Thursday, March 23, 2017

Samantha Brown: "I Would Never Hurt My Children"

Just how far will someone go to avoid saying, "I didn't..." when seeking to deny without really denying an allegation?  

This is a good short quote for analysis.  

Using the word "never" is sometimes due to wanting to make a specific time period appear vague.  

Repeating it is unnecessary emphasis.  

PITTSBURGH, Pa.  A mom in Pennsylvania is charged with attempted homicide involving her children.
 Samantha Brown, 27, from East McKeesport is accused of giving her 8 and 9-year-old sons prescription medication used to treat seizures and panic disorders.
The children were rushed to the hospital on March 1 after they became ill at school.
Police say both boys were foaming at the mouth, and one was unresponsive.
Police also say Brown told them she, quote: “didn’t want the kids anyway.”
But Brown says she never said that.
“I would never do the things I’m being accused of, never.  I love my children. I would never hurt my children. Never hurt my children ever.”

There is a progression here. 

"would never" is conditional/future and avoids saying, "I did not" 

"I love my children" is an unnecessary element used to justify one's own actions. 

"the things I'm being accused of" is a form of avoidance.  This is common in child abuse cases where the allegation is avoided or it is minimized.  In a child murder, "I would never harm my child" 

We find the minimization to be used frequently in childhood sexual abuse, sometimes with the verb "did not" as in:

"I did not hurt my child" which asserts "hurt", and in child sexual abuse, the lack of physical pain may produce this statement.  This avoids addressing the allegation.  

Given more time to speak, she might have used the proverbial, "I'm a good mother" statement which is closely related to child protective services intervention history.  

For training in detecting deception, visit and hit "training." 

UK Islamic Terrorist Attack Ideology

While on the road, I heard a partial description of the death of the police officer in London.  I almost pulled over to the side of the road, sick to my stomach.  

The police officer was unarmed.  

He works where there is more than 50% Islam, but does not possess the basic right to defend himself, that Americans have.  

The denial of ideology is responsible for his death, as well as so many other deaths, rapes and the crime to come in the name of mohammad.

Here, the wisdom of Winston Churchill is desperately needed. 

Statement Analysis sees ideology, its impact upon culture, through both language and behavioral analysis.  

Islam is a political and social ideology that is supremacist and criminal in nature, with distinct sexual violence, with religious overtones.  As suspect as statistics are, even if more than 90% of all Muslims reject Jihad, we have 100,000,000 who do not. 

The Koran and hadiths teach supremacy, violence and sexual degradation of women.  This is the ideology.  Barak Obama and Angela Merkel have been two major architects in bringing "change" to the West by importing this violent base ideology all the while declaring that those who disagree are mentally ill (phobic) and morally unworthy of an opinion (hateful, nazi, islamophobic). 

The imans deliberately target those with mental health issues for exploitation. 

Turkey tells Muslims in Europe to continue to "outbreed" Europeans to conquer, while western support systems are overwhelmed with birth defects and learning disabilities due to Islamic close marriage inbreeding.  

Europe pays for child rape with Islamic child marriages. 
Tax dollars are used for female genital mutilation. 

Those who speak out can be barred, fined, and even imprisoned.  

Mosques are storage houses for weapons and violent ideology, while citizens are disarmed.  

Sweden is the rape capital of the West, no matter how much effort is made by politicians to obscure statistics and protect their religious-like submission to "multiculturalism" (without discrimination).  

In the United States, the FBI has routinely told us:  Mosques do not cooperate with law enforcement.  They claim to want peace, but will not yield information on jihadists.  

But police disarmed in the UK?

This is the absurdity of illogic and refusal to speak the truth about both Islam and its appeal to the base elements within human nature. 

As soon as steps are taken to protect Americans, the political elite claim "Naziism!" 

Islam is inconsistent with freedom. 

When a state votes to exclude Sharia law from its courts, why does CAIR and other Muslim associations object?

Do they not want to be safe from brutal Sharia?

The West says it is not at war with Islam but Islam is at war with the West and the invasion has political cover and has been funded by the West.  

