Friday, September 7, 2018

New York Times Anonymous Author Analyzed Part Two


This is Part 2 of the analysis. This contains a significant amount of contextual information to understand the atmosphere of which this statement (editorial) was made. The letter is political, therefore the analysis context must be political for understanding.  

With the psycho-linguistic profile, we seek to have enough (7 of 10) descriptions that those close to the White House may recognize who the author is.  With Deception Detection, the expectation is 100% accuracy.  

Not here. 

The successes in Anonymous Author Identification comes from the recipient recognizing the descriptions in the profile.  

What have we learned thus far from the author's words?

We have seen an emotion driven letter in which the priorities have been:

1. The author needing to be heard is a priority. This is consistent with "relevancy" as the author has not shown, "you must hear this!" but "you must hear me", instead. 

2. The author having experienced some form of humiliation that is blamed upon President Trump. It is wise to consider those who have recently ended a personal relationship.  Something took this author from gossip to talking to writing to finally, seeking publication.  This is very likely to be a trigger of personal humiliation. 

3. The use of "talking points" without substance.  As a whistleblower, the author has yet to reveal the cause of the alarm. 

4.  The author does not believe in "Russian Collusion" by the Trump administration.

5. The author does not connect self to "high ranking White House official" directly. 

6.  The author connects self to some status of "appointment"; whether appointed directly or indirectly. 

7.  The author has likely not been "respected" in opinions.  
8.  The author has likely been held out of meetings the author desired to be part of. 
9. The author likely has a history of voting social issues with Democrats; not republicans. 
10. The author does not credit Trump for the economy's boom or military strength. 
11. The author alleges that Trump poses a serious risk to the nation, but is unwilling or unable to identify this risk.
12. The author alleges that Trump is without morals; similar to a sociopath. 
13.  The author reveals a perceived hurt and credits this to President Trump. In this, the author feels (emotion) that the president is not open to the author's "mind." 
14. The author has likely committed acts of which the author fears legal consequence.  

15.  There is a significant feminine influence upon the language. 

16. The author has likely not acted alone.  
17. The author's influences may include one recently fired from the White House. 

Please review Part One before reading Part Two. 


In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.


Ingratiation 

The author has sought to ingratiate self into the media.  This author and this statement has been approved by media.  

To continue the theme of allowing the author to unveil self, the author has ingratiated into:

1. Democrats
2. "Never Trump" Republicans
3.  The Media


Context 

Media bias is a norm in America.  One only need to watch CNN and Fox News, prior to 2009, to note the political lean. 

Beginning in earnest in 2008 and 2009, the change in American journalism became extreme. 

President Barack Obama carefully divided Americans by "tribe." Historically, this is not new. 

Each American was not a "hyphenated" American, belonging, not to the United States, but a smaller "tribe."

"I am a hispanic-American. 
I am a gay-American.
I am an African-American gay male.
I am a Jewish-American
I am a Muslim -Somalian - American
I am a non-binary American..."

Perceived benefit from such caused some to change or hyphenate their name, as if one's ancestors would bring greater "merit" of opinion or stance. 

The dividing up of Americans took its toll.  Where once it was a melting pot, with unity producing the greatest advancements in recorded history the politicians pushed "diversity is our strength" instead of our weakness. Soft targets fell naturally in line.  

Whatever hyphenation one took, the former American now had to "see" that he or she was being "exploited" by another group; often the middle or blue collar white male.  History would have to be re-written to "justify" the claims of exploitation.  If your great great great grandfather mistreated someone else's great great great grandfather, you were, somehow, guilty of this perceived offense. 

The division of "victimization" increased incessantly and Obama (and other politicians) benefited from it.  Obama stood behind "race" and saw "racism" everywhere.  If one disagreed with his policy, he or she was a "racist."

Even mentally ill Americans, with a 40% suicide rate, became the darlings of this political exploitation. Today, attention seeking parents are abusing children, telling them they are actually a different gender than what they are. Do you know many professionals who would risk their licenses to treat sexual dysmorphia, since politicians have become involved? 

Obama's Racism and Deadly Consequence 

This entire media context is necessary to understand what the author is doing. 

In America today, we pay millions of dollars to "pretend" cops, while law enforcement risks its lives at embarrassingly low pay.  If being in harm's way wasn't enough, many have moonlighting jobs for second income.  The stress takes it toll upon their physical and mental health.  

While we sleep, law enforcement and military stand guard of our safety.  

High stress, high risk and low pay for those who "protect and serve." 

This was not enough for Obama. 

Obama began his war on cops by not only employing deception, but by telling blacks the absurdity of conspiracy: 

White cops (and some black) around the nation had conspired together to kill young black males. Somehow, these cops, from California to Maine, were able to communicate this murderous conspiracy without being caught.  No emails, text messages nor NSA monitored phone calls, but for sure, Obama "knew."

The media's response?

"Tough questions" such as, "How does it feel to be the first African-American president?" and "Just how much are  you in awe of the Oval Office?" were routinely re-worded. 

When non political, crude talking Donald Trump announced he would seek the Republican (he had often indicated he was a Democrat) nomination, based upon his successful career in business, the media left off partisan politics and went to a new area 


In 2016, the media used propaganda and deceptive techniques to discredit candidate Trump. Repeatedly caught, including false reporting and editing, the media only increased its hostility towards the candidate.  Each new issue since has brought excess, absurdity and a decline of America's opinion of journalism.  

Nightly, comedians repeated the same lines and it became chic for Hollywood elite to speak of beheading, dismembering and otherwise murdering a sitting president. 

Main stream media went from "Armageddon to Armageddon" insisting that the president would start a nuclear war, would cause the U.S. economy to collapse (recall the expert who told his followers to sell their entire 401K stock portfolios) and that under the president, the Vice President, Mike Pence would "round up gay people and put them in concentration camps." Trump was routinely compared to Adolph Hitler, responsible for tens of millions of deaths. 

Each news story was punctuated by "impeachment" as a word repeated consistently and applied to each news story, from a pornography star ("Stormy Daniels") to his eating of Big Macs from McDonald's.  

The former head of the CIA, John Brennan, a keeper of our nation's most in depth secrets, sent a public message about Trump's "crimes"; yet made no report of such to law enforcement. 

Sen. Chuck Schumer warned Trump, publicly, that it was "dangerous" for him to counter our intelligence community.   After the spying, "wire tapping", Soft Coup, when asked about our intelligence community, Trump did not express strong confidence.  Brennan called for impeachment based upon "treason" for him not having confidence in the very system that sought to illegally and illicitly destroy him and the American vote. 

Analysis of Brennan indicates criminal guilt projection. 

We learned of illicit (and possibly illegal) contact and disclosure between the FBI and a complicit media, in which a false story was planted and then referenced as "news" in the deceptive FISA court applications.  Rank and File FBI were demoralized as the disgrace became public knowledge.  The expectation of McCabe, Strzok, Ohr and others was reward from expected President Hillary Clinton.  In the extreme unlikely risk of Clinton not obtaining the presidency, they had an "insurance policy" that Strzok did not fear to reference in text messages.  He and paramour Lisa Page texted back and forth, including having to fill in President Obama who issued a public denial of involvement in the Clinton selling of state favors and conducting business through a server outside the boundary of government oversight. 

 President Obama's denial can be found here.

His deception is instructive in deception detection. 

I believe President Trump will eventually release the documents that he now holds in confidence.  

The bias shown by "Counter intelligence" agent Peter Strzok indicated that Strzok, a very intelligent person, had no fear of consequence of his actions, on both tax payer time and upon personal equipment.  His personality, based upon his testimony, suggests that he may "fall on the sword" for James Comey. Andrew McCabe, however, will not.  Strzok's language personal superiority revealed contempt for working class Americans.  His language revealed his own "elite status" of being above others and above the rule of law and the principles of the FBI.  His statement about "smelling" Trump supporters, for example, would have caused an investigator to recuse himself from an investigation. I believe he will face criminal charges and if convicted, end up in prison.  This would be a far cry from the "American hero" he believed himself to be, saving citizens from their "wrongful vote" with his "insurance policy." 

This corruption was made possible by a criminally complicit media.  
Hence, the ingratiation of the author into media. 

The analyst should consider that the author may have, or will in the future, seek employment in media.  

The ingratiation into media is noted among others in the "unintended recipient" aspect of Statement Analysis. 

