 Hey, Jason, have you got a light to go? Oh, there you are. You're getting a little bit lit up there. Okay, good. I've got two giant lights up here. Okay. Maybe it's just me. My computer is acting weird today. I was just doing too much stuff on it and trying to turn this on while I was doing that. I don't know how to... Let me see if I can... I could redo mine. I could definitely redo mine. All right. Okay. So here we go. I'm Scott Rasmussen, a body language expert and analyst, and I train law enforcement in the military in interrogation body language. Greg? I'm Greg Hartley. I'm a former Army interrogator, interrogation instructor, resistance to interrogation instructor, and I've covered just about anything you can imagine from the human behavior and body language piece for major networks, including like Jody Arias' trial, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's breakup, you name it, they call. And now I've moved that mostly to business. I'm the author of 10 books, including this one, the most dangerous business book you'll ever read. And today I spend most of my time with Corporate America and Wall Street. Mark? Hi there. I'm Mark Bowden. I'm an expert in human behavior and body language, and I help people all over the world to stand out, win trust, gain credibility every time they communicate, including some of the leaders of the G7. I'm interested in how body language can be used for influence and persuasion and how critical thinking can be used to counter-measure that influence and persuasion. Okay, Chase? Hey, I'm Chase Hughes. I did 20 years in the U.S. military. And nowadays I've published a couple of books on body language, and I teach body language, behavior profiling, interrogation, and intelligence operations around the world, specifically dealing with persuasion and influence, and I am a trial consultant here in the United States. Excellent. So here's what we're going to... Oh, let's throw this around the room. Greg, you had an idea? Yeah, guys, this is such a fun thing. Every one of us finds it different, and we come to it from different angles. I just wanted to ask, what's your favorite thing in body language? Just unscripted. What's your favorite? And then I'll tell you what mine is. I'm not going to go first. All right. Okay, so one of my favorite things is really the context is what's happening outside of the body, what's happening in the room. Has somebody had some opportunity to set up some kind of context? It could be, what have they placed in the background? What are they wearing specifically? So what is it around body language that helps influence our ideas about that person and even some of the gestures they might be making? Excellent. Chase? One of the most reliable things I've seen in analyzing tens of thousands of hours of interrogation videos is called digital flexion. And you can see this, if somebody's hands are on a table, the moment that they experience any kind of discomfort or concealed disagreement, you'll see the fingers kind of curl up on the table, not making a fist, but just kind of a gradual retreat into the palm. And it is one of the most reliable things I have ever seen. And just like Mark said, the moment that you put together the ability to read the room and what caused that behavior, it becomes just a little micro superpower. Scott, your turn. I think my favorite thing is a thing that I actually coined a phrase called extra face. And that's where you see someone on who knows they're being watched. For example, when you watch The Kardashians, obviously they know they're being watched. But you never see a natural face. One time I was with my brother and he was directing a TV show. And he kept yelling cut and telling these people in the back to look normal, stop making that face. And I was like, what face are you talking about? He said when people are supposed to be acting like they're talking, they're supposed to be acting like they're friendly. But when they're not doing anything, they'll be reading, acting like they're reading, they're doing this. And they make this face that you never make, but like, you know, like you don't look pleasant. So I started spotting that everywhere. People in, usually people in public don't show it until they think somebody's watching them, until they're aware of what's going around. And then they'll put that little look on their face, but I look for that all the time. It's one of my favorite things to look for and point out. That's how I feel on zoom now. Now that you've mentioned it, now I feel like you want yourself this for me. Mine's similar to all of yours. It's a simple thing and it's amusement that amusement is the simplest of things when a person's so focused on what they're thinking. It's so internal. Their face softens a little like slightly smiling corners of their mouth. Their face is all soft through here. Their brow can be doing something else entirely. So it's all contextual to your point. A person can use it to be calm, friendly and polite and kind with a very simple smile or they can be treacherous and horrible looking because they're amused at what they're going to do to you or surprised. So it's really interesting that you have to play that one piece of body language can tie into so many others that you have to tie it back to what they're seeing and to your point, Chase, that digital reflection. You have to look at everything else or you'll misread it. It's a great illustrator of no, there are no absolutes. Excellent. Excellent. So what we're going to do today is we're going to go over the Joe Biden situation with Tara Reid and his conversation he had on MSNBC. And before we do that, since this is a political situation we're looking at, you've got to know for what we do for a living, we're not political. We don't fall on one side or the other. We call them like we see them. If we think someone's being deceptive, we say that person's being deceptive. I believe because of this, this and this. If we think they're being honest, we say we think that person's being honest because of this, this and this. It's not political. We call them like we see them. It's important to understand that and keep that in your mind as we go along. Now there's another thing that we need to talk about just for a second. Most people who watch things like this are under the impression. The only thing we're looking for is the answer when someone answers a question. That's why you always see the person asking the question, then it cuts the person answering the question. This is a great interview because we see both sides of it. What we're interested in is the person reacting to the question and then answering the question. So as we see him being asked the question, that's just as important or maybe more sometimes than just hearing what the answer is and watching them answer. So in this situation we're getting to see Mika ask the question as Joe answers, as Joe reacts to it, as she asks the question and then he answers. So that's great. So let's start off by watching the first question that she asked Joe Biden in this conversation. Did you sexually assault Tara Reid? No, it is not true. I'm saying unequivocally, it never, never happened and it didn't. It never happened. All right, who wants to go first, Chase? Sure. So we see a large deviation from his normal baseline behaviors in this. So in most of his videos, when he's on the news, he's getting interviewed. Granted, this is his first interview on the news in quite a while. He's been quarantined for a while, but his expressions go outside of this box. So Biden's normal expressions in everyday interviews go outside of this box here. They're out and they're mostly open. As he answered the question, we saw an increase in blink rate and we didn't see anger, which we would typically see in my experience as doing interviews. If you accuse an innocent person or ask an innocent person if they do something, we see a little bit of anger and less composure. OK, Greg, what do you see? Yeah, I see the same thing. I see a blink rate increase. I don't see it looks rehearsed. It looks practiced. It looks emphatic, but it doesn't look demonstrative. Like I'm trying to tell you, can't you hear me? And to your point, Chase, I think that's a great call that he's still in box, not out of box, moving his hands. But as importantly to me, they're timed. Everything is tight. Everything is it looks like he's regurgitating something. And he's not. There's a thing I call request for approval and someone's asking you to believe them. Their forehead is up and wrinkled. It isn't there. OK, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I agree. It's very contained, rehearsed in that sense. Buttoned down. One thing that interests me, it never, ever happened and it didn't. And it didn't. And it didn't. Well, you suspect that I might think that you were not telling me the truth the first time around that it was so. So there's a little that little kind of jarring moment there that makes me feel a little bit odd around around this. It never, ever happened and it didn't. OK, one thing that bothered me was the part where when she asked him, he's supposed to be saying that never happened. When she says, did it happen? He says he shakes his head. Yes, as he says, no, Pollackman. That's one of his one of his things that he always points out. So that kind of that bugged me around the gate. Just saying his head shaking. Yes, nodding. Yes, as he's saying no. Well, and I would remind us that baseline matters. If we went back and watched him, he's not he's a product. And Mark, you more than anybody can tell us this. A politician is not Joe Biden. He's Joe Biden.org, right? Yeah, product. So we'd have to look back at some of his oddities and when he shakes. It's just we need to remind the people that are watching. That's important that we get a baseline. We don't just. Yeah. And as we as we he goes through this interview, which is a pretty tough interview, I would say. You know, what we start to learn is, is how well does that product work under stress? How well how well does his training stand up during this? I would say already out of the gate, it never ever happened and it didn't. I don't think he ever rehearsed and putting and it didn't afterwards. That's that's his unconscious mind going, I got to be really emphatic about about this one, just in case you didn't believe me the first time around when I said it never ever happened. And it shows up again later. He does some of that rambling. I need to reinforce what I said before things. So yeah, Mark, I don't think you would coach your G7 leaders to say you can you can coach them. And then there's what happens under the lights and the stress and the stress of the interview. All right, we already for the next one. Do you remember her? Do you remember any any types of complaints that she might have made? I don't remember any type of complaint she may have made. It was twenty seven years ago, and I don't remember, nor does anyone else that I'm aware of. And the fact is that I don't remember. I don't remember any complaint ever having been made. Now, I think right out of the gate, what a lot of people are going to think is that cough means something. It may mean something small, but at the very top of this, he coughs. I think he's trying to clear his throat. So that may not be what we usually people jump right on there and say, oh, something's up. The thing jumps out at me. One of the one of the biggies is that the half shoulder, that little that little half shrug real