Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:11.000]  Welcome to the show. On July 15, 2024, federal judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents indictment against Donald Trump.
[00:11.000 --> 00:17.500]  Her stated reason is Attorney General Garland violated the Appointment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
[00:17.500 --> 00:25.000]  Phrased another way, Cannon's position as Jack Smith's appointment as independent counsel was unconstitutional.
[00:25.000 --> 00:29.500]  The Department of Justice has already appealed Cannon's decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
[00:29.500 --> 00:36.500]  When the Eleventh rules on the matter, I believe it will reinstate the indictment and remove Cannon from the case.
[00:36.500 --> 00:49.500]  Whether you hate what I just said or love it, stay with me to find out why I believe the Eleventh Circuit will reverse Cannon and what the law actually says about the appointment of independent counsel.
[00:54.500 --> 00:57.500]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[00:59.500 --> 01:12.500]  Let's start with this. I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, the best-selling book in America laying out the truth about the income tax.
[01:12.500 --> 01:18.500]  That truth being that Congress has never imposed it on ordinary, hardworking Americans. Why do I bring that up?
[01:18.500 --> 01:24.500]  I bring it up because income tax law is inarguably the most complex area of U.S. law.
[01:25.500 --> 01:33.500]  Spending decades studying federal income tax law is like going to the law version of Buds, which is the initial training required for Navy SEALs.
[01:33.500 --> 01:41.500]  My point is, after one has studied income tax law extensively, every other area of law is comparatively a breeze.
[01:41.500 --> 01:46.500]  So, what does the law say about the appointment of independent counsel?
[01:46.500 --> 01:56.500]  Before I jump in, let me mention that in U.S. law, the titles special prosecutor, independent counsel, and special counsel all have the same meaning.
[01:56.500 --> 02:03.500]  Let's begin our inquiry by looking at the appointment of independent counsel historically and work our way forward to our current era.
[02:03.500 --> 02:09.500]  The first appointment of an independent counsel was in 1875 by President Ulysses S. Grant.
[02:10.500 --> 02:17.500]  It should be noted that no statute existed authorizing Grant to make the appointment, yet no one considered it unconstitutional.
[02:17.500 --> 02:25.500]  Everyone saw the appointment of an independent counsel as the right thing to do because it removed the president and his attorney general from the investigation.
[02:25.500 --> 02:32.500]  The second such appointment was also made by Grant. Again, no one asserted it was unconstitutional.
[02:32.500 --> 02:37.500]  The third appointment of independent counsel was made in 1881 by President James Garfield.
[02:37.500 --> 02:42.500]  That independent counsel continued his work into the presidency of Chester Arthur.
[02:42.500 --> 02:49.500]  Working over the course of two administrations, there was no claim that the independent counsel's appointment was unconstitutional.
[02:49.500 --> 02:55.500]  Then, in 1903, Theodore Roosevelt appointed not one, but two independent counsels.
[02:55.500 --> 02:59.500]  In 1905, Roosevelt's attorney general appointed an independent counsel.
[02:59.500 --> 03:04.500]  And again, no one claimed such appointments were unconstitutional.
[03:04.500 --> 03:09.500]  In the early 1920s, Calvin Coolidge appointed two independent counsels.
[03:09.500 --> 03:19.500]  That appointment was unique in all of U.S. history because Coolidge's actions took place after Congress passed a joint resolution demanding the appointments.
[03:19.500 --> 03:25.500]  The resolution mandated that the Senate approve the appointments and Coolidge followed that guidance.
[03:25.500 --> 03:30.500]  It should be noted that Coolidge was under no duty to make the appointments demanded in the resolution,
[03:30.500 --> 03:34.500]  nor, if he chose to make the appointments, was he required to allow the Senate to confirm them.
[03:34.500 --> 03:39.500]  He was not required to do either because a resolution has no legal force in effect.
[03:39.500 --> 03:47.500]  In short, while Coolidge chose to respect the will of Congress as expressed in the resolution, there was no legal requirement for Senate approval.
[03:47.500 --> 03:51.500]  Perhaps my favorite appointment was made by Harry Truman in 1952.
