Category Archives: body language analysis

Triggered!!! Who knew “out of his league” would bring the trolls out in droves?


**For those new to my blog and to the analysis of tribal roles, including alpha, beta, sigma and omega, please know that beta is a very real tribal role; in our everyday speech, we as a society use “beta” as an adjective to refer to weak or submissive male behavior, but in the sense of tribal roles, betas are great! Most people are betas. Alphas lead, betas follow, omegas often operate as outcasts, but when healthy, are contributing if highly introverted members of the tribe, and sigmas are the lone wolves of the tribe, highly autonomous, for better or for worse. For more on tribal roles, you may enjoy my videos on youtube.


I had the mis (or maybe dis?) fortune of triggering a troll the other night when I was tweeting “observations from a barstool” while enjoying a drink at my local watering hole. I noticed a couple on a first date and live tweeted as I watched their date go from decent to interesting to fizzled out.




They need to both get on OK Cupid — STAT! It’s all a numbers game!! FIND HER!!


This was gross to watch. I wanted to tweet more. Buuuuuuut, decided not to.



Remember, betas are grrrrreat! They take minimal risks, they plan for the future, and they are suggestible so that during times of crisis, they will follow a strong Alpha’s direction, ensuring the survival of themselves and their offspring. Being a beta is NOT BAD!! The vast majority of the tribe falls into the beta category. They care about appearances and thus shower, brush their teeth, go to work, pay their taxes and go along to get along. Without betas, society would literally collapse on itself! (Don’t worry, Alphas, society would collapse without you too — lol.)




Oh, the phrase “out of his league” was super DOOPER triggering for a  guy on twitter.

It’s fascinating to me that some men are perfectly ok with rating women on a 1 – 10 scale (as am I) but still get triggered by a woman who is aware that she has been rated & knows her tier & wants to find a man on the same level! I mean, REALLY!?!

So of course I pointed this out to my more triggered members of my Twitter family…



Confidence is THEE most heavily weighted factor in the Rank Algorithm. Most people simply aren’t confident. It’s fine — in fact, too much confidence can lead to overwhelming losses that reduce the quality of life for an entire tribe (October of 2008 ring a bell? Thanks, Banksters, for that years long recession). Should highly confident people mate with other highly confident people? It depends. Unhealthy confident people will feel threatened and thus competitive with other confident people and not want to date or court them. Happy healthy confident people usually feel attracted to other confident people and are triggered into a protective mode by those who lack confidence.



I hope you enjoyed my observations from a barstool.


For those who are interested, our “league” or rank in our tribe is determined by confidence, intelligence, and beauty/handsomeness. Then for women it is sub-determined by youth (because a woman is fertile for only a finite period of her life) and for men it is sub-determined by money/income (because money is how a man would pay for food and shelter for the offspring he has co-created, and especially because he remains fertile for an indefinite period of his life).


Ideally, we would delineate, even within each of the matching/dating sites, those users who are interested in dating and those who want to pursue a courtship path leading ultimately to marriage.


Ladies, if he isn’t willing to literally gamble half of everything he has or ever will have, on a marriage to you, he DOESN’T love you. Marriage was designed to protect a woman from the poverty of her own fertility, set forth in a legally binding contract guaranteeing that if she gave up her ability to trade her time for money by forgoing freedom for motherhood, she would still be able to ensure food and shelter for herself and her offspring. A contract that also guaranteed that if the father chose to stop providing those things as a part of their sex for socioeconomic security trade (marriage), the government could force him to start up again. Remember, marriage is the LEGAL, PUBLIC DECLARATION of loyalty, commitment and responsibility.


Everything else is just playing house!




Sigma Female Analysis Video: (Future) CIA Director Gina Haspel

The first woman CIA director! President Trump has nominated current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel to become the new Director after Mike Pompeo goes over to the State Department.



Click on the image to watch “First Impressions.” 


Sigma women are mission oriented, crave and demand autonomy and independence, are profoundly loyal and tend to be truly known by only a very few close members of their family and friend groups. They do not fit into a societal mold that requires marriage, children or other cultural indicators of success. They make great leaders but do not seek leadership positions for the sake of having authority over others; they endure leadership positions for the sake of protecting the greater good of the tribe.



Click on the image to watch “Gina Haspel: Sigma Female Body Language & Speech Pattern Analysis” and find out what Sarah thinks that Johnny Cash poster is really all about!

Sigma Bolton and Alpha Mattis: friends? Body Language/Speech Pattern analysis video

Alpha males and sigma males get along great (99% of the time!!) … watch these two meet and become fast friends. Alpha males have nick names for everyone and Sigmas secretly love to know that they are valued enough by the tribe to have the Alpha bestow a moniker on them. Ambassador John Bolton (soon to be National Security Advisor John Bolton) is the classic Sigma male and General James Mattis is an alpha male who definitely wants Bolton on his team.



Click the image to watch the video on bitchute. Thank you for watching!









Just Exactly How Compromised IS @Wikileaks? March 23rd “live” audio is clearly edited

Just how compromised is Wikileaks?

      1. We’ve never gotten the proof of life (proof that Julian Assange is still alive) that we asked for back in November of 2016. The options offered by Wikileaks in this tweeted poll were bad to begin with, but the fact that “video” had the highest number of votes was bizarre. A photograph of a person holding a newspaper printed that same day is the classic proof of life. Why stray from that? And an appearance on the balcony wasn’t even an option. Window appearance was silly – that could be anyone, and videos are alterable as well, especially those filmed against a green screen as the ones he subsequently provided, not the MSM videos, but the ones Julian provided, were. Any footage filmed of Julian where a green screen is being used fails to prove that he is still inside the Embassy and in fact would seem to increase the likelihood that he is no longer there (otherwise, why wouldn’t he just film himself sitting on the usual couch with Embassy Cat crawling all over him?).





Julian Assange’s Vault 7 press conference, filmed on March 9, was filmed against a green screen. There was (is) no telling where it took place. And, asked at 18:22 if there is “proof that the CIA is involved in an internal struggle, leaking as opposed to something else?” Julian answers affirmatively — click here to read my full body language and speech analysis of his extremely interesting response.