Next the author accuses the president of having impulses the author disagrees with:

 President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

We should now expect to hear what "anti-trade" impulses the author is reporting upon.  As a businessman, the president has had unprecedented success in bringing manufacturing back to the United States, negotiation of trade deals, and in refusing to allow the United States to be taken advantage of.  This is where the president has had his greatest success, including the "impossible" GDP growth. Both this growth and American jobs that Obama said, "ain't coming back" have caused media to not only ignore his successes, but to continue to push the false Russian collusion story. 


Don’t get me wrong. 


The author indicates a knowledge of the deception being offered by self.  The author does not want to be seen as "wrong" which is an unnecessary statement. This is close to an admission of what the author is doing.  The author fails to believe his/her own words. 

The author is to be seen as:

1.  An eye witness of the crimes of President Trump
2.  An eye witness of the impulses of anti trade and anti democracy. 

This is to indicate:  the author does not believe his or her own words. 

The author knows media is using not only bias, but false stories, deceptive editing and propaganda techniques.  


There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

Socialism means government (short term elected officials) controlling business. 

Socialistic is a blend of government and business. 

"Deregulation" is done to "free" trade from government restrictions. 

The author does not want to be seen as "wrong" because of the evidence:

1. "effective" deregulation 
2.  "historic tax reform"
3. "a more robust economy"
4.  "and more" which is not named. 

Don't get the author "wrong"; it is just that the author refuses to identify what "more" is. 

The author is acknowledging the contradiction the author is offering. This is where deception is also indicated. 

The author, after ingratiation of media, is actually admitting the lack of media coverage of the most significant aspects of the presidency and its impact upon American citizens. 


But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.


These successes is qualified, not by the president's decisions, but by his "leadership style."

This is to personally attempt to "spite" (emotion) by saying, 

"He made a great decision that did great things for America, but I don't like the way he said it."

The author has a strong personal bias in which the author believes that by acknowledging the successes, the audience will not get the author "wrong."

The author is admitting how "wrong" he or she is.  

This use of illogic is indicative of emotional intrusion.  

It also indicates a low level contempt for the audience.  The author is reporting success, and avoids the direct lie of saying, "these successes came in spite of the president's decisions..." instead opting for his "style."

Consider our author may have had contact with  Omarosa Manigault or been influenced by her.  



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


Deception Indicated. 

The author did not write, "senior officials admitted..." with the psychological commitment to experiential memory. 

Had senior officials in the White House told the author this, it would have left a significant impact (hormonal consequence) which makes experiential memory flow easily in language.  

The author is lying. 

It is very likely that the author has been shunned by "senior officials" just as the author has likely been shunned from important meetings in which he/she "felt" that he/she belonged.  More on this gender influence on language in the conclusion.  

The author is said to be a "senior White House official" by the New York Times.  Thus far, our author has shown a psychological distancing from this position.  This could be due to:

a.  the author was locked out of a "de facto" senior official status
b.  the author never was a senior official 

Next, note that the author had a need to state that he or she "is" an employee at the White House...twice.  

Therefore, if the author was at meetings with the president, he/she will move into experiential memory and tell us what happened.  We listen for the author to tell us what happened reliabley using past tense verbs for past events: 


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


The author refuses to commit to what happened in meetings; therefore, if the author is unwilling or incapable of doing so, we will not do it for the author.  

The emotion continues strongly while refusing to commit to reliability. 

This language appears to be hearsay.  

The influence upon the language is distinctly emotional and it is to avoid detail.  

Note the verb tense is consistently avoiding the psychological, low stress employment of experiential memory. 


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


The emotionally charged language is noted:

"veer"
"off the rails" 
"repetitive rants" 
"half baked" 
"occasionally reckless"

There are no examples of any of these given.  Hyperbole is used to persuade the audience rather than truthfully report what took place. 

The author has very likely become easier to identify by a status of "persona non grata" among decision makers. 

This is the language of gossip and complaint rather than a reliable statement of wrongdoing, criminal or mental health issues.  

The language is of one who is personally critical of the president's "style" but recognizes how successful he has been for the nation. 




The erratic behavior

Here we get to the concern of one no longer mentally fit to be president. 

The author begins with the article, "the" in addressing "erratic behavior."

We therefore recognize that whatever the author has earlier referenced would be the "behavior" now addressed.  

"The" erratic behavior given in this letter was, by the author's own words, his "style."

The word "style" belies erraticism; especially when it is:

a.  void of witness
b.  reported in present tense
c.  hyperbole or persuasion language used
d.  Without a single example of said erratic behavior. 

It is to admit that the author "doesn't like his style"; therefore is using terms of ingratiation to the president's enemies (Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, and Media).  

To reference it with the article "the" and not first introduce the behavior is to spot deception. 


Articles don't lie.  

They catch liars. 

Example:

"A man put the black  gun in my back and said I was to give him my money."

Police recognize a scam when they hear it.  The subject referenced "the" gun before introducing it as "the" gun.  

"A man put the black gun in my back

also used the unnecessary description of the gun's color.  This is a strong indicator that the subject (speaker) physically handled the gun, himself.  

 would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House.

The author wishes to "blow the whistle" on the danger and risk to the public but now uses the word "concerning" and in comparison, "more concerning."

If the republic itself, including freedom of speech and the democratic freedom of the people in jeopardy, the word "concern" is unexpected minimization.  

The author does not believe his/her own words. 

Note that "unsung heroes in and around the White House" is a vagary which suggests the author's contact has not only been limited in the White House but the author has very likely sought like minded "resistance" outside the White House.  This likely is a reference to media; rather than the Justice Dept, nor the FBI.  


 Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

This is both ingratiation to "aides" while avoiding committing to "what happened" that is expected in truthful statements. 

What decisions?

What happened?

The author deliberately avoids this. 

Note:  The editorial staff at the New York Times recognized this but published it anyway. 


It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. 


The author has been "frozen out" of importance and relevancy. 


We fully recognize what is happening. 

The author feels very much alone in this deceptive statement. 



And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

Statement Analysis recognizes:  The words are not reality.  They are the author's verbalized perception of reality. 

What has the author just done?

The author has now removed the president from office. 

This is to uncover a strong priority for the author. 

The author's top priority is relevancy.  

The author believes it can be achieved by impeachment; the reversal of the democratically indicated will of the American people.  

The author knows what he/she is doing. 

Here, he is no longer "the president" nor "President Trump."

To the author's reality, he is back to being "Donald Trump." 



The result is a two-track presidency.



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


Recall the wording "outside the White House" here.  The author uses the false narrative of:

a.  Russian collusion 
b.  A president should not enter negotiation with enemies. 

The author has revealed more about self:

The author has little to no experience in foreign diplomacy negotiations.  

The author is a "wanna be" who likely has little (if any) business negotiation experience. 

The MSM narrative is that Donald Trump should condemn Vladimir Putin and destroy any negotiation leverage for peace, in order to "prove" the Clinton - Ohr- Fusion dossier is a fraud. 

Narrative that would leave America in a more dangerous, hostile environment.  

The author may even have no first hand experience in foreign relations, but a novice, obtaining information through media talking points. 

The author was said to be a "senior White House official" who would, therefore, have eye witness accounts to report.  

Yet, the author reveals the source of information is not experiential memory.  This same Statement Analysis admission continues: 


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


This is to admit that the information did not come from senior White House officials.  

It is interesting to note that Barack Obama ridiculed Donald Trump when Trump spoke about Russian meddling in our election.  The use of ridicule was, for Obama, an acute signal of weakness.  When he had truth on his side, he did not ridicule, but went to fact.  When he was deceptive, he had a need to attempt to minimize disagreement via the use of demotion to absurdity.  Please note that analysis of his language during the 2016 election went from:

a. Dismissing or Ignoring Trump's claims 
b. Countering facts with arguments 
c.  Defensive posturing of his legacy and policies 

As CNN was reporting (including camera angles) very small turnouts at Trump rallies, Obama's language changed. 

d.  He ridiculed Trump's ideas.

As crowds grew:

e.  Barack Obama took to ridiculing Donald Trump as a person. 

This was picked up in Media and now has become a famous youtube collage of all the "dire predictions of doom" for Trump.  The ridicule matched the polls and as we got closer to the election, the language of Obama went from ridiculing Donald Trump as a human being, to...silence about Trump, and deceptive denials of wrong doing on the part of his administration.  

Next, the author is going to give us an example.  

Will this example come from experiential memory? (truth) 


On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. 



This is more reliably reported by the author.  "Was reluctant" brings us closer to reliability.  The context, however, is that Britain had yet to prove the poisoning and the president had negotiations to come.  

The author reliably reports the following: 

He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. 

This is likely to be reliably reported.  

