KMI-Masthead new

Analysis Works!

Othering

 

6/21/16 pronoun analysis predicts Robert Hainsey's 7/10/16 choice: "they" is missing from Notre Dame's discussion.

 

Pronouns are very important in understanding the true message. In "Othering," we reveal to others what we think of the person or persons we're talking about. When we use the word "they" when talking about a different race, religion, organization - we classify or identify "them" as not one of us. It creates a demarcation, a division, an emotional denegration between "us" and "them." This can be done intentionally (as it plays out in political strategies) or unknowingly by a young much-recruited football player. Pronouns reveal what people really feel and think.

In this analysis, if we look at how Mr. Hainsey uses "they" when describing the Universities of Michigan and Michigan State, and not using "they" when talking about Notre Dame, he is telling us his decision as it stands at the moment he made these statements.

 

 

 

 

A Nice Invitation - "The Best of the Best"

IIAprimary

I received a nice invitation from the Institute of Internal Auditors today:

"The Institute of Internal Auditors would like to invite you to speak at the 2017 All Star Conference to be held October 30-November 1, 2017 at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas, NV.  This conference is designed to highlight the “best of the best” from our most dynamic and inspiring conference speakers and presentations from 2016-2017. For more than a decade, the All Star Conference has featured The IIA’s highest rated presenters from the past year’s conferences, as ranked by attendees."

 Get Getting the Truth

 

Reading Between the Lines

Recording

Former FBI Director Comey's Statement for the Record for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released 6/7/17, in part says the following:

April 11 Phone Call

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

 

The highlighted statement by President Trump tells me he recorded the conversation. His  "..we had that thing you know," curiously, nefariously, and inexplicably includes the wiggle word "thing." That word, "thing" suggests to the listener(s) that there was some agreement between the President and Director Comey. The fact it's called a "thing" cries out for an explanation. Director Comey, in this memo, states he doesn't know what the President meant by the term. I would have liked the Director to ask the President, "What do you mean when you use the word, 'thing?' - but he did not. The President intentionally inserted that word, without explanation. He will try to use that statement in the future to his advantage, having created something on the record that only the he can define or interpret, and infer that Director Comey knew what the "thing" meant. It's an insurance policy and further tells me he has used this approach before. 

 ** Get "Getting the Truth"

 

My Analysis of NBC's Lester Holt's May 12, 2017 Interview of President Trump

Slide508 

 My Analysis of President Trump’s response to NBC’s Lester Holt 

May 12, 2017 at The Whitehouse 

 

Carefully note the question was: “Can you tell us whether you, your family, your businesses, your surrogates have accepted any investments, any loans from Russian individuals or institutions?” 

 

First of all, because the question was improperly structured with “Can you tell us …” we can’t rely on what follows. I can “tell” you anything whether it’s the truth or not. Deceptive people will seize poorly worded/structured questions to provide misleading responses. I can tell you anything – it just may not be the complete truth. Deceptive people will often provide partial truths to mislead the listener, letting the listener believe they’re receiving the complete truth when they’re not; when the listener believes they received all the necessary information, when they haven't; when the listener believes they understand, when they really don't. A better structured question would be, “Tell us if you, your family, your businesses have accepted any investments, any loans from Russian individuals or institutions?” Even then, the wiggle words “investments" and  "institutions” could be leveraged by the deceptive to provide misleading answers. Questions have to be precise, clear, concise, and use only mutually understood words. 

 

But let’s look anyway at President Trump’s response: 

He didn’t initially answer the question until line 14. The question asked whether you “… have accepted any investments, any loans from Russian individuals or institutions?” Everything from lines 5 to 14 is present tense, not past tense. “I don’t have …” provides just a snapshot, a picture, of his holdings on May 12, 2017. It tells us nothing of his holdings before or after May 12, 2017. If they don’t answer the question, they did. In other words, evasive answers are an indication of sensitivity and an unwillingness to provide information. The reason behind that could be any number of reasons, including the need to avoid telling a complete lie, to avoid being deceptive. A truthful person wants to tell the truth and does so using simple, direct, clear, and concise responses. A truthful person with no sensitivities to the question will answer the question simply, directly, and precisely. Any other responses are suspicious. 

 

Beginning line 14, President Trump does provide information about past Russian financial activities. His response, “I have had dealings over the years ...” is tantalizing and vague. He provides two examples (“ ..sold a house; ..Miss Universe Pageant”) which suggest a good response but not a necessarily complete one. 

 

However, President Trump artfully avoids any discussion about financial transactions that wouldn’t qualify as a “loan” or “investment” from Russian sources. Those terms are subject to wide interpretation and, therefore, are terms on which the deceptive feed. What about “gifts” or “exchanges” or “payments for services?” 

 

Further, President Trump is suspected of assisting, enabling, or otherwise cooperating with Russian/Kazakhstan/Netherlands based individuals and/or companies. Does a Russian-owned company in Kazakhstan qualify as a Russian individual or institution? Granted, this can get overly technical. However, precisely worded questions are necessary to obtain reliable information. 

 

So, even though the question was poorly worded, we are still able to discern some useful information. The initial response is evasive and that tells us this topic/question is sensitive to the President. Why? Well, that’s the real question isn’t it?

 

© 2010 – 2017 KMI Investigations, LLC

GJChamberLogoCMYK300FBINAA logoCFE logoMCPI Logo