It is to watch history unfold before our eyes, as the Gates of Vienna have not only been opened, but the invaders have been met with offerings of both finance and praise. 

Barak Obama's Ben Rhodes boasted how stupid the American public was when he sold the plan to make Iran a nuclear weapons country while Obama lied repeatedly to the American people, as he gathered untraceable cash payments to supplement Iran's terror network.  

Refugee Status 

Why would Muslims in America object to vetting?

Refugee companies get wealthy, political elite get votes, and citizens are endangered by an ideology that demands their surrender if they want "peace."  

The Lies

Obama's "widows and orphans" have been up to 90% male, 18-35, often posting as "children", receiving welfare benefits just as the smugglers (and Koran) promised, further affirming the supremacy of Islam.  For these, whatever money they are given, it is not enough.  It is, to them, the "jizrah" the Koran teaches, that must be paid to the Islamist by the non-Islamist, "infidel."

The Hijab, or coverings, is a teaching of the Koran that exempts women from sexual assault, allowing for non-hijab or covered women to be sexually abused.  The hypocrisy of feminists wearing it is front and center.  

In October 2001, British Prime Minister held a press conference where he stated:  "This is not a war with Islam. It angers me as it angers the vast majority of Muslims to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran."

George W. Bush after 9/11 said, "Terrorists have hi-jacked a peaceful religion."

This was not an error, but a lie as bold as Barak Obama's scolding of Christians each time Islam took lives.  

The two presidents motives may have been different, but the end is still as Obama said:

Either give Muslims free entry into the United States or they will attack us.  

This is surrender.  

He said, "America is better than that.  We don't vet by religion" as he barred almost 99% of Syrian Christians from entering in favor of Islam.  

When British Army soldier was run over and beheaded on the streets of Woolwich, England in May 2013 by two Muslims, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  

"This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and on the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.  There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

After British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Muslims in ISIS on video in September 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  "They claim to do this in the name of Islam.  That is nonsense.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They are not Muslims.  They are monsters."

Islam is a religion of "peace", that is, the cessation of violence once you submit.  You are then at "peace." 

Societal, with supremacy, Islamic nations remain ripe with violence due to the inherent nature of supremacy and the inequalities of life.  

"Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them" (Koran 9:5) 

This is taught in prisons everywhere:  'You are a victim, not a perpetrator.  You are better than them.  You are their superior and have been defrauded.  Fight for allah!' 

London elected a jihadist mayor who agreed with Barak Obama: either let Muslims have free entry into western countries and pay them for not doing any work, or they will be even more violent.  

Note:  he has already said the West must learn to "live with it."

This is not a time for teddy bears and tears.  It is time for action.  

This ideology of supremacy must always lead to violence.  As long as there are those unwilling to yield to it, there will always be violent coercion. 

We do not address individuals, but ideologies.  

Muslims who resist Jihad are often the first targets and the first to yield to threats of violence.  

When Islam gains footing in an area, the non religious Muslims are the first to side with Islam, as they know the violence that can come to them as "apostates."

Islam teaches that you are not allowed to leave. 

Islam teaches that it cannot be reformed, which is why it has resisted reformation for 1400 years.  It calls for the death for anyone who even questions it, hence the silence. 

Although people have done bad things in the name of religion, for Jews and Christians, the evil done is in opposition to its own teaching. 

For Islam, it is "devout" and it is "obedience" to commit acts of violence, including specifically using knives and terror.  

see:  Leathernecks and the Tripolitan War, our nations first fight against Islam.  

This is why beheading is so popular.  It is "sacred" to the teaching of Islam.  

The obsession with sex (see Islam hygiene) produces not only execution of homosexuals, but the rape of little boys as a cultural acceptance.  Many American and British soldiers first confronted this in Afghanistan, made helpless by "political correctness" (fear of hurting the rapists feelings or insulting Mohammad), they were traumatized by the cries of the young boys' bodies being torn apart.  Those who did intervene paid a terrible price upon their careers.  For American policy:  to stop an Afghan male from raping a little boy was to insult Islam and mohammad.  

