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.
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.
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:
2. "Never Trump" Republicans
3. The Media
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.
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:
"off the rails"
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.
"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.
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
c. Without Merit
d. In over one's head (under-qualified)
It is to note a personal vendetta.
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:
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.
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.