[03:51.500 --> 03:57.500]  The reason for the appointment was to investigate corruption at the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
[03:57.500 --> 04:00.500]  which was the original name for what we today call the Internal Revenue Service.
[04:00.500 --> 04:09.500]  As with all such appointments up to this point, there was no statute authorizing the appointments and no one asserted they were unconstitutional.
[04:09.500 --> 04:13.500]  Now we get into modern appointments with which many Americans are familiar.
[04:13.500 --> 04:15.500]  I'm talking about Watergate.
[04:15.500 --> 04:18.500]  The first Watergate independent counsel was Archibald Cox.
[04:18.500 --> 04:19.500]  The second was Leon Jaworski.
[04:19.500 --> 04:23.500]  The third was Henry Ruth, Jr., and the fourth was Charles Ruff.
[04:23.500 --> 04:31.500]  While Nixon made the constitutional argument against the appointment of independent counsel, citing the separation of powers doctrine,
[04:31.500 --> 04:35.500]  the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument in United States v. Nixon.
[04:35.500 --> 04:43.500]  After the chaotic situation in the Watergate investigation, having to appoint four different independent counsel in a short period of time,
[04:43.500 --> 04:51.500]  in 1978 Congress decided to formalize the process and passed the Special Prosecutor Act, later renamed the Independent Counsel Act.
[04:51.500 --> 04:59.500]  Without getting into the minutiae of the act, its main focus was to establish formal rules for the appointment of an independent counsel.
[04:59.500 --> 05:04.500]  In short, no one claimed the four Watergate appointments were unconstitutional.
[05:04.500 --> 05:09.500]  Congress simply saw the chaos Nixon and Robert Bork had created surrounding the appointments
[05:10.500 --> 05:17.500]  and decided to formalize the process in order to minimize the chances of a future corrupt president causing the same kind of chaos.
[05:17.500 --> 05:21.500]  The key points in the Independent Counsel Act were these.
[05:21.500 --> 05:30.500]  Majorities of either party within the House or Senate Judiciary Committee could formally request the Attorney General appoint an independent counsel.
[05:30.500 --> 05:36.500]  The Attorney General had the authority to appoint an independent counsel or not to appoint one.
[05:36.500 --> 05:42.500]  Under the Act, the Attorney General only had to justify his decision in writing to the parties that had made the request.
[05:42.500 --> 05:46.500]  The Attorney General's decision was not subject to review by the courts.
[05:46.500 --> 05:53.500]  If the Attorney General opted to move forward with an independent counsel, the person to serve in that position would be chosen by a three-judge panel.
[05:53.500 --> 06:01.500]  Once appointed, special counsel could not be removed except under specific circumstances such as wrongdoing or incapacitation.
[06:02.500 --> 06:10.500]  Congress extended the Independent Counsel Act several times, with it finally expiring in 1999.
[06:10.500 --> 06:19.500]  There was a roughly three-and-a-half year gap in reauthorizing the Independent Counsel Act between 1992 to 1994.
[06:19.500 --> 06:25.500]  In that time, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter.
[06:25.500 --> 06:35.500]  In 1994, while that investigation was ongoing, Congress renewed the Independent Counsel Act and a three-judge panel replaced Robert Fisk with Ken Starr.
[06:35.500 --> 06:42.500]  Not long after, Starr resigned and the three-judge panel appointed Robert Ray to continue the Whitewater investigation.
[06:42.500 --> 06:48.500]  Shortly after Ray became the independent counsel in 1999, the Independent Counsel Act expired.
[06:48.500 --> 06:54.500]  Ray continued his independent counsel duties until the investigation concluded in 2003.
[06:54.500 --> 07:03.500]  In other words, from 1999 through 2003, Ray was independent counsel without the Independent Counsel Act being enforced.
[07:03.500 --> 07:12.500]  Since the expiration of the Independent Counsel Statute in 1999, there has been no federal statute governing the appointment of an independent counsel.
[07:12.500 --> 07:21.500]  Upon the Act's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of independent counsels.
[07:21.500 --> 07:31.500]  In 1999, these regulations were used by Janet Reno to appoint John Danforth independent counsel to investigate the FBI's handling of the siege at Waco.
