Chris Cuomo is back in the news again. Greg, why don't you tell us about the videos we're gonna watch? Yeah, this is an interview with Dan Abrams and he will cover things such as what part he played in his brother's downfall and how he tried to protect him, why he actually left CNN. And he's about to have a new podcast coming out in October, so he'll be everywhere. Talk about some of the specifics here. It started really, the controversy started with regard to your brother. When you started interviewing him during COVID. Right. Do you regret that? No, but I think it's more fair to say, subject to your own counter, that the media was pretty quiet when Andrew was first coming on the show. Why? Because people, it resonated with people in a way that nothing, I've won almost every award that the TV journalism business has to offer, mostly because I've worked with the best teams that TV journalism has to offer. I've never had people thank me for what they saw as the help that they got during my reporting when I was sick with COVID about the people around us who were in charge of COVID and the interviews with my brother, which everything I know about this situation tells me that, of course, there's a conflict of interest, but people got that, man. Nobody thought I was interviewing my brother the way I interview other people. That wasn't the point of purpose of those things. And I even said at the time, and people are like, you don't need to say that. The time will come when he can't come on the show anymore. There will be a time for accountability. There always is in crisis, and I can't cover him about that. People got that. The media should have gotten it. They should have seen it for what it was. And I believe that there was a purity test that was applied to that. That wasn't really fair, given the context and circumstances as people understood them. That said, you are correct. That was something that was gonna come back to haunt me. It was just a question of when. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so I'm trying to reproduce the way that he holds his hands. Because it's, I've never seen anything like this before and I was trying to work out what's it about. Is he trying to suppress some of his illustrators in some way? Could be that. He could be trying to suppress his dominant hand here, which fists up, which is interesting. But what I like about this gesture is that it leaves his hand already very high to come in and moderate and take control. And he really does take control of this interview and starts basically interviewing himself. Well, why does he do that? Well, how does he do that? He does rhetorical questions just like I'm doing right now and then answers them. Look, eyebrow raises on people best thank me, help COVID interview with my brother. People, best teams, thank me, COVID and the interviews with my brother. So he's really laying down this narrative of people and I'm the best and they thank me and we're helping COVID and then conflating that, mashing that together with interviews with my brother. This public service is not the self service that the public or the courts or whoever has a problem with this, you know, they think it is. So he's trying to make both things a public service, him talking about COVID and interviewing his brother. I don't think the public see it that way. I don't think the courts see it that way. They don't see it as a conflated issue. He's trying to do that. I think he fancies himself at it because he does a little shimmy at the end as well. When he's finished, there's this little shimmy move that says, hey, I think I did a good job there. Greg, what do you think of this one? I don't know about you, but I was riveted during the COVID. That's all I watched was Chris Cuomo. Yeah, no, I mean, come on. Everybody's gonna have who they like on TV and that kind of thing and he's going to play to his audience.  And you know, Scott grabs mine occasionally, but this guy's got a lot of faces and he's using them all. That forehead constantly, Mark, I love that you're pointing out every time he uses it as an illustrator to drive his point. And you can see all those wrinkles, all those residuals because he does use it that way. There's a lip compression when he says, when Andrew first started coming on the show, we always associate that lip compression with either withholding emotion or some information. My guess is emotion in this case. He's pretty good at containing emotion. And does that surprise anybody considering that rigid lockdown of control that he starts off with? What's interesting is we didn't see that when he was on CNN because he has his hands and he controls the frame. But it tells you there's something going on in him about control, whatever it is. He illustrates to the back of his hand when he's talking normally. And much like his brother, I think his brother's pattern may be reversed, but you always talk about hemispheric tendencies, Chase. He illustrates negative things with his right hand. I think his brother illustrates negative things with his left hand. One or the other has been a while, if we go back and look at them. But he is an emphatic speaker with his hands. Those pointed down fingers, he's driving that. That's good because it clearly sends a message and it's very much a New York thing, but it's also negative. It's also a double-edged sword. If you stop doing that, then we go, why didn't you do that here? Must indicate that you don't have the same passion about it. We do see fight-or-flight in him. I think it's irritation. And you can get fight-or-flight from irritation as well. It's from fear or trying to get away. See, his forehead goes smooth. In him, that's fight-or-flight. Shaking his head, no. And he's doing a halting out-breath. His blink rate increases. And then he navigates the language as he's trying to get to the end of this. That upright eye movement he's doing here, I don't think it has anything to do with him accessing information. I think he's trying to figure out, how do I characterize this in a way that's least damaging? He's gonna lawyer his way through this entire interview, but I agree with you, Mark, he's interviewing himself. Scott, what do you got? All right, you're right, Mark. Where he begins with his hands crossing that weird-looking way and they turn into a fist halfway through. The bottom one anyway turns into a fist. So you're right, I've never seen that before either, but it is really interesting the way he uses that to his advantage. So let's keep an eye on that and see what he does with it. When he says no, he does his head forward like it's the S, and that's not a confirmation nod. Confirmation nods happen when you say no, I didn't do that. But he says no, and then his head comes down. It happens really quickly, but take a look at that. And that's what happens with illustrators. Again, they should land around on time. If it was a confirmation nod, it would hit right on the money there, but it didn't. For me, most of the action happens here at the top and the rest is just filler. It really doesn't have much to do with the question itself. When he starts talking about COVID, didn't he get in trouble, you guys, for biking? He was running around on his bike or something when he was supposed to be in the house with COVID and got busted outside. And some guy was hollering at him, somebody was hollering at him. Yeah, so I just don't have any, I can't get into it. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, I keep just lining out stuff. I have my notes here that you guys are just covering like crazy. I even was really proud of myself for coming up with the line interviewing himself. So thanks a lot. Mark, this is the most self aggrandizing clip. I think I have ever analyzed for the panel. It's awful. His hands are relaxed at the beginning and then when the camera goes back to him, you'll see that fist there. And when he says the media was quiet, then he just asks himself a question, then he answers that question for himself, to himself. Then there's contempt on his face right when he mentions how he's won every award. But the contempt is towards the other interviewer, in my opinion, and we're gonna see some more of that behavior a little bit later. And this eyebrow behavior is a continuous need for reassurance and approval. And this is sales behavior, selling. Thankfully, the body language here is so transparent that I think anyone would see the pitch. And I would hope that anyone could see the pitch. So that's all I got. That's all I got left in any way. Let's talk about some of the specifics here. It started, really, the controversy started with regard to your brother when you started interviewing him during COVID. Right. Do you regret that? No, but I think it's more fair to say, subject to your own counter, that the media was pretty quiet when Andrew was first coming on the show. Why? Because people, it resonated with people in a way that nothing, now I've won almost every award that the TV journalism business has to offer, mostly because I've worked with the best teams that TV journalism has to offer. I've never had people thank me for what they saw as the help that they got during my reporting when I was sick with COVID, about the people around us who were in charge of COVID and the interviews with my brother, which my, everything I know about this situation tells me that, of course, there's a conflict of interest. But people got that, man. Nobody thought I was interviewing my brother the way I interview other people. That wasn't the point of purpose of those things. And I even said at the time, and people were like, you don't need to say that. The time will come when he can't come on this show anymore. There will be a time for accountability. There always is in crisis. And I can't cover him about that. People got that. The media should have gotten it. They should have seen it for what it was. And I believe that there was a purity test that was applied to that that wasn't really fair, given the context and circumstances as people understood them. That said, you are correct. That was something that was gonna come back to haunt me. It was just a question of when. You said also I never attacked or encouraged anyone to attack any women who came forward, which is probably the biggest issue, I think, to a lot of people, was the sense that you were helping doing research, for example, on whether there was any information about any of these women out there. For example, you said at one point, I have a lead on wedding girl, is something that had been talked about. And did you do any research, help try and find information about some of the women making accusations against your brother? And the text that you're talking about or whatever the communication is, is demonstrably not about that. This was a situation where there were so many accusers coming out that were a surprise, unaware, unknown, that's what the team was saying to me. I got a call from a friend who knew this woman and said, hey, I know who that is, said something about how he knew them. At the time, no one knew who she was. That's what that communication and context was about. Not me digging into trying to find something. I got a lead on her? I mean, a lead, what does that mean? Means that, that you don't know who she is, I think I know who she is. And therefore what? Therefore, when I then contacted, I think Melissa, but again, this will come out. She said, no, we know who that is. You're late on it. I said, oh, okay. Because I was contacted about it. I never made a phone call about it. I would never make a phone call about any of them. And I never did. And there will never be any proof of otherwise because it never happened. Yeah, great save, great. He hits it in the back of the net at the end. Oh man, that's too bad. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I think to your point, Greg, lots of exaggerated expressions really starting here now. Smiles, concern. So he's really kind of mugging it, gunning it for the British out there, pulling big faces to just, you know, clearly demonstrate to us the emotions and the feelings that we should be having around all of this. Not me digging, he says. And there's a succession of alternating shoulder raises, which is weird. It's like he can't shake this question often. I'm not quite sure what that's about. I hope somebody else has got some ideas around that one. I don't see that often. Then the story gets complicated, overly complicated. I frankly get lost. I don't know what he's talking about during this. I don't know where he's going, but he does knock it in the back of the net at the end with never happened. And you'd think, great, goal, he got it, but then he looks away. He looks away, he looks down and away. He shades his eyes and it's like, oh no, penalty, penalty. Chase, what do you got on this one? I totally agree. In my opinion, this story is all fake. The denial is rapid. It moves immediately into a sales pitch. The behavior is fake. The eye accessing is actually artificial. And if you watch this again, you'll see artificial eye access. He's got the answer ready, but he pauses to go, and it's a fake pause. He's got everything ready to go. The eyebrow flashes are an attempt to appear innocent because this is the opposite of anger. Anger pulls your eyebrows down and together. This big eyebrow flash is an innocent attempt. The facial expressions are over-exaggerated. There's false mark, you talked about that. I think this is extremely unusual that the denial at the end here is very specifically about the phone call only. Only a phone call, not an email, not a text. It's a very specific denial about the phone call not taking place. This is what a real denial looks like in the beginning or a real denial looks like at the end here about the phone call for his baseline. But keep in mind, the denial is probably, I would think, is absolutely true. But it's only about the phone call, not an email, not a personal chat, not a conversation, not about a Zoom call, but just a phone call. But I think that's true. The phone call probably didn't happen. Greg? Yeah, so we disagree about one thing. You think he's using his face intentionally, and I think it's like a roach when the lights come on. He uses it so instinctively that it's just happening. I don't think, I think it's like their little legs scurrying, he's not doing it thinking I'm doing this. He just so instinctively does it. And again, the organism does what made the organism successful, that's what he is. It's interesting, he's got those hands gripped tight and now stacked. I think he's barriering in some way there in addition to being in control.  