Then, the author moves away from experiential memory to commentary:  

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

It is not only expected and normal for a leader to disagree with counsel and advisors, it is a cornerstone for safety and good decision making. 

Even the ancient world knew this:

"there is safety in a multitude of counselors" from thousands of years ago.  

After reliably reporting, the author returns to commentary.  The commentary suggests the author's lack of influence (relevancy) remains a high priority: 

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.




Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. 


The author returns to deception. 

Had a single official in the White House said to the author, "we should talk about the 25h Amendment" the author would have been able to repeat this in his/her sleep due to the "hormonal consequence" of such importance.  

The author is lying. 

This is very likely a talking point of contact with media; not with "senior White House officials."


But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The author has used deception and the masking is evident of being "alone" in this position.  This author is isolated. 

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. 


The author's narcissism, in spite of the attempt to mask as plural, comes out:

how this impacted the author.  What "Mr. Trump" has done to the author. 

What has Mr. Trump done to the author?

The author has been humiliated and it is very likely due to being seen as 

a.  Insignificant
b.  Irrelevant 
c.  Without Merit
d.  In over one's head (under-qualified) 

It is to note a personal vendetta.  

But, why?

What does the author seek? 



We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Consider the author's contacts with media.  Did the author speak to John McCain's daughter? 



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


MSM told us, in earnest, that John McCain was (years ago) a violent tempered hawk who was mentally unfit to lead.  This includes the descriptions of McCain by Obama. 

The politicizing of a funeral is now in chic.  

We have long used funerals to put aside differences and contemplate about eternal life.  Instead, they have become tools for political expediency, narcissism and sexual groping. 


The author recognizes it as a useful emotional tool to be employed rather than eye witness accounts of illegal, immoral, unethical and dangerous activity.  

Did the author respect John McCain?


We may no longer have Senator McCain. 

The use of "may" is inappropriate.  This is the type of small indication to show the author's personal need to distance self from McCain. This theme continues: 


But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. 

John McCain, even facing death, held on to his bitterness, including  expelling his loyal running mate, Sarah Palin, from his funeral. 

Many understand the duress of fatal illness and do not feel obligated to keep the angry pronouncements of one dying, as if they were sacred vows.  This is a sober view of one suffering which could have helped heal and unite America. Instead, McCain's death was used to divide and exploit. 

Our author may not have a psychological commitment to McCain in his new found status in media. 

Does our author "revere" McCain?



Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.


Note the suggestion.  We continue to wait for high crimes, treason, and danger to the republic.  Instead the author's moralizing only projects personal guilt and, using the author's language:

fear.

Our author likely fears consequence for his/her actions. 

This raises questions such as:

has our author illegally recorded?
has our author listened to illegal recordings?
has our author shared confidential or classified information with the media? 



There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first.


In a published letter through the New York Times, the author now says there is a "quiet resistance."

a.  Note the contradictory nature of "quiet" versus published
b.  Note the move to deception, via verbs
c.  Note the need to persuade, via hyperbole, 
d.  Note the accusation conclusions made, but not accusations themselves.  

e.  Note the need to express motive, "to put country first."

As a government worker (a "high ranking White House official") this is now an "Unnecessary Statement" by the author. 

The motive is something that should not need to be stated.  This is why it is in the color blue:  the highest level of sensitivity in Statement Analysis:

By unnecessary explaining the reason "why", the author has revealed:

The author is doing this for a different reason.  

Note the first word rebuts the author's  assertion: 



But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.


The author's impotency is recognized in the language.  


Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

The author has no knowledge of criminal acts, Russian collusion, illegal, illicit, immoral activities on the part of President Trump. As a "whistleblower", the author is deceptive. 

The author does not have strong access or the trust of senior White House officials. 

The author has not "thwarted" anything, but is without meaning.  

The author does not believe his/her own words. 

The author does not believe Donald Trump is mentally unfit for the office. 

The author's motive is self driven.  

The author would accept impeachment if it gave traction to the author's own career.

What do we know about the author?

The gender is difficult given the context.  

There appears to be more than one "author" meaning that a weak male author may have a strong connection with an "outside" influence (female) of whom there is a commonality in existence. 

This feminine influence upon the author's language must be given consideration, as well as the possible emotional male type, though the author could be female.  If male, the author's connection to a female is very strong.  The theme of being hurt is recurrent. 

This is not a letter written by a single "senior White House official" but a marginalized, vindictive weak minded opportunist.  


The author is intelligent, but is  limited in experience.  

The author has likely already made contact and sought employment (and fame) through media, which is a driving force.  

The author has not likely been in any financial need of recent times, in the least.  

As a "whistleblower" or one to save "the republic", Deception Indicated, but also consider the author has a personally inflated view of self. 

The author has likely experienced those in the White House (or near) who did not share the author's inflated view of self.  This is to produce conflict. Noted is the masking of plurality. 

The author's words do not show strength of rank.  If in any position of rank, it is not by merit. Those who climb assert themselves as with a sense of having "earned" it.  It is difficult to keep from the language.  

Those with strong military leadership backgrounds will have similar language, one with another.  This author does not show strength of leadership; but of a disloyal "whichever the wind may blow" follower.

The NY Times is likely to redefine "high ranking" in its defense of the author.  

The author indicates a manipulative personality, one that is both casual with deception, but has enough guilt to avoid direct internal conflict by fabrication of reality with consistency. This is intense enough to consider hearsay and  gossip as important to the author. The main portion is media talking points long disproven. 

The author's lack of experience extends to business and political negotiations.  The author does not understand foreign policy and likely does not have many conversations with foreign policy officials. 

The author may be recognized by a love of gossip.  The author may not be a loyalist to Obama, Hillary or the "resistance" but one of whom personal ambition dictates sides. 

The author has likely been rebuffed by senior White House officials or even ignored.  

The author has "style" in the author's own mind. 

The author has a powerful need for relevancy; indicating how irrelevant the author feels.

  Investigators should consider someone who has recently experienced the break up of a personal relationship.  Sexual doubt, disfunction or confusion may be evident by interviewing those close to the author. 

The author is likely known to some as an ingratiating type ("brown nose, @ss kisser") and likely has a source who was an appointee.  

The author likely has had a voting history of Democrat, but also has likely made statements in support of the president, early on to ingratiate self.  

The author has likely irritated some officials who have not been interested in the daily murmuring or complaining that ambitious employees often bring. 

Interviews and the polygraph (recall Obama's position) should readily identify the author unless the author is no longer employed by the White House. The defense that the New York Times could use is that "he/she was an employee when a lot of this took place..."

It is a false report to allege criminal and dangerous behavior, while admitting,

"I don't like his style."

The author could be female, such as Omaraso, which the Times could justify as "once was..." or the author could have copied or used her material, after she was fired from her position. 

If male, the author is not likely to be a strong masculine presence. He may have his sexuality questioned by some.  

If still employed, the author may fear that his will not last.  The author is likely known as "petty" and with a perceived "slight" from co-workers. 

In spite of the lack of details, the author may be "very detailed" when it comes to his/her list of daily complaints.  This is likely a source of irritation for co workers, thus the need of the author to overemphasize the plurality with "we" and "us." 

In this, the author is very much alone, and has likely become further "alone" in a personal relationship.  

The author has very likely engaged in guilt producing activities, including illegal and/or illicit. The author's own fear of consequence extends beyond the employment position.  

The author is very aware of the president's successes and displaces personal resentment upon them.  This would indicate a person of privilege; one who is not reliant upon the economy as others are as well as one recently emotionally wounded. 

The author is self absorbed and shows a reflection of weakness of character, being reduced to using main stream media's talking points; rather than eye witnessed fact. 

Rather than being one who is ideologically driven, the author may even be described as a "chameleon" or "fake, shallow" by co workers.  

The author is cowardly and exploitative. The author has low level contempt for Americans in general.  This is consistent with an elitist perspective.  Being "undervalued" by this president's administration is a deep wound. 

If the author was working on behalf of the country's best interest:

a.  the author would not make the claim of putting the country first. 
b.  the author would not withhold information 
c.  the author would not use deception 
d.  the author would seek to file criminal charges
e.  the author would warn the nation. 

Instead, the author doesn't like the president's "style."  

The author is not "heard" nor the author's opinions valued.

The New York Times Editorial Staff knows this is a deceptive "echo chamber" of their own reporting and used the author's employment status in an attempt to legitimize their posture.  

