 Today we're going to break down and analyze the body language of Nathan Wade. He's the boyfriend of Fannie Willis. Greg wants to tell us about the videos we're going to watch. Well more importantly than being the boyfriend of Fannie Willis, he is the special prosecutor appointed by the DA's office and she happens to be the DA. And that was ongoing while this whole investigation of Trump was occurring. So there's been an ongoing, it's not a trial, a hearing in Fulton County to determine what would happen in the outcome was he was forced to resign and she was told poor judgment. They asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner. So I'm sorry, I inserted Ms. Willis's name. Let me rephrase the question. They asked you for documents about travel with a romantic partner in December 2023. And you under oath said you did not have any of those, correct? I did not. Okay. And they asked me about gifts. Right. Never purchased a gift for Ms. Willis. And they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars and restaurants. And you said you did not have any of those. I did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things. Okay. And part of the civil discovery, they say that even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's within your purvy, you got to get it and give it to them, correct? You know, I'm going to object again to the relevance of the questions about the scope of civil discovery. I think she's asking about statements he made in pleadings. The answers are already in the record. And all right, to the extent you're trying to establish a prior mistruth, mismersion, I'll like to ask a few more follow ups, but if it's not there, we have to move on. Thank you. So in 2023 December, you said you didn't have any receipts. I do not have any receipts. I did not have any receipts. But you did travel with Ms. Willis in 2023, correct? I did. And you traveled with her in 2022, correct? I did. And you traveled with her in 2021, correct? No. So you only traveled with her in 2022 and 2023? 2022 and 2023 is what I recall. That's what you recall? Yes. Okay. So you just don't remember if you traveled with her in 2021? 2022 and 2023 is what I recall. Is what you recall? My question is, did you travel with her in 2021? Not recalling any travel in 2021. So it's not yes or no, you just don't remember? I'm not recalling any travel in 2021. So you did not travel with her in 2021? No, this has been covered. Let's keep going. Thank you. Let's see, you, you filed an affidavit in this case, correct? I did. Okay. And I marked that already. I gave it to the state as number one. Number one may approach Thank you. All right. Chase, what do you got? So what we're going to say is just our opinion and nothing more. We're just looking at the behaviors that are present. We're human and surprise. We're prone to bias just like you are. So we try to keep it as close to the middle of the road as we can. In this clip, I think it's amazing to hear the judge use the term mis truths here during this. And Mark is exploding about this. I can't wait. Yeah. Yeah. Well, when they're talking about the travel in 2021, some of these behaviors are negligible. If they're observed all alone. This is why clusters are so important to understand. If you hear somebody is going on a long rant about a singular behavior, and there aren't other behaviors there making some kind of cluster, you're most likely being misled. So right here, we're seeing hesitancy and lacking certainty. A change from baseline stops smiling. We're seeing a postural adjustment shifting to qualifying statements like what I recall. There's a territorial sniff that I hope Mark will demonstrate for us might be a habitual action for him. In some cases, then this one baseline is important. And also why change is the first of the five C's in the behavior profiling document. So there's lots of hesitancy when the question is repeated. There's a shift of tense to present. I'm not recalling. Instead of I don't recall, I'm not recalling any travel. The blink rate goes from the teens, the mid like 1517 to the 90s. In one second during this question, then we see lip compression four times. I'll leave that up to one of y'all to define what that means. Which typically is withholding something. The smile is kind of smugness. And I don't think it's duping delight open to being wrong about that. But the blink rate spikes again in this clip when he's asked a third time with the same spike in blink rate that we saw the first time. So this is one of the most classic and perfect demonstrations of a cluster of potentially deceptive behaviors. I didn't even cover all the bits here. You're about to hear three more dudes go through even more stuff. I'm just kind of skimming the top right here. Mark, what do you get? Yeah, Chase, it was a little bit bonkers. It was so full of signals there for something. Just as you say, the judge talks about a mistruth there. I was amazed by that. I was like, is that a euphemism for lying? Or is there an actual thing called a mistruth? Well, maybe there is. A mistruth maybe is something that is not accurate but not purposeful. Whereas a lie would be a purposeful inaccuracy to get a result. I mean, that's a possibility. I think that's the possibility that the judge is giving. Why the judge is giving that possibility? I'm not entirely sure. But certainly our subject here takes up that opportunity to give himself, I guess, a lot of room or option on mistruths going forward. He says, that's what I recall. With that, we get this concerned forehead around that, the eyes searching, this big rock forward, the eyes block. They get shielded by the eyelids there. There is lip compression there. Something not quite said but could be said there. There's asymmetry in the mouth there. I've got a question marked by that. Chase, is it contempt? Is it a dupe? No, I don't think it's either there. Then there's a single shoulder shrug as well on that. That's what I recall. He says, but I think there's a lot of signals that he gives there in a cluster that this could be a mistruth that he recalls that. My wife is a private investigator and I asked her, how do you find out so much information about these people you're looking into? And she said, the internet, Google. And that's because data brokers sell your information to scammers, spammers, and anybody else who wants to target you. Your full name, your email address, your home address, your health records, your relatives, it's all out there. That's why I've been using Aura, the sponsor of today's video. Aura shows me which data brokers are selling my information and automatically submits opt out requests for me. I don't have to do anything. So I used Aura to find out how many of these data brokers are selling my information. I couldn't believe it. Bringing up my information not only helps reduce the amount of spam I get, but it helps protect me from hackers who could use that information to help them get access to my social media accounts, bank accounts, or other sensitive information. Aura also does so much more to protect me and my family from online threats I can't even see. With Aura, I get other features like antivirus, VPN, password management, parental controls, identity theft insurance, and more without having to download a bunch of apps. It's really easy to use, especially for somebody like me who's not a technical person. And I get everything for one affordable price. You may have one or two of these tools already, but not having Aura is like locking the front door but leaving the back door wide open. Aura is always on, doing the hard work keeping me safe so I can focus on other things and not have to worry about all that kind of stuff. I value my privacy and I value yours. You can go to aura.com slash tbp to start your free two week trial. That's aura.com slash tbp. And there's a link for that in the description below. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, I think the cluster is something else. I think what we're seeing is he is trying to slick something and I agree with you, whether it's half truth, deception, whatever. But I think he is keenly aware that he's getting away with something. So I don't think it's doopers. I think it's outright. I can't believe this. I think it's outright amusement. I think he came here to do what I've said is fourth wall and he came here to tell you something and only to tell you the part that he came to tell you. And if you don't get the questions right, you're not going to get them. So this turns into a dance between bad questioning and resistance because this is absolutely horrific questioning. And if you're listening, happy to show you how to do it better because this is some of the worst questioning I've ever seen in a courtroom. There's this dance. Watch him when you see that pleasure in his face. That smile is pleasure when he realizes he can matador these poor questions and he's doing a great job of it. When you are working in the intelligence world, we have this concept called essential elements of intelligence information. It's about what do I need to know? What am I after? And we structure our questioning process around getting that. So you start out with what you want to know. And then you build all of that around it. And you try to avoid vague and compound and negative questions. I think what we see in the beginning, we see him under stress. It's because he's not sure he's going to get away with it. Then when that smile comes out, that blink rate slows, we know that he realizes he's in a good place. A slight smirk that chin up and now he's ready to go. He uses that as what I recall. That sets her up for storm of awful questions because she didn't ask what she meant. We're talking about essential elements of information. What you should have asked is what you meant. And there's lots of ways to do it. But once he says, I don't remember, she says, so you don't remember. There's a negative question. How the hell do you answer that? Yes or no? So there's another bad question. This is an opportunity for you to use a leading question. Just a simple question that you could say, did you, are you, will you, can you have you? And you force him into yes and no, and now you pick up and run again. But instead he goes on to say, I'm not recalling. There's lots of ways. You could have asked the question, when did you first travel with? What years were you actively traveling with? How many times did you travel? Then he would be boxed in, but she doesn't box him in. She lets him do a big matador dance pastor. And this is setting up the next part. I think this guy's pretty sharp in terms of what he came to do and what he's getting away with. Scott, what do you got? Yeah, I agree with you guys for all of that. And Chase, I'm glad you're just skimming the top because it would take four years for us to get through all this