Then, sure enough, the very next Vault 7 press conference, broadcast via Periscope on March 23, bypassed the green screen issue and any further questions on the actual location from which it was filmed because periscopes are assumed to be live. But there was no video – just the wikileaks logo and the sound of Julian’s voice. But not even his voice was live. It could not have been. There is a blatant skip in the recording at 13:37: the moment he starts talking about the white hats inside the CIA and the internal division that is at the heart of a battle for our very republic (ok, Julian isn’t quite as poetic as I am … fast forward to 13:16 and listen for the blip at 13:37 and then read the transcription below).




If for some reason the periscope is deleted, here is the youtube video. I’ve transcribed Assange’s words below it; start listening at 7:55 and listen for the blip in audio and the complete change of subject at 8:17. (The periscope had a lag time at the start, the videos later uploaded to youtube removed the delay.)




Of course he just happened to have been talking about the internal division at the CIA — again, confirming that he is indeed witnessing internal division within the CIA involving inside leakers, not external hackers. I’ve transcribed his words:


“The Central Intelligence Agency is the largest intelligence agency in the world. Now, it’s an intelligence agen– it’s an organization with tens of thousands of people. Uh, there’s many good people in there. There’s internal divisions about some of the unethical practices, uh, that are being conducted, uh, and every country that wants to be independent and determine it’s own [BLIP IN THE RECORDING] CIA should be uh, broken into a thousand pieces and splintered to the wind because it had become so — it had gotten so out of control.”


He keeps going, commenting that secrecy breeds corruption. I disagree with that — I think corruption causes secrecy, but chicken/egg. That’s an argument for another day. What matters here is that Julian may have originally said something about specific unethical practices or perhaps the 81 elections in other countries that the CIA has attempted to influence, and so that part was edited out. Clearly, he wouldn’t have naturally gone from talking about the sovereignty of nation states to quoting JFK in such a disjointed fashion. Someone (very poorly) edited out a chunk of Julian’s speech and then started the “live” periscope using that audio.


Finally, I was taken aback by some of the remarks made by Assange during an interview conducted by Jeremy Scahill on his podcast, Intercepted, on April 18. Click here to listen to the podcast. Link will open in a new window. Or, read the transcript here.



Now, would you describe a woman who suggested you be executed via drone strike as “charismatic” and someone you’d probably like? Something doesn’t smell right. It’s an excellent interview & there’s a lot to be said for Julian’s sincere admiration of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and his understanding of press freedoms as protections from the government (negative rights as opposed to positive rights). But any complimentary language regarding Hillary Clinton is a huge red flag.


Note: On my April 16 episode of the Progressive Patriot Radio Show, I analyzed — sentence by sentence — Julian Assange’s voice and speech patterns during his March 9 press conference, when he was asked about whether or not the Vault 7 docs were the result of leaks or hacks, as well as CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s bizarre response a few days later.

The Biggest Thing You Missed from Wikileaks Vault 7: Body Language & Speech Analysis of Julian Assange

The most interesting thing about Vault 7? Nope, not the eavesdropping phone, hackable car, or spying microwave — it was this response from Julian Assange to a question tweeted at him during a virtual press conference.


Is there proof that the CIA is involved in an internal struggle, leaking as opposed to something else?



The video below is embedded to start at exactly 18 minutes and 22 seconds so you can see where he reads the question and “answers” it.




If you’ve read my previous body language/speech pattern analysis posts, you’ll recall the three elements of communication: 1) the words that are coming out of the person’s mouth (i.e. what they’re saying), 2) what they’re really saying, and 3)what they’re specifically not saying or trying not to say or omitting consciously or unconsciously — this third component is sometimes the most revealing.


For the sake of brevity, I’m only going to analyze this one question and the one answer Julian gave on March 9, 2017. I use all caps when a person, in this case Julian, unconsciously emphasizes a certain syllable or word in their speech. These are weak spots, places where their societal mask slips for a second. Julian Assange is unique: he has zero poker face and is a remarkably guile-less person for someone who is so hellbent on exposing the sins of others. This is usually the indicator of a person who really does have nothing to hide and whose motives are sincerely pure. Consider for a moment that before the first dump — I want to say the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning leaks of the GTMO files and Iraq War logs — he asked the US State Dept to help him redact documents for national security purposes but the State Dept refused to in any way acknowledge Wikileaks as legit — until later, when they were forced to as a part of damage control. It’s very interesting. Many people recoil at the totally uncensored unredacted version of reality that wikileaks presents precisely because most people do have something to hide, or at least something that would make them feel bad or ashamed if it became public. Julian Assange doesn’t — at least his candid, almost childlike inability to self-censor, would lend itself to that conclusion.

(Full disclosure: I was very pleased with the Manning leaks as well as the DNC and Podesta email leaks but thought the CWA leaks were really over the top and unnecessary — and mean. So, I like true whistleblowing not pointless privacy violation.)


Julian reads a question from twitter: “Is there proof that the CIA are involved in internal struggle, leaking as opposed to [he pauses, he furrows his brow, he looks up] something else?”


“Uhhh, while … we can’t comment directly on sourcing [HE NODS HIS HEAD UP AND DOWN — lol], as someone who’s studied the behavior of intelligence agencies for many years in different countries, it is an unusual time in the United States to see an intelligence agency so prominently involved [this is the best – he looks away then quickly back, emphasizing the syllable VOLVED in involved] in domestic politics. Now, as a sort of lev-level of PRINCIPLE, that’s quite problematic. There are arguments on the other side that — obviously — if there’s an extreme … uh, government, uh, then perhaps that does call for … illegal behavior … uh, by an intelligence agency. Uh, we don’t have an opinion uh, on whether or not that is the case. Yet. We’re not the United States. Uh, Wikileaks is, um, in- I guess, in- intellectually inTRIGUED to see this conflict occurring, uh, because it does tend to generATE whistleblowers and sources on both sides of the equation.”


This was an easy one. Assange answered it affirmatively in multiple ways, but I bolded the clearest yes. The question was, is there a struggle? And Julian said Wikileaks see[s] this conflict occurring. But he first answered the question right off the bat by nodding his head repeatedly while saying he can’t comment directly on sourcing. So the words coming out of his mouth were neither a yes nor a no, but his body – his right brain, the truthteller and confessor – wanted the asker of this intellectually intriguing question to know, YES, and you hit the nail on the head! And by the way, not only do we see this conflict occurring, the conflict is generating sources on BOTH sides of the equation.