Even without the polygraph, interviewing would likely reveal that his author can readily be tempted by boasting,  into confession.  The self importance coupled with being marginalized and "not heard" is an acute personality trait.  The sense of "needing to belong" is a common human trait. At this point in the career of the author, it is a need that likely surfaced from a sense of betrayal in which the author seeks a new alliance.  This is indicative of a weak personality.  


123 comments:

Anonymous said...

I had not thought of Omarosa, but after you mentioned her, this line stuck:

"Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media."


Omarosa was a popular favorite 'love to hate her' "villian" on "The Apprentice".
She was very poised, polished (a 'crown chaser' who had "style"), and would lie about anything.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Sounds like Omarosa. We also do not know WHEN this was written.

Nic said...

Fantastic, Peter. Thank you.

At this point in the career of the author, it is a need that likely surfaced from a sense of betrayal in which the author seeks a new alliance. This is indicative of a weak personality.

Someone who worked for Omarosa that was 'left behind' yet no one wanted? Omarosa resigned as director of communications? Maybe someone in her office said, "What about me." and she said, "What about you? " That could sting a lot if the person who "served" Omarosa was loyal and they needed a good word, or an endorsement, or taking care of (another position). If someone else quickly moved into Omarosa's position and they didn't want the author, or the author was demoted in favour of the new appointee's EA, that would hurt, too.

Nic said...

Ah, Omarosa was a senior aide in the Office of Public Liaison.

Amyl Nitrite said...

Thank you! Thank you! Awesome!!!

frommindtomatter said...

Totally awesome Peter, thank you for spending your time on this and going into so much detail. It has helped in my learning and understanding of SA a great deal. The introduction was fantastic as well; you should be penning more books. It is frightening to read the truth about what goes on in everyday culture; it is so crazy that one would think it must be fictional. Unfortunately those who take the time to look at what is going on with a critical eye find that it has gone way beyond George Orwell’s 1984.The problem is the younger generation is being taught this behaviour is normal.

“We have long used funerals to put aside differences and contemplate about eternal life. Instead, they have become tools for political expediency, narcissism and sexual groping”.

Bang on the money Peter and thanks again.

Adrian.

Buckley said...

Omarosa? She would not be doing this anonymously; she wants all the free publicity she can get.

Anonymous said...

and she will get it

Anonymous said...

I rule out Omarosa, though I know little about her.

It is someone of a weak personality, and I agree with most of Peter's analysis.However, this is the generation of weak personalities and resistance groupies given to upstarts of media outlets such as "Q" or other insider "gossip".

Gossip is just that-gossip.

I recall standing at the checkout line talking to a black cashier when a sacker came up and immediately said: who are you two gossiping about?

We both said at the same time:women don't gossip, men do.

I believe men think their discourse is informative and insightful even when the largest majority of it is idiot blather.

Trump has humiliated many people and he continues to do so each and every day. That little factoid is why I'd rule out Omarosa.

He has infringed on copyrights of Areosmith which might bring to mind "free mind".

One thing is certain: the author doesn't believe THAT crap.

Concerned said...

The SA is interesting but it's important to remember that opinion pieces are heavily edited by newspapers. I've never written one that wasn't. A number of men and women could have had a hand in the edit so it seems that would make it hard to know much about the actual whistleblower from the statement.

The Woodward book coming out next week should make it pretty clear that much of what has been said about DT rings true.

Anonymous said...

It’s John Kelly. All the maritime references, the term “first principles” indicates the morality stuff doesn’t originate from Christian Faith but Aristotle. The reverence for McCain. Boasting about having a 2nd track to the presidency that he’s running. If it was Omarosa she would mention Trumps racism and separation of the children from their parents. But that stuff doesn’t bother Kelly one bit. The NY Times would only stick their neck out for a VP or Chief of Staff in this situation. He also says “colleagues” as a way to not disclose his identity as Chief of Staff. The author is “an adult in the room”. Kelly has been called that before. He has been humiliated by Trump and he has seen his spotless image trashed. This is him trying to salvage it and hedge his bets for when Trump is hung out to dry. He’salso the only person that could possibly come out of this looking somewhat noble if this was revealed to be by him.

Anonymous said...

I also think it could be George Conway writing it for Kellyanne Conway so it doesn’t have her voice. She came out saying its not really important who the op ed was written by.

agit proper said...

8:08PM anon, I'm saving your comment in case Mr. Hyatt deletes it. Very interesting. Would the Kelly theory jibe with the "feminine" tone/influence Mr. Hyatt and others have identified?

Hannibal said...

Obama is the author. I recognize the benign, still-clinging-to-Mama's apron, self-righteous cadence of his words.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Kelly’s wife helped him write it. I also think it’s Kelly in that he went to McCains funeral and saw his life flash before him and his funeral wasn’t looking so pretty. So he thought he better knife Trump to try to be a hero again.

Dan said...

Consider that Obama met with Trump & tried to temper his "wild" approach to the Presidency while wishing him success. Obama's vocab choice is feminine & he would totally use the expression "walk back". The letter is written in Obama's gentle & diplomatic & overly intellectualizing manner of speech. I literally can "hear" Obama's voice when I read the letter.

Dan said...

Listen to how Obama talks (I do think the linked speech is a good speech).

He also uses s nautical reference "keeping at bay" at around 5 min.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_q-_T87j1MY

Dan said...

Who would use the word "lodestar"???

I think Obama would.
He does have a sophisticated vocab--his Mom used to make him get up at 5 am to learn vocab words. We are looking at an author with an unusually wide vocabulary. Obama ia very articulate & uses very specific & descriptive & concise vocabulary.

Anonymous said...

Obama owns you all doesn’t he? It’s not Obama. He would have mentioned racism, immigrant children in cages and the muslim ban. It’s John Kelly. And Trump is busy leaning on Kelly to help him find the perp hahahaha!

Concerned said...

Dan, Mike Pence is the only politician I've heard use the word "lodestar" and he's used it over and over for years.

Slate.com makes a pretty good case for it being U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Huntsman.

I'm leaning toward John Kelly. You only have to look at his facial expressions when in Trump's presence. Like many, I have suspected that some of these people would one day say they joined the administration and stayed to try and protect democracy from DT, who barely understood it. Anyone who had followed his business career and the way he made a mess of that while humiliating good people would know this wouldn't end well. The combination of McCain's funeral and the truth spilling out of Woodward's book would tell him the clock was ticking on saving himself.

Kathead said...


I think that whoever wrote it, did so to mess with the President's head while agitating the public.

Anonymous said...

O'Bummer says "lodestar". He uses bizarre specific phrases. He calls Michelle his sexy bunny rabbit. He calls her "Thumper" and uses other animal-type phrases with a bunny rabbit theme.

Anonymous said...

I think Stormy Daniels wrote it. The outrage and subdued anger combine to form controlled vocabulary usage indicative of a blue collar porn star worker.

Skeptical said...

Author: Omorosa Comey?

Dan said...

Obama @ 24:38 in his snoozefest of a speech today said "And in a HEALTHY democracy it (bigotry, fear) doesnt work. Our ANTIBODIES kick in."

Writer of letter: "threatens the HEALTH of our democracy"

Kim said...

It's likely no one we have heard of.

Several words/phrases, including "lodestar" and "first-principles" jumped out. I thought that may give a hint. Turns out they have been used in speeches given by VP Pence and Sec. Gen. Mattis, respectively. I thought that may be an intentional deflection or attempt to mask.

"Free minds, ..." sounds libertarian-ish.

I considered the overall flow - perhaps a speech writer? There's an air of arrogance, smartest-person-in-the-room-type; made me think of an academic or journalist.

I found a list of WH staff. I searched the speech writers. One had been fired/quit only 2-3 weeks prior to the Op Ed. CNN found he had given a speech where white nationals were in attendence. He is also college professor, political science PhD, and foreign policy wonk who spoke somewhat fondly of Sen. Bernie Sanders on some policy matters, but found him too weak on immigration, too weak to win, "not a fighter".

It's beyond my abilities now. I'm an undisciplined novice, second-guessing myself, worried about confirmation bias at this point.

I sent Peter emails with links.


Anonymous said...

By the time I got to the end of Part I, I was thinking Omarosa. The article avoids definitively stating that it is she, but makes it clear that the character traits of the author match hers or those of someone heavily influenced by her.

Those who think it's Obama or John Kelly or Kellyanne Conway missed (didn't read?) the factors that eliminate them.

Anonymous said...

According to Omarosa the op-ed was written by Nick Ayers, Pence's chief of staff (see her twitter account).

Anonymous said...

