President Trump’s Statement is Mind-blowing

President Trump tweets out today a statement that should have every single American in an uproar.

“…gave our country away” should jump at you like a beacon in the night! What honorable President would even consider that thought? None that I know of.

Chelsea Clinton aptly called Trump out…

I don’t think it can be anymore clear than this. As Oprah Winfrey said, “when people tell you who they are, believe them.”


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

    In an uproar?

    What is uproarious?

    The truth?

    Chelsea’s Mom, Hillary, did “give away the country….” In exchange for donations to Chelsea’s employer, the Clinton Foundation.

    What’s the uproar? Uproar would be a better term for the expected response to the Clintons’ brazen selling of influence to foreigners–including Russians, by the way.

    “WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president….Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity…”

    • Sally Staples

      What did she give away?

      • wttdl

        I can provide you with a hint: donations to the foundation dried up as soon as Hillary lost the election! But I doubt that will have ANY effect on your opinion.

        • Sally Staples

          What opinion? I’m Canadian, and I really have no idea what you are saying. I don’t have any idea what you are saying she gave away in exchange for donations. Truly, I’m trying to understand.

          • wttdl

            Thanks for your response. Obviously, I was reactionary and defensive, and with limited info, I took it out on you 🙁 Apologies.

            Hillary & Bill headed The Clinton Foundation. Many have suspected that it was a front for pay-to-play from countries wanting to peddle their influence by giving the Clinton’s money, with the hope that it would be reciprocated ONCE SHE WAS (most assuredly) IN OFFICE.

            Once she lost the election, all these donating foreign interests STOPPED donating money to the foundation–making it obvious to anyone, that the past donations were an obvious conflict of interest, and pay-for-play influence during her presidency.

            “Canada” was mentioned because the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

            Depending on who you believe, Hillary (in her capacity at the state department) approved this deal: aka “GAVE AWAY” a portion of what was in the best interest of United States in exchange for money (the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra ALONE gave over $30,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation)

            Hope that helps you understand my comment and motivation.

          • Sally Staples

            Thank you for explaining! (And for the apology.)

          • wttdl

            Renee, EFL, runs a tight ship. This blog of hers is the only place online I can do that 🙂 Glad to hear it helped.

  • Doux

    I am not pro-Clinton or Pro-Trump. However, I do not think that my stance means that I should remain silent. I would very much appreciate having a president who inspires people to respectful behaviors and attitudes. I would very much appreciate a president who can navigate through the world without leaving a trail of offense, loss of respect, and contempt. I would very much appreciate a president who is able to demonstrate through his actions, words, and work ethic that he is mature, intelligent, and able. Sadly, it is more than a simple burden to find things to admire about Trump, because of Trump. If a person tries hard enough to honestly admire him (at this point in time,) that person may also find him or herself coming to unintended negative conclusions. Conclusions like, …he lacks maturity, he lacks intelligence, he has been unable to demonstrate an admirable worth ethic, etc. At the end of thoughtful consideration, I was left with an opinion that I do not trust Trump to execute the duties of the President of the United States in a manner that I could consider to be admirable, dignified, circumspect, or wise. He might get some things accomplished, and I hope that he does; but I am more interested in seeing him replaced as quickly as possible if there is an ethical and legal way to do it.

  • Trump has a pattern of accusing other people of what he himself has done and/or is currently doing.

  • wttdl

    Whether true or not:

    I thought Trump’s tweet was an obvious reference to Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (you know, the foundation headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors) receiving millions in donations from leaders of the Canadian mining industry–the leaders who built, financed, and sold off to the Russians the company Uranium One: giving Putin 20% of the uranium in the world and big ownership in US uranium interests (the deal had to be approved by, among others, the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

    What is not disputed–and what embodies Oprah’s Proverbial Proverb to an even greater degree–is that all the pay-to-play donations to the Clinton’s dried up the minute Hillary lost the election… aka, lost the influence people were paying for!

    Talk about telling people who YOU are … can’t believe you’re salivating over preferring to have that in the white house …. AGAIN!

    • Keith D.

      Where did she ever endorse Hillary Clinton? The thing is, if your outrage over these Clinton things were at all genuine, then you’d be right behind her in calling it out when the current administration is doing it, but you’re not doing that. Instead, you’re using Clinton’s past in order to give permission to Trump to do what you claim you don’t support, but in point of fact by your words, you actually do support.

      • wttdl

        Keith, I’ve seen you on here for years, I have always had respect for your thoughts and comments. I also understand your defense of EFL, I’ve often felt the same when people accuse her of things … rightly or wrongly.

        If I’m hearing you correctly, it sounds like you’re saying that I must not truly be outraged by the Clinton actions (past actions at that), else I would be equally enraged about Trump doing the same thing (current actions); yet, I seem to be defending him, thus undermining my outrage.

        Although I can see why my words are interpreted this way, my outrage has to do with the imbalance in the portrayal of Trump by anyone who criticizes or calls him out. (The same was done with Obama, only with a racist “flair”: “born in Kenya, I mean, really, how ridiculous … and everyone UNFAIRLY and unconsciously piled on: it was despicable)

        I have never heard EFL (or any Trump critique) state the following “Even though Trump is bad, Hillary would have been just as bad, so all I’m doing is using Trump’s non-unique, but current actions as a teaching tool for learning about lying. I could just as well use any president, including candidate Hillary, to do exactly the same thing”.

