On a recent segment of Good Morning America, a voter asked Cruz via video, “Would you accept being Donald Trump’s Vice President?”
His response: “Let me just answer very simply, I have zero interest, whatsoever, in doing it.”
Would you accept…? is a Yes or No question. Ted Cruz responded, “I have zero interest.” That response does not answer the question. He didn’t say no. Using the phrase “I have zero interest” in place of “no” indicates that part of him did think about accepting an offer for Vice President.
Also, as I have previously discussed the use of the work “just” as in “Let me just answer very simply…” is often used to minimize. When the word “just” is used to minimize a person’s actions it is an indication more things transpired than what the person is telling us. The use of the word “just” indicates he may have other intentions.
Likewise, in 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if she had any Presidential aspirations. The specific question posed was, “Would you consider running for President in 2008?”
She responded: “I have never wanted to run for anything.”
That response did not answer the question. She didn’t say no. Using “never” in place of “no” indicates that part of her did think about running for the office.
Listen carefully to responses provided. Do they answer the specific questions asked? If not, there’s more to the story.
Last week Hillary Clinton told CBS’ Scott Pelley she’s “always tried to tell the truth.” She continued, “Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.”
Likewise, in 1998 President Bill Clinton testified before a federal grand jury. He was questioned about the oath he took to tell the truth. It was believed that earlier year the POTUS lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during his Paula Jones deposition. He was asked if the oath he took in the deposition meant the same thing as it does that day during the grand jury testimony. President Clinton responded, “I swore an oath to tell the truth and I believed I was bound to be truthful and I tried to be.”
The word “tried” means a person attempted but failed to do it.
The President is telling us that he tried but failed to be truthful in his Paula Jones deposition. He didn’t respond by saying, “I was bound to be truthful and I was truthful.” He couldn’t say that because people do not want to lie.
Technically the Clintons were being honest when they said they tried to tell the truth. Although, by doing so, doesn’t that mean they were being honest by saying they lied?
Listen carefully to what others tell you; their words may tell you more than they intended.
There are a number of ways you can word a statement. Your comments will always be rooted in all your knowledge. This means your statement could include information you did not intend to share. You often aren’t aware you are giving out additional information. Equally problematic, you sometimes give others more information than what they realize. The key is to listen to what people are saying and to know what to look for in their statement.
Recently WZZM13 in Grand Rapids Michigan aired a story about a reserve deputy officer in the small town of Grant who has been performing duties beyond the scope of a reserve officer. You can see Investigative Reporter, David Bailey’s story here.
To make sure we are in compliance, this statement says that they believe they are in compliance and are verifying that they are, and have been, correct.
When David asked how can drivers know the guy pulling them over is real? The manager then responded, “We are working with our attorney to come into compliance to make sure that this department and the taxpayers are protected.”
The words come into compliance, acknowledges they are not now in compliance. Yet his previous statement said they were, and have been, in compliance.
David then asks the Police Chief what would happen if the person whom the reserved officer stopped runs from him. His response was, “He’d have to stop at the city limits, and call…”
Stop what? Stop chasing up to the city line? He’d have to be in motion in order for him to then stop.
The reporter then asked him what would happen if the stop was within the city limits and would he chase the driver. The Chief responded No, no, no.
He stated that the reserve officer would not engage in a chase; yet he just said they’d have to stop [chasing] if the driver ran from him.
People’s words will betray them. For this reason, be vigilant about every word communicated. When I am analyzing a statement, I do not interpret. This is because people mean exactly what they say.
Below I’ve highlighted some areas of this interview that are examples of how words can betray you.
Initially, both the City Manager and the Chief of Police sing the praises of the officer’s dedication to working off the clock. They both mentioned it. This indicates budgets are a high priority for the city of Grant.
David asked the manager if he is certain the reserve officer is operating within the confines of the law. His response was, “We are working with an attorney right now to make sure we are in compliance with Michigan law, and also Federal law when it comes to this situation.”
“To make sure we are in compliance”, this statement says that they believe they are currently in compliance and are verifying that they are, and have been, correct.
When David asked how can drivers know the guy pulling them over is real? The manager then responded, “We are working with our attorney to come into compliance to make sure that this department and the taxpayers are protected.” Continue reading