KMI-Masthead new

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?

 

The Anatomy of Denials

reality illusion

 

Learning the principles in this article will enable you to distinguish between good and poor denials - making you a better executive, a better investigator, a better decision-maker.

 

What’s a good denial? A “good” denial is a truthful statement that helps close the door on the allegation. Notice I didn’t say it “closes the door” - it “helps” close the door. Evidence ultimately determines the truth. We can rely on a good denial. It helps disprove the allegation. It isn’t, by itself, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does offer evidence the allegation is false.

A good denial must be truthful. In the criminal setting, “I am not guilty,” is considered a quasi-good denial. By “quasi” I mean it is a good denial in this very specific setting. It’s “truthful” since all those arrested are, in fact, “not guilty” until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the subject did the act, he is telling the truth with this statement. Likewise, the denial “I am innocent” is truthful in the criminal setting for the same reasons. Both are quasi-good denials even if they did that of which they’re accused – but those denials offer little to close the door on the allegation. The terms “not guilty” and “innocent” are mutually understood in the criminal setting.

Those terms “not guilty” and “innocent” outside the court systems are not universally understood. Outside the court systems (criminal and civil) there is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or with a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, these denials are not so good when used in non-court settings. So, when the wife accuses a husband of infidelity, his “I am innocent,” isn’t a good denial. The term, “innocent” lacks specificity and is subject to many interpretations outside the court setting.

A good denial is direct, simple and succinct. It clearly denies the allegation. It uses only those words necessary. All words in the denial must be mutually understood by all and the statement must stand-alone. By “stand alone” I mean it cannot be qualified by what is stated before or after the denial.

 “I didn’t do it,” and “I did not do it” are good denials when “it” is mutually understood by all and there is no doubt as to what “it” is. “Let’s say, I didn’t do it,” is thus not a good denial because of the qualifier, “Let’s say, …” Anybody can “say” anything.

Further, let’s say a person takes $621.31 from a grocery store cash register. The owner, suspecting that $650 is missing, improperly asks the suspect, “Did you take the $650? The suspect answers, “I didn’t take it,” knowing that he didn’t take $650. The “it” is not mutually understood by all. Deceptive people take advantage of poorly worded questions and provide partial truths that, on the surface, appear to be complete truths.

A poor denial, on the other hand, helps keep the allegation alive. A poor denial is a lost opportunity and offers evidence the allegation is true. If there are several allegations and the accused provides a good denial to one of the allegations but is silent on the others, the silence on the others is evidence the others may be true. When a suspect is accused of 3 larcenies and offers a good denial on just one, he just provided evidence he may have committed the other two. Poor denials usually hold some degree of truth, a partial truth. Partial truths are misleading and considered lies. 

 

People want to tell the truth. Quoting from my book, “Getting the Truth:” (autographed copies available at Getting the Truth )

“Like water seeking it’s own level, the body relieves itself of stress, seeking calmness. The greatest stress reliever known to man is truth telling. It’s a relief valve, a bloodletting, a purging. Nature demands it in order to begin the rebuilding process.”

Take a look at these famous “Rogues Gallery” of stand-alone denials. Can you identify the good denials? Hint – there is but one.

1.    “I unequivocally and without any reservations totally deny all the allegations about sexual contact.”    Alan Dershowicz 2015

2.    “I am absolutely, 100% not guilty.” OJ Simpson (at his arraignment)

3.    “She was not choked. She was not punched.” Pastor Dollar 6/10/12

4.    “I could never hurt Susan or my sons.” Josh Powell

5.    “I’ve said it for 7 years – I haven’t doped” Lance Armstrong

6.    “I’m not a murderer.” Amanda Knox 4/30/2013

7.     “I have never sexually harassed anyone, let’s say that, .....” Herman Cain, 2011

8.     "I'm very comfortable saying nobody did it as far as I know." Tom Brady 2015

9.     “I barely knew the man and why would I kill him?”  John McAfee 2012

10.  “In my heart, I know I did not do these alleged disgusting acts.” Jerry Sandusky 2012

11.  "As far as the allegations of CIA hacking into Senate computers -- nothing could be further from the truth.” CIA Director John Brennan 2014

