Master of Deception

Speech perception is ephemeral. The meaning of a sentence is derived by an active, interpretive process. The surface structure is rapidly forgotten and what we remember is the gist of what’s said. Deception works because this process is open to suggestion.

Half truth: Trump signed an executive order that he claims: “Restores religious liberty.” However, all he did was change the wording of section 501 of the U.S. Code which exempts churches from paying Federal income tax. Before it simply said that religious groups risk losing their tax-exempt status for making “..political speeches that amount to participation or influence in a political campaign.” What he changed it to is: “Religious groups do not risk losing their tax-exempt status for making political speeches that do not amount to participation or influence in a political campaign.” Trump simply restated it as a double negative. Changing the syntax does not necessarily change the content. In other words, the same restrictions still apply. He falsely claims that this amounts to a: “restoration of religious liberty”
 

Framing: Trump announced that the new American Health Care Act (AHCA) will: “cover more Americans more cheaply.” A review by the Congressional Budget Office found that the net effect was less coverage at a higher price for most Americans. Trump’s announcement only sounds good if you don’t have a copy of the bill in front of you.
 

Pre-supposition: Trump says he fired Comey because the FBI was in turmoil. He adds “..you know that, I know that, everybody knows that.” Saying ‘everybody knows that’ frames his opinion as a generally accepted reason to fire him. But we all know Trump fired Comey for personal reasons that had nothing to do with his performance as FBI director.
 
 Public record: On his termination letter, Trump said: “I appreciate that, on three separate occasions, you told me I was not under investigation.” However, there’s no record of Comey ever saying that. Trump’s statement is deceptive because it enters an indeterminate event into public record

Deceptive speech

1. It’s deceptive when Trump calls news outlets fake and dishonest because reports about him “…haven’t been positive.” He didn’t say that reports about him haven’t been honest. 

2. It’s deceptive when the administration says: “The national debt went down $12 billion since we’ve been in power.” That’s implying that they deserve credit for events that are actually beyond their control (they’ve only been in power for a month and have not yet done anything to affect the budget). 

3. It’s deceptive to attribute job losses by middle class Americans to undocumented immigrants …unless you consider gardening and fruit-picking middle–class occupations.

 4. It’s deceptive to treat the fair-trade agreement with South America the same as China. South America doesn’t engage in anti-competitive practices like the Chinese. They don’t present the same barriers to foreign investment.

5. This is not necessarily deceptive but a big component of intelligence is understanding the question. Over two-thirds of the errors on an intelligence test can be attributed to misunderstanding the question. This was certainly the case at Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing. When asked: “As Attorney General, if presented with evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians …what would you do?” He replied: “I did not communicate with the Russians.” Why did he deny doing something he wasn’t asked? He claims he was responding to a something he read in the news that day …and got it confused with the question. Good thing intelligence is not a qualification. 

6. Spicer has reached the level of master of deception. He’s not necessarily good at it …just prolific. In the latest example he cites news-stories about British spying to back up his accusations against Obama. When British Intelligence confronts him, he says: “I was simply pointing out these news-stories. I wasn’t endorsing them.” However, when you cite news-sources to back up your claims …you are crediting theses sources as valid, which is the same as endorsing them

Discourse analysis

I look for samples of deceptive speech in the news. Happens more often than you may think. We don’t process speech like a linguist. It’s too ephemeral. We listen for meaning and not a literal transcript of what's said, which makes it easy for speakers to pass-off fiction as fact and make implications sound like direct assertions. The original sentences don’t hang around long enough for us to tell the difference and we’re left with a more general sense of what's said. The new administration provides a lot of examples. Here are a few I've come across lately.

 1. It’s deceptive when press secretary Spicer defends Trump’s travel ban by saying: “The power given the president to protect our country is substantial and without question.” It’s deceptive because he’s implying that Trump’s actions are ‘beyond question’ because the constitution is beyond question. However, it is not unreasonable to ask whether his actions were a legitimate use of power and met the criteria proscribed by the constitution. The courts clearly found his actions questionable.

 2. It’s deceptive when the administration says they didn’t fire national security advisor  Flynn because he did anything wrong but because it was leaked. According to press secretary Spicer: “leaks are criminal and what should be investigated here.” It’s deceptive when he deflects attention by implying that some kind of “breach in security” was at fault and not the actions of the national security advisor.

 3. it’s deceptive when attorney general Sessions says marijuana use should be prosecuted under federal law because: “When you see something like the opiate addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people.” He’s implying that marijuana carries the same health and safety risks as opioids.