[07:31.500 --> 07:37.500]  In 2003, the Justice Department appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plamé affair.
[07:37.500 --> 07:46.500]  In 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller independent counsel to investigate whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia to affect the 2016 election.
[07:47.500 --> 07:57.500]  In 2020, Trump's Attorney General, William Barr, appointed John Durham independent counsel to investigate whether wrongdoing by the FBI had led to the Mueller appointment.
[07:57.500 --> 08:09.500]  And of course, in 2022, Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith independent counsel to investigate whether several actions taken by Donald Trump and his people concerning the 2020 election violated federal law.
[08:09.500 --> 08:13.500]  At this moment, I think it's important to briefly revisit some key points.
[08:13.500 --> 08:21.500]  Point one. From the inception of our nation through 2017, no one claimed that appointing independent counsel was unconstitutional.
[08:21.500 --> 08:28.500]  Point two. The Act was not enacted because anyone thought independent counsel appointments were unconstitutional.
[08:28.500 --> 08:33.500]  It was enacted to prevent future corrupt presidents from interfering with independent counsel investigations.
[08:33.500 --> 08:40.500]  Point three. Throughout our nation's history, independent counsels have been appointed with and without a statute in effect.
[08:40.500 --> 08:51.500]  Point four. Only when Robert Mueller was appointed independent counsel to investigate the Trump campaign did we hear anyone assert that such appointments are unconstitutional.
[08:51.500 --> 09:08.500]  Point five. When Bill Barr, an attorney general under then President Trump, appointed Durham independent counsel to investigate possible wrongdoing by the FBI, the same people who claimed the Mueller appointment was unconstitutional did not claim Durham's appointment was unconstitutional.
[09:08.500 --> 09:15.500]  Understanding all of that, what is the basis of the claim that the appointment of Jack Smith is unconstitutional?
[09:15.500 --> 09:29.500]  There are some pretty kooky ideas out there upon which we don't need to waste our time, so today we're going to stick with Judge Cannon's position that Smith's appointment is violative of the Constitution's appointment clause.
[09:29.500 --> 09:43.500]  Before I jump into the appointment clause, allow me to mention that I'll soon be releasing presentations on subjects such as the legal reality that you've never paid a penny into Social Security despite being told for your entire life that you have.
[09:43.500 --> 09:58.500]  That the medical industry narrative about reducing salt intake is actually harmful to many people, and my favorite, the people who call me a con man because I tell you that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans.
[09:58.500 --> 10:06.500]  If these subjects sound interesting or fun, take a moment to subscribe to the channel. Also hit the like button so the algorithm show this content to more people.
[10:06.500 --> 10:18.500]  And with that, on to the appointment clause. The appointment clause provides that a president shall nominate all, quote, officers of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
[10:18.500 --> 10:28.500]  Those who hold the view that Smith's appointment violates the clause view the title, Independent Council, as an office within the meaning of the appointment clause.
[10:28.500 --> 10:36.500]  As such, they believe Smith's appointment is unconstitutional because he was not nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the Senate.
[10:36.500 --> 10:47.500]  Do you recall a bit ago I mentioned that in 1999, after the Independent Council Act expired, the Justice Department promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of Independent Council.
[10:47.500 --> 10:55.500]  So what are procedural regulations? There are three classifications of regulations.
[10:55.500 --> 11:01.500]  Procedural regs are one of the three. There are two types of procedural regulations.
[11:01.500 --> 11:07.500]  One type informs those who may be subject to certain laws what procedures they must follow to comply with the law.
[11:07.500 --> 11:13.500]  The other type has nothing to do with the public, but simply details procedures government employees are to follow.
[11:13.500 --> 11:20.500]  The procedural regs implemented by the Department of Justice concerning the appointment of Independent Council have nothing to do with the public.
[11:20.500 --> 11:24.500]  They control how the Department of Justice goes about appointing an independent counsel.
[11:24.500 --> 11:29.500]  You can find those regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 600.