Yet, main stream media refused to question why.  

Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men...Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

[Winston Churchill, The River War (Volume II, 1st edition), pages 248-250]

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Andrew King: Fake Hate

Andrew King reported a swastika was painted on his home.  Here are some quotes: 

"Just a vein of fear went right through me," said King, 54, a devout Jew who said he is almost always wearing his yarmulke when in and out of his home. "All that history attached to that Nazi symbol."

With powerful emotion, we look for sentences that begin with the pronoun "I" to score higher on reliability.  

King said he has never experienced any anti-semitism in the neighborhood.

"It's pretty quiet," King said, as he took a break from preparation for Friday's observation of the Jewish Sabbath. "I don't ever hear any noise. It's a well-kept, clean neighborhood."

The media sought to link him to politics.  This appears to be in response to questions: 

"I'm a strong advocate of Mr. Trump's politics," King said. "I am a strong Conservative. I do not point the finger at Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump is basically an honorable man."

It appears from his answer that he may have been asked questions in an attempt to link the swastika to Donald Trump.  The article suggests as much.  

King said if the vandals wanted to get political, they should have spray-painted the image of a donkey -- the Democratic Party's longtime symbol -- on his house.

This should have been reported in a quote; it is not. It appears, even without a quote, he may have taken the bait. 

King, who said he is retired on disability, said he also felt anger when he saw his damaged home. "I just wanted to put my hands around their necks," he said.

Next, we get his agenda. 

Consider the swastika to a Jew is a threat.

  A threat that is on one's own home is intrusive. 

 Home is where we sleep; our most vulnerable time in life.  The language should reflect this personal, intrusive threat.  

Instead we get:  

"This can show people who thrive on hate, in my opinion, that love trumps hate in the long run," King said. "I will consult with the religious community and see how long we should leave them up, Jewish, Christian and Muslim.
"Things happen," King also said. "My father used to say, 'Only the strong survive.' You have to have a certain amount of strength in this world to survive. Otherwise, life is going to be very difficult."

Andrew King has been arrested for the false report.  

Media reporting that he may not be Jewish.  

Jennifer Sisk

Attorney Jennifer Sisk sent a warning letter claiming that Judge Gorsuch was "sexist", making him unfit for the Supreme Court.  

Here is the portion of the letter about "what happened", allowing us to analyze to learn:

                         Is Jennifer Sisk telling the truth?

[Gorsuch]"He asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby. Judge Gorsuch specifically targeted females and maternity leave. This question was not about parents or men shifting priorities after having children. It was solely focused on women using their companies.
I do not remember if any students raised their hands, but it was no more than a small handful of students. At that point, Judge Gorsuch became more animated saying “C’mon guys.” He then announced that all our hands should be raised because “many” women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born."

Here is the letter with emphasis added:

He asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby. 

This sentence is straight forward and is statistically reliable.  

Judge Gorsuch specifically targeted females and maternity leave. 

Here, she introduces his name and gives us an unnecessary sentence.  When asking if anyone knew of a "female" the question is about "females"; 

Note the choice of language:  "targeted.

If asked a question about "does anyone know of a man who...", the focus is upon the specific male gender.  
Note the word "specifically" as unnecessary.  Unnecessary words are deemed very important in analysis.  This falls under the category of "attempt to persuade" that belies weakness.

Q.  How could it be "attempt to persuade" since "female" is designated by both the question and the author's response?

A.  Asking "mothers" already specifies "female."  This makes it unnecessary/redundant, but also logically unnecessary.  The author's "over-emphasis" tells us more about herself than it does the gender of "mothers."

Remember:  our words reveal four elements:

1.  Our background
2.  Our experiences 
3.  Our priority/motive
4.  Our personality traits (including possible disorders/mental health) 

The word "specifically" seeks emotional, rather than logical response.  She is targeting female audience, while actually showing contempt for them presupposing that they would not know that "mothers" are "female" without her emphasis.  

This speaks to personality traits, including manipulation within a personality.  

a.  To address this focus is redundant.  As unnecessary information, it is, to the analysis, always very important. In this sense, 'the more unnecessary, the more important' stands. 