I'm interested in how we should reconcile the lack of experiential memory with the desire to remain anonymous.
For example, if he or she wrote about a specific meeting of ten people and nine of them denied being the writer, the author would be discovered quickly.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dan @ 2:41 said: "How is Obama eliminated from being the author"


the pronoun "I". or lack of.

Anonymous said...

Re the example of a specific meeting of ten people: in that scenario the author would only be quickly discovered if there was some way to find out if the denials of the other nine - or of all ten - were truthful (under circumstances statement analysis could play a role in that). But I certainly think the writer tried his/her best to avoid giving specific details that could be traced back to him/her (which could (partly?) explain the "lack of experiential memory").

By the way: I think the writer feels he/she is facing a test unlike he/she ever faced before (see the first line of the op-ed -> I think this is projection). Perhaps he/she is under legal scrutiny?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 8:09 said: "According to Omarosa the op-ed was written by Nick Ayers, Pence's chief of staff..."

(I'm not going to her Twitter feed so I don't know exactly what she said.) By claiming to have knowledge about the letter, Omarosa is inserting herself into the situation, making it appear that she is an insider. She is a liar and attention-seeker, so even if her statement about Ayers is true, her fingerprints are all over it. Omarosa is the kind of employee that poisons an entire organization.

Anonymous said...

An emasculated Chris Christie?

Anonymous said...

Mike Pence's Man In The Swamp
The vice president's trusted chief of staff is young, handsome, talented and rich. He's also got some skeletons.

highline.huffingtonpost.com

Here's Omarosa's tweet that links to the HuffPo piece on Nik Ayers:

https://twitter.com/OMAROSA/status/1038415117602488321

Anonymous said...

"Omarosa is the kind of employee that poisons an entire organization."



That's why I wondered why Trump brought her in in the first place.

Dan said...

It's someone messing with Trump's head.
Not an insider.

Someone trying to make him paranoid.
Hillary?
Someone with a terminal illness?

Anonymous said...

There are linguistic indicators thst Hillary bribed Bill to write the piece, promising him she would dress up as a sexy autumn scarecrow for his annual once per decade roll in the hay.

Anonymous said...

Nick Ayers, Pences CoS

according to Wiki


"Ayers described himself as being rather taken with President Clinton and then-Governor Zell Miller, a Democrat, in the 1990s.[5]"

and

"According to his financial disclosure reports, Ayers' net worth is between approximately. $12 million and $54 million."

If it's him, Peter nailed it. I still can't find out if he has a boat, but he sure as hell could afford a yacht.

Concerned said...

Anon at 2:40
That's easy.
from Reuters: Trump says he kept Omarosa because she "said great things about me"

Anonymous said...

From the language, I'm confident the author is a member of the Red Sea Pedestrian tribe.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @2:40 said: "That's why I wondered why Trump brought her in in the first place."

Pres. Trump gives people chances, and Omarosa presents herself well but is deceitful. When she entered the White House, she was all in for Trump. Then when she didn't get her way and was caught taking privileges she wasn't entitled to, she revealed her true personality. She fits the profile of someone who has been humiliated and feels the need to be heard.

It's interesting that she claims to know who the anonymous author is. Why insert herself into the story?

Anonymous said...

Daily Caller's top three guesses are:
Andrea Hall
Carrie Cabelka
Johnny Destefano

Concerned said...

Anon at 6:22
See above.
Trump said it was because Omarosa said great things about him.

New England Water Blog said...

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRfRNztGj6g

Anonymous said...

New England Water Blog: "According to Kasich, McCain was put to death..."

When someone dies, they're put to rest. "Death" has the same short e sound as "rest," and death is the subject. I don't see significance in such a slip of the tongue. It might have meaning to Katich -- he might have wished McCain had been put to death -- but we don't know that. If McCain was removed from life support, some might consider that to be putting him to death. Was McCain executed? I don't think so, and I doubt that's what Kasich meant.

Anonymous said...

I left one out in the post above...

From Daily Caller, top guesses via GP
** Brian Hook – Trump critic in State Department
** Andrea Hall – an Obama holdover under McMaster
** Carrie Cabelka – State Department White House Liaison
** Johnny DeStefano – Former aide to John Boehner appointed personnel director under Reince Priebus

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/president-trump-four-or-five-people-could-be-responsible-for-anonymous-ny-times-hit-piece/

Anonymous said...

When, on Face the Nation, Pence was asked who he thought wrote the anonymous op-ed, "Who do you think wrote this?" he responded,

"Well, I wouldn't know. But what I can say is it's a disgrace."

When asked if he had been involved in discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment Pence said,

"No. Never. Why would we be, Margaret?"

https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1038526806117285888

Jarrod Agen, Pence's Deputy Chief of Staff and Communications tweeted,

"The Vice President puts his name on his Op-Eds. The @nytimes should be ashamed and so should the person who wrote the false, illogical, and gutless op-ed. Our office is above such amateur acts."

https://twitter.com/VPComDir/status/1037656944348221440

Anonymous said...

"Among the reasons Ayers didn’t join the White House in January was a long-running feud with Priebus, who reportedly blocked Ayers' ascension to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee in December and, according to one White House aide, worked to keep him out of the administration. Priebus has said the decision was not personal — that he considers Ayers a friend and wanted him in Washington — but that he wanted his successor to be a member of the RNC."

Being a General Flynn supporter, I find this disturbing:

"Ayers is a schmoozer whose crisis-management skills the vice president has come to rely on. Given their close relationship, several administration officials said that his hiring was unsurprising. Nobody was more frustrated than Ayers, for example, at the sluggish response to reports that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had deceived Pence about his meetings with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — including the vice president himself, according to a person familiar with the situation — and Ayers has consistently pushed Pence to get off his hind legs and show some attitude."

'Mike Pence’s real power move: Amid White House staff changes, the vice president has replaced his long-serving chief of staff with sharp-elbowed political operative Nick Ayers'
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/mike-pence-nick-ayers-241423

Anonymous said...

"Ayers is around to ensure that if Trump is out of the picture for one reason or another his man will be ready. He is elbowing his way into meetings at which the vice president was previously unrepresented and, while Pitcock would limit himself to delivering brief updates on Pence’s upcoming events, Ayers freely shares his views on the White House’s messaging and political strategy. He is making himself a ubiquitous figure, pacing the hallways, talking on his cellphone.

“He walks around like he owns the place,” said a senior White House aide."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/mike-pence-nick-ayers-241423

Lettice Knollys said...

I dont think it is Omarosa. She is an unhinged narcissist, bordering on sociopath, which the author is not.

I find it peculiar that people seem to have forgotten that the two presidents who were the biggest abusers of women, adulterers and liars, were both democrats. No president will ever be so nasty as Clinton or Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Taking a deeper look at who Omarosa pointed the finger at on Hard Ball, Pence's CoS, Ayers, here's two old pieces on him.

http://www.peachpundit.com/2007/01/26/the-colossus-in-our-midst/

Ayers, "young Karl Rove of Georgia"

2006 Atlanta Business Chronicle https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/05/01/story5.html

"Ayers has evolved a flexible approach to politics; though he's generally conservative, drawing inspiration from the Republican revolution started by Cobb County's Newt Gingrich, he said he also respects Bill Clinton and would work for a moderate Democrat like Zell Miller."

Anonymous said...

An earlier piece on Brian Hook, named by Daily Caller as a suspect


EXCLUSIVE: TRUMP CRITIC LANDS KEY STATE DEPARTMENT ROLE
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/exclusive-trump-critic-lands-key-state-department-role/

"After Foreign Policy reported that Hook might land a State Department role, Daniel DePetris, a National Interest contributor, wrote, “Trump should know what he’s getting himself into: if he hires Brian Hook, he will be opening his arms to a member of the very establishment he campaigned against.”

A State Department official who was a Trump political appointee told TheDC, “I’m so disappointed about all the neoconservatives trickling into the administration.” "

Anonymous said...

ot

did she get coaching?
What does coaching look like?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-6147775/FULL-TRANSCRIPT-Serena-Williams-entire-outburst-Open-final.html?ito=social-facebook

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Serena Williams' entire outburst as American star has furious row with umpire Carlos Ramos that overshadows US Open final


snip


Initially unhappy about being penalised for coaching from the stands, Williams was then given a point penalty for smashing her racket before Ramos took a game away from her after she called him a 'thief'.

Sportsmail has pieced together below the entire transcript of what the American said to the umpire on a controversial evening inside the Arthur Ashe Stadium.


After being penalised for throwing her racket early in the second set:

'This is unbelievable. Every team I play here I have problems.

