Transcription
Hey everybody, Dr. G here. I'm a clinical and forensic psychologist as well as a body language expert. And today we're going to be analyzing the behavior and body language of US Attorney General Pam Bondi. Before we get started with this, couple of quick things. One, I wanted to make sure you know this is not a psychological evaluation of any kind. These are just my opinions. In addition to that, I do want to remind you to like and subscribe if you want to see more content just like this. All right, let's go.
What we're going to be analyzing today is Attorney General Pam Bond's testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee. We're specifically going to be focusing on her conversations and her interactions about the Epstein files. The goal of this channel is to be politically neutral, but I want you to keep in mind that these hearings are very frustrating. There's a number of members of Congress that won't get to the point and Pam Bond body oftentimes will not answer the question. So, these can be very frustrating to watch. Just wanted to caution you about that before we get started. All right, let's just jump right in.
"You apologize to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the un absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their information?"
"Congresswoman, you sat before Merritt Garland sat in this chair twice. Attorney General. So, one thing you're going to notice is that when Pam Body really wants you to pay attention to something, she's big on emphasis. She points. She moves her arms around. She's someone that uses her body language a lot. So, when she's talking about Merrick Garland, that's what she wants you to focus on. She wants you to pay attention to what she has to say about Merrick Garland."
"Can I finish my answer?"
"No. I'm going to reclaim my time."
"I'm going to skip around a little bit for the sake of time, but I do want you to see Pam Bonnie's reaction after more of an interaction between the two of them."
"I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics. The time belongs to the the time belongs."
So she just said, "I'm not going to get in the gutter." This is a phrase that she uses often when it comes to deflecting talking about something. But I want you to watch her chin after she says this.
"I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics."
"The time belongs to the time."
Immediately she turns her chin up. We do that because it exposes our neck. It shows shows other people we're not afraid of you. And so when she does that, that's literally turning her nose up to the congresswoman. She's in a genuine way saying, "I'm better than you. I'm above this. I don't need to listen to you."
"So, I have just So, I really have just one question for you."
Now, we're going to skip ahead to Congressman Nadler. Now, he just got done talking for about three or four minutes and providing a list of issues that he had before asking this question, which to me, as someone that's viewing this and just wants information can be very frustrating because rather than just asking the question, there are a lot of different points they try to make and that slows everything down.
"So, I have just so I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?"
So, that was a very direct question, but before this, he had a lot of other things to say.
"First, you showed it. You I I find it."
"How many have you"
"Excuse me, I'm going to answer the question."
"I answer my question."
"No, I'm going to answer the"
So, let's look at the emotions that she's showing right now.
"Excuse me. I'm going to"
"So, this is a very aggressive posture. The pointing, the aggressive pointing. She wants everybody to know she's in control. But what we're actually not seeing is on the face, we're seeing very little in terms in terms of emotion. So, I think that this is actually more performative than it is angry. And that's one of the things that's so interesting about Pam Bondi is that I think that in a lot of ways, she's very highly controlled in terms of her behavior. So, typically when she does body language like this, it's intentional. When people are overtaken with emotion, they can't help themselves. You see the scowls, you see the brow, you see a lot of change. You don't see anything on her face at all. So, to me, this is the way she expected to go into this. She's going and arguing. She's not answering questions. And the body language is more of a performance actually than it is an authentic expression of how mad she is."
"You showed it. You I I find it."
"How many have you"
"Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question."
"Answer my question."
"No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are ridiculous."
"Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter."
And there are theatrics on both sides of this. Just to be clear, it's very frustrating that she's not answering a very simple question. But there there is a lot of wasted time from the congressman as well with these people. But I'm going to answer the question.
"How many of you indicted?"
"Again, the time belongs to"
"claiming my time."
"The time belongs."
"I think it's very time."
"I think it's very interesting. You can talk about they indicted. The president said they indicted him twice. Mr. Please stop the clock and stop the clock and restore time."