Note the use of the word source. Now if you saw the recent Comey hearing where the FBI Director confirmed to a member of Congress that it is not illegal for a member of the intel committee (Senators or Representatives on the panel) to lie to the news media the second they walk out of a closed hearing, even though all the other members of congress who were present will know that one of them has lied to the media after the evening news or morning paper comes out, then you know that fake news is LITERALLY fake news on these special occasions.



AND it’s also not illegal for members of the intel community (those “anonymous officials” cited by the media) to lie to the media. So there are two streams leading to the pool of fake news (two sources): the IC members themselves or the members of congress who are briefed by them (usually under oath — maybe the media should start requiring their sources to swear under oath before accepting the leaks of unsubstantiated unverifiable claims). So when Assange says source, and he’s answering a question about a good vs evil battle within the CIA, and he’s contrasting sources and whistleblowers on both sides, he’s signally (unconsciously) that there are sources who are good and sources who are … not good, and may be providing bad intel for bad reasons.


Now let’s look at part of Julian’s statement more closely:

“It is an unusual time in the United States to see an intelligence agency so prominently involved [he looks away then quickly back, emphasizing the syllable VOLVED in involved] in domestic politics.”

This is a nonstatement on its face: an unusual time? Is there ever a usual time for an intelligence agency to be involved in domestic politics? No. But those are the words coming out of his mouth. But that’s not what he’s *really* saying. He’s really saying two things: 1) that it’s an unusual time in the United States (!), and 2) that he sees AN intelligence agency prominently involved in domestic politics. And notice his interesting eye movement on “involved.” Then close your eyes and listen to that sentence again.


He says it the way you warn a friend who arrives unexpectedly at your front door that the person they’ve been trying to avoid is in your living room RIGHT NOW by mentioning their name out of context while looking in the direction of said living room. “Get it?” Julian is saying. “InVOLVED?!?” For all we know, someone from AN intelligence agency *is* right there in his living room. Which leads me to the next bizarre thing Mr Mumbler says … (sorry, Julian, but sometimes you really do give an amateur speech pattern analyst a run for her money).


“Uh, we don’t have an opinion uh, on whether or not that is the case. Yet. We’re not the United States.” Ok, Julian, we know you’re not the United States. We know Wikileaks is not the United States. So then why does he feel compelled to clarify that, or declare it, as it were? Plus he could have an opinion on a potential battle existing inside the CIA regardless of whether or not Wikileaks is involved with the United States. Now, we can’t really know unless he tells us why but the important thing to notice for our purposes is that he side-eyed on inVOLVED and … hey, everybody, Wikileaks is not the United States. Ok?? So even if they somehow used a macrame invisibility poncho to get into the room with him, he, Julian Assange, is still saying what he wants to say. Ok?? Okey dokey.


Finally, he mentions that he is intellectually inTRIGUED by the conflict inside the CIA, this internal struggle that he is SEEing. That is not (probably) what he intended to say because he probably didn’t mean to confirm that one exists. But we know that when someone answers using the same word (or a synonym) that was used in the question (as with “struggle” and “conflict,”) that they are being generally nonevasive – in other words, if he avoided any use of the word or avoided the topic of internal struggle altogether, it would more likely that he was being untruthful. This was yet another way he answered this question affirmatively.


And notice the word “intrigue” popping out of his mouth to say, “hai hai!” He can’t help but to use and say this word. Why? Because it means collusion, conspiracy or subterfuge. He could have used any word to express how intellectually interested or fascinated he was with the prospect of an internal struggle inside the CIA, a battle between patriots and traitors, warriors & election meddlers. But his truth-teller right brain picked “intrigued”!

Very intellectually intriguing indeed.





Trump Visits Obama at the White House: Body Language/Speech Analysis + Bonus Trump Admin Predictions

First we’ll cover the White House meeting, then in the second part, Trump’s 11/21/16 announcement regarding the status of his transition team’s progress.


If this is the first body language/speech analysis post of mine you’ve ever read, a brief re-cap: the 3 things I’m looking/listening for are 1) what’s being said (the words coming out of Trump and Obama’s mouths), 2) what’s really being said (in other words, what they really mean when they say something, and 3) what’s not being said, also described as, what has been left unsaid. And usually it’s that third component that’s most revealing.


For those wondering, well, ok, but what is your bias? Surely whether or not you like these men personally will influence how you interpret what you see and hear? Yes, it’s probably true that my feelings toward them will affect my perception of their words/actions in this short video. So, full disclosure: I voted for Obama twice and Trump once (so far).


They start interacting at 1:03 in the video below, and the footage flips back to George Stephanopoulos at 4:18.



Now, lets start with the 1:05 freeze frame. Interestingly, Trump is sitting in a slightly smaller chair. Both men are doing the man-spread “I am a dominant male” posture with their legs open. Then President Obama says, “Well, I just had the opportunity to have an excellent conversation with president-elect Trump” — and the word “well” here is significant. The use of the word well means that he’s conceding or admitting, it actually was excellent and that he wasn’t expecting it to be.


But now look at Trump’s hands while Obama is speaking, specifically from 1:04 – 1:17. His hands are in a pensive, self-steadying pose, but his fingers tap each other intermittently, and at 1:14 he looks away from Obama and starts to open his mouth as if to speak, then he closes it at 1:15. I’ll tell you what this means: it means that he’s thinking about something that just happened, immediately preceding the cameras and the press entering the room. So he’s either recalling something that he was just told or something he just saw, and whatever it was, it was so significant that he’s still thinking about it now and at the same time, concentrating on what President Obama is saying. Now Trump is a classic alpha male, an alpha’s alpha so to speak (Obama is a sigma male and maybe I’ll do more analysis of him later) and so it’s likely a very simple and practiced task for Trump to listen to what people are saying in conversation and mull something over simultaneously. Still, it’s telling that he is tapping his fingers like that. Whatever it was, it wasn’t something pleasant. But, by the time he looks back at Obama at 1:17, he has his fingers firmly pressed together and his face is set. This is the facial expression you will see on an alpha male when they have come to a decision. Who knows what the decision was? But notice that the tapping of his fingers — an unconscious indicator of indecision — stops.


