When someone stalls and spends a lot of time discussing the actual question they are asked, instead of answering it directly and immediately it raises a huge red flag. It may show that they are very anxious or it may possibly indicate a signal of deception.
When reporter Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post at the Aspen asked Lynch “What were you thinking?” she attempts to diffuse the question by saying “That’s the question of the day, isn’t it? The tag ending “isn’t it” shows insecurity and the hope for agreement and a subtle message to the reporter to not be hard on her during the interview.
Instead of answering the question posed to her, she speaks about the question, instead of answering it directly as she says ” And I think it is a reasonable question. Its’ the question that is called up why what happened in Phoenix. ” In essence she is stalling . In doing so she is taking the time to gather and manufacture her thoughts. Also she looks up as she tries to manufacture what she will say next.
She continues discussing the question instead of answering it directly which now adds even more suspicion to the public in terms of her credibility with regard to meeting former President Clinton on the tarmac and what they actually discussed. She says “people have wondered and asked questions about my role in the resolution in matters involving state department emails.”
Her engaging in formal rhetoric and still not answering the question, further adds to the public’s suspicion as does her looking down and away. In essence she is attempting to distance herself body language wise , as it clearly indicates that this is not a topic she wishes to discuss.
Then she does double talk as she says ” to the extent that people have questions about that- my role in that .. certainly my meeting with him raises questions and concerns.” Once again. she does not answer the question directly which is yet another red flag in public perception in terms of questioning her credibility here. As she says this she looks nervous. As you can see she is perspiring and shiney faced, especially in the areas on her nose and cheeks.This is often a signal of anxiety as reflected by the autonomic nervous system taking over.
Then she says in a staccatto” believe me I completely get that question” and still , she is not getting to the answer of the simple question that was posed to her. She spins it She looks away towards the audience and says UM AND and I think it is the question of the day. ( YET SHE STILL DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION).
“The issue is what is my role in how that matter is to be resolved. So let me be clear….WHEN SOMEONE SAYS “LET ME BE CLEAR” Oftentimes, they are about to lie. For instance, look at what Nixon said “Let me be perfectly clear– I am not a crook)…So this may be yet another a red flag for Ms. Loretta Lynch.
Then she goes on to say ” Now let me say how let me say how that is going to be resolved. NOW I’ve also gotten that question a lot. SHE STILL DOES NOT answer the question and engages in double talk.
Then she turns to the audience, not the interviewer which is another red flag red flag s as she is attempting to try to get the audience to be on her side and to garner favor with them. Once again she is stalling and not answering the simple direct question.
Then in a staccato manner, she says I get that question . She is not confident with her head up and looking directly at the interviewer. Instead, as she says this she looks away and her head is bowed down.
She continues with” Certainly my meeting with him raises questions and concernes and believe me— ( when someone says” believe me” it is usually red flag and indicates that you should listen carefully and perhaps not believe them.
The interviewer asked if she was recusing herself from having any role in the final determination regarding Clinton’s emails.
As you can she she is literally taken back by the question as she leans away . Below she shows the front of her hand as she puts it up towards her chest indicating that she is feeling vulnerable and defensive.
She lets it be known that she doesn’t have a role in coming up with the findings.
When she says I will be “except and corrects herself as she says accepting their recommendations, she stumbles over her words as she makes a Freudian Slip. It makes one wonder if indeed she will be except or accept their recommendations. As she speaks, you do not see the palms of her hands which would often indicate truthfulness, but rather the back of her hands which often indicates deception as you can see in the photo above.
Now you see her looking extremely vulnerable as both of her hands in a triangular position covering her private parts and they are on her lap. She is also hunched over.
When the journalist presses her about the term “accepting ” and what she actually means by that, you see the tension in her lower jaw which is not a good sign. Her eyes also open wide as though she has been “busted”.
Then she gets really formal in her verbiage as a means of protection and further indicating her vulnerability. She appears stiff and leans back as she attempts to distance herself.
Then she says there will be a review of their investigation, a review of what they found and a review of their determinations of how the case should proceed.”