 4. It’s deceptive when the administration denies ever saying: “We are conducting mass-deportations using the U.S. military.” But that is exactly what Trump was implying when he announced: “ We are conducting deportations at unprecedented levels and doing them as efficiently as a military operation.” What’s the difference. Since speech perception is not literal …implications get treated as direct assertions and “ ..mass-deportations by the U.S. military” is exactly what gets conveyed. Denying it because it was not part of the ‘actual transcript’ is like something you’d hear in a court of law. It’s deceptive because it’s not the natural way we process information. We don’t keep record of things like a stenographer and the administration knows this.

 5. It’s deceptive when Trump characterizes undocumented immigrants as criminals based on one case. As tragic as it was … a single case does not represent an entire population. However we don’t think like statisticians. We mistake sensationalism for the size and magnitude of a problem. The administration knows this and they’re relying on it to help make their case.

the certainty of possibility

I think I may actually know something about the value of information. It was my field in grad school and I worked in IT for almost 20 years. Seems like I should. Anyway I can usually tell when someone says something will happen based only on the  possibility that it could happen. In logic I think they would call that a fallacy. Last week the Washington Post reported  Edward Snowden’s claim that the government has unfettered access to our personal online records. Alarming, but the way the report reads ..only a possibility. Since the Washington Post is a fairly reliable source and some of the other claims turned out to be true, I gave this one equal credit. Next I hear all the major online services denying such a ‘secret government portal’ exists. I felt like I’d given it too much credit. The folks at Google would certainly know when they’re being hacked ..wouldn’t they. Then the New York Times reports that Google and government officials ‘discussed the creation of portals’ where the government can go retrieve online information anytime ..without a search warrant. Certainly bolsters Snowden’s claim. Today I hear that Snowden has been on a campaign against intrusive government for a long time and his claim is based on ‘government-training material’. Certainly a worthy campaign ..but I’ve seen government-training material before. So now I’m back to square one. Just because someone says something could happen doesn’t mean it did. As far as I’m concerned .. the value of his claim is still indeterminate and could go either way.

Fast and Furious

A federal program called Fast and Furious allowed weapons to be sold to gun smugglers in the U.S. so they could be traced to drug cartels in Mexico. However, they quickly lost track of the weapons and some of them turned up in the fatal shooting of a Border Patrol Agent near Tucson in December 2010. Since then, an ongoing investigation has looked into the possibility that it was a gun-running operation headed by the Department of Justice.

The investigation into the Fast and Furious program concluded yesterday saying “Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. had no knowledge of the problems surrounding Fast and Furious before the slaying of a U.S. Border Patrol agent brought them to light.” The Attorney General was quick to point out that this proves he “had neither knowledge of ..nor did he condone any such operation” [ link ]. Now, I’m not making a political statement here. ..but I am making a linguistic observation when I say that this proves nothing of the sort. Finding he had “..no knowledge of the problems” associated with the program does not necessarily mean that he didn’t know ..or wasn’t involved. This makes me suspicious because it sounds like a non-denial of a non-denial. Makes me wonder what the Feds are covering up, which leads me to conclude that they really were supplying guns to drug cartels. This doesn’t surprise me. It’s in their interest to keep smuggling operations alive and well. Not only does it keep the Justice Department in business ..but it provides a much-needed stream of revenue for the Federal Government when times get lean and Congress shuts down funding for other such operations.

False advertising

Ads by the group called ‘Americans for Prosperity’ are accusing Obama of  “..sending $2.3 billion in tax credits overseas that were intended for green energy at home.” The group also accuses Obama of “..sending $1.2 billion to a solar energy company that is building a plant in Mexico.”

 

These claims are accurate but misleading. They’re intended to leave the impression that Obama is undermining growth and tricking American taxpayers into sending jobs overseas. In the first case, $2.3 billion was sent overseas ..but either to American companies with subsidiaries overseas or to foreign companies with subsidiaries in the U.S. That’s the way businesses operate in a modern economy. Either way, we benefit. In the second case, $1.2 billion in loan guarantees were sent to Sun Power to build a solar facility in California. The company just happens to have a facility in Mexico. Like a home mortgage, a loan guarantee is secured by the assets and property for which the loan was intended. Campaign ads are rich in half-truths and provide excellent opportunity for the practice of deception detection.

