Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.300]  Welcome to the show. We are just weeks away from Election Day 2024. That begs
[00:06.300 --> 00:12.500]  the question, who will win? I have no idea, but I do know something shady has been
[00:12.500 --> 00:16.380]  brewing for some time, and I want to share it with you today so you are
[00:16.380 --> 00:37.420]  prepared. Let's start with this. Roger Stone was recorded describing the
[00:37.420 --> 00:43.420]  tactics that would eventually be known as Stop the Steal in July 2020, four
[00:43.460 --> 00:49.180]  months before the election. Those tactics included refusing to acknowledge a loss
[00:49.180 --> 00:53.900]  and claiming the other side had cheated. Reporter Donnie O'Sullivan attended a
[00:53.900 --> 00:58.140]  meeting of Trump supporters in an Arizona hotel conference room in October
[00:58.140 --> 01:02.900]  2020, a month before the election. O'Sullivan reported that several of the
[01:02.900 --> 01:07.540]  speakers told those in attendance that there were only two possible outcomes.
[01:07.540 --> 01:13.300]  One was that Donald Trump would win by a landslide. The other was that Trump would
[01:13.300 --> 01:20.980]  lose, which the speaker said would prove that widespread Democrat-controlled
[01:20.980 --> 01:26.980]  election fraud had occurred, keeping in mind that before a single ballot had
[01:26.980 --> 01:33.220]  been cashed, they were already saying that Trump losing would prove election
[01:33.220 --> 01:40.020]  fraud. In other words, the message was this. If we get our way, everything worked
[01:40.060 --> 01:48.900]  properly. But if we don't get our way, then the other side cheated. It's hard to
[01:48.900 --> 01:55.460]  imagine a more candy-ass, unmanly, victimhood mentality than that. The reason
[01:55.460 --> 01:59.880]  I shared those stories with you about the pre-election plan to claim election
[01:59.880 --> 02:06.660]  fraud if Trump lost in 2022 is because it's happening again right now. As I'm
[02:06.660 --> 02:10.220]  recording this, we're several weeks from Election Day and notable Trump supporters
[02:10.220 --> 02:15.380]  in various states are already making the same claims. Today, I thought we might
[02:15.380 --> 02:20.100]  consider what a person has to be willing to accept in order to believe that if
[02:20.100 --> 02:24.820]  Trump loses, it's because of widespread Democrat-controlled election fraud. So
[02:24.820 --> 02:28.560]  first, for those who have bought into the narrative that Trump lost the 2020
[02:28.560 --> 02:32.060]  election due to widespread Democrat-controlled election fraud, you
[02:32.060 --> 02:35.100]  should take stock of the fact that Republicans who have been concerned
[02:35.140 --> 02:40.580]  about election integrity have had four years to put in place laws and policies
[02:40.580 --> 02:44.500]  at the county and state levels to ensure the 2024 election does not involve any
[02:44.500 --> 02:49.140]  meaningful amount of election fraud. I say meaningful amount of election fraud
[02:49.140 --> 02:54.940]  because there will always be some jerk or a couple of jerks who will try to get
[02:54.940 --> 02:58.700]  away with something. But of course, a couple of jerks trying to pull a fast one
[02:58.700 --> 03:03.500]  doesn't alter the outcome of an election. Having said, concerned Republicans have
[03:03.500 --> 03:08.580]  had four years to make the changes they desire, that obviously does not apply to
[03:08.580 --> 03:13.460]  jurisdictions where Democrats hold the majority. And that brings us to my next
[03:13.460 --> 03:17.620]  point, which I'll state in the form of a question. In jurisdictions where
[03:17.620 --> 03:22.820]  Democrats are the majority, why would they have to engage in election fraud
[03:22.820 --> 03:28.620]  for their candidates to win? Now let's consider jurisdictions in which
[03:28.620 --> 03:32.100]  Democrats and Republicans are split pretty much down the middle. This would
[03:32.100 --> 03:36.620]  be a setting in which stop the steal folks would say Democrats are engaged in
[03:36.620 --> 03:41.660]  widespread election fraud. Let's use Dallas County, Texas for this illustration.
[03:41.660 --> 03:45.980]  Dallas County contains the city of Dallas, a major metropolitan center, as
[03:45.980 --> 03:49.820]  well as communities with as few as a hundred residents, and Texas is split
[03:49.820 --> 03:55.020]  almost half and half when it comes to registered Republicans and Democrats. The
[03:55.020 --> 04:02.340]  Dallas County Election Department has roughly 1,600 employees and feels an
[04:02.340 --> 04:07.140]  additional 3,000 poll workers for Election Day. When we consider that
[04:07.140 --> 04:11.980]  Dallas County has both Democrats and Republicans living there, we can
[04:11.980 --> 04:16.260]  reasonably assume that mix is represented in the Election Department
[04:16.260 --> 04:23.260]  workforce. So to believe Democrats committed widespread election fraud in
[04:23.260 --> 04:27.980]  Dallas County in 2020, one would have to believe that thousands of Republican
[04:27.980 --> 04:31.900]  employees and poll workers just stood idly by while their Democrat co-workers
[04:31.900 --> 04:36.860]  stole the election. What do you think the odds are that thousands of Republican
[04:36.860 --> 04:41.260]  employees and poll workers remain silent while Democrats stole the 2020 election?