[11:29.500 --> 11:37.500]  What you will discover in Part 600 is that when an independent counsel is appointed, he or she becomes an employee of the Department of Justice.
[11:37.500 --> 11:42.500]  In particular, they are classified as a confidential employee.
[11:42.500 --> 11:49.500]  By law, a confidential employee is a position that does not involve nomination by a president or approval of the Senate.
[11:49.500 --> 12:04.500]  So you see, since 1999, DOJ regulations mandate that a person selected as independent counsel is not an appointment to an office of the United States, nor does it create an office of the United States.
[12:04.500 --> 12:13.500]  The person appointed simply becomes an employee of DOJ and employees of DOJ are not subject to presidential nomination or Senate approval.
[12:13.500 --> 12:22.500]  As an employee of DOJ, an independent counsel operates under the authority of the attorney general, as do the other 10,000 attorneys in the Department of Justice.
[12:22.500 --> 12:32.500]  The regs specifically state that an independent counsel is required to comply with all rules, regulations, procedures, practices, and policies of the Department of Justice.
[12:32.500 --> 12:40.500]  Why? Because he or she is a DOJ employee and the regs make that perfectly clear. I encourage you to read them.
[12:40.500 --> 12:49.500]  If you're one of those folks who's been saying Smith's appointment violates the Constitution's appointment clause and is invalid for want of Senate confirmation,
[12:49.500 --> 12:57.500]  I bet the influencer from whom you got that narrative never mentioned the regulations we've discussed today.
[12:57.500 --> 13:05.500]  Let's quickly summarize. From the birth of the nation until 2017 when Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate the Trump campaign,
[13:05.500 --> 13:10.500]  no one viewed the appointment of an independent counsel as a violation of the Constitution.
[13:10.500 --> 13:18.500]  The majority of independent counsel appointments have been made during the years when no federal statute existed concerning such appointments.
[13:18.500 --> 13:27.500]  During the roughly 18 years the independent counsel act was in effect, it existed not because anyone thought such appointments were unconstitutional without the act,
[13:27.500 --> 13:35.500]  but simply to reduce the possibility that a corrupt president could interfere with the actions of independent counsel, as had Nixon.
[13:35.500 --> 13:46.500]  When the independent counsel act expired in 1999, the nation went back to how independent counsels were appointed for the first 187 years of the republic.
[13:46.500 --> 14:00.500]  Upon expiration of the independent counsel act, DOJ promulgated regulations detailing how the process for bringing a person selected to be an independent counsel on board as an employee of the department.
[14:00.500 --> 14:12.500]  It should be noted that only Trump supporters suddenly, upon the appointment of Mueller, adopted the view that the appointment of an independent counsel is unconstitutional.
[14:12.500 --> 14:19.500]  In 2020, when John Durham was appointed independent counsel to investigate possible FBI misconduct,
[14:19.500 --> 14:26.500]  the same people who said appointing Mueller was unconstitutional did not claim the appointment of Durham was unconstitutional.
[14:26.500 --> 14:34.500]  Those folks went silent when Durham was appointed because they hoped his investigation would result in multiple FBI officials being indicted.
[14:34.500 --> 14:40.500]  Then, in 2022, when Jack Smith was appointed independent counsel to investigate Donald Trump,
[14:40.500 --> 14:48.500]  that group became vocal again with their assertion that independent counsel appointments by the attorney general are unconstitutional.
[14:48.500 --> 14:52.500]  I believe there are three takeaways from what we've covered today.
[14:52.500 --> 15:03.500]  First, the only people who have asserted independent counsel appointments are unconstitutional have been those attempting to further a political agenda it was never about, nor is it now, obedience to the Constitution.
[15:03.500 --> 15:08.500]  Second, the current legal framework of appointment is inarguably constitutional.
[15:08.500 --> 15:18.500]  And finally, the claim that such appointments are unconstitutional is the exclusive domain of Donald Trump supporters for the sole purpose of protecting Donald Trump.
[15:18.500 --> 15:31.500]  I would also posit that the authenticity of their claims is dubious because they have screamed bloody murder that Mueller and Smith appointments were unconstitutional while making no such claim about the Durham appointment.
