Analysis: Has AG Schneiderman been extorting his targets and their law...

13y ago Aug 27, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Has AG Schneiderman been extorting his targets and their lawyers for contributions? We will find out.

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-02-25. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Mixed

Authorship

Uncertain

Intensity

80%

Three days after AG Schneiderman filed a $40M civil fraud lawsuit against Trump University (August 24, 2013), this post represents the apex of a 36-hour Twitter attack cluster. The accusation-as-question technique ("Has AG Schneiderman been extorting…?") plants a felony allegation while maintaining technical deniability through interrogative form; "We will find out" converts implied accusation to threatened counter-investigation, fully inverting victim and perpetrator roles. The psychological mechanism is textbook DARVO: the official pursuing a legitimate fraud claim is recast as the criminal, and Trump as the aggrieved party who will expose him. Projection is structurally precise — Trump attributes coercive extraction of payment to the official investigating a scheme that itself allegedly involved coercive extraction from consumers. The NY State Ethics Board subsequently investigated Trump's formal extortion complaint and dismissed it in August 2015. The underlying Trump University case settled for $25 million in 2016. Narcissistic state is mixed grandiose-vulnerable: the vulnerability of legal exposure is immediately overwritten by grandiose counter-offensive positioning. Trigger is acute narcissistic injury (exposure + potential defeat); the response is grossly disproportionate (felony accusation in response to civil lawsuit). The aggregate pattern — five attack posts in 36 hours, escalating from political criticism to criminal accusation — is consistent with malignant narcissistic crisis response. Danger is elevated: public criminalization of a law enforcement official without evidence delegitimizes the investigative institution and may inspire follower action against a named target.

Authorship Analysis

Uncertain

Indicators:

rhetorical question as accusation technique is characteristic Trump style
threatening first-person plural 'We will find out' without formal distancing
absence of polished sentence structure or event-announcement framing
post sits within sustained personal Twitter campaign — reactive, not scheduled
11:30 AM EDT posting falls within business hours, a mild aide indicator

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Mixed State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Exposure (Schneiderman Trump University $40M civil fraud lawsuit filed August 24, 2013)

Rage: Intensity 68% targeting AG Eric Schneiderman

Proportionality

12%

Sentiment

-0.78

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

75%

Antisocial

65%

Paranoid

70%

Sadism

35%

Defense Mechanisms:

projectiondistortionacting out

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

100%

Parasocial Techniques:

Enlists followers as investigative coalition with 'We will find out' — converts audience from spectators to participantsPositions audience as witnesses to institutional corruption, binding their identity to the counter-narrative

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

Public unsubstantiated felony accusation (extortion) against sitting law enforcement official
Audience mobilization language ('We will find out') enlists followers as agents
Part of 5-post 36-hour delegitimization campaign against a named legal adversary
Pattern of criminally accusing adversaries normalizes intimidation of law enforcement
Named target (Schneiderman) with large audience — elevated harassment risk

Gaslighting Detected:

DARVO: positions the fraud investigator as the actual criminal, inverting victim-offender relationship
Attacks the AG's legitimacy as law enforcement official by framing his legal actions as personal criminal extortion
Rapid revisionism: transforms a documented $40M civil fraud lawsuit into a shakedown scheme

Reality Distortions:

AG Schneiderman characterized as extortionist despite zero supporting evidence — NY ethics board dismissed the formal complaint in August 2015
Frames a legitimate civil fraud lawsuit (ultimately settling for $25M in 2016) as political persecution and criminal extortion
Implies Trump possesses counter-investigative capacity equivalent to or exceeding the AG's office

Fact Checks (1)

"AG Schneiderman has been extorting his targets and their lawyers for contributions"

False

Trump filed a formal extortion complaint with the NY State Joint Commission on Public Ethics. The commission investigated and dismissed the complaint in August 2015. No evidence of extortion was produced by Trump or found by investigators. The underlying Trump University case settled for $25 million in 2016, with no admission of wrongdoing by Schneiderman's office.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological Analysis: Trump vs. Schneiderman Escalation (August 27, 2013)

Situational Context

This post appears three days after AG Eric Schneiderman filed a $40 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump University (August 24, 2013), alleging bait-and-switch deception of over 5,000 consumers. The post is the fifth in a documented 36-hour attack cluster targeting Schneiderman, representing a sustained counter-offensive following the lawsuit's filing. Each successive post in the cluster escalates: political delegitimization (Obama contact) → financial threat ("millions wasted") → criminal accusation (extortion).

Authorship Attribution

Local time: 11:30 AM EDT (New York City, UTC-4 in summer). Trump's primary residence and business headquarters was Trump Tower, NYC. Business-hours timing is a mild aide indicator. Against this: the rhetorical fingerprints — accusation-by-rhetorical-question, threatening first-person plural, absence of polished sentence construction — are consistent with authentic Trump voice. The high emotional valence and direct personal focus also align with authentic production. The post slots seamlessly into a reactive Twitter campaign with no advance coordination markers. Assessment: Mixed, slight lean authentic (0.55/1.0, medium confidence).

Psychological Trigger

Type: Narcissistic injury — exposure + imminent legal defeat. The August 24 lawsuit constituted a dual threat: public exposure of alleged fraud and the real possibility of forced financial and reputational loss. Trump's response within 72 hours was not measured or legalistic but personal, escalating, and multi-pronged — consistent with the acute phase of a narcissistic injury response. Prior posts in context show progressive escalation from political criticism to financial threat to criminal accusation.

Narcissistic Dynamics

State: Mixed grandiose-vulnerable. The post opens from a position of vulnerability (being sued) but the rhetorical posture rapidly inverts this — Trump positions himself as the one who will investigate the investigator, restoring grandiose agency.

DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is the structural mechanism:

Deny: Implicit denial that the Trump University lawsuit has merit
Attack: Explicit criminal accusation (extortion is a Class D felony in New York)
Reverse: Trump is recast as potential victim of the AG's criminal shakedown

Defense Mechanisms

Projection (immature): Trump attributes extortionate conduct — coercive extraction of payment under threat — to the official investigating him for a scheme that itself allegedly involved coercive extraction of payment from vulnerable consumers. The mirroring is structurally precise.
Distortion (pathological): The accusation is presented not as speculation but as an open investigative question with an implied affirmative answer. No evidentiary basis is offered. Reality is reshaped to accommodate the psychological need to invalidate the legal threat.
Acting out (immature): Direct public expression of hostile impulse via felony accusation, bypassing deliberation or proportionality.

Rhetorical Analysis

The accusation-as-question technique is the dominant mechanism: "Has AG Schneiderman been extorting…?" The interrogative form provides technical deniability ("I was only asking") while the implied answer is clearly affirmative — amplified by "We will find out," which treats the answer as not yet discovered, not as absent.

"We will find out" operates on multiple registers: (1) enlists followers in collective investigative mission; (2) projects power and institutional capacity; (3) the plural "we" converts individual followers into participants in the counter-narrative.

The post exemplifies the RAND Firehose pattern at micro scale: a serious assertion made with maximum confidence and zero evidence, relying on boldness rather than proof.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"AG Schneiderman has been extorting his targets and their lawyers for contributions"	False	Trump filed a formal extortion complaint with the NY State Joint Commission on Public Ethics. The commission investigated and dismissed the complaint in August 2015. No evidence of extortion was produced by Trump or found by investigators. The underlying Trump University case settled for $25 million in 2016, with no admission of wrongdoing by Schneiderman's office.

Overall Veracity: 0%