A hearsay tale involving Andrew Cuomo

Hearsay can’t be considered evidence.  But individuals are certainly free to decide if they believe a particular hearsay account to be more likely true or more likely false.  This story is at one level of hearsay (to me, and two levels to you), there is an individual who alleges to have been an eye/ear witness to alleged bragging by Andrew Cuomo, then there is the individual who relayed the story to me.  I trust my source did not make up this account, and I believe my source believes his source — the foregoing doesn’t necessarily mean anything but I want to add it to the mix.

If I could suggest how others approach the following, I’d suggest the these questions.  Does this account square with what you know of Mr. Cuomo, either personally or from the public record?  Could you see him planning and doing the following?  Is he Machiavellian enough?  If so, could you see him wishing to brag about it?  Is he arrogant enough to commit to such a strategy?  Etc.

This account, involving his divorce, goes as follows.  Nobody, of course, wants a divorce to publicly devolve into a blackmail contest of mutual dirt slinging and airing of dirty laundry.  Particularly not a politician.

Allegedly, Andrew Cuomo and his wife agreed to a trial separation, with a stated (not in writing) agreement that sex with others was acceptable.  A setup for a trap?  Mr. Cuomo allegedly then hired a private detective to follow his soon to be ex-wife.  At an appropriate time to catch his wife in flagrante delicto, alledgedly the private detective and Mr. Cuomo burst into the hotel room (or whereever), cameras in hand and flashes a-poppin’.  Voila, a nice quiet divorce.

What’s your opinion, could you see Andrew doing such?  Is he the type of personality that would want to brag about it?

Would you want him to wield facial recognition/AI tracking powers?  https://www.vocativ.com/396745/memo-new-york-called-for-face-recognition-cameras-at-bridges-tunnels/index.htmlhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-21/big-brother-surveillance-begins-cuomo-unveils-facial-scanning-new-york-toll-plazas.

After the last election, I recall Mr. Cuomo being asked what he thought of Ms. Teachout.  Paraphrased from memory, ‘Ahh, political season.  Gotta love it.  Opinions, everyone has one’ and then laughed.  Let me translate that from psychopath-speak.  He was calling her an asshole.  The complete phrase, of course, is ‘opionions are like assholes, everyone has one.’  I’m sure all the other psychopaths laughed too.

Then there is his latest “America was never great”  flap.  Psychopaths in the thrall of groupthink are dangerous, they easily lose the thread.  He and his advisors no doubt thought they were destroying Trumps’ trump card, his ‘Make America Great Again‘ campaign.

Finally, on Andrew, have you noticed his voice?  Its very ugly.  I believe he lacks the empathic soul that animates a normal human voice.

Moving on, how about Chris?

 Fox News host Tucker Carlson poked fun at CNN’s Chris Cuomo Friday, playing a bizarre video Cuomo posted on Instagram.  . . .

In Cuomo’s video, he makes a few vague comments about last summer’s “Wonder Woman” movie before making air kisses.

Cuomo says, “‘Wonder Woman,’ amazing. We finally had a female director of break the $100 million mark. The film means more than just its box score. What does it mean to you? Here’s a little intrigue–I wanted to be like Wonder Woman, and I’m gonna wear a shirt that says it.”

“What does it qualify as intrigue that Chris Cuomo wanted to be Wonder Woman? Did he ever wear that shirt? What’s with the air kisses? There are so many more questions,” Carlson said.

He sarcastically continued, “It’s better to understand Chris Cuomo for who he is. An artist, poet, seeker, shaman. The question is not, what the hell is Chris talking about, but what is Chris Cuomo trying to teach us, all of us, humanity itself?”  http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/14/tucker-plays-bizarre-clip-of-cnns-chris-cuomo-talking-total-nonsense-video/

At what age does an child’s gender identity solidify?  It would seem that significant parts of Chris’s personality are arrested prior to that point.

More, CNN’s Chris Cuomo Excuses Antifa’s Violence Because ‘All Punches Are Not Equal . . .’ —  Chris Cuomo: We At CNN Can Possess WikiLeaks Emails, But You Can’t —  CNN’s Chris Cuomo: ‘Fake news’ insult ‘equivalent of the N-word Uh, . . ., guys, gals,  . . .

