Get the Truth Quotes

“One of the most essential elements of the mantra to do no harm is the avoidance of sitting in judgment of anyone. The simple fact is that no good can come from being judgmental of a person in an interrogation situation—in fact, it can severely harm the process. When you’re judging someone, you’re necessarily displaying a bias, and bias can only have a negative impact on your ability to get the truth. Of course, we’re all human, and sometimes we have a natural inclination to judge people who mess up. One of the best ways we’ve found to fight that inclination is to remember a fundamental verity in life: Sometimes good people do stupid things.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Anyone who commits a crime, misrepresents the facts, or tells a lie may put himself in a situation that forces him to deal with cognitive dissonance. Generally, the person is well aware that doing those things is wrong, and therefore bad. Yet he likely doesn’t think of himself as a wrongdoer, or a bad person, so he’s forced to reconcile these conflicting beliefs. In an interrogation situation, the monologue serves as a means of aiding that reconciliation in a way that’s conducive to a confession, because it relieves the person of the mental discomfort that’s caused by the dissonance. The monologue is meant to prevent the person from focusing on the ramifications of the wrongdoing by keeping him in short-term thinking mode. We help him alleviate the pain he’s feeling by giving him a remedy: a convincing argument, strengthened by rationalization, minimization, and socialization, that resolves the conflict. The resolution allows him to acknowledge the bad act, without having to accept the premise that he’s a bad person.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“As you begin your information collection, it’s vitally important for Jan to feel good about the path she’s chosen, so that she’ll be inclined to continue to share truthful information with you. Your focus, then, needs to be on rewarding Jan for her decision, and we’ve found that a simple thank-you is a very powerful reward: “Jan, thank you for that. That took a lot of courage.” You’ll also need to squash any urge to bask in your victory—far from haughty, your tone should be sympathetic: “I know that was very difficult, but you did the right thing.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“The transition statement is the first sentence or two of the monologue. It takes the form of a direct observation of concern (DOC), a direct observation of guilt (DOG), or some variant that falls between the two.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“know you care, and I want you to care. It’s obvious that you care. I want to be able to show that you worked with me. I want to be able to show that you cooperated. I want to be able to show that you are sorry. I want to be able to show that you are never ever going to do anything like this again because I truly, honestly believe that. I need to tell them that you resolved it.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“The sun will come up tomorrow, just as it always has.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Verbal deceptive indicator – A deceptive behavior that involves verbal communication in response to a question. Verbal/nonverbal disconnect – A deceptive behavior in which a person’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors in response to a question don’t match. The most common verbal/nonverbal disconnect occurs when a person nods affirmatively while saying “no,” or turns his head from side to side while saying “yes.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Short-term thinking – Focusing on what matters at the moment, rather than on potential consequences over the long term. Socialization – An element of a monologue that is designed to encourage a person to share truthful information by suggesting that the activity under investigation is one that is regularly engaged in by others. Stimulus – The question that prompts a behavioral response. Throat-clearing/swallowing – A nonverbal deceptive behavior in which a person clears his throat or performs a significant swallow prior to answering the question. Timing – The guideline in our deception detection model dictating that the initial deceptive behavior must begin within the first five seconds after the stimulus. Transition statement – Statement made by the questioner to allow for a transparent transition from an interview to an interrogation. It is the first sentence or two of the monologue, and takes the form of a direct observation of concern (DOC) or a direct observation of guilt (DOG). Unintended message – A truthful statement made by a deceptive person that, when the literal meaning of the statement is analyzed, conveys information that the person does not realize he’s conveying. We also refer to this as “truth in the lie.” Vague question – A question to be avoided because it allows for excessive latitude in”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Rationalization – An element of a monologue that is designed to encourage a person to share truthful information by suggesting that there is a socially acceptable reason that to some degree might excuse the activity under investigation. Reciprocity – A term used by social psychologists to describe the tendency of people to respond to a kind act or concession with kindness and conciliation, or, conversely, to an unkind act with comparable unkindness. Referral statement – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person refers to a previous response to the question. This takes advantage of repetition as a psychological tool that can make the questioner more open to a possibility than he otherwise might have been. Reluctance/refusal to answer – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person claims to be unable to answer the question, ostensibly due to a lack of knowledge or to being the wrong person to ask. Repeating the question – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person repeats the question he’s asked as a means of buying time to formulate his response. Selective memory – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person creates a psychological alibi by responding to a question with a stated inability to remember.