So, you can see how controlled her body language is and this is going to frustrate other people because people are asking her things to get information and when she won't answer them, they get angry. But she does, even though she sounds angry, I think she's actually remaining remarkably cool because she feels like she's in full control right here. So, after Congressman Nadler got done with what he had to say, there really wasn't a question at the end there, but we're going to look at her response.
"brought up the president saying they indicted me twice. They sure did. They tried to impeach him twice. And you, Mr. Nadler, were one of the leads on the impeachment. I was on the other side. I live."
See, this is what she wants to talk about. You're seeing so much body language right now because she wants you to focus on this. This is what she's here to talk about. If you'll notice, she keeps looking at notes as she's talking about this. This is not a an authentic response based on what's going on. She has certain points that she wants everybody to hear.
"lived that with you. During impeachment, you said the president conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller found no evidence, none, of foreign interference in 2016. Have you apologized to President Trump?"
"Like I said, you hear the intensity, you hear the emotion, but you don't see it. So, this is a performance. This is someone who is going in with the idea of sounding angry, sounding passionate, but there doesn't seem to be any feeling behind that. Have you ever Googled your own name or email address? Before I had Aura, I did. And wow, it was my full name, my old address, phone number, all sorts of information I did not want people to have. That's why I started using Aura, today's sponsor. If you've ever wondered how scammers get your number or why your inbox is drowning in spam, this is why. They're companies called data brokers that collect and sell your personal information to marketers, scammers, and yes, even stalkers. They do it without your permission. The good news is they're legally required to remove it if you ask. The only issue is that it's timeconuming and they make it as confusing as humanly possible. This is where Aura comes in. They take care of the hard part for you, automatically requesting removals from these data broker sites and keeping your info off of them over time. In the first two weeks, you'll see exactly where your personal data is exposed and start watching it disappear without you lifting a finger. It's an all-in-one digital security tool that gives you alerts if your personal info appears on the dark web, real-time fraud alerts for crediting and banking, 247 identity monitoring, a secure VPN antivirus password manager, and more. Plus, a $5 million identity theft insurance policy, and US-based fraud experts available around the clock. You can try Aura free for 14 days at aura.com/drg. That's enough time for Aura to start scrubbing your info off all of these data broker sites automatically. I'm not leaving myself vulnerable, and you shouldn't either. Go to aura.com/drg and get started with your 14-day trial today. All right, back to the analysis."
"Apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president and I am not going to have it. I'm not going to put up with it. You know, all they want to do, all the the American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration released over 3 million pages of documents. Over three million. And Donald Trump signed that law to release."
Just to be clear, as someone who has been going through the Epstein files, they may have released a lot of them. They've also removed a lot of them. And it is very difficult to even find basic files at this point. I'm not going to go into all of the details about what it's like trying to navigate the DOJ's website, but they have actually gone through and made it more difficult to access the these files. So, while that's technically true, they are in fact in the process of getting in the way of anybody actually finding these that doesn't already have them. And most people don't.
"Over three million. And Donald Trump signed that law to release all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history."
Something we're also not seeing is that she uses her hands a lot. She moves her body around that way, but we don't see anything in the brow. When people when we really want people to listen to us, we can't help but raise her eyebrows up because it brings attention to our face. Look at what I'm saying. This is so important to me. This is a performance. You're not seeing anything like that. And none of them none of them ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why?"
So what that says is that even she knows that these are not very compelling arguments. That this is not that this is maybe what she feels like she's supposed to say, but there's nothing there's no feeling behind this. This is not something that actually that she thinks is actually a good point. At least that's what it seems like to me. Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader as I hear Raskin. The Dow is over $50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7.
"You heard her actually laugh before she started saying this. I want you to pay really close attention to this. That is because Donald Trump the Dow."
"It's almost like I can't believe I'm about to say this. There's almost disbelief in her own voice that she is about to talk about how high the Dow is and that that's what this is all about. For any of us that are following the Epstein files at all, any of us that are following this case whatsoever, we all have a lot of concerns about the fact that there are a lot of co-conspirators that have not been prosecuted and as far as we know are not being investigated. So the idea it to me it is insulting to our intelligence to suggest that because the DAO is doing well regardless on which side of the political spectrum you are on that that's in fact why there people are talking about the Epstein files. I think everybody's talking about it because there's genuine interest in it. But I think she does not even believe what she's saying right now."
