Posted on 04/05/2017 3:42:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A few days ago, Mike Cernovich broke the news that ex-Obama advisor Susan Rice had asked for the identities of Americans caught up in electronic surveillance of foreigners, including some Trump associates. After Mike broke the story, the big news organizations followed. I asked my well-informed Trump-hating friend what he thought of the story.
He said he hadnt heard of it.
I was surprised. It was the headline news. While we were on the phone, he checked CNNs website on his computer and informed me that no such story existed. In his words, it was probably fake news that he assumed I saw on Breitbart or some other site he considers below his standard of news excellence.
So I asked him to navigate over to Business Insider (partly owned by Jeff Bezos) to see if the story was there. And sure enough, it was. Prominently. My friend read the story and agreed it should have been covered on CNN as well.
Thats when I had the entertaining experience of explaining to my friend that his news habit of relying on CNN and the New York Times made him more of a victim of manipulation than a consumer of news. I explained that unless he is sampling stories from both sides (left and right), he is being completely misled by one of the sides. Both sides get the facts right, usually, and eventually. The manipulation comes in the form of what they emphasize and what they deemphasize. CNN apparently decided that the Susan Rice story was not important news. Coincidentally, this particular news also made them look like ridiculous turds for mocking the Trump wiretapping claim non-stop as a sign of the presidents character and perhaps his sanity.
We dont know all the facts yet, but we do know that Trumps claim of being wiretapped by Obama is starting to look dangerously close to something similar to the truth. CNN did not see that coming, and it would be awkward to walk-back all of their mocking. So they just sort of ignored it.
A few days after the event, when I assumed CNN had caught up to the pack, I Googled Susan Rice to update myself on the story before writing this blog post. CNNs top story on Susan Rice is from 2012. See it at the bottom.
Anyway, my point today is about Susan Rices unusual wording in denying any leaking of the Trump surveillance information. She said, I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would.
When I learned to be a hypnotist, my instructor taught the class that some types of verbal slips are actually a message of honesty from the subconscious. Rices odd wording leaves open the possibility that she leaked SOMETHING to someone. To a hypnotist, Rices choice of words would be regarded as an unintentional confession of leaking.
To be perfectly clear, I have no science to back this point. And I assume some hypnotists would see it differently. But I have been tracking this sort of verbal slip for decades, and I find it surprisingly predictive.
The example our hypnosis teacher used in class is that when you are on a first date with a woman, and she intends to say, Im famished, but uses the wrong word and says, Im ravished instead, she is signalling an interest in sex. I didnt believe that was true until a woman mixed-up those two words on a date with me. That date worked out well.
I dont know if Susan Rice is being honest in her denial of leaking. But if I had to bet, Id go with my training.
If she leaked nothing to nobody then she leaked something to somebody. QED.
Perhaps Rice was using Clintonian linguistics. When Hillary was asked about wiping a server, she asked “with a cloth”? Similarly, Susan Rice may have interpreted the word “leaking” to imply urinary incontinence and, of course was taken aback at Andrea Mitchell’s inquiry and thus responded in a non-grammatical fashion.
I’ve read all the stuff she has said but today I watched her, she sure blinked a lot.
I think her phrasing is consciously deliberate. As Scott writes, technically it means that she did mean something to someone. This way she gives the impression that she did not, and yet — by a technicality — she is telling the truth when she admits to having leaked the information.
Seems right to me
I agree with Scott that Rice is not being truthful, for Freudian slips, and her body language. In the PBS interview, every single body movement is shut down, and, she appears to pass responsibility off to the president in her explanation(Zero). And in the second interview, same body language, but right as the camera cuts to a long shot, she laughs and possibly tongue juts. Inappropriate to the question; a chance to disguise/justify a few deep breaths.
This is a technique used to defeat a lie detector. Takes practice and skill, but it works (so I am told).
Can it beat a waterboard?
Depends on who is running the bucket and who is holding the towel.
Rice mostly has that dead pan look. She’s mostly lying.
That would be “I leaked nothing ON nobody”.
Actually it means she leaked something to everybody.
Rice’s use of a double negative was her message to the street that she is going to pull the race card. Its guaranteed.
PING!!!
Article (Scott Adams) and comments
From article:
When I learned to be a hypnotist, my instructor taught the class that some types of verbal slips are actually a message of honesty from the subconscious. Rices odd wording leaves open the possibility that she leaked SOMETHING to someone. To a hypnotist, Rices choice of words would be regarded as an unintentional confession of leaking.
Thanks, 2ndDivisionVet
Sargeant Schultz tecnique - “I see nothing! I know nothing!”
kinda like “dindu nuffin”
From the movie “Jaws” - she has doll’s eyes, and when bites you the roll around and you see the whites of her eyes..”
I agree. It’s the race card, not a confession via double negative.
So she may have been denying what the FakeNews dossier accused President Trump of paying for? Disgusting in all respects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.