Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:04.440]  Welcome to the show. Unless you've been living in a cave, you likely know former
[00:04.440 --> 00:08.400]  President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in a New York State Court on
[00:08.400 --> 00:16.560]  May 30th, 2024. Some folks are thrilled with the outcome and others are more
[00:16.560 --> 00:20.960]  than a little displeased. Those who are unhappy with the outcome have a lot to
[00:20.960 --> 00:24.920]  say about it. One of their claims is that the various prosecutions against Trump
[00:24.960 --> 00:29.960]  are solely political and designed to stop him from becoming president again.
[00:29.960 --> 00:36.560]  Is that true? Let's examine the facts and you be the judge.
[00:40.560 --> 00:44.640]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[00:44.640 --> 00:58.080]  Let's start with this. Today we're going to focus on four criminal cases against
[00:58.080 --> 01:01.600]  Trump. The New York case that was just concluded with guilty verdicts on 34
[01:01.600 --> 01:07.720]  counts and three pending cases. The pending cases are the classified documents
[01:07.720 --> 01:11.800]  case in a federal court in Florida, the election interference case in a federal
[01:11.800 --> 01:16.800]  court in Washington D.C., and the Rico case in a Georgia state court. The
[01:16.800 --> 01:22.000]  question we're exploring today is whether those four cases are politically
[01:22.000 --> 01:26.880]  motivated or were brought under the same standards used for any other criminal
[01:26.880 --> 01:32.560]  prosecution. Before we jump in, try your best to keep a couple of things in mind.
[01:32.560 --> 01:38.520]  First, if you dislike Trump, that does not mean he should be prosecuted in
[01:38.520 --> 01:44.640]  circumstances where other people would not. Second, if you adore Trump you should
[01:44.640 --> 01:50.080]  not want him to avoid being prosecuted if he has committed crimes. A person
[01:50.080 --> 01:55.920]  holding either of those positions would be an un-American piece of shit, so I'm
[01:55.920 --> 02:00.760]  sure you don't hold those views. Before we look at the particulars of the cases
[02:00.760 --> 02:06.400]  involving Trump, we need to understand the duties of a prosecutor. At its core, a
[02:06.400 --> 02:10.960]  prosecutor's job is to seek justice by using the courts to hold accountable
[02:10.960 --> 02:15.160]  those believed to have violated criminal statutes enacted by the elected
[02:15.160 --> 02:20.080]  representatives of we the people. In other words, we the people elect people
[02:20.080 --> 02:24.720]  to represent us in the legislature as our representatives, legislators enact
[02:24.720 --> 02:30.200]  statutes that define what actions are crimes. When the media or private persons
[02:30.200 --> 02:34.280]  bring evidence to a prosecutor's attention that rises to the level of
[02:34.280 --> 02:39.200]  reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, the prosecutor will investigate
[02:39.200 --> 02:43.880]  to see if there is sufficient evidence leading to probable cause, and ultimately
[02:43.880 --> 02:47.240]  whether there is sufficient evidence to convince a jury of guilt beyond a
[02:47.240 --> 02:51.280]  reasonable doubt. Investigating allegations when evidence is laid before
[02:51.280 --> 02:57.080]  a prosecutor showing a likelihood a crime was committed is quite literally
[02:57.080 --> 03:01.680]  what residents of that jurisdiction pay the prosecutor to do. When a prosecutor
[03:01.680 --> 03:05.320]  investigates, he or she is looking for evidence that indicates a crime was
[03:05.320 --> 03:10.760]  committed or not. If the investigation shows there was no violation of a
[03:10.760 --> 03:13.800]  criminal statute or the available evidence is insufficient to convince a
[03:13.800 --> 03:18.400]  jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor drops the matter. On the
[03:18.400 --> 03:22.440]  other hand, if the evidence indicates a violation of a criminal statute has
[03:22.440 --> 03:25.240]  occurred and the evidence is sufficient to convince the jury beyond a
[03:25.240 --> 03:31.640]  reasonable doubt, the prosecutor has a duty to file charges and prosecute the
[03:31.640 --> 03:37.200]  defendant. Again, that's what the community pays prosecutors to do. When
[03:37.200 --> 03:41.400]  the evidence is there, it is the prosecutor's job to prosecute even if he
[03:41.400 --> 03:46.200]  or she isn't particularly keen on the statute that was violated. If the
[03:46.200 --> 03:50.640]  evidence is there, it is the prosecutor's job to prosecute even if you are not
[03:50.640 --> 03:55.800]  keen on the statute that was violated. For a prosecutor to know that a violation
[03:55.800 --> 04:00.840]  of criminal statutes or statutes has occurred and not prosecute the violator
[04:00.840 --> 04:07.560]  is a dereliction of duty. But what about prosecutorial discretion? Can't
[04:07.560 --> 04:12.800]  prosecutors use their own judgment about filing charges? To an extent, yes. The
[04:12.800 --> 04:16.640]  most common example of prosecutorial discretion is plea bargains where the
[04:16.640 --> 04:19.640]  defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor's
[04:19.640 --> 04:24.640]  office avoids the time and expense of a trial. The more serious the crime and the
[04:24.640 --> 04:28.400]  more evidence the prosecutor has, the less likely it is the prosecutor will
[04:28.400 --> 04:32.080]  agree to a plea deal or at least a deal the defendant will consider favorable.