He goes smooth in the face. When he calls him out on an accusation, he does a very quick nod, very short nod of acceptance. Not necessarily a good, I believe I'm gonna accept it this way, but it's admission that something's actually happening. His breathing rate increases and you can tell because his coat opens and closes. You can see his breathing rate increasing. He goes never and then he starts back into that quick, quick, how do I respond to this? Chase, you're right, he goes down left. He's looking in internal voice. Which words am I gonna use for this? Then he does something that's very New York, that kind of weird smile that's like, not so much, that's very New York. People do that to each other all the time. Yeah, no, and just move on to the next thing. Then when he talks about, he contacted Melissa. Look at the contempt, the outright contempt. One of the best contempt we see ever in a video is there for that. I don't know who she is, but then he just waves her away.  And then he goes on this conversation and he says, I called and they already knew.  Well, even though I found it and was calling, they already knew, so no big deal. And doing anything wrong is what that sounds like. It is a way of dismissing any participation, whether you did anything wrong or not, a way of dismissing any. My favorite part of the entire thing is when he says, therefore, and he says, therefore I'm chickens and cats and dogs and you could insert any word there because he's rambling to try to figure out how does he recover from that one? And he almost does it, but at the end, he says there's never going to be any proof of that. He doesn't say, then he says it didn't happen. Usually you say it didn't happen, didn't happen. Never gonna be a proof of that. He is very legalistic language coming from a lawyer. How do I feel about him after this? Probably not so good. Scott, what do you got? Man, you got almost everything I was talking, I was gonna talk about. All right, well, you see his hands are still fists when he comes to the beginning of that. Should be, I guess, and he's very still because he's a pro, that's what he does for a living. His cadence speeds up. So things are changing a little bit at this point. And during the question, we see these two blinks. One of them really, really takes a while to get open. I'm not so sure if it's all eye-blocking or all, but it looks pretty odd, but I can tell, or you can tell as well, that the heat's been turned up on him a little bit and he's starting to feel it. So that's probably what that's about. When he's asked, and like Greg was saying, when he's asked who he was checking into and that woman, Melissa, he said, I think Melissa, when he says, I think, that's when you need to look for that contemporary disdain because man, it's a good one. It's perfect, you're right, Greg. It's just like, mm, that's gonna be it. That's a great example of that. At the end, of course, when he says, there'll never be any proof otherwise because it never happened. That's when, again, you hear the fading facts on that. We hear fading facts when someone's being deceptive quite often, not every time, because they're trying to distance themselves as well.  And so they start getting quiet as they go along as it comes to the end. All right, is that everybody? Yeah. Yep. All right. You said also I never attacked or encouraged anyone to attack any women who came forward, which is probably the biggest issue, I think to a lot of people, was the sense that you were doing, helping doing research, for example, on whether there was any information about any of these women out there. For example, you said at one point, I have a lead on wedding girl, is something that had been talked about. And did you do any research, help try and find information about some of the women making accusations against your brother? Never. And the text that you're talking about or wherever the communication is, is demonstrably not about that. This was a situation where there were so many accusers coming out that were a surprise, unaware, unknown, that's what the team was saying to me. I got a call from a friend who knew this woman and said, hey, I know who that is, said something about how he knew them. At the time, no one knew who she was. That's what that communication and context was about. Not me digging into trying to find something. I got a lead on her. I mean, a lead, what does that mean? Means that, that you don't know who she is. I think I know who she is. And therefore what? Therefore, when I then contacted, I think, Melissa, but again, this will all come out. She said, no, we know who that is. You're late on it. I said, oh, okay. Because I was contacted about it. I never made a phone call about it. I would never make a phone call about any of them. And I never did. And there will never be any proof of otherwise because it never happened. When your brother gets in trouble, you start advising him, talking to him, being involved with the meetings, et cetera. What did you tell CNN about your involvement in those conversations? Did you say to them right at the outset, hey guys, I just want you to know I'm gonna be talking to my brother a lot through this process. It was known. Now, as you said, there's litigation. I want to respect it, but the reason I'm shy on this subject is not just pro forma because there's litigation. I really believe that I have to focus on things that I think are helpful to people. And I learned something during this period. I have been obsessed with what happened, when, what was known, and there are a lot of facts that I believe are gonna come out. I've also learned that they are largely only important to me, Dan, in terms of what I want people to think and how I want people to feel and how I want them to see me. That's about me. I don't think that it's helpful to a lot of other people. So yes, there's litigation going on, but I'm telling you, I never lied and there were no secrets. Well, look. Chase, what do you got? Right at this point where he says, did you essentially tell CNN? And he says, it was known. Well, by who? Of course it was known to some people, especially you. This is a fabulous example. I'll be using in my training courses from now on, this one clip. It's kind of like