12.  “Anyone who knows me, or who worked with me, would know that I wouldn't, and more importantly that I didn't, do anything to damage the Milly Dowler investigation.” Andy Coulson 2012

All but one of these are poor denials. Here’s why:

1.    “I unequivocally and without any reservations totally deny all the allegations about sexual contact,” he said.” Alan Dershowicz 2015

This is a denial statement, not a denial. He doesn’t tell us he didn’t do it. He is simply issuing a denial statement. A denial for Mr. Dershowicz would look something like, “I didn’t have sexual contact with the accuser.” Be careful with denial statements. Saying, “I deny …..” is not the same as “I didn’t do it.” Denial statements are not denials. 

2.    “I am absolutely, 100% not guilty.” OJ Simpson (at his arraignment on the criminal charges of murder).

This is a good denial (albeit quasi-good). He is 100% not guilty at this point in the criminal justice system  – all accused are not guilty until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

3.    “She was not choked. She was not punched.” Pastor Dollar 6/10/12

Pastor Dollar doesn’t say who didn’t choke her or who didn’t punch her. A good denial would have been, “I didn’t choke her. I didn’t punch her.” Since he did not, this is not a good denial.

4.    “I could never hurt Susan or my sons.” Josh Powell

“I could never …” is a statement about the future, not the past.

5.    “I’ve said it for 7 years – I haven’t doped” Lance Armstrong

He’s simply saying he said it, which he did. He doesn’t simply say, “I haven’t doped.” The introduction makes this a poor denial.

6.    “I’m not a murderer.” Amanda Knox 4/30/2013

The word “murderer” is subject to many interpretations. Therefore, it is not “mutually understood.” Does “murderer” mean someone convicted by what she feels was an improper forum? I think not. While this may well be a truthful denial, because of the possibly misunderstood word we cannot rely on it.

7.     “I have never sexually harassed anyone, let’s say that, .....” Herman Cain, 2011

The trailing introduction, one I call a retroactive introduction, “….. let’s say that ..” makes this a poor denial. When we see “I can tell you this …,” or “I feel comfortable telling you this ..,” or “I can say ..,” we cannot rely on what follows. Since they are stating what they are telling us they will tell us, they’re telling the truth.

8.    "I'm very comfortable saying nobody did it as far as I know." Tom Brady 2015

Again, “saying …” is a giveaway. He could have said, “Nobody did it,” without any qualifiers. The fact he didn’t makes this a poor denial. An additional qualifier is the, “ … as far as I know.”

9.     “I barely knew the man and why would I kill him?”  John McAfee 2012

He never denies killing the man. He could have said, “I didn’t kill him.”

10. “In my heart, I know I did not do these alleged disgusting acts.” Jerry Sandusky 2012

Look at all the qualifiers, “In my heart, …” and, “..I know.” These qualifiers make this a poor denial. He could have simply said, “I did not do these alleged disgusting acts.”

11. "As far as the allegations of CIA hacking into Senate computers -- nothing could be further from the truth.” CIA Director John Brennan 2014

The CIA Director never denied the allegation of hacking into the Senate computers. About a month later, he issued an apology: “The Director subsequently informed the SSCI Chairman and Vice Chairman of the findings and apologized to them for such actions by CIA officers as described in the OIG report.”

12. “Anyone who knows me, or who worked with me, would know that I wouldn't, and more importantly that I didn't, do anything to damage the Milly Dowler investigation.” Andy Coulson 2012

Because of all the qualifiers,“ ..knows me ..,” “…would know ..,” “… that I wouldn’t,” this is a poor denial. The good denial would be, “I didn’t do anything to damage the Milly Dowler investigation.”

Poor denials are structured by the deceptive to lead you to believe they are saying one thing, when, in fact, they are on the record saying something else. Mr. Dershowicz wants you to believe he did not have sexual contact with the accuser without saying it. The same applies to all the rest, Pastor Dollar, Lance Armstrong, Herman Cain, etc.

When getting the truth, one needs to look both at what is said and isn’t. Both are important, but what isn’t said can be most important. You can often identify poor denials by what isn’t said. Let’s look at Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s denial in 2013: 

"I do not use crack cocaine, nor am I an addict of crack cocaine.”