At 1:20 the camera zooms in on President Obama and we see him warmly gesture toward Trump several times on the words or phrases “coming 2 months” and “transition” and “ensure” and “president elect” and “successful.” These are inclusive hand gestures and we can determine that they are sincere because President Obama unconsciously gestures closer and closer to Trump with each word. I will briefly make the case that Obama is not sad that Hillary lost (his body language toward Trump makes it crystal clear, but my argument here deals with Hillary and Obama’s personal history). First, let’s recall that President Obama and Hillary were not and are not friends. And for those who think that Obama appointed Clinton to the State Department because he liked her, I present an alternate view. What better way to get that final jab in, after a bitter prolonged primary contest in 2007, than to hire your rival to work for you so that not only did you defeat them resoundingly in a public display of dominance, you take it a step further by making them your employee so that every day they go to work, they have to wake up in the morning knowing you are their boss? Yeah, Obama is the ultimate player. (Hey, don’t hate the player, hate the game.)


With that in mind, it wasn’t surprising to me that there wasn’t a hint of animosity coming from Obama toward Trump in this video. Obama is probably of two minds on the Trump victory: ambivalence is all over his impassive face (especially indicated by the limited amount of eye contact he makes with Trump, which we’ll get to momentarily). The reason he keeps talking about the country, and doing what’s best for the country (he says it’s his “number one priority”) might be because he isn’t actually sure that Hillary wouldn’t have been worse for us. In other words, Obama most likely didn’t want Trump to win because he doesn’t personally like the birth certificate brew ha-ha that Trump promoted and at the same time, he knows Hillary is deeply corrupt (google “state department pay to play hillary clinton foundation” or read all about her corruption here) and, as Obama pointed out so perceptively in 2008, “Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing.”


Do you doubt that Obama is not nearly as upset about Hillary’s defeat as Hillary and her weeping followers are? Watch this (it’s embedded to start right at 8:39 – stop after the press laugh at Biden’s joke a few moments later). Now, was that a man who is sad that his replacement is DJT? Was that the voice and facial expression of a man who feels sorrow over Hillary’s loss? Note the jovial manner with which he compliments VP Biden at 8:40 for never having lost an election before. If I had more time, I’d do an analysis on this video alone. Suffice it to say, there is most likely a tiny part of Obama that is filled with glee that Hillary lost after everything — one dirty lowdown smear campaign after another — she hurled at him back in the ’08 Dem primary.


Back to the Obama-Trump meeting. When, at 1:40, President Obama says, “I have been very encouraged by the interest in President-elect Trump’s wanting to work with my team around many of the issues this great country faces,” he’s not only encouraged, he’s happily surprised. His word choice here, again, indicates that Trump approached him with an inquisitive, “teach me what you’ve learned” attitude, and Obama is glad. (Also, try closing your eyes and listening to him say “my team” — the pitch of his voice goes up a bit; this means that his team is comprised of people that he deeply loves and cherishes; please notice that his pitch goes up on “great country faces” too.) It’s not really surprising that Trump would ask Obama for advice though. As an alpha, Trump knows instinctively that one strategy to master a task (or role) is to learn from the challenges, regrets, and mistakes of others so that they don’t become his mistakes and regrets. (As a wise fortune cookie sage once wrote, “Intelligence is learning from your mistakes; wisdom is learning from other people’s.”) There were likely a lot of, “what did you do when …?” and “what do you wish you had done differently when _____ happened?” type questions from Trump to Obama. And Obama’s words and tone here indicate both encouragement and relief.


Now, let’s look at President Obama’s hands between 1:29 and 1:55. Notice that whenever his hands come back together he either a) steeples them casually as in 1:08, 1:15, and 1:20 or b) he tucks his left hand into his right hand so that his right hand conceals his left hand’s fingers, as in 1:29, 1:45, and 1:50. The first gesture is a practiced signal to convey that he is calm, cool Barack and the second is an unconscious indicator of anxiety. It’s literally hand-ringing, which is a self-comforting motion. Who knows what he’s worried about? I imagine the list is quite long when you’re president. It would be more odd if he had no anxiety indicators — what is he, a robot? No, he’s a human being emotionally influenced by the domino effect of every single decision he makes. (We’ll see if Trump’s hair doesn’t have a few patches of silver in 8 years. Maybe he won’t and that would be cool — however, I wouldn’t judge him negatively for it if he did.)


Now at 2:41, Obama looks at Trump and makes eye contact with him as he says, “I want to emphasize to you” but then, as he continues to speak, he lowers his gaze, then looks away, then looks back, but keeps his gaze lowered. The camera zooms out, and Trump, still looking at Obama, waiting for Obama to re-make eye contact, finally looks away and toward the press at 2:50. First, I think that Obama is very distracted by the constant noise of the cameras flashing — it’s extremely loud. Second, I think Obama is trying to remember some memorized lines. Notice how much more comfortable he is at the very end when he’s joking around about the press with Trump (at 4:02). And finally, as I mentioned before, the lack of eye contact also indicates feeling of two minds (or two emotions) toward Trump: Obama can’t help but like him because most likely, Trump greeted him (earlier in the day, prior to the cameras rolling) with a “let’s let bygones be bygones” disarming kind of alpha introduction and handshake. Obama was probably prepared for hostility — genuine warmth was not what he expected at all (which is why it’s so disarming and why alphas use it as a strategy. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer by turning them into assets.) Trump nods in genuine agreement as Obama says, “We now are gonna want to do everything possible to help you succeed because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.” Then he hands the floor over to Trump.


Now, there are two Trumps. Trump from the Apprentice and the real Donald Trump (which is why it’s so fitting that his twitter handle is @realDonaldTrump). Trump from the Apprentice sits as if he’s sitting on a throne — always. Without exception. His posture commands respect and to some degree, fear.