        By virtue of the way Trump is portrayed as the downfall of civilization and handing our country away–and not mentioning the acts and deeds of other presidents, let alone the alternative candidate in this last election–has me believing that EFL would have preferred Hillary: as you pointed out, an assumption on my part.

        But my opinion, albeit assumptive accusation, is bolstered, at least in my mind, by statements EFL has said. Here’s one from 6/8/17 Vote: James Comey …

        “I have been talking about the Trump case, not because of politics, but
        because I feel our country is under attack, and I feel its my civic duty
        to share it. I believe in my country and want people to see the grave

        EFL is talking about the downfall of the country. You mean it wasn’t falling under other lying and deceitful presidents? It wouldn’t have fallen equally under Hillary who is also “just as bad as” Trump?

        To me, EFL’s comments ARE a tacit endorsement of Hillary (and any president other than the unique threat embodied by TRUMP) otherwise she would present it in a way other than the Sky is Falling.

        I look forward to your thoughtful and measured response.

      • Precisely. Ignorance just speculates that I am a Clinton supporter. But regardless, the two are by no means comparable still.

        • wttdl

          My ignorance along with my leaps in “logic”.

          Apparently, I have some knee jerk defensive issues to work on still, thanks Renee.

          I should probably have asked you FIRST, before assuming and then voicing my uninformed opinion.

          So, to back track, here is my thought process and question: You have remained silent on politicians–for reasons you’ve stated–until now.

          No other politician, has risen to the level wherein you feel the obligation to step in and do your “civic duty”: including Hillary.

          I assumed you wanted Hillary, which I now see is not true.

          Additionally, I am now aware that you do NOT see the two–Hillary and Trump–as comparable.

          And that is where we disagree, and where the “rage” from my seeing everyone ELSE gloss over Hillary’s behavior, gets projected and heaped on you. My apologies.

          Once again though, you have proven that you tolerate disagreement in your blogs, just not abuse. You are truly amazing and have created a unique forum for this type of exchange.

        • wttdl

          Yes, I still can’t get off this …

          If we let it
          stand that Trump is just worse than Hillary, there’s nothing
          quantifiable in order for me to obtain a scale of reference.

          if you could state that on the awful scale, Trump is a 10 and Hillary
          is only a 2. Or Trump is an 8 and Hillary is a 6.

          Or better yet, why don’t you compare Trump’s actions that equal any of Hillary’s actions.

          about undermining the entire democratic candidate selection process.
          How does Hillary’s abusing the DNC to screw Bernie and the American
          people, compare to a given action by Trump?

          Hillary’s private email debacle, do YOU even realize that her
          statements about no emails being marked classified when it was sent or
          received DISTRACTS everyone from realizing that she KNEW that the emails
          AT SOME FUTURE POINT could be marked classified … and thus she HAD
          ALREADY OPENED UP AND EXPOSED these secrets of the nation: leaving them
          in the hands of another nation, at which point they have become top
          secret. Do you get it?

          Please tell me what actions of Trump most closely resembles this? And which of his actions are worse? I mean, he’s a terrible, stupid, idiot, moron after all.

          about her pay to play foundation, whose donations dried up the minute
          she lost. What action of Trump most closely compares to this? And which
          of his actions are worse?

          • Brent

            Hillary’s actions in the past do not influence the future as much as the present president. Politics is mainly about deliberating on the future and the future consequences of Trump’s actions are more important. It is as the sufis say, if someone is drowning the first thing is to save them, not ask how they got into that situation.

  • josh

    This is a click bait title. There is nothing mind blowing in Donald Trump acting like Donald Trump. You don’t have to be a lie detection expert to see this.

    I have been looking at news stories about this, and every one of them says that Trump’s tweet was in response to criticism about his daughter holding his seat.

    That is it. No mention of who was criticizing him, or exactly what they said.

    All the articles, as well as this blog post, which mentions the criticism not at all, focus only on his response, which is a lie of omission.

    Trump never backs down from a fight, and in many ways this is to a fault. When his critics go after his daughter, he fires back.

    In his brash and combative way, he is standing up for her. He is also speaking the truth, if a bit crudely, about the bias of the press. If you don’t believe that the press is biased against him, you are not to be trusted intellectually.

    He is saying that if Chelsea had done the same thing, she would have been praised. I am surprised no one mentioned Kelly Anne Conway putting her shoes up on a sofa.

    Media nitpicks, grasps at straws, exaggerates, and lies by omission. This post also stoops to that level.


    • Keith D.

      What you’re missing here is the meaning in the words he chose on his own to say in defense of his daughter. Words mean things. Liars leak clues without meaning to. Ignoring those clues is to your detriment, and in this case, to the country’s detriment as well.

      • Agreed.

      • josh

        No one has yet said what sort of lie is being leaked. Is he lying about thinking Hilary engaged in criminal activity? No. Is he lying in thinking the media would have treated her daughter better than they treat his? No.

        What is the lie being leaked?

        If you are saying that he is somehow really talking about himself, well, that may be possible, but how could you know that just from a tweet? Same with Chelsea’s tweet? No body language, tone, nothing, just a tweet?

        Your interpretation seems to me to be far from a slam dunk.

        Also, Trump is obviously a rhetorician, a persuader, and as such often the things he says are for a certain effect, and not even intended to be simple declarative descriptions of reality.

        If you just said that he is far crasser than any modern president, you would have gotten no argument from me.

        But seriously, all of this pearl clutching from all corners of the web is getting repetitive.

