Yeah, although I wasn't as much rooting for Kavanaugh as much as disappointed that we're in the same position all over again in the US, having to choose between a bad option and a bad option. The discussion in the US seemed to be between either having to support him or supporting the insane left.
None of the conversation, as far as I was able to see, gathered around what the Truth actually was, no one seems to care and that's disastrous.
I think Ben Swann managed to make a good case for why the accusations against him were pretty much baseless but that still did not mean he was a good choice for the supreme court here:
Yes, it's insane when you have to make that choice. Along the lines of the video you shared, there is also Peter Hyatt's Statement Analysis of the accusations, which I found to be quite interesting.
Statement Analysis ®
The following is the letter that an accuser sent to Sen. Diane Feinstein. Analysis follows.
Analytical Question: Is she telling the truth? Was she sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh?
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 stair well 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.
Analysis
July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
Appropriate introduction. Sense of writing etiquette associated with education.
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
Priority:
We always note where an author begins after the greeting. This is often the priority and the actual reason for the author's writing.
Priority
We let the priority unfold, word by word, for us.
Note the purpose: the author writes "with", not "about" and calls the information "relevant."
We generally see "with" between people as a signal of distance. "I went shopping with Heather" instead of "Heather and I went shopping."
The former may indicate distance due to disinterest or disagreement, while the latter shows unity.
It is interesting to note that the author appears to be distancing herself from the "information" ("with") which is coupled with the unnecessary emphasis on the information being "relevant."
Q. Would a victim of sexual assault distance herself from the information of the assault, itself?
"Relevant" information
This is unnecessary information. If the author is writing about a sexual assault, she should have no need to call her own information "relevant" unless...she has a need to.
Note that she also explains why the information is "relevant", as it is in "evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
"current nominee" is the first person to enter the statement after the recipient (Feinstein) and the author.
"Current nominee" is not "the nominee"; but "current." Here the word "current" is dependent; that is, it requires, like a "numeric", the element of time.
This tells us as her priority, distancing herself from information, there is an expectation of a future nominee.
Consider that the author's priority is having the "nominee" replaced with another.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
After the initial priority of being both "with" information and claiming the information is "relevant", the author goes back to herself with "as a constituent."
This use of identifying herself is consistent with her priority of having a successive nominee.
Did you notice how she did not write, "until you and I have further opportunity"? She wrote "we."
The author has just told us that she is united with Diane Feinstein in her priority: getting a nominee who is not "current."
The author is united with the recipient in this context.
She now gets to the accusation. We seek a linguistic commitment, even with the passage of time, that includes processing.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's.
a. "current nominee" is now "Brett Kavanaugh." This is without his title of judge, and it is an incomplete social introduction.
b. Linguistic Disposition: the incomplete social introduction is, in context, a negative linguistic disposition. Given the context of "nominee to the Supreme Court", the lack of title is noted.
Next, note the assault: "physically" comes before "sexually", which in the context of a sexual assault is unusual.
Note the element of time is present: "during" and "in the early 80's."
Expectation: Sexual assault is trauma producing and it is strongly in the memory of the victim (age appropriate) and we do not expect to see "physical" written before "sexual", and we not expect a life changing event to be generalized by a decade.
Thus far we have:
a. motive
b. weak commitment ("relevant")
c. Distance ("with")
We now add unexpected order of event and the lack of commitment to a specific date.
Being a victim of sexual assault and of many years to process, the date is expected to be "memorialized" as a life changing event. It is not an estimate within a decade.
He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
a. "conducted" is not the language of assault. It is the language of an ongoing, methodical process. This leads us to ask, "did the subject have consensual sexual contact with the accused?"
b. "these acts" Incongruent with a sexual assault.
c. "with" between people indicates distance. Why would the author not wish to put the two assailants together?
Consider the question:
Why would the author minimize sexual assault?
Was there some form of contact and possible humiliation perceived on the part of the author?
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
In the author's account, we do not have one assaulted but an author perceiving herself as exploited; being that they "both" were "one to two years older than me."
A sexual assault of peers (teen or adult) rather than of a child, is not likely to include the ages. This inclusion should cause further consideration of the author being personally insulted or even humiliated.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Note the unnecessary emphasis upon self. If she was assaulted, she would have to have been at the locale. That it included "four others" would provide corroboration of her account.
It is interesting that she did not give the location of the sexual assault but the location as "suburban Maryland area" which is not only an estimate, but unnecessary information.
