This post is about 3,200 words long, and takes about 18 minutes to read.
Hello again! Thank you for taking the time to learn a little more about the new president and his “issues.” This is part three of a three-part series. If you haven’t read part one yet, you might think this all crazy talk. So, here’s a handy link to part one if you haven’t read it yet.
Introduction
The following assessment and report is my final installment in the three part Trump & Friends series. This one is going to be a little different than the first two, in that, it is totally focused on verifying sexual assault claims against Donald Trump, and elucidating his conscious energy (consciousness, thoughts, beliefs, etc.) regarding women. The need for this reporting arose from the numerous claims about Trump’s past behaviors towards women, and the subsequent ignoring of those claims by the nearly 63 million Americans that voted for him. This massive gulf between what was extensively reported, and even seen and heard on video, and the vast number of people that voted for him, made this report essential. While this report will not change the outcome of the 2016 presidential race (maybe someday), it does seem critical to be aware of what the truth is, and how devalued women might be in a Trump administration.
Reporting Details
Subject
Coherence Verification assessment report on sexual advance/assault claims against Donald J. Trump.
Premise
There are many recent claims by women that Donald Trump has physically imposed himself upon them in unwanted and wholly inappropriate ways and times, to put it mildly. Given that he is now president, there is social value in the elucidation of whether claims of physical assaults on women by Donald Trump are truthful.
Methodology
Key sentences in each woman’s claim will be extracted from their public statements and verified for general truthfulness, as well as Truth Value. Cross checking will also be completed for additional confirmation. Standard CV guidelines will be followed throughout. This is not an exhaustive listing of all claims, but rather, a survey of recent stories where there is sufficient information to be able to accurately verify.
Verifications completed by:
Eric Burlingame in January of 2017.
Disclaimer
I have no particular political affiliation, nor do I have any bias regarding the 2016 presidential election results. I have previously verified that Hillary Clinton has a higher level of consciousness than does Donald Trump in Ryan Weisgerber’s blog Hug The Universe, but otherwise I have no bias in the personal or professional failings or merits of Donald Trump.
Very short Truth Value explainer
In each case below there is a “Truth Value” percentage given. Truth Value measurements are Coherence Verifications based upon the relative value of the statement or event being verified, in comparison to the state of absolute truth, also thought of as a perfection of fact and ultimate human value. The minimum level for fact is 50%. Anything below this is less than factual. Please be clear, facts are not truth, or Truth. Facts are just defined, verifiable data. Truth is factual, but carries more significant valuable and dependable content and quality. Any value above 50% represents factuality with additional valuable qualities. Needless to say, this is a short explanation of Truth Value. There will be an entire book released on this subject by Inception Publishing in 2018.
Assessment Results
Claimant #1: Jessica Leeds
Primary assault claim statement:
That Donald J. Trump made sexually oriented, physical advances towards her on an airplane flight. (Source: NY Times article)
Verification result: True
Truth Value: 56%
This indicates a fundamental factualness, with no specified counterproductive intention. What she has claimed is, in essence, what occurred.
Final assessment: Entirely factual
Claimant #2: Rachel Crooks
Primary assault claim statement:
Trump began kissing her cheeks and, "kissed me directly on the mouth....It was so inappropriate. I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that.” (Source: NY Times article)
Verification result: True
It is also true that he returned to gain her phone number at a later date.
Truth Value: 77%
This indicates that her statements are entirely truthful, and she also made these statements as a benefit to society. The events of her interaction with Trump are being relayed accurately.
Final assessment: Totally True
Claimant #3: Mindy McGillivray
Primary assault claim statement:
[Referring to the claim that Trump grabbed her buttocks] “This was a pretty good nudge. More of a grab,’’ she said. “It was pretty close to the center of my butt. I was startled. I jumped.’’ (Source: The Palm Beach Post)
Verification result: True
Truth Value: 71%
This indicates her statements are truthful in detail and were made so that others could beware of Trump’s tendencies.