[04:32.080 --> 04:37.000]  With that information under our belts, let's get into the meat of the issue,
[04:37.000 --> 04:41.880]  which is how these investigations into Trump began and do the facts indicate
[04:41.880 --> 04:47.760]  political chicanery or the prosecutor's duty bound to investigate. We'll begin
[04:47.760 --> 04:51.320]  with the New York State case, the one in which the jury recently found Trump
[04:51.320 --> 04:58.360]  guilty of 34 felonies. How did that case develop? You're likely aware of my
[04:58.360 --> 05:03.400]  Michael Cohen, an attorney, now former attorney, who was a Trump organization
[05:03.400 --> 05:07.840]  vice president for a decade and Trump's fixer. When Trump and Cohen had their
[05:07.840 --> 05:13.200]  falling out, Cohen started making public statements about crimes committed by
[05:13.200 --> 05:18.920]  Trump. Cohen claimed to have personal knowledge of these crimes and publicly
[05:18.920 --> 05:23.840]  stated he could lead prosecutors to all the evidence they'd need to make a case
[05:23.840 --> 05:30.440]  and convict Trump of the crimes Cohen was alleging. Day after day, New York
[05:30.440 --> 05:34.240]  prosecutors were waking up to news stories about Cohen's claims concerning
[05:34.240 --> 05:39.000]  Trump. At the same time, Cohen's attorney was meeting with prosecutors telling
[05:39.000 --> 05:43.560]  them his client had firsthand knowledge of crimes committed by Trump and was
[05:43.560 --> 05:48.280]  prepared to give prosecutors a road map by which to obtain all the evidence
[05:48.280 --> 05:52.120]  they'd need to convince the jury of Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[05:52.600 --> 05:56.960]  Keep in mind, it wasn't just Cohen alleging Trump had committed crimes. Cohen was
[05:56.960 --> 06:00.000]  offering to direct prosecutors to a trove of evidence that would
[06:00.000 --> 06:05.640]  independently verify Cohen's claims. Cohen's attorney was telling New York
[06:05.640 --> 06:09.280]  prosecutors that Cohen had enough evidence to establish probable cause,
[06:09.280 --> 06:13.840]  which is required for search warrants, and if prosecutors use search warrants to
[06:13.840 --> 06:17.640]  get information from sources indicated by Cohen, prosecutors would obtain all
[06:17.640 --> 06:21.280]  the evidence they need to convince a jury of Trump's guilt beyond a
[06:21.280 --> 06:26.360]  reasonable doubt. And all of this was being done in a very public manner.
[06:26.360 --> 06:31.600]  Knowing what you now know about the duty of prosecutors, can you think of any
[06:31.600 --> 06:35.200]  scenario in which New York State prosecutors could have avoided opening
[06:35.200 --> 06:39.640]  an investigation into Cohen's claims? Remember, the question we're exploring
[06:39.640 --> 06:44.360]  today is whether these prosecutions are political rather than legally proper and
[06:44.360 --> 06:49.800]  appropriate. If you're even halfway rational, you'll have to admit there was
[06:49.800 --> 06:54.280]  no political chicanery in the decision to initiate the New York investigation.
[06:54.280 --> 06:58.040]  Cohen and his attorney made it so New York prosecutors had to open an
[06:58.040 --> 07:02.640]  investigation. To not do so would have been an egregious case of dereliction of
[07:02.640 --> 07:09.120]  duty. But what if there was little convincing necessary? What if New York
[07:09.120 --> 07:13.960]  State prosecutors were more than happy to open an investigation into Trump?
