I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this where with having some of the greatest success and and also tragedy. Um, but they committed to an exhaustive investigation. That's what they did and they provided the results of that. That's transparency. What's going on everyone? Welcome to the behavioral arts. My name is Spidey and I use my degree in sociology and psychology, my certifications in criminal interrogation and body language analysis, and over 10 years experience as an award-winning mentalist to teach people behavioral analysis and practical psychology on stage and television shows all over the world. After years of empty promises, the American public was shocked earlier this week when the DOJ and FBI released their report on Jeffrey Epstein, and it contained pretty much nothing. No names, no list, no accountability. Shortly after the release of this underwhelming report, press secretary Caroline Levit, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and President Donald Trump were asked about the findings, and their answers were insanely revealing in terms of body language, facial expressions, and word choice. We have a lot to talk about. Let's dive right in. There is so much going on here, and before I dive into some of the behaviors here that are giving a lot away, I want to give those of you who haven't seen the video yet a chance to form your own opinion. So, I'm going to show you the footage now of Caroline Levit. This is the US press secretary answering questions about the Epstein report. Take a look at this and try to pay attention to what she's saying and her behaviors and see what stands out to you. Caroline, the DOJ and FBI have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client list. What do you tell MAGA supporters who say they want anyone involved in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes to be held accountable? This administration wants anyone who has ever committed a crime to be held accountable. And I would argue this administration has done more to lock up bad guys than certainly the previous administration. And the Trump administration is committed to truth and to transparency. That's why the attorney general and the FBI director uh pledged at the president's direction to do an exhaustive review of all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his death. And they put out a memo in conclusion of that review. There was material they did not release because frankly it was incredibly graphic and it contained child which is not something that's appropriate for public consumption. Um but they committed to an exhaustive investigation. That's what they did and they provided the results of that. That's transparency. Oh go. Okay. So okay before we look at what's going on here both verbally and non-verbally I want to talk about the lie detection disclaimer. So despite what we've seen on social media or in television shows, there isn't a single behavior that always means deception. In other words, there isn't a thing that all humans do when they're being deceptive. If there was such a behavior, trials and interrogations would last seconds, not hours or days. Now, despite that, we know that there are some behaviors that happen more often in deception. Doesn't mean every time. Doesn't mean it happens for every single person. And doesn't mean that these gestures mean nothing but deception. These are things that could happen in other circumstances too, but happen a lot in deception as well. That's why there are two very important things to keep in mind. The first is clusters. One behavior rarely means anything because it could happen for a bunch of reasons. But if we see a lot of behaviors that are related to deception at the same time, that's a much better indication that there might be something going on. And the second thing is baseline. We're looking for change, not just random behaviors. So if a person does this behavior all the time naturally, then it really doesn't hold that much weight. And even with clusters and baseline, we can never be certain. These indicate that there's a likelihood of deception that I'd like to ask more questions in this case, but we can never ever guarantee based on behaviors that someone's being deceptive. With that said, let's dive into Caroline Levit's answer here and see if we're seeing multiple signs of deception and if they deviate enough from her baseline. In other words, do they deviate from the way she was answering questions before this one? The first thing that I'm sure some of you already noticed is an elevated blink rate. What that means is that the average human blinks somewhere between 14 to 21 blinks per minute. Now, for some people, it's much higher. For some people, it's much lower. That's why baseline matters. Now, Caroline Levit's baseline blink rate at the podium, that's very important because I don't know what her blink rate is when she's hanging out at a family barbecue, but at the podium, it tends to be near the top of that range, around 20 blinks per minute. But there are two things that consistently make her blink even more than that. One of them is when she's answering a stressful topic. And this is very normal. Research has shown again and again and again that when we're stressed, we blink more. In fact, this is why it's part of a deceptive cluster because deception causes stress. The second place that we see her blink rate go up is when she's improvising an answer that she has to think about as opposed to written statements or answers that she's prepared for. And that makes a lot of sense as well because research has shown that with visual focus or when we're looking at something or reading something, blink rate goes down. But when we're trying to access memory or we're trying to process something, blink rate goes up. Now, let's talk about her blink rate during the Epstein questions. I'm sure a lot of you noticed, but her blink rate skyrocketed. It was much higher than her baseline. So, this indicates that she's either stressed, processing a lot, or both. But, let's see what else we're seeing in her behavior. In the first part of her answer, there's certainly a lot of word gymnastics going on. There's an interesting word choice in the beginning that's very subtle, but very powerful when she says that this administration wants anyone who's committed a crime to be held accountable. But that wasn't really the question. The question was