Real Trump always hunches a little bit forward, as he does throughout the majority of this scene with President Obama. And if you watch him in the interview on 60 Minutes with his whole family, again, he hunches forward, and I believe that this is to obscure his stature so that no one feels threatened or relegated to the background (I’ve seen many alpha males do this; if you go onto youtube, you can see videos of both the CIA and FBI directors sitting in a very similar way: slightly slouching even, in order to make the interviewer feel less uncomfortable.) At the same time, Trump doesn’t hesitate to use his stature to command respect when appropriate — the Anderson Cooper “backstage” interview comes to mind. Fascinatingly, when Trump was on the campaign trail, he seldom evoked the king posture, but by using expansive hand gestures, he still made the people around them feel as if they were in the presence of the classic “benevolent ruler” archetype. This is a strategy to make people feel enveloped in safety without actually touching them. And Trump is really good at it.


Now watch Trump’s hands as he begins to speak at 2:56 (and notice that Obama is watching him intently. Obama has a good poker face but look closely, and you will see pleasant surprise in his expression). All of a sudden at 3:01, Trump remembers he should do something with his hands. As noted earlier, Trump is a classic alpha male — an alpha’s alpha — and they know intuitively that hands speak and worse, tell secrets, and so they start practicing early in life holding their hands still. But they’re also brilliant strategists; this means that it’s likely that Trump would have sat down and brainstormed various hand motions that would be useful in conveying an honest and trustworthy persona long before that fateful escalator descent announcing his candidacy, and then begun practicing them prior to his campaign so that they would come across as naturally as possible. So it’s fun for me to see the two Donald Trumps fight each other for dominance in this last bit of footage. He has probably been doing the common hands-steepled-together pose since his 20’s; it’s steadying, nonthreatening, calming to whoever he’s interacting with, and conveys a thoughtful reflective (not impulsive) person. Good. Meanwhile, it appears, some of the hand motions that he added to his body language arsenal, pre-campaign, pop up from time to time: at 3:02 when he brings his hands out and then together, and then back out again (signaling that he is putting things together, that he has a hold on the or a situation): at 3:22, he says, “we discussed a lot of situations,” and then, almost as an afterthought, as if he is reminding himself to use his hands again, Trump says, “some wonderful and some difficulties” and he brings his hands together with the palms up to show that he is holding the situation up, that is to say, “handling it.” I LOVE how at 3:11, after stating that originally Trump and Obama were only going to meet for 15 minutes, Trump reveals, “the meeting lasted for” — he looks warmly at Obama — “almost an hour and a half.” Now, this is old school alpha rapport-building technique: he is glancing at Obama as if to say, “let’s tell them, shall we?” as though he and Obama are letting us in on a little bit of gossip, a tidbit we otherwise would never have known about: the audience or viewers then feel special, invited, accepted, enveloped in the Trump cocoon. The secret is now between Trump and Obama — and 330 million American people. We’re ALL in. This is how alphas make everyone in the tribe feel valuable and accepted.


At 3:22, he says they discussed a lot of situations, “some wonderful and some difficulties” and again, his hands come together with the palms up to show us that he is holding up any problems, that he is “handling” it. Then no hand motions again until at 3:43, when he remembers to incorporate the 3-fingered OK symbol when saying that he and Obama discussed some of the “really great things that have been achieved.” At 3:53, they shake hands and neither man attempts to dominate the other. THIS IS GOOD. Trump has his lips pressed together in the facial expression that suggests that he is willing to acknowledge that Obama is a cooler guy than he thought (or in some way, better than he’d originally thought). Now, the handshake is very quick, suggesting residual bad feelings on both sides, so let’s acknowledge that too. At the same time, the way that they make eye contact as they shake signals that they each accept the other’s appeal to millions of people.


And, in an interesting display of camaraderie at 4:02, Obama taps Trump on the arm and says, “it’s always a good rule: don’t answer any questions when they just start –” and Trump smiles and jokes, “it’s always the last one!”




Then Obama lets the press know he’s done with them and they are free to leave by saying, “no questions” and “come on, guys, let’s go” (the song, “Closing Time” comes to mind) and at 4:10, Trump says, “very — very good man.” Then he repeats it (“very good man”) and looks down and to the right, as if he’s recalling something he was told recently about President Obama. I conclude that this is ultimately good; a president is only one man and the whole purpose of Congress and the Courts is to stop that man if he tries to go farther than the people want. To see Obama or Trump as either all good or all bad is simply not accurate, and so I look forward to learning what it was that Obama did specifically that Trump was referring to when he said, “very good man” twice.



Some of you are aware that I predicted back in October of 2014 that Hillary could not and would not win this election and that that was why we needed to start finding a viable alternative back then (and I suggested Bernie Sanders).

I do enjoy making predictions.

Even when I’m wrong! That said, here goes:


  1. Trump will negotiate with CEO of Apple (in 2017) and some i-phones will eventually be manufactured in the USA.
  2. Trump will further walk back remarks on torture. I believe this will happen very soon after he’s sworn in, after he speaks with DNI Clapper and CIA Director Brennan. (Let me know in the comments if you would like a post on the Brennan-Trump feud going back to this past summer. Two alpha males circling each other at the CIA? Get out your macrame invisibility poncho and hop on the DARPA cloud — wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall to witness that first meeting?? All kidding and teleporting aside, I predict that it will end well, and that the Iran Deal will be salvaged too after Trump is let in on the less public details. Briefly: alphas are human lie detectors, value loyalty above all other traits, and are extremely protective of “their people.” Once John Brennan and Donald Trump realize they have more in common than not, they will get along amazingly well. They should each give each other a chance, at the very least.)
  3. Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) will be repealed and replaced in January 2017. It will keep the option to have coverage through one’s parents’ plan for people up to age 26, keep the rule that insurers cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, but repeal the requirement that employers offer health insurance to all full time workers, providing a huge boon to the economy as companies and especially retail stores/companies, offer full time opportunities to their employees again. (If we’re going to go true free market solution, we’ll have to disconnect the purchase of health insurance with employment — in other words, remove the burden on employers and allow insurers to sell to anyone in any state in order to break up the regional cartels, driving down prices in order to reduce the burden on consumers as well. I just took Microecon over the summer and am taking Macro right now, so these free market solutions are on my mind. And of course, fellow Berners, I remain a staunch fan of a Single Payer National Health Care System; I’m simply open to multiple ways of solving the problem of people not getting the health care they need.)
  4. The House will pass a law repealing Medicare and it will narrowly, with in 5 votes, lose in the Senate in 2018.
  5. The House and Senate will keep a Republican majority until 2020, when the Senate will turn Dem majority.
  6. Trump will win re-election in 2020; Minnesota will go red for the first presidential election since 1972.
  7. NAFTA will not be significantly altered until Trump’s second term — but then it will be gutted (to the benefit of both the American and Mexican people; remember that comparative advantage, the economic theory upon which these unethical “free” trade agreements are based, means an advantage for the ruling and corporate classes, not the People).