Traveler vs inept bureaucracy

How do you exceed ‘unlimited lifetime miles’ on airline travel? Apparently when the ‘elite revenue team’ (of former ticketing agents) decides you’re doing something ‘fraudulent by nature’. This means it complies with the rules .. but smells fishy. I suppose you could say it doesn’t pass the test of reasonableness. In the case of Steven Rothstein [ link ] who paid for a pass that included a companion seat; it comes down to your definition of a companion. But who determines who and who isn’t a companion when the contract doesn’t spell it out..? And if the contract doesn’t spell it out ..where do they get off calling it ‘fraud’? Because he makes frequently trips to Hawaii with different companions ..? Perhaps helps a college student he meets at the airport trying to get home for the holidays? Now if he sold those seats that would be one thing, however, this isn’t the case. He never charged them a cent. No, the way you charge him with exceeding the ‘unlimited miles’ program is by getting a federal court judge to agree that he was doing something ‘fraudulent by nature’. But, by nature ..that’s an indeterminant and subjective charge. Sounds more like the airline was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract, which he paid $350,000 for in 1987. They were doing it under the cover of ‘fraudulent by nature’ hoping to avoid being counter sued for breach of contract. But I can’t imagine anyone paying $350,000 being fooled or intimidated by that. No, this has got to be a case of customer vs. inept bureaucracy. Even I’ve been there before.

Obama's fallacy

Obama accused the Supreme Court of ‘judicial activism’ (unfairness) for questioning the constitutionality of a law that he says, “was passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress.” This is a false accusation and he knows it. He is relying on listeners to agree with the tacit premise that “if it was decided by elected officials it must be constitutional.” However, this is a misleading. Just because a majority rallies behind a law does not mean it complies with the Constitution. That’s why we have a Supreme Court ..to make sure our constitutional rights aren’t overtaken by mob rule.

Persecution by implication

Regarding the story of Gary Klein ‘under a cloud of suspicion’ ~>[ link ]

The implication: Attorneys for the family of the deceased (Rina Klein) suggest that the husband (Gary Klein) killed her. They don’t come right out and say so ..nor have murder charges been filed. What attorneys do say is:

“He disparaged her in public ..”
“She was planning a divorce but says she was afraid he would kill her if he ever found out.”
“She told her sister that he was cruel and went around saying that if he wanted he could kill her and no one would find out how it happened.”

They never actually say he killed her or even threatened to. The wife was a successful Hollywood attorney but hadn’t worked in nine years due to depression. Her family is suing the husband to dis-inherit him in probate court ..and gain custody of his children in family court. 

Public record: Doctors certify that she died of lupus. A report by a medical examiner says “..a combination of amphetamine, anti-depressants and lupus medication may have also contributed.” The husband says he knew about her medical condition but nothing about the alleged divorce plans. She never filed for divorce nor is there any evidence that she ever planned to. Just hearsay from her family. Nor is there any evidence that he ever threatened or abused her. Just unsubstantiated claims by attorneys. 

Persecution by implication: I don’t think this amounts to murder. I do believe it is a case of pragmatic implications, which are of indeterminate truth-value ..intended to keep an investigation open and continue persecuting someone for financial gain. Attorneys routinely use pragmatic implications to suggest things without actually saying them .. hoping listeners will fill in the blanks. Attorneys for OJ Simpson actually got a jury to believe police conspired to frame their client by merely asking if they’d ever known someone who had experienced police brutality (common in all-black neighborhoods). They never asked about police frame-ups (because they’re exceedingly rare). Reference: Bugliosi ‘Outrage’ epilogue 340-342 [ link ]

The endorsement

Today I heard about Jeb Bush’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. He says “Primary elections have been held in 34 states ..it’s time for Republicans to unite behind Romney.” Sounds like a score ..! However, when I say it out loud and think about how long this campaign has been going on ...it doesn’t sound like a wholehearted endorsement. More like a plea to end the fight. I call this an endorsement by pragmatic implication, which can be misleading unless you parse the statement really close.

Tropic of Iran

Reports from U.S. intelligence agencies over the last few years have resulted in contradictory narratives about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That’s because they present their finding in terms that leave them open to interpretation by the reader. They’re not necessarily being deceitful ..their claims are merely ‘uncertain’, which often gets assigned higher certainty in the process of reading  [ link ]. They’re taking advantage of language attorneys use to release them from responsibility for the way others may interpret their statements.

In 2003, an intelligence report said that: “Iran’s research program could lead to nuclear weapons development.” Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) immediately responded by saying “now we know that Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.”

In 2007, a national intelligence report estimated “with medium to high confidence that, at a minimum ..Tehran is keeping its options open.” CIA director Mike Hayden correctly pointed out that this statement was so fucking indeterminate that just as many people interpreted it to mean “Iran is on it’s way to becoming a nuclear power” as people who interpreted it to mean “Iran had stopped its nuclear program.”

The most recent consensus of the U.S. Intelligence community is that “Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build nuclear weapons, but it has not sought to do so.” To which Israel responded by declaring it’s intention to “..launch a military strike in order to stop Iran before it’s too late.”

If Iran is waging a war of disinformation in order to immobilize its adversaries with competing narratives ..it couldn’t have picked a better ally.