Final assessment: Totally True
Claimant #4: Natasha Stoynoff
Primary assault claim statement:
"We [Stoynoff and Trump] walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us," she wrote. "I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat." (Source: People magazine online)
Verification result: True.
Truth Value: 77%
This indicates that her statements are entirely truthful, and are also made as a benefit to society. The events of her interaction with Trump are being relayed accurately.
Final assessment: Totally True
Claimant #5: Kristin Anderson
Primary assault claim statement:
[in public, she felt Donald Trump’s] “fingers slid under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh, and touched her vagina through her underwear.” (Source: NBC News/Washington Post)
Verification result: True.
Truth Value: 57%
This indicates a fundamental factualness, with no specified counterproductive intention. What she has claimed is, in essence, what occurred.
Final assessment: Entirely factual
Claimant #6: Summer Zervos
Primary assault claim statement:
[Trump] "came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me towards him… He then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast. I pulled back and walked to another part of the room. He then walked up, grabbed my hand and walked me into the bedroom. I walked out.” (Source: NBC news transcription of Zervos making public statement with attorney)
Verification result: True.
Truth Value: 58%
This indicates a fundamental factualness, with no specified counterproductive intention. What she has claimed is, in essence, what occurred.
Final assessment: Entirely factual
Claimant #7: Cathy Heller
Primary assault claim statement:
“…he [Donald Trump] grabbed me and went for my mouth and went for my lips.” (Source: The Guardian)
Verification result: True.
Truth Value: 66%
This level indicates that she is definitely reporting the event accurately and is doing so for the benefit of other women so that they are aware of the situation.
Final assessment: Truthful and reliable
Claimant #8: Karena Virginia
Primary assault claim statement:
“He [Donald Trump] then walked up to me and reached his right arm and grabbed my right arm, then his hand touched the right inside of my breast.” (Source: NBC news video of Karena Virginia making public statement with attorney)
Verification result: True.
Truth Value: 56%
This indicates a fundamental factualness, with no specified counterproductive intention. What she has claimed is, in essence, what occurred.
Final assessment: Entirely factual
Claimant #9: Jessica Drake
Primary assault claim statement:
“When we entered the room [Trump’s hotel suite] he grabbed each of us tightly [Drake and two other women] in a hug and kissed each one of us without asking permission.” (Source: NBC news video of Jessica Drake making public statement with attorney)
Verification result: True.
Truth Value: 76%
This indicates that the statement is entirely truthful and is also made as a benefit to society. The events of her interaction with Trump are being relayed accurately.
Final assessment: Totally True
Further assessment detail
Donald Trump (DJT from this point) = 116 LOC; 322 EQL
Recall from part 1 of this report that DJT thinks that telling the truth, being aware of how he impacts others, and being responsible for his words is not helpful in any real way. This also applies to his views regarding women. At this level there is complete self-delusion about what he thinks women think of him, and chronic lying about past actions with women. There is a strong resistance to surrendering sexual fantasy thoughts. His thoughts are also essentially dominated by fear of rejection by women, and a craving of female attention that is effectively pathological.
DJT’s Conscious Energy (CE) towards women generally = 76 LOC; 256 EQL
This is the energy of rape of any sort. There is strong pridefulness when he thinks of women, in that, he sees himself as important to them, so much so, that it reaches a significant inflation of his value. He perceives himself as indispensable to women because his regard for them is so low he imagines they are incapable of functioning without him, and other men. This is the energy of the need for domination, for complete marginalization, and the preference to terrorize women.