'I didn't get coaching, I didn't get coaching. I didn't get coaching. You need to make an announcement that I didn't get coaching. I don't cheat, I didn't get coaching. How can you say that?

'You owe me an apology. You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what is right for her and I've never cheated. You owe me an apology.

After being broken to trail 4-3 in the second set:

'I never got coaching. I explained that to you and for you to attack my character then something is wrong. You're attacking my character. Yes you are. You owe me an apology.

'You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar. When are you going to give me my apology? You owe me an apology.

'Say it, say you're sorry. Then don't talk to me, don't talk to me. How dare you insinuate I was cheating? You stole a point from me. You're a thief too.'

After being docked a game:

'Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? Because I said you were a thief? You stole a point from me. I'm not a cheater. I told you to apologise to me. Excuse me I need the referee, I don't agree with that.'

With tournament referees:

'This is not right... [INAUDIBLE]... He said I was being coached but I was not being coached. That's not right. You know me. You know my character. This is not fair. This has happened to me too many times. This is not fair. To lose a game for saying that is not fair. Do you know how many men do things that are much worse than that? This is not fair.

'There are a lot of men out here that have said a lot of things and because they are a man it doesn't matter. This is unbelievable. No I don't know the risk because if I say a simple thing, a thief, because he stole a point from me.

'There are men out here that do a lot worse and because I'm a woman you're going to take this away from me. That is not right. And you know it and I know you can't admit it, but I know you know that is not right. I know you can't change it but I'm just saying that is not right.

'I get the rules but I'm just saying it's not right. It happens to me at this tournament every single year and it's not fair. That's all I have to say.'

Post-match press conference:

'I can't sit here and say I wouldn't say he's a thief, because I thought he took a game from me.

'But I've seen other men call other umpires several things. I'm here fighting for women's rights and for women's equality and for all kinds of stuff. For me to say 'thief' and for him to take a game, it made me feel like it was a sexist remark. He's never taken a game from a man because they said "thief". It blows my mind.

'I just feel like the fact that I have to go through this is just an example for the next person that has emotions, and that wants to express themselves, and wants to be a strong woman.

'They're going to be allowed to do that because of today. Maybe it didn't work out for me, but it's going to work out for the next person.'

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous said...
When, on Face the Nation, Pence was asked who he thought wrote the anonymous op-ed, "Who do you think wrote this?" he responded,

"Well, I wouldn't know. But what I can say is it's a disgrace."

When asked if he had been involved in discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment Pence said,

"No. Never. Why would we be, Margaret?"

https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1038526806117285888

These two answers are loaded. Not to mention the gathering of troops for support ("We")

Amyl Nitrite said...

"I don’t believe it is someone who is at the president or vice president’s level. But because of the choice of words, it is very similar to the speaking style and patterns of someone who would work around the vice president. That’s my opinion,” said Omarosa.

https://lzne.ws/2MY94Xy

Omarosa is throwing suspicion towards VP. Whoever the writer is, purposefully used words the VP uses. Omarosa is interestingly accusing the VP of writing the anonymous piece.

Anonymous said...

John Mcgowan

Yes, I thought those two answers were loaded, too.



Anonymous said...

Amyl Nitrite

No, Omarosa accused Pence's Chief of Staff by name on Hard Ball.

Alex said...

I think the whole Serena flap was staged by her. She supported the QB who started the anthem disrespect after the Nike ad came out. Attention seeking and virtue signaling on a grand scale.

Alex

Anonymous said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6148301/Serena-Williams-coach-admits-coaching-Open-finals.html?ito=social-facebook

Patrick Mouratoglou admits he WAS 'coaching' Serena during the controversial US Open final but says he doesn't believe Williams saw him

Lucia D said...

I don’t think childish displays of temper should be tolerated in sports. People need to learn some self control. Some example she sets.

M said...

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF SERENA'S OUTBURST
After being penalised for throwing her racket early in the second set:

'This is unbelievable. Every time I play here I have problems.

'I didn't get coaching, I didn't get coaching. I didn't get coaching. You need to make an announcement that I didn't get coaching. I don't cheat, I didn't get coaching. How can you say that?

'You owe me an apology. You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what is right for her and I've never cheated. You owe me an apology.

After being broken to trail 4-3 in the second set:

'I never got coaching. I explained that to you and for you to attack my character then something is wrong. You're attacking my character. Yes you are. You owe me an apology.

'You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar. When are you going to give me my apology? You owe me an apology.

'Say it, say you're sorry. Then don't talk to me, don't talk to me. How dare you insinuate I was cheating? You stole a point from me. You're a thief too.'

After being docked a game:

'Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? Because I said you were a thief? You stole a point from me. I'm not a cheater. I told you to apologise to me. Excuse me I need the referee, I don't agree with that.'

With tournament referees:

'This is not right... [INAUDIBLE]... He said I was being coached but I was not being coached. That's not right. You know me. You know my character. This is not fair. This has happened to me too many times. This is not fair. To lose a game for saying that is not fair. Do you know how many men do things that are much worse than that? This is not fair.

'There are a lot of men out here that have said a lot of things and because they are a man it doesn't matter. This is unbelievable. No I don't know the risk because if I say a simple thing, a thief, because he stole a point from me.

'There are men out here that do a lot worse and because I'm a woman you're going to take this away from me. That is not right. And you know it and I know you can't admit it, but I know you know that is not right. I know you can't change it but I'm just saying that is not right.

'I get the rules but I'm just saying it's not right. It happens to me at this tournament every single year and it's not fair. That's all I have to say.'

Post-match press conference:

'I can't sit here and say I wouldn't say he's a thief, because I thought he took a game from me.

'But I've seen other men call other umpires several things. I'm here fighting for women's rights and for women's equality and for all kinds of stuff. For me to say 'thief' and for him to take a game, it made me feel like it was a sexist remark. He's never taken a game from a man because they said "thief". It blows my mind.

'I just feel like the fact that I have to go through this is just an example for the next person that has emotions, and that wants to express themselves, and wants to be a strong woman.

'They're going to be allowed to do that because of today. Maybe it didn't work out for me, but it's going to work out for the next person.'

Lettice said...

Yes, Serena, women who have daughters never cheat. It is something biological, that happens every time a girl is born. The person who pushed her out, suddenly becomes a saint. I know, I have two daughters and two sons, and I am pure as falling snow.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous M said...
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF SERENA'S OUTBURST

thanks for posting. that is a SA goldmine.

New England Water Blog said...

The Serena transcript above is not entirely accurate and it obscures the most interesting point of her outburst, the fact that she referred to "other men" twice and also at the followup press conference.
Its no secret that her gender has been in question for years, she looks like Mike Tyson in a dress.

Why would she repeatedly refer to "other men"?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/09/09/serena-williams-accuses-umpire-sexism-in-us-open-loss.html

Peter Hyatt said...

Lucia D said...
I don’t think childish displays of temper should be tolerated in sports. People need to learn some self control. Some example she sets.
September 9, 2018 at 1:23 PM

Good point.

A correlation between athletes who refuse to govern their passions (learned in childhood) and D/V. '

'I wonder if Serena is impacted by exogenous testosterone.

Peter

Kimberly Smith said...

Peter Hyatt said...

"'I wonder if Serena is impacted by exogenous testosterone."

I've wondered if steroid use isn't a cause of sometimes over-aggressive responses by our civilian law enforcement officers, including many of whom are ex-military trained just to add to the potential influences. NOT ALL law enforcement, and certainly not most either, but it only takes a few for the headlines. I've never seen this possibility addressed in any media. I think drug testing of law enforcement including steroids should be mandatory. Got a doctor's note? Not a problem.

But I digress.

Peter Hyatt said...

Kimberly Smith,

yes.

It is in fire depts, too.

You are correct that it is a small minority and law enforcement professionals have a name for them -- instead of protect and serve, they seek respect from the public. It does not work.

The stronger one is the less the need to assert.

The rotten apples are the ones media focuses upon. Even in appearance, they seek to intimidate. The toughest LE I know are often the quiet, confident servants.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

General, Serena statement as a "gold mine"; agreed. It is insightful into her personality and the aggression is unnatural.

good post, Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

ps General,

did you know that Jean Yyes Theriault was the most skillful fighter, pound for pound, in the last 50 years?

Lucia D said...

To state you are fighting for women's rights and equality, when you are actually fighting for the right to shoot your mouth off and call the umpire a liar and a thief, is pretty disingenuous. "Every time I play here I have problems." Uh yes, Serena, and the common denominator every time is YOU.

