Spicer Press Conference Leak Explained

On June 26, 2017, when Sean Spicer gave his daily press briefing, only in audio mind you, he slipped up huge. He said something that is very revealing about what he thinks or knows to be true.

He said about Trump, “He believes that Russia probably was involved, potentially some other country as well could have been EQUALLY INVOLVED.”

The words “EQUALLY involved” should have stopped you dead in your tracks!

If you didn’t do something, you would never say someone else is “equally involved…”

That tells you that according to Spicer speaking for Trump, that Trump was involved in the collusion or Spicer believes it to be so.  As his press person, I would argue that Spicer knows the truth and leaked it unknowingly.

As an example, if you are accused of stealing something and you didn’t steal anything, you don’t say, “John was equally involved” in the theft, would you?

Hell no.

You’d only say that someone was equally INVOLVED–IF YOU WERE INVOLVED. Not if you are innocent.

The leaks out of this administration are comparable to no other administration in my lifetime. It’s over-the-top insanity right now.

Spicer tried to correct himself at the end with…  “or could have been involved not equally.”  Oops.

Was this eye-opening? Slips like these are happening daily.  If you catch one, feel free to contact me!



by Renee Ellory | Eyes For Lies
GET NOTIFIED of future class dates & sales! Click here
  • Paul Martin

    Er, no. He means that another country could be equally involved, just like Russia. It says nothing about Trump being involved.

    • It can be looked at both ways. Someone else pointed to this as well. Spicer says, “He believes Russia was PROBABLY involved” meaning it’s a guess, and there is some doubt there, right? Russia was probably involved, but maybe not. So add to that statement of speculation that”POTENTIALLY (but may not?) some other countries COULD HAVE BEEN—–EQUALLY involved.” So we don’t know for sure anyone was involved, but maybe Russia and maybe other countries were equally involved though we know nothing. It’s flat out absurd. The statement can be read both ways, and neither bodes well for the administration. It makes Spicer look like a total buffoon. I wouldn’t say I think someone stole something potentially, but I don’t know for sure, but others had to steal equally, though I don’t know for sure. Who talks like this but liars??

      • Paul Martin

        Nope. Not absurd, and not a buffoon.

        Spicer paraphrased:

        Russia probably was involved.
        Potentially other countries may be equally involved.
        Or not equally, and only minor players.

        Covers most bases, and the usual political guff, but not absurd or buffoonish, unless you want to condemn half of what politicians and their spokespeople say.

        And again, it says nothing about Trump.

        • Keith D.

          Taken in pure isolation it says nothing about Trump, but put the pieces all together and the big picture speaks volumes. Eyes is right when she says, “who talks like this but liars??” Liars are who talks like that, and it’s when they’re lying.

          • Paul Martin

            Who talks like that? Politicians.

          • Keith D.

            No, not politicians, liars. Many politicians are liars, but not all politicians are liars. That’s a critical distinction, and if you aren’t using it, then you’re making a big mistake and painting innocent people as guilty, which is every bit as bad as painting the guilty as innocent. Please don’t make that mistake. It leads us to where we are today.

          • Paul Martin

            You misunderstand. My point is that he’s not lying as such, he’s using politician speak. Which all sorts of people use, including the media. For example, in simple terms of course Obama lied when he said ‘If you like your plan you can keep it’. As did Clinton when he said ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman.’ Or Bush Snr’s ‘No new taxes’. But to me it seems more in keeping to say that it is part of the language game of politics. ‘Twas ever thus.

          • Tracker

            Do you realize that’s how conspiracy theories work? Sure this one specific thing might not prove much, but taken in the context of every other thing that doesn’t prove much then the big picture emerges.

          • Keith D.

            Yeah, that is how conspiracy theories work. It’s one of the reasons I loathe them so much. Conspiracies are real, but conspiracy theories rarely are in my experience. At worst, I’d call conspiracy theories “dezinformatsiya”— disinformation campaigns— and at best, intellectual pursuits, with their being most often unhealthy anti-intellectual “intellectual pursuits”. What it normally devolves into, often right from the start, is a desperate search for patterns where patterns don’t actually exist to begin with. The only healthy way to pursue a conspiracy theory is to never get invested in it and to spend all your effort trying to disprove it, and in that case, you’ll mostly find that it’s a waste of your time because most real conspiracies are fairly easy to identify and unravel when you have some access and put in the effort.

            Conspiracy theories as disinformation campaigns are a lot more insidious because like the famous poster in The X-Files said, people “want to believe”. Pursuing conspiracy theories is usually unhealthy because people tend to get really deeply invested in them, and it blinds them to all the exculpatory evidence there usually is against them, which makes them incredible tools in disinformation campaigns for manipulating people to sew chaos, discord, division, and distrust, and to basically gaslight them to where no longer have the capacity to be able to fight you anymore. In the U.S., we’re dangerously close to reaching that point today, and it leaves us vulnerable to anyone who’d care to take advantage of us and the situation we’re in.

            I wouldn’t have such a problem with people pursuing or talking about conspiracy theories if they were engaging in it with some amount of rigor, but that’s almost never been the case from what I’ve observed. Culturally, we’re very emotionally attached to these things, and it leaves us ripe for being manipulated, and the worst part is that while we’re so entrenched in digging up conspiracies, we’re ignoring the real ones staring us in the face and inadvertently aiding the conspiracists and harming ourselves. I’ve been frustrated with this for several years now when I noticed a huge uptick in their prevalence and how widely (and poorly) they were being discussed.

            Actually, now that I’ve written all that, I reread your comment, and you are right about that being how conspiracy theories work in terms of one specific thing doesn’t prove much, but taken in context of everything else, the big picture emerges. Where people usually go wrong is in not actually taking everything in context and just focusing either narrowly or selectively while telling themselves that they’re looking at the big picture in its full context in order to see the conspiracy they’re looking for.