Notice this is written in the present tense, not the past tense. Present tense is only a snapshot, a millisecond. He says nothing about the past, which tells the whole story.

Let’s look at this denial. This was in a written statement from 1 of 10 tellers who were all suspects in an investigation into missing money. Is this a good denial?

TellerDenial

No. Notice she doesn’t deny she took the money. If they don’t deny it, they probably did it. The absence of a denial can be evidence the allegation is true. Truthful people want to tell the truth – will tell the truth. A truthful denial will be simple, direct, and precise. There will be no misunderstood words and it will stand-alone.

Good denials use the pronoun “I.” The denial, “I didn’t do it,” is a good denial on its face (only if we all know what “it” is). The pronoun “I” requires unique, personal accountability, and responsibility. No one else did the act when “I” is used. So, look for the “I” in a good denial. Just because the “I” is used, however, doesn’t make it a good one. Just look at Mayor Ford’s poor denial for example.

Let's look closer at the Andy Coulson denial to provide further context for analyzing his denial. In 2012, the British Government accused Andy Coulson and Rebeka Brooks of phone hacking while both worked for the “News of World,” a publication owned by Robert Murdock. Prime Minister David Cameron had hired Coulson as his Director of Communications following Coulson’s stint as editor of “News of the World.” Let’s look at Coulson’s denial as provided by The Guardian on 7/24/2012:

Coulson gave a short statement outside his south London home, saying he would "fight these allegations", and added that he never had done anything to harm the Milly Dowler investigation.

He said: "I am extremely disappointed by the CPS decision today. I will fight these allegations when they eventually get to court. Anyone who knows me, or who worked with me, would know that I wouldn't, and more importantly that I didn't, do anything to damage the Milly Dowler investigation. At the News of the World we worked on behalf of the victims of crime, particularly violent crime, and the idea that I would sit in my office dreaming up schemes to undermine investigations is simply untrue."        

Is this a good denial? Again, no. In short, he never tells us he didn’t do it. Instead he says, “Anyone who knows me, or worked with me, ..would know that I wouldn’t, and more importantly that I didn’t …” This sounds eerily similar to CIA Director John Brennan’s denial. Are you seeing some patterns?

And further, good denials often have a contraction. Lying is more stressful than telling the truth. I, therefore, look for contractions in good denials because the contraction can be (notice can be) an indication of less formality, less stress. So, the denial, “I did not do it,” is good, but not as good as, “I didn’t do it.” Be careful, though, there are no absolute rules.

Good denials are simple, specific, and direct, contain only mutually understood words, use the personal pronoun “I,” and clearly deny the allegation. Good denials stand-alone. They are simple and void of unnecessary words. The truthful person simply wants to tell the truth. That’s why, “I didn’t do it,” as long as everyone knows exactly what “it” is, typically is a good denial. As always, we never rely solely on the denial – we want to accumulate all the evidence necessary to prove or disprove the allegation. A good denial is evidence the allegation is not true.

The deceptive person wants you to believe they are telling you the complete truth. Their objective is to get you to believe one thing, while on the record saying something else. They will give you partial truths to make you believe you are receiving the complete truth. Poor denials often look good on the surface but don’t hold up to the tests of a good denial. Remember Lance Armstrong’s denial, “I’ve said it for 7 years – I haven’t doped.”

It takes practice and knowledge to be able to consistently identify good denials. Reading this article is a good first step. Learn these principles and you’re well on your way to becoming a better investigator, a better executive, a better decision-maker.

           Authored by Joe Koenig   ©2017  KMI Investigations, LLC  616 366-5856

 

 

 

".. unlocking the secrets of communication." - buy Mr. Koenig's autographed books at Apple Pay/Cash (616 366-5856), Zelle, or BOOKSTORE.

© 2010 – 2024 KMI Investigations, LLC.           Contact: 616 366-5856.  email: Joe.Koenig@kmiinvestigations.com         

infragard fbi footer logosExperts20Court20LogoInternational Forensic LinguistsKMI Investigations LLCBookSetACFEMCPI thumb logo 1024NCISSlogo