[15:31.500 --> 15:40.500]  They made no such claims about Durham because they were enthusiastic about an investigation focused on government officials they see as the enemy.
[15:40.500 --> 15:53.500]  In short, the MAGA community sees independent counsels who go after their perceived enemies as good and righteous and independent counsels who investigate Trump as heinous and unconstitutional.
[15:53.500 --> 15:57.500]  I think it should be apparent that's not how the law works.
[15:57.500 --> 16:06.500]  Now that you understand what the law says, let's circle back to Judge Cannon's decision to dismiss the case based on her false notion that it violates the appointment clause.
[16:06.500 --> 16:15.500]  The government has already filed its appeal. It was signed by Jay Bratt, who is the attorney in charge of DOJ's National Security Division.
[16:15.500 --> 16:24.500]  I discussed Bratt in a video I put out taking a deep dive into the grand jury indictment of Trump in the matter Cannon just dismissed. I'll post a link down in the notes.
[16:24.500 --> 16:34.500]  The judges at the 11th Circuit will immediately recognize that Bratt's signature on the filing signifies that DOJ believes there is a national security issue at stake.
[16:34.500 --> 16:43.500]  I fully expect the 11th to reinstate the classified documents case for the reasons we've already discussed and even possibly remove Cannon as the judge.
[16:43.500 --> 16:50.500]  Why do I say that? Because this is not the first time Cannon's decisions have been appealed to the 11th Circuit by the government.
[16:51.500 --> 17:04.500]  Shortly after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago and found classified documents, Trump's attorneys filed a petition at the small courthouse where Cannon is the only judge, despite the fact that it was not the appropriate court for the filing.
[17:04.500 --> 17:11.500]  Trump's attorneys claimed they were forced to file it there because the e-filing portal at the proper courthouse was not functioning.
[17:11.500 --> 17:19.500]  A subsequent investigation of the e-filing at that courthouse proved that claim to be false. The e-filing portal was working perfectly that evening.
[17:19.500 --> 17:24.500]  Cannon has long been known as an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump.
[17:24.500 --> 17:36.500]  After she received the petition from Trump's attorney, she ordered a special master appointed to review every document the government had seized in case any of them contained privileged communications.
[17:36.500 --> 17:49.500]  Cannon did that despite the fact that it is standard practice in such cases for a government taint team to review seized documents and block investigators and prosecutors from seeing privileged communication.
[17:49.500 --> 18:01.500]  The 11th Circuit terminated Cannon's special master order saying it was a needless delay because the taint team was in place and began the review process immediately after documents were seized during the search for Mar-a-Lago.
[18:02.500 --> 18:17.500]  In that same case, Cannon took the unheard of measure of ordering the U.S. government to completely stop its ongoing investigation into the classified documents until the special master had completed his work, which would have taken many months.
[18:17.500 --> 18:30.500]  The 11th Circuit overturned that order on an emergency basis because there was no justification in law for an officer of the judicial branch to order officers of the executive branch to cease doing their sworn duty.
[18:30.500 --> 18:37.500]  Making it worse was Cannon was interfering in an investigation with national security implications.
[18:37.500 --> 18:45.500]  Shortly thereafter, the 11th Circuit issued an order dismissing Trump's action in its entirety because Cannon never had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.
[18:45.500 --> 18:58.500]  While judges can and do make mistakes, one of the few cardinal sins is to hear a case where the law does not grant the court jurisdiction, which is exactly what Cannon had done.
[18:58.500 --> 19:07.500]  Employing the civil tone one often finds in court decisions, all three decisions from the 11th Circuit slapped the shit out of Cannon.
[19:08.500 --> 19:28.500]  Former federal judges and former prosecutors have almost universally held the view that Cannon agreed to hear a case for which she was, without jurisdiction, appointed a special master to duplicate a process already underway and ordered the Department of Justice to stand down a national security investigation to help Trump.
[19:28.500 --> 19:40.500]  I have zero doubt the judges of the 11th Circuit hold the exact same view today concerning Cannon's dismissal of the case based on legal reasoning you now know to be legally faulty.