accountability as it relates to Epstein and people who were involved with him. And here she's separating the two. In other words, she's almost insinuating that yes, we care about criminals, but not everyone who was close to Epstein or involved with Epste or had dealings with Epstein is necessarily a criminal. We want criminals to be held accountable. That's not really what he asked. Another thing that we're seeing a lot in her behavior in this entire answer, which deviates from her baseline, is this swaying or what I would describe as shifting the weight as she's standing. Now, typically when she's pretty confident and she's punching things, she goes up and down like this. And she's doing some of that here. We'll look at when she's doing it, but besides that, we're seeing this kind of shiftiness. This is important to note because first of all, it's not part of her baseline, and second, it might indicate that her mind is going into fightor-flight mode. Usually when we're faced with a conflict or something stresses us out, our brain goes into fight or flight and we start shifting that weight because we're getting ready to react. The shiftiness is happening a lot as she's talking about the report itself and what the DOJ and the FBI did. And there's one point where all of a sudden we go back to that confidence where the blink rate normalizes a little bit and she drives that point home with that punchier statement. And that's when she talks about how there was material they did not release because frankly it was incredibly graphic. There was material they did not release because frankly it was incredibly graphic and it contained and this is such a misdirect. She's talking about the things that they didn't release because it was incredibly graphic. Then goes into and it contained child P which is not something that's appropriate for public consumption. Again such a massive misdirect of the question. Nobody asked about that material. Nobody wants to see that material. What people do care about is whether it's in that material or other material, who was affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein? Who did he have ties to? And she's moving away from that completely to no, no, we can't possibly show you these videos. They're completely inappropriate for public consumption. No one cares. But then the big one is right at the end of that first answer. You want to talk about clusters, we have one here. So, we're talking about a woman that if you listen to the entirety of this press conference and other press conferences, she's not someone who speaks with ums and a's and hesitation. This is something that we call verbal leaks. And for some people, they happen all the time. There are people out there um talk, you know, uh with a lot of these sounds. But when you don't and all of a sudden we hear one or two, this indicates that you need a second to think. The brain is slowing down to try to process something. So, right at the end when she's about to go into how exhaustive their investigation was, we get this um and then we get something that we call speech dluency. So, her words fall apart. Um but they committed to an exhaustive investigation. This is another big sign of the brain processing. It's doing a lot and our words start to stumble. Again, this is not someone who very often stumbles on her words. And this is why it's important. You know, if it happens once, nothing else is going on or it's part of the baseline, doesn't matter. But here we got a verbal leak, then speech disluency, and that's just the beginning. The next two happen exactly as she's saying, exhaustive investigation, and they're very important because they are not part of her baseline. The first is a mouth shrug. The lips tighten and raise like that. And I watched a good chunk of this press conference and I didn't see a single other mouth shrug out of place like this. Now the research on shrugging is really interesting and found that any form of shrug whether it's with the mouth the shoulders the hands the eyebrows any combination denotes a disengagement a lack of something I don't something I don't know I don't care I don't agree there's some kind of conflict there and the fact that it's happening here as she says exhausted investigation with this mouth shrug means that there's some kind of uncertainty there some kind of disengagement and definitely contributes to our cluster now at the exact same time as that mouth shrug we see her look down. And this is part of her baseline, but it doesn't belong here. Let me explain. When she's giving answers that are either written or that she has data about, she often looks down to her podium. That makes sense. She came prepared for that question. She has the facts or the data and she's looking down to get those numbers right or sometimes entire written statements. She looks down to her notes. But with these answers, she doesn't look down any other time. She doesn't have some kind of script or data that she's conveying. So there's really no reason to look down at her podium in this case. And when she's improvising answers, it is not part of her baseline to look down. It's only there with written statements. So it's out of place here. This is most likely a quick second that she needs to reset this stumble that she has here. Right? We saw the verbal leak. That's speechless fluency. She's falling apart a little bit. There might be a thought in her head that she's disagreeing with. And this look down is very often just a quick second that we need to reset. Now, I know a lot of people are going to look at it and go, "Oh my god, she looked away. She's being deceptive." And that is absolutely a myth. The fact that we look at when we're being deceptive is not that reliable. Some people do, but the research has shown that some people increase eye contact when they're being deceptive. So, baseline, baseline, baseline is so important. I can't tell you that her looking away 100% means deceptive, but I can tell you that it's related to stress or cognitive overload and is part of a cluster here. So, it is noteworthy. And finally, the last thing that we saw in this first question, which is part of the cluster, is that before she was even done answering the question, she was already turning away from it. And this is something she sometimes does. It's sometimes part of her baseline, depending on how happy she is to be talking about this topic. When it's a topic that