The author is not making a "linguistic commitment" to a sexual assault.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom
The word "physical" is unnecessary; therefore, very important. We should ask,
"Did the author feel "pushed" in a way other than physical?" This would support the language of "older than me."
Note additional emphasis upon self.
When someone offers that the account can be corroborated, we note the "need" for it, which reduces linguistic commitment. Sexual assault is unique, personal, up close and trauma producing.
It is not in the language. The wording "physically pushed" causes us to ask, "Is there another type of pushing other than physical to the author?" Did the author experience emotional "pushing" to something she did not want to do?
as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.
Although the author refuses to date beyond a decade, and refuses to identify a location, yet here she tells us where she was "headed" while he "physically pushed" her.
This is narrative building language; what cops often call "story telling." Subjects who engage in this often believe they will be seen as credible for giving such detail. Casey Anthony invented a "nanny" to conceal her murder of her daughter and told police, "she has perfect teeth."
Narrative building, or "story telling" includes commentary:
They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
We have the language that avoids saying, "I screamed "no" but they played loud music" in her sentence.
Q. Could this be from the years of processing?
A. It could.
Note, however, the need to use the word "attempt" and "successful" as a possible hina clause; or an explanation as to "why" she did not scream or yell.
In this scenario, the sentence would look like this:
They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
It is as if to preempt, "why didn't you yell?" Yet, in such a claim, we would not have asked this, but listened to her. Anticipation of a question or objection is the highest level of sensitivity in a statement.
We now see both passive voice and the potential humiliation:
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.
Note that she places him "on top" of "me" (over emphasis upon self; minimization on the assault is incongruent with sexual assault victims)
Passive voice is a psychological term of weak commitment.
a. He physically pushed me
b. He was on top of me
She did not say how he got on top of her (passivity conceals responsibility ).
Why would the author conceal the responsibility of why he was on top of her.
Note the inclusion of "while laughing" which is not "laughed", but an ongoing issue for the author.
This "while laughing" came "with" the redacted accused. (consider the LD of the author towards the redacted accused; the distancing language within the accusation of sexual assault).
"While laughing" is a linguistic signal of humiliation. This is, in context, while not making a reliable accusation of sexual assault.
We find this humiliation in many false accusations.
They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.
"laugh" is repeated. The analyst should carefully consider that the author is driven by humiliation, while not giving a reliable statement. This may be part of the motivation or the "trigger" for sending the letter.
"tried" means attempted but failed. Ex: "I tried to tell the truth" (President Clinton)
"disrobe" is minimalist language; not the language of a sexual assault. To "disrobe" is a slowing down of a pace and of will. Sexual assault includes much stronger language; even after decades of processing, because it was an assault. Sexual assailants do not "disrobe" their victims.
"Their highly inebriated state" is not to say "they were drunk." They were in a "state" in the author's verbalized perception of reality. One should consider why the author employs this language when reporting of a personal sexual assault.
With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
She does not say how he got his hand over her mouth. She skips over time and she wants us to interpret this as something he did. Truthful victims of sexual assault tell us what happened.
Note the additional unnecessary word, "inadvertently" tells us that the author is not only commenting, but is refusing to commit to her charge. She speaks to Kavanagh's intention, and if the assailant of a sexual assault was "trying to disrobe" her, he would not mean to kill her.
This is an example of a weak commitment to an inflated statement. The author knows otherwise.
Next, we have communicative language. She has not told us that she told him "no" or screamed. She preempted this question from being asked.
We now allow the communicative language to guide us.
"My boss said to be here at 8am" uses the two way and softer communicative word, "said."
"My boss told me to be here..." uses the stronger, "told"
In sexual assault, we do not expect soft communicative language to be associated with the word, "no."
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
She uses the word "said" associated with "stop"; which is incongruent.
This may explain why she distanced herself from the 2nd accused.
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.
The author does not commit to trying to get away. The passivity of such means she wishes to be interpreted as trying to get away, without committing to it. This is a tool used commonly in deception as direct fabrication or lying causes internal stress.
Note "I was able to take" is not, "I ran..."
Note: "...and run across" using the verb "run" reducing commitment.
"opportune moment" is consistent with both long term processing and narrative building.
Which is it?
The analyst must consider it in context, thereby combining the lack of commitment with this point.
I locked the bathroom door behind me.
This sentence would be reliable if she had not added "behind me" which points back to the accused unnecessarily. This is something done when being chased or when one is involved in the scene.
Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.
Note the revisiting of potential eye witnesses is given the gender neutral pronoun "persons" here. This also is given the distancing language of "with" separating the two accused with the non-gender "persons."