[19:40.500 --> 19:51.500]  At the time the classified documents case landed on Cannon's bench, she'd overseen criminal cases as a judge for a whopping 10 days.
[19:51.500 --> 20:00.500]  She literally had 10 days of judicial experience with criminal cases when one of the most momentous cases in US history landed on her bench.
[20:00.500 --> 20:08.500]  Cannon overseeing the Trump classified documents case is a bit like a first year medical student being called upon to perform open heart surgery.
[20:08.500 --> 20:16.500]  The normal standard for an appeals court to remove a district court judge from a case is to identify some type of malfeasance.
[20:16.500 --> 20:21.500]  For that reason, many legal expositors are saying the 11th won't remove Cannon.
[20:21.500 --> 20:29.500]  Their view is that consistently being overturned by the appellant court doesn't necessarily prove malfeasance.
[20:29.500 --> 20:32.500]  I disagree. Sort of.
[20:32.500 --> 20:44.500]  While it's true that being consistently overturned by an appellant court doesn't necessarily demonstrate malfeasance, one aspect of malfeasance is a pattern of bias in favor of either a defendant or the prosecution.
[20:44.500 --> 20:55.500]  I believe the 11th Circuit will hold that the totality of Cannon's actions demonstrate an impermissible bias in favor of the defendant and for that reason the 11th will remove her.
[20:55.500 --> 21:05.500]  I'm admittedly going out on a limb by making that prediction because predicting what a court will do when the nuance of perception is involved is pretty risky.
[21:05.500 --> 21:11.500]  The good news is we'll all get to see how this plays out in the not too distant future.
[21:11.500 --> 21:16.500]  At the appellate level, there are really only two ways this can play out.
[21:16.500 --> 21:27.500]  Either the 11th Circuit rules that the appointment of independent counsel is violative of the Constitution's appointment clause or such appointments do not violate the Constitution.
[21:27.500 --> 21:36.500]  If the decision is such appointments do violate the Constitution, then various people in the government have been violating the Constitution for 149 years.
[21:36.500 --> 21:47.500]  If it is decided that such appointments do not violate the Constitution, then there is a U.S. district court judge who went way off the reservation, likely with corrupt motives.
[21:47.500 --> 21:55.500]  My point is that whatever the court decides will showcase that people in the federal government are misapplying the law.
[21:55.500 --> 22:05.500]  I don't know about you, but that's why I like to know the law for myself rather than trusting anyone in government or some talking head in the media.
[22:05.500 --> 22:18.500]  I mentioned at the outset that I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, the bestselling book that provides the American people with mountains of incontrovertible evidence that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary, hardworking Americans.
[22:18.500 --> 22:22.500]  How did Income Tax Shattering the Mist get written?
[22:22.500 --> 22:31.500]  It got written because decades ago I had a conflict with the IRS and realized I didn't know anything about income tax law.
[22:31.500 --> 22:36.500]  So how could I determine whether the IRS was right or wrong?
[22:36.500 --> 22:45.500]  By a show of hands, how many of you pay income tax because you've read even a single word of tax law?
[22:45.500 --> 22:49.500]  Right. None of you.
[22:49.500 --> 22:54.500]  You pay it because everyone says you have to.
[22:54.500 --> 22:59.500]  Have all those people who say you have to file and pay read the law?
[22:59.500 --> 23:14.500]  Of course not. What they're doing is spouting the bullshit with which they've been brainwashed by a 60-year massive government disinformation campaign to convince the American people they owe income tax, which is a blatant lie.
[23:14.500 --> 23:23.500]  So if all the people telling you you have to file and pay haven't read the law, who has read the law?
[23:23.500 --> 23:30.500]  That would be me, the guy who hasn't filed or paid in 31 years and wrote the bestselling book about what the law really says.
[23:30.500 --> 23:35.500]  It would also be the tens of thousands of people who've read Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[23:35.500 --> 23:45.500]  Now here's the kicker. People who've never read a word of tax law will listen to others who've also never read a word of tax law.
[23:45.500 --> 23:52.500]  And all the people who've never read a word of tax law will tell you that you have to file and pay.