the question, what did you do after work? And somebody says, well, I usually go straight home. It's vague, it's ambiguous, and it's very deceptive. Doesn't 100% indicate deception? It indicates that this is a giant red flag that the interviewer or one of us would definitely jump on. There are a lot of facts I believe are gonna come out. He has this, that's a meaningless, what a profound statement. There's a lot of facts I believe are gonna come out. It's a court trial. Of course there's gonna be facts coming out. It's ridiculous. But look at the distance between his fingers now. This is also a sales pitch where it's more exaggerative. His fingers are really distance apart. This is not in his baseline at all. And when he says what I want people to think and feel, he says that's about him. I want you to go back and he says, what he wants people to think and feel about him is about him only. And he says he never lied, but he just finished rewriting every question the interviewer asked. Then he rewrote his answers in the color of his intent and not his words. That's called a lie. And it's funny that the test in politicians and people like this that are on TV a lot, to me is that the degree to which they pretend to be perfect is often the degree to which they are being deceptive. And I think we're seeing a lot of being perfect going on here. Scott, what do you got? All right, when he says I really believe, I'll believe he shudders. Check that out. It's the weirdest. I've never seen this before.  It's really, really odd. I've never seen that in someone who didn't have a neurological situation running in tandem with their interview or whatever. It just seemed really odd to me. His illustrators are almost on the money, almost there, just clipping him just a little bit, man. So that's a little iffy for me at that point for his, I think he's trying to be sincere about it, but I'm not sure he's being truthful about the whole thing. It seems a little deceptive to me. When he says, I never lied and there were no secrets. He counts them on his fingers. I never lied. There were no secrets. You know who else did that all the time? Lance Armstrong. That was one of his big ones.  Every time he did, he wasn't being honest about it. And we see in a little while, I think we're going to see in a little while, another instance where he looks like somebody else who's a famous liar as well. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So he says, reason I'm shy on this subject, not just pro forma for litigation, and he brings himself up to his full height in his chair. So he either likes this idea that he's put forward of, look, I can't really talk about this because you don't, if there's litigation going on, he either likes that or, you know, he likes the fact that he's got that in and he's now taken control again of why he's not going to properly speak around this. He says, focus on things that are helpful to people. And we see this weird shoulder thing again. Again, I don't know what that's about, but it's odd and I would want to check in to that because it's not stable. It's certainly not stable. There's something going on which has no stability to it. So I question that he is focused on things that people, the things that are helpful to people. Then in his talk there, there's what I would call a lot of nested loops which is when things just go round and round and round and start a new story, start a new subject, start a new subject. I'm pretty smart. I've been awarded by in many ways for my smartness and I work with very smart people. And I did not understand what he was talking about. So if I don't understand it, it's got to a level which is not too rational anymore, I would imagine.  I don't know.  Well, we'll withhold judgment until the end to figure that one out. But I'm gonna do this. This is such a good one. I'm gonna do it in charades. One word. That entire thing, if you're not a regular viewer you won't know what that means. Chaff and redirect to me is when an aircraft is flying along and a missile comes out and it dumps tons of garbage behind it, flares, all kinds of things. So those missiles will go after it. And so chaff and redirect is when I dump a lot of garbage out and you pick up on one of those and I don't have to answer the question. I challenge you. I challenge you to listen to his answer without listening to the question and try to figure out what the hell he was asked. Zero answer. Zero. I'll leave it at that. When your brother gets in trouble you start advising him, talking to him, being involved with the meetings, et cetera. What did you tell CNN about your involvement in those conversations? Did you say to them right at the outset, hey guys, I just want you to know I'm gonna be talking to my brother a lot through this process. It was known. Now, as you said, there's litigation. I wanna respect it, but the reason I'm shy on this subject is not just pro forma because there's litigation. I really believe that I have to focus on things that I think are helpful to people. And I learned something during this period. I have been obsessed with what happened, when, what was known, and there are a lot of facts that I believe are gonna come out. I've also learned that they are largely only important to me, Dan, in terms of what I want people to think and how I want people to feel and how I want them to see me. That's about me. I don't think that it's helpful to a lot of other people. So, yes, there's litigation going on, but I'm telling you, I never lied and there were no secrets. Hey, get there. Chris, I wanna talk a little bit more about what led to your being fired from CNN. Now, the official reason was always about Andrew Cuomo. It's about what you were doing, advising him behind the scenes and favoritism, et cetera. But there was reporting from the New York Times and the New York Post that the final issue was a claim of sexual assault against you. The New York Times says, quote, from a letter that they got, it relayed a story that had begun in 2011 when the woman who was referred to as Jane Doe was a young temporary ABC employee hoping for a full-time job one day after Mr. Cuomo and Anchor had offered her career advice. He invited her to lunch in his office according to the letter from her lawyer, interviews with the woman and emails between her and Mr. Cuomo. When she arrived, there was no food. Instead, Mr. Cuomo badgered her for sex and after she declined, he assaulted her. She said she ran out of the room. Your response to that? Denied it at the time, as soon as I heard about the allegation. Do you know who this woman is? I think I do. And none of this happened? None of this happened. Did you know or did you come to your office? Look, this will be part of the litigation in terms of things coming out. And I denied it. I am concerned about giving attention to stories. I am concerned about distracting from what's supposed to matter to people. And look, I'm happy to answer the questions. I think