New England Water Blog said...

Mrs Cochran told the inquest at the Old Bailey: 'We had almost come to the end [of the bridge]. We were going to go down the steps to the right and sit on a bench on the Thames.

'I recall putting my phone in my purse, I walked to what I recall was the end of the bridge and looked to my right.

'I remember hearing an engine revving... I remember seeing the front of the vehicle. The next thing I remember, being on the ground. It was very sudden.'

She sure does a lot of remembering.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6154729/Widow-American-tourist-killed-Westminster-didnt-terrorists-car-coming.html

Anonymous said...

"If male, the author is not likely to be a strong masculine presence. He may have his sexuality questioned by some."

Like someone whose wife may have needed help getting pregnant? Maybe someone who had triplets?

Guilt could be Nick Ayers over C5 Creative Consulting scandal, not selling his company when he went to work for Pence as would be expected, also dark money, and the Eric Greitens gubernatorial campaign scandal.

His parents were divorced when he was young.

He went on vacation back home to GA just before the Op Ed was printed.

He's known as an especially good schmoozer. He's not liked by others in DC in his line of work.

He's mega wealthy, and has hired private jets when others in his line of work fly economy.

Anonymous said...



PAWLENTY STAFFERS POINT FINGERS OF BLAME AT NICK AYERS FOR CAMPAIGN DEBT

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/13/pawlenty-staffers-point-fingers-of-blame-at-nick-ayers-for-campaign-debt/

Ayers is “all fluff and ego, no substance,” said the first senior staffer, calling him the “biggest disappointment I’ve ever worked with in politics,” and adding: “I’ll never work with any political organization he’s associated with again.”

“Nick’s good at being a politician. He can turn it on with the best of them, and he is an appealing guy when he needs to be,” echoed the third source.

A consultant who worked closely with the RGA when Ayers was there called him the “best self promoter that I have ever seen,” but said that his self-promotion was not warranted.

“I’ve never met anyone that knows so little about politics and is in the position that he’s in,” said the consultant. “I don’t know how he got there.”

“The guy thinks a lot of himself. He’s the best there ever was and the best there ever will be, if you talk to him,” the consultant added. “And I think he is a prick. I think he’s dangerous. If he were in the military, he’s the type of person that would get people killed.”

Anonymous said...

WHY NICK AYERS IS THE MOST HATED CAMPAIGN OPERATIVE IN AMERICA
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/25/why-nick-ayers-is-the-most-hated-campaign-operative-in-america/

“It’s all about him,” said another operative. “He’s David Hasselhoff.”

From the time he signed with Pawlenty, other top operatives have had it out for him. Even the email he sent out in April, announcing he was joining Pawlenty’s staff, drew immediate ridicule. As Politico’s Ben Smith noted at the time, “Ayers, in his own email, writes a bit as though he’s the one who will be running for president.”

It has gotten so bad that other presidential campaigns have begun taking jabs. Ayers recently participated in profiles of himself for The New York Times, presumably prompting Jon Huntsman’s campaign manager, Matt David, to issue the following edict to his staff:

Working on campaigns should be a very selfless act and we want to make sure that we remain disciplined in communicating the message, rather than the process or personalities behind the candidate.

Here’s an example of the type of profile piece that we won’t participate in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042603992.html

Anonymous said...

GEORGIA AUTHORITIES RELEASE VIDEO OF NICK AYERS’ DRUNK DRIVING ARREST IN 2006
https://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/georgia-authorities-release-video-of-nick-ayers-drunk-driving-arrest-in-2006/

The video records Ayers’ discussion with the arresting officer and his attempts to sweet talk his way out of the arrest by explaining his political connections. At the time, Ayers was the campaign manager for Gov. Sonny Perdue. The charges against Ayers were later dropped.

Alex said...

"I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go," Strzok texted Page on April 10, 2017, according to Meadows, who cited newly produced documents from the Justice Department.

This is from a Fox news story this morning. Why so verbose in a text message? Was his phone, "literally just lost"?

Alex

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Alex said...
"I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go," Strzok texted Page on April 10, 2017, according to Meadows, who cited newly produced documents from the Justice Department.

This is from a Fox news story this morning. Why so verbose in a text message? Was his phone, "literally just lost"?



why so verbose? unnecessary language is only unnecessary to us to Strzok it is important.

it may be that "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go,"

the phone is likely what is referred to as a burner phone and or not connected to him by name or through the FBI. his would be important to use "this" phone for "this" topic. it would convey to the recipient the importance to follow a protocol to protect themselves.

Alex said...

Thanks for the insight.

I wonder if this is the same phone the authorities are examining or will this prove to be an even more damning piece of evidence.

My frustration with the DOJ is running pretty high. I can only imagine how President Trump must feel. Coming from a world where his directives are acted upon within his time frame, this must be maddening. I hope he doesn't give up.

I think when history looks back on President Trump and compares his tenure to what could have been we will let out a collective, Whew! Everyone should be watching closely.

I have never seen so many people shoot themselves in the foot so many times.

Alex

M said...

New England Water, I do not see the part you refer to where she says "other men".

I am pretty sure Serena has been gender reassigned, it has been done throughout history, now science has developed, and she has all the signs.

Jeannine520 said...

"I wonder if Serena is impacted by exogenous testosterone."

It might not even be exogenous. From my own experience as someone who runs and weight lifts, when I've been training hard I feel very different and have long suspected it was an increase in testosterone. I've noticed it for years and after reading research papers on this I'm convinced it can come up enough to make one feel and act differently. Black women have more testosterone to begin with than caucasian women but when they exercised it increased by a higher percentage than their counterparts. I also have read this happens with intermittent fasting (increased growth hormone and testosterone) and have noted this myself also. With Serena being an elite athlete I wouldn't be surprised at all if her behavior was being effected by this phenomenon.

Jeannine520 said...

New England Water Blog - You realize she just carried a child, right? There's no question she's a woman. She doesn't have the traditional woman's body type but she's a large woman and an elite athlete. I don't know what you'd expect her to look like. I didn't hear her say "other men" but if she indeed said it I'd suspect that she didn't want to say, "other players" because she was trying to make the point that the "other" players were men and that they had a different set of rules.

Jeannine520 said...

Anonymous at 6:20, I'm not sure if your post is directed at me because I didn't say she's on steroids (actually I don't think anyone specifically said that), but if you are a woman who has never had elevated testosterone I don't think you can appreciate how it feels. Yes, I agree any person can get pissed, but when you have elevated testosterone you can go from a person who is normally assertive to borderline aggressive. Sex drive is super increased. There are other things, too that I can't quite put my finger on but an elevated sense of well being, strength and capability. There's a small rise during a regular menstrual cycle and I'm betting you know exactly when it occurs. Even among men there's a marked difference between those with different testosterone levels. Some is due to personality, yes, but in studies where they give men a extra testosterone you can clearly see it's important to behavior.

Anonymous said...

Also, I am long & thin like my real Dad. It all comes from genes.

Paul said...

Here is a brief interview on Fox news with Jim Fitzgerald about this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HSB6T9RJe6o

Jeannine520 said...

No anon, it's not during menstruation, it's during ovulation. You're extremely off track, and your comment"

"White men dont tolerate it cause they are mostly pussified wife beaters."

is incredibly racist and uninformed. That may be your opinion but it was stated as fact, and it most certainly is not fact. Critical Thinking classes are offered at every junior college for a small fee. Among other things, you'll learn to spot illogical arguments and hyperbole and how to keep them out of your own writing. Wonderful if you want to appear to be an educated, clear thinking individual.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Her size & anger? Some races are more muscular--


are you saying the question can not be asked? was she always that big and muscular?

I think she is taking performance enhancing drugs.

Lucia D said...

@General P Malaise I also think she takes PEDs. There are many good reasons the question is valid, including her health history of blood clots and embolism. Also her numerous backdated temporary exemptions so she could take steroids. And at least one bizarre incident of calling 911 to avoid complying with an unscheduled drug test. Not to mention the prevalence of steroid use in elite athletes. And her terrible temper on the court when things don't go her way??

Anonymous said...

I used to say to him all the time "You are the most annoying person God ever put on this earth." I would say to him all the time "You can just go to hell, you and the horse you rode in on." All the time I said those things to him. Or "You are such a f-cking computer nerd." People were like "Wow I can't believe she talks to you like that." As I think back, I was always insulting him. And I miss it. I miss him.

Anonymous said...

It tears my heart out that he tries to have the upper hand, always trying to keep a poker face, and then I say "I dont ever want to talk to you again!" I promise to myself to forget him & then he hoovers. It's all so painful.