        Words mean things. Give me a break.

        My response was intelligent enough for you to have known better than to condescend like that.

        This post, and many of the comments come across like people who are still having a tantrum because the wrong person won.

        What is the context? The context is that the media has treated Trump more harshly than his opponent, so he calls them fake news, he calls them out. Yeah, he sounds like a broken record, and it is annoying, but this is by no means “mind blowing.” He has been talking like this for over a year.

        Same with his criticism of the Clintons for corruption. All he is saying is that Clinton is more corrupt than he is, and that the media protects her, and if she had done the same thing, they would have celebrated it.

        I don’t see any lying here. It is Trump, hitting talking points he has hit before, and defending his daughter at the same time.

        If you are accusing him of projecting, you should check out the Goldwater rule, which trained psychologists are supposed to follow.

        I just don’t think you have enough information to argue that he is really talking about himself, if that is what you are arguing, since neither you nor Russ have come out and said plainly what you see as the lie in Trump’s tweet.

        Crude? Crass? Thin skinned? Yeah, totally. No one has yet explained to me a justification for the melodramatic title of this blog post based on such thin evidence.

        Whoop de do. Trump is talking like Trump talks. Film at eleven.

        • I clearly identified the leak. “Give our country away.” And it’s not a lie.

          • josh

            As I said, he has been accusing Clinton of that for over a year. How does Trump hitting one of his tired talking points in a tweet count as evidence that he is actually talking about himself?

            There is simply no evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. The first four or five accusations I checked out and tracked down the facts and found them to be baseless.

            After that, it became clear it was a campaign to stymie his agenda, and turned into background noise.

            People in the media say, we will prove he colluded with Russia, wait until the Comey testimony, and then the Comey testimony exonerates him, and no one talks about it anymore, they are on to the next thing.

            If anything, the real leaking is the way mainstream commentators and politicians cling to the collusion narrative despite being revealed, again and again, to have no evidence.

            Seriously, draining the swamp is another of his talking points, getting the corruption out of Washington.

            Are you seriously suggesting that this has all been a secret plan, and that he isn’t really a nationalist, just pretending, in order to give the country away to Russia?

            All I see is widespread denial. People don’t like Trump’s style or his old school ways, and they are grasping at straws to criticize him.

            Someone, please, show some proof that stands up under scrutiny.

            I don’t think you have any weight to your analysis in this case unless there is any real evidence of malfeasance.

            It is just too thin.

            The fact that he used the phrase “Give our country away” needs more corroboration of some sort, any sort, before it becomes a fair and reasonable analysis.

            As a phrase, it is perfectly in line with what he has been criticizing the left with for over a year.

            How is it a tell on its own?

          • Keith D.

            “give the country away” isn’t a tell, it’s the leak itself. The tell is the context it’s in. What he tweeted was, “If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother, as her mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!”

            It begins with, “If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold a seat for her mother”. This doesn’t come out of nowhere, it comes from Ivanka holding his seat for him at the G20. This places the context of what he said as a direct comparison between himself and Hillary, with Hillary winning the election and being at the G20.

            It follows with, “as her mother gave our country away”. This is the leak itself.

            Next comes, “the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!” This provides additional context to the leak. It presupposes Hillary had won the election, that she was President, and that she was at the G20 giving the country away. But this latter part where he adds that the “fake news” would say Chelsea for President at the end means that he’s not talking about Hillary in this tweet at all. He’s talking about the media and Chelsea here in defense of his daughter holding his seat, so this is NOT a comparison of himself to Hillary, which means that, in context, he’s NOT talking about Hillary giving the country away, he’s leaking that he’s giving the country away.

            This tweet was one sentence about one thing, not three sentences about three things. It’s one single train of thought, and you’re altering it in your mind to be more than it is by reinterpreting it as something it isn’t saying, and you’re losing its actual meaning in the process. This is why liars get away with lying so often, because the people hearing the lie don’t try to make sense of what was said, they try to alter what was said in their own mind to be something that makes sense to them instead.

          • wttdl

            Thanks, this was actually brilliant and well thought out.

            I like my little adjunct from my previous speech above about how a guilty husband talks about his wife using past tense (she “was” a good person, or I “lov-ed” my wife), when the police are still treating it as a missing person’s case.

            I’m actually leaning towards EFL’s perception that Trump’s selling out our country.

            However, I still take issue with comparing his “unwitting declarations” to the KNOWN ACTIONS of what Hillary HAS ALREADY DONE.

            Trump has NOT YET DONE anything. He’s only LEAKED that he’s gonna do it. Hillary HAS ALREADY DONE, has already proven that she’s the type of person who would sell us out. (see my comments about Libya above).

            And furthermore, Hillary sold us out when she didn’t even have the power of the presidency … just think how much damage she would do had she become president!!!

            And yet, (I still need this confirmed/answered by Eyes) Eyes says Hillary doesn’t even compare to Trump: “But regardless, the two are by no means comparable still.”

            And that is what makes me believe Eyes prefers Hillary over Trump–NOT Hillary over the other 22 presidential candidates from day one, but if there were a choice today, Eyes would rather have her over Trump; which just seems to be filled with ignorance, to me. Maybe Eyes, or experts you’ve mentioned that concur with Eyes, could explain why Libya as Hillary’s selfish 2016 election strategy wasn’t that big a deal?!!!

