What clue do you see most in liars?

geralt / Pixabay

What clue do you use most to gauge the truthfulness of someone?

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!


Sean Spicer “Equally Involved”

I was watching TV last night when Sean Spicer’s press conference was discussed from earlier in the day.  When they posted the text of what he said, I about fell off my chair!

Can you see why?  I will share my thoughts in the comment section in the coming days.

Liars never realize their subconscious slips speak so loud and reveal so much.




Death by Text on 48 Hours: What’s the motivation?

Tonight, CBS 48 Hours profiled the horrific story of the suicide of teenager Conrad Roy. He was encouraged through text to commit suicide by a so-called “friend”, Michelle Carter. The text between the two are sad to read. Carter is incredibly callous and cold. And you can see in the videos of Roy, he was truly a great guy.

When watching 48 Hours, what was most shocking to me was the lack of understanding about what likely caused Carter to do this. Her motive is very clear to me. While I agree that she wanted attention, as mentioned by the prosecutors, it wasn’t her main underlying motivation. None of the psychologists seem to say why she did this. They seemed bewildered, understandably.

However, as an expert in understanding human behavior, I suspect Carter must have realized at some point in her life that she could manipulate people, and she was successful at it in certain circumstances. That ability to manipulate people, I believe, gave have her a huge sense of power. She enjoyed it. She relished in it. It made her feel significant, in control and brilliant.

I believe Carter thrived on the manipulation and control, and it was her ultimate goal to see how far she could manipulate Roy. If she could get him to commit suicide, it was her ultimate, however sick, power game that would prove her superiority to herself. It would prove to her that she was very brilliant–above people in ways they couldn’t understand.

This is a common trait of someone who is psychopathic. Psychopaths realize they can read other people well, toy with them and manipulate them. They get great joy out of the power and control.

I don’t know whether Carter is or is not a psychopath, I’m not a psychologist, but she shows several indicators that support the possibility.

If you notice during her trial, the only time she felt emotions was for herself.

Michelle Carter truly gives me the chills.

My heart goes out to Roy’s family. He was a special guy. You can clearly see he was a compassionate person who was victimized by a person without any compassion. I hope and pray Carter gets an appropriate sentence and Roy’s family can somehow find peace.

Study of Honesty

If you want to be good at deception, you have to be good at spotting the truth as well. Both are equally important.

In the news this week, a woman survives a brutal shark attack, losing her arm to the shark.

Watch her tell her story. Her response is unusual, but we know the story is absolutely true due to her injuries.

Ask yourself, if you didn’t know she was telling the truth and you couldn’t see the injury, would you believe her?

If not, why? What behaviors does she have that might set you off?

And what behaviors does she have that supports her story?