she's okay with, it's a question that she's fine answering, she stays with the person, finishes her question, and sometimes even maintains that eye contact to make sure they got it before she turns away. But whenever it's a question that she doesn't want to be answering or a topic that she wants to move on from, we see her body shift away before she's even done answering, it's a non-verbal way of signaling, I'm done with this. We're not talking about this. But in this case, unfortunately for her, she turned away and it was another question about Epstein. Now, before we look at that second question, which is basically cluster's gone wild, let's talk a little bit about what this cluster means to me. Because I certainly don't want anybody watching this video and saying, "I watched this guy on YouTube say that there was a cluster of deception." Means for sure she's being deceptive. It indicates that there's a higher likelihood of deception, but there's a few things that we have to consider in this specific case. It's true that these behaviors indicate a red flag, but nothing's ever 100% certain. So, in interrogation or interview rooms, when we see these things, it just lets us know there's something going on here. You need to dig a little bit deeper. it might turn out to be nothing or they were stressed for a different reason around this topic. But it just lets us know that we have to dig deeper here until we get that confession or the truth comes out. With that said, there's a few things to keep in mind in this particular situation. Even if we see very confident clusters of deception, there are three things that this could indicate. The first one is research has shown that people who fear not being believed behave the way liars do. So it's possible that some of these behaviors are there not necessarily because of deception but that fear of not being believed. We need to keep that in mind. Second, even if it is due to deception, there are two possibilities in this case. The first possibility is that she's knowingly being deceptive. She knows the truth. She's been told the truth and she's out here knowing that she's lying and that's why we're seeing some of these behaviors. The second possibility is that she's been told something that she herself does not believe. and we would still see these tells with that. Especially something like a mouth shrug like I'm not so sure about that would be very consistent with skepticism. So I can't tell you for a fact which of these things it is. I can only say these are the behaviors that seem suspicious. One thing I will say, however, is that whether it's her, whether it's the attorney general, whether it's the president, whether it's anybody, there's one small thing they could have done to go a really long way on this. And it's instead of completely redirecting and going the other way, like, "Oh, I don't know what you guys are talking about. There's nothing there." Be a little more relatable. Be a little more human. It would go a long way to say something like, "Listen, I was shocked as well. I definitely thought that this investigation was going to turn out something, but it didn't. I know it's shocking. bear with us, but this is what we have. This is what the FBI has told us. If they came at it from that angle, we might look at it and go, "Huh, okay, that's interesting how they kind of get where we're coming from." But there's this whole thing that we're about to continue seeing, which is like, "Nope, no clue what you guys are talking about. There's nothing there. There was an investigation done. There was nothing to find. There shouldn't be anything to find. Let's move on from Ebstein." And that really creates a severe disconnect. Now, we're going to look at the second question, and not just her behaviors when she's answering, but her reaction to the question as well. But before we do, do me a huge favor. Hit that subscribe button, turn those notifications on for more behavioral analysis and practical psychology content, and also take a quick second to like this video because it really does help with the success of the channel. That's transparency. Oh, that Caroline. Okay, so the FBI looks at the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Jeffrey Epstein. According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. So, what happened to the Epstein client list that the attorney general said she had on her desk? Well, I think if you go back and look at what the attorney general said in that interview, which was on your network on Fox News, quote, John Roberts said, "DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?" And she said, "It's sitting on my desk right now to review." Yes. She was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. That's what the attorney general was referring to, and I'll let her speak for that. But again, when it comes to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put behind bars. Um, they have an operation going on right now called Summer Heat, um, which has our rate trending in the lowest direction in United States history. Their emphasis on violent crime and locking up violent criminals has led to the arrest of 14,000 violent criminals. That's a 62% increase from the same time period last year. So, this attorney general and the FBI director are committed to putting bad people behind bars where they belong. That they promised an exhaustive review. That's what they did. For any further details, I would refer you to the Department of Justice. Okay. So, as soon as that second reporter says that this is going to be a follow-up to the first one, we immediately see a bunch of things in a non-verbal communication. First is a rapid succession of blinks almost to the point where it kind of looks like a flutter. But again, it's in that place of processing or stress. In fact, very often in pre-confrontation, we see these quick flutters. It's the person trying to process the emotion and the thought of the coming conflict. We also once again see that shiftiness that's happening. She's shifting her weight. And finally, we see the chin come in like this, which is a behavior that's very consistent with feeling insecure or defensive. When we perceive a threat or we're in a situation that we don't want to be in, we tend to protect the vital parts of the body. This includes wrists, the organs, and the neck. So, that chin coming in, that shiftiness, and that blink, she's not happy to