          • Brent

            I agree with most of your analysis. But, there is some possibility that Trump’s statement is only restating his previous claims of Hillary selling the country off, for example the Uranium deal. So he could be referring to Hillary and not himself. But I agree with you. I think Eyes statement convinces me “What honorable President would even consider that thought?” Trump’s statement indicates what goes through his mind.

        • wttdl

          I enjoyed everything you had to say. I am upset about the tone and sentiment out there that Trump is somehow different, and Hillary doesn’t stink.

          That being said, if my child told me that he senses a defect in a 747, I’m not going to take it seriously.

          However, if several Boeing Engineers and Pilots concur on a given assessment, it will certainly “give me pause”.

          Scientists studied 15,000 people over the course of two decades, and have identified only 50 experts who understand human behavior and can spot deception with exceptional accuracy. Renee Ellory, known as “Eyes for Lies,” is one of these experts.

          The rest of us “followers” of Eyes, I don’t put any credence in (and certainly not the snowflake saber rattling we’re all inundated with hourly).

          Eyes has time and again refrained from giving opinions and stated so, when she determines she does not have enough information.

          However, this highly scrutinized EXPERT is telling you that she can make a determination from these 140 characters.

          I’m at least experiencing a little pause.

          • Keith D.

            Eyes’ mother was also identified as one of those 50 experts, and her mother agrees with her about Trump. That’s two experts who see the same thing. I know one other person who Eyes believes would have been identified as a truth wizard if he’d been able to be tested as well, and despite that person leaning far more to the right, he sees the same thing Eyes and her mother sees as well. That isn’t quite the same because he never had the opportunity to be tested, so we don’t know for certain that he’s a truth wizard, but the fact that Eyes believes he probably is after knowing him for quite a few years should count for something. The fact that he’d be politically more inclined to Trump’s side of the aisle would probably add even more weight to that for most people, although for me it wouldn’t add anything but circumstantial weight. But it does serve to eliminate a potential bias from the equation. Those things don’t count for nothing to me. (I’m still working on my reply to your earlier comment to me, it’s forthcoming but it’ll take a little while and I might not finish it today.)

          • wttdl

            You’re right, that does kind of get rid of the bias aspect of things. Thanks for pointing that out. Her gift is hereditary?

            I was just trying to empathize with josh, and obviously had some wondering about it myself … but now I have to reevaluate 🙁 LOL

          • josh

            I have been following this blog for a while. I generally don’t contribute because I have more to learn than to say.

            There is always a temptation for someone who is an expert in one field to start being an expert in general and speak beyond their expertise.

            Being an expert in detecting deception in other people in no way makes you immune from deceiving yourself. We are all equal in that, expert or not.

            I am, to a degree, calling EFL out for the click baity and melodramatic tone of her post because it seems so out of character in relation to the high level of objectivity in most of her posts.

            I am also aware that EFL is a canny and intelligent person, and that if she did want to proffer a political opinion, she would do it in such a way that it would be expressed under the guise of simply spotting lies, a far more effective way than coming out and saying it clearly.

            It may surprise you that I am not a big Trump supporter in the sense of supporting Trump the man. I think he is only a representation of a greater trend in politics. Popular opinion shifted, and he was lucky enough to come ride the wave before anyone else knew what was happening.

            I generally do not debate people who are irrational in their hatred of the man because I think they are unreachable.

            They thought everyone agreed with them, and Trump’s election proved them wrong, and so many people in the country are still having tantrums and meltdowns.

            I don’t claim to be an expert in lie detection, but I do have a strong intuition, and when something strikes me as off, sometimes I express what I feel and why.

            The tone of this post was off.

            This to me is not an objective statement. It is overblown and melodramatic:

            “President Trump tweets out today a statement that should have every single American in an uproar.”

            This level of emotion, coupled with the complete lack of credible evidence that Trump had anything to do with the Russians, makes me skeptical of EFL’s claims that he is leaking something important in his words.

            I think to a degree she is stepping out of her lane.

            In other words, being a normal, fallible human being.

          • wttdl

            I see what you mean. I also realize I was assuming things about you. Sorry.

            I wonder the same sometimes myself though about eyes in this situation.

            And in general, I mean, every 4 years, “the sky is falling”. And then it settles down until 4 years later, and then all the promises are made, and everyone believes them, and then all the promises are broken, and the same thing happens again 4 years later.

            I mean, c’mon, really. Fool me once, shame on you.

            I assume what EFL is trying to convey is similar to what guilty spouses say during police interrogations wherein, AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVIEW, it is still believed by the police to be a MISSING PERSON’S case and NOT a murder.

            However, the (guilty) husband is sitting there talking in terms of “was”. My wife WAS a good person.

            In other words, that simple little 3 letter word, tells the investigators that this guy either killed her, or would rather assume she’s dead than just missing.

            So, even though Trump has said the same old things about Hillary over and over again, OUT OF ALL OF THE THINGS he could have said, he chose THIS ONE … “giving the country away”.

            Yes, he’s said it before, yes he believes it. Yes, IT’S EVEN TRUE 😀

            But I think that EFL is saying that he chose that particular accusation against Hillary, not out of coin flip or even what was most on his mind about HER, but the fact that HE was CURRENTLY engaged in giving the country away in his dealings–and THAT’s why he chose that particular phrase.

            He probably is lining his own pockets, and thinks only of himself. But how that differs from anyone else, ESPECIALLY Hillary (who’s already proven herself to be so) is where I disagree with Eyes, and have said so.

            Look forward to your further thoughts.