[07:13.960 --> 07:20.080]  Hell, what if they were giddy at the prospect? So what? Whether they were not
[07:20.080 --> 07:24.160]  thrilled about opening an investigation, or downright gleeful about it, Cohen and
[07:24.160 --> 07:28.640]  his attorney removed the prosecutor's discretion. Cohen and his attorney
[07:28.640 --> 07:33.400]  created a situation in a very public way that required prosecutors to open an
[07:33.400 --> 07:38.240]  investigation into the allegations no matter how they felt about it. As it
[07:38.240 --> 07:42.280]  turned out, Cohen was right. He was instrumental in directing New York
[07:42.280 --> 07:45.520]  prosecutors to most of the evidence presented at trial that resulted in
[07:45.520 --> 07:50.040]  Trump's conviction. Let's switch gears and talk about the classified documents
[07:50.040 --> 07:54.760]  case. This one is pretty straightforward. The National Records and Archives
[07:54.760 --> 07:59.600]  Administration, NARA, believed Trump had moved presidential records belonging to
[07:59.600 --> 08:03.920]  the United States government from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. NARA reached
[08:03.920 --> 08:07.160]  out to Trump and requested records belonging to the United States be
[08:07.160 --> 08:13.160]  returned. Eight months later, Trump sent NARA 15 boxes of documents. When NARA
[08:13.160 --> 08:18.920]  began cataloging the contents, they found classified documents. NARA correctly
[08:18.920 --> 08:23.040]  determined that unlawful possession of classified documents falls within the
[08:23.040 --> 08:27.240]  jurisdiction of the US Department of Justice's National Security Division.
[08:27.240 --> 08:32.120]  NARA contacted the National Security Division and told them what had occurred.
[08:32.120 --> 08:36.000]  The first thing the National Security Division did was to determine if Trump
[08:36.000 --> 08:40.120]  had submitted the necessary paperwork seeking approval to be in possession of
[08:40.120 --> 08:45.720]  classified documents since he was no longer president. They found he had not.
[08:45.720 --> 08:50.280]  With that finding, Trump's possession of classified documents was determined to
[08:50.280 --> 08:54.320]  be illegal as a matter of law. At that point, the National Security Division
[08:54.320 --> 08:59.720]  quite correctly opened an investigation to determine if Trump possessed
[08:59.720 --> 09:05.280]  additional classified documents. And, of course, it turned out the facts were far
[09:05.280 --> 09:11.120]  worse than what the National Security Division knew at that time. In June 2023,
[09:11.120 --> 09:14.840]  I posted a video detailing the facts that led to Trump's indictment in this
[09:14.840 --> 09:18.480]  particular matter. I'll put the link down in the notes. For the purpose of this
[09:18.480 --> 09:22.760]  presentation, the important takeaway from the series of events we just discussed
[09:22.760 --> 09:27.440]  is that just like the New York State prosecutors, the attorneys at DOJ's
[09:27.440 --> 09:32.680]  National Security Division were duty bound to open an investigation. That is
[09:32.680 --> 09:37.200]  literally what they are paid to do. And there is zero evidence the National
[09:37.200 --> 09:41.040]  Security Division opened its investigation based on any political
[09:41.040 --> 09:44.640]  overtones or was driven by anything other than the division's attorneys
[09:44.640 --> 09:49.280]  doing their job properly and professionally. The last two cases are
[09:49.280 --> 09:53.000]  the Georgia State RICO case and the federal election interference case in
[09:53.000 --> 09:57.640]  DC. I'm going to discuss them together because they both rely on essentially the
[09:57.640 --> 10:01.440]  same set of facts. To understand how these investigations came to be, we need
[10:01.440 --> 10:06.520]  to consider the primary charges and then examine how these charges arose. In the
[10:06.520 --> 10:11.920]  DC case, the primary charge is conspiracy to defraud the United States, which can
[10:11.920 --> 10:17.800]  be found in Title 18 of the United States Code of Section 371. To make the
[10:17.800 --> 10:20.960]  case that Trump committed fraud, the government must show that his actions
[10:20.960 --> 10:26.720]  were intended to corruptly pursue personal gain by making statements he
[10:26.720 --> 10:31.320]  knew or had reason to know were not factual. In plain English, a fraud charge
[10:31.320 --> 10:35.400]  alleges the person knew he was lying and did so at the expense of others.