Redundancy is treated as "repetition", increasing importance. 

b.  The focus or topic is called "target" by the subject, specifically in an unnecessary sentence.  We should ask why she chose this word in this context where it is redundant.  

That this is "repeated" and it is "unnecessary", the analysis indicates an elevation of importance of "targeting."

One should consider if the subject is projecting here.  

This question was not about parents or men shifting priorities after having children. It was solely focused on women using their companies.

a.  This is unnecessary as the question was about women.  She now repeats the same theme, also increasing its importance to her.  This is how one reveals oneself; through the words chosen.  
b.  The Rule of the Negative

She now elevates sensitivity by telling us what he did not "target" in his question about women:  men. 

The topic of men, or "male" should be considered very sensitive to the author (subject) of the letter.

That she revisits redundancy (repetition) within an unnecessary statement, combined with the rule of the negative further heightens sensitivity.  

Truthful people tell us what happened, with repetition indicating importance.  Unnecessary repetition, within the negative, suggests further why the word "target" was employed.  

As truthful people, in an open statement, tell us what happened, the repetition tells us just how important this event was to the author.  Not only is it important enough to mail to United States congressmen and women, but it is important enough to repeat.  

We should consider that this event (the question by her teacher) is very important to the author, leaving an impression upon her.  With the opening sentence being statistically reliable, we must now learn why such a question would leave a powerful imprint upon memory.  
I do not remember if any students raised their hands, but it was no more than a small handful of students. 

Here, she tells us what she does not remember (rule of the negative) followed by the word "but", which minimizes or negates that which preceded it. 

She tells us, in an open statement, what she does not remember. 
She then rebuts her own statement.  She does not remember if "any" raised their hand, but then her rebuttal is that is was no more "than a small handful of students."

Deception Indicated. 

We now understand the projection suggested by the word "target" by the author.  

The event that left such a powerful impression (repetition) now leads to open statement discrepancy.  

The event is not coming from experiential memory.  

She now introduces more editorializing:  

At that point, Judge Gorsuch became more animated saying “C’mon guys.” 

Truthful people rely upon the strength of their testimony.  Here we have the need to persuade enter by the editorializing of the demeanor of Judge Gorsuch.  It is interesting to note where he is "he" and where he is "Judge Gorsuch" in the author's language.  This is also unnecessary repetition and violates the "law of economy."

Once introduced, Judge Gorsuch will likely become a pronoun and/or a shorter noun.  That the author feels the need to use the title and last name is unnecessary emphasis.  

He then announced that all our hands should be raised because “many” women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born.

He is no longer speaking or telling, he is "announcing" in the editorializing.  She does not attribute any quote nor near quote.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated 

Jennifer Sisk is deceptive.  
Jennifer Sisk is "targeting" the Judge.

Jennifer Sisk shows particular sensitivity towards males.  This should be explored for personal issues. 

Jennifer Sisk shows motive of agenda in her deception.  There is not enough sample here to know if motive extends beyond anti-male agenda onto self promotion (national stage), politics, etc. 

Jennifer Sisk's use of editorializing language shows experience with deception as well as a willingness to use deception on a large stage.  

She uses diversion in that she does not challenge the question but tells us what he did not do.  This is also a habitual technique that deceptive people use.  She attacks him not for what he said, but for what he did not say.  It shows sophistication in deception employment.  

This is associated with a lack of fear of external consequences as well as a lack of fear of internal consequences (conscience).  It is unknown if this is a childhood trait or a learned trait, as more sample would allow us to know more about inner conscience.  

Jennifer Sisk would not pass a polygraph employed with her own words. 

Expect classmates to dispute her account.  

For training in statement analysis (deception detection) visit 

Seminars and at-home training.  

Special tuition plans for law enforcement.  

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Law Enforcement's Deceptive Statement of the Day

When I receive a great quote from law enforcement, I will post it as the "Deceptive Statement of the Day."

LEO:  please submit your favorite Deceptive Statement of the Day via "contact."