          • I could careless about Trump’s statement out Hillary. He could have said Ronald McDonald there. Hillary, or whoever was mentioned didn’t interest me in the slightest.

            As for why I didn’t publicly come out about Trump before the election, I’ve learned over the years that when I see the truth long before other people, it provides no benefit to anyone to say what is going on when others can’t see it. They just label me as crazy. I don’t have a big enough platform to have weigh on the subject to make difference or I would have. And now, even with a plethora of evidence stacking up against Trump, some people still don’t see it. I try to do what I can as best I can.

          • Brent

            Eyes, I admire what you do. I think it’s great.
            This is how I see what you are doing:
            1. Hillary is not in power so she is not the main issue at hand. Trump is the president in power. His actions will lead to consequences in the future. Politics is primarily deliberative and concerns future results.
            2. You can see the implications of his character and actions. Because they are serious, it is important to act now, not later.
            3. Many people will only see him as being another politician in power, maybe a little worse, maybe a little better, but what’s with all the big noise you are raising. It is natural they would see it like that because they cannot see it.

          • Brent

            I think this story is relevant to your endeavours Eyes and your readers. It is a 1970’s retelling, of a retelling, of the original 13th Century Rumi story .

          • Keith D.

            Very briefly, I do want to address one point you made in this comment before I get to my main reply above. You mentioned this here, “I am upset about the tone and sentiment out there that Trump is somehow different, and Hillary doesn’t stink.”

            I understand that, and certainly there’s a strong element of that throughout the country, through some segments of the media, and all over the internet and social media. That tone and sentiment absolutely exists, no question. And it’s understandable that you’re upset about it. I get upset about things like that as well. But can you look back over the decades of Hillary’s career and honestly say that she hasn’t had the exact same treatment herself? That there haven’t been numerous false accusations levied against her and her husband over the years? That that same kind of toxic sentiment and tone hasn’t existed for her as well? That she hasn’t been subjected to all kinds of both fair and unfair scrutiny and blaming for both things she was responsible for and things she wasn’t? Because as much as I don’t like her, I can’t say that having been following along since the 1990s.

            But the question is, have you seen that tone and sentiment here and expressed by Eyes if you were to take only what she’s posted in isolation from what you’ve seen elsewhere or from her readers? I haven’t. In cases like these about the administration, and maybe even in some of these themselves, I’ve seen some sentiments expressed by readers that could be described like what you’re talking about, but it doesn’t come from Eyes, it comes from her some of her readers if it comes at all. She’s always tried very hard to avoid doing that while still exposing what she sees (and really only a very small fraction of it). But it can be very easy to take the frustration we feel about a general, widely expressed sentiment and attach it to an individual who may not have been a part of that sentiment.

            I say that because I know how easy it is for me to do the same thing, and it takes a conscious, deliberate effort to avoid doing it even with all the practice I get in doing it all the time. It is one of the easiest things in the world to do. I don’t know if that’s a part of where you’re coming from here or not, only you can say, but it’s worth doing some self-criticism to see if that might be a part of it or not, because if it is, it may be influencing how you’re seeing some of these posts and making it harder for you to understand them and learn from them. Not because you’re not wanting to, but because if we get hung up on something, our minds are stopped in their tracks and have to keep coming back to that thing instead of being free to keep moving and learning more. It can limit a person if they get stuck on something and aren’t able to move past it or set it down and walk away from it even temporarily. That is very very easy to do, it can happen without even noticing it.

            One other point in what you said is that you said two different things. Hillary does stink. But at the same time, she also is different and not as bad. She is differently bad, but not to nearly the same extent.

          • wttdl

            I agree with a lot of your well thought out and patiently worded explanations. You always have something thoughtful and constructive to say.

            I admit to being influenced by all my thoughts and feelings from the general sentiment, and then unfairly including EFL as just another in that same group, and heaping it all on her … even though, as you say, SHE is ostensibly coming from a more neutral, objective, trained place, and practicing her craft, not her own knee jerk catharsis.

            I also agree that Hillary’s been outrageously and unfairly scrutinized (witch hunt–for not being the way a woman should act) over the years–often to the extent of much ado about nothing: I mean, whatever became of White Water, Bengazi, lawyers deaths, etc. NOTHING!

            I was outraged in the 90’s knowing that the Clinton’s had to spend 90% of their time preparing for court and the media instead of being able to run the @#$%!ing country.

            What an outrageous, inefficient, and SICK system we have.

            My opinion about Eye’s commentary though really shifted for me when she commented herself (and I think your statements were similar) that Hillary’s not as bad as Trump.

            Perhaps Hillary, the DNC, and Wasserman Schultz didn’t “give away our country” TO ANOTHER ENTITY with this move, but denying the trusting voters of America the fair choice of Bernie because of their behind the scenes rigging of a presidential candidate by a trusted and supposedly neutral entity of the democratic people!!!!

            How can that not rise to the level of incredulity?

            My jaw is on the floor just wondering how it is that EFL was somehow never motivated back in 2016 by THAT “country sell out” to start including politician scrutiny in her blogging?

            THAT didn’t rise to EFL’s call to civic duty BEFORE the election? Cause, that would have been time to speak out, before the die was cast. What happened to her call to citizenry then, before people cast their votes.

            But Trump’s tweets about something he hasn’t even done yet does? AND she says that Hillary isn’t as bad?!!!

            I can’t type in bold and capitalization enough to scream on the screen of the outrageousness of Eye’s (and her “concurring” experts on Trump).