Parsing Nixon

The transcript of Nixon’s testimony about Watergate became public Thursday, providing a detailed view of Nixon - combative, defensive and mindful of his place in history [link]. As an exercise in deception-detection, I suggested we parse a short passage of Nixon’s testimony. We limited it to the response Nixon gave to a specific question asked by federal prosecutors. We examined the implications Nixon made in order to give prosecutors the impression that he was acting as Chief Executive and giving high-level ‘directives’ to his staff ..and not ordering the Watergate break-in. When prosecutors asked about White House efforts to target Lawrence O'Brien (Chairman of the Democratic National Committee) and the events leading up to the break-in at his office in the Watergate complex, Nixon replied:

“I do not recall suggesting Mr. O’Brien files be checked ..I only suggested that in this campaign, we should be as effective in conducting our investigations as they (the Democrats) had been in conducting their investigations.”

[ I only suggested .. ] implies no direct orders were given. Although prosecutors may infer ‘tacit approval’, without knowing what was going on in the minds of the White House staff at the time; prosecutors couldn’t go there. That information was only available in discussions leading up to this point. But the previous 18 minutes were erased from the White House tape. *See Footnote* [conducting our investigation .. ] implies they were only discussing an equitable response to what Democrats were doing during the campaign. Since there was no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Democrats, prosecutors could only conclude Nixon wasn’t suggesting anything inappropriate. It’s clear Nixon was using pragmatic implications [link] ..a trick that lawyers routinely recommend to their clients. He could deny culpability but, at the same time, avoid perjury in the advent investigators found evidence that he actually did order the break-in. Instead of denying it outright, he says is he was making what amounts to a ‘suggestion’ that they conduct an ‘equitable investigation’. If it comes out later that he gave orders, he cannot be accused of perjury for the inferences federal prosecutors made in response to his statements. In other words, implications are not grounds for perjury. To the end, Nixon played the role of an attorney trying to create ‘reasonable doubt’ in the minds of his jurors (Historians).

* Footnote: Congress actually did infer that, by omission, the 18-minute gap probably contained incriminating information turning Nixon’s statement into a criminal act. This is what led to a vote of impeachment by over two-thirds of the House.

Quaker Oats

I eat oatmeal fairly regularly ..the kind you get from the bins at the store. They’re called rolled oats and they taste ‘heartier’ than the ones you get in a box from Quaker Oats. However, I was beginning to wonder if I was missing the health benefits of oatmeal because I wasn't eating the Quaker Oats brand. I checked the box and the contents were the same ..Quaker doesn’t add anything special. I wasn’t sure where my doubts were coming from ..until I listened closely to the Quaker Oats commercial on TV. Here’s what they say: “Doctors have proven that oatmeal reduces cholesterol ..and there’s no oatmeal like Quaker Oats ..remember, the one you grew up with as a child.” ~ Now, they don’t come right out and say that Quaker Oats is the only brand proven to reduce cholesterol ..but they sure enough imply it ..and that’s what I was responding to.

Justice department

“An operation called Fast and Furious allowed weapons to be sold to gun smugglers in the U.S. so they could be traced to drug cartels in Mexico. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which ran the operation, lost track of the weapons ..one of which was used in the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry near Tucson in December 2010.”   LA Times 

In his deposition to congress, Kenneth Melson, former head of ATF, says he was “..never advised” by his staff that they were involved in a program of selling illegal arms along the U.S./Mexican border. “My chief of staff never came in and told me either, and he’s on the same damn floor as I am.” Which leads me to suspect a cover-up. The phrase “I was never told” does not automatically register as “I didn’t know” in my suspicious brain. What I do detect is his use of pragmatic implication to deceive me into thinking that he didn’t know. Furthermore, not once in his deposition did he ever come out and actually say: “I did not know what my department was doing” ..which would have sounded incredibly stupid. So, instead .. he uses phrases like “I was never advised ..” or “no one ever told me ..” not only to avoid sounding stupid but to help him dodge any future accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice [link]. Members of the Justice Department coached him well. Now they too are saying that they were never told about the Fast and Furious program ..and cite his testimony as evidence. Which leads me to believe that they too were fully aware of what was going on. Lack of oversight ..I don’t think so. What I do think is that Fast and Furious was directed by the U.S. State Department and carried out, with full cooperation, by the ATF. When it resulted in the unfortunate shooting of a border patrol agent ..the operation became public; and the cover-up began. In order to conceal involvement by the U.S. government, Justice officials immediately began advising ATF against full disclosure ..telling them “it is a long-standing policy of the Department of Justice that we don’t talk about ongoing cases.” Which leads me to believe that the Department of Justice is also in the business of obstruction of justice.