keep talking about this. Another thing that I want to throw in here is something that I noticed that has nothing to do with her behavior, but the reporter is quoting the FBI's report. And I know this because his speech slows down. He looks down at his notes and he's punching and slowly saying what this revealed. And what it revealed is no incriminating client list. And I find it interesting if that's the quote from the reports that they would use the word incriminating. Did you find a client list that's not incriminating? Like is there a list but you deemed it's not incriminating? Why do you need to specify? That word incriminating is very specific there. Why doesn't it say there's no client list? We don't know who his clients are. It's interesting. Just a note. Now, as she begins the answer, we see her hands come up like this and gesture outwards as she talks about the attorney general's statement. And this is really interesting to note because it's not an illustrator. Illustrators are hand gestures that we make when we're speaking to drive our point home. They don't paint a picture. And she sometimes uses illustrators. I wouldn't say they're a big part of her baseline. Some people talk a lot with their hands. I'm one of those people. She every now and then will use an illustrator to drive a point home. The reason I know this is not an illustrator is because illustrators usually happen on the punches and are very like brisk gestures like bam this and boom that and I might move outwards but it's with the speech. In this case it wasn't synced with her words. There wasn't a moment of emphasis there. They slowly moved outwards as she was talking about the attorney general's statement. This is a gesture we might classify as a narrator. These are gestures that we use to paint a certain image. And sometimes they're conscious like I'm showing you how big something was. But sometimes it's just because there's a thought in my head and as I'm talking I'm doing gestures that try to communicate what's in my head. And in this case, there's this broadening gesture. So it seems she's suggesting here that we should take a broader open-minded look at what she said and not be so literal, but absolutely not. There are cases where that's okay. But this is a case where we need to absolutely literally look at what she said word for word. And we will do that in a moment. We'll look at exactly what Pam Bondi, the attorney general said about the client list. But before we do, let's look at a few more uh of the behaviors here because they all relate. Notice when she's talking about what the attorney general said in that interview, which was on your network on Fox News, we see a couple of things. First of all, when she says interview, we see the eyebrows come up as she looks at him. Hand comes out and there's this little bit of a head tilt almost in a very disciplinary look towards him like, "Hey, this was on your network." said in that interview which was on your network on Fox News and I think the undertone here is suggesting that if what she said was deceptive it's because you guys are not good reporters and you didn't ask her the right questions. This was your network spreading misinformation that's not on us. So head tilt is very consistent with exchanges of sympathy but also with curiosity or skepticism. So in this case I think it's a little bit of that skepticism as she's looking at him. Eyebrows come up to place importance on this interview that was on your network. basically suggesting that this is on you, not us. And what does he do? He immediately says that he's got the quote. He's got the exact quote. And she says, "Go ahead." Like, "Go ahead and give me the quote." But look at her face as she says that. She is not happy to hear this quote. She's not excited to cover this quote because at that very moment, we see an eye block. She literally closes her eyes and we see a quick lip compression. So, it's important to note that her lips don't completely thin out in this case to where they go completely thin. But that's also not something I see very often with her. Even earlier with the mouth shrug, they didn't thin out that much. This could be because she naturally has full lips. It could be because she's had certain procedures that fill out the lips. I don't know. But it doesn't matter. We see tension around the lips here. Right as she says, "Go ahead." The eyes close. And we see that tension. So tension around the mouth is usually very consistent with something that we're holding in or a disagreement. But it happens in moments of discomfort with a social situation, right? So very likelier that go ahead but I don't want to talk about this. At the very same time something to support that is that we see this quick eye block. And an eye block is anytime that we blink a little bit longer than usual. So normally your blinks are very quick normal blinks. But in this case go ahead with this very quick eye block. For a second those eyes stay closed. Now the research on eye blocking is fascinating because it shows that even children who were born blind do this. And we typically close our eyes when we need a second to focus. either trying to keep a thought in or keep a thought out. So sometimes it happens when we're trying to focus on something and trying to remember what happened. But it might also happen if somebody gives you bad news and you just close your eyes cuz you don't want to deal with this. You don't want to face this thing. Now in this case it's not held because obviously it's not this big tragic thing. But sometimes you just see this really slow blink with someone that we don't want to deal with. And it looks almost exactly like that with that lip compression at the same time as she goes ahead. She does not want to talk about this topic. Then the reporter quotes exactly what the attorney general said and the response is a buffet of behaviors. Non-verbbally, you'll notice, of course, that her hands shoot up like this by her sides. Now, this is not part of her baseline. Every now and then, she'll illustrate with the hands up a little bit like this, but to talk like this, with the hands up, really not part of her baseline. Now, I will say that there's a slight possibility. I'm not convinced of this, but there's a possibility that she's mirroring the reporter because at the end of his question, his hands went up like this as he looked at her with this confused look. In other