"Is that you know why? Because Donald Trump the Dow the Dow right now is over the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why."
See, she had to look a couple of times cuz she's not passionate enough about this to even know this information. She just knows she's supposed to say it.
"The DAO has shattered 50,000 for the first time. This is crazy. They said it couldn't be done in four years. Yet, President Trump is"
This is her promoting a message that I suppose she was either believe she's supposed to promote or somebody told her to, but it doesn't feel natural at all. We're not seeing natural body language that comes along with this.
"done it in one year. National median rents have fallen to a fouryear low thanks to Donald Trump. That's why they want to focus on Epstein and our most transparent president."
As someone who focuses a lot on Epste, I can tell you definitively that has nothing to do with a single video that I have done on Jeffrey Epste. Anyway, let's skip ahead a little bit. We're going to keep going.
"You redacted the photos of this victim's face because you were following the congressional law. Is that correct?"
"I'm sorry. That we redacted the victim's face."
"Because you were following the congressional law. Correct."
"Yes."
Okay. So, immediately she looks down back at her at the at the binder, which she very likely does not actually need to do, but it's a way to disengage. So, when there people that she knows she doesn't like or want or disapproves of, these are the kinds of behaviors we're going to see.
"You have now established that we please put the photos back up that we are looking at a victim under the federal victim's trafficking protection act. I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland these questions when he was um"
So this is her strategy to bring up Merrick Garland every single time there is a point that's made that's hard to argue against because basically what Congressman Lou was saying is if her face is blocked out if she's blurred that means she's one of the victims and if she's one of the victims then he has to be one of the perpetrators. So basically the argument is if these people are blocked out that means there have to be perpetrators there have to be co-conspirators. So her response once again goes back to Merrick Garland. This seems to be the argument.
"I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland."
And you see how her fingers are interlaced when she does this. This is she she is holding on. Now we're seeing some real emotion. I think she's actually feeling quite frustrated right now.
"These questions when he was um attorney general and set before"
"I agree with you. I'm claiming my time. I agree with you. Want to know were there any age girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein? This is so ridiculous and that they are trying to deflect from all the"
So you see her putting her hand up like that. She's telling you now, I'm going to give you absolutely nothing.
"All the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that this has been the most transparent presidency."
"Made this massive failure and released the victim's names. Are you able to track who it was that obscured Les Wexner's name as a co-conspirator in an FBI document? Do you have that kind of accountability?"
"I believe Wexner's name."
Now, the first thing you're going to notice is her body language has changed. She has now closed off entirely. She's crossing her arms. At this point, she is not comfortable. This is this is the first time we've seen her close off this much.
"name was listed more than 4,000 times about I had"
"Yeah, I already told you that. This is where he's listed as a"
"finish my answer."
Now, we're going to skip ahead to some of ranking member Rasin's comments.
"From the Department of Justice, how much should these people get for a far worse violation of their privacy rights and a far greater danger established to them in their lives? Do you even know who Chase Mulligan is? You're so obsessed with You don't. Do you?"
"I'm going to teach you the rules again. You're the attorney general United States. We have rules with him."
"You're the attorney general of the United States. The rules obsessed with Donald Trump."
So once again, this seems to be Pam Bondi strategy. Bring up Mary Garland. Bring up somebody else. Bring up things that are not relevant or specifically relevant to this. It's a matter of coming up with arguments against these pe against these various members of Congress. But what we're seeing in her body language is that she is remaining calm right here. She has her hands crossed, so there may be some attempt to comfort herself. But I think she thinks of herself as being in control because she is not going to give any information she doesn't want to give. If there's an answer that she doesn't want to give that she doesn't like, she just isn't going to do it. She has shown that time and time again at this point. So I think at times when you hear her angry, there may be elements of anger, little bits here and there, but for the most part, it's all a performance."
"Crimes that have taken place against these victims and more than a thousand like them. The DOJ is not doing its job. Will you create a task force with state and local law enforcement to make that happen?"
