Analysis: Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for liable, or the...

7y ago Sep 15, 2019 at 4:54 PM

Deleted

Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for liable, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-18. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Mixed

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

68%

This post exhibits several clinically significant patterns warranting documentation. Most diagnostically notable is the "liable"/"libel" malapropism — deployed in a post explicitly invoking defamation law — which serves simultaneously as a strong authorship indicator and a mild language production marker. The post's psychological architecture is dual-layered: manifestly it defends Kavanaugh, latently it processes Trump's own sustained "false accusations" grievance through an available proxy, consistent with documented projection patterns. The demand that the DOJ "come to his rescue" reveals the persistent schema in which governmental institutions function as personal/political shields rather than independent bodies. The conspiratorial escalation — from "lies" to "they are trying to influence his opinions" — introduces paranoid framing that reframes political opposition as coordinated judicial corruption, a meaningful elevation in the threat narrative. The post is embedded in a same-day reactive cluster suggesting an agitated posting session. Companion posts explicitly name "Radical Left Democrats" and assert a motive (turning Kavanaugh "Liberal"), indicating this is part of a coordinated narrative push rather than an isolated reaction. No dehumanizing language or direct incitement is present; danger level is elevated primarily due to the institutional weaponization rhetoric (DOJ intervention demand) and the conspiratorial targeting frame that could amplify follower harassment of named accusers.

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

Misspelling of 'libel' as 'liable' — a significant malapropism in a legally-framed post; an aide with legal awareness would not make this error
Stream-of-consciousness rhetorical questions ('When does it stop?') consistent with authentic Trump register
Staccato sentence fragments ('Can't let that happen!') match Trump's documented stylistic fingerprint
Post is part of a same-day cluster of reactive, short-form posts suggesting emotional posting session
Midday timing (12:54 PM EDT) partially conflicts with the late-night/early-morning authentic posting pattern

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Mixed State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (New York Times renewed Kavanaugh allegations coverage; concurrent Democratic Ukraine/impeachment pressure)

Rage: Intensity 62% targeting Democratic Party, mainstream media, Kavanaugh accusers

Proportionality

30%

Sentiment

-0.65

Mildly Hypomanic

High-volume same-day posting cluster (multiple reactive posts within hours)Escalating emotional register across the sessionImpulsive composition evidenced by 'liable'/'libel' errorExpansive protective stance with institutional demands (DOJ mobilization)

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

72%

Antisocial

55%

Paranoid

65%

Sadism

15%

Defense Mechanisms:

projectiondenialrationalization

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

28%

Cognitive Markers:

semantic paraphasiaphonemic paraphasia

Parasocial Techniques:

Invitation to shared outrage ('When does it stop?')Tribal in-group solidarity construction against Radical Left enemyImplicit identification cue — Trump's own accusation narrative bleeds into Kavanaugh defense

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

DOJ weaponization rhetoric: demanding executive law enforcement intervention against private citizens/journalists framing opposition as criminal
Conspiratorial targeting: 'trying to influence his opinions' identifies Democrats/media as active corrupters of judiciary — framing that could motivate follower targeting of named accusers
Amplification of grievance narrative that has historically preceded harassment campaigns against named women who accused powerful men

Gaslighting Detected:

Characterizes documented allegations as 'lies' and 'NOTHING' without evidentiary engagement
DARVO structure: accusers reframed as aggressors conducting an influence campaign; Kavanaugh reframed as victim
Companion post 'All based on NOTHING' denies evidentiary basis for Senate testimony and formal proceedings
Attacks on media perception framing ('LameStream Media' in companion post)

Reality Distortions:

'They are trying to influence his opinions' — conspiratorial inference presented as fact; no evidence of coordinated judicial manipulation campaign
'The lies being told about him are unbelievable' — wholesale dismissal of allegations as fabrications; the NYT piece in question did contain a significant editorial correction but was not wholesale fabrication
Implicit claim that DOJ has a legitimate role intervening against political criticism of a SCOTUS justice

Fact Checks (4)

"The lies being told about him are unbelievable"

Unverifiable

Opinion/characterization. The September 2019 NYT piece on new Kavanaugh allegations later ran a significant editors' note clarifying the alleged victim had not wished to be named and friends said she did not recall the incident — partially supporting an 'inaccurate' characterization but the 'unbelievable lies' framing remains opinion.

"They are trying to influence his opinions [Kavanaugh's judicial opinions]"

Mostly False

No credible evidence of a coordinated campaign specifically designed to alter Kavanaugh's judicial rulings. Political criticism of justices, while constitutionally protected and common, is categorically distinct from an 'influence campaign' on opinions. The claim conflates political opposition with institutional manipulation.