Specific DJT CV's:
- “It is the case that DJT has made unwanted physical advances on other women in the past, besides those verified above.” Result: Yes
- “DJT perceives women to be of lesser value than men.” Result: Yes
- “DJT believes that all women should idolize him.” Result: Yes
- “DJT perceives himself to be guilty of any offense towards any woman.” Result: Not yes
- “DJT feels compelled to lie about the way he has treated women in the past.” Result: Yes
- “DJT is proud of the fact that he has assaulted women in the past without any consequence.” Result: Yes
- “DJT would like to continue sexually assaulting women.” Result: Yes
- “DJT has any interest in what any woman thinks about sexual assault.” Result: Not yes
- “DJT enjoys hurting women physically.” Result: Yes
- “DJT finds it useful to hurt women emotionally.” Result: Yes
- “DJT sees women as human beings.” Result: Not yes
- “DJT believes it is a crime if another man rapes a woman.” Result: Yes
- “DJT believes it is a crime if he rapes a woman.” Result: Not yes
- “DJT thinks all women are inherently less intelligent than men.” Result: Yes
- “DJT essentially sees all women as animals to be used, instead of humans to be valued.” Result: Yes
Conclusion
In summary, all of the claims by the above referenced nine women are upheld, and thus, are to be considered accurate, if not fundamentally truthful. Also, it appears that many of these women have come forward with their stories at some peril to themselves, and with the intention to be assistive to others. These assessment results more fully clarify video and audio recordings of Trump that have surfaced during the course of his bid for the presidency. We can see that his impulsive moments with women he finds attractive, are a mix of a diminishment of the value of women, and a level of self-regard that is effectively pathological. We can also surmise that he does not see any offense in his actions because women are not worthy of being valued in his mind, although he does likely recognize that his sexual assault behavior is not generally accepted, and thus he must lie about his past behavior or risk prosecution. This behavioral habit is similar to that of the clinical definition of narcissism, and general anti-social behavior.
I would also like to point out that DJT has attracted other men to his aid that have similar views about women, and similar CE about the valuelessness of women. This includes Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, Steve Mnuchin, and Vice-President Mike Pence. So, some of DJT’s most trusted advisors and cohorts fundamentally see women as things, rather than human beings. That essentially means that it is the position of the Trump administration that women are not just of a lower class of human being, but rather, that women are not worthy of being treated as humans at all, unless it somehow benefits them politically and monetarily to do so. Even the appointment of women to cabinet level positions is strictly a choice of expedience and benefit. There is no likelihood that women like Elaine Chao or Nikki Haley will be anything other than tools of the male dominant core of the Trump agenda.
Whether you are a woman or a man, these realizations (which some of you may have already anticipated were the case) are not given to you so that you will react with fear. It is my intention in delivering this report to equip you with the information necessary to take a proactive stance, whatever you deem that to be. You may choose to regularly contact your congressional representatives, or join a women’s rights organization, or simply contribute to worthy causes that are countering the negative effects that may arise from having an executive branch dominated by devolved men of no moral content whatsoever. Whatever you choose to do, choose something. Lack of action will only contribute to a sense of fear and lessened value.
If, after reading this, you find yourself wanting to support organizations that assist women, I’ve added some verifications below that may help you determine what group to participate in. These are not endorsements, and the verifications are not extremely extensive (which would be 5-10K reports in themselves), but rather, objective verifications of the quality and function of each group’s mission, and the execution of their mission. They are not listed in any particular order.
Planned Parenthood (plannedparenthood.org). LOC = 176; EQL = 326
This mix is a peculiar one. It is impossible to deny that Planned Parenthood delivers some incredibly valuable health care services. However, they seem to have some challenges with consistently bending the facts in a way that always benefits them, and with organizational pridefulness. This is an organizational problem, so you are more likely to see these issues at the top, and in national promotions and actions. If they were to step away from this tendency and just be consistently truthful, they’d bounce up to a 225 LOC, and a 625 EQL. These would be considerably more reliable states, although still unnecessarily limited.
Specific Planned Parenthood CV’s:
- “Planned Parenthood consistently promotes actions that are coherent with their bylaws and stated values.” Result: Yes.
- “Planned Parenthood consistently uses over 50% of their funding for the betterment of women.” Result: Yes.