Now we're seeing some real feeling. You can see her gripping onto her bicep. This is not a comfortable way to hold yourself. She is actually feeling angry now. So something that ranking member Rascin said really seems to bother her. You can also see now we're seeing actual anger in the brow. Now the angle they're starting to angle downward a bit. So at this point you're seeing for the first time some real genuine anger coming from Pam Bondi.
"gentle lady can respond if she wants to."
"Thank you, chairman. He called Chase Mulligan a wild goose chase and didn't even know who he"
So goes back to Chase Mulligan. Whatever this conversation's about, something that must have happened in his district, but completely irrelevant to the points he's making about the Epstein files. So having to listen to that, she was getting angry. When she goes back to being in control, the anger goes away. Then it just becomes a performance all over again.
"He was he is a defendant in your own district who prayed on What? If he were part of the Epstein investigation, you wouldn't do anything about it."
"Online chat rooms. All of them have clear and confirmed ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney General Bondi, yes or no? Has the Justice Department asked Secretary Letic about his ties to Epstein?"
"Excuse me. Secretary Lutnik um has addressed those ties himself."
"I'm asking you how. So, look how much she's disengaging right here. Watch her body language"
"about his ties to Epstein."
So, she went from sitting calmly to now she's about to close up.
"Excuse me. Secretary Lutnik um has addressed those ties himself."
"I'm asking."
Immediately she says Secretary Lutnik has addressed those ties himself. Immediately turns her head, looks away. She is trying to disengage as much as possible. At this point, she wants nothing to do with this.
"Secretary Lutnik um has addressed those ties himself."
"I'm asking you, has the Justice Department specifically asked Secretary Lutnik about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein?"
"He has addressed those ties himself."
"Has the DOJ asked secret"
See as little expression as possible. She's not going to answer this question.
"Failen about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein."
"I don't know whether he has addressed those or not. Has the deputy um sec has deputy secretary Fineberg talked to the Department of Justice about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein? Yes or no? Has the Department of Justice talked to Secretary, Deputy Secretary Fineberg about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, which are clearly spelled out in the files? It's a very simple question. It's not a trick question. I'm just asking you."
"Yeah. I'm stunned that you want to continue talking about"
"Oh my gosh. Just unreal. So at this point, Pam Bonnie just will not answer questions and somehow she gets away with it."
"Shame on you. Oh, for goodness sakes. Pathetic. This is pathetic. Mr. I am not ask"
Pam Bondi is very very effective at frustrating members of Congress because she will not answer questions. There appears to be no way to actually compel her to actually answer these questions. And you can see she gets a reaction here. So when you see these reactions, this looks like an authentic reaction of anger. These are people that are very frustrated. When you see Pam Bondi reacting with anger, it seems far more performative the vast majority of the time.
"to know the answers to this. These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game. Secretary,"
"I'm attorney general."
"My apologies. I couldn't tell. Um I I was curious if you congresswoman um asked Bill Clinton that um didn't hear didn't see one tweet, not one. I didn't see one tweet when Joe Biden was"
Now you see her body language open back up again. She's looking at everybody. Her body's open because she's giving another one of her speeches at this point.
All right, we'll go ahead and wrap things up here. Hopefully this is helping you better understand some of the behavior and body language we saw. Personally, I found this entire hearing very frustrating. There were many members of Congress who spent their entire time giving a speech for three or four minutes and then asking or not asking any question at all. Pam Bondi wasn't going to answer anything once she was finally asked questions. The whole hearing to me was very frustrating. There were some highlights. There were some moments where people asked meaningful questions, but she gave non-answers. She would deflect to talk about Meritt Garland the vast majority of the time or somebody else, but did not provide anything of material substance. If you have any other thoughts about this or if there's anything else you want me to analyze, please let me know in the comments below. I do have a number of other Epstein document and Epstein file videos coming out. So, those will be coming soon. Any but if there's anything that specifically you want me to analyze, I do want to hear about that. Last thing before we get finished up is I do want to remind you to like and subscribe if you want to see more content just like this. All right, thanks for watching.