[23:52.500 --> 24:01.500]  Then those same folks will turn around and call someone like me, who has read the law, a kook.
[24:01.500 --> 24:07.500]  That is a classic example of brainwashing. It's damn near cultish.
[24:07.500 --> 24:12.500]  I hope you did not see yourself in that description of brainwashed cult members.
[24:12.500 --> 24:18.500]  And I hope your view is people who've never read a word of tax law should not be telling anyone what the law requires.
[24:19.500 --> 24:22.500]  I was introduced to the truth of the income tax in 1993.
[24:22.500 --> 24:39.500]  I spent the next 17 years digging into every conceivable statute, regulation, Treasury decision, Treasury order, internal IRS documents, and more for 17 years.
[24:39.500 --> 24:43.500]  Only then did I write Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[24:43.500 --> 24:54.500]  Over the last 14 years, how many readers have found Income Tax Shattering the Mist utterly compelling and left them thoroughly convinced Congress has never imposed the income tax on them?
[24:54.500 --> 24:59.500]  That would be 100%.
[24:59.500 --> 25:06.500]  Many have used the knowledge they discovered Income Tax Shattering the Mist to safely walk away from the government scam.
[25:06.500 --> 25:13.500]  Wouldn't it be nice to safely walk away from the scam and never pay the government another penny in income tax?
[25:13.500 --> 25:15.500]  Guess how that starts.
[25:15.500 --> 25:23.500]  It starts with you going from never having read a word of tax law to knowing exactly what the law says.
[25:23.500 --> 25:27.500]  Sounds dry and boring, right? Absolutely not.
[25:27.500 --> 25:32.500]  Most readers cannot put it down because it is so engrossing.
[25:32.500 --> 25:45.500]  Once you know the facts, once you know the truth, only then can you make an informed decision about whether you'd like to safely walk away or just keep giving the government your money for no good reason.
[25:45.500 --> 25:50.500]  You can get Income Tax Shattering the Mist at drreality.news.
[25:50.500 --> 25:53.500]  I'll put the link down in the notes while you're there.
[25:53.500 --> 26:07.500]  Take a look at body science, but only if you want to be in such incredible great health that you won't need big med or big pharma in your life ever again.
[26:07.500 --> 26:10.500]  If that sounds good to you, you need to read body science.
[26:10.500 --> 26:15.500]  As a community, Americans are the most ill people in all of human history.
[26:15.500 --> 26:23.500]  With all of our wealth, technology, and science, how is it that America is the sickest country on Earth?
[26:23.500 --> 26:31.500]  Do you think it might have something to do, once again, with the American people being programmed by massive disinformation?
[26:31.500 --> 26:34.500]  You've heard the adage, follow the money, right?
[26:34.500 --> 26:42.500]  So as you ponder why America is the sickest nation on Earth and in all of human history, who wins?
[26:42.500 --> 26:45.500]  Who reaps the financial rewards from that?
[26:45.500 --> 26:50.500]  The answer is big med, big pharma, and big food.
[26:50.500 --> 26:55.500]  Big food being the producers of highly processed substances masquerading as food.
[26:55.500 --> 27:00.500]  They reap $1.6 trillion annually.
[27:00.500 --> 27:13.500]  If everyone in America read body science and applied what they discovered there, within a year that number would probably fall to about $1 trillion because so few Americans would have any use for them.
[27:13.500 --> 27:21.500]  As things stand now, they reap trillions from making you sick and trillions more from addressing your sickness.
[27:21.500 --> 27:24.500]  That's quite a racket.
[27:24.500 --> 27:32.500]  The good news is you can get all the facts, all the science presented in a way everyone can understand simply by reading body science.
[27:32.500 --> 27:40.500]  Then you can tell big med, big pharma, and big food to go fuck themselves forever, as have I.
[27:40.500 --> 27:46.500]  There's a reason body science has never received a rating of less than five stars.
[27:46.500 --> 27:55.500]  By purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Mist and or body science, you can help me to continue to be here for you with these revealing and thought provoking presentations.
[27:55.500 --> 27:59.500]  Please share this presentation with others. Thank you for being here.
[27:59.500 --> 28:01.500]  Take care.