This one comes from the Southeast US via a well experienced investigator and analyst:  

“I can say I know for like a fact that he ain’t go nowhere and do nothing.”

Monday, March 20, 2017

"Don't Remember" Under Oath

20 March, 2017  1:05PM EST.

The failure to remember is considered by many experts to be the number one deceptive answer under oath. 


"I don't remember" when it is combined with two additional elements to a question that is a "yes or no" question regarding direct contact with the administration of a president of the United States regarding surveillance of an incoming president.  

1.  Lengthy pause 
2.  Dropped the pronoun "I"

What would this suggest?

"Don't remember."  

The subject has the need to consider carefully his answer, and psychologically, he has a need to distance himself from the answer of not remembering.  

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Donna Brazille Statements and Morals

  Donna Brazille has recently spoken out about her cheating (giving Hilary Clinton advanced questions) and lying to the American public regarding the 2016 presidential election.  

Has she now expressed regret at both cheating and lying?  

We need only to listen to her words.  Her words, like all of us, reveal our background, experiences, priorities and morals, as well as personality traits.  

Wikileaks is, for many, the most "pure" news source in that they present without commentary the information given to them.  They present the information without editing. 

This means it "reports news" as the news is, with no interpretation nor classification.  

During the 2016 presidential election, Wikileaks revealed emails that showed that DNC Donna Brazille sent Hillary Clinton the debate questions ahead of time to give her the advantage.  

What her statements reveal is not only how she uses deception, but how she justifies deception.  

This week, she has said it is a "mistake I will forever regret."

Was it a "mistake"?

What about what she said about the email?

For Donna Brazille, an incriminating revelation from Wikileaks turned up in John Podesta’s leaked emails. It  is a message sent by Donna Brazile with the subject, “From time to time I get the questions in advance.

Megyn Kelly asked her about this. 

Question for Analysis:  Is Donna Brazille truthful or deceptive? 

MEGYN KELLY: You're accused of receiving a debate question whether a CNN town hall where they partnered with TV One that you had this question on March 12th, that verbatim, verbatim was provided by Roland Martin to CNN the next day. How did you get that question, Donna?

The question is "How did you get that question, Donna?" using her first name for emphasis.  This brings emphasis to the question itself.   

DONNA BRAZILE: Well, Kelly, as I play straight up and with you, I did not receive any questions from CNN

The Reliable Denial has 3 components but when there is either addition or subtraction, it is no longer reliable.  Here we have additions to the denial.  Note

a.  "well" is a need to pause, showing sensitivity to the question. 
b.  The present tense language 
c.  The inclusion of the word "play", which is associated more with "games" than with truthful reporting.  That she says she "plays straight up" not only reduces reporting to a type of game, but it suggests that she has not "always" (past tense) "played straight up" with weighty events such as this.  

d. Besides classifying what she does as a "game", she uses the present tense "play."  This is a very common form of an unreliable denial that is closely associated with deception. 


It is not only an Unreliable Denial, it is also a type of avoidance.  She is telling us what she does now. 

When asked if one lied, a common response is to avoid saying, "I did not lie" but to say "I don't lie" or "I'm not one who needs to tell lies", and so on.  

I analyze statements daily in which this, in some form, is found.  

These words added to her denial nullify it causing us to classify it as "unreliable."  We now look to see if she will issue a reliable denial, and affirm it truthfully, or if she will show us why she issued the unreliable denial, by further giving us information that includes deception.   

KELLY: Where did you get it?

Kelly, the Interview, noticed the introduction to the denial, but she also noticed the additional wording, "from CNN."   

Since she denied getting it from CNN, the question is, "Where did you get it?" 

BRAZILE: What information? Allow me to see what you're talking about. 

We note that the question is "where did you get it?" and the question is answered by a question.  This means the question, "Where did you get it?" is very sensitive to Brazile. She not only avoids answering it, but then affirms its existence, asking only to be allowed to see it.  She wants to know the source.  

This is another form of diversion.  

Note the interview is about the Wikileaks emails that came out. 