They are not "people" but "persons" in the author's language.
I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
She didn't run out, but she "exited" and then "ran." This change of language should be considered in context with "laugh" and "laughing" as humiliation.
The Rule of the Negative:
We expect the author to tell us what happened, what she said and what she saw. We do not expect her to tell us what she did not do:
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault.
a,. Why the need to elevate not seeing him?
b. Did she see him but not "knowingly"?
c. "the assault" is not "since he attacked me" or "since he assaulted me."
Sexual assault is deeply personal and invasive. This is lacking from the statement.
I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
She interprets redacted's body language and reports no communication.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.
Note the imperfect commitment to the medical treatment. She does not tell us what was injured nor what treatment (medical) was needed.
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.
That "discussing" sexual assault as "upsetting" is unnecessary information. This unnecessary information should be considered as artificial placement and ingratiation to genuine victims. It is interesting to note this language given her profession.
"I feel guilty" is to be seen in context of:
a. weak commitment
b. avoidance
c. minimization
d. distancing language.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.
She is "available" and given the unnecessary emphasis upon "self", we should believe her.
Analysis Conclusion
Deception Indicated
If the subject is describing an event between her and two teenagers, it is not a sexual assault but of something deeply embarrassing to her.
Her motive is political.
Her trigger is that they laughed at her.
She was not sexually assaulted and is manipulative. This is why she avoids giving a date, time and witnesses. Her attorney has now said it is not her responsibility to corroborate her account.
Her secondary motive is recognition.
A Reliable Denial is a classification in Statement Analysis. The opposite is an Unreliable Denial. Many analysts and investigators use "not reliable" when they suspect the subject is innocent, yet has not brought himself to make a reliable denial.
A Reliable Denial has three components:
1. The pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb "did not" (or "didn't"). Only Reid differentiates between the two. This is not supported by findings.
3. The allegation addressed.
If the subject adds or subtracts to this formula, the denial is no longer "Reliable" though it does not, by itself, indicate deception.
If a subject fulfills all three and is asked why he should be believed and says, "I told the truth" or "I am telling the truth", it is 99% likely to be accurate.
Let's look at elements 2 and 3 and denials, especially in the current Supreme Court nomination accusation.
"Did you ever assault Christine Ford?"
"I never assaulted Christine Ford."
The response is not reliable or technically, "Unreliable." This is because "never" is to avoid a specific time of the allegation. Lance Armstrong did not say "I did not take PEDs" but used "never" repeatedly.
Also note that the answer will be influenced by the question using "ever", which is an error on the part of the interviewer/investigator.
In many interviews, the investigator strongly believed the subject did not "do it", but needed to continue to get the subject to freely speak, in order to obtain it.
"I did not harm the child" in a child homicide interview shows that the subject changed murder or killing, to "harm." This is Unreliable. We also hear this in child sexual molestation statements because the abuser did not, in his own subjective dictionary, did not "harm" (or physically injure) the victim.
In some interviews where I did not believe the subject "did it", the subject needed more questions to psychologically close the gap" between him and the allegation. In Employment theft, I use,
"You have been accused of taking the missing money. How do you respond?"
I avoid the morally charged, "stealing" because thieves do not "steal"; they "balance the account, reimburse" etc.
"Oh, I didn't realize you were accusing me. I didn't take the money."
I ask, "Why should I believe you?" and have heard,
"I don't care if you do or not. I am telling the truth..." or something along this. It is a marvelous time saver and focus of investigation.
Christine Ford's accusation has been analyzed and she is deceptive.
She estimates her event by decade, as well as locale. In her priority, she self referenced specifically in a political term: a "constituent."
This is to declare her own motive of being heard. A victim of sexual assault will often show motive within the statement; often being justice or being heard. These often refer to themselves as victims, survivors, or even "persons" in some form.
Dr. Ford is deceptive about her specific event in accusing Judge Kavanaugh. Although we have not had a great deal of statements from her, I don't doubt that she was a victim; likely early childhood sexual abuse.
With a deceptive statement, politicians may be exploiting her; howbeit willingly, as her agenda is within her own language. Yet, if she is to testify under perjury consequences, the context changes. She will be "alone" and if she perseverates using Kavanaugh as her target, an experienced interviewer/prosecutor is likely to uncover this.
In order for Judge Kavanaugh to issue a reliable denial, he must be brought to a specific allegation that took place in a specific time and location. Otherwise, he cannot respond.