Anonymous said...

But he never lets himself become dissheveled or show any vulnerability to me. He dispenses advice to me like he has no vulnerabilities, only I do & now they are laid bare before him. If I say anything to try to act casual like I dont really care much about him, he quickly matches with a similar statement. Why does he do that when he already read my emotions for him laid bare in the emails containing my transgression forwarded to him by my friend behind my back? He already has the upper hand! Oh but maybe it's not enough because I wrote that I knew he loved me, I had felt it, in those emails. But he does have the upper hand & has had it for so long. Why does he need to twist the knife?

Anonymous said...

He hurt me so much when he married her, yet he was so hurt when I accepted it and wished him well years into it?!?! He got upset that I accepted it!
I realized so long ago that hurting him was the same as hurting myself & I have never tried to have the upper hand since. But he loves having the upper hand now!

Alex said...

Here comes some more, this time from Fienstein. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/dianne-feinstein-refers-letter-on-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-to-feds.html

The actual letter hasn't come out yet.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex said...
Here comes some more, this time from Fienstein. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/dianne-feinstein-refers-letter-on-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-to-feds.html

The actual letter hasn't come out yet.

oh deary me. Don't you just love the word "plan"?

There is loads to work with in that article, Alex. I will keep my eye out if and when the letter gets published

Buckley said...

The letter won’t get published. It’s a secret letter about a secret incident from a secret accuser. It’s a red herring.

Hey Jude said...

https://globalnews.ca/video/4436493/serena-williams-calls-chair-umpire-thief-in-outburst-during-us-open-final


Here Serena Williams says "other men" twice, when speaking to the referee - it's a bit after the two minute mark. She also says "other men" in the interview which follows, same clip. Interesting, as "other" is an unnecessary extra word? She could have just said "men" . It's interesting that she repeats it, especially in the interview. I wondered was she wanting or trying to say something besides what she seemed to be saying - but, as someone above said, she recently had a baby...

----

Some believe Serena, and Venus, are trans - they are they subjects of some 'Transvestigation' videos on YouTube - but then, so are many other unlikely seeming celebrities, though more often the undernourished looking ones. It's strange the video makers don't include anorexia and other eating disorders in their considerations. and how that can effect a person's growth and frame, before claiming their subjects are deceiving the public about their true gender.

Dan said...

Someone called me a "racist" because I said I dont feel bad for this guy. He slammed his door in the face of 2 cops with AR-15s who had received a call the guy had an AK-47 & a female was in danger. Does this appear racist?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zdw3Sah976s

Anonymous said...

Buckley said...
The letter won’t get published. It’s a secret letter about a secret incident from a secret accuser. It’s a red herring.

To distract from what?

Anonymous said...

Red herring is a dumb "pretentious" word.

Anonymous said...

Buckley thinks he is so much "smarter" than the rest of us.

V Halen said...

Red herrings are boobery.

George G. George said...

I think that awful cop planned to shoot Jean. I'm getting a sick feeling about it. The same sick feeling I get about Mollie Tibbetts'murder. Planned.

George G. George said...

She thought it was her apartment...

He can't remember details of Mollie's murder...

Drugs? Tuned into bad frequencies? Or made to commit murder with threats of being killed or killing family? Hmm...


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

Who is Jean?

Anonymous said...

Why does Buckly say so much boobery things on here?

Anonymous said...

I'm so hungry I havent been eating well since my son left. There isno point in cooking. I need to go scarf down a yogurt and some cheerios so I dont lose more weight.

Anonymous said...

My clothes are literlly falling off me. There is no need to buy sugary things like orange juice anymore for him to drink therefore I don't drink any. There are no sugary things around to eat. My clothesa are falling off me. There is no point in preparing potatoes and healthy foods.

Anonymous said...

I forgot how fast I lose weight when I stop drinking sugary drinks. I turn into a friggin stick. \
Also havent' been sleeping well, worse than ever.
People are extra mean to me too.
Social media I hate so much.

"I'm so blessed. My hubby and I are celebrating 20years of friendship and growth. I can;t wait to continue this journey with you."

I can't deal with it. All I have is a morbidly obese ex that I wasted my whole life with. And he's so disgusting. I don't know how I ever slept with him, he makes my skin crawl. How come everyone else is celebrating 30 years of marriage with their best friend?!?!

Anonymous said...

Everyone's always on vacation somewhere EXPENSIVE! HOw do people afford this shit?! How can everyone afford to be on tropical islands like 5 times a year?! Everyone's hubby is so perfect. They are growing in friendship and love and exciting adventures. Everyone is always "feeling blessed". I mean it's fucking nauseating. Let's be honest! If you are feeling blessed why the fuck do you need to tell everyone?!?! And it's like so stupid. They'll be like "Sitting here with a warm mug of organic tea with my new luxury blanket/ feeling blessed. It's so weird why does everyone have to say that?

Anonymous said...

Miss TB so much. He was such a good man, such a strong, brave real man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFEqPQMiRWk&t=111s

Alex said...

I wish I could remember who held the rally where they said they were going to try to thwart President Trump at every turn.

I didn't realize how far and foolishly they would go.
Fienstein did say she referred the letter to the FBI. My faith in the leadership has not yet been restored.

Alex

Willow said...

Yes, Hey Jude. Serena was offended as this wimp of a referee took her for a woman. She seemed genuine about this.

Lucia D said...

@Hey Jude I agree the "other men" phrase Serena repeated is strange wording. It would make more sense if she were saying that other women aren't treated as harshly as she is. The more I read about it, the more I think steroid use, and or HGH use is responsible for Serena's build, temper etc.

Hey Jude said...

Lucia, maybe, but that's not at issue and wouldn't account for her choice of words. In addition to "other men" said three times - self-consciously during the interview, imo, she said, "It didn't work out for me, but maybe it'll work out for the next person". -she closed with that, after claiming she's fighting for women's rights, and all sorts of things - what are "all sorts of things?"; her concern is apparently sexism, yet she uses the gender-neutral "person", rather than "woman" In hoping it will work out for the next "person" who is discriminated against due to being a woman - she's not strongly identifying as a woman, imo.

Hey Jude said...

I thought she was there to play tennis, but she seems to have a lot of other stuff on her mind.

Hey Jude said...

Serena says there are "no limits" for her baby daughter - magical thinking - as though saying or believing something makes it true.

Willow said...

Serena says a number of times: I don't cheat. You are a thief.
Is S. saying she is very very very very honest?

The sentences about having a daughter.
The following I didn't understand: Was it "there are no limits" to what she as a mother of a baby girl wouldn't do (therefore this horrific behaviour is justified:
And what's more, it's elevated to defending the downtrodden gender that also her daughter is a member of)?
Did S. say already amidst her outburst that she is doing this for her daughter? If yes, she was on a script very likely.

General P. Malaise said...


Anonymous Willow said..

Did S. say already amidst her outburst that she is doing this for her daughter? If yes, she was on a script very likely.


you have some good points. I would not say she is on a script. SJW don't need scripts, they see themselves as victims and what she spouts is her justification. I think her bringing her daughter into the language is troubling and that Serena may be experiencing challenges being a mother that frustrate her.

Hey Jude said...




Serena’s “no limits” comment was not part of the outburst. What she actually said, in an interview for Vogue, was,
“I want to teach her there are no limits”
rather than that there are no limits - so it’s not certain she will teach her daughter magical thinking, only that she wants to. My mistake, as I thought she had claimed “there are no limits”, rather than that she wanted to teach her that.

“I think sometimes women limit themselves. I’m not sure why we think that way, but I know that we’re sometimes taught to not dream as big as men, not to believe we can be a president or a CEO, when in the same household, a male child is told he can be anything he wants. I’m so glad I had a daughter. I want to teach her that there are no limits.”

https://www.vogue.com/article/serena-williams-vogue-cover-interview-february-2018

----


'"Roger Federer, in some respects her only real rival on the tour—the person she’s always sought to keep pace with, the person she refuses to retire before—now has two sets of twins. “It’s so unfair,” Se­rena complains. “He produced four babies and barely missed a tournament. I can’t even imagine where I’d be with twins right now. Probably at the bottom of the pool.”'

boom said...

Kavanaugh denied the allegations against him in a written statement released by the White House on Friday, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

liar liar

Cindy said...

I would like to see the Kavanaugh letter, as well as his response. analyzed. I support the Kavanuaugh nomination, but if the allegation is true, it would sway my opinion.

Lars Bak said...

July 30 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.