Obama Trump


I’d love to hear your thoughts! Please comment below or tweet at me at @Sarah__Reynolds.


Body Language/Speech Analysis: FBI Director Comey & the Inevitable Hillary Indictment

Logic is hard. Critical thinking is no longer taught in our schools. Most colleges do not require a course in logic to graduate, and because the media can legally lie, even if people were skilled at drawing reasonable conclusions, they would often be basing those conclusions on false information anyway.


That said, let’s try applying a little logic to the Hillary implosion — aided and abetted by one Associated Press. Fact: The number of delegates required to “clinch the nomination” is 2383. Fact: Hillary does not have that many today. She did not have that many on June 6, 2016, the night someone blackmailed/bribed someone else at AP to discard all journalistic integrity and declare that she had enough superdelegates to “clinch the nomination.” AP claims that they polled all the superdelegates and that there were just enough to give her the win. This would be like polling all the members of the Electoral College and declaring that Trump had enough electoral votes to win the presidency! (Does it sound like I’m speculating when I use big words like “blackmail” and “bribery”? Well, that’s because I am. Simultaneously, I’m extending AP the benefit of the doubt — the doubt that they could ever do something so unethical, immoral and unjust unless they were under the incredible pressure of being blackmailed or bribed.)



FACT: There’s a date on the calendar when the superdelegates vote. That date — JULY 25, 2016 — has not come and gone according to the passage of months, days and hours that we measure using time-keeping devices and subsequently label “history.”




TRUTH: Hillary has not received the nomination. She is not the presumptive nominee. She is exactly where she was a year ago: Not the Democratic nominee for president in the 2016 election cycle.


Further, we can analyze FBI Director Comey’s word choices, body language, and tone of voice and see (and hear) that he does indeed plan to recommend to the Department of Justice that Hillary be indicted under the Espionage Act. Why? Because that is the law she has broken by allowing Special Access Program emails to go unencrypted on her private server for three months (from NBC: “the special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails“). Author and columnist H. A. Goodman explains the basic legal facts in the excellent video below (it will start at exactly the point in the video where he gets to that, 12:32). In summary, yes, some of the emails were retroactively classified, but that’s not relevant. Convicted whistleblowers sit in prison right now for transferring retroactively classified emails, so it’s a crime and one that gets indictments and guilty verdicts. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The SAP emails were born classified. There is no “retroactive” for those emails. They were above Top Secret from the get go.



But don’t take Goodman’s word for it: the recent release (5/26/16) of the State Department Inspector General report concluded that 1) Hillary violated the federal records act by not turning over all official emails before she left the State Dept and 2) that there was no evidence that she ever received approval to use her own email account for conducting official State Department business (or ever even requested such approval). So there’s ample evidence that she should be indicted. Will she? She’s betting she won’t. Her alienating presumptuous arrogance is embarrassing enough (for example when she says that the report won’t affect either her campaign or “my presidency”) but the disrespect and disregard for the law she doesn’t even attempt to hide is really over the top.


Frankly, I thought that there was a good chance that corruption would thwart the release of the State Dept IG report and, that even if it were released, it would likely be false. (And it’s damning — very damning.) The FBI, on the other hand, I have far more faith in (or rather, less doubt). There is no way to get inside Director Comey’s head and know what he intends to do, however, there is a fascinating theory that people are always confessing (literally, that people are always subtly revealing the truth with their words, tone and body language) and that if you listen well enough, you can hear what they’re really saying. In other words, there are three elements of communication. First, the words that are coming out of a person’s mouth; second, what they’re really saying; and third, what they’re not saying.


Cenk Uygur explains below that Director Comey, at a May 11 “Pen & Pad” Briefing with Reporters, was very direct in clarifying that there is no “security inquiry,” that in fact, Hillary is being investigated as part of a criminal investigation. Comey says, “I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’ We’re conducting an investigation. That’s what we do. It’s in our name. There are no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.”



But there is no audio in this segment from TYT. Those phrases are really an amalgamation of several things Director Comey said in two separate exchanges with a reporter. Here’s the first one, copy/pasted from the FBI’s website (except, it wasn’t a complete transcription so I edited it). Turns out, it’s not so direct after all. In fact, the way he square dances with the truth is far more revealing. Pen & Pad briefings are audio only, so we can’t see Director Comey, but in a way, that’s easier, at least for me. Undistracted by facial expressions, I can hone in on “weak” spots in his speech (this means, places where the societal mask we all wear disappears for a second or two).

Starting at 21:04:


Catherine: On the e-mails, Director Comey, are you doing a security inquiry?

Director Comey: (long pause – awkward!) I’m sorry?

Catherine: On the e-mails are you doing a security inquiry?

Director Comey: I don’t know what that means.

Catherine: So it’s a criminal investigation?

Director Comey: We’re conducting an investigation. That-that’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do. And (pause) that’s probably all I can say about it.

Catherine: The reason I ask is that Mrs. Clinton consistently refers to it as a security inquiry, but the FBI does criminal investigations. I just want to —

Director Comey: Right —

Catherine: — see if you can clear that up.

Director Comey: — it’s in our name.

Catherine: Okay.

Director Comey: Yeah.

Catherine: Okay. So it’s not —

Director Comey: I’m not familiar with the term security inquiry.


BEST PART EVER: “I’m sorry?” he says, as if he has no idea what a security inquiry is and in fact, has never even heard such an bizarre off-the-wall term! A what??? A dinglehopper inquiry? A security yackamadoodle? How odd! I’ve never HEARD of such a thing!! Silly Catherine. Surely you jest! From what alternate realm do you descend where FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Inquiry? Inquisition maybe, inquiry — NEVER!