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Optimism bias – A cognitive bias that causes people to believe that they are less at risk of a negative outcome, or more likely to enjoy a positive outcome, than other people in a given situation. Overly specific answer – A verbal deceptive behavior in which the person’s response is too narrow and technical at one extreme, or too detailed and exhaustive at the other. Perception qualifier – A verbal deceptive behavior employed to enhance credibility. Examples: “frankly,” “to be perfectly honest,” “candidly.” Presumptive question – A question that presumes something to be the case. Process/procedural complaint – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person takes issue with the proceedings. It may be a delaying tactic or an attempt to steer the proceedings down a different path. Projection of blame – An element of a monologue that is designed to encourage a person to share truthful information by suggesting that the blame for the matter at hand does not rest exclusively with him. Psychological alibi – An attempt to deceive through the use of selective memory or ostensibly limited knowledge. Psychological entrenchment – The condition in which a person feels compelled to dig his heels in the ground and stick to his story, making the information collection process especially difficult. Question prologue – A short, narrative explanation preceding a question that is designed to prime the information pump, so that if the person is on the fence about whether or not he’s going to give you something, it will help to influence him to come down on your side of the fence. Rationalization – An element of”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Monologue – A verbal exercise that characterizes the elicitation process, designed to keep the person in short-term thinking mode, dissuade him from expressing resistance or voicing a denial, and convince him of the acceptability of disclosing the information he had intended to withhold. Negative question – A question that is phrased in a way that negates an action. This question type is to be avoided because it conveys an expectation of a response that potentially lets the person off the hook. Example: “You didn’t flirt with her, did you?” Nonanswer statement – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person responds to a question with a statement that does not answer the question, but rather buys him time to formulate a response that he hopes will satisfy the questioner. Example: “That’s a very good question.” Nonverbal deceptive indicator – A deceptive behavior that is exhibited in response to a question and that does not involve verbal communication. Open-ended question – A question that is asked as a means of establishing the basis for a discussion or to probe an issue. Example: “What were you doing in Las Vegas when you were supposed to be visiting your mother in Tampa?” Opinion question – A question that solicits a person’s opinion as a means of assessing his likely culpability in a given situation. The “punishment question” falls into this category. Example: “What do you think should happen to a person who dines in a restaurant and leaves without paying?” Optimism bias – A cognitive bias”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Lie of commission – A lie that is conveyed by means of making a statement that is untrue. Lie of influence – A lie that is conveyed by means of attempting to manipulate perception rather than to provide truthful information. Lie of omission – A lie that is conveyed by means of withholding the truth. L-squared mode – Using one’s visual and auditory senses to look and listen simultaneously in order to observe both verbal and nonverbal deceptive behaviors as they’re exhibited in response to a question. Microexpression – A split-second movement of facial muscles that conveys an emotion such as anger, contempt, or disgust. We recommend avoiding reliance on microexpressions, due to their impracticality and the fact that there is no microexpression for deception. Mind virus – A colloquial term for the psychological discomfort a person feels when he receives information that has potentially negative consequences, causing his mind to race with hypothetical ramifications of the information. Minimization – An element within a monologue that is designed to minimize the perception of negative consequences that may be associated with sharing truthful information. Mirroring – Subtly imitating the movements or gestures of another person to enhance familiarity and liking.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Inappropriate level of politeness – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person interjects an overly polite or unexpectedly kind or complimentary comment directed at the questioner when responding to a question. Example: Uncharacteristic use of “sir” or “ma’am” when responding to a particular question. Inappropriate question – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person responds with a question that doesn’t directly relate to the question that’s asked. Inconsistent statement – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person makes a statement that is inconsistent with what he said previously, without explaining why the story has changed. Interrogation – See Elicitation. Interview – A means of establishing a dialogue with a person to collect information that he has no reason to want to withhold. Invoking religion – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person makes a reference to God or religion as a means of “dressing up the lie” before presenting it. Example: “I swear on a stack of Bibles, I wouldn’t do anything like that.” Leading question – A question that contains the answer that the questioner is looking for. Legitimacy statement – A statement within a monologue that is designed to explain the purpose or reasoning behind what the interrogator is conveying.