stuff. And each one of us went and said everything we saw and got into detail with it. Unbelievable. I think that sniff is more than just a sniff. I think at this point it's a tick because we see it in every video. And I think when he gets all worked up, that thing kicks in and that's why he starts that deep sniff like that. I agree. It does look like a territorial thing, but he does it every, just few, not even a few minutes, just every, almost every couple of seconds. And again, like Mark was saying, if you see that a couple of shrugs with the sniff as well, his blink rate, it varies. But in those spots you were talking about Chase, they do go up. They do go up a lot. But what I thought was interesting is how he pushes his head forward when he doesn't want any pushback on his answers. And Greg, those questions are horrific. They could have shut that down and gone in, kept going in and gotten everything they need from that guy, but no. So I don't know what's up with that. His voice tone and volume, there's a difference in those dramatic differences as he goes through these. The time he takes to think about these things is he's prepared. These are prepared answers because he's talked to everybody. And if you minutes, we're going to see where they, did you talk to someone? So he's talked to everyone and said, how are we going to, how are we going to do here? And they've all talked and said, here's the approach we're going to take. And, and so that's what they're doing. If you'll watch that, that Fannie Fannie Willis, have you say her name? I did a couple of videos on her on my channel and show you those the same kind of thing he's doing. She's doing that too. And, and, or we did her on here as well. So you can see the same, the same approach he's taken is the same one she's taken. It's, it's not, you know, none of this happened. No. And then when they get busted on it, there was a, and they try to catch it in a different way to say, well, this was happening. If you want to call it that. So they're redirecting the, what they're pretending to the answer to be is something different than they're being asked. So then toward the end there, we see that SNF, the low blink rate, which he's keeping his eye on that, on that, on the person, on the attorney, that it arises in his, his breath rate. All these things suggest you can guy go, you all can go with the mistress and all that. This guy's lying. I, I, this, this is what, do you look for deception? This is it. Watch this guy. You cannot miss it, in my opinion. There you have it. One of those tape replays. They asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner. So I'm sorry, I, I inserted Ms. Willis's name. Let me rephrase the question. They asked you for documents about travel with a romantic partner in December 2023. And you under oath said you did not have any of those, correct? I did not. Okay. And they asked me about gifts. Right. Never purchased a gift for Ms. Willis. And they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars and restaurants. And you said you did not have any of those. I did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things. Okay. And part of the civil discovery, they say that even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's within your purvy, you got to get it and give it to them, correct? Your Honor, I'm going to object to getting to the relevance of the, the questions about this hope of civil discovery. I think she's asking about statements he made of pleadings. The answers are already in the record. And to the extent you're trying to establish a prior Ms. Truth, Ms. Merchant, I'll allow you to ask a few more follow-ups, but then it's not there. We have to move on. Thank you. So in 2023 December, you said you didn't have any receipts. I do not have any receipts. I did not have any receipts. But you did travel with Ms. Willis in 2023, correct? I did. And you traveled with her in 2022, correct? I did. And you traveled with her in 2021, correct? No. So you only traveled with her in 2022 and 2023? 2022 and 2023 is what I recall. That's what you recall? Yes. Okay. So you just don't remember if you traveled with her in 2021? 2022 and 2023 is what I recall. Is what you recall? My question is, did you travel with her in 2021? I'm not recalling any travel in 2021. So it's not yes or no, you just don't remember? I'm not recalling any travel in 2021. So you did not travel with her in 2021? No, wait, this has been covered. Let's keep going. Thank you. Let's see, you filed an affidavit in this case, correct? I did. Okay. And I marked that already. I gave it to the state as number one. Is it number one? May I approach, Judge? Thank you. Okay. So let's not talk about when you spend the night. When did your romantic relationship with Miss Willis begin? 2022. When? 2022. Early 2022. So you were appointed in November of 2021? Yes, ma'am. And your relationship started early? What's early? January? February? Around March. Around March. But you two met at an October 2019 Judicial Conference, correct? Yes, ma'am. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, just one thing here. Very unspecific with the date of the start of this. Early 2022. And the head rocks from side to side with a lot of the body as well. That's unstable. So we might say, look, he's maybe a little bit unstable about it being early 2022. Maybe it was earlier than that. Maybe it was way earlier than that. Certainly the fact that he's not being specific when probably you would be able to recall other events that went on. I know it can be hard to go, look, when did the relationship actually start? Because the starts of things are often difficult to kind of pinpoint. But the memory has an ability to go, well, I remember doing this thing. And I remember there was that other event at the same time. And that event is in my calendar. So I can probably bring it down to these few days or these, certainly this week, that maybe things would have been started. He's unable to do that. I find that interesting. Makes me think that again, he's giving himself some options for mistruth, for misspeaking, for not outwardly lying, but potentially being caught out and being able to say, yeah, I might have misspoken that. I don't quite recall what went on. He's hedging, giving himself a lot of options in an area where probably he might be able to be more specific. Scott, what have you gone this one? I agree with you 100%. And he pronounces 2022 loud and clear because this is like you were saying, it's the crux of this case. He's got to make sure that his side of this is clear, because that's what he's getting in trouble for at this point. When did this romantic relationship start with her? And he's answered really nothing up to this point, nothing. And the real answer is the true answers, but he's doing all this while he's smiling. That's one of the things that's getting up. He's getting on my last nerve here. We see lip compression. And that's, like Chase was saying, you try to withhold information. Quite often you'll see it when someone is under a tremendous amount of stress, the lips disappear. I call it stress mouth when it's that gets really, the stress goes high and bang, those things disappear. There's odd behavior around where he says, around March, we see two micro expressions of disgust there. So pay attention to that. Then his lips are pulled down on both sides. And that indicates sadness. And then he's got that sniff going again throughout this. It's not as large as it was in the first one, but we're going to see that change here in a few minutes. And the yes ma'ams are quiet. And that makes me believe what they're talking about is is really sensitive subject. Obviously it would be. So there's that this, this looks deceptive is all get out Chase. What do you got? I agree. There's contempt on his face before the question is even asked here. So I think this contempt is for the entire thing. There's an expression of anger that flashes on his face. I don't think we need to use the word micro expressions. When an expression is on the face, it's still an expression. Lots of other things have been quickly in behavior and body language. We never feel the need to say micro shoulder shrug or micro anything else. It's a facial expression. Watch for the anger and right when it shows up. And I think I'm not even going to tell you when they come together, but I want to watch, watch his face. And I want you to see what's being discussed when that anger flashes on his face there. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, there's so many lip compressions in this thing. I start to wonder if that's not kind of normal for him. It may even be part of his baseline. Love to see him outside of this to know that really can't tell. Again, the questioning. Here's the problem. She asks a question with heavy connotation. If I ask you, when did your romantic relationship start? He gets to define what romantic means where that means physical. There's all kinds of formulas that go into that. And you watch him, he goes and looks around and goes, I think it was in this date. And the other reason I think that's true is because if you watch, he throws his chin up and does that kind of odd lip compression that I usually associate with. Well, that's close enough. Usually associate with that. Not normal, not this, but kind of. Yeah, that little thing. So then he does this tons of lip compressions. And she closes with a question she should have started describe your relationship. What I would have started off with, I'd say, can you describe your relationship with Ms. Willis? And if you said, yeah, we were romantically involved, well, when did that occur? When did that start? Did you date before? I would walk down to make sure I got the timeline locked down the way I want it. But because you ask with a connotation loaded question that has cultural significance, even depending on who you're dealing with, then you get a timeline that's screwed and skewed. And I think it's just another example to allow him to go, that was nice. Nice try. And he's doing, he's actually doing a pretty good job of dodging questions because the questions are so weak. This is good resistance to the questioner. Micromomentary expressions. That's what Haggard called it. I think it's the only thing I would say about micro that is confusing is people often think they're smaller. They don't have to be smaller. Just quick. I'm not putting my expressions down either. I'm just saying there's not a need to always say micro. It's okay to say facial expression. That's all I was saying. My understanding is when they were originally doing the experimentation, they were shooting on film and film shoots at 24 frames a second. And the expression would show up in just one frame. The expression was only there for something around a 24th of a second. And I think from that, the idea of it being coined micro in terms of the amount of time that it takes up not what the expression, I mean, you could, you know, for that, you know, putting your hands fully in the air, up in the air, if you could do that in one 24th of a second, it would be a micro expression, you know, maybe like a big move. It's a massively big move, but it only lasts for a 24th of a second. Well, Mark, and to your point, when I taught interrogation for all those years, I would say, yeah, anything that you need a camera to see, I'm not going to bother with. I want you to be able to see the things that we're talking. So I think it is, this is a great discussion because this is one of those things that people get confused around, I think, that whether it's small or it's quick, I think one 24th of a second is tough for the eye. Yeah, originally, my understanding is the idea of the micro was that it was a short amount of time. I think that's what size is not the size of the of the expression. Yeah, just duration, just duration. Yeah, just people all the time are saying, is it a small little smirk? No, it's real, it's just contained. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then at the same time, you could have very subtle micro expressions, which would be a tiny move over a tiny amount of time. Yeah, yeah. One of those tape replays. Okay, so let's not talk about when you spend the night. When did your romantic relationship with Miss Willis begin? 2022. When in 2022? Early 2022. So you were appointed in November of 2021? Yes, ma'am. And your relationship started early? What's early? January, February? Around March. Around March. But you two met at an October 2019 Judicial Conference, correct? Yes, ma'am. And describe your relationship at that point? Yes, ma'am. You said that in 2022, well, in 2022, in this case alone, isn't it true you were paid $303,000 over $303,000? I was paid? Yes, in this case. Fulton County, by Fulton County. I see where you're going. So... And Judge, I just asked you to answer the question. If you wants to explain it, I thought no problem with that. Mr. Wade, just listen to the question asked and just ask, answer the question asked. In 2022, isn't it true you were paid over $300,000? No, ma'am. That is not true. You were not paid over $300,000 by Fulton County? No, ma'am. I was not. Okay. How much were you paid in 2022 then? So, what I was beginning to explain was Fulton County wrote a check to my firm. Okay. What happens at that point is the checks are then deposited as you have the bank statements, you see that. And then they are dispersed between the three of us. So, there was Mr. Bradley, there was Mr. Wade, and there was Christopher Campbell. A third, a third, a third. So, when you asked me if I was paid $300,000, the answer is no. I got a third of that that went to my personal firm. Now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm, obviously the expenses come out of that, and I get at the end of the day whatever the profit is. So, I did not get $300,000. No, ma'am. And let me just clarify. My question was not, did you put in your pocket $300,000? My question was, was the law firm of Nathan Wade paid over $300,000 in the year 2022? Again, a third of that came to the law firm of Nathan Wade. So, you're saying that the law firm of Nathan Wade did not receive checks from the Fulton County Government over $300,000 in the year 2022? That's a different question. A third of the $300,000 came to... All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, again, here we go. She doesn't have essential elements of the story she's after. There's more evidence as she structures her questions on the fly. Now, look, this is a hot topic. This is whether or not these people are excused from the trial of Donald Trump around the whole trying to adjust the outcome of the elections in Georgia, if I recall. The easiest way to put it. So, nobody down there is screaming and yelling, I'm right. It's about the election case with Trump in Georgia. She misses the essential elements. So, how was the deal structured? Who was the contract tracked with? If I started off and I didn't know and she apparently doesn't, I would have said, Chase, how was your deal structured on this case? You'd tell me, well, I'm going to be paid this much. Okay, how is that supposed to be paid? And how many increments? When and to whom? Who got what? She could have shifted on the fly if she'd started that way. But she didn't. She's too invested. And here he is in that fourth wall again. He's only going to deliver what you ask him. That is resistance 101. Don't give information. How many times have you heard us collectively say, when you're on the stand, answer the question. Don't answer what you think they want to know. Answer the question. And he does a great job of that. This plays right into becoming a who's on first kind of thing. This starts to sound so stupid. It sounds like Abbott and Costello, if you know who they are. He is jousting with her and she lets him get away with one of the best chaff and redirects. Chaff and redirect remember is the thing I defined as all the stuff coming out of the back of a plane and missiles follow it. And this is it. All this stuff coming out of the back of his mouth. He's just putting out words until she allows him to trail off and go the other way. And it is a beautiful one. One of the easiest ways to get back on topic, all she had to do was say, did Fulton County pay $300,000 for your services? Boom. He says, yes. That's pull him out of chaff and redirect and pushing right back in there. What I think is going on here is he's in thinking brain. This guy came here prepared for a fight and is aware of what's coming and he's together. He's contained whether he's purposefully slow or he's doing it as part of who he is. I think he's in thinking brain and prepared and I don't think she is. I think she's somewhere else. I think she's so invested that she's animated and she's losing her ability to walk the path. Could be wrong. Could be that she just came in there with a plan to be this disorganized, but I would doubt it. Scott, what do you got? I agree with you. And that first redirect doesn't take. It doesn't work very well. And I think this is interesting because he does the steepling thing. And I think he's using that as a barrier. And just even though it's buying a little bit of time for him, I think it does. Then you get that head jet forward for each answer over that barrier. So that right there tells you a whole lot. And in my opinion, it'd be micro expression of decision. Sorry, dude. I couldn't stop micro expression. I'm just kidding. I know. I'm just messing with you, man. Then he starts his redirective answer while he's smiling. Oh, man, this looks like somebody like a little... This is the way kids lie. Or they know they're busted, but they keep lying anyway because they don't know what to say or what to do. So that's the part that bugs me on that one. Then he uses his water as an adapter. It was similar to what we saw when we saw Tarek. What was Tarek's last name? Anybody remember? Mentori. Mentori. Yeah, Tarek Mentori was an episode we did on this guy. I'm surprised you forget. Apparently, you've got the name tattooed on your... There's another right here. Let's not talk about that. He's in prison. On your foot. Yeah, tattooed on your foot. Yes. Yeah. So anyway, yeah, Tarek was a bad guy. Anyway, but this is the behavior we see from little children or someone on a sitcom and they're trying to... When you know, as the person watching the sitcom, they did it and they want you to know, they know you did it without looking at the camera and making a face. That's what gave me the feeling of it. So it's so bad. It's just bad lying. I think he's just headed for the commode here. Chase, what do you got? I had that same feeling today. And we had some kids over at the house today. And I asked an eight-year-old, if they received money and then had to pay taxes or expenses, did they still receive that money? They understood that expenses don't mean you didn't receive money. An eight-year-old. So maybe it's the smartest eight-year-old in the world, but something tells me most children understand this. So this is a redirection. It's evasiveness. It's hesitancy. It's avoidance and misdirection. So he's steepling here, and I've got a slightly different opinion. So obviously I hate Scott. Oh, there it is. There it is. No, man. This is what this is about. That's why this works, because we all see things from different angles. We do. Mind's correct. Well, it doesn't matter if yours is wrong, man. It doesn't, it does not matter. It's just an opinion. You said that when we started. Sometimes opinions are correct. Sorry. So let's talk about the steeple here really quick. You'll see every body language person talk about this meaning confident. Always means confident. And what does Scott Rouse teach you all the time? That's what we call an absolutist, but they ignore the context of 99% of the time. When is it happening? What's going on? The confidence here, if there is any, comes from the way that the question is asked. He knows it's being asked in a way that allows him to say no with zero stress. One thing you'll see here is a lot of his gestures are outside of frame. And Greg talks about this a lot when he talks about the fish was being this big and the person on gestures over here instead of right here. It's obvious there's an attorney questioning him who has a motive to make this look a certain way. But there's so much manipulation and management for a very simple question that should be easy for a reasonable person. There's not a lot of clusters here. I'll admit that. But keep in mind, these are very sharp questions that are very pointed at one little thing. And we have no control over what questions are asked, which plays a huge part. Questions do play a huge part in the behaviors that we see in the behaviors that are displayed by people. And there's seven things that you can do to maximize the chances of somebody exhibiting deception indicators. And the attorney doing the questioning isn't doing any of those here in this clip. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I think you're right. He knows that he's on good footing here because technically there's some accuracy to what he's saying. And therefore you do get this very technical answer direct from him. Very clear because he believes he's on solid ground here. So he's clear. He's stilted. He does go out of frame, but he's very clear to compartmentalize exactly how this structure works, which for accuracy's sake, the money would go into their partnership LLC. It would be, technically, you could say it's distributed between three people. And then the compensation committee at the end of the year, which would be the three of them, would decide actually who'd made the profit from this. So technically he's able to move around this because she does ask, what were you paid? What were you paid? As she finds that he's technically maneuvering around this, she goes, well, no, I didn't actually ask that. I asked, well, no, you did actually ask that. You could say, look, you understand the spirit of my question is what did you personally receive? But upfront again, technically, be accurate to say, at that point, I received zero, nothing. It's only at the end of the, now he's not going to tell you, it's only at the end of the year that we distribute the compensation around this. You know, it's a little bit of naive questioning. And for that reason, and because I think he's very confident throughout this, I think we get a really nice baseline for him as to how he's going to perform when he thinks he's doing quite well. And technically, he actually is doing quite well. There's a good argument that he has there. I mean, obviously, you know, it still has a little bit of mistruth to it in this inquiry around what I think should become an idea of the potential U.S. mis-election that went on potentially, potential mis-election happened there. Potentially, I'm saying, I'm not saying it did, potentially it did. I'm always stunned to watch somebody go right to left when they're talking about a timeline of events. There's like, we did this, we did this, and then we did this, and they go right to left when almost nobody does that. Anyway, next video. I'm confused, dude. What are you talking about? Because I always do that because it looks this way, right to left. I'm going, we went here, here and here. Because we right that way, would that be it? Yeah, but he's going right to left. His right. Oh, as we view him. To his left. He's going backwards. But for people that are very, very well-trained public speakers are trained to do that because it's your timeline goes this way, but I don't think that's what we're seeing. I don't know if he's a litigator, if he is, he might be trained to do that. He's not. I don't think he is. I think so. I thought he was, yeah. I think what I've read is very inexperienced. Again, I know nothing about the case. I don't actually care. I didn't even pick these videos, so. It's that thing where if everybody do this, everybody make a cue in the air. Make it, you know, with your finger, make a cue in the air. A question or a cue? A cue. See, that's the way it looks to the, see that's the way I see it. So I'll do it that way to make sure you guys see it the right way. You know, there's some tests, they test you. I'm supposed to say if you're a narcissist or not, you'll make it that way. Well, I think it's funny that two of you are dyslexic, and they would make a judgment about your behavior. Right, exactly. Yeah, I first have to go. They measure the lump to the air. Remind me what a cue looks like. Which one's a cue, yeah. I got to get that. Which one's a cue. First of all, I got to get that right. And then I'm going to do it as it looks to me, because it's hard work. So it's like, you know, you wanted an answer. I'll give you an answer. Yours is worse than mine. I'm thinking about you. I'm thinking about me. Yeah, yours is worse. Yours is a whole lot worse than mine. One of those tape replays. Yes, ma'am. You said that in 2022, well, in 2022, in this case alone, isn't it true you were paid $303,000 over $303,000? I was paid? Yes, in this case. Foam County, by Foam County. I see where you're going. So... And Judge, I just asked you to answer the question. If you want to explain it, I've got no problem with that. Mr. Wade, just listen to the question asked and just ask. Answer the question asked. In 2022, isn't it true you were paid over $300,000? No, ma'am. That is not true. You were not paid over $300,000 by Foam County? No, ma'am. I was not. Okay. How much were you paid in 2022 then? So what I was beginning to explain was Foam County wrote a check to my firm. Okay. What happens at that point is the checks are then deposited as you have the bank statements. You see that. And then they are dispersed between the three of us. So there was Mr. Bradley, there was Mr. Wade, and there was Christopher Campbell. A third, a third, a third. So when you asked me if I was paid $300,000, the answer is no. I got a third of that that went to my personal firm. Now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm, obviously the expenses come out of that. And I get at the end of the day whatever the profit is. So I did not get $300,000. No, ma'am. And let me just clarify. My question was not, did you put in your pocket $300,000? My question was, was the law firm of Nathan Wade paid over $300,000 in the year 2022? Again, a third of that came to the law firm of Nathan Wade. So you're saying that the law firm of Nathan Wade did not receive checks from the Foam County government over $300,000 in the year 2022? That's a different question. A third of the $300,000 came to... I worked with a CEO who was colorblind, and I loved that he would come in with these red, yellow, green dashboards, and he'd be like, what the hell is that? My graphic designer is colorblind. Do you have them just available? Hex codes for everything? Yeah, I don't know how it works. He kind of goes, what about that color? I go, that looks great. Just red, green in all colors. I think red's an issue. Red, green. Red, green. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's a very male trait. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So how do you tell him? How do you tell him that? I don't know. You know, it's a very red color. Why would he tell anybody that? I'm colorblind, but I'm a graphic designer. Oh, he didn't tell me until way later on. But I only hired him because he had a great hairstyle. There you go. I literally went up to him. I said, you've got incredible hair. You're going to be my big designer. Did you reach and touch it? No, no, no, no, no. You wouldn't want to touch it because it was like, it was like sticking up in the air in the kind of this incredible high kind of spiky flat top kind of thing. It was the most kind of gravity challenging hair that I'd ever seen in my life. And I said, you're going to be my graphic designer. And he said, should you should you not see some of my work first of all? And I said, no, I don't think that's important. And I was absolutely accurate. I mean, that for me, that's a brilliant piece of design. Yeah, it's a beautiful piece of design. So I know you're saying that you only got a third of the $300,000, but you were paid over the firm was paid over $300,000 in 2020, do you correct? So, Ms. Merchant, it's not what I'm saying. The numbers, they're there, it's the truth. The funds were paid, they were divvied between the three of us going into an operating account. Expenses paid out of it. At the end of that, the 9,000 figures which you have. So that's where you got the 9,000 figure from? Yes, ma'am. And let's see, let's. All right, Chase, what do you got? There's only one thing in this whole clip that interests me, and I'm glad I'm going first because Mark will jump all over this and I wouldn't have anything to say. His use of the word truth. He uses truth to contrast between his own words. It's not what I'm saying, it's the truth. So what I'm saying is different than the truth. There's more gestures outside of his frame here and it comes right to the center, right in the middle, when he's talking about this 9,000 figure, whatever that is. I don't know anything about accounting, but there are not any clusters of behavior that I could see here that speak to deception and his level of contempt and smugness that's there are, in my opinion, they're interfering with a lot of the natural truth signals that I would be looking for. I'd be looking for truth signals, but there's so much contempt going on, it's hard to see. Scott, what do you got? All right, I think the most uncomfortable person here in this video is the judge. Take a look at him. He's scratching his head, he's covering his mouth, he's pressing it on his face, all these kind of things. Let us know that that cat is a comfortable man. He's squishing, he cannot sit still. I think he's up for reelection and he knows this is important. It's got to go right for him politically, as well as for the people who are going to vote for him, which is I'm sure that maybe that's the same thing. But this would make me really nervous if I were that attorney, because you can see what it is. I don't know if it's, I think they probably already know, but I think it's probably done on right now what's happening. Especially if there was answers like these coming out of the personal stand and then the judge starts acting that way because he's not calling the things to stop things or correct things, that's pretty hardcore. Now, as this goes forward, Nathan's illustrators, they slow down, they get smaller and they get really low. So that's just no, or that is a, usually a cue we see deception. We, when it's for the cluster of cues, but we just, we see that one thing. You're right, Chasers, there aren't, there isn't a cluster. It's just, it's just the one thing there. And then he uses his clasped hands as a barrier, in my opinion at that point. And then with each sentence, he scoots back just a little bit. We see him, and people say he's distancing himself, himself from his lie. But when you get uncomfortable, we start, in other words, in a way that's sort of, I don't want to say it's correct, it's not distancing yourself from the lie, but you're trying to get away from that because your brain is saying, hang on, man, this isn't true. Is this it right? And you start sort of closing down a little bit. So I'm only impressed in that all that we're seeing in this suggests deception. And from my opinion, I'm seeing a guy again, just lying aside and off. That's just my opinion. Greg, what do you got? I think he's protecting information, whether you want to call it lying or something else is another story. He's only giving you what you ask. It doesn't matter what the spirit of the question is. He does a little chaff in the beginning, and then there's altercation. And it's Chase, 100% agree with you. I see anger and contempt and all of that around the truth. And if we think back to Fani Willis, she did the same exact thing. And she was downright angry. She said then, he's more of a Southern gentleman, not me, not so much. So she was more aggressive, but you're seeing it leak through him. And that's the beautiful thing about what we say as body language. I often say to people when they say, that's all snake oil. I just roll my eyes at them and they get irritated. And I just say, well, clearly it's not snake oil. It's just that you don't understand it. And what we see here is him bleeding contempt for the person who's asked a question. He's responding to it with what he intended to do. And I'll just leave it at that and say, he's confident here. I see confidence. I agree with you, Chase, I don't see clusters. I see confidence because he's angry. And he knows he's delivering the answer to the questions she asked, not the other. And when we say angry, angry is a relative thing. He's not belligerent and that kind of thing. He's just like, why would you ask me that? That's indignation. That's anger. That's whatever you want to call it in people. And I think that's what we're seeing. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, only to say, Chase, I think you must have a monitoring system on me there as we have, it's the truth there. So either you have cameras in here or you're plugged into the cameras that the Chinese consulate has put here from just around the corner. Yeah. Well, it's got to be one or the other. It's got to be one or the other. That somebody's monitoring me somewhere. Yeah, I think, look, I think he's, having seen the video beforehand, I think he's slightly less assured on this one. Still confident, as you say there, Greg, in terms of there's some anger there. Just as you say, it's not huge anger, but there is some forthrightness there. He leans forward into it, but he's a lot less direct with his gestures than he was on the first one. I think the technical idea in that third video, the one that we had before, I think he was on shore footing there. The idea of it's not what I'm saying, it's the truth. Suggesting that because it's in a countancy form, therefore numbers are always the truth. No, they might be factual, but they can still be inaccurate or miscalculated. Or cash. Or cash, so just not there. Yeah, or cash. I hadn't thought about the cash. Yeah, could be in cash. So yeah, I agree. Let's have another. Let's see what we got next. So really quick, Scott, this is a picture. Every time I wear denim on my upper body, my sister and I were in full denim. Oh, double denim. For like an elementary middle school photo. And back in Texas, they call it a Canadian tuxedo. Yes. I don't know if you've ever heard that. That's funny. But this was the photo. I don't know if it'll show up. Yeah, there it is. Yeah, we got it. We got it. Oh, fantastic. Go photo. Fantastic. Oh, dude. Oh, it's a dog's name. You're wearing a dog on your lower half there, though. You look like your kid. What was the little dog's name? You do. That was Bo. No. Do I need to take your kid's name out of there? The most 80s photo. No. How old was he? Twenty-two. Eleven. Oh, that's an old dog. That's as hard. Double denim chase. That is one of the most tricky fashion statements to pull off. Double denim. Let's see it. Let's see it. Pulled off. Pulled it off. Pulled off very nicely. Very nicely. Yeah. You can't care. Fair play. Fair play. Cowboys do it all the time. Fair play. One of those tape replays. So I know you're saying that you only got a third of the $300,000, but you were paid over. The firm was paid over $300,000 in 2020. Do you correct? So, Ms. Merchant, it's not what I'm saying. They're numbers. They're there. It's the truth. The funds were paid. They were divvied between the three of us. Going into an operating account. Expenses paid out of it. At the end of that, the 9,000 figures is what you have. So that's where you got the 9,000 figure from? Yes, ma'am. And let's see. Let's... Aruba. October 2022. I love that business record she didn't get for these drugs. It might be a little faster. But did you take a trip with her to Aruba in 2022? Yes, ma'am. So that Aruba trip was... So there was a package deal there. My mother had recently retired and I decided to take my mother on a cruise. And the second leg, after the cruise concluded, D.A. Willis and I went to Aruba. So that was our one trip, if you will. Okay. So my question was, did you go with D.A. Willis to Aruba in 2022? I did. Thank you. And you paid for that trip using your business credit card, correct? I did. And you paid for a cruise as well, correct? That's the cruise I was referencing with D.A. Willis, my mother, and myself. Okay, and let... Because there's two cruises, so let's just talk about the first one. So the first one was you took... That's the one with your mother. Yes. And so you introduced D.A. Willis to your mother. That trip, you all took a cruise together, the three of you. Yes. After the cruise was done, you and D.A. Willis flew to Aruba together, and your mom flew home. Yes. And you paid for all this with your credit card, on your business credit card? I did. And are you saying that Ms. Willis paid you cash back for that? She did. And... No, but let me make this distinction, though. Because the number that you're looking at reflects the three people on the cruise ship. There were things that my mother and I did, just the two of us, that D.A. Willis didn't do. And I'm not attributing that. I did not... My math is not good, but I did not include anything with your mother on this. Well, you wouldn't be able to see it because it's not separated out. It just shows a charge on the account when actually it would have been something with my mother and I. Judgement approach with exhibits 10 and 11. They're both certified business records from... I thought 10 was taxes. I'm sorry, 11. Yeah, pretty sure. Thank you. And Alan, these are business records. All right, great. What do you got? You know who's going to leave that in. I'll leave it out. It's okay. Wednesday's coming quick, man. I know. All right. So here's more chat. I ask you a simple question. Did you go on a vacation with Ms. Willis? Well, you know, it was Tuesday and it was raining and I wanted a bagel. So when I went down there, they were selling cats right next door. And I'm allergic to cats. So I had to go get... That's a chat if you ever heard one. It allows you, number one, to move in any direction you want if you're eloquent with it. But it also gives you time to think. You can use preambles or just word filler. And I always say to people, if you don't know how to talk in front of people, come up with a series of stupid statements. Like all you have to do is consider, well, there's free time for you to think. And this guy's doing it. He slows his speech pattern so you know he's thinking as he goes. When she gets to good, hard questions like, did you pay for a trip? He says, I did. Anytime you ask him a hard, direct, good question, he responds. But then he chaffs again at the Saruba trips and feeds her all this information that she has no need to know. And that's a waste of time, a waste of her questioning. And it's because her questions aren't good. That containment he's showing to me is really deliberate now. When he first started, he was more free flowing. And if you don't believe that he is starting to feel a little bit of stress around this topic, watch him look for what to do with his hands after he's done with moving his hands. And then he grabs that water when she's approaching the bench. What we know is that often people who appear to be confident if you pay attention long enough and keep the camera on them, they'll do something odd, like look for places to put their hands, look for where to put a piece of paper, do something. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, let me answer that as part of a package, Greg. Do you like chicken? Exactly. Yeah, I'm going to store that idea. That's a great little time saver, isn't it? Part of a package. Now, I see why he goes as part of a package there. And there's unnecessary clarification of getting his mother involved with it. Listen, I was all for this guy is just generally mistruthing all over the place. And then I found out that he took his mother on holiday and then I was like, give the guy a break. He's a nice guy. Taking his mum on holiday. Come on. What could be wrong? What can he have done wrong? Guys taking his mum on a cruise and then picks up his girlfriend on the way as part of a package. Here's what I love about this one. You paid for that using your business credit card. She says, it's a clear question, isn't it, Greg? You paid for that using your business credit card. He replies, I did. And then there's a lip retraction there. It's interesting. The lips are very, very sensitive. You know, just like some of those delicate parts of the body that will protect under stress and pressure. And so I think that lip retraction there is to protect that vulnerable area of the body there. That's a bit of a mistake that number one, he takes his mum on a cruise using the business credit card. Now, I understand, you know, at the end of the year, your accountant can go, hey, so I see this on your business credit card. Was that for business use or personal use? And you can adjust that and go, actually, that was for personal use. So put that down as income. We can adjust this at the end of the year. That's what accountants are able to do and should be able to do, of course. But I think he knows that's a bit of a mistake that he's had to go, yes, I did. I'm taking my mum on holiday as a potential. It looks like a business expense. Because then as part of the package, if he then takes the DA on a cruise using the business credit card, I mean, I understand that he says he's getting cash back at the end of this. But it starts to look like taking the DA on a cruise is a business expense. And if it's a business expense, then there's a business advantage to taking the attorney out on a cruise. And now that looks really bad. Like, you can't, that looks like a bribe. I mean, it does. I'm not saying it was, but it can easily look like that. And I think that lip-retraction is realizing, oh, I've made a mistake here. Number one, saying yes, I did, but it's the truth, you did. And also just using your business credit card for this kind of thing. Although you can readjust at the end of the year, it doesn't look good in court upfront. Scott, what do you go on this one? I agree with you. And there's no smiling here. And I think that's important because so far we've given these answers. You got that smile going like he's selling you something, right? But this is really important, this thing. I think he's gotten so much information from his attorneys and the things they've talked about to deliver and how to answer things. I think at this point, he didn't pay a lot of attention to this because he thinks he's going to remember everything. And I think that that's why he's having problems delivering this smoothly because his cadence slows down. The spaces between his words and sentences are huge in comparison to what they've been so far. And he's being really careful to word everything correctly, the way it should sound. Now, I think he's thought about this, like I was saying before. I don't think he's said it out loud. That's why the structure sounds kind of odd when he's talking about it. So, and I found it interesting that he moves his mouth and says what the attorney says while she talks. You know, it's almost like a really bad ventriloquist. Yeah. As his mouth is moving when she says something, his mouth along with her. Some people do that. I don't know why they do it. So we're just saying the world when somebody's doing that to you. When I was doing a training thing, I was talking to these guys and I was looking at this one guy because everything I said, he was saying it too. It was just, and it was like almost in time with me. Yeah. It was just weird. It just totally caught me off guard. So, when he answers, he sounds like somebody who's experienced a traumatic event and he's recalling it for the court. That's what it reminded me of is hearing something like that. So it's odd. Then he explains what he and his mother did. His illustrators don't land in the right spot when they should land because since you're emphasizing specific words and phrases, they should end as, you know, hit on the specific words and phrases and they don't hear. So that's interesting as well. So let's just know he's got inter-dialogue going on up there and he's thinking about what he's saying and he's probably thinking about what he's going to say next because this is probably coming out of his mouth for the first time since he hasn't talked about this yet. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, I think y'all covered pretty much everything. I didn't see any body language packages of deception here, but that's not to say that it wasn't or that it is truthful. We saw verbal signs of deception here. Greg, you covered all those. Scott, you covered a lot. Two or three more of those. So we're just seeing what's present here and when there's no deception indicators, we're not going to make them up. We just shared a video in our signal chat group a couple of days ago of someone just making stuff up and they were on TV doing that. So the way the questions are asked is very important. That's all I got. Aruba, October 2022. I don't know if that business record should have got for these. Judge might get a little faster. But did you take a trip with her to Aruba in 2022? Yes, ma'am. So that Aruba trip was a package deal there. My mother had recently retired and I decided to take my mother on a cruise. And the second leg after the cruise concluded, D.A. Willis and I went to Aruba. So that was our one trip, if you will. Okay, so my question was, did you go with D.A. Willis to Aruba in 2022? I did. Thank you. And you paid for that trip using your business credit card, correct? I did. And you paid for a cruise as well, correct? That's the cruise I was referencing with D.A. Willis, my mother and myself. Okay, and because there's two cruises, so let's just talk about the first one. So the first one was you took, that's the one with your mother. Yes. And so you introduced D.A. Willis to your mother. That trip, you all took a cruise together, the three of you. Yes. After the cruise was done, you and D.A. Willis flew to Aruba together and your mom flew home. Yes. And you paid for all of this with your credit card, on your business credit card? I did. And are you saying that Ms. Willis paid you cash back for that? She did. And? No, but let me make this distinction though. Because the number that you're looking at reflects the three people on the cruise ship. There were things that my mother and I did, just the two of us, that D.A. Willis didn't do. And I'm not attributing that. I did not, my math is not good, but I did not include anything with your mother on this. Well, you wouldn't be able to see it because it's not separated out. It just shows a charge on the account when actually it would have been something with my mother and I. Judge, may I approach with exhibits 10 and 11? They're both certified business records from... I thought 10 was taxes. I'm sorry, 11. Yeah, pretty sure. Okay. Thank you. And Alan, these were business records. Judge, are there cash deposits for a line up with the money that you have allegedly received from Ms. Willis to pay you back for her part of the trips? So here's the thing. In my bank records, you will see cash deposits. You will see check deposits. I can't say that you look through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits because I have two sources of incomes I income comes from my private practice, my firm and income comes from the contract here with Fulton County. During the course of private practice, occasionally I will have occasion to deposit cash into my account. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, look, it's now not fluid at all. It's not direct. It's more closed than open. I mean, yes, for certain we can say that, by the way, Chase, I'm still waiting for the pictures of your new daughter when she first does the steepling. I'm still waiting for that instinct to develop and kick in there. Yeah, so although they're steepling and often people will go, there's confidence. I think the steeple here is now definitely a barrier. He's way less certain on the statement that he's making here around, can you see these definitive amounts of cash go into his account, which say that he was paid for the part of the package, which was the DA tagging along with his mom on a cruise. So he's in rougher water here. Greg, what do you think? I think part of the rougher water is the guy actually asking a good question, which we haven't seen. We've seen all this capability of going, well, that was, no, that was, wait, he can't do it here. The question is more direct. So he's creating more pressure and he eye blocks and starts to rub his palms together. Mark, I agree with you. I would say the reason I tell people not to do this is because there's a really good indicator. I'm confident. I'm not so confident. I'm absolutely not confident. And I see it in people all the time, in corporations, I work in business. So I see it all the time in people doing that. But he does further closes those hands together and starts to rub. And that's what I call sacred space because I've created a barrier. So I made a place that I feel safe and I'm going to comfort myself at the same time. So it's really powerful. And then he goes in this off the chart, chaff and redirect and just flat doesn't answer. This is probably one of the worst ones for me. This is when I started to go, hold on. I'm here. Chase, what do you got? Yeah. It's going to be tempting. I agree. But it'll be tempting for you as you're watching this clip again to hear the attorney asking him if he deposited the money or not. That is not what's being asked. These are horrible questions. I'm sorry to say. I try to be an upward force for everybody. He's being asked if there are deposits that line up with the money received from Fanny Fani. He's unable to answer the question. There's a loss of fluency. There's non-answer statements. And there's a focus on irrelevant details with no ability to make a declarative statement that goes down at the end with a period. Scott, what do you got? All right. You guys covered everything. He doesn't answer the question. His movements are overall slow and intentional. But he's got hardcore eye contact on this. He wants to make sure that this guy, he doesn't know what to expect, I think, because it's a different, someone else asking him questions. It's a little bit different at this point. He's got praying hands. I don't think that's a steeple. I think it's almost like, oh, God, please believe me as I do this. It's not. But that's what that reminds me of. It's almost like he's praying to the guy to believe him as he's talking. Then he tries to give the impression that he is answering the question. And Greg and Dale, he didn't answer that question. That's that. No, he didn't do it. Didn't do it. That's all I got. You guys got all of it. Oh, nice lean. Beautiful. Chase, I'll give you that. One of those tape replays. Are there cash deposits for a line-up with the money that you have allegedly received from Ms. Willis to pay you back for her part of the trips? So here's the thing. In my bank records, you will see cash deposits. You will see check deposits. I can't say that you look through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits because I have two sources of incomes. Sir, income comes from my private practice, my firm, and income comes from the contract here with Fulton County. During the course of private practice, occasionally I will have occasion to deposit cash into my account. During the direct examination, you made a statement, at least I believe I heard it correctly, that your personal relationship, and now I'm talking about that characterized the sexual romantic relationship, was not a secret. Is that correct? Wait, if you're asking me if people knew that we were having sex, no, they didn't. I'm asking you whether people knew that you were dating, whether you were romantically involved. You said that it was not a secret. Oh, it wasn't a secret. It was just private. My mother knew, obviously. Did anyone in the district attorney's office that has worked on this case know that you were dating or had a romantic relationship with district attorney Willis? I don't know what they knew. Well, did you tell anyone? No. Do you have any knowledge of whether Ms. Willis revealed it to anyone? I have no clue. Okay, so as far as you know, as far as you know from personal knowledge, no one in the DA's team knew. Correct? That's correct. Okay, so if it was a legitimate relationship, is there any particular reason why it was kept secret or private? It wasn't kept secret. It was kept private. And the purpose for that was what we chose to do. I'm asking you why, though, not just because you chose. If you're dating someone, why keep it private? So, few reasons. The first one is, and I want to say this respectfully in the right way, there are some people who are in the public eye who just don't like it. Don't wish to be there. I have tried to have lunch or dinner with her publicly, and I can't count the number of people that would approach the table or would accost us as we're trying to walk into a restaurant and just have lunch or have a meal. It is not secret. It is private. We don't want the world asking questions or interrupting that term. So, we weren't trying to keep anything as secret, Mr. Sada. If there's nothing secret or salacious about having a private life, nothing. Chase, what do you got? So, I got bored this morning going through. We got to video. This is number seven. We never call them numbers for you out there, but we number them in our little drop box. This is video number seven. I'm taking the notes right here and I'm like, I'm just going to just list off a massive cluster. That's all I'm going to do. I'm not going to explain what everything means. Y'all can jump on top of them if you want to. We should go around the room and we'll call when it sees what it says. It would go at us three and you just mark it off. Swallow. Bang. Every one of them. They won't