quick. Yeah, uncertainty. Yeah, I totally certainly. So what else you got, Mark? You want to go? No, no, just I'm impressed. Like you guys are really good at picking up those shrugs. Well, when you were sharing notes about this earlier, I was looking at all these shrugs going, wow, you're really picking this stuff up. So no, my hat is just off to you. Thanks. All right, Chase. What do you got? Oh, we have immediately after the cough, we had something called a positional shift, which is where the butt moves in the chair. And that's typically an anxiety response, but it could be the anxiety that was produced from coughing on camera and knowing that there's going to be people like us somewhere out there, analyzing this on the interwebs. Second, as he's emphatically denying it, we see another increase in blink rate, which deviates wildly from his normal average blink rate. I sampled nine other interviews today and his average blink rate was an 11. So we went up to about a 27 during this emphatic denial here again, followed by the shoulder shrug. And one of the most roundabout strange answers I've heard in a very long time. I've interviewed at least three people in my life. And I've never heard an explanation like that. So this was a roundabout answer that never really said no. There was no clear no. And I called this is not just body language we're doing. This is deception. We're talking about the way a human being communicates. That distancing and rambling is a way to let your brain scramble and think. And if you're a quick thinker, it can cover a lot of ground. Mark, I'm sure you've used something like this, but I always call those interjection words. And you can build entire sentences that interject while you think. Well, he's not thinking as fast as he's interjecting is the only problem. So he's scrambling with a bunch of garbage at the end of the sentence. Excuse me. Also, in the training of somebody around this, what might be done is to construct sentences on purpose in order that there's a get out further down the line. Well, I didn't say no. I said, I have no knowledge of anybody else who has any knowledge of of this. So he's almost, I called us the Matador, constantly flipping around, spinning your cape to make the bull pass you. He's just not as agile a Matador as he once was. He's quite Anthony Wiener, Anthony Wiener, master. Absolute master. And as a master of that. So something else as we'll notice that you all are going to do this as we go through, notice how he starts, he gets more of this shift. He starts moving more as he goes along. His illustrator started getting bigger, but the more he talks about these files, we're going to get to him in just a second. Watch how he starts moving more in his seat. Other than that, he's not moving a whole lot. Other than what we just saw outside of that, he's not moving a lot until those files come up. Then he starts to see a lot of scooching around. So everybody good with that? You're sure we can move the next one? All right. Have you or your campaign have you reached out to her? No, I have not reached out to her as 27 years ago, this never happened. And when she first made the claim, we made it clear that it never happened. And that's as simple as that. So coming out of that, anybody, Greg, what do you think? What do you see? Yeah, a couple of things. You know, I'm a posture guy, I pay attention to posture. When people are denying things, they typically are proud of denying. They're going to tell you no. But when they're not proud of things, they shrink to make the target smaller and smaller. Now, he's not a young man. So I'll take that into account. But anytime you've interrogated someone, when you're getting close to the fact that shrinking person to make the target smaller is starting to happen. Now, am I saying he is telling a lie? No, what I'm saying is he's feeling the pressure and he's trying to shrink that target. You'll watch him throughout this interview shrink many times and pop back up. In some cases, because she calls him Mr. Vice President and reminds him of who he is. In other cases, he just is cognizant. The other one I noticed is never happened, never happened, never happened. He has a mantra. He's repeating and you'll hear it throughout. However, he's still entangling that long drawn out answer to a short question. So aside from the body language, just what he is saying and how he's saying it. Hey, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I mean, I agree that what we're seeing is long protracted answers that don't necessarily need to be there. Have you reached out to her? No. Right. Chase. I was fairly square on Mark's point there that if I ask you, do you sell drugs? You're going to say, no. And it's going to be you don't need to emphatically deny anything or politicize it towards the end of that video. We saw a small shoulder shrug on his right shoulder towards the end there. And it's another thing that just communicates for people that don't study body language. That's the way that I teach it in my courses is that it indicates a lack of confidence in what's being said, not deception, a lack of confidence in the statement. Exactly. And Mark, let's talk just a second. We talked earlier about, you know, when we're dealing with persuasion or trying to persuade somebody to do something, we're trying to persuade someone to think along the lines we want to think. What do you see in that background, Mark? So one icon that I really and really it's a collection of icons. It's a I would say it's a piece of pop art because it's a collection of of some things are visible and some are not visible, but the things that are the thing that's very, very visible there is the football. And my guess is, is that's about their play and winning a trophy for a fair play winner. It's to put in our mind there. We've got, you know, fair person here, a winning person, and therefore we should view everything that they say within that framework of fair and a winner. One thing that isn't shown in this particular interview, but does show up in some others is the folded flag as well. And, and, you know, there's other guys on this interview who will know about the folded flag far better than I do. But my understanding is, is not only does it commemorate the death of a relative who was in the forces, but also commemorates the binding of states together. So it's a, it's a sense of we're all together and in unity around this. It doesn't show up in this, it's cropped out, but just interesting to see what the Biden product and team are putting together the framework around him. And I think it equates to service for me, Chase. I'm sure when you're retired, you got a folded flag and people, you know, worked our LinkedIn cemetery. That's the highest honor you can give to a family is that flag for burial folded. And I think you're right. That taps into, you know, a long life of service. And the guy's been in public service since he was 30. I mean, in Senate since he was 30. So I'm sure they're playing on that. Cool. All right. Let's go to the clip for in the past 30 minutes or so, you released a statement on medium and among other things you, you write this, there's only one place, a complaint of this kind could be the national archives. I am requesting that the secretary of state ask of the Senate, ask the archives to identify any record of the complaint. She alleges she filed. If there was any such complaint, the record will be there. Are you preparing us for a complaint that might be revealed in some way? Are you confident there is nothing? I'm confident there's nothing no one ever brought it to the attention of me 27 years ago. This is any assertion at all. No one that I'm aware of in my campaign at my Senate office at the time is aware of any such a request and or any such complaint. And so I'm not worried about it at all. If there is a complaint, that's where it would be. That would be filed. And if it's there, put it out, but I've never seen it. No one has that I'm aware of. Okay, cool. Yeah. So right out of the gate, you can say, she's asking the question. You can see him bracing when she hit certain parts of that. Another thing earlier in the last, this last video we listened to before or watched before this one, we heard me could take a big deep breath. She's slowly ramped. I think she's a little bit angry now, but she's slow or she's put out, but she's, she's ramped up to be angry here in a few minutes. As we listen to this, as we go through, listen to those big, heavy size, I'll point those out as we go. But that's something that tells you where her mind or her head sets at. But I think that bracing for the, for the rest of the question, that's important, along with the purse lips. We'll see, but you guys can talk about that, Greg. Yeah. First, he, you know, he, he can see the fight or flight starting to rise. Anytime you get a fighter flight, it turns off two systems that you don't need reproduction and digestion. Turns off all those, all those mucus membranes and your mouth starts to get dry and you're starting to see it in him. That's the tongue through the lips. In this case, wetting the lips. You also can see that he is slumped and suddenly straightens himself back up to base his, his opponent. There's, as you get further in, that he does, this is a very noticeable shoulder shrug for me. When he says, I am certain, absolutely the exact body language he said it earlier, Chase, to certainty is raising your right shoulder. Those are three really good indicators. There's lots of others in there. You can see in his forehead rising and all of those pieces, but yeah, certainly there's a pattern emerging. What do you got, Jason? Oh, wait, we're losing you. No microphone. There you go. I'm going to go a different direction than Greg on the lip licking. My view of this is as a hygienic gesture that he knows there's a question coming and the hygienic gesture, like adjusting our hair or clothing is designed to improve our appearance. I also think it's, it's tied to fight or flight a hundred percent. But I think it's, it's media management that he's been programmed for for decades. Yep. And as the question goes on, I think part of that postural shift where his posture increases as he's pronouncing that nothing's going to be found in these records, his hands move from inside his box to a little further out because he's more confident in that statement. His posture is increased. And as he, as the questions asked, his blink rates are round to 20. And towards the middle to end of that clip, his blink rates up to almost 70. I know when you're talking about the illustrators, when someone is, their brain is emphasizing specific words and phrases they have. That's what their hands do. That's what they point at. Mark, let's talk about what is this? What are you, what is this area that Chase is talking about? Yes, so I've coined that area at Naval Height as the truth plain simply because it doesn't mean if somebody's gesturing there that they're telling you the truth, but it does influence and persuade others that they're being honest, trustworthy. Because essentially they're being open at the solar plexus, which is a very vulnerable area of the body. And it says, look, there's no predators in the room. I'm not a predator. This, this environment is now a low risk environment. So I'd agree with Chase there with that. We see him open up in the truth plain there. And I would agree as well that I think we see him rise to that maybe because he's hearing Meeker regurgitate the script that's been offered, which is