            I believe she’s right on that Trump’s giving away the country, most likely for his own ego and glorification–cause he can’t resist: but the statement by eyes that there is “No comparison” is simply too rich.

            Oh, and I didn’t vote for Trump, fyi.

          • josh

            I get you.

            “But the question is, have you seen that tone and sentiment here and
            expressed by Eyes if you were to take only what she’s posted in
            isolation from what you’ve seen elsewhere or from her readers? I
            haven’t. ”

            The whole reason I calling out the tone of the post is because it is unlike most posts and commentary on this blog.

            The fact that it exists in isolation is what proves my point.

            I come to this blog expecting to hear someone who is a professional analyze the words and body language of other people in a professional tone.

            When I get high emotion, and extremely ambiguous analysis, I am reading something that is indistinguishable from anything from a political statement to propaganda.

            I know you are trying to help me, but you truly don’t need to psychoanalyze me on this one.

            Also, when I said that I was upset about it that was overstating things. I was more annoyed than upset. I don’t want the discussion to change to helping old over emotional Josh learn how to see things as they are.

            I don’t think that is appropriate in the context of this discussion.

            I didn’t come here to attack Hilary or defend Trump. I think they are both politicians and they both lie all the time.

            From what I can see, you are responding to me by saying yeah but.

            Yeah but, Hilary has been attacked too.

            Yeah but, your criticisms apply to some of EFL’s commenters, not her.

            Yeah but, maybe what you are seeing is coming from inside of you, not from what you are reading.

            From my point of view, these are all, not necessarily intentionally, diversionary arguments.

            What I am saying is very simple.

            I find the tone of this post and this post alone to be highly emotional, possibly even melodramatic, in the manner of click bait and political speech.

            On the flip side, what is actually being said, the content of the post, is very vague and indirect, not plain speech, not clear intentions, more like innuendo and insinuation.

            I now understand from what Russ has said the difference between a lie and a leak, and even so, I find this to be very thin evidence for such an emotional post.

            Russ gave me evidence for the ways in which people leak information, and I am sure it is very good evidence and I will read it, but that was not the evidence that I was looking for.

            I am saying that accusing the president of the US of giving the country away based on verbal leakage is dicey business. When I asked for evidence, I was asking for evidence in the substance of the meeting and what came of it.

            What agreements, and what documents indicate that Trump has given away his own country to the Russians?

            Remember that a lot of people grudgingly voted for him out of fear of Clinton, and they are watching him very closely to make sure that he keeps the promises of putting this country first, meaning get us jobs, and slow down immigration, and make agreements with other countries that favor the US.

            If he signed an agreement that favored Russia over the US he would be turning on his own voter base, and the promises he made to them. It would be political suicide. They would know very quickly and lose confidence in him, and look somewhere else.

            So as far as I can see, and I do respect EFL’s abilities, at the moment I am not going to believe that Trump is planning on selling out the country to the Russians based on a parenthetic phrase in a tweet.

            That is what I mean by evidence. I am old enough to remember the flack that the Clinton’s got when they were in office. It is inaccurate to say that my judgement is clouded by wishful amnesia. I am also old enough to know that it was Bill Clinton who sold out the country IN ACTUAL FACT by signing the NAFTA bill, as well as by signing GATT.

            This matters more to me than a parenthetic tell/leakage that could be wrong.

            I am looking at the overall context, and taking it into account, when I make my decisons about his tweet.

            By the way, just to make sure I say this before I close out this comment. I appreciate everyone responding to me and giving me their positions. I was pleasantly surprised. I figured I would just post my first post, and the moderator would delete it, but at least it would have felt good writing it.

            This is usually what happens when I post a dissenting opinion on a blog that has a group of loyal commenters of whom I am not one.

            I am happy my first post was allowed to remain, and have been happy about the civil responses I have gotten by the posters on this blog. It has been a stimulating discussion for me, and for that, I thank all of you.

        • “Trump is obviously a rhetorician”. As an expert and instructor in rhetoric, this is a bemusing characterization. May as well call him an “orator.” He is a bombastic bullsh****r. In the sense that ALL communication is technically “rhetoric,” you are correct. But the connotation is that a “rhetoritician” is a person who is skilled in the elements of discourse (vocabulary, syntax, organization, figurative language, etc.), not just good at changing the subject when people come after him.

          • josh

            Have to agree to disagree on this one.

            By rhetorician, I meant that often he is using language for effect, not merely trying to make a string of truthful statements.

            Like, hypothetically, if someone criticizes him for having small hands, he might say something like, my hands are great, everyone loves them.

            He doesn’t mean literally that every single person loves his hands. He doesn’t mean that anyone even cares about his hands.

            What he is really saying is: I don’t care what you think about my hands.

            He is using language rhetorically, not literally. That is what I meant by that.

          • But calling someone a rhetoritician implies they have SKILLS. He can barely string coherent ideas together. Using hyperbole is not the same. EVERYONE uses language figuratively, which is what you meant. Rhetoric means communication, not the opposite of literal language. Like I said, I teach this for a living.

          • josh

            Trump has mad skills, just not the kind you prefer. That is why he won.

            If you get a chance, watch the Frontline doc on the presidential election, and listen to the advisors and pollsters and their amazement again and again at how wrong they were, and how right Trump was about the best way to deal with problems and express his views.


            He always seemed to know what to say, and if he got in trouble, he knew how to get out of it.

            This is not just a blowhard’s hyperbole. This is applied psychology, expressed in words.