words, signaling, "What the heck is up with that? I don't I don't know what to tell you. What's going on here? Give me an answer." So, in her response, maybe a little bit of it is mirroring. But the reason I don't think that's entirely what it is is because it stays up there as she talks and it evolves. It moves into something else. So, this is her communicating something. So, it's likely that in this case those arms up are a shrug. And remember once again, shrugs are consistent with a disengagement, a lack of something. I don't something a shortcoming. So, here it's what I don't know the answer to this. I don't know how to defend this. What's going on? There's some kind of disengagement. And you'll notice that that those hands transform. They don't move. They don't reposition, but the fingers come in like this. And this almost everywhere in the world is a sign of something getting tense, aggressive, or uncomfortable. When we're comfortable, the fingers relax. But when we're thinking of conflict, those fingers come in. It's very defensive. It's almost even confrontational. So, we see those fingers come in. This is not in her baseline at all. So, I think she's lacking information here. She doesn't know how to defend this and she's feeling the stress of that, the conflict of that. And further proof that she's very uncomfortable defending this topic is, so we see the fingers come in. She illustrates a little bit with those closed fingers and immediately at like lightning speed to the point where the first time I watched it, I didn't even realize how fast she transitioned to this. She talks about what the FBI and DOJ are doing to put bad guys behind bars and starts these resume statements about all these other things that they're doing that have zero relation to this. And ré statements or convincing statements are statements that we make to make ourselves look better. So sometimes it's about the individual. I'm too honest. I would never do something like that. I'm very generous. I would never steal things along these lines to make ourselves look good. And here she's providing a resume statement on behalf of the FBI and the DOJ. So, in other words, if we look at the non-verbal communication and the verbal communication, the overall package is she's stressed about this, then it gets to a point where I don't know how to answer this and it's aggravating me. So, let me tell you all these other great things FBI and DOJ are doing to get you off this topic and to see how amazing they are. But, it's not working. I quickly want to touch on something that she said right at the beginning of her response as well. And it's when the reporter said that the attorney general, Pam Bondi, which we're going to hear from in a second, said that the list was on her desk. And Caroline Levit responds she was saying the entirety of all the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crime. And this is really tricky language on her part because Pam Bondi literally responded to a question about the list and said that it is sitting on her desk. In fact, I want you to look at the exact statement that everyone's talking about. One of the things that you alluded to, and this is something Donald Trump has talked about, the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? It's sitting on my desk right now to review. Um, that's been a directive um by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies. So, as you could see, she was asked about the list, not the paperwork, not the papers, the list. And she said, "It is sitting on my desk right now." So, Caroline Levit could say she misspoke. What she meant was this. But there's a slight distinction between saying what she meant was this and saying she was saying the entirety of the list. I know that some people use that a little interchangeably. Like they'll say, "Well, I was saying this." Meaning, I was meaning this. But it's a sneaky distinction because I have some colleagues and friends who watched this press conference and said, "Hold on, hold on. Caroline Levit said that Pam Bondi said that the papers were on her desk, not the list." So, it's a misrepresentation. There's a little bit more confidence here as opposed to saying, "Look, yes, she said that, but here's what she meant." That's not the way she's representing this. All right. Now, we're going to go to the very next day after this press conference. So, FBI and DOJ release the report. The next day is the press conference we just saw. The day after that, so 2 days after the report, there's a cabinet meeting in which President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi are asked about the uh Epstein stuff and they both respond and I want you to look at that response because again there's a lot going on. Here it is. Um your memo and release yesterday on Jeffrey Epstein, it left some lingering mysteries. U one of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked for a American or foreign intelligence agency. Um the former labor secretary who was uh Miami US attorney um Alex Costiki allegedly said that he did work for an intelligence agency. So could you resolve whether or not he did? And also could you say why there was a minute missing from the jail house tape on the night of Yeah, sure. If I could I just interrupt for one second? Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time and do you feel like answering? I I don't mind answering. I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this where we're having some of the greatest success and and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems uh like a desecration. But you go ahead. Sure. Sure. First to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list. And my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that. Also, to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child is what they were never going to be released. Never going to see the light of day. To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that. and the minute missing from the video. We released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed. And what was on that there was a minute that was off the counter. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every um night they redo that video. It's old from like 1999. So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well showing that a minute is missing every night and that's it on Epstein. All right. So I want to begin with Donald Trump. So there's something extremely important in when the emotion hits. So as he's listening to the question, we see a couple of things that we're going to talk about as a response to the question that's being asked. But what you'll notice we don't see is any emotional response to the stimulus. So the way it works is usually when we get emotional about something, it's because something comes in, a stimulus that gets us emotional and then we communicate that emotion, right? But he only got emotional once he started answering before that. Cuz here's the thing, when the guy's talking about Epstein, right? If he's confused by this, angered by this, anything like that that he's trying to represent, it would be non-verbally as a reaction to the question. When the guy asked the question, you would see him go, "Oh, come on. Is this guy still talking about this?" You would see some kind of confusion, some kind of anger. You would see something on his face, but he's just looking at the guy, no emotion. Then he stops Pam, he jumps in, and that's where we see the emotion. So, the emotion is associated to the presentation, not to the reaction, to the stimulus. That's very important. Now, I will say this. When the guy does say Epstein, the second he says the word Epstein, we do see Trump very quickly look down then back up. So, this could be nothing, you know, because it's not a cluster, but it could also have something to do with, oh, here we go. Okay, here we go. We're going to we're going to deal with this thing. So, a quick reset or a quick looking away from the subject like I don't want to talk about this and then coming right back to it. It could be that. I wouldn't put too much weight on it, though, because there aren't that many other things going on in that moment. Notice how towards the end of the question, he perks up in his chair a little bit like this, suggesting that he's ready to dive in. And as Pam Bondi starts to answer, he goes, "Pam, can I just interrupt for a second?" And he starts answering the question. Now, when he does interrupt, look what happens with Pam Bondi. First of all, she says, "Sure." Before he's even done asking if he can interrupt. She goes, "Pam, can I interrupt?" He's, you know, he's not even done. She goes, "Sure." Immediately, "Sure, if I Pam, could I just interrupt a second?" leans towards him, putting all the attention on him like this is very welcome that that he wants to talk about this and we even see a grooming gesture. The hand comes up and moves the hair out of the way. Now grooming is things that we do to fix our appearance and is typically very consistent with us feeling self-conscious. So all of a sudden when the attention is inwards we see these grooming gestures. Now, note that sometimes for women with long hair, moving the hair out of the way is something we call ventilating as well because whether we're stressed or physically warm, moving the hair out of the way brings more air and circulation to the neck and it helps us cool down. So, it could be related to stress or nervousness, but grooming is usually because the attention is turned inwards. So, all this to say, she's very happy for him to take this for a second. All our attention is turning towards him. I even think that there might have been some kind of agreement between the two that if Epstein comes up, he's going to talk about it and he has something to say. And there's a very very big clue exactly about that. And the clue is the fact that his answer was such a generic Epstein answer almost like a prepared statement that when Epstein comes up, here's the answer that I'm going to give. Because he says, "Are people still talking about this guy, this creep?" And the question had absolutely nothing to do with the creepiness of Jeffrey Epste. Yes, we all agree Jeffrey Epste was a creep. That's a given. But the question was specifically about the missing time in the footage that they released from the cell block just earlier this week. There was some missing time. People want to know what's up with that. Reasonable question. and also uh whether he was affiliated with any agencies be it domestic or foreign because there's been a lot of information floating around about that as well. So that's what he asked. So, with how happily and quickly Pam Bondi turned to Donald Trump, with how Donald Trump perked up ready to answer this, gave a very generic answer about Jeffrey Epstein the creep as a whole, not specific to this question, and how he got emotional only with presenting the answer, but not as an actual emotional response to the question. This is a huge indication that there may have been some kind of plan or agreement that when Epstein comes up, he's going to jump in there and completely shut down the topic and say how ridiculous it is that anybody's still talking about Jeffrey Epstein. And that's what we're seeing non-verbbally. Notice how right in the beginning before he even talks, both his hands come up like this and then he talks as they open up over here. And this is not an illustrator. Usually Donald Trump does illustrate with both hands as he talks. We see a lot of this, a lot of this, very symmetric gestures. But in this case, he's not illustrating something. They both just come up. Now, palm orientation, the research shows, is not universal. Different cultures use different hand orientations. However, there are some orientations that have universal meaning, and palm outwards is one of them. Pretty much anywhere in the world, wherever you're tuning in from, we recognize this as what we call a stop gesture. When the hand comes up like this, we're trying to stop something or get someone's or something's attention, right? And this is even a reflex that we have. When we're startled, the hand shoots straight up. It's sometimes combined with an oscillating gesture, which is this back and forth, which is more to get something's attention like, "Stop. Look, notice me here." But palm out words pretty much everywhere is stop. With both hands like this, I think this is subconscious him going stop. We are not going to be talking about this. And then his words reflect exactly that. From that hand gesture, they open up outwards like this, almost in like a little bit of a shrug, like are we really talking about this guy? But this is quite baseline for him to talk like this. So this not so baseline, this a little bit more baseline. The rest of the response in the way that he