he says that they put out as that she says they put out a statement. Yeah, the statement I'm going to assume was written, which means verbally it was very easy to control that statement. So now he's saying, great, she's got onto the statement that we controlled. I'm now a little more confident around this situation now. And so I wonder whether it could be excitement. It could be like, great, we've got onto the stuff that we're now controlling. Good. Yeah, I can see clearly when it starts that this is something he's comfortable with versus the other things that we will see he is very uncomfortable with as the breathing increases from Meeker and she starts to really go after him and box him in. Then all of that goes away. That's when he starts to ramble and fall apart. Yeah, overall, I saw higher honesty, but also higher stress and rate. The higher the blink rate is, the more somebody's experiencing stress. Like the last time you watched a really cool movie that captured all of your focus, your blink rate might have been around a three per minute. And his was really high compared to that. And that's one of the one of the reasons that that's so reliable is that it's unconscious. We're not really aware of how often we're blinking all the time. Well, there's physiology to that, right? As your body starts to take blood flow away from mucus membranes, that is there to protect your eye and wet your eye. And when you drag a dry cloth over your eye, you do it more times, trying to wet, trying to wet, trying to wet. We're primitive creatures. We just forget we're primitive. And our job is to point out how primitive we all are. Excellent. Beautifully said. Now, as we go through this one, the person watching, not only are you looking for things and watching for listen to how they say things, but listen to what's going on. Listen to the outside noises they make with what they're doing, with their with their body, with their clothes. This is a great example coming up of what to listen for. And you really don't it's tough to pay attention so we can't see everything going on, but listen as well to what's happening and keep it on Mika as well, because she's starting to ramp up a little bit. Your Senate documents at the University of Delaware were supposed to go public. And then they were resealed. The access was changed. I know that you're saying any HR complaints could be in the National Archives. But why not reveal your Senate documents that are being held in Delaware? I know there's 1800 plus boxes. But if if if she believes and she alleges that the complaints may be hidden there, why not strive for complete transparency? Why was the access to those documents sealed up when they were supposed to be revealed? Well, they weren't supposed to be revealed. I gave them the university. The university said it's going to take them time to go through all the boxes. They said it wouldn't be and that wouldn't be before 2020 that that occurred or 2021. I can't remember the year they said. But look, a record like this can only be one place. It would be at the it would not be at the University of Delaware. My archives do not contain personal files. My archives contain document. And I said when I say personal personnel files, they don't contain any personnel files. There are public records, my speeches, my papers, my position papers. And if that document existed, it would be stored in the National Archives. Where documents from the office she claims to have files or complaint with are stored. That's where they are stored. The Senate controls those archives. So I'm asking the Secretary of the Senate today to identify whether any such document exists. If it does, make it public. That's a great one. Oh, it's wonderful. Yeah. All right. So coming out of there, we're here in all kinds of things. We're here in somebody writing. It may be Mika, but when we cut back to her, her arms are together usually. So somebody's either writing something to her and showing it to her because you can hear these big underlying things going on. Or I don't think it's Joe, because it doesn't sound like it's in the same room that or the same room that he's in. But we heard rubbing the pants. One of the things people do when they're they know they're in trouble, things aren't going well, they'll start rubbing their pants. And it sounds like his legs are just about to pop on fire from his legs. Sounds like you're starting to start a campfire with his pants there, especially there at the end where he's to worry where just before he answers the same plus coat real, real tight real quick. I know Greg, that's two of your favorite things. That's one of them. So rubbing the thighs to me, I call that batter on deck. If you ever watch a guy standing and getting ready to bat, he's rubbing his thighs and people say he's trying to get sweat off his palms. Well, his hands are covered in pintar and gloves, so it's not sweat. He's rubbing his legs to relax. And that's an that's an adapter, a body language piece that allows us to make familiar, the unfamiliar. So the more stressed we are, the more those will do play with their ear. Women will twirl their hair if I could find mine, I might. But then he moves immediately into other fighter flight things and he does a lip compression. You see him start, which is hiding information. And you see him start to expose his lower teeth. That's anger, usually when a person does that headed toward rage. And his trademark anger body language is that smile, that Joe Biden smile. We hear people say that he immediately realizes he's about to look angry and goes into that Joe Biden smile as he blows out air when she says, Tara Reid says, you hear that explosive pushed away. I think that's just discounting. And then he's been doing this for so long that he's smart enough to know he doesn't need to huff and puff. And he opens his mouth slightly to breathe through his mouth instead of flaring nostrils and doing all that. This is showing how polished Joe Biden, the politician, really is. But he's starting to look a little tattered from, you know, years as well as the pressures being put on. There's clearly fighter flight and he's moving his body around a bit to get away from it. Awesome. Mark, what do you get? Yeah, the one I want to pick up on, which I which I love is that. Superman. Yeah, that happens there because it shows up really well on his mic as well. You can't see his hand doing it, but you see it in the jacket. I'm a little puppy. And when she wants to make a point to me, she goes like that. And and he kind of does the same. He does it later on where it when he thinks he's made a good point. You know, and that's it. We're done now. We're done. We're it's over. I'm in control of this now. So that's starting to ramp up for him. I want to say one more thing about this, which is a piece of logic that he's putting forward, which we're going to try and critically think around that tries he tries to show up later on as well. It's the idea that if if something isn't in the place it should be, it doesn't exist. Now, that's his piece of logic. You know, if if the any evidence would be in a specific report and that report would be in a specific place. And if you can't find that report in a specific place, then there is no evidence that isn't logic. But he's going to tell you later on it stands to reason that you shouldn't look in the Delaware papers because logic says nothing can be there. But logic doesn't say that at all. Critical thinking would say it's possible. There's something possibly there. Now, I'm not saying that there is a complaint in those Delaware papers, but certainly there's something he would prefer. People don't see or hear about in those. I would suggest when this first comes up is when you see the anger that you see that, you know, this is a thing he's been trying to avoid is this Delaware papers. It feels like in this whole show. Yeah, Chase, I agree. And if if anybody's ever watched an episode of the old detective show, Colombo, which Scott and I are huge fans of, I think Greg, Mark. OK, everybody is it is a master class in psychology, that entire show. But one thing you see in every episode is what I call an interrogation. It's a singular justification. And I'm pushing this one narrative, the bad guys and all the shows. Every show I've seen it in interrogations, I've seen in interviews. I'll say if this is true, then I have to be innocent. This has to exist and nothing's there. That makes everything make sense to you and that should make sense to you. And one thing, if you're watching this, you can go back to the beginning of this video and see some really strong chin boss movement here. And this is the grief or shame muscle, which we've rightly called it by the guy who did all the research. Paul Ekman, we see up strong right there. And then the moment that that the interviewer says she alleges, you see that contempt, smile, facial expression. He shows the contempt very strongly on the right side of his face. The moment that the accuser is brought up, that Tara is brought up. Now, let's talk about the right side of his face as well. He said he's a little brain surgery, I believe. And I don't think his face is working in an asymmetric fashion like a normal person's. We've seen those pictures where he's smiling like that. You've got that thing that Joe Navarro talks about where you have that the asymmetric emotions. And you have one thing over here and one thing on over here. He's got these great examples of that. So I think I agree with you. But at the same time, let's take in consideration. What is let's pay attention to what his face does. Most of that smile is happening over there as well on that side. So it's you're probably right. It's probably disdain that he feels toward that. But he's his inability to show that, I think, is because his mouth is that side of his face doesn't work the same as the other side. But added to that, the blow when when he mentions that she believes and he blows an excuse or I think all of it together when you tie clusters, you see that there's certainly a go away. And if you look, Scott, I 100% agree with you. And I had to watch that because you're sitting right in here, right? Everybody says, like, you know, these behavior experts will get at the first time. I had to watch that video five or six times on slow motion. And the difference in his regular smile versus that clip was that this part of the face, which is heavily involved in contempt, was involved tenfold more in that expression. So I thought it was there's a high likelihood that there was contempt at the mention of Tara's name. Yeah, you're probably right. I mean, I'm agreeing with you. But I'm saying, let's keep in mind that that one part of this. Yeah. And that's good for the viewers to know, too. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Now, as we go on to this next one, pay attention. I know I keep bringing Mika up, but this fascinates me because watch how angry she starts to get. And we're starting to see her get into her lip compression when he starts saying, look, every time I says, you know, let's get this straight. Every time he says something to her, Greg calls that like the teaching. What do you what's the term you call it? Greg, it's my show is people are doing that. You know, when they're batoning and whipping you and saying, yeah, he's doing that. He's doing that to her verbally. And he's the answers. He answers every difficult question. Everyone that's really hard. He starts with the word look into the whole interview. Guys, a good part of this. And I've watched Joe Biden his whole life. And that's what he does. We've all watched him. If you remember the debate, he's he's reminding her of his position of such and that's the thing you're talking about, Scott, where I'm the teacher, you're the student look you. I'm the vice president. You're an interviewer. There's a million of you on the radio. Look at these four guys that have their own show. Bring him on here. We get the same treatment. I'm I'm one of a kind. There are many of you as kind of that that mindset. The teacher is the same way. That teacher in the role of saying, look, I'm telling you, you're not telling me. And I think that's what you're saying. Sean, one bit, quite a bit. Yeah, they're going to add one thing to that, which is certainly in the training that I give politicians, I will train them to use the word now, look. And what we're trying to do is get the audience to look at the picture to actually because the audience are doing something else right now. Everybody's doing something else and not watching this. And what I want is that politicians train us for the audience to look up from whatever else they're doing and see the image. I'm not don't care about what they listen to. I'm suspecting they're not listening right now. But what I want to see, what I want them to see is a strong good image, a positive image. So he may be using at times with that look, but adding, you know, something of an aggressive, you know, pointed nature to his expression of it. But he may be using that technique of trying to get his audience to look at the imagery. It's like a status reminder and a focus enhancer. Yeah, he could just be a catch for a placeholder for him to give him his brain time to think of the next answer. We all use that every one of us. We're standing in front of a group of people who ask us a hard question we haven't considered before. Right. Right. Well, there's a guy named Charles Stanley, Dr. Charles Stanley. He's a preacher on TV. And when we don't go to church, that's what we'll watch. You know, my parents watch it and we'll watch it, too, as well. And that's what he says all the time. Now, look at this. Look at this. Look, and he always says, look. So that's Mark that may I don't know if he's if you've trained him before. But if he if he did, he did a great job at it. If I had, I couldn't possibly tell you. That's true. OK. I have to beat you up. All right. All right. Well, now on this next one, again, keeping on on Mika, because here's where he says, let's get this straight. Watch how she starts. She starts getting fired up and worked up on this. It's it's wonderful. Right. But there are claims and concerns and reports in business insider and she claims that possibly a complaint or some sort of record of this might be at the University of Delaware. So for complete transparency, why not push for the release of any documents with Tara Reed's name on them, whether it's at the University of Delaware or the National Archives? First of all, let's get this straight. There are no personnel documents, but you can't do that. You wouldn't, for example, if you worked with me or I worked for you and you had my my income tax returns, you had my whatever. They're they're private documents. They're not for the they don't they don't get put out in the public. So not part of the public record that, in fact, is that any senator or vice president or president has in their documents. If look, there was one place that she could file the complaint and the plaintiff and that office at the time was all those records from that office are in the archives and they're controlled by the Senate. That's where personnel documents would be if they exist. That's where the complaint would be if it exists. Oh, she had one. She's yes, she's getting mad. She's she's in here breathing heavy there at the end there as well. Well, Greg, what are you seeing? Well, the first one and Chase, I know you hit Blinkrate over and over and over and you're probably counting blank. I didn't, but it looks like he's about to take off from pilot clutter there. I don't know how he can even even make contact. And now I missed one of them. I was going to make a note. He also gets to the point where he starts to go back and tether. He's going back to the thing he's argued before. Look, this thing is there. I do believe look is a catchphrase for him because he uses it casually. He may use it also to be emphatic and to say, hey, pay attention. You're absolutely right. Meek is getting quite pretty angry about about this, I would I would suggest. And Biden now is going to this idea of, look, you just don't get it. You just don't understand. You don't understand how this works. You can't go and find something where it should never be. And again, for me, this push of that logic defies logic because she's going to come up, come back with a simple idea of just a name search. Just search the name. We're not looking for anything else other than a name. And he's put so much effort into this argument that we're going to see him really get stumped by this very simple idea of just searching for a name in the Delaware papers. He did something I've seen an interrogation many, many times. And I'm going to say this and you get it out. But my bullshit meter gets pegged when somebody does this as if they can't understand what you're saying. They're squinting to reduce the amount of data they're taking. And they're tilting their head and they're going, what can't be that almost every time I interrogated someone preceded a big lie and me uncovering that they were, in fact, doing exactly what we thought they had done. And that is it's an eight. I mean, you can look at what they're doing. To see it in him is very odd. I would not have ever expected chase. You've done as many interrogations as I have probably. I'm sure you've seen the same thing in you, Scott. I don't know what you would call it, but that's my term for it. You know, they're limiting information. They're trying to appear as if they don't understand what you're talking about by the whole concern. Look, he does it twice in this video. Chase, I absolutely agree. That little squint I've seen at least a couple of times. And in the you can see the interviewer, Mika's just getting more and more incredulous and her squinting in response to his answer is starting to go up and towards the end of this, when he gets more confident, his blink rate goes down to just about nothing and is staring at the camera. And if you look at the books from the 1970s, it'll say people who break eye contact are more likely to lie. That's not true. And I think everybody here will agree with that. Or hell, yeah, 100 percent true. Yeah, that's one of the first things they talk about. Well, we'll make just because that myth is so pervasive that people are more likely to stare you directly in the eye, not blink, stare right at the camera. And along with what Greg was saying about the blink rate, we had high fluttering behavior in the beginning. And I teach that there's a difference between blink rate and shutter speed. That blink rate is a fear indicator and shutter speed, the speed that the eyelid shuts and then opens back up again. If that changes, then that means something. So if it goes from slow movements to fast movements, we think of an animal that's afraid all the time like a Chihuahua. They're always on the lookout for a predator, so they're minimizing the amount of time that their eye is shut. So the shutter speed increases. And finally, towards the end, when you see him kind of adjust posture a little bit, you see the humorous bones pull in towards his body. And if there's one thing that fear does to our bodies, it makes us protect arteries. Even the facial expression of fear, the first muscles to move are the myoclastoid muscles down here. And they actually move in front of the carotid artery. These arms move back into the body to protect the brachial artery. So we see a little bit of a withdrawal of the humorous bone squeezing into the body there. All right. And now that we're talking about when you look at breaking eye contact, that's one of the most, like we said, famous myths there are. And so let's go into that just a little bit deeper. From what I've studied and from what I understand, from what Eggman says and all the research shows is the reason that someone keeps looking at you when you're lying to them is because they want to make sure you believe them. And are they, you know, that as you're talking to them, so they will say something and wait and they'll keep looking at their blink rate goes way down. So most people in the impression it goes way up as they're lying to you and they'll break eye contact. At the same time, if they, when you, if you don't say anything, if you'll pause after they finish the answer, you just sit there and look at them, then they'll start adding things to it to make their answer more believable. Greg, you're squishing around again. Yeah, yeah, I'm squishing around because there are two things, right? Eye movement. I can simply fix that for you. If you're watching us right now, answer this question and pay attention to your own eyes. What's the fifth word of the Star Spangled Banner? Well, you're going to find as you try to listen to words, your eyes move around in your head. Now we have to look for a baseline in what's normal for you. But if I ask you a question I need an answer to, your eyes are going to search for the data and bring it back to me. So that blows that myth out of the water. And the thing you're talking about, I call glossy is when a person is so focused on you that nothing else matters because they're trying to figure out whether you're perceiving them as positive or negative. That's all that stuff allows so many people to get away with lies. It's just insane. Cool. All right, let's move on. Now let's go to our next clip. And again, listen, these are, she's getting all worked up now. So let's listen to her as well. Given the fact that you have said in the past that if a woman goes under the lights and talks about something like this, we have to consider that the essence of this is real. Is the essence of what she is saying is real? Why do you think she's doing this? I'm not going to question her motive. I'm not going to get into that at all. I don't know why she's saying this. I don't know why after 27 years, all of a sudden, this gets raised. I don't understand it. But I'm not going to go in and question her motive. I'm not going to attack her. She has a right to say whatever she wants to say. But I have a right to say, look at the facts, check it out, find out whether any of what she says is assertive or true. And based on the investigations that have taken place so far, to the best of my knowledge by two major papers, they interviewed dozens of my staff members, not just senior staff, but staff members, I'm told, at least that's what they said. And nobody that this was not the atmosphere in my office at all. No one has ever said anything like this. We're starting now. She's amicus at the spot where she's got her arms crossed at some points. We all know that doesn't mean just major. Don't want to hear what somebody has to say. You're turned off those types of things. And so as this goes along, she'll be doing that. But watch for the adapters to start where she starts, squeeze her arm. And as Joan of Arles calls it, the self-pastification as she starts doing those. Also notice his answers are getting longer. He's adding more to him. He's making him sound