KMI-Masthead new



In a 2005 deposition, Attorney Delores Troiani (who represented a woman accusing Bill Cosby of sexual assault) asked Bill Cosby:

"When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?" asks the plaintiff’s attorney, who is questioning Cosby.

Cosby answers simply, "Yes."

I recommend questions to be short, simple, compact and precise - more along the lines, “What was the purpose for the Quaaludes?” or, “For what were the Quaaludes?” This question violates that. Nevertheless it’s a very, very effective question. With Cosby’s simple and precise answer, “Yes,” the attorney proved what is extremely difficult to prove – intent. Not just intent, but devious intent. Now, we still don’t have Mr. Cosby saying “I gave Quaaludes to unknowing young women to have sex with them.” We do, however, have the evidence, in his own words telling us his intended use of the Quaaludes.

This discovery of the truth must be wonderful news to all those victims who took the long step to accuse an icon of sexual assault. I look for more victims to surface now that the stigma of false accusation is lifted. Cosby’s cover-up strategy didn’t work.

Get Mr. Koenig's book, "Getting the Truth."

Trained Observer Test #2 - What's Missing?


What's missing in the US Response to the allegation the US Intelligence monitored German Chancellor Merkel's mobile phone:


US Response from Jay Carney (Presidential Press Secretary) 10/23/2013:


“Obama and Merkel spoke by phone earlier Wednesday and ‘the president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor,’ White House press secretary Jay Carney said.”


==> What's missing? (answer next week by 6/30/15 on this blog)

Get Joe Koenig's book, Getting the Truth


Answer:  The "Past" ("did not monitor") is missing! The best and the brightest team of experts working for the President and Press Secretary Carney crafted this response after long discussions. Their response refers only to the "Present" and "Future," with no reference to the "Past." They didn't forget to address the "Past." This omission is an admission the US Government monitored Chancellor Merkel's mobile phone.


The Right Question


Let’s say your child finally arrives home 2 hours after curfew and you want to know where he/she was. What do you ask?

Where were you? = no
Where have you been? = no
What caused you to be 2 hours late? = better

 "Working backwards from now, tell me with whom and where you were." = best

Learn how to ask the right question, at the right time, in the right way. Get Getting the Truth

Carve and sculpt your questions. "Sculpt" is a good word. It helps describe the process you need to follow to construct the perfect question. Questions have to be simple, compact, precise and contain only mutually-understood words to allow you to get the truth. Anything else is a waste of time and can even be destructive. Even then, you must have a strategy.  The question needs to be asked at the right time and in the right way. Read my book to find out the intricacies of constructing perfect questions.  

Donald Rumsfeld's Drumbeat


As we all know, Donald Rumsfeld was instrumental in providing the rationale for going to war against Iraq in 2003. Today, 12 years later, we remain on a war footing in that region of the world. Let’s take a look at one of Secretary Rumsfeld’s key statements that was part of the drumbeat leading to the Iraq war.

In February 2002, JIM MIKLASZEWSKI, at that time NBC’s Pentagon correspondent asked Secretary Rumsfeld:

“In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations.”


“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are — what was the word you used, Pam, earlier?”

At first blush, I note no “I’s” in his response – just “we’s.” The personal pronoun “I” connotes personal commitment. A response that starts with or contains an “I” likely reflects personal commitment. What follows that “I” is important, but it’s also important that we see no “I’s.” So, there is no personal commitment in his response.

Let’s first take a look at the question: “In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction?” This is an excellent question. I wish Miklaszewski had stopped there! But he goes on, “Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations.” With that addition, Miklaszewski allows Rumsfeld to wiggle out of answering the critical question.

One of the teachings of my book, “Getting the Truth,” is that poorly structured questions can prohibit you from getting the truth. This is a prime example. You need to structure - no sculpt - your questions to make sure they are simple, direct, and compact. All excess needs to be trimmed, eliminated, and avoided. Miklaszewski’s addition was unnecessary and only provided a route for deflection, avoidance.

Predictably, Rumsfeld responds to the addition, not the core question. Despite his confidence and arrogance, his response is very telling. He never answers the core question – rather, he deftly evades it. I’ve often said that when people don’t answer the question, they did. That is to say they had the opportunity to directly answer the question but chose not to. In this example, he not only doesn’t answer the core critical question, he evades it by providing a non-answer.  The word “evade” connotes intent, a clever avoidance. This is a clever, evasive, non-answer.

And, maybe, therein lies the reason we see no “I” in his response. Non-answers don’t need “I’s." Non-answers require no commitment.  

So, now the question is: “Why would he choose to evade giving us the justification for the 2003 Iraq war?”  History is slowly but inexorably revealing the answer.

 To learn more, get Joe Koenig's "Getting the Truth"



".. unlocking the secrets of communication." - buy Mr. Koenig's autographed books at BOOKSTORE.

© 2010 – 2019 KMI Investigations, LLC.

  infragard fbi footer logos   Retired 2021 Digital BadgeGJChamberLogoCMYK300CFE logoMCPI Logo