- “Planned Parenthood acts, as an organization, for the benefit and support of women.” Result: Yes.
- “Planned Parenthood, as an organization, consistently promotes the betterment of women.” Result: Yes.
National Organization for Women (NOW.org). LOC = 222; EQL = 556
Here we have an organization that has a complete preoccupation with injustice against women, and a rampant concern for their monetary survival. Both of these factors may seem completely appropriate, but it’s vital to understand that there is drastically more energy in being for specific just ends, rather than just being against injustice. That may seem like semantic hair splitting, but in actual fact, it is a massive difference in the ability of an organization to be successful. I will say that NOW does appear to function with a basic level of integrity, so that is a big plus.
Specific NOW CV’s:
- “NOW consistently promotes actions that are coherent with their bylaws and stated values.” Result: Yes.
- “NOW consistently uses over 50% of their funding for the betterment of women.” Result: Not yes.
- “NOW acts, as an organization, for the benefit and support of women.” Result: Yes.
- “NOW, as an organization, consistently promotes the betterment of women.” Result: Not yes.
NARAL Pro-Choice America (naral.org). LOC = 177; EQL = 322
This abortion rights and education organization is a problematic group, generally speaking. There is an intense level of pridefulness that dominates the energy of the group, and that can lead to positionality, lack of understanding, and periodically questionable methods of operation. I’m not saying these challenges are happening right now, but there is the potential. There is also a heavy reliance on rules and laws, instead of focusing on values. This is a significant weakness, and can lead to a severe militancy.
Specific NARAL CV’s:
- “NARAL consistently promotes actions that are coherent with their bylaws and stated values.” Result: Not yes.
- “NARAL consistently uses over 50% of their funding for the betterment of women.” Result: Not yes.
- “NARAL acts, as an organization, for the benefit and support of women.” Result: Not yes.
- “NARAL, as an organization, consistently promotes the betterment of women.” Result: Not yes.
Observational notes:
Abortion is, to put it mildly, a thorny issue. This isn’t the proper forum to address that issue here. Here we are concerned with the consistent support of women. Aside from the issue of abortion, this group is having a difficult time following their own intentions and rules, and appears to be funneling quite a bit of money into efforts other than helping women. This combination seems like something to be concerned about.
American Association of University Woman (aauw.org). LOC = 266; EQL = 657
This is an organization dominated by the energy of neutrality and pragmatism. As organizations go, this is a very solid, dependable group that does what they say they do, and provides distinctive benefits to women.
Specific AAUW CV’s:
- “AAUW consistently promotes actions that are coherent with their bylaws and stated values.” Result: Yes.
- “AAUW consistently uses over 60% of their funding for the betterment of women.” Result: Yes.
- “AAUW acts, as an organization, for the benefit and support of women.” Result: Yes.
- “AAUW, as an organization, consistently promotes the betterment of women.” Result: Yes.
E. Women Helping Women (womenhelpingwomen.org). LOC = 257; EQL = 657
This is an organization dominated by the energy of neutrality and pragmatism. As organizations go, this is a very solid, dependable group that does what they say they do, and provides distinctive benefits to women. Some local branches may have varying levels of service.
Specific Women Helping Women (WHW) CV’s:
- “WHW consistently promotes actions that are coherent with their bylaws and stated values.” Result: Yes.
- “WHW consistently uses nearly 60% of their funding for the betterment of women.” Result: Yes.
- “WHW acts, as an organization, for the benefit and support of women.” Result: Yes.
- “WHW, as an organization, consistently promotes the betterment of women.” Result: Yes.
The Truth Value of this report is 73.6%
This indicates completely verified facts, and accuracy that is of general truthfulness regarding the specified subjects being assessed. This report has fundamental value to everyone reading it, and the assessments are free of opinion, although some conclusion statements do have a few opinion statements. This report is of the highest truth value possible, given the subject matter being addressed.