members first out right out of the gate. His first question he answered, no, as he said, yes. You know, so and it was just a few words after that. Now they've gotten to these long, almost rambling answers. So let's listen to his cadence. Listen to his cadence. It's animated in human at the moment, not regurgitated and paced. But it's getting ready to start loping here. Just yeah, shortly he'll start trying to regurgitate what he remembers and interjecting whatever craziness comes out along with it. But yes, right now it's still human and animated and all of that. Yeah, yeah, Chase, I want to pick up on something. Sorry to jump in there. I want to pick up on something that Joan of Arles says about the folded arms, which he puts it in the context of comfort rather than it being, you know, distress or stress or being closed. What I think might be happening for Meika here in her crossing of the arms is I think she knows she's heading to get him on the ropes here. And I think she also knows at the same time she could get out of control. So she's got to control herself now to keep this on track. Yeah, because because one of the simplest things people are going to say is oh, she got out of control. She she didn't ask questions where she knows that that, you know, as the female presenter here against the male vice president, she's a target. OK, so I think she's doing the right thing, which is to go, I'm going to button this one right down because I'm now coming in strong and I'm not going to get knocked off on on this one. So she tightens it down for herself there again. So she can be comfortable that she's in control and she's going to do a great job here, which I think she does. Cool. I always teach that this means nothing. If you read it alone, just like the amusement thing earlier means nothing. Because if I do this and look down my glasses at you, it means something much different than if I'm leaned back and looking away. I also teach that when you start to rub and cross, you're creating something I call sacred space. It gives you room and it gives you control of the environment you're in. So as you're ramping up, it's a great way to re to take some control back, mark to your point if a person is feeling awkward or feeling like they might lose control as they move forward. So, yeah, sacred space is a worker. Chase. With the arm cross thing, I love I'm really fascinated. Just being in here, learning how you guys teach this differently. That's so cool that I teach that arm crossing is is irrelevant. Ignore it. But if someone's crossing their arms, the one thing to pay attention for is digital flexion, the fingers starting to dig in towards the arms, which depending on the context is either some kind of self soothing, self restraint or disagreement. It could be one. It depends on what's what's going on. So I think there's a little bit of self restraint, a little bit of disagreement going on in this context for sure. And we see Joe, I think I'm the first one to comment on Joe's response here. It's he has something called that Barbara and Alan P's wrote about in their book. There's a for anybody that's probably in this group right here. We've we've read the book. It's the definitive guide to body language by Barbara and Alan P's. I I cut my teeth on there on their work and Julie is fast. But he exhibits something called a downward cast head. And in the in the definitive book of body language, Alan P's puts a picture of Marilyn Monroe looking through the top of her eyes. And that's at the very beginning of his answer. And that that is the communication of innocence and and openness and just being frail and vulnerable. And he calls out the motive and wants to specifically address the person's motive for doing this, not the reason. He doesn't say reason. He says motive and he says motive several times throughout this response, which is suspicious at best. It doesn't really it's nothing definitive. And he says, look at the facts. He doesn't say it never happened again. He says, let's look at the facts. Let's examine this. Let's look at everything that happened and let's look at all the all the data. And if it's there, then it's there. He doesn't say this never happened again. And if I'm talking to you, if you're watching this video, if I'm sitting across the table from you or in a news interview like this and I say, why not do this? Your response, any any a truthful response would include this didn't happen. I'm happy to do whatever you want there. You'll never find any evidence anywhere. This didn't happen. We'll we'll refer back to our statement of innocence. And one thing we learn in interrogation courses, which everybody here probably knows that everybody kind of gets angry in the interrogation room, innocent people stay angry. In the interrogation room, real angry, the anger dissipates over time when we talk to a guilty person. And we're we're we're seeing the dissipation here a little bit. And then we see something called that I call exclusions to the best of my knowledge, as far as I know, if memory serves, if I recall correctly, these statements. And there's a way that the exclusions are not not deceptive. If I say, Scott, are you cooking meth in your garage? And you say, oh, not to the best of my knowledge, that's deceptive. But if I say, Scott, is the guy who lives six doors down from you cooking meth in his garage, and you say not to the best of my knowledge. That's that could be truthful. So it depends on the question. So his response, based on the question, is potentially deceptive. And he follows that up with another deception indicator that I teach called a resume statement, where he he talks about how many staff have been spoken to the quality of his office, that how his office has been run. So if I'm talking to a person in interrogation room, I say, what happened when that 14 year old girl was sitting in your passenger seat and you guys were parked at the softball field and he goes on to explain how he has a master's degree, he's been volunteering for 10 years. It's a very similar response. I'm going to call a resume statement and apologize for the for the long answer. No, I think that's a great that last part, the two things you hit. When I look at Joe, there's one interesting thing when she's saying you've said this before, and if you believe Morris, that's distaste or whatever you want to whatever you want to call it. It doesn't be Morris said that babies, that's their first note is pushing something out can also mean distaste. Just interesting timing could be meaningless. It's interesting timing. And as you get into that long rambling thing, he does, if you look at the mechanics of it, if you look at the mechanics of the rambling, it's disqualifying to your point. It's distancing. It's all of those pieces. You got man watching there. You got the naked eight is best. Right. Yeah. This is people watching man watching. I used to. This just came today. And I'm so bummed out because it's it's fallen apart. It's the best I could get. Hard to find hard to find a hard bound man or man watching. But yeah, I think the key for me there is that long rambling thing he does. It's the beginnings of him thinking for himself, even if he was coached to say X or Y and trying to interject. And you'll start to see he's getting back on script as he goes further on. And totally agree. Cool. All right, as we was, is what's useful. But Mr. Vice President, as it pertain to Dr. Ford, everyone wanted on high level. Democrats said she should be believed that they believed it happened. You said if someone like Dr. Ford were to come out, the essence of what she is saying has to be believed, has to be real. No. Why? I know what I said. It has to be real for Dr. Ford, but not for Tara Reid. There because the facts are that look, she I'm not suggesting she had no right to come forward and I never and I'm not saying any women, they should come forward. They should be heard and then it should be investigated. It should be investigated. And if there's anything that makes it that is consistent with what's being said and she makes the case or the case is made, then it should be believed. But ultimately the truth matters. The truth matters. It's period. I felt my entire life to change, to change the whole notion of the law and the cultural sexual around the culture on sexual assault. And I fought to strengthen and protect the process for survivors. I believe it will come a long way and we have a long way to go in this system before we, in fact, are in a position that there's a fair and unbiased view. But at the end of the day, it has to be looked at. These claims are not true. There's no co-op. I mean, they're not true. Isn't this a great example of can we just read out my resume around? He's hitting campaign vote hard here. Yeah, it's holy ground. They start saying, look, my whole life and and and and this is important. And we still are falling short. And if you if you shoot me now, I won't be able to do this. Right. Yeah, exactly. That's one thing that we all say in interrogation room. Like once I walk out that door, it's like I can't help you anymore. Yeah. Yeah. When he's using that request for approval really hard in this one, because it's something he knows well and his brows up and he's waiting. And he's hoping he's hoping that something will turn here. And it does, but not in his direction. If we go back to the beginning of this, right when he starts his answer, there's a look of absolute sadness like a child that's been caught doing something. And I challenge you to go back and look at it. And there is a bodily, facial resemblance of surrender there. You said if someone like Dr. Ford were to come out, the essence of what she is saying has to be believed, has to be real. No. Why? I know what I said. It has to be real for Dr. Ford, but not for Tara Reid. And he immediately regains ground by saying, look again, which maybe is his power word that brings him back into a mental state of feeling powerful there because the facts are to look. She I'm not suggesting she had no right to come forward. And she says, you know, what about these documents? And he says, if there's anything, he doesn't say there's nothing. He says, if there's anything, then it can be investigated. And there is a massive eyes squeezed shut, as he's saying, it's not true the second time because he's he's repeated it twice. As he says it the second time, the eyes are just locked shut. And watch it again. You remember the thing I was saying earlier about shrinking, look how small he is in that video. And again, he's not a big, he's a little older, but he is getting smaller and smaller. And I agree with you, the sadness is in his face and he's getting smaller and smaller in that image. And then he starts to toss all of that information back and and try to gain some ground. Everybody else. Yeah, no. Right. Stacey Abrams said during the Kavanaugh hearings, I believe women. I believe survivors of assault should be supported and the voice is heard. Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted, do we believe women? Do we give them the opportunity to tell their story? We must be a country that says yes every time. They now both support you. Nancy Pelosi falls into this category, too, as well as many other leaders in the Democratic Party. Are women to be believed? Are women to be believed unless it pertains to you? Look, women are to be believed given the benefit of the doubt if they come forward and say something that is that they said happened to them. They should start off with the presumption. They're telling the truth. Then you have to look at the circumstances and the facts and the facts in this case do not exist. They never happened. And there's so many inconsistencies in what has been said in this case. So yes, look at the facts and I assure you, it did not happen. Period. Period. I think coming out, I think coming to that when he's gassed, I think he's getting tired. He's got that mouth open his breathing, right? His breathing is getting deeper. It could be the fight or flight. He's probably got that going on. His brain is probably flipping out his limbic system. But at the same time, I think he's gassed. He looks like he's lost energy right in there, right in there. It's what it hits him, I think. What do you think, Chase? Yeah, we saw at the beginning, we saw a big postural bump, this postural shift. And I stole that word from Tonya Reiman, believe it or not. Well, I think we'll have on the show here pretty soon. But after that postural bump, we saw a little bit of confusion come across the face. It's just uncertain how to answer, uncertain how to respond to the question or uncertain about the question, I'm not sure. Of course, we don't know. Blink rate goes up to 65 per minute. And keep in mind, the average is about 11 per minute. Give or take. And an interesting statement that I've never heard in my life before. And he says the facts in this case don't exist, which I thought was unusual to say the least. It bugged me, too. I couldn't figure out. I've never heard that before either, but I kept running it thinking the facts don't exist. Then why doesn't she come back? And we were, of course, we're used to when no matter what they say, we come back with something. But, man, that would seem like such a. It's a lob right there to come back on him. He says, let's take baseline for a minute. Joe is, you know, pony face dog boy or whatever he came up with. So he does some unusual word patterning. So I wouldn't take too much into that, although I agree with you. It's an odd statement. When he goes to that thing where he looks kind of out of it, to me, that's an internalization. He's just disengaged outside for a second or two. And I'm not sure when I would love to see the face to face when I'm looking at is he looking at her and seeing all of this stuff going on with Mika or is it an internalization? When he says, Stacey Abrams has said and is it an internalization to realize how much political damage this may be taking? But he certainly disengages from her and from the camera and goes into an internal kind of a set very quickly. He's because you can see her getting angry. Yes. You can see the other things that I tell you. She's so it may be that maybe he's catching some of that. I mean, but he's going to be he's going to be reacting to that for sure. I mean, her exhalation there was really loud. But he would have seen that, I suspect he would certainly hear that if he's not watching her carefully. You know, whether that is a an exhalation around exasperation or her trying to rebalance oxygen and carbon dioxide again to keep control of herself, because my guess is she knows she's heading in the right direction now and she's she's doing very well at keeping him on the ropes here. He she would know he's he's now in trouble. He's turned around. Chase. Agreed. OK. But why is it different now? Do you regret what you said during the Kavanaugh hearings? What I said during the Kavanaugh hearings was that she had a right to be heard. And the fact that she came forward to presumption would be she's telling the truth unless it proves she wasn't telling the truth. And not proved unless it's clear from the facts around it is not the truth. What I like about this and and and, you know, you would know techniques around this better than I would. She's giving them the in the opportunity here to sign up for regret. And my guess is, is because if you could sign somebody up to regret, you might if they might sign up to some other emotions around some other stuff. Tell me, guys, what are your thoughts on that? Chase. I open every one of my interrogation courses with a single quote from the art of war. And that is build your opponent a golden bridge upon which to retreat. And I think that's what she's doing. She's getting him starting in small scale in a retreat of a retreat of, if that's a word, process. It's funny, Chase, you say that my last note from the next few minutes is that he's protecting his retreat with all of this language that he's building. He's protecting his retreat lanes, all that that I'm aware of or this or that. And in this one, I noticed one specific piece of body language and it also was in his voice. And that's that request for approval. Believe me, believe me, believe me. And his forehead is up the whole time. Yeah, I noticed there's a lot of a lot of the eyebrow flash or whatever you guys call it behavior with the eyebrows go up and for anybody watching for all primates, which which include humans, the anger, like if you're watching this video now and you make an anger facial expression, it makes your eyebrows go down and together. And the opposite of that is is the eyebrow flash. We communicate innocence and and being non-threatening using that eyebrow flash. And it's also an indicator of I already know you. We're already friends like, hey, you're OK. Yeah, the thing I say about the brow always is it's the single most important important part of the face to me, because it's what we use to socialize. If I want to make contact with you from across the room, that does it. If I do a quick eyebrow flash and I'm sure you guys who have interrogated have done this, you find two people who supposedly don't know each other. You walk them past each other and their brows rise just that easy. It's the organ of of engagement for for humans. Interestingly, for me, I find like an Asperger's and people who have that not as much brow engagement, so you notice it when you talk to them. It's I did a thing for neurotypical for a movie and I walked and talked with these folks and a lot of them I noticed didn't use as much eyebrow engagement. Of course, it leaves wrinkles and residuals if you do that. Yeah, it's our communication. You're the next one. As we this is a very I'm sorry. Go ahead, please. No, no, that's as we await for the records from the National Archives. Are you absolutely certain? Are you absolutely positive? There is no record of any complaint by Tara Reid against you. I am absolutely positive that no one that I'm aware of ever has been made aware of any complaint, a formal complaint made by or complaint by Tara Reid against me at the time this allegedly happened 27 years ago or until the I announced for well, I guess it was in April or May of this year. I know of no one who's aware that any complaint was made. Yeah, this is this is my favorite of the entire thing. He took a yes or no question and answered with about a 27 word answer that is just if you heard it, it's cadence as if he's practiced it and at the same time, bungled and a mess. This is Mark's work gone bad. You teach because then it turns to a train wreck in front of the camera. He distanced number one. He distances from the answer. We always wonder if I say so, Chase, did you kill this woman? And he goes, well, it depends on how you define kill. Well, he's distancing. He also shifts to that new cadence. It indicates he had a statement, a prepared statement that he bungles. He gets so legalistic and hedging in this. It's a Faustian deal. Hey, Satan, can I have X? Well, sure, let's make a contract. That's us. That's a Faustian deal. If you ever heard one where he's trying to parse every detail as he's working through and his request for approval is certainly there. His blink rate is up and all of this, every one of those Faustian details is a way to. This is back to your statement earlier, Chase, a way to protect his retreat. Everything he's saying is protecting his back. That's all it is. Mark, what do you get? There's nothing more that can be said about about that other than, yes, look, you can you can train people how to spin. But when if they spin too much, I mean, if they're if they're spinning your spin and its wheels within wheels, I mean, it's not. You can't a human being can't follow that. So, you know, ultimately, there's there's some thought patterns there that don't sign up to our usual way of just trying to explain to somebody it didn't happen. No. Chase. In my deception training, I teach if someone removes you from the answer twice, there's a high likelihood of deception. Well, if you ask me, did you kill that guy? Well, you know, according to this and this, bam, that's twice removed. So if you're watching this video, I challenge you to go back and I'll check I'll check the comments. Go back and count how many times did did we get removed? If I'm imagining this scenario, how many times did I get removed from that man by date or time or person or group or anything else that takes us out of the yes or no question? Let's see how many times we got that's a great distancing. And I don't use those words, but we're a great way to teach it, Chase. Yeah, there's often often in the training of somebody like this, what we might do is to create some of that distancing or what we might call nested loops, so interruptions, non sequiturs. But then at the end of that, and we don't usually do three rounds at the end of that, you'd make a very clear statement. Yeah. So you go, I did this, so this, so this, you know, so it never happened. And what you're hoping for is that the confusion around that will mean that when you give a clear statement, everybody signs up for the statement and goes, well, thank goodness that bit was understandable. So I'll sign up with with that. I mean, that doesn't even happen here. It is a disaster on a stick. And one of the things I teach and I teach how to use confusion in a kind of a weaponized way. But, you know, our brain, when we're confused, acts like we're just thrown into the deep end of a pool in the middle of the night's pitch dark. What's the first thing our body does? We're going to flail around. We're going to move around arms and legs and the first solid object that we touch, we're going to, we're going to grab it hard, even if it's a thorn bush, we're going to grab it. So during confusion, you know, I teach that the brain acts that much the same way. And if there's a logical statement after that, like Mark said, we'll accept it. We'll grab onto it. The brain does it. There's also a piece and I teach this when I'm talking to people about email deception and email, when people write an email that is deceptive, they'll go through and doctor the hell out of that email and they'll leave gaps in weird places. And, you know, unless you're using a tool to pick that up, people don't. But as a result of that, when you go through and edit your document and push all of that data to the end, there's junk there, you have to go and clear out. It sounds like he's done the same thing mentally and forgotten to clear out the junk at the end of the statement. And he's just continuing to ramble whatever he's heard. And it's just spinning it out. Yeah. And he's been doing double talk for decades. He's a senator for how many decades. So he knows how to say something with no content. But this is not the time to say something with no content. And this messy. Did anybody catch her chin yet? God, please. No. I was too busy watching him. Oh, man, I was too. When I kept watching, I started watching her and she, boy, she