Conclusions on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Testimony During the Benghazi Hearing
As I watched many hours of the Benghazi Hearing on 22 October 2015, I started to do a content analysis on Secretary Clinton’s statements underlining the inconsistencies in her credibility. However there was just too much to break it down. I have provided a few examples. Also below my comments you will see conclusions of the hearing compiled by Sharon Roberts.
As an example of what I saw and heard during the hearing, HRC flipped the bird three times during approximately 10 minutes that Rep. Peter Roskam was asking her questions.
There were a number of occasions when she was asked yes or no questions but did not answer as such. Instead she gave lengthy responses without answering what was asked. Rep. Mike Pompeo reminded her that the questions were simple yes or no questions, and that he would give her a chance to elaborate but if she could stick to answering the questions it would be appreciated.
This is an example of listening carefully to exactly what is said, or not said. If the question asked isn’t being answered, why is that?
When asked if Ambassador Stevens was called when they learned of the attacks HRC responded that they tried to call him.
That may seem like a nit picky example. I am certain most people know what the word “try” means. (I tried to lose weight. I tried to stay awake). Nevertheless, it gets used frequently and often goes in one ear and out the other. That is because most people don’t pay attention to what is being said.
Her language tells us that she did not tell the American people everything she knew at the time. She stated they only “tried” to phone him. A better and more positive statement would have been to say, “Yes. We called him, repeatedly, and it went to voice mail.”
Do or do not. There is no try. – Yoda
There were other inconsistencies however, I want to get onto the conclusions compiled by Sharon Roberts below:
1. Proof emerged that Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice, and the others were guilty of a political spin (re: video) on Benghazi which was to ensure Obama won the Presidency 56 days later. The day after Benghazi, Sec. Clinton sent her daughter an email saying Benghazi was a terrorist attack by Al Quaeda. Clinton also was honest with the head of Egypt. Continue reading
Listen to what people tell you. They will usually tell you the truth. For example, take the never ending Hillary Clinton email server controversy. Intelligence officials have confirmed that there was classified information on her private email server.
Yet while campaigning in Iowa today she told reporters that she “did not send or nor did she receive material marked classified from her email server” while Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. According to most recent reports, it appears that statement could be correct; thus far the emails in question were not marked as classified. She is likely telling the truth about that.
Listen to what people tell you. They will usually tell you the truth.
However, the issue with her emails is not about markings on certain emails. The issue is about the existence of classified content on her private server. Note she did not say she “did not send or nor did she receive classified material from her email server.” She said she didn’t send or nor did she receive material marked classified. How all this plays out remains to be seen. My point here is to highlight the importance of listening carefully to word choice. Continue reading
As I type this I can’t get Michael Jackson’s Black or White song out of my head… “It don’t matter if you’re black or white.”
Rachel Dolezal is the Caucasian NAACP Spokane president who has been identifying herself as black for quite some time but more recently has been caught up trying to deceive others that she actually is African American. In the brief video interview below Rachel Dolezal responds to allegations that she is not black and that she was not truthful in identifying a black man as her father. Dolezal is accused of identifying herself as black in an application to the City of Spokane, despite being born to white parents in Montana.
This interview, while only approximately 30 seconds in length (before she ends the interview), is rich in deceptive markers – both body language and word choice. Watch the interview here.
Read my content analysis below in blue:
Humphrey: Is that your dad?
Dolezal: Ya. That’s… that’s my dad.
She nods in agreement that it is her dad. She hesitates, and then looks like she’s smirking. You’ll notice her lips tighten here. Tightening of the lips is a reliable indicator of anger.
Humphrey: This man right here’s your father? Right there?
Dolezal: Do you have a question about that?
She pauses for three seconds before she responds by asking “Do you have a question about that?” Then at the 8-second mark into the interview she takes a breath, turns her head slightly and flashes a micro-facial expression for anger – her eyebrows come together and down. She ends her question back to the interviewer with a smile. A smile is the most often used facial expression made to try to mask other emotions. She realizes is it not appropriate to show signs of anger or contempt, and therefore attempts to hide it. She also did not answer his question wanting to confirm that that man in the photograph he was showing her was indeed her dad. Answering a question with a question is an attempt to buy time. Continue reading