answers behaviorally is very much part of his baseline. This is how he communicates very often when he's, you know, upset about something or giving someone a hard time with something. Nothing really stands out from his baseline. So quite a few people sent me this clip and said, "Hey, is he being deceptive here?" And the simple answer is no. He's not being deceptive because he's not even slightly answering the question. In fact, he's shutting down the entire topic. He's not even slightly addressing the specifics of the question. Just are people still talking about Jeffrey Ebstein? Really, after all this time, and it really misrepresents the situation because after a very long time of waiting, it's just been 2 days at this point since the FBI and DOJ released their report. So, this kind of representation of are we still talking about this guy to make it seem like it's been so long that this topic's been put to rest? Well, it hasn't. It's been 2 days that this report was released and people still have reasonable questions. A reporter typically represents the population or a certain percentage of the population. If they ask stupid questions that nobody wants the answer to or nobody cares about, their results will speak for themselves. People will not go to whatever source they work for. Therefore, they will either go out of business or adapt. But if a reporter is asking a question, presumably there's a portion of the population who wants the answer to that question. And in this case, it's a very reasonable question. So, I don't think it's reasonable for any representative of the government on either side at any level to shut down a question that's reasonable and that a large population of their country would like answers to. And to me, this answer pretty much dances on the line of gaslighting because it kind of makes this reporter feel like he's absolutely incompetent for asking this question that nobody cares about and nobody should talk about because it's been talked about for years and there's more important things. But all this all this ignores the fact that people could talk about different things, right? The news could talk about several different topics. And again, if this reporter is asking a question that he believes represents something that the people want to see, I don't think it's up to anyone, whether it's government or just anyone being interviewed to audit the question. Say, "No, that's stupid question. We shouldn't talk about that." Let the reporter worry about that. There's something else with Trump's answer here that's really important and it relates to his answer as a whole, the direction he decided to take with the whole answer, and it relates to something that we could find in an amazing book called Spy the Lie. Now, this is an incredible book about deceptive behaviors written by 3XC CIA agents who specialize in counterterrorism and criminal investigation. And in this, they list all the different behaviors that go into a cluster. So, whether it's verbal, non-verbal, all the things that we could look for. So, a lot of the stuff we've talked about so far are in here. Non-answer statements, convincing statements or resume statements, um you know, refusal to deny when when you're asked something and you just don't deny and you move on. So, a lot of the things we've seen so far, but I want you to listen to this. One of the things in their verbal list of tells is going into attack mode, which I'm going to read now. Being backed into a corner by the facts of a situation could put a lot of strain on a deceptive person and can compel him to go on the attack. This might take the form of an attempt to impeach your credibility or competence with questions like, "How long have you been doing this job?" or "Do you know anything about our organization?" or why are you wasting my time with this stuff? What he's trying to do is to get you to back off, to start questioning yourself on whether you're going down the right path. So once again, Spy the Lie, amazing book. I'll leave a link in the description if you want to get this book delivered right to your door. But that's pretty huge. The fact that it's there, they've captured pretty much the exact vibe of this where the question is being diminished, saying, "Why are you wasting your time with this?" as a way to wiggle out of answering this question. Now, let's talk about Pam Bondi and her answer to the question, which a lot of people have been curious about because she was the one who said that that client list was on her desk. So, first of all, when she talks about the interview where she talked about the client list, she has finger quotes exactly as she's saying a client list. So, we're going from her being on Fox News being specifically asked about a client list and saying it is on my desk without any amendments, like saying, you know, look, there's a file on my desk and there may or may not be a list in there. nothing like that. She was asked about a list. She said, "It is on my desk." Now, client list is all of a sudden in quotes. And here we see her passion and her illustrators really come to life. She's driving those points home. She's speaking clearly and with every word we see that hand coming down. Meaning, the file was on my desk. No, that's not what that meant. If that's what you meant, you could have said that back then. And if that's what you meant, you could kind of acknowledge that that's not what it sounded like now, right? You could say, "Look, I get what it sounded like, but here's what I meant." As opposed to like aggressively making it seem like that's obviously what you meant, and we all should have known that when you said it, what you meant was, "No, no, no, no. There is no client list on my desk. There's a file that may contain a client list." That wasn't clear. And this passion is her trying to override logic with certainty. Notice the moment she says, meaning the file, you know, like when I said that, I meant the file, not the list. Notice what happens to Donald Trump. That whole time he's looking over at her. The moment she says that, he looks over to the reporter, meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK. Now, this has two possible meanings. The first one is that he's looking over to the reporter like, "Got it, buddy." Like just looking at him like to confirm like, "Yeah, that's what she meant. You got it?" Like almost like ganging up on this reporter for asking