Another sensationalised weekend as Trump tweets something that has the whole world up in arms!

Only this time, and for the first time since taking office, he levelled a direct accusation at Obama about illegal wire tapping of Trump Tower.

Of course everyone scrambles and looks for evidence, and by mid morning, Obama provided a salve for the leftist media with a denial statement issued by one of his aides (the elitist mentality and detachment from public interests by not providing it himself his plain).

Of course, the statement was one of denial.  However, it is interesting when one applies the Statement Analysis principles to it.  I am still in training, however, there was some basic stuff there that I am sure everyone would be interested to see.

The statement as follows:

A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.  As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

Points to consider :

  • Cardinal rule – The choice of religious legal overtone followed by the ‘Obama administration’ immediately after it paints the picture for the reader that the Obama administration was of spiritual god representing proportions.  the Obama administration was in effect a religious order. Note this is the first thing that is mentioned in the statement, therefore it is of high importance.


  • [the rule] was…ever interfered – the use of the past tense – If you slow your reading  you will see that it reads in effect – ”the rule was that no official ever interfered with any…”  normally in stating a rule it would read – ” the rule was that no official was allowed to interfere with any…”.  In statement analysis – we must take what is said as literally true – therefore it is true that there was a rule that ‘no official ever interfered with any investigation’ .


  • White house official – proceeded by the word ‘no’ which is a negative that needed to be stated in this way, so important.  Further to that is the absence of the words ‘President Obama’ .  Clearly this was not a rule that applied to him. Or was it ‘cardinal rules’ that didn’t apply to him?


  • Ever interfered – We note that ‘ever’ as high sensitivity point and therefore indicates stress about the word ‘interfered’.  The use of the word ‘interfered’ implies meddling and obstruction, as opposed to using more formal language of interceding.  The need to use the word interfered is important.


  • any independent – ‘any’ denotes sensitivity to the word ‘independent’. these are also un-necessary words in the sentence therefore increasing the sensitivity.  Are we to think that there are investigations conducted by the DOJ that were not independent that the WH officials were interfering with?


  • that practise – the context is in the past tense – this is a rule no longer practised.  Use of the word ‘practise’ and religious connotation as at the beginning of the statement – the picture being painted is that of a religious practise… we are reminded that the Obama administration is a religious order.  Again it is introduced at the beginning of the sentence meaning this information is of highest importance to be conveyed.


  • ever ordered – again the ‘ever’ letting us know the word ‘ordered’ is sensitive.


  • any – this is repeated multiple times through out the short statement – this signals high sensitivity – when we see high sensitivity of this nature in a statement we know there is deception.


  • Any suggestion otherwise – this introduces that idea that other suggestions could be made that could be valid according the one who made this statement.


  • simply – when the word ‘simply’ is used we know that it is anything BUT simple, it is  complicated and there is a need to deceive people about this complication.


  • simply false – the use of the word ‘simply’ for emphasis denotes high sensitivity to the word ‘false’


There is a lot of sensitivity in this statement which indicates high levels of deception.  Further to that, no denial, that is considered as reliable in a statement analysis, has been made.  We there for take that to be true, there is no denial of the accusation being made.

In terms of profiling I can’t comment reliably as I’m not advanced enough – however, my personal comment is that, the religious connotations should be cause for concern in terms of self perception and megalomania if Obama did indeed construct this statement.

Support us by liking, sharing or leaving a comment below.

Please become a patron on Patreon.


What is Statement Analysis:

Statement analysis is the detection of deception and profiling through analysis of the words that the subject has chosen to be used to be understood.    This is a scientific process and is the most reliable form or detection available at 84% accuracy for a new graduate, rising to 99% accuracy with experience.