this is an important one, because this is- Look, all I can do is deny the allegation. We all know what happens here is the reason I didn't come out more forcefully early on is because everybody who gives you any advice about it says, all you'll do is feed it. All you'll do is feed it. And you know what? They're right, because that's how our business works. The reason that we want people who are involved, especially if they're a bold-faced name, is that it gives you another day on the piece. It's not because you've advanced the story. It's because, well, now there's a reason for people to want to consume it. I don't want to play that game any more than absolutely necessary. I denied the allegation at the time, nothing has changed. And do you have no understanding of why she would feel this way or make this claim? That is not for me to know. All right, I figured out who this guy, the interviewer, looks like. What's this guy's, the interviewer's name? Dan Abrams. You know who he looks like? Nosferatu's grandson. I'm telling you, man, put some fangs on this cat. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, if you watch him in the beginning again, the jacket, you can see respiration increase when he's asking the question because that jacket opens and closes. Uncharacteristic so far for Chris Cuomo is chin down. We usually associate chin down with shame or grief or something associated. He also does a distaste when he's asking the question and his blink rate is up. So all of that means, is there some stress starting to show on him? This is clearly a question that he has to be answering headlong. And what he probably has not been asked much in the media because he is tightly tied to the media. But in there, he says, I denied at the time and kind of threw that away. His messaging, here's the interesting piece. If you're looking for a reason that he's lying, I don't see a lot. I don't see a lot in his body language that says he's lying. What I do see is congruent messaging with, I think I know, which scares me even more because it means when he says, I think I know, in the next video, he's gonna tell us about talking to her. Well, if you think you know, that again is getting back to this is instinct for this guy, that he can do something that casual and do all the right stuff makes me really concerned. My opinion, all this is our opinions, but he goes to a helplessness and a slower response we typically associate with that. And then the most honest looking body language of the entire thing is he shows distaste at the reason I didn't come out more forcefully early on is, and you see regret in his face as he walks through this. I think he really probably does regret not coming out early and saying, nope, nothing happened and not being more forceful about it. And that shows in his body language. But the thing that's interesting to me is how he can go, I think I do. And then in the next video, talk about this woman with definite language. That makes me question how practiced he can be at delivering the messages correctly. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, interesting. So we see that adapter as he goes to his ear. I think he's got an earpiece in there, which he'd be used to, okay? So it's not necessarily that he's, you know, it's an adapter that he's pulling on his ear and everybody goes, oh yeah, so you're lying there. Now, what could be interesting here is that it's not in the ear that it's usually in for him. He may well usually sit where the interviewer would be and now he's being interviewed and you're always gonna have that earpiece away from the camera. So it can't be seen in there. Usually, not always, but usually. But having watched this whole interview through, he tends to go for that earpiece when he's talking about being in the business. It's his signal for going, you know what? I work in the media, by the way, I work in the media. So he's more overtly, I think, pointing it out to us as well as it may be being, him being unused to it being there and it's maybe therefore feeling a bit loose. But he does go, that's how the business works. So he's gonna tell us, look, what business, what this industry does is to take stories and prolong them when it's not really in the public interest. And he doesn't want to, as he says, play that media game now. He doesn't wanna play it now. Now he's on the wrong side of it. That's a bit arch, isn't it? I mean, either you play it from both sides or you shouldn't have done it in the first place. So I'm not very fond of that. Now, none of this happened, says the interviewer as a question and he says, none of this happened. He just repeats the question back with a downward intonation. So the response there for me isn't a great denial because I would prefer to hear just a no rather than a Seinfeld repeat or a kind of a reverse Chris Voss questioning technique when you say the thing back to the person but with an upward inflection at the end of it. So odd there that there's no, there is a denial but it's just a repeat of what somebody asked with a downward intonation. Scott, what do you got on this one? I agree with you. And when he does repeat that, it's fading facts. It's quieter as it goes. It doesn't do what it should do at that point. And then when he says, look, this will be part of the litigation in terms of coming out. After look, that's a mis-timed illustrator. Look, this will be part of the litigation in terms of things coming out. So at this point, it's getting a little bit iffy for me. When he says, and I denied it, he should have said, and I still deny it. He said, I denied it and should have added it. I still deny it but didn't do that. Then he says, I'm concerned about giving attention to stories and I'm concerned about distracting from what's supposed to matter to people. You know who that sounds like? Anybody? Anthony Weiner all day long. That's all he did was say stuff like that. Every time the question would come up, he'd say, hey, I'm happy to answer the question, but he wouldn't answer the questions at that point. And I think that's what's going on here. And he goes right into another Weiner classic where he says, I'm happy to answer the questions. That right there is where I'll lit him up because at that point, he's not answering anything. He's not doing what he says. He's staying there saying, I'm doing this while he's not doing that. Boy, that's just such an open shot that that guy could have got in there and just gone right in on him. And I think at this point, I think it's, I feel in my opinion, safe to say, and it's just my opinion, that this guy's line is fake tan off. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, definitely some deception going on out here. He shifts to internal dialogue here a lot during these questions because he's rehearsing the answer. I mean, my dog would be able to see some of the deception in here. And when this allegation is read and the interviewer says, what's your response to that? The response to that, I denied it at the time. That's super weird. And he knows how to speak, which means this is calculated deception. And there's distancing. There's lack of pronouns. There's a lack of denial. There's a vanishing perpetrator.  