is P owed at this cat, man. But yeah, she gets a hardcore old school chin jet up on him. So go ahead. Please. Next one. The first is about your University of Delaware records. Do you agree with the reporting that those records were supposed to be revealed to the public and then they were resealed for a longer period of time until after you leave, quote, public life? And if you agree with that, if that's what happened, why did that happen? Because, look, the fact is that there's a lot of things that of species I've made, positions I've taken, interviews that that I did overseas with people, all of those things relating to my job and the idea that they would all be made public. And the fact while I was running for public office, they could be really taken out of context. The papers are position papers. They are documents that existed and that that when I, for example, when I go when I met with Putin or when I met with whomever and all of that to be fodder in a campaign at this time. I don't know of anybody who's done anything like that. And so the National Archives is the only place there would be anything having to do with personnel records. There are no personnel records in the Biden papers at the university. Who wants to go first? I guess his argument here is that the sensitive stuff in there, it's kind of maybe even secret stuff. And you shouldn't really go in there. And also it was kind of said that people wouldn't kind of maybe promised to me that they wouldn't do that. And so again, he's this is now going to be his best argument. And so I just want to bring that up because we're going to see how that argument pans out for him. For me, this might be the most lucid few seconds of video I've seen, and you can see he's navigating something he's prepared. And even there's a point where if you watch all the muscle in his forehead, as he has awareness happen, as his forehead rises and he's cognizant of what's going on, and he he isn't almost like a moment that he lights up where he's inserting a piece of data he almost forgot. You can't you can't miss the body language. We go back and watch of his brow waking and him saying, OK, look, yeah, oh, there's something else I'm almost forgetting. But he's you can see his hands starting to walk down. This is the thing, Mark, I was saying, he looks like the first time I saw an amateur theater guy regurgitating Shakespeare's hands are doing this. Right. Right. Almost like it's the logical progression, progression. If this, then this, then this, then this, then this in his hand. It's practiced. And I think he's got it. I think this is an area where he feels comfortable and he knows exactly what he's saying. That's the most lucid moment I saw in the entire thing. At the top of that, he looks like a little boy who's getting in trouble and she looks like a mom who's getting out. Because that's when she starts with her adapters of the pacification of Joseph. It's of his of squeezing her arms and she's getting into it. And he's his eyebrows grow up. He's just like I felt sorry for him. So he felt like it looked like a little kid. I didn't break the cookie jar, I promise. Yeah, no, Chase. Yeah, we had that same kind of surrender confusion in the beginning, like he was a little kid getting yelled at and that moment that Greg talked about that I didn't pick up on extremely well, where he just kind of came back to life and use the look phrase again. And every time he talks about anything he wants you to believe and buy into, he's gesturing and leaning over to his right every time. He's talking about the Delaware papers. He starts moving over here to his left. And you can watch that throughout the entire interview. It's it's it's here's the here's the stuff you want to take. The Delaware papers aren't a big deal. They're a repetitive theme. Street magician, right? Never mind what's going on about Kurt. All right, all right. Now, this next one's really interesting because we're seeing him do like a big tongue jet here, which is like another one that that Greg goes to. It's one of his go-tos. But then you see him again, he starts bracing himself throughout this. You'll see you've seen him adjust and then brace himself to get ready for the and this is a biggie. So because it's and it's starting to get a little bit hairy for him. So a personnel records aside, are you certain there was nothing about terror read in those records? And if so, I am absolutely certain why not? Why not approve a search of her name in those records? Approve a search of her name. Yes. And reveal anything that might be related to a terror read in the University of Delaware records. There is nothing. They wouldn't. They're not there. And if they if I don't, I don't understand what you're the point you're trying to make. The point is that you are definition. The point I'm trying to make is that you are approving and actually calling for a search of the National Archives records of anything pertaining to terror read. I'm asking why not do the same in the University of Delaware records, which have raised questions because they were supposed to be revealed to the public and then they were sealed for a longer period of time. Why not do it for both sets of records? Because the material in the University of Delaware has no personnel files that has, but it does have a lot of confidential conversations that I had with the president about a particular issue that I had with the heads of state of other places, that that would not be something that would be revealed while I was in public office or while I was seeking public office. It just stands reason. The best of my knowledge, no one else has done that either. I'm just talking about her name, not anybody else in those records search for that. The moment after she asked him that question was fabulous when there was an extremely awkward silence right there. And then she takes a big inhale like she's about to talk. And then Joe Biden's quiet and then she waits for him to talk. And he goes, Mary, I search for that. Do you guys remember this scene? He goes, Mary, silence is a powerful tool. Yeah, I mean, she uses it really well. There's a standoff around that a little bit later on in this interview where they both go quiet and, of course, Mika has to come in with something because, you know, advertisers are paying for stuff to happen in the news, not for nothing to happen. And just so you know, it's it's again, one of the one of the techniques we teach politicians is if you don't want to answer the question, just do nothing. Burn time, right? Burn time, go completely still because it will maybe even just look like you've frozen and the the interviewer has to fill the space eventually. So we get that a little bit later on. The thing that I just want to point out about this coming back to the critical thinking is he uses the idea here of it just stands to reason. And the idea is, is that when you mention reason or logic or something like this, most people will go, oh, OK, then, oh, yeah, sorry, I'm not being reasonable. What you said is reasonable or or, you know, so it's just logical. It's just be reasonable. It's just reason. Most people will comply around this. She doesn't comply. Mika doesn't go, oh, I'm yeah, I'm sorry. Yes, sorry, that is reasonable. That is logical. She carries on and that's why he's now in trouble, is that she's not going to buy this. It's his reason around this. There's one question I wish she would have asked. Is one of those confidential discussions between you and Barack Obama about sexual harassment charges that would have been a great follow on question keeping them on the on the ropes. But because why do you bring up confidential between us? When you just say notes from my vice presidency, you know, we always say people leak what they're thinking. Maybe there's the smoking gun. Why doesn't one of that done? Of course, if I were running for White House and look at the other piece we talk about context, this is a culmination of a 50 year political career and this one thing, big as it is, surely seems like a little thing to him at this point, I would imagine. You know, he's reaching for the for the ring as close as he's going to get. And now this and there's a certain amount of frustration that's natural for that, even if he didn't do anything. There's a certain amount of frustration. Yeah, I think we need to keep that in mind as we're watching his body language that we don't read because it's easy for us to see everything that as we're paying attention to it. Let's remember that element of this whole thing because that's going to create its own version of this body language as well. The frustration, the anger that that I was actually concerned that he actually understand what she was asking in the beginning because he was so far down the path, Mark, that you're talking about that he was already starting to close the gate in his mind. Hey, of course, this is reasonable and right. Well, I think he I think he thinks he's got it because he does that jacket pull again to go there. Done it done it reasonable. There's my argument. No more be said about it. And he's so totally wrong. He doesn't have it. Yeah, he's he's put his foot in it. Yeah, one thing we really notice in this clip is that we see him making statements and without analyzing any of the nonverbal behavior. So if you stripped his clip down to the audio, we would still I would personally still score it as deceptive. No matter who it is, if it's a Republican, I'm going to do the exact same thing. Of course, none of us are going to be biased in any of our our our decisions here, especially on this channel here. And it just the audio by itself, especially in this clip and the one that we just watched is what I would rate is highly there's a high potential for deception. Yeah, one quick note, guys. I think this is an important one. Trump is going to get this same treatment at some point. You know, and we're all we're going to have these guys. We're going to do aftershows for debates. We're going to take these guys all to the mat. This is not going to be the Biden show. We're going after anybody. Yeah, like we said at the top, we're not political. We call him like we see him. So that's really important. I think we have one left. If you could speak directly to Tara Reed about her claims or anything, what would you say? I would this never ever happened. I don't know what is motivating her. I don't know what I don't know. It's behind any of it, but it's irrelevant. It never happened. It never happened. Period. I'm not going to start questioning her motive. I'm not going to get into that. I'm not going to start. I'm not going to go after Tara Reed for saying these things. It's simple. What are the facts? Do any of the things she said, do they add up? Yeah, right out of the gate on that when you can see him, you can see the purse lips. He doesn't want to, he knows what he wants to say to her, but he's not going to say what he wants to say to her. You also see, and Chase, you brought up earlier that cleansing lips. He's preparing for a statement in this one. That isn't fight-or-flight. That's nothing. He's ready to get that thing going. The other one for me is there's certainly anger. You talked earlier about brow being a powerful tool. There's certainly anger in that statement with his brow down and his chin drawn. This one is, he's trying to tie all these elements back together and give a closing statement to his debate. You guys are probably going to see some things I didn't, but for me, I see him as trying to be