KELLY: You've got the Wikileaks showing you messaging the Clinton campaign at the March 13th CNN debate.

The IR answers the question allowing for the subject to deny the connection.  

"I didn't write that", or something similar, would be a denial.   

BRAZILE: As a Christian woman, I understand persecution. your information is false. What you're -- well, for suggestive e-mails were stolen. You're interested and you're like a thief that wants to bring into the night the things that.
We note several interesting points in the answer:

1.  "Christian" is similar to the entrance of "Deity" to an answer.  This is a strong indicator of deception.  It shows the need to persuade the listener why she would not lie  

2.  Gender is now invoked.  This is, in context, "victim mentality status" which, with "Christian" is used to not only avoid making a denial, but to appeal to victim status, specifically, Christians and females.  It is, in this sense, an attempt to portray strength by appealing to women.  It is manipulation and it helps classify the subject has a habitual or pathological liar who employs her intellect in deception.  Her need to have 50% of the audience (considering a 50/50 gender split) reveals weakness besides manipulation.  

3.  Note "I understand persecution" is in the present tense. She does not say "I am being persecuted because I am a Christian woman."  Most (90%) avoid direct lies.  She is not being persecuted, nor does being Christian or female part of persecution.  This is a deliberate tangent or avoidance, which seeks to change the topic.  This is another signal of deception.  

She has been accused, via the released email, of sending to Clinton the advanced question.  It is very easy to deny.  It does not take many words to do so.  

This is similar to one writing many pages of a letter or hold a news conference rather than issue a denial.  The factually innocent state the truth.  

4.  "Your information is false" does not specify which information she is referring to.  This avoids saying, "I did not write that email that Wikileaks revealed..." 

5.  Broken sentences = self censoring.  This indicates missing information. 

6.  Accusation:  "you're like a thief" is another avoidance technique in which the "victim" now accuses the "persecutor", though she is unable (or unwilling) to follow through with the accusation.  This is another signal of deception.  It is also another indication of the habitual nature of her language.  

7.  The last sentence is an attempt to quote the Bible. This, too, falls under both "avoidance" and "Deity" are is a signal of deception in her response.  

8.  It is important to note that she introduced theft into her statement. 

Does she consider what Wikileaks did in revealing this information to be "theft"?  Or is it the one who gave Wikileaks the information?

Remember, the party itself blamed the Russians for losing the election; not the material contained itself . This is the equivalent of refusing to answer the message, choosing to blame the messenger instead.  

Brazile argued she will not "validate falsified information." Brazile said the e-mail is "altered."

"altered" and "falsified" are different than "fake" emails.  It is interesting to note that in her accusation there may be thought of how CNN told the American public that it was illegal for them to read Wikileaks, as CNN read Wikileaks on camera.  
KELLY: CNN' Jake Tapper said this was unethical. Someone was unethically helping the Clinton campaign. He said this is very, very upsetting. 


This is very likely a truthful statement. It is also another point of attempting to manipulate.  Before it was "women" and now it is those who are fans of CNN.  

KELLY: This is Jake Tapper: 'My understand is that the e-mails came from Roland Martin and said this is very upsetting and troubling.'

That is your old colleague at CNN not Megyn Kelly. Who gave you that question? 

The interviewer sensed that someone other than self, is blamed, as she introduced "theft."  Megyn Kelly does not allow herself to be blamed.  

Brazille has not denied authorship of the email, but has used deceptive diversion coupled with manipulation and victim status.  This is an above average habitual liar.   

BRAZILE: Megyn, I'll say it on the record.
Here we have the denial for the record.  Will she say, "I did not author the email released by Wikileaks"?

Wikileaks maintains that they have never released false material and that they own a 100% reliable news record.  

This statement, "I'll say it on the record" is an unnecessary statement which further delays, via avoidance, the denial.  

I'm not going to try to validate falsified information.
This avoids saying the material is false.  It is a avoidance. She is answering an allegation that has not been made.  

 I have my documents. I have my files. 

She tells us what she possess while using this tangent to avoid the denial.  