[10:35.400 --> 10:40.960]  Others, in this case, would be the voters in the 2020 election. So what evidence
[10:40.960 --> 10:45.200]  does the government possess indicating Trump knew or should have known he was
[10:45.200 --> 10:49.360]  lying when he said he lost the 2020 election due to election fraud? Before I
[10:49.360 --> 10:53.560]  answer that, let me mention that the government has considerably more
[10:53.560 --> 10:57.040]  evidence than what is in the indictment and what the public knows at this time.
[10:57.040 --> 11:02.600]  Today we're examining only the evidence currently available. The government's
[11:02.600 --> 11:07.640]  evidence begins with these points. In interviews with government
[11:07.640 --> 11:12.560]  investigators, Matt Oskowski, hopefully I'm pronouncing that correctly, stated
[11:12.560 --> 11:19.280]  that as the ballots were counted, he told Trump he had lost the election. So who is
[11:19.280 --> 11:23.840]  Matt Oskowski? Matt is an expert in data strategy, research, and predictive
[11:23.840 --> 11:27.840]  modeling programs. He was employed by Trump and was a key player in Trump's
[11:27.840 --> 11:34.360]  2020 campaign organization. Trump's White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, strongly
[11:34.360 --> 11:38.560]  cautioned Trump against claiming he won the election or trying to invalidate the
[11:38.560 --> 11:42.760]  results. The U.S. Department of Justice under Trump's Attorney General, Bill
[11:42.760 --> 11:50.040]  Barr, found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election. The upshot
[11:50.040 --> 11:54.880]  of those facts was that Trump was told by his lead data analyst that he'd lost,
[11:54.880 --> 12:00.840]  he was told by his White House counsel he'd lost, and the DOJ, helmed by his own
[12:00.840 --> 12:05.440]  appointee, reported to him no evidence existed of election fraud that would
[12:05.440 --> 12:10.000]  alter the outcome of the election. Despite those facts being presented to
[12:10.000 --> 12:13.320]  Trump, he continued to promote the narrative that the election was stolen
[12:13.320 --> 12:17.960]  due to election fraud. But simply saying something false doesn't necessarily mean
[12:17.960 --> 12:23.080]  that person is committing fraud. In many cases, fraud involves actions that
[12:23.080 --> 12:27.080]  accompany the words. And that brings us to the next element of the government's
[12:27.080 --> 12:31.800]  allegations, which is that Trump conspired with others to corruptly
[12:31.800 --> 12:36.240]  interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election. Chief among those with whom the
[12:36.240 --> 12:41.080]  government alleges Trump conspired are Trump attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth
[12:41.080 --> 12:45.360]  Chesbrough. Chesbrough is considered the architect of the plan to create fake
[12:45.360 --> 12:49.520]  electors. Eastman is considered the architect of the plan to have Vice
[12:49.520 --> 12:53.960]  President Pence refuse to read the electoral accounts before Congress, thus
[12:53.960 --> 12:57.920]  according to Eastman, preventing Joe Biden from becoming president. Both
[12:57.920 --> 13:01.040]  Eastman and Chesbrough have been indicted in several jurisdictions for
[13:01.040 --> 13:05.360]  crimes associated with attempting to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020
[13:05.360 --> 13:10.520]  election. Understanding what the primary charge is against Trump in the DC case,
[13:11.000 --> 13:15.840]  what caused the US Department of Justice and various state attorneys general to
[13:15.840 --> 13:20.680]  open investigations that eventually led to indictments? No matter your thoughts
[13:20.680 --> 13:23.760]  about the events of January 6th, I'm confident you can understand why the
[13:23.760 --> 13:27.080]  Justice Department opened an investigation into the events of that
[13:27.080 --> 13:33.040]  day. One aspect investigators would seek to determine is how did January 6th
[13:33.040 --> 13:38.240]  occur? Was it merely a spontaneous occurrence or was there an intentional
[13:38.360 --> 13:43.560]  effort to cause it to occur? Remember, this presentation isn't about the
[13:43.560 --> 13:47.320]  indictments or Trump's guilt or innocence, but rather seeks to determine
[13:47.320 --> 13:52.400]  whether the investigations were opened because of some nefarious anti-Trump
[13:52.400 --> 13:57.480]  agenda. Clearly, DOJ opening an investigation into the events of January
[13:57.480 --> 14:02.240]  6th was completely proper and appropriate. With the origins of the DC