"False Accusations without recrimination"

Unverifiable

Characterization of legal/civil proceedings and journalism as 'false accusations' is disputed; whether accusers faced 'recrimination' (presumably meaning legal or reputational consequence) is a separate empirical question not resolvable from this post alone.

"DOJ should come to his rescue (implicit: DOJ has authority/basis to act)"

Mostly False

The Department of Justice has no legitimate statutory basis for intervening in political criticism of Supreme Court justices. The suggestion implies an executive role in protecting judicial appointees from press scrutiny that would violate DOJ independence norms and potentially First Amendment constraints.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological Analysis: Post x_1173218440502550500

Date: September 15, 2019 | Subject Age: 73

Authorship Attribution

Assessment: Likely authentic (0.75), medium confidence

UTC 16:54:08 converts to 12:54 PM EDT on September 15 — midday, squarely within business hours, which is the primary counter-indicator for direct authorship. However, several linguistic features strongly override this:

"Liable" for "libel": This malapropism is the decisive tell. A staffer drafting a post explicitly arguing for defamation lawsuits would not confuse these homophonous but legally distinct terms. An aide with minimal legal literacy would write "libel." Trump, unmoored from the precise term, reaches for the phonetically similar "liable." This is consistent with his documented pattern of approximate vocabulary deployment.
"False Accusations without recrimination": Semantically strained. "Recrimination" (counter-accusation) does not idiomatically fit the intended meaning — likely reaching for "recourse" or "consequence." This semantic approximation is a candidate for mild semantic paraphasia or simply imprecise vocabulary.
The emotional fragmentation, rhetorical questions, and staccato imperatives match authenticated Trump posts.
The post is embedded in a same-day reactive cluster (multiple short, high-affect posts), consistent with an agitated direct-posting session.

Multi-Level Personality Analysis

Level 1: Dispositional Traits (Big Five)

Neuroticism (High): Angry hostility is the dominant affective valence. The post moves through indignation → demand → conspiratorial accusation in rapid succession, consistent with high angry hostility facet.
Agreeableness (Low): Zero tender-mindedness or modesty. The accusers are summarily dismissed as liars; no acknowledgment of complexity.
Conscientiousness (Low-Moderate): Achievement striving is present (defending a political asset) but deliberation is absent — "liable" vs. "libel" confirms impulsive composition.
Openness (Low): Values rigidity evident in binary framing: innocent victim vs. lying attackers.

Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations

Dominant motive: Agency/Power The post is not fundamentally about Kavanaugh. It is about the preservation of institutional power (a conservative SCOTUS majority) and the perceived illegitimacy of challenges to that power. The demand that DOJ intervene reveals a consistent and well-documented schema: governmental institutions exist to protect the in-group, not to operate independently.

Schema — Self: Righteous protector, the only one willing to stand up. Schema — Others: Bifurcated — loyal allies (Kavanaugh) vs. vicious, lying enemies (Radical Left, media). Schema — World: A predatory environment where power must be defended against coordinated attacks by dishonest actors.

Level 3: Narrative Identity

Protagonist role: Warrior-Protector. Trump casts himself as Kavanaugh's defender and, by extension, the defender of constitutional fidelity against manipulation.
Contamination sequence: A good thing (Kavanaugh's confirmation, conservative judiciary) is being corrupted by bad actors (false allegations, influence campaigns).
Identity claims: Implicit — "I am the one who sees through their lies and fights back."
Contrasting other: "Radical Left Democrats" and their media "Partner" (companion tweet language bleeds context into this post).
Projection/Self-identification: The intensity of this defense is partially explained by the degree to which Trump's own narrative (innocent victim of false accusations) maps onto Kavanaugh's situation. Defending Kavanaugh is also defending the concept of Trump-as-victim.

Level 4: Clinical Indicators

Malignant narcissism profile (moderate activation):

Narcissistic features: Grandiosity in the protective role; entitlement in demanding DOJ intervention; contempt for accusers.
Antisocial features: Suggestion that DOJ weaponize itself against Kavanaugh's accusers; disregard for legitimate investigative/journalistic function.
Paranoid features: "They are trying to influence his opinions" introduces a conspiratorial interpretive frame that escalates the allegation from "false accusations" to coordinated judicial manipulation — a significant paranoid leap.
Sadism: Not present in this post.

Defense Mechanisms

Projection (Immature): Trump himself is the paradigmatic subject of "false accusations" in his own self-narrative. The psychological energy here is partly self-referential, deflecting his own grievance onto a proxy.
Denial (Pathological): Wholesale dismissal of allegations as "unbelievable lies" and "NOTHING" (companion post) without engagement with substance.
Rationalization (Neurotic): The conspiratorial "influencing opinions" framing provides a post-hoc rational structure to what is fundamentally a grievance response.