Ok, so he’s just a little too ready to respond with confusion to that question and a little too ready to feign innocence. It’s so funny, so actually hilarious that if it were say, Chris Parnell playing Comey in the SNL version of this exchange, Chris would not even have to exaggerate his intonation on “I’m sorry?” I think James Comey means, Sorry, not sorry. #sorrynotsorry


Let’s keep breaking it down: Cat goes, “on the email, are you doing a security inquiry?” and Directory Comey is all, “I don’t know what that means.” He’s actually being quite kind to Catherine in particular (she is one of the few people he addresses by name), so what does his faux-surprise pretend-ignorance MEAN???? Well, if we were using something I call “red neon sign translate,” he would be holding up a red neon sign that says, “the concept of a security inquiry is so absurd, so silly, and so illogical because the concept of actually and truly being investigated by the FBI is so measurably tangibly serious that downplaying it that much can only mean one thing: that Hillary is actually dumb which is measurably untrue OR she’s very very afraid; either way, I am not even going to acknowledge the insult to the entire Bureau that her euphemism conveys; if there’s anything I can do about it, she will never be our boss.”


Ok, that would be a big red neon sign. Fine. God, split hairs.


But WAIT — there’s more! Cat tries to make him admit on the record that it’s a criminal investigation when she says, “So it’s a criminal investigation?”


Now we get to hear his dad tone. All of a sudden he gets — just a little — pissed. “We’re conducting an investigation,” he barks says in a clipped tone. He’s not angry with/at Catherine, but again, he’s sick and tired of saying that they’re conducting an investigation because conducting investigations is all a bureau of investigation does. What else would it do? Really?


Then Catherine, taken aback by Comey’s departure from his generally jovial low key tone slips into hedge language: “the reason I ask” — she doesn’t have to give a reason; she’s a reporter, she asks questions for a living, we know why: it’s her job. But she feels compelled to gently rephrase her question because he barked at her and she felt bad for a second. She concludes with “I just want to see if you can clear that up.” This kind of hedge language is what we use on parents, bosses and other authority figures when they’re “in a bad mood” because we don’t want to get snapped at. Phrases that couch our request, such as “I was just wondering …” or “how would you feel if I possibly …” or “Do you happen to know by chance if/when/what ….?” instead of a direct question. She could have said, “You know why I’m asking — it doesn’t make any sense. Will you please state for the record that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton?” But, he answers affirmatively anyway! TWICE!


He says, “Right. It’s in our name.” Listen to the way he says it: “Right.” As in, yes, obviously. Hillary is being criminally investigated. And then when Catherine starts to use a placating tone to communicate to him primally that she is not a threat (“Okay, okay”), he communicates back to her with his calmer tone, “yes, I know you’re not a threat; you’re good, and yes, you’re 100% correct — yeah.” He uses affirmative language twice here, with the word Right and the word Yeah. This is not a coincidence. This is a man who chooses his words extremely carefully, and has no problem with hesitating if he hasn’t found the right words yet (wise man — as my mom used to say, “Once words come out of our mouths, they can never go back in, just like bullets from a gun. And words can be even more dangerous.”).


There’s more. At 14:21:


Eric: I know you don’t want to talk about the Hillary e-mails but I’m asking anyway.

Director Comey: [Are you ashamed?]

Eric: Yeah, I try not to. You’ve indicated publicly, in Niagara Falls and a few other places that you were going to finish this up on your own schedule. You were in no rush. The convention wasn’t a factor, nothing else was a factor. Is there a concern in the director’s office that this investigation is now the subject of so much scrutiny and speculation that you’re affecting a presidential election, in a negative way?

Director Comey: All I would do Eric is repeat what I said before. In any investigation, especially one of intense public interest, and I felt this about San Bernardino. We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. And so I feel –I feel pressure to do both of those things? (passive aggressive up-talk) What I said at some places, I don’t — I don’t see — I don’t tether to any parTICular external deadline? (passive aggressive up-talk) Look, I understand the interest in this particular investigation. I do feel the pressure to do it well and promptly. As between the two, we will always choose well. That’s the same general answer I hope I’ve [been giving] before.


Director Comey’s uptalk is pronounced in this exchange. When noticeable in a teen-aged girl, this voice mask is used to hide her intelligence because she feels compelled to hide any trait that could be a threat to others. In the head of the FBI, it’s super condescending. And he totally insulted “Eric” when he asked rhetorically, “are you ashamed?” Here’s what we know now about Director Comey (but could really have already guessed knowing that he was a US Attorney because they are lawyers who use words as tools and weapons to persuade juries): he can be mean. So, he has that streak of meanness. Now, we haven’t seen him in twenty different situations — we aren’t omniscient either — so we can only make an assessment based on the available data. Plus, he wasn’t mean to Catherine — he was only a little tetchy. The only time he was actually unkind was with Eric. And after all, we might be mean too if we had to keep dealing with idiots who asked stupid questions, especially if they were attempts to put concerns words in our office mouth disguised as questions.


So in order to truly gauge his character and make a well-rounded analysis, we need to look at at least two more interactions, with varying power dynamics. In the Pen & Pad briefing, the reporters were subject to him. He was most likely standing at an elevated podium, and they had to get permission to speak to him, to even be in the room. In this next video, he is on an equal level with the person interviewing him — they are both sitting (this is a position of non-dominance, and if the other person is standing, it is a position of subservience) and he was invited to be the interviewer’s guest. And in the third video we’ll look at, he is subject to a Congressional Committee, sitting below the members of a Senate Select Committee, looking up at them (looking up TO them, as a public servant, where the Senate represents the public — or the 37% of the public that bothers to vote in Senate elections).


I’ve capitalized or bold/italicized some words that Director Comey speaks, for a specific reason, below the video:



He says:

“Somebody asked me -uh- in the States about whether I’ve -uh- I think the question was, is the Democratic National Convention a, I forget what the question was, a hard stop for you or is that a key date for you or are you doing this investigation aimed at — and I said, NO. I — we aspire to do all our investigations in two ways: well and promptly. I’m personally close to this investigation because I want to enSURE [pause] that we have the resources, the people, the technology, and the SPACE [pause] to DO those things. And to do it in the way I hope we do ALL our work which is competently, honestly and INDEPENDENTLY. Um, and, I’m CONFIDENT it’s being done that way.”