            I know you aren’t as opposed to hyperbole as you pretend, seeing has how you were the one who said,

            “He is a bombastic bullsh****r”

            Anyway, this is all getting pretty far afield from the point of this blog or my comments.

            I defined my term in the specific way I was using it, and you just blew past that and wanted me to use your definition.

            My point was that maybe we shouldn’t be looking for truth tells and leaks when a person is speaking for effect, not merely to report objective reality in declarative sentences.

          • wttdl

            I got the impression that Mrs. Odie was saying a few things:

            First, she probably agrees that what Trump does is unique, brilliant, crazy like a fox, smart, intuitive, knows how to guide a conversation and manipulate a presentation, knows how to speak in public to get people to do or believe as he wants, and he is better than just about anyone else.

            Secondly, that said, she just doesn’t think all of THOSE skils–as great as they may be–qualify or fall under the definition of rhetoritician (which I believe is actually a misspelling of rhetoritician … though I’m not sure)

            Thirdly, she takes pride in her time, efforts, and education and study that it took her to become a rhetoritician…and it’s insulting to her that anyone would apply the same title to someone like Trump who she feels doesn’t earn such a title or description.

            I have no opinion one way or another whether Trump’s a rhetoritician.

          • I believe Trump is crazy and knows how to manipulate, yes.

          • This is an off-topic response. The claim that Trump has excellent rhetorical skills, based on the conventional understanding of what it means to be skilled at rhetoric is not a supportable argument, and has not been supported here. The word “rhetoric” has been misused both literally and figuratively. That is what I am discussing. Stay on topic.

      • Exactly! My 6 year-old revealed she was lying when she told me that her friends were “working against her.” She said that when they made her mad and she “accidentally hit them” they went to the teacher and made up a story about her. She confessed to her wrongdoing in her account. Trump does this on a level only slightly above my kindergartner.

    • Russ Conte

      >He is saying that if Chelsea had done the same thing, she would have been praised.

      That seems to be an interpretation. What seems to be less of an interpretation is that he wrote, “If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother,as her
      mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!”. It seems to me that is *exactly* what he wanted to say.

      It does appear to be true that his comment is in response to criticism of his daughter taking his seat while he stepped away for a brief period of time. The cause of his comment is a separate issue, and a valid one in itself, but not the issue being brought up in the post and discussion on his comments. The issue in the post and comments is not what caused the leak nor what his daughter did, but what he tweeted, and what his tweet reveals about himself and the negotiations. No need to paraphrase or interpret, his words stand on their own, and are being evaluated as such. There are some very significant clues and leaks in his words, we would all do well to understand what those are.

      The process of getting to the truth has the same standards whether the person is a politician, a Hollywood star, or any other person famous or not. It’s independent of politics or any other classification, and that is one of its strengths. If any other President of the United States made the exact same comment in the same situation, the conclusion about that comment would be identical, no matter what the political party, race, gender, age, etc. It’s not about politics, it’s about doing our very best to understand the truth in a neutral and unbiased way.

      • josh

        “The issue in the post and comments is not what caused the leak nor what his daughter did, but what he tweeted, and what his tweet reveals about himself and the negotiations.”

        What exactly is he revealing? These are all things he has talked about in the past. He has been harping on the fact that Clinton has been trading money for favors for a long time. That is what he meant by saying she was giving the country away.

        How does that reveal anything about himself?

        Same with criticizing the mainstream media. He has been calling them fake news for a while, and saying they have favored the Clintons over him.

        So he is stuffing a lot of stuff into one tweet: Defending his daughter, criticizing the media, and criticizing Clinton.

        What is he leaking? Are you insinuating, because you have not clearly stated your point, that he is leaking things to the Russians?

        Are you psychoanalyzing him and saying he is actually projecting here?

        If that is the case, I just disagree with you, and find the whole Russia thing to say a lot more about the press and his opponents than it does about him.

        They never come up with anything tangible or illegal.

        If you are bored, do a search on Youtube for Dershowitz, Trump, Russia. A left wing Harvard law professor should be the last person to defend the president, and yet he has come out repeatedly saying nothing involving Trump or his son has been illegal.

        That is why I see this post as click bait. It is a bunch of innuendo and hand wringing, with little evidence.

        I could be persuaded by some evidence. That tweet was Trump being Trump, brash, unconventional, fighting back, and taking his comments straight to Twitter instead of letting the media reinterpret things for him.

        Even most of his fervent supporters wish he would spend less time on Twitter settling scores, but I see nothing “mind blowing” about what he said.

        • Russ Conte

          >So he is stuffing a lot of stuff into one tweet: Defending his daughter, criticizing the media, and criticizing Clinton.

          Correct, correct, and correct. Three for three, they are all in the tweet.

          In addition, all the points made about Trump are correct (as far as I can tell), such as the point that he has been saying these things about Hillary Clinton for a long time. True, as best I can tell. However none of that points to the issue Eyes is showing us (and so are several comments) – and it is also correct that I was not as clear as I wanted to be in my prior post.

          Here is the main point: Trump is NOT lying here. The point is the phrase “gave the country away”. It’s a leak not a lie. This is one of the ways people talk when they reveal the truth they did not intend to reveal. The vast majority of the general public misses these leaks of the truth all the time.

          As far as evidence (always an excellent request, IMHO), there is lots of research showing how people unintentionally leak information, try to hide lies, etc. The general field is called Statement Analysis, sometimes called Content Analysis and is an ongoing area of research in deception and truth detection. It is taught at the FBI Academy by several instructors, such as here: and here: among many other locations.