And that doesn't happen. That's the vanishing perpetrator. It's present here throughout the video. And he uses denied it again with no denial. And there's a fake facial expression for effect right when he says, I'm concerned. You can see this expression on his face. And I'm concerned by giving attention to the stories and stuff that matters and what's supposed to matter to people. He doesn't say what matters to people. He says what's supposed to matter to people because this isn't supposed to matter to people. And I think that was a little slip up. And there's some really slippery answers that are offering nothing of substance. Almost 99% of this entire video, the whole interview is zero substance. It's just hollow platitude, blather. And this forcefully, he's so forceful about having denied this at that time. And right at the end, that's not for me to know, that's the best. There's more smoke and non-answer statement. I get there. Chris, I wanna talk a little bit more about what led to your being fired from CNN. Now, the official reason was always about Andrew Cuomo. It's about what you were doing, advising him behind the scenes and favoritism, et cetera. But there was reporting from the New York Times and the New York Post that the final issue was a claim of sexual assault against you. The New York Times says, quote, from a letter that they got, it relayed a story that had begun in 2011 when the woman who was referred to as Jane Doe was a young temporary ABC employee hoping for a full-time job one day after Mr. Cuomo and Anker had offered her career advice. He invited her to lunch in his office according to the letter from her lawyer, interviews with the woman and emails between her and Mr. Cuomo. When she arrived, there was no food. Instead, Mr. Cuomo badgered her for sex and after she declined to assault at her, she said she ran out of the room. Your response to that? Denied it at the time, as soon as I heard about the allegation. Do you know who this woman is? Uh, I think I do. And none of this happened? None of this happened. Did you know or did she come to your office? Look, this will be part of the litigation in terms of things coming out. And I denied it. I am concerned about giving attention to stories. I am concerned about distracting from what's supposed to matter to people. And look, I'm happy to answer the questions. Yeah. Because I think this is an important one because this- All I can do is deny the allegation. We all know what happens here is the reason I didn't come out more forcefully early on is because everybody who gives you any advice about it says all you'll do is feed it. All you'll do is feed it. And you know what? They're right because that's how our business works. The reason that we want people who are involved, especially if they're a bold-faced name, is that it gives you another day on the piece. It's not because you've advanced the story. It's because, well, now there's a reason for people to want to consume it. I don't want to play that game anymore that absolutely necessary. I denied the allegation at the time, nothing has changed. And you have no understanding of why she would feel this way or make this claim. That is not for me to know. Furthermore, they said that years later, and I'm going to continue reading from the New York Times, after years without any substantive communication from Mr. Cuomo whatsoever, Ms. Doe suspected he was concerned about her coming forward publicly with her allegations and wanted to use a proposed segment as an opportunity to test the waters and discourage her from going on the record about his sexual misconduct. And then they say that you did a specific segment on TV for the company she was working at to benefit her as a way to keep her quiet. Okay. Not true? It's for her to explain. It's absolutely not true. But it's for her to explain. But you did reach out to her and... Yes, but actually I didn't, but the show did. And it was a no-brainer segment. Again, these are things for someone else to explain, not me. Someone else meaning... If you're going to make the allegation, then it's about how you feel and what you think. And my feeling is it's in the past. I'm never going to be able to convince people one way or another. I feed the story by commenting on it. I denied it and you try to move on. A big aspect of our business is we'll say it's accountability. We'll say it's responsibility, but I don't know that that's always true. I'm not indicting you asking me the questions. I'm saying that I think that a focus of coverage very often is about extending and prolonging drama, not about finding the truth. And that matters to me more now than before all of this. I mean, even in a way, if I almost feel like apologizing to your audience, you're doing your job, don't get me wrong. But I don't want them to feel that I'm gonna talk about me and not about them and that this really matters and this should matter to you. I know it doesn't matter to other people the way it does to me. I get it, I get it, but this is kind of the state of play. All right, Greg, what do you got? I'm gonna be short on this and... What? What? Just what?  I think he's probably telling the truth right here. That matters to him now because he's on the griddle. He's on the other side of this thing and he doesn't wanna be dragged out. He doesn't want us giving our opinions of what he's doing. He doesn't want other people giving opinions of what he's doing. And that's the most truthful thing I've seen and the most honest thing I've seen out of it. Other than that, I have no idea what he's talking about. It's just long, lots of words. It's like he's a lawyer and he's being paid by the word. Don't know, maybe that's it. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, this is maybe not one of the worst liars but definitely one of the most insincere human beings that we've ever done on the entire show. Two years of doing this.  