the language of thieves and exploiters routinely. 
We’ll go on as a family that pursues social justice in medical emergency rooms, corporate offices, social therapy, African women’s empowerment and journalism. And no one woman’s assault can take that away.
I am proud of who I am as a husband, father, grandfather, journalist and citizen. Vester, the Washington Post and Variety cannot diminish that. 
The "Messianic complex" (see analysis of Richard Blumenthal) where one believes to control others is evident. 

But in this one woman piece of sensational claims they are trying.

it is interesting that she is not a "person" but a "woman" in context. We don't have sex with a "person" but a gender specific 
woman.  In context of denial, in a non sexual setting, we should expect "person" might be used. 
Tom Brokaw

Analysis Conclusion:
The subject is deceptive and is a predator.  He embeds his confession of his behavior, while ridiculing his victim. 
He has a need to deceive and likely has more victims he is concerned about coming out. He is manipulative and he knows how to spot prey, how to exploit them, and how to issue vengeance against them.  This is consistent with his statement that showed us that he did not intend to have an emotional or romantic relationship with her; he sought to use her for self gratification, both sexually and in conquest.  
He is a predator who holds his victim and readers in contempt.  He wishes to divide his audience by politics and gender rather than deny the action. 
He embeds his confession and is acutely aware of the damage his words intend.  His contempt is acute. 
Tom Brokaw has other victims.  He can spot insecurity and low self esteem handily, and even now, at an advanced age, knows how to be cruel in his exploitation. 

One does not suddenly graduate to this level of cruelty without a history just as one does not suddenly become an expert in deception. 
It takes successful practice. 

There is no psychological wall of truth; nor human empathy. He holds left and right leaning readers equally in contempt, just as he does with his victim. 
Analysts:  this is a statement that should be used for deep detailed psycho-linguistic profiling and then compared to public statements by the subject. 
For training in Deception Detection, go to Hyatt Analysis Services.