          Trump’s words in that tweet revealed a LOT more than he probably intended about his negotiations at the summit, specifically “gave our country away”, and this is entirely different from his comments about Hillary Clinton, or the media, or his daughter, and it’s all right there in his own words.

          • josh


            I think the problem in communication here for me is that I didn’t know the distinction between a lie and a leak.

            You are saying he is leaking information about what he is really up to, and that when he says,

            “If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother,as her
            mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!”

            He is not saying that if Hilary were in his shoes she would be giving the country away, but actually leaking that HE is giving the country away.

            Is that correct?

            I have more to say, but I want to know if I am now correctly understanding what EFL and regular commenters are getting at.

  • wttdl

    I need to back track, albeit, clarify my statement about EFL wanting Hillary.

    As I have already said, I was wrong to assume that out of ALL 22?? of the 2016 Democratic and Republican Presidential Candidates you wanted Hillary … but I was also implying that if the choice came down between Trump and Hillary, you preferred Hillary … and that seems to be borne out given your statement, “But regardless, the two are by no means comparable still.”

    Are you aware of the following–and assuming you believe it’s true–and you STILL think there is no comparison?

    Hillary orchestrated the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Libyan State AS HER SELFISH PLATFORM TO USE when she ran for president in 2016! This self-serving maneuver has led to the European refugee crisis, the destabilization of North African countries, and the creation of ISIS’s strongest branch, outside of Syria-Iraq. Gaddafi’s huge arsenal of weapons has shown up in the hands of terrorists in places like Gaza, Syria, Nigeria and Mali.

    To me, that falls under the category of selling out our country; certainly the mental if not physical safety and security of 350,000,000 fearful Americans. I haven’t seen Trump’s actual actions–only arguably his own slips ups and leaks of selling us out–come even close to that … albeit, YET.

    So maybe you’re comparing what Trump’s unwittingly promising to do in his tweets, versus what Hillary has ALREADY done: all during a time when she didn’t even have as much destructive power as she would have had, had she become president!

  • Slightly off topic question inspired by the freeze frame of Trump sitting. Why does he sit like that? It always strikes me as a bizarre posture. He has a “sitting on the toilet” posture, and his hands in a triangle.

  • p3cop

    President Trump makes rude statements just to get or divert attention. The media clutches the pearls and feigns outrage as their site traffic and revenues increase. Trump writes six new laws that the media misses because they are focused on a stupid tweet. Everyone wins! And now EFL has joined the crew, building up her site numbers by giving Trump all the attention he wants.

    • wttdl

      I agree with everything you said until it comes to Eyes, because I appreciate her having given her service free for years!

      But what I am amazed at, is how dumb people think Trump is, and the media running around trying to prove he lied or contradicted himself … when that’s exactly what he wants.

      He didn’t defeat the most winnable candidate in history cause he was stupidly spouting racist and ridiculous missteps. Wow, libs need to get a grip and admit they lost.

  • wttdl

    Don’t worry about the following, it’s probably not true anyway.

    And even if it is, it doesn’t rise to the level of “giving our country away”.

    And even if it does rise to that level, Hillary’s still NO WHERE NEAR as bad as Trump.

    In a leaked Podesta email, Hillary’s team killed a bloomberg story linking her opposition to the magnitsky bill to a $500,000 speech that Bill Clinton gave in Moscow.

    As secretary of state Hillary signed off on the Russia and Canadian mining company Uranium One deal, handing over one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

    During Russia’s takeover of the mines between 2009 and 2013, Canadian records showed that Uranium One chairman’s family foundation donated a total of $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    Shortly after the deal, Hillary’s husband, gave a speech in Russia for $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank that promoted Uranium One stock.

    • When you quote Breitbart nearly word for word, it’s customary to credit them. I read that the deal you refer to Russia purchasing a controlling interest (which I understand means enough shares in the company to have a majority of votes on the board, but I didn’t look up the definition). The “Toronto-based company” that owns land in the U.S. As then Sec. of State, Clinton was not empowered to make such deals nor to prevent them from happening.
      (source: Politifact). Clinton cannot “hand over” something she literally does not control. I have no understanding of what “uranium producing capacity” means, but when Trump talked about it, he just said Clinton gave Russia “our” uranium, then implied that it was the equivalent of giving Russia nuclear weapons.

      • wttdl

        First of all, in MY OPINION, you used a snide way of telling me the words I wrote weren’t my own. And in MY OPINION condescended to me about the proper way in which to credit sources. Which I believe stems from the same emotions that I believe you have, that of feeling threatened or your pride insulted by those who would deign to claim or believe that Trump is a great rhetorician.

        And in an equally disturbing way, you sought to undermine and minimize my opinion by making sure those who view Breitbart as far right BS, would surely know that’s where my opinion seeks its unfounded guidance.

        Secondly, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, was one of nine federal agency
        heads to sign off on Russia’s purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium
        One, the decision of which ultimately lay with Obama.

        You gonna try and convince me that, as you stated, “Clinton was not empowered to make such deals nor to prevent them from happening” which only skirts the issue and further is enraging, cause it doesn’t address what I said.

        OR that little old Hillary was only 1 of 9, and not a formidable adversary and influence, let alone didn’t have the presidents ear?!!!!

        Oh, and I didn’t vote for Trump, fyi.