[14:02.240 --> 14:06.160]  investigation now understood, let's consider how the fourth and final
[14:06.160 --> 14:10.880]  investigation began. The Georgia investigation began after Georgia's
[14:10.880 --> 14:15.080]  Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, went public with a
[14:15.080 --> 14:19.960]  recording of Trump asking Raffensperger to alter Georgia's official vote
[14:19.960 --> 14:23.840]  count. You may remember Trump's statement that he wanted Raffensperger
[14:23.840 --> 14:30.120]  to, quote, find 11,780 votes, close quote. I think a lot of people are
[14:30.120 --> 14:35.880]  unclear about how Trump's request was seen by the state's prosecutors. Trump
[14:35.880 --> 14:40.200]  didn't ask Raffensperger to conduct a recount and to see if anything
[14:40.200 --> 14:49.480]  changed. Trump asked Raffensperger to find a very specific number of votes,
[14:49.480 --> 14:57.280]  11,780. So what is the significance of that number? 11,780
[14:57.280 --> 15:02.360]  votes would have resulted in Trump winning the state of Georgia by a
[15:02.360 --> 15:07.480]  single vote. I think it would be difficult for a rational person to
[15:07.480 --> 15:11.560]  interpret Trump using that specific number as anything other than he was
[15:11.560 --> 15:17.560]  asking Raffensperger to do whatever it took to declare Trump the winner. Also,
[15:17.560 --> 15:24.200]  Trump used the word find an additional 11,780 votes. Keep in mind that
[15:24.200 --> 15:29.480]  elections are controlled by law. Since there's no magical way to just find
[15:29.960 --> 15:35.800]  votes that a squintle candidate didn't get, Trump's request to find them could
[15:35.800 --> 15:40.760]  perhaps reasonably be interpreted as suggesting Raffensperger used means
[15:40.760 --> 15:46.600]  outside the law. Trump's ask also has to be placed within the context that
[15:46.600 --> 15:50.680]  during the phone conversation, Raffensperger told Trump there was no
[15:50.680 --> 15:54.120]  significant election fraud in Georgia's voting and certainly nothing that would
[15:54.200 --> 15:59.960]  go with the shouting distance of 11,780 votes. We also need to consider, as a
[15:59.960 --> 16:04.040]  prosecutor would, that Raffensperger had intimate knowledge of how voting took
[16:04.040 --> 16:09.480]  place in Georgia and Trump did not. I will remind you that Trump's DOJ found
[16:09.480 --> 16:14.680]  no evidence of any widespread election fraud and while Trump repeatedly told
[16:14.680 --> 16:19.880]  Raffensperger election fraud had been rampant in Georgia's voting, he didn't
[16:19.880 --> 16:24.440]  offer a shred of evidence to support that. Let's focus on evidence for a
[16:24.440 --> 16:31.000]  moment. Trump, Giuliani, and Eastman all called Rusty Bowers, Republican Speaker
[16:31.000 --> 16:36.440]  of the Arizona House of Representatives, asking him to look into claims of
[16:36.440 --> 16:42.760]  fraud. Bowers declined to do so without evidence that election fraud had
[16:42.760 --> 16:48.920]  occurred. In other words, Bowers didn't say no. He said he'd do it if they could
[16:49.000 --> 16:53.960]  provide evidence of election fraud. None of the three, Trump, Giuliani, or Eastman,
[16:53.960 --> 16:58.920]  were able to provide Bowers with a shred of evidence, just as Trump had been
[16:58.920 --> 17:02.520]  unable to provide evidence to Raffensperger. Let's recap what we have
[17:02.520 --> 17:06.360]  covered so far in terms of Georgia. The investigation began because
[17:06.360 --> 17:10.520]  Raffensperger went public with Trump asking him to do something that sounded
[17:10.520 --> 17:15.800]  at best unethical and at worst illegal. With that recording being made public,
[17:15.800 --> 17:20.280]  Georgia prosecutors had no choice but to investigate. But remember, an
[17:20.280 --> 17:26.280]  investigation can find evidence of a crime or evidence that no crime occurred.
[17:26.280 --> 17:30.120]  Of course, at that same time, the press was filled with articles about attempts
[17:30.120 --> 17:35.000]  Trump and company were making to get other officials in other states to change
[17:35.000 --> 17:39.160]  their official vote tally. Given the similarity of what Trump and his people
[17:39.160 --> 17:43.000]  were asking for in those jurisdictions, it would have been standard operating
[17:43.000 --> 17:46.760]  procedures for Georgia investigators to reach out to the officials and
[17:46.760 --> 17:51.400]  investigators in those states to see where evidence in those cases was leading.