Finally, if someone would give me a toothbrush from each of Mario, Andrew and Chris plus 15 thousand dollars, I’ll give you the Cuomo bloodline, the Cuomo psychopathic bloodline.

The psychopathic gang stalking of Judge Roy Moore

I wouldn’t have voted for Roy Moore, we are too far apart on the issues.  But that’s what should determine elections – issues and vision of the future, not character assassination.  We all deserve fair play whether in the political arena, courts or life.  Without judging the allegations (though I’ve never, ever, witnessed a tearless fake crier who I ended up believing.  Tearless fake crying is a psychopathic pity play specialty, they think we are too stupid to notice), I’d like to focus on the psychopathic gang stalking strategies used against him.  Even if it turns out he is guilty of the allegations, which we have no proof of and mostly aren’t as serious as the inflated terms used, the media approach was very improper.

The attack was essentially through a very sly and improper use of English plus a kind of word inflation.  “Accused pedophile”, “accused molester” were terms that were used across the media (in seemingly organized fashion, but then our fake news industry is really a social engineering industry).  There is no such thing as either of those terms.  ‘Accused pedophile?’ — ‘what’s the pedophile accused of?’ — the phrase assumes the actuality of the subject of the sentence being a pedophile.  This is a purposeful psychopath-think strategy to ‘slide’ the pedophile accusation into the realm of reality.  The proper term of course is ‘alleged pedophile.’  However in this instance Roy Moore was never accused of pedophilia.  He was accused of sexual activity with a post puberty minor by a then 14 year old.  Pedophilia is the sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.  He was never accused of that.  If the then fourteen year old’s assertions are true, the crime would have been lewd behavior with a minor — not child molestation or statutory rape (which is consenting sex with a minor before the age of consent).   But the terms, pedophile, child abuser, molester, perv have been thrown around by the so-called journalists.  Katy Tur and that fake journalist with his own fake news show, Chris Cuomo, come to mind.  Roy Moore should collect instances where the term alleged was not added and sue.  I don’t know if he’s guilty of any of these allegations but I do know the media is guilty of psychopathic gangstalking through the purposeful sly use of language and word meaning inflation plus general moral sliminess in the cause of character assassination.

There were many elements involved in the character attack on Moore.  They obviously hoped to stampede him out of the race.  It started with a piling on of allegations (none of which had ever surfaced before in his controversial and contentious political/judicial career — this doesn’t prove them false, but does raise questions) with no time for a where-does-the-truth-lay investigation.  There is no such thing as ‘Oh, the accuser is credible, so we should just believe the accuser.’  We’re not mind readers and no court works like that.  In a ‘he said, she said’ law case, both stories are examined and both parties cross examined.  If an accuser is credible then you take the accusers accusations seriously and examine them, not take them on faith.  That public assertion by so much of the media otherwise is simple nonsense and a symptom of their moral corruption.  Then of course, there was the frequently raised question of “what motivation would the accusers have had to lie” and thus that they must be telling the truth.  That’s naive and childish at best, and assumed similarity disorder at worst.  There are as many motivations to lie as there are types of mental illness (each with its own peculiar motivations), as there are individuals desirous of more money, as there are individuals who can be blackmailed, etc.

Going back to tearless fake criers, we all recall Juanita Broaddrick.  A number of years ago I was going to do a post analyzing a couple of her accusatory (against Bill Clinton) videos but never got around to it.  There were moments where in the midst of her fake crying and shoulder shaking she would get still and look out through her outstretched fingers that were ‘hiding her grief’ and seemingly judge, with cold tearless eyes, the effect of her performance.  I found her totally unbelievable and strongly suspect (extremely strongly suspect) her of being an actual psychopath and probably that rarest of rare, a pseudologue.

I haven’t analyzed the video of Berverly Nelson’s claims in detail, but my instinctive reaction to the parts shown on the news was that this woman was lying, not merely faking the crying.  There should be no public prohibition on asking and examining whether accusers are psychopaths or other pathological liars.

Finally, honest journalism would have reported both sides’ claims and responses and leave the opinion making to the viewers/readers.  But obviously todays ‘journalists’ see their job as being opinion drivers and will use dishonest psychopathic strategies to do so.  That’s evil.