Any question that he was asked, he didn't really answer it. He renegotiates every detail. It's kind of like interviewing a teenager and when he's saying he reached out to her only just one video ago, he said he thinks, just kind of thinks he knows who she is. Like Greg mentioned this and the allegation is already made and explained and he's saying, my feeling is this is in the past. This is in the past, so things that occur in the past should no longer be relevant today. That's what's going on. We're seeing that strategy come out. Then he asks himself a question again and he answers it again and he's saying finding the truth matters so much more Greg, you covered that just because it's about him. And he say, you're doing your job, don't get me wrong to the other guy. I don't want them to feel that I'm going to talk about me. That is astonishing. And that's literally all you talk about. That's the entire clip is him talking about himself. Everything is about him. The entire thing, how awarded he is, how perfect he is. And this is, I dare say, a bit disgusting to watch. It's another example of someone pretending really, really hard to be perfect which in itself is a gigantic red flag. The facial expressions here are full of eyebrow flashes, false smiles and almost smugness toward Dan Abrams to regain some kind of hierarchical superiority or maybe one might say status over the interviewer there. Mark, what do you think? He said it well. He said it well. I just got one question. Why has he suddenly become a media vigilante? Suddenly, is there like going, look, we cannot prolong stories like this. I almost want to apologize to your audience that the media does this thing. He was an absolute part of it. He was a massive cog in that machine and now he's raging against the machine. What's the motivation for that other than you might be about to get minced in that machine and you want to stop that machine? Well, he's unlikely to manage to do that. He might be able to do it with his own podcast and run his own stories about himself in that. Maybe that's what his idea is. But you've got to understand now this story is nothing to do with his integrity. He's managed to spin it to the integrity of the media. It's no longer let's question you, Chris Cromwell. He's like, no, let's not question me. Let's question the media on the whole and stop this ridiculous jamboree that happens on stories like this. I'm a little disgusted by it as well. I have to say, Scott, what do you got on this one? All right, this is where everything changes. Everything's gone on at a pretty good pace at this point. This is where everything slows down. His voice gets a little bit lighter. It gets quieter. His tone changes. His attitude, the tone and his attitude changes as well. He gets quiet about 5 dB quieter than he was earlier. Everything's being softened at this point. This isn't the baseline we've seen at this point at all. And I think Greg, if you had him in the box and he started this, I think it's so bad you'd start giggling. You'd have to say, I'll be back in about five minutes. That's how bad I think it is at this point. His answers, the words he's using to set up his answers, those changes as well. They get really small, really small. It seems like I'm talking weird. Everybody watching this is always comments to go, something's doing this, or Scott's hair this, or I'm supposed to get a root canal.  So that's what it is. Anyway, back to what I'm talking about. His words get smaller. The structure of his sentences get tinier. Everything starts getting compressed almost, but very light on there. I know before I said that the other one, I think was the most insincere. I think this is the most insincere and he's full of it. I couldn't figure out where he was going with this. I don't know what was going on half the time in there. So it was just amazing. That was really, really amazing to see him, the balls it took to go ahead and lean into that like that. Wow, unbelievable. So, well, you know, when you're famous, you have to, what it sounded like to me, it's just rambling stuff. Yeah, yeah. Furthermore, they said that years later, and I'm gonna continue reading from the New York Times, after years without any substantive communication from Mr. Cuomo whatsoever, Ms. Doe suspected he was concerned about her coming forward publicly with her allegations and wanted to use a proposed segment as an opportunity to test the waters and discourage her from going on the record about his sexual misconduct. And then they say that you did a specific segment on TV for the company she was working at to benefit her as a way to keep her quiet. Okay. Not true? It's for her to explain. It's absolutely not true, but it's for her to explain. But you did reach out to her and? Yes, but actually I didn't, but the show did, and it was a no-brainer segment. Again, these are things for someone else to explain, not me. Someone else meaning? If you're gonna make the allegation, then it's about how you feel and what you think. And my feeling is it's in the past. I'm never gonna be able to convince people one way or another. I feed the story by commenting on it. I denied it. And you try to move on. A big aspect of our business is we'll say it's accountability, we'll say it's responsibility, but I don't know that that's always true. I'm not indicting you asking me the questions. I'm saying that I think that a focus of coverage very often is about extending and prolonging drama, not about finding the truth. And that matters to me more now than before all of this.  Don't get me wrong. But I don't want them to feel that I'm gonna talk about me and not about them and that this really matters and this should matter to you. I know it doesn't matter to other people the way it does to me. I get it, I get it. But this is kind of the state of play. Let's go around the room one time in 30 seconds or less and talk about what we think we've seen. Mark, you wanna go first? Yeah, I'm just gonna say, at least watching this, we got a bit of a first for me, which was this gesture here. I haven't seen that before. I can see how useful it is to be able to launch up into some gestures and take control of things and suppress yourself at the same time. Really interesting to see. Not a character that I like particularly. Good spin doctor though. Super spin doctor. Chase, what do you think? I think this is the first step in the Gangnam style dance. Yes. You're right. That might be what we're seeing. You're right. But it's like everything is fake. Every word is fake. Everything is fabricated, fake and hollow. The words don't really mean anything. You've heard it from four behavior experts. And I think I'll go deep on little psychology here. I think there's a struggle with an identity that he built that conflicts with another that is being very well hidden or trying to be very well hidden. And I believe my opinion, he suffers with some self-control issues and possibly some rage and has an ego that hides under this veneer. And I'm sure you all can see some of this, but there are a few people who I bet can't even see any of that and thought this was a great interview. Greg? Yeah, first of all, Mark, I've had many interviewers who stack their hands like that. Yeah. Yeah, I think he's cable tied, is he? No, he's not. But yeah, mine usually were cable tied or restrained some capacity. And so they would hold their hands like this all the time when they were talking to me. So yeah, not the first time I've seen it. However, yeah, this for me, I watch this thing on the surface and on the surface level, if you just pay attention and listen to the things that sounds like he's trying to come out and say, hey, I made mistakes and and and and and I should have been more considerate until you start paying attention to