[17:52.200 --> 17:57.960]  Those inquiries began to reveal the fake elector plot and eventually led to the
[17:57.960 --> 18:03.240]  RICO charges. A couple of quick notes to add context. Four of the 19 defendants
[18:03.240 --> 18:06.920]  indicted in Georgia's RICO case have already pled guilty and promised to
[18:06.920 --> 18:11.720]  testify truthfully at trial. Three of the four are former Trump attorneys.
[18:12.280 --> 18:18.200]  In the D.C. election interference case, there are six unnamed co-conspirators.
[18:18.200 --> 18:22.200]  News agencies have put together the pieces and have identified five of the six.
[18:22.200 --> 18:29.000]  Those five are Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesbrough, Sidney Powell,
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.040]  and Jeffrey Clark. Not only are all five attorneys who had been working with Trump,
[18:34.040 --> 18:39.400]  but they are unnamed co-conspirators because each has cut a deal to testify
[18:39.400 --> 18:43.320]  truthfully at Trump's trial in exchange for not being prosecuted in this
[18:43.320 --> 18:47.000]  particular federal case, though they are being prosecuted criminally in other
[18:47.000 --> 18:52.760]  jurisdictions. The sixth person is a political consultant who exchanged not
[18:52.760 --> 18:56.920]  being indicted for the names of those involved in the fake elector plots in
[18:56.920 --> 19:01.320]  Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
[19:01.960 --> 19:04.840]  The consultant's name is not known to the public at this time.
[19:05.640 --> 19:11.240]  I share this to make the point that this is how investigations work. As
[19:11.240 --> 19:15.560]  investigators identify crimes that have been committed, they will sometimes offer
[19:15.560 --> 19:19.880]  immunity to those who can further the investigation or whose testimony might
[19:19.880 --> 19:23.400]  convince the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which, as we discussed
[19:23.400 --> 19:27.640]  earlier, is the goal of prosecutors once evidence tells them crimes have been
[19:27.640 --> 19:31.960]  committed. So now we've looked at all four investigations that eventually
[19:31.960 --> 19:37.320]  resulted in criminal indictments. Were any of them initiated because of
[19:37.320 --> 19:41.960]  politics or political pressure? I leave you to determine that, but speaking for
[19:41.960 --> 19:45.880]  myself, the answer is no. Each was initiated because prosecutors became
[19:45.880 --> 19:50.680]  aware of information that required them to open an investigation. The
[19:50.680 --> 19:57.080]  communities they serve literally pay them to do that. In my opinion, we make
[19:57.080 --> 20:00.200]  better decisions and see the world more clearly when we know the facts and
[20:00.200 --> 20:04.040]  understand how certain specialized fields work. I hope today you gained a
[20:04.040 --> 20:07.720]  better understanding of how prosecutors work, including why they are duty-bound
[20:07.720 --> 20:11.640]  to open an investigation in certain circumstances. While we're on the subject
[20:11.640 --> 20:14.840]  of seeing the world more clearly when we know the facts and understand how
[20:14.840 --> 20:18.920]  certain specialized fields work, I want to encourage you to read Income Tax
[20:18.920 --> 20:22.360]  Shattering the Mist, the best-selling book in America that tells the truth
[20:22.360 --> 20:26.680]  about upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax and upon whom it has not.
[20:27.240 --> 20:33.400]  As you might imagine, income tax is a highly specialized field. The near-total
[20:33.400 --> 20:37.000]  ignorance of the American people regarding this specialized field is how
[20:37.000 --> 20:41.960]  the U.S. government has bamboozled hundreds of millions of Americans into
[20:41.960 --> 20:45.080]  believing they owe the government a percentage of the money they earn to
[20:45.080 --> 20:49.640]  sustain themselves and their families. Knowing what the law says, I haven't
[20:49.640 --> 20:54.200]  filed a return or paid a penny of income tax in 31 years. Tens of thousands of
[20:54.200 --> 20:57.880]  Americans have left the income tax scam behind after reading Income Tax
[20:57.880 --> 21:02.360]  Shattering the Mist. While income tax is a specialized field, I wrote Income Tax
[21:02.360 --> 21:07.320]  Shattering the Mist in such a way as to allow every American to understand what
[21:07.320 --> 21:12.760]  has really been taxed. And it's not your labor. I'm about to make a statement
[21:12.760 --> 21:16.360]  with which every one of the tens of thousands of readers of Income Tax
[21:16.360 --> 21:20.520]  Shattering the Mist will agree. That statement is this. When you complete
[21:20.520 --> 21:24.840]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist, you will be the expert in the room. And it
[21:24.840 --> 21:29.240]  doesn't matter who's in the room. Even if there are tax attorneys there, you will
[21:29.240 --> 21:33.880]  be the expert. Imagine going from being completely ignorant about a specialized
[21:33.880 --> 21:39.080]  area of law to being the expert in the room merely by reading a single book.