cognizant, trying to be as polished as he possibly can and as a politician and just trying to say what he probably should have said along, never happened, never happened, period. That would have been a great stop point. Yeah, I mean, I think what he does here is something quite clever in that what she does with her question is to put him in a perceptual positioning situation. You know, if you had to hear, what would you say to her? And so you go into an imaginative state right then. When you go into an imaginative state, you get more potentially more emotional. And so what the interviewer is suggesting is that he get into an emotional state right now. I think he was just about to do that. I think he was just about to do an enactment of being with Reed and talking to her and he stops himself. And that's really clever because he stopped himself showing emotion here and then he gets into a statement where he departs from her. He positions himself away from her, I would say, which again is better for his general position. I don't know if that makes sense. At the beginning, he blinks out the question. And I've heard several experts refer to this as the windshield wipers kind of clearing the mind before we answer a question. So we see a much stronger blink out at the beginning of his answer. And then he goes back, he ignores the get into character or get into the imagination thing, like Fritz Perl's kind of scenario. And he just goes back to the statement pieces that are written somewhere and he's talking about motive. He's talking about, I won't address her. I'm not going to accuse her of anything. I'm the motive behind it. He's saying the motive behind it. And he goes right back to his final statement before he makes his denials of asking, what are the facts? What are the facts? I think I just want to pick up on that Chase because I mean, it makes me think about something you said before in our last talk together when you were talking about, you know, creating entertainment really and influence and persuasion and propaganda essentially, which is this idea of create a seed of doubt. And the idea of motive, I don't know what motivates her, creates a seed of doubt in people. And so my guess is, is what we might start to see is that seed of doubt around motive exploited. Certainly, if I were helping on this, that's what I'd be trying to do, is exploit this idea of, well, there must be a motive in there that motive can't be good. So let's start this doubt going already so we can exploit that area. Well, that word always carries heavy connotation, especially in politics, what's your motivation? What's your motive? That kind of thing. For me, watching this whole thing, I would say, if I wrapped him up, I would say there's a pattern of uncertainty. I think he's not certain what is out there. What's in this record? What's in that record? Is a pretty good feel for that might not be here, but the other one could be a mess. I also think he has a lot of preparation for denial. We hear it in the rehearsed and bungled. He has containment around Firefly. Somebody's coached him. I mean, he's been in this a long time. He knows what he's doing. He distances from complex things and pushes, you use turns, I use distancing. He's pushing himself as far away from the danger as he possibly can. And then he's clearly a polished politician who's been at this a long time, but he's frayed. He is not the politician of 20 years ago or that. I mean, he's not the guy who was even 10 years ago in terms of dealing with us. And it's the first time he's been put on the griddle for this one, usually it's something else. Hard to say, this guy's lying about this. We see patterns of deception in places, but would any of us put our hand on, raise our hand and say this guy's lying about that, that he did it? We'll talk for, we'll point out where things are, in my opinion. You guys have a different opinion? Yeah, I mean, only that I would have a lot of certainty, I think, around there's something in the Delaware papers. So would I, yes. That would hurt him. I think it may be a country. And I don't know what it is. Could be something to do with Reed, nothing to do with Reed. I have no idea, I don't think we can tell. But I think I would put my life down that there's something there. Something he doesn't want getting out. He wants a cap on that. I agree with you. That's the one I would put. Because you see it in his recognition when they first bring it up of that kind. Well, he talks about how there's some things in there. He'd like some conversations he had with Obama about some other world leaders that he didn't want to get out. So he talks about it that way. But he doesn't scooch around until they're talking about Tara Reed specifically. So maybe it's a situation where she's filed a complaint. I think Greg and I talked about this earlier. Greg, I think you're right. Maybe it wasn't the complaint about that part of it, it was about something else. So there was a complaint in there. Maybe it was, I mean, what do you think about that, Greg? Yeah, I think here's the thing. Who knows what happened 27 years ago? But what we do know is that she had some kind of an interchange with leaders. First of all, she was told to tone something down. They all said that she had trouble. She ended up getting let go from the thing. Who knows what unfolded in there? Now, if she filed a complaint that said he did X, Y, and Z, he physically touched her. I don't think we're gonna see that because she says she never put that in. But if she filed a sexual harassment charge and she says she went up the chain of command, we're military guys, Chase and I, that is the process. You go up the chain of command and you write out a form when you get to that point or you fill out whatever. It's not usually a form. You're following the chain of command. If her story, and you go listen to the one that is out there on Katie Helper's interview, if her story is that there was a pattern of sexual harassment, meaning that you're attractive and you should serve drinks and then when you don't, there's some kind of a repercussion, if that's what she filed and that's what they found, that then starts to make her more believable and it's more dangerous to him. If there's something in the Obama record about him telling Obama one time I have this problem and it's documented, then he's got a problem or let's assume it's not her, but there's some other, some other person who filed something or who said something and it's in the Delaware records, then all of this becomes more believable. I think there's no smoking gun for us to be able to say exactly what's in there to Mark's point, but I think all of this together, we all know that if you hang out with bad guys, you're typically a bad guy and there can be other things that aren't the smoking gun that incriminate and that is what I think it probably will stand to. That's conjecture, that's just me thinking out loud. That's not based on facts. I see these patterns of uncertainty about what he is out there and I think he's afraid for this to get exposed. Certainly. So wrap up of the whole thing. I think there was deception present, but we can't say definitively that he was being deceptive. There were small indicators there, but not a whole lot of clusters, but I would say that overall, the interview was more concealing than deceiving. There was a massive effort to conceal and redirect throughout the entire thing. I agree with both of you guys on the Delaware papers. And one thing that we probably don't mention to the public very often is we say that we're deception detection specialists. We're also truth detection specialists and I didn't see a whole lot of truth there. I know exactly how to see the truth and I didn't see a whole lot of that. That's a great something. Yeah, yeah, I think so too. And I think as overall, I think it was really good. I think this might end up being one of those classics that people will study because like the Clinton, I did not because of all these things that are in there that you can see, not just on his part, but on her part as well. I mean, it's hate to sound so cornball, but man it's beautiful with all that stuff in there. It's just, there's so many classic things you can point out and say and we can reference people, Desmond Morris, Joe Navarro, Eggman. We can talk about anybody who's done studies on what we're seeing in these, you know? And everybody here, this is in the same things we're seeing are in your books as well, you know? Some of the things we've worked on and the research and all those. So I think it could be one of those classic pieces that will be around a long time, you know? You know what, you know what, sorry. Yeah, I was gonna say just worth shouting out around the interviewer, Meeker as well. Good class in how to keep the pressure on. For sure. And how to avoid some classics of compliance that are being asked for from somebody of very high status. So brilliant to watch that as well. Well, the thing I'm really pleased that this one came out because we're getting the opportunity to see language we use differently and things that we say differently about how we perceive this whole thing as well. And if we all read the same books and we all stayed on that same topic and didn't become individual contributors to this overall thing, we probably all have exactly the same language. If we all spoke Morris, we all spoke fast and we all spoke that. But what you're seeing is all of us have come at this from a different angle and are bringing new things to it and creating our own language around it as well. And that's kind of a branding thing I suppose. But at the core, it's all the same different language. For me, that's been useful. Same here. All right, let's kind of wrap this up. Each person get about 15, 20 seconds of what they think about what happened and about what we saw in this. Now things went and Mark will start with you. Yeah, so watch out for compliance when you're trying to be influenced and persuaded by people. Watch out for it stands to reason or it's just logical. Usually when that's said, it doesn't stand to reason and there's been no logic involved whatsoever. Just watch out for that. Greg? Yeah, I'm a baseline or all of us are. Look for a baseline and a deviation. When something changes, whatever that is, if a person always does this and suddenly does something else, it means something. So when a person stares at you too intently versus eye movement casually and looking at you, that means something. Don't fall back on the crossed arms and the things you learned in high school psychology because they're just not true. Chase? All right. Pay attention if you're in sales or you're a parent or you talk to humans anytime. Pay attention to those upper bones in the arm. Once they start squeezing in or somebody's got their elbows in a table and their arms come in, especially if you're in sales, you know immediately that you've got some work to do. Excellent. And I would say when you ask someone a question, make sure you get the answer, especially if it's a yes or no question, make sure you get a yes or a no specifically in there and pay attention to how they approach that and the things they say without saying yes or no. You may have the feeling they say it, they said yes or they said no, but listen, it's so important to listen to what they said and how they're saying it. Okay. Good being with you guys. Thanks. Great, you guys. We'll see you next time. See you guys before we go to Dash. Thank you guys. Out here. Pleasure.