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Global behavior assessment – A behavior assessment strategy that focuses on maximizing information collection and analyzing general behavior, rather than focusing on specific behaviors exhibited in response to a question. Grooming gesture – A nonverbal deceptive behavior in which anxiety is dissipated through physical activity in the form of grooming oneself or the immediate surroundings. Halo effect – A cognitive bias in which a person is viewed favorably on the basis of a single positive attribute or impression. Hand-to-face activity – A nonverbal deceptive behavior in which a person touches his face or head region in response to a question, which can be prompted by discomfort associated with circulatory changes triggered by the fight-or-flight response. Hiding mouth or eyes – A nonverbal deceptive behavior in which a person uses a hand to shield his mouth or eyes when responding to a question, or closes his eyes when responding to a question that does not require reflection. Ideational fluency – The ability to shift one’s thinking instantaneously as the situation warrants. Inappropriate level of concern – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person attempts to equalize the exchange by trying to diminish the importance of the matter at hand. He may focus on either the issue or the process (Example: “Why is everybody making such a big deal about this?”); or he might even attempt to joke about”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Elicitation – A process designed to influence or persuade an individual to reveal information that he has reason to want to conceal. This process is characterized by use of a monologue rather than a dialogue. (Used synonymously with interrogation.) Equitable distribution – A term used to describe the legal process of dividing a married couple’s assets in a divorce proceeding. Exclusion qualifier – A verbal deceptive behavior used to enable a person who wants to withhold certain information to answer a question truthfully, but without releasing that information. Examples: “basically,” “for the most part,” “fundamentally,” “probably,” “most often.” Failure to answer – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person’s response does not answer the question that’s asked. Failure to understand a simple question – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person’s response is an expression of confusion over an easily comprehensible question. This strategy is typically used when a person feels trapped by the wording of the question and needs to shrink its scope. Fight-or-flight response – A triggering of the autonomic nervous system that reroutes circulation to the body’s major organs and muscle groups to prepare the body to deal with a threatening situation. Forer effect – A cognitive bias named for psychologist Bertram Forer, who found that people tend to rate as highly accurate a personality analysis that is presented as being individualized, when it is actually so general in nature that it could apply to almost anyone. (Also known as Barnum statements.)”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Compound question – A question type that is to be avoided because it contains more than one question, making behavioral analysis of the response difficult due to potential confusion over what part of the question is causing the deceptive behavior. Example: “How frequently do you go running, and where do you typically run?” Confirmation bias – A cognitive bias in which people search for or interpret information in a way that supports an initial belief or a desired outcome. Convincing statement – A true or irrefutable statement made in an effort to convince the accuser and to influence his perception, rather than to convey information that addresses the facts of the case. Denial behavior – A category of verbal deceptive behavior in which a person appears to have a problem with denying an allegation. This can take the form of failing to deny the allegation altogether; providing a nonspecific denial (Example: “I would never do something like that”); or providing an isolated delivery of the denial by burying it in a long-winded answer. Direct observation of concern (DOC) – A transition statement that lies at the low end of the confidence spectrum. Direct observation of guilt (DOG) – A transition statement that lies at the high end of the confidence spectrum.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Anchoring – A term used in the negotiation context to describe a person’s heavy reliance on the first piece of information provided or offer made by the other party, creating an expectation of an outcome other than what was first envisaged. Anchor point – Any part of the body that anchors a person to a particular spot or position, including the feet, which are always anchor points. We look at anchor point movement as a potential nonverbal deceptive behavior in which anxiety is dissipated through the physical movement. Attack behavior – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person attacks the questioner as a means of compelling him to back off from a particular line of questioning. This often takes the form of attempting to impeach the credibility or competence of the questioner. Example: “How long have you been doing this job?” Autonomic nervous system – The part of the nervous system that controls the functions of body organs and involuntary physical reactions to stimuli. Bait question – A question that establishes a hypothetical situation and is designed to trigger a mind virus. Bait questions typically begin with the phrase, “Is there any reason that…” Baselining – Comparing observed behavior with an established norm. This is a behavior assessment strategy that we recommend be avoided because of the high potential for drawing a faulty conclusion.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Don’t rush your pace between questions. After the subject responds to a question, take a momentary pause that’s just south of awkward before you ask your next question. The brief silence gives you time to digest the response, and to determine what your next question should be. In addition, a guilty person may blurt out a nugget of information that you wouldn’t have gotten if you had rushed into your next question. •    Maintain a noncoercive, nonadversarial demeanor throughout the process. Always treat the subject with dignity, respect, and compassion. •    Make the person feel good about disclosing information by rewarding him with statements like, “Thanks for sharing that,” or “That’s helpful, thank you.” •    Always incorporate catch-all questions to uncover lies of omission or information that was overlooked: “What else can we talk about that will help us understand your situation?” “What haven’t I asked you today that you think I should know about?”