[21:39.080 --> 21:43.160]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist creates that transformation in you as if that
[21:43.160 --> 21:46.920]  is amazing enough. Income Tax Shattering the Mist gives you the facts, the
[21:46.920 --> 21:52.600]  knowledge to safely walk away from the government's income tax scam if you'd
[21:52.600 --> 21:55.960]  prefer to keep 100% of your earnings rather than give a chunk of it to the
[21:55.960 --> 21:59.640]  government based on nothing more than 60 years of propaganda and
[21:59.640 --> 22:03.480]  disinformation. You can get your copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist at
[22:03.480 --> 22:10.600]  drreality.news. While you're there, take a look at body science. If you want the
[22:10.600 --> 22:14.360]  same kind of evidence-based breakdown as you've seen today but focused on how
[22:14.440 --> 22:18.600]  your body's physiology really works rather than the false establishment
[22:18.600 --> 22:22.440]  narrative that Americans have been fed for the last 60 years, while you're
[22:22.440 --> 22:26.520]  purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Mist, also pick up a copy of body science.
[22:26.520 --> 22:30.840]  You may have noticed that the health of the American people is terrible
[22:30.840 --> 22:36.040]  and getting worse every day. 70% of our population is overweight or obese.
[22:36.040 --> 22:41.640]  Diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's are exploding. Obesity in children, which
[22:41.640 --> 22:47.320]  was almost unknown a few decades ago, is now commonplace. Due to trillion dollar
[22:47.320 --> 22:52.120]  industries pouring money into corrupt research, fake science is everywhere
[22:52.120 --> 22:57.960]  these days. Supposedly scientific studies are making nonsensical claims such as
[22:57.960 --> 23:03.800]  things like salt or eating red meat cause type 2 diabetes. Why is America's
[23:03.800 --> 23:07.720]  health in such a tragic state? Because certain industries and the U.S.
[23:07.720 --> 23:11.960]  government have engaged in massive disinformation that has led to the
[23:11.960 --> 23:20.360]  American people into illnesses simply to increase revenues. Body science shows
[23:20.360 --> 23:24.280]  you the disinformation. What will likely shock you is that almost everything you
[23:24.280 --> 23:29.640]  now believe about health and physiology is inaccurate. But it's not your fault.
[23:29.640 --> 23:35.560]  You've been bombarded with lies for 60 years. Those lies led the people of the
[23:35.560 --> 23:39.800]  wealthiest and most technologically advanced nation on earth to be the sickest
[23:39.800 --> 23:45.480]  people in all of human history. If you read body science and put into action
[23:45.480 --> 23:49.640]  what you find there, you will leave the ranks of the misled and become
[23:49.640 --> 23:55.000]  astoundingly healthy. You have my word on that. I practice what I preach. I adhere
[23:55.000 --> 24:00.600]  to everything in body science and at 64 I'm as healthy as an 18-year-old.
[24:00.600 --> 24:04.680]  Body science has never gotten anything less than a five-star review and readers
[24:04.680 --> 24:08.840]  rave about the fact that they look and feel decades younger after putting into
[24:08.840 --> 24:15.480]  action what they learn in body science. So go to drreality.news and change your
[24:15.480 --> 24:19.480]  life for the better by getting income tax shattering the miss and body science.
[24:19.480 --> 24:23.800]  Also, by purchasing income tax shattering the miss and or body science,
[24:23.800 --> 24:27.720]  you help me to continue to be here for you with these revealing
[24:27.720 --> 24:31.560]  and thought-provoking presentations. Please share this presentation everywhere.
[24:31.560 --> 24:40.600]  Thanks for being here. Take care.