do that. All right. Here we go. Sorry, dude. All right. All right. All right. You all ready? Yeah. Defensive, smug and avoidant. Avoids basic questions. Basic questions uses unnecessary details in explaining, causing a detailed mountain in unnecessary places, which makes automatically a detailed valley where there should be honest information. It's a reasonable question that is very obvious with a huge, maybe a huge deception here, but I'll say no giant behavioral clusters are there, but all of the verbal ones are there. There's minimal statements and mostly explanations, which are maybe deceptive burritos wrapped in truth. That's all I got. Greg, what are you got? Yeah, a whole bunch of clusters of stuff going on here. He starts off very uncomfortable because we see him burrowing for the first time, crossing his arms, crossing his body to give him some space. We also see his chin down for the first real time. And his blink rate increases. So blink rates usually associated with stress and he's adapting with his mouth. Anything you do over and over and over is usually releasing stress, and that makes you more comfortable. I always equate it to if you're locked in a cage, you would pace. It's a way to take control of the environment you're in and make known from unknown until, until the questioner lobs a loser of a question. These guys need to learn to stay away from connotation questions, ones that can be construed a certain way and answered in that way and keep it clean. The guy starts to move more slowly and when this questioner steps into his personal life, it gives him the opportunity for more of this matadoring he's been doing. And if you don't believe that, look at his fingers and thumbs. When he raises his hands, his confidence is there as he says, are you asking if I had sex? That is a chance for him to just turn and run. And what he does is he goes back. I'm going to go back and say, one more time, the elements of the information you're after, what you should start with, what do you really want to know? What you really want to know is, did you disclose your intimate relationship with the person who owns your employment contract? That's a pretty easy question, pretty easy question. You could call her out by name, or you could just say that. And then the harder question would be, why did you not disclose? Then you can move to ethical issues, but you can't when you give a person a chance to run and dodge and run and dodge and that's exactly what happens. He gets this opportunity to chaff and redirect and talk about private, instead of non-disclosed relationships. Powerful thing. Scott, what do you got? All right, that first question, we see a big swallow before he goes in. And he tries to reframe it, reframe the question like you're talking about Greg, but it doesn't work. He's got too much smiling. That tactic hasn't worked throughout this the whole time. And all we've seen so far is deception, after deception, after deception, after cure, deception. He's not deceiving anybody. That's what's so odd, but so funny about it, because nobody, I don't think anybody at this point is believing any of that, the way he looks and all the cues he's throwing off. He's just, I think this guy's just a bold-faced liar and he's just laying it on thick. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. That's what I think. And he's been used to doing this. This is the kind of person that reminds me of somebody who's done that their whole life and they're just used to doing it and it's not working. So in a way, he's going to this little tiny panic mode. And this is, this makes me feel stupid listening to this guy and talking about it. So I think I'm going to lay out the last two videos. I'll just run the thing. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, could be lying, Scott. Could be mistruthing. Could be one or the other, you know, that never underestimate the possibility of some mistruthing going on here. That's true. Greg, you mentioned fourth walling at the start, which is this idea of what Stanislaski called public solitude, which would be the idea of, you know, I'm on my own. Although people are asking me questions, I'm going to kind of ignore those and I'm just going to stick with my monologue that's going on. It's interesting in this. He does break that fourth wall in the classic sense and that goes straight down to the camera and says the world and looks and smiles down the camera. Very aware throughout this, therefore, that this is a public display. There is no privacy involved in this. In fact, it's very interesting. The fourth wall, that idea and breaking the fourth wall first happened in the early 19th century in theatre with Ibsen Chekhov when the performers would ignore the audience. Before that, you know, playwrights like Shakespeare actually write it in the text that you will talk directly to the audience. You'll talk directly to the audience, the other characters, people off stage, gods and demons. Everybody gets a conversation with the central character. But during the early 19th century, this fourth wall went off. It was a blip in theatre. It only lasted about 10 years. Everybody pretty much hated it in theatre. It wasn't very interesting. He breaks that fourth wall in a filming way. First time that was evident. So this is where my mind goes, Chase, when I'm bored. So first time that was ever done filmically, 1918, Mary Maclean, in a film called Men Who I've Made Love To. Silent film, but she looked straight down the camera and started talking. And this had never been done before. And interestingly, that reminded me of Tracy Emmins piece of work, post-modern piece of work, everyone I've ever slept with, which was a tent. It was more immersive. You'd look inside the tents, and in the tent would be embroidered the names of the men that she'd slept with. So look, all of this about the idea of media and there being no privacy. That there comes a point with media where you look straight down the camera and there's no privacy at all. There was my little lecture on fourth wall. Hope you all enjoyed that. One of those tape replays. During the direct examination, you made a statement, at least I believe I heard it correctly, that you, personal relationship, and now I'm talking about that characterized the sexual romantic relationship, was not a secret. Is that correct? Wait. If you're asking me if people knew that we were having sex, no, they didn't. I'm asking you whether the people knew that you were dating, whether you were romantically involved. You said that it was not a secret. Oh, it wasn't a secret. It was just private. My mother knew, obviously. Did anyone in the district attorney's office that has worked on this case know that you were dating or had a romantic relationship with district attorney Willis? I don't know what they knew. Well, did you tell anyone? No. Do you have any knowledge of whether Ms. Willis revealed it to anyone? I have no clue. Okay. So as far as you know, as far as you know from personal knowledge, no one in the DA's team knew. Correct? That's correct. Okay. So if it was a legitimate relationship, is there any particular reason why it was kept secret or private? Wasn't kept secret. It was kept private. And the purpose for that was, it's what we chose to do. I'm asking you why, though, not just because you chose. If you're dating someone, why keep it private? So a few reasons. The first one is, and I want to say this respectfully in the right way, there are some people who are in the public eye who just don't like it, don't wish to be there. I have tried to have lunch or dinner with her publicly and I can't count the number of people that would approach the table or would accost us as we're trying to walk into a restaurant and just have lunch or have a meal. It is not secret, it is private. We don't want the world, the world asking questions or interrupting that time. So we weren't trying to keep anything a secret, Mr. Sada. If there's nothing secret or salacious about having a private life, nothing. Got it. Not suggesting that there was. Did you and Ms. Willis go to the Hapeville condo prior to your relationship starting the beginning of 2022? Prior to having physical contact, prior to having intercourse, did we go to the Hapeville condo? Again, you keep going to intercourse, I'm trying not to, but fine. The answer to that question would be yes. Did you and Ms. Willis go to the Hapeville condo prior to what I want to say, November 1st of 2021? Yes. And the purpose for going to the Hapeville condo with Ms. Willis prior to 2021 would have been what? Or prior to November 1 of 2021? Could have been any number of things because at that time... That's what I'm asking, to tell me. Yeah, could have been any number of things because at that time, she had a friend living in that condo, Ms. Yherty lived in that condo. It maybe was my question with poorly worded. Let me try again. Your answer is yes. Prior to November 1st of 2021, you would have gone to the Hapeville condo and been there with Ms. Willis, correct? Yes. And you would have been there, as you indicated, for many reasons, right? Yes. Can you give me, just list a few of the reasons? Ms. Yherty resided there, went to visit her, maybe went to talk about a document that I received. You would go to the condo to talk about a document that you received? Absolutely. Okay, go ahead. Absolutely. Any other reasons? None come to mind. None come to mind? No, sir. And would you say that was frequent? When I say frequent, do you think prior to November 1st of 2021, you were at the condo more than 10 times? No, sir. So it would be less than 10 times? Yes, sir. So if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo, before November 1st of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong? If phone records reflected that, yes, sir. They'd be wrong. They'd be wrong. Okay. Mark, where do you got? Yeah, look, we're going to be together on Wednesday in Dallas. If any of you invite me to your hotel room to look at some documents, don't think bad of me if I refuse that invitation. Because I'm unsure that going and talking about documents is a euphemism for something else. I mean, I don't get it. It reminds me... That's called the subpoenas and chill. Right. Nicely done. Nicely done. Nicely done. Chase Hughes, everybody, if you're driving home tonight, don't forget your car. It reminded me a great deal of asking somebody to go and view your etchings, which again is a euphemism. At first, I don't know whether you've heard of that euphemism, but first came about in a Hitchcock film called Blackmail in 1929, first time this idea of come up and look at my etchings. Anyway, yeah, I don't think there are any documents talked about at all, but I could be wrong. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, what's interesting is the guy asks a question that allows him to ramble again. This guy's masterful at rambling, and he doesn't ask what I would have said, hey, when is your first go to the condo? Boom, was she with you? Boom, why? Boom, I walk down and trap him, but he doesn't. These guys are asking questions to allow him to do all this dancing he does, but this guy boldly self-amused now. Look at all that smile. Look at that stuff. And I don't think it's doopers. It's pronounced. It's pretty easy to see. There's nothing micro about it. It's there for you to see. And then the eye blocks after he says, well, then the phone records would be wrong. That's pretty bold, pretty bold. All I could say in this is, if I ever need an attorney, I might call this guy because he could stand up to anybody just up in front of any court in Georgia and just go, well, no, Mr. Hartley didn't do that, even if I did. And that might be a good trait to have in a lawyer. Chase, what do you got? This is getting more and more obvious with each passing video. Let's just break down the cluster here. Lip compression, chaff and redirect, question and repetition, massive increase in blink rate, confusion about the friend living in the condo, which is an artificial injection of ambiguity when he's doing this. Like there was a person there trying to share that and a total loss of his ability to use pronouns. An absolute perfect. This is the most perfect lack of pronouns that we've ever seen on the panel. Let's break down pronoun absence really fast. It's when somebody suddenly, and remember this is about detecting changes, suddenly stops using pronouns in their language. And this is a result of an increase in cognitive load, our mental energy, that reduces our ability to think clearly and it impacts our linguistic choices. So pronouns like I, me, my, we, us, they, them, they're the first to get sacrificed. They're the first thing our brain sacrifices linguistically. So it's also a distancing mechanism. It's kind of like a subconscious way to reduce their sense of personal responsibility for the statements. There's fading facts and repetition with the word absolutely. And I want you to take this one as a training tool. We look for changes. So when he talks about anything that's provable and he's honest, his lips don't close and tighten immediately after he speaks literally every time. In this clip, they tighten and compress every single time. That is a change in a cluster and a pattern. That's all I got. Scott, what do you got? Adult and elect from listening to this guy. So I'm going to move on. One of those tape replays. Did you and Ms. Willis go to the Hapeville condo prior to your relationship starting the beginning of 2022? Prior to having physical contact, prior to having intercourse, did we go to the Hapeville condo? Again, you keep going to intercourse. I'm trying not to, but fine. The answer to that question would be yes. Did you and Ms. Willis go to the Hapeville condo prior to what I want to say, November 1st of 2021? Yes. And the purpose for going to the Hapeville condo with Ms. Willis prior to 2021 would have been what? Or prior to November 1 of 2021? Could have been any number of things because at that time... That's what I'm asking, to tell me. Yeah, could have been any number of things because at that time, she had a friend living in that condo, Ms. Yurtie lived in that condo. Okay. It maybe was my question with poorly worded. Let me try again. Your answer is yes. Prior to November 1st of 2021, you would have gone to the Hapeville condo and been there with Ms. Willis, correct? Yes. And you would have been there, as you indicated, for many reasons, right? Yes. Can you give me just a list of a few of the reasons? Ms. Yurtie resided there, went to visit her, maybe went to talk about a document that I received. You would go to the condo and talk about a document that you received? Absolutely. Okay, go ahead. Absolutely. Any other reasons? None come to mind. None come to mind? No, sir. And would you say that was frequent when I say frequent? Do you think prior to November 1st of 2021, you were at the condo more than 10 times? No, sir. So it would be less than 10 times? Yes, sir. So if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo before November 1st of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, if phone records would be wrong? If phone records reflected that? Yes, sir. They'd be wrong. They'd be wrong. Okay. Did you know of personal knowledge, whether Ms. Willis reviewed your affidavit before it was included with the response? I have no clue. So as far as you know, personal knowledge, Ms. Willis did not know what you said in the affidavit. I didn't give it to her. That's what I said. You have no personal knowledge. No personal knowledge. And as far as you know, no one else has told you that she did or didn't. I hadn't asked anyone. The, we've kind of worked this up a little bit and the numbers could be off. But according to our numbers, $10,000 give or take would have been reflected on your credit card statements in connection with things of potential benefit to Ms. Willis. Okay. I want you just to assume that. Of the 10, assuming that there was $10,000 that you had on your credit cards, is it your testimony that Ms. Willis paid you back $10,000 in cash? Not in my agreement. The characterization of $10,000 for Ms. Willis's travel, I don't believe is an accurate reflection of what the numbers, at least the summary that I've been provided by the defense group, I think that's joint travel. All right, Greg, what do you got? So Chase brought up last time starting to see deviations in this guy in his baseline. And we've seen a baseline of confidence up to now. You saw in the last time his hands started to curl, so he's losing confidence. Chase listed a whole bunch of other things that he did in there. But here we're going to see a massive deviation. Mark, I think there might be documents involved at the house. And it's probably this F to David that we are being asked about. Because watch him change. He locks down. He looks down to break eye contact. He has a verbal tick. You'll bring that up, I'm sure, Mark. And a short head stroke when he's saying no, followed by an exaggerated oversized head shake and a blink rate increase. He touches his face. He adapts in barriers by playing with his glasses, though there's no reason. His respiration increases. He feigns confusion with his face. Not sure. Then he does eye blocking. All this doesn't fit anything he's done to now. And what we are in the business of, and Chase, you say this eloquently all the time, we're about change. We're looking for deviation. This is a massive block of deviation when he's denying any of her involvement in this affidavit. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So I think this is really hot for him. There is something going on here, which is really peaking and giving him a full kind of neural brain overload here. Not only do we get him wiping the sweat from underneath his eyes at this point, but he goes through a whole bunch of different expressions. I think kind of testing out potential characters that he could be here. We've got stoicism, concern, innocence, confusion, pleasure, incredulity, relaxation, fixation, and a whole bunch of others. And that's in about one minute, 20. Now, most of this in our real life, you know, when we've got a good idea of what's true about a situation or factual about a situation, for about a minute and a half, we'll probably have one idea in our head, one idea. He goes through several. He's auditioning ideas. At this point, kind of rifling through them to go, what can I play at this point? There's too much happening here for this to be real life. I mean, real life is messy. Real life is complex, but it isn't this complex. So he's on overload here. Chase, what have you got on this one? Yeah, y'all got it all kind of done. Scott? Yeah, me too. I'm over it. One of those tape replays. No personal knowledge, whether Ms. Willis reviewed your affidavit before it was included with the response. I have no clue. So as far as you know, personal knowledge, Ms. Willis did not know what you said in the affidavit. I didn't give it to her. That's what I said. You have no personal knowledge. No personal knowledge. And as far as you know, no one else has told you that she did or didn't. I hadn't asked anyone. The, we've kind of worked this up a little bit and the numbers could be off, but according to our numbers, $10,000 give or take would have been reflected on your credit card statements in connection with things of potential benefit to Ms. Willis. Okay. I want you just to assume that. Of the 10, assuming that there was $10,000 that you had on your credit cards, is it your testimony that Ms. Willis paid you back $10,000 in cash? Not in my agreement. Jack, the characterization of $10,000 for Ms. Willis's travel, I don't believe it's an accurate reflection of what the numbers, at least the summary that I've been provided by the defense is going to reflect. I mean, that's joint travel. Just one more thing. Okay. We've watched all these videos and gone around and talked about it. Mark, what's your verdict so far? It's a classic example of mistruthiness going on. Chase, what do you got? That was short. So as we've dissected Wade's behavior, we've observed clusters of actions that if they were isolated might seem innocuous, but when they're together, they weave a very compelling story, I think of some strong evasion and some very serious discomfort. So this analysis is not about vilifying anybody, but it's a good reminder that words can be manipulated, but the body tells it's kind of an unvarnished, truthful thing here. And when the body is telling a different story than the words, there's something going on. And I think it's a very good reminder to look deeper than the surface in your everyday life. Keep practicing these skills and never get convinced that you have it all figured out. That's the ultimate secret. Greg? Yeah, I think it's a great call out. But if you watched this guy when he first came in, he had a plan. This is a good example of how stress builds up and the body will, to your point, start to tell what it's thinking, no matter what your mouth says. You're often say three pieces of our body language of the five I teach people very simply in the simplest form of body language are there to tell our story. The other two are there to comfort or protect self. And when the ones that are telling the story don't line up and the ones that are there to protect self start to outnumber them, it's a really bad sign. This, by the end, he's got a pile, a pile of things or a cluster of behaviors that make it look like he is less than, what was the word? Truth. Truthy. Mis-truth. Truthy. Mis-truth. Yeah, less than truthy, very, very mis-truthy. He's mis-truthy. So Scott, what do you get? I think this is just an old school This guy's just full of sh-