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Ask simple, unambiguous, and straightforward questions. Always avoid asking compound questions, leading questions, negative questions, or questions that are confusing or overly broad. •    Always be alert for follow-up opportunities. Remember to ask, “What else?” •    Avoid falling into the trap of a checklist mentality. Effective interviewing is a very dynamic process, and is much more complex than simply asking a prepared list of questions. •    Keep note taking to a minimum during the interview—you’ll be less likely to miss important information conveyed by the subject, and any deceptive behaviors he may exhibit. During an interrogation, don’t take any notes at all—if the subject is reminded that you’re recording everything he says, he’ll be less likely to remain in short-term thinking mode. •    Don’t waste time on tangential issues. Ask yourself, “Is this really what we want to know?” “Are we asking high-priority questions here?”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Collect information in chronological order. Otherwise, you’ll risk missing key events or confusing the suspect. •    Don’t accept information at face value. Continually test information with follow-up questions: “How do you know that to be so?” “Why do you say that?” “On what do you base that information?” •    Never be afraid to say, “I don’t understand.” Be absolutely sure to clarify anything that doesn’t make sense to you. •    Ask open-ended questions to solicit a narrative response as a means of establishing the basis for the discussion, or of probing an issue. When asking open-ended questions, allow the subject to answer without interruption—the more information he provides, the greater the likelihood that he’ll make an inconsistent statement or reveal meaningful information. You want to keep the information faucet flowing. Always test the narrative with follow-up questions.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“When using more than one questioner, ensure that you identify roles beforehand. One questioner takes the lead, while the other observes, takes notes, and considers follow-up questions—all without interrupting. When the first questioner is finished, he turns to the second questioner and “passes the baton” by saying, “That’s all I have. Do you have anything?” At this point, the roles reverse. The baton passing continues until both questioners are satisfied that the subject has revealed all of the truthful information he intends to disclose. There are advantages to having only one questioner in the room—remember the maxim “People don’t confess to crowds.” The baton passing helps create the sense of a one-on-one, rather than a two-on-one, encounter. •    Briefly apprise the subject of exactly what the issue is, and why you’re talking to him. Cryptic introductions or “hiding the ball” only work in the movies.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Understand that exhaustive preparation is absolutely essential. Know your case facts inside and out, identify the most important issues to cover, and formulate the key questions to ask. Take note of gaps in information, inconsistencies, and things that don’t fit or add up. Prioritize your issues and questions. Cover your most important issues sooner rather than later. That allows you to manage time constraints, and to take advantage of the suspect’s anxiety, which will generally be at its peak at the beginning of the session—the subject will be more likely to exhibit deceptive behaviors that you can analyze. You probably will only have one bite at the apple. •    Have a concrete plan and a well-considered strategy. Identify what it is you want to accomplish. Short of a confession, you must establish specific timelines for the subject’s activities, and details regarding his alibi, injuries, and any other key issues. In other words, lock him in tight to a story. The rule of thumb is to be excruciatingly methodical. This sends the message that you will leave no stone unturned.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“signs of deceptive behavior. With each admission, remember to avoid a deep dive into any one issue. Your best bet is to aim for little nuggets of information, so it doesn’t appear that you’re asking for a big data dump and an emotionally draining confession. Then, when you have all those nuggets and it’s time for your deep dive, don’t go back to the beginning—start with the most recent admission first. That’s likely the most serious matter, because it’s the one she tried hardest to conceal. Keep in mind as you’re collecting those nuggets how essential it is to remain engaged. As we pointed out in Chapter 6, engaging the person you’re interrogating is a vital element in coming across as sincere, which will in turn help you in your effort to persuade the person to share the information you’re seeking. But we should make it clear that it’s equally important to be engaged from the standpoint of ensuring that you don’t miss any of those nuggets that are coming at you.