So in communication element 1, the words that are coming out of his mouth, we can hear him say that he’s committed to concluding the investigation well, professionally, above board, the right way, quality over speed, etc, etc. It’s the same party line he’s been repeating for months.


But what is he really saying (communication element 2)? He says: I’m personally close to the investigation. Now, as we know, from a logic standpoint, the director of the bureau technically oversees all investigations but he says he’s “close” to it. The word close here is important. He could have said, “I am watching over my agents” or “I am doing everything I personally can to ensure the integrity of the investigation” but he doesn’t.  He says he’s close. What he’s really saying is that he’s close to finishing it. Now why does he mention space? That’s weird. Really weird. You don’t bring up space until you feel like you don’t have enough space, until you feel that your space is being encroached upon. For example, people who say they “need some space.” Space is also a word where his voice mask slips for a split second. Why? Because someone is likely hovering over him or attempting to infringe upon his space, probably someone who would rather the investigation stop.




Now, to deduce what he’s not saying, the most revealing of all the three elements of communication, we’re going to “do the math” and take all the pressure points or weak spots in his speech, every word or syllable where his mask slips (this is not a face mask, this is a voice mask) and add them together.




We then treat this like putting a ripped up handwritten note back together that is missing some of the pieces. No, we’re not reading it in context, but it could still be a very valuable source of information. The fun part here is that we get to fill in the blanks and move the pieces around into different orders (this also means that we are doing art, not science, and therefore the accuracy rate of our conclusion goes down).


So imagine that we heard him say, “No sure space do all independently confident” and we were like, what did he say?


There’s no sure space to do it all independently or confidently (?)


There’s no confident space to be sure or all independent (?)

OR, what I think it is,

There is no sure space (secure space); [I’m] doing all (everything) independently and confident [ially].



Yes, it is a stretch. And we’ll never know if this was the right analysis or not. The only thing we can verify (and I’m happy to be wrong — this is fun for me because I’m often right, but not always!) is that he’s close to being finished with the investigation, from communication element two. I predict it will be August of 2016 when the DOJ finally indicts Hillary.


I predict it will be August of 2016 when the DOJ finally indicts Hillary.


Additionally, watch his hands when he says he’s close to the investigation — his hands hold — nay, grip! — an invisible object. It’s very close to him indeed. There are other very pleasant aspects of his body language; I’m not going to specify all the indicators in his voice and hand movements and posture, etc, but they mean that he is probably a protective person, a thoughtful person, a person who can be violent sometimes but defensively, not aggressively, that he would not hurt women, that he has some regret (people who don’t feel regret don’t have an intact moral compass — we WANT indicators of regret), that he is very gentle toward children and domestic animals and vulnerable people, also that he’s methodical, logical, reflective, and talkative. Negatives? He likes the sound of his own voice, he likes giving advice and keeping people rooted to the spot while they listen to it because they feel obligated to, is moderately arrogant (the regret off-sets this and neutralizes the effect in his everyday life), is self-righteous, assumes that he is smarter than most people (although there are indicators of high intelligence and an excellent memory so he probably IS smarter than most people). Finally, there is also an interesting indicator of humility: it tells us that there was an event in the recent past where he realized just how powerful his influence on changing the outcome of a situation for the better really is (within the past 5 years, probably 3 years ago).



Now let’s go to that Hearing on Worldwide Threats, the Senate Select Committee hearing I mentioned earlier, where Director Comey is acting as a public servant and is thus the subordinate one in the power dynamic. Click here and then forward the feed to 1:04:46 to see the opening question from a Senator and then his response.



There’s no text for me to copy/paste and this hearing is long and sad and boring so suffice it to say, there are more indicators that Comey is logical, methodical, respectful of authority (both kinds, that which is endowed by rank and that which is endowed by We the People), humble, kind, protective of vulnerable peoples, along with new interesting indicators: that he is curious, deferential (he shows the most deference to Jim Clapper in this video; his body language indicates respect and admiration for the DNI), patient (listen to the way he explains concepts to Congress — he goes out of his way to not sound condescending toward them) and also happily married.



Finally, there was a second exchange Director Comey had with Catherine at the Pen & Pad briefing that really encapsulates my whole conclusion.

Catherine: I’m hopeful that you can answer this one.

Director Comey: Is it Hillary Clinton related?

Catherine: Yeah, but this is a really important issue though.

Director Comey: I don’t doubt that all of your questions are important. I’m just telling you I’m predicting the answer. As short as you can.

Catherine: I actually keep my questions very short (Cute — she knows she’s special and the favorite). [crosstalk 00:56:06] I consistently hear from security clearance holders that if they had done a fraction of what had been done by Mrs. Clinton’s team that they would already be in jail. Can you assure people that Mrs. Clinton and her team are being held to the same standard? That there isn’t a special set of rules because they are powerful and politically connected?

Director Comey: I’m not going to comment (pause) other than to say there are no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.


So, first he says that he’s not going to comment … then he comments — lol. So WHY does he comment? Because his moral compass compels him to. If he really doesn’t say anything (or regurgitates the same old non-answer he gave to Eric), then he’s not denying what everyone already thinks, that people like the Clintons get special treatment and everyone else gets a SWAT team at 4:00 a.m. breaking down the door and terrifying the entire building/block. It annoys him that he even has to say this (because in his ideal Just World it’s a given) but he grudgingly (after a pause) agrees exactly with Catherine’s word choice and echoes her phrasing exactly, “no special set of rules,” and goes beyond that — for anybody the FBI investigates. So now we know he’s idealistic and has an aversion to hypocrisy and bullies. Good! And what else do we know? That he is a person who is compelled by his moral compass. In the end, he will not be able to keep from doing the right thing and seeking justice.


So Bernie, you better stay in the race, Senator!








**Did you enjoy this body language/word choice analysis? Great! Please let me know on twitter and comment below!


***If you are the FBI, I would like a mug, please. An oversized one with the seal on it. You can send it to me at

Sarah Reynolds | 1299 Grand Ave #304 | St Paul, MN 55105


****But I would like Hillary indicted more than the mug, so if I have to choose, then the indictment.