Also, politicians behind Dr. Ford have insisted that the accused speak first.
This is not only a perversion of justice, but will not permit him to have psychological engagement with an accusation. He cannot deny that which he is not accused of.
The leftist theme of "I believe women" is to harm genuine victims of sexual assault. It is the ultimate "crying wolf" at the expense of those who have suffered most.
Leftism is not about any singular issue, nor is it a moral cause. It is about the psychological need to control. This is why the moral or ethical code can change rapidly in culture. It is why we often hear adult core values appear to change. These core adult values do not really change. In private, the same person will revert to his or her comfort level. This is why you hear "I support the LGBT community!" while privately holding homosexuals in contempt.
The core adult value is outwardly sacrificed for the sake of control and imposition.
It is why violence is indicated; historically and presently.
It is why normally civil people can begin to harass and stalk someone at a restaurant. When others gather (or are called), mob psychology takes over and the results can be lethal.
It is why Leftism makes the unnecessary claim of "tolerance"; as it is intolerant. It is both "unnecessary" and "moralizing." If it was tolerant, it would need no such claim.
Everything is political now, because control is insatiable and it is competitive.
This is why we see the almost comedic "who is the most outraged?" contest of competition among news pundits, college kids or others.
They are the soft targets for politicians. By making everything in life, including our private lives, social lives, sex lives, nutrition, etc, part of politics, nothing is neutral. Today we cannot even watch sports or listen to music without the need to tell us what "correct thinking" (and speaking) looks like.,
With the psychological need for control, we've seen a rapid departure from classic liberalism (freedom of speech, college debates, irreverent humor, etc) to extremism.
Disagreement with the current status quo is met with claims of extremism and hyperbole. If you do not like the president, make him the verbal equivalent of a tyrant guilty of killing tens of millions of people. Mike Pence said he believes in marriage as defined for human history. The media responded claiming he would "round up gays and put them in concentration camps." This has a psychological numbing affect on most, yet can impact others to respond in violence.
Controlling the Thoughts of Others
With the psychological need to control, tolerance cannot be permitted. This is why debate is considered "hate speech" and "unsafe for college kids."
Once deeply respected by classic liberalism, disagreement and scientific scrutiny is now silenced with "hate speech." Those who do not study history fail to understand that "no taxation without representation" was both hate speech and put lives, freedom, homes, property, family, etc, in harm's way.
The indoctrination in American colleges is escalating.
Learning is about confrontation and taking us out of our comfort level.
In mental health facilities, signs are posted to "celebrate your reality" which, too, has its consequences. As those who wish to counter acute mental health issues, they risk their professional standing and even their license, by the crowd "shouting" to control diverse thought.
The comparison to the small sample in New England (and Europe) of the "Salem Witch Hunt" of hysteria, guilt by crowd, and pervasion of justice is an appropriate thematic comparison.
It does not render an opinion on the testimony, but demands adherence instead. It is contrary to both justice and to freedom.
There are examples here of genuine victims' language indicating veracity followed by examples of fraudulent claims of victim status following closely behind.
Analysts here do pro bono work for genuine female victims of sexual abuse. The data base of language is continually growing. Specialized training for Sex Crimes Units helps identify genuine victims, even when recalling dissociative events, which mirrors deception. I still fail to quantify the life long suffering of such victims. Adding the "boy who cried wolf" element to genuine victims by false claims and the politicians who exploit them, increases suffering.
Working with victims has often put me at odds with advocates. The zealousness of the advocate, including in "helping" write affidavits in support of protection orders, relies upon deception or exaggeration. Its toll is predictable. Genuine victims do not need to deceive, which can destroy their entire case for safety.
The fraudulent claim against Kavanaugh, combined with the orchestrated outbursts, theatrics ("I am Spartacus") and the claim that a "woman must be believed" has consequence far beyond this small moment in history. Major League Baseball will suspend a player on an accusation by a woman, without adjudication. Where will this lead? To whom will the ultimate control rest?
As the subject, Dr. Christine Ford, indicated her motive as political, it would be disingenuous to ignore it. Those who claim personal offense at such likely need to read elsewhere in news, blogs or websites where they can read without offense.
Although Judge Kavanaugh claimed he was telling the truth, we need to hear a Reliable Denial coupled with this buttress of telling the truth, to know with certainty.
He cannot issue a RD without a specific allegation. He must be brought psychologically close to the event by the language of the accuser in order to address it.
The analysis shows Dr. Ford is deceptive and politically motivated. It is only if she issues a direct accusation that the accused can answer us.