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Jan, I appreciate this. I know it was difficult. But trust me, it’s not the end of the world. Let me ask you, Jan, what other times has something like this happened?” Let’s say that in response to your question, Jan, visibly upset that she’s in this predicament, summons the courage to admit that she once slipped a few Vicodin tablets into her pocket. What that tells you is that Jan had additional information that she didn’t want to share with you, so it follows that she may well have more information that she wants to withhold. To deal with that, think of the Vicodin admission as what we call a “cliff moment.” What Jan may have been thinking was, “Okay, I can tell her about the oxycodone and the Vicodin, but I can’t tell her about this and this and this, because if I told her all of that, there’s no way I’d be able to keep my job.” It’s like she’s standing on the edge of a cliff, and if she takes one more step, she’s gone. Your job is to explore what’s in the ravine on the other side of the cliff. So when Jan tells you about the Vicodin, you acknowledge it, reward her, and keep right on going as if she never even said it. The two most important words in this information collection process are “what else.” Think of each subsequent admission as having come to another cliff, and keep exploring what’s on the other side. If she exhibits deceptive behavior, you go right back into the monologue. If she admits to something else, you reward. Then you keep going until she says there is nothing else, and she shows no”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“When she hears that, there are two paths Jan can take. One path is to immediately respond with resistance, in which case you’ll need to go right back into your monologue. The other path takes you to your desired destination: the truth. In that case, you go straight into the information collection phase of your interrogation.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“you get such an indication from Jan that she’s going to try to derail you with a denial, or if she beats you to the punch and is able to voice the denial, there are several immediate actions you can take to quash her effort. First, if you want to get a person to stop talking, a very effective way to accomplish that is with one word: the person’s name. A fascinating nuance of human communication is that when we hear our name, we have a natural inclination to switch from speaking mode to listening mode, because it’s the way people typically get our attention to tell us something—we hear our name, and our ears perk up. The next step is to use a control phrase, like, “Jan, hold on a second,” or “Jan, give me a chance to make this clear.” That enables you to gain control of the exchange, and to ease back into your monologue. As always, it needs to be conveyed calmly, and without raising your voice—trying to control the situation by turning up your volume will create a confrontational atmosphere that will only make your job more difficult. Third, a remarkably effective mechanism to get someone to stop talking is the universal stop sign: You hold up your hand. You do it almost as a gesture of self-defense—you’re not extending it out aggressively and shoving it into the person’s face, or doing it with attitude. It’s a visual amplification of your control phrase, and it’s more powerful than you might imagine. The reason is that this is a verbal battle, and when you get the person to stop talking, you’ve taken away his weapon. In medieval times, it was a clash of swords;”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Jan, I know you’re upset. Please understand that’s not my intent—the last thing I want to do is to make this any harder for you than it has to be. And you also need to understand that it’s not going to fix anything—getting upset isn’t going to do either one of us any good.” And then you go right back to your monologue.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“This doesn’t make any sense. I’ve been working here for six years, and I’ve never, ever been accused of doing anything wrong. I’ve trained most of the other techs, and they respect me. I’m just not the type of person who would do something like that. Why would I risk my job for some damn oxycodone?” Jan wants to persuade you that you’re barking up the wrong tree, and her game plan is to accomplish that by painting herself with a halo. Everything she said was either true—she did indeed train most of the other techs, and they do indeed respect her—or irrefutable—whether or not she’s the type of person who would do something like that is yet to be determined. Those convincing statements are powerful because they’re so, well, convincing. You can even imagine yourself saying something like that if you were falsely accused of the theft. The difference is that in all likelihood, while you might find yourself making one of these statements during the exchange, your focus would be on making the point that you didn’t do it, rather than on coming up with a raft of convincing statements as a means of painting that halo. So when you hear those statements from Jan, you need to recognize them for what they are, and sap their power by neutralizing them. The way to do that is to simply agree with them: “Jan, listen, you’re exactly right—everyone in the store knows how hard you work. I’m always hearing the other techs say how helpful you are, and you’ve certainly been very helpful to me over the years.”   USING AGREEMENT TO NEUTRALIZE CONVINCING STATEMENTS •    By agreeing with Jan, you’ve conveyed that you have, without question,”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All

“Sally, as I was preparing to sit down to talk to you, one of the things that occurred to me, knowing what I know about you, is why would this happen to her? Why might she do something like this? You know, over the years, I’ve talked to a lot of people who do things for reasons that nobody can justify, or understand. But what if this is a totally different situation? For example, I ask myself, what if I were to go home one night, and my son and daughter looked up at me and said, ‘Mommy, what’s for dinner?’ And I’m confronted with the truth: There is no dinner. There’s nothing in the refrigerator. There’s nothing in the cabinets. There’s no money in my purse. There is no dinner. Would I do something I normally would never do, because now I have no choice? What if I was forced to make that decision? I’m very lucky, Sally. I don’t have to do that. The point I’m trying to make is that if you’ve been in those kinds of situations, we need to know that. We need to understand that. It still doesn’t necessarily turn an unfortunate decision into a good decision, but it helps us understand. Because we all make unfortunate decisions. We make them every day. But what’s important here is to help people understand why this happened.”
― Philip Houston, Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All