such a stupid question. The second possibility is what we call a confirmation glance, which is something we very often see when someone's trying to check in on us to see if the story is being bought. So, it's very possible in that moment that he's looking over to see, okay, are are they buying this? Are they buying that? What she meant was the file, not the list. Then Pam Bondi with that same amount of conviction and fire in her voice goes on to say that as for the footage, it all turned out to be child, you know, pee and, you know, we're not going to release that. That's disgusting. And she's talking like again just like Caroline Levit like anybody asked to see this. Nobody wants to see this. Nobody asked about this. He didn't ask a single question about the videos. He asked about the missing footage and he asked about agency affiliation. So nobody asked about this, but they all seem to redirect and say, "We're not going to be releasing that footage. We don't care. At most we want to know if it points to anyone partaking in criminal activity." Okay. Then she says, "To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that." And there's a big misconception about no gestures. And there are a lot of people who see this and go, "Oh my god, oh my god, the person's being deceptive because they did this with their head." So first of all, we already discussed this. There isn't a single gesture out there that immediately means deception. Least of all this, because we very often use this to emphasize. And also, at the very same moment, she's saying, "I have no knowledge about that." So it's very reasonable that she would say that and that, you know, this would indicate no knowledge. It's a no, it's a negative statement. So, am I saying she's 100% being truthful? I can't know that. We can never know that with behavior, but this is not a tell that she's being deceptive in that moment. Anyways, she quickly moves on to the missing footage from the security cameras. And here we do see her thoughts falling apart a little bit. We see the blink rate go up. She's fluttering. Her speech falls apart. We see pauses and hesitation. We released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was. And yes, this is a cluster. It makes me want to ask her more questions, but let's keep in mind that this could very well also be from the lack of knowledge that like here's what she was told and she's not entirely sure. So, going back to the fact that I don't know if this cluster is because she's being knowingly deceptive because she was told something and doesn't really know much about it or doesn't understand much about it or she herself doubts it or simply because she knows it's hard to believe. But there's certainly some activity that makes me go, I have some questions about that security footage for sure. So, look, there's a lot going on here, and I completely connect with people who are frustrated by what happened here because for the longest time, we were told the administration's going to work on getting this information. They acknowledge that it's important. And now that the report came out and it's very underwhelming, to say the least, all of a sudden, are we still talking about this? Nobody's acknowledging how important this is. Everyone is redirecting at lightning speed. The way Trump moved away from the question to what we should be talking about, the way Caroline Levit at the speed of light moved towards the administration and all the good things they're doing to put criminals behind bars and it was so fast. All these redirects and this list, there's something to be said about this list. They're all talking about how nope, we didn't find the list. The investigation didn't find the list. And they're talking about like there's this list that was sitting there like Santa Claus's Christmas list on Epstein's desk titled The List. We don't need an official client list that says Jeffrey Epstein's client list. What people are asking for is by looking at these tapes that granted we don't want you to reveal. Don't reveal the disgusting tapes, but by looking at them, by looking at his flight logs, by looking at the meetings he had, the people he met with, by looking at all this information, you make a list of people that he was affiliated with. So, they're kind of talking about this big important list like it doesn't exist. But, it would be hard to argue that there isn't a way to compile a list of people that he was affiliated with. Look, I often say on the channel that behavioral cues are behavioral clues. They just give us an indication as to where we should dig because something's going on. But this consistently, this many tells, three different people, all seem to be behaving the same way around this topic, I can say pretty confidently, we are not getting the truth here. And I sympathize with anyone who looked at this and got aggravated in thinking, "No, something doesn't add up." And I don't know how big the truth is, if it's this big huge thing or if it's just a couple of things that they don't want to release publicly for whatever reason. I don't know which players have all the information, which ones are in the dark. I can't tell you that. But all this redirecting, all these non-answers, all these uh resume statements building themselves up, shutting down the topic so consistently over three different responses. No, it it it doesn't add up. There's too much going on to look at this and go, "No, yeah, this absolutely looks like the truth. Something's missing." And that's pretty much all I could tell you based on behavior. But of course, at the end of the day, it's possible that all these behaviors are coming from the fact that they know it's not a good look. They know it's hard to believe and they're trying to sell a narrative that they know there's going to be a lot of skepticism about. And that's why we're seeing some of these behaviors. I think it's unlikely, but it's absolutely very possible. But let me know in the comments what you think. Is it possible that this is all just people behaving this way because they know that this report is very hard to believe, that there was nothing to be found, or is it because there's stuff being hidden? And if so, what were the big indications for you that there's got to be something here to look more into? Which of these interviews made you feel that way the most? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you on the next