the fact all he's doing is redirecting the question. He's not answering any complex parts and we'll even give you reasons because of lawsuits and and and. My opinion, this is hard to trust, hard to believe. And then that last two videos when he says, I think I know when he looks honest and then says, oh yeah, that happened. And knows exactly who we're talking about. That kind of just throws the whole toy box upside down. So do I trust him? No. Do I think most people would trust him based on how quickly he answers the questions? Maybe. So it's really hard for us to separate those things. Scott, what do you got? All right, I agree with you. All you guys, this is just, it's all just fluff, man. There's nothing really there. When you ask him a question, Chase, you broke it down perfectly. He just doesn't say anything. There's really nothing happening there. He just skirts around everything. Just wiggles around every, every time there's a question. But this guy's coming on pretty strong with him, which was really, it was almost shocking to see that. Cause I think they're friends. I think they know each other. And this guy was really trying to get in there and give him, you know, all he's got on that. So that was kind of impressive, I thought. But there were still some times where he could have dug in there and really just let him have it real, you know, in a way that he didn't do it. So I hope you guys think this was a good one and we'll see you next time. See you. So what do you got?


Hey everybody, welcome to the Waldoch Way. I'm Jessica. Today's video is going to be about teaching textbooks. You guys, I told you in our end of the year homeschool review that teaching textbooks kind of saved our homeschool the last third of our homeschool year. And I had a lot of messages and a lot of comments, kind of about that. So I wanted to come on here and talk to you about teaching textbooks and then maybe show you a little bit inside it, kind of behind the scenes, maybe even let Emily tell you what she thinks of it. We just kind of wanted to try to tell you guys about it. So we decided to try teaching textbooks again because they had switched to the 4.0, which is fantastic. It now means that you can use teaching textbooks not only on a computer, but also on a mobile device, which means we can use it on the go if we ever get to go anywhere again. When we start car schooling again, when the world opens back up, you can take your math with you, which was a fantastic option for us. I also really liked that it had been upgraded. The interface was different. And so we just wanted to give it a new try, see what we thought about it. And well, like I said, we were butting heads and we were having too much togetherness. So having math taught to her by somebody else was a fantastic option in my opinion. And it worked fabulously. Emily really, really loved it. She enjoyed it. She enjoyed the colors and the characters. She likes that they read everything aloud to her. She likes the demonstrations. The lessons are concise, but thorough, but they're also not super long. She can do them in less than 30 minutes a day, which is really great. I have found her confidence is better than it has ever been in math this year because of teaching textbooks. I've watched her math confidence and just kind of like that light bulb moment almost kind of come on and happen this year because of it. So it was a great, great choice for our homeschool year, especially this year when I just needed somebody else to teach it. I love that I still have a lot of control over it too. I can see in the teacher's grade book where she's at, what she's doing. We have a rule that if she makes less than a 90, she has to come and tell me so that we can go over it together. I mean, 90 or above, she missed one or two questions, okay, but if she makes a 90 or below, she has to tell me right then. And so I can go in, I can see what she missed. I can reset it and let her try again. I can delete the lesson and we can go through it together step by step. I can print the ebook so that we can do it on paper because maybe she just needed the pen and paper side of it. There's so many different options that are available to us with teaching textbooks. And one of those is even a tutor. If you really, really get stuck, if me and her can't figure it out, which we haven't had to do that yet, but there is that option available as well with teaching textbooks. So it has been a fantastic math program for us. I have loved everything about it and I'm pretty sure she has to, but I'm gonna let her be the one to tell you what she thinks about it. And then we're gonna show you a little bit inside. I love teaching textbooks because there are so many cool things about it. You can have a buddy and you can change its background in this new version. The cool thing is that you can do it on the go or do it on your computer, which is also really cool. Like if we're doing our errands, I can just bring my tablet and I can go on teaching textbooks and do it on the go. Lesson 68, comparison word problems. Today's lesson is about word problems where you have to compare two things. Here's our first problem. Tommy caught nine fly balls. Dave only caught two.  Notice the words how many more.  And the way to do it is to subtract. You just subtract nine minus two.   Whenever you have to compare two numbers and figure out how much more one is than the other, you always subtract the numbers. Here's another comparing problem. This one's a little bit different. Gina has seven more buttons on her book bag than Tammy. If Gina has 18 buttons, how many does Tammy have? This time the problem tells us how many more. It says that Gina has seven more buttons than Tammy on her book bag. And we know Gina has 18. So the way to figure out how many Tammy has is to subtract again. We need to basically find the difference between 18 and seven. Why don't you go ahead and subtract? That's right. So Tammy must have 11 buttons on her book bag. And that's the answer. The most important word in this problem was more. The problem says that Gina has seven more buttons than Tammy. The word more is usually a clue that you need to subtract in a problem. Other words to watch out for are larger or smaller or taller or shorter or older or younger or higher or lower. When you see any of those words in a problem that probably means that you should subtract. Here's one more example. Veronica bought a picture frame that was 12 inches tall. Rochelle bought a frame that was five inches shorter. How many inches tall is Rochelle's frame? The word shorter is our clue that we need to subtract on this one. What we need to do is 12 minus five.  Excellent. So the answer here is seven. And since the measurements in the problem are in inches, we know that Rochelle's frame has to be seven inches tall. That's actually not very tall because an inch is just about the size of a paper clip. So Rochelle's frame is as tall as seven paper clips. It's pretty short.