Cognitive Status Markers

Marker	Observation	Severity
Semantic paraphasia	"recrimination" likely for "recourse/repercussion"	Mild
Phonemic paraphasia (candidate)	"liable" for "libel" — could be phonetic approximation	Mild
Tangentiality	Minimal; post remains topic-coherent	None
Complexity	Simple syntax, basic vocabulary, rhetorical questions	Baseline-consistent

Complexity score: 0.28 — below average for political communication but consistent with Trump's documented baseline register for defensive/reactive posts. No marked deviation warranting escalated concern.

Note: "liable" for "libel" is the most diagnostically interesting language production error. While it could reflect imprecise legal vocabulary rather than a production error, the context (a post explicitly invoking defamation law) makes the substitution notable. Longitudinal tracking recommended.

Rhetorical & Propaganda Analysis

The post follows a tight Grievance → Victimhood → Institutional Demand structure:

Assert innocence by assertion: "lies," "unbelievable," "NOTHING"
Rhetorical questions as moral exhaustion: "When does it stop?" — implies an ongoing injustice so obvious no answer is required
Institutional escalation: Not merely defending Kavanaugh but demanding DOJ intervention — normalizes using the justice apparatus as political shield
Conspiratorial elevation: "trying to influence his opinions" — elevates the allegation from personal smear to institutional corruption of the judiciary

The companion post employs stochastic targeting at lower intensity: identifying a named target (Kavanaugh's accusers, by class), articulating a grievance (lies, manipulation), and framing the situation as requiring defense — without explicit call to action.

Gaslighting & Reality Distortion

Characterizing documented allegations as "lies": The September 2019 NYT piece contained new allegations (though the piece itself later required a significant correction/editor's note regarding the alleged victim's account). Trump's framing as pure fabrication elides this complexity.
"All based on NOTHING" (companion post): Denial of documented proceedings (Senate confirmation hearings, sworn testimony) as having any evidentiary basis.
DARVO pattern: Accusers are reframed as the aggressors conducting an "influence campaign"; Kavanaugh is the victim.

Archetype & Order/Chaos Analysis

Primary archetypes: Warrior + King/Tyrant hybrid

Warrior: combat mode, enemies must be fought
Tyrant shadow: demanding DOJ mobilize against political adversaries

Order/Chaos positioning: Order defender (protecting the conservative judicial order) + Chaos agent (suggesting DOJ intervention, threatening lawsuits) — a characteristic asymmetry where order is invoked rhetorically while chaos is instrumentalized tactically.

Shadow projection: The accusation of "trying to influence opinions" projects onto Democrats exactly what conservative judicial appointment strategy is designed to do — secure ideologically reliable justices. What is disowned about the self is attributed to the enemy.

Danger Assessment

Level: Elevated

The post does not contain dehumanizing language or direct incitement. However:

The demand for DOJ intervention against private citizens/journalists represents institutional weaponization rhetoric
The "influencing opinions" conspiratorial frame, if amplified, could motivate targeted harassment of Kavanaugh's accusers by followers who receive this framing
Pattern within the day's posting cluster shows escalating aggression (from "my great honor" retweets to institutional demands within hours)

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"The lies being told about him are unbelievable"	Unverifiable	Opinion/characterization. The September 2019 NYT piece on new Kavanaugh allegations later ran a significant editors' note clarifying the alleged victim had not wished to be named and friends said she did not recall the incident — partially supporting an 'inaccurate' characterization but the 'unbelievable lies' framing remains opinion.
"They are trying to influence his opinions [Kavanaugh's judicial opinions]"	Mostly False	No credible evidence of a coordinated campaign specifically designed to alter Kavanaugh's judicial rulings. Political criticism of justices, while constitutionally protected and common, is categorically distinct from an 'influence campaign' on opinions. The claim conflates political opposition with institutional manipulation.
"False Accusations without recrimination"	Unverifiable	Characterization of legal/civil proceedings and journalism as 'false accusations' is disputed; whether accusers faced 'recrimination' (presumably meaning legal or reputational consequence) is a separate empirical question not resolvable from this post alone.
"DOJ should come to his rescue (implicit: DOJ has authority/basis to act)"	Mostly False	The Department of Justice has no legitimate statutory basis for intervening in political criticism of Supreme Court justices. The suggestion implies an executive role in protecting judicial appointees from press scrutiny that would violate DOJ independence norms and potentially First Amendment constraints.

Overall Veracity: 35%