In essence it appears as though she is passing the buck. After all, she is the Attorney General who needs to make that decision, not the staff who did the investigation and are making the recommendations. In essence, this means she is distancing herself and attempting to cover herself.
The excellent journalist then asks if the review will be done by her. You see her neck muscles tighten up as she continues to use the back of her hand as opposed to her palms to spin the answer .
The journalist’s body language reveals that he is on to her spin and double talk as he points a finger at her, something that is never done unless the person is feeling hostile toward the other . The journalist’s finger point indicates his anger and frustration with Lynch’s answers.
She then says how the “initial” process will be resolved where she discusses the team involvement. She does NOT discuss the” final “process which is very telling. She has now said how “career people” in the Dept of Justice will review it and how the FBI will review it and the FBI Director will review it and that will be the” finalization”. But this does not make sense as she is the Attorney General who must make the final decision. If the FBI Director is in the “finalization “why have her deal with the matter in the first place and why not just have the FBI Director make his “finalization” and decision and leave it at that?
Jonathan then asks Lynch why she is relying on “career “people in the review process. She doesn’t answer the question, but instead she spins it, and says how the public wants to know what her role would likely be.. um was um a question or concern. The ums and phumpherting is not a good sign. She says that because she is a political appointee there would be concern about how the case would go forward. Well what about career people in the government? Does the question arise that they may investigate a certain way because they may want to be politically correct and have a vested interest in maintaining their careers? Then she says that she has always maintained that this matter would UM be UM handled by the career people who are independent. BUT ARE THEY REALLY INDEPENDENT IS THE REAL QUESTION?
She then says she will be informed of those findings as opposed to never seeing or reading them, but she will be accepting their recommendation. This statement is startling to the public as she revealed that there are cases that she never sees or reads.
Then Jonathan Capehart asks her what she was thinking when the former President Clinton was on the plane. She said they spoke about his grandchildren and then she gave tangential information about how the grandchildren were great . ( That is too much information. Then she said they spoke about Janet Reno, Then she says “It really was a social meeting. It really was”
When people the word REALLY, and they use it many times in a sentence it may be a signal that they are often trying too hard to convince you and that it may very well be a signal of deception.
In keeping with his excellence in journalism, Jonathan Capehart poses a question about how President Clinton first selected her for office and how they are good friends and why she didn’t ask him to leave the plane. She doesn’t answer the question. Instead, she says she certainly wouldn’t do it again. Of course she wouldn’t because of all the backlash. But her refusal to answer that specific question speaks volumes.
When Capehart asks her what she would say to the American people who had concerns that the system was rigged. Instead of answering it directly, she double talks and says how she can understand how the public would feel that way because of her meeting with President Clinton on the plane. Then she answers by saying that the public has to look at what they do every day. She needed to have said immediately instead of stretching it and hemming and hawing in order to sound more credible.
Then when Jonathan Capehart asked when we might expect the acceptance of these findings, she laughs. This is no laughing matter. In fact to many her laughter was disconcerting as though the investigation might not be competed until after the election. She says in terms of timing I actually don’t know that. She goes on to deflect her involvement as she says she doesn’t have insight as to the nuts and bolts of the investigation. The question is WHY NOT? As Attorney General in a very high profile case, it would seem that she needed to be abreast of what was taking place every step of the way. She says how the Dept of Justice is working hard and she is proud of that work, YET SHE DOESN”T KNOW WHAT THAT WORK IS with regard to this case. This is known as double talk.It does not make sense that she as the Attorney General would not be informed at each stage.
Keep in mind this is NOT a political blog nor am I a political person. I have NO agenda and no dog in this fight so to speak.. I would say the same thing if Trump was under investigation or any other political candidate was in the same situation as Hillary Clinton. As body language expert my aim is to be neutral and to only report what I see and hear. What I have heard with Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the US during this interviwe in Aspen has been high anxiety, possible signals of deception, and a lot of spin and double talk in Lynch’s rhetoric.