Thank God I have not had my personal e-mails ripped off from me and stolen and given to some criminals to come back altered. I have my records and files. And as I said repeatedly, CNN, I never received anything.

 The subject continued to avoid answering a question and she continued to avoid issuing a denial. 

We now are given the reason why "theft" has entered her language. She does not say it did not happen, nor does she say that the email released is false.  She uses many words to avoid the truth.  This is something done by one well familiar with deception.  

"I never received anything."

This avoids:

a.  the past tense verb "did not"
b.  identifying the email. 

If she never received "anything" from CNN, would this include her paycheck? 

Yet, that is  not what she said. 

"CNN, I never received anything" even this avoids saying "I never received anything from CNN."  This is someone willing to even trip over her words rather than be honest. 

She also reveals herself as one who does not take personal responsibility for her actions.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated.  

Rather than simply deny the allegation, the subject uses repeated diversion tactics and attempts to portray herself as a victim, rather than directly lie outright.  

The deception also affirms that the wikileaks emails from the subject are genuine.  

When someone holds to a belief for forty or fifty years and suddenly, at the prompting of a politician, "changes", it signals that the public cannot trust them. Here, after the election, she introduces us to her "conscience."

This is where we are able to look into her character, priority, and history.  

“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” Brazile said in an interview with SiriusXM host Joe Madison, adding, "If I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”

She qualifies her conscience here, no longer as a "Christian", nor as a "woman" nor even as one who "understands persecution."  She now is speaking "as an activist, a strategist" and this is a very important statement. 

It is in her role in politics that she possesses a "very clear" conscience for cheating and lying. 

This is very important. 

Cheating and lying are justified by her when she is an "activist."  This is insight not only into her but the party she serves.  This is where the ends will justify the means.  They know what is best for others and if it means cheating (stealing the election, false votes, breaking laws, etc) and it something that will "clear" a conscience.  

The conscience is the "informed decision."  

But it is not only in "activism" that both cheating and lying are elements of a clear conscience, but it is in "strategy" that these elements may be employed.  

This is where our country's greatest split lies and why we are seeing free speech under attack from colleges.  

This is an example of moral narcissism.  

The moral narcissist holds that his or her belief is so superior to others that it even justifies violently coercing others into accepting it.  

This is why we are under a threat of civil war and why the rule of law is no longer in consideration.  

When her hero, Barak Obama, said he was "saving refugees, women and children", and "we don't discriminate on religion, we're better than that", he justified the importation of Islamic fighting age males, and the "refugees" ran between 97%  and 99% Islamic, revealing the willingness to lie.  We now see this in his followers, and even in judges who were presented with the exact same temporary travel bans, but who took no action when they came from the Obama administration.  In Europe, the deceptive officials admit that less than 28% are Syrian refugees, and admit that between 70 and 90% are males, with most 18 to 35 years of age.  As Merkel, Obama, Soros, and others sought to bring demographic "change", they have done so by importing a criminal supremacy ideology that is based upon violence, with sexual violence as a specific.  This was masked in a way that would appeal to those with the need to feel morally superior to others.  "If you agree with me, you are morally above those who do not agree.  "  In this, host citizens were not told the truth, nor given the choice of whether or not their tax dollars would be taken from them to pay for others; those that Muslim countries refused to take in due to danger.  

This is why when you disagree with someone who is a moral narcissist,  the rage burns and you are labeled  mentally ill (phobic) and morally unfit for their presence (hateful, nazi, racist, etc).  

This is how the winds of wars begin; personal hatred and fight for control.   

The need to silence opposition is not an element found within  truth.  

Donna Brazille's most recent statement?

"It is a mistake I will forever regret."

What is?

Putting it in email form rather than calling?


Getting caught?

Lying about it?

This is a moral narcissist who holds the world in contempt.  She shows a strong intellect, well familiar with deception, manipulation and diversion techniques.  

Although she attempts to quote the Bible, invoke Christianity and Deity, she must oppose the ideology of Christianity in order to justify her actions and have a "very clear" conscience.  

This is a strong indicator of what those around her can expect from her in the future.  

She is a habitual liar.