[04:41.260 --> 04:48.580]  I think it is fair to say that the odds that happened are zero. What do you think
[04:48.580 --> 04:51.580]  the odds are that thousands of Republican employees and poll workers
[04:51.580 --> 04:58.460]  will remain silent if Adams attempt to steal the 2024 election? I think we can
[04:58.460 --> 05:03.500]  safely say the odds of that are also zero. I'll go further and say that the
[05:03.500 --> 05:09.580]  idea that Democrats stole the election in Dallas County is preposterous. Now
[05:09.580 --> 05:15.740]  let's turn to jurisdictions that are pretty much solid red. In 2020, Trump took
[05:15.900 --> 05:23.180]  locations by storm. In 2020, Trump won Nye County, where I live, with 69% of the
[05:23.180 --> 05:29.740]  votes. As a side note, that was down from 82% in 2016. So where were the
[05:29.740 --> 05:34.220]  allegations of widespread Democrat-controlled election fraud in my
[05:34.220 --> 05:41.580]  county? There wasn't any. That's because Trump won. And that takes us back to the
[05:41.580 --> 05:45.260]  absurdly self-serving position that where Trump won, the election was fair
[05:45.260 --> 05:50.220]  and honest, but where Trump lost, the election was stolen, even with thousands
[05:50.220 --> 05:55.660]  of Republicans working the polls and involved in counting the ballots. Stop
[05:55.660 --> 05:59.260]  the steal, folks, who would have us believe election fraud is pervasive and
[05:59.260 --> 06:08.100]  taking place on a grand scale. Okay, so how true is that? Before I get into the
[06:08.100 --> 06:13.260]  numbers, I should mention that this presentation is intended for rational
[06:13.260 --> 06:16.860]  people. There is no amount of evidence or factual numbers that will change the
[06:16.860 --> 06:20.220]  minds of the stop the steal folks. They aren't part of the stop the steal
[06:20.220 --> 06:24.140]  movement because of facts. They're part of the stop the steal movement despite
[06:24.140 --> 06:27.900]  the fact. So it's unlikely anything I present today will change their
[06:27.900 --> 06:35.820]  position. In April 2022, Florida's state election fraud task force went into
[06:35.820 --> 06:40.620]  operation. It was created by a law passed by the legislature and signed by
[06:40.620 --> 06:45.020]  Governor DeSantis. Its mission is to track down election fraud in all its
[06:45.020 --> 06:48.860]  various permutations, arrest the fraudsters, and see that they're
[06:48.860 --> 06:53.500]  prosecuted. While exact numbers are a little hard to come by, a reasonable
[06:53.500 --> 06:58.860]  analysis of the available records indicate that in the last 28 months, the
[06:58.860 --> 07:07.500]  election fraud task force has arrested less than 100 people. That's less than 100
[07:07.500 --> 07:14.060]  people in a state with a population of more than 23 million. That's just a bit
[07:14.060 --> 07:20.060]  more than four ten thousands of one percent, but it's even less than that
[07:20.060 --> 07:23.500]  because most of the people arrested were never prosecuted. Many of the people
[07:23.500 --> 07:28.620]  arrested legitimately thought they were legally qualified to vote. If one
[07:28.620 --> 07:31.980]  believed at the time he or she voted that they were in compliance with the
[07:31.980 --> 07:36.860]  law, there is no criminal intent which prevents the state from prosecuting them.
[07:36.860 --> 07:43.980]  So in a state with a task force dedicated exclusively to election fraud,
[07:44.700 --> 07:48.780]  in just shy of two and a half years, they've arrested less than 100 people and
[07:48.780 --> 07:53.260]  it appears less than 50 of those were prosecuted. That should give you some
[07:53.260 --> 08:00.220]  idea of the scale of the problem. Or maybe I should say lack of scale. Let's
[08:00.220 --> 08:04.540]  focus on evidence for a moment. Whether we're talking about human physiology or
[08:04.620 --> 08:08.780]  law, I'm an evidence guy. I wrote Income Tax Shattering the Mist, the best
[08:08.780 --> 08:12.380]  selling book in the nation that explains the truth that Congress has never
[08:12.380 --> 08:16.380]  imposed the income tax on ordinary hardworking Americans. The reason Income
[08:16.380 --> 08:19.500]  Tax Shattering the Mist is the best selling book on the subject is it
[08:20.300 --> 08:27.100]  presents mountains of evidence. No one has to believe anything I say in Income
[08:27.100 --> 08:32.220]  Tax Shattering the Mist because everything is based on evidence. In fact,
[08:32.300 --> 08:37.900]  in the introduction I say this, I do not want you to take my word for it. I want
[08:37.900 --> 08:43.820]  you to see the facts for yourself. Facts are stubborn things. Because I don't want
[08:43.820 --> 08:47.980]  anyone to take my word for anything and I want them to do their own research,
[08:47.980 --> 08:51.340]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist includes a table of legal authorities and a highly
[08:51.340 --> 08:56.940]  detailed index. Those resources are there to make it easy for readers to verify the
[08:56.940 --> 09:02.140]  evidence that's presented to them. I do the same thing in Body Science, my
[09:02.140 --> 09:06.460]  groundbreaking book on human physiology. The difference between the physiological
[09:06.460 --> 09:10.540]  science I present in body science and what the public has been led to believe by
[09:11.340 --> 09:18.780]  so-called experts is so shocking, I say this, quote, but please do not believe me.
[09:18.780 --> 09:23.820]  This is a theme in all my various works. Please do not believe me. I encourage you
[09:23.820 --> 09:29.580]  to do your own in-depth research after you complete this book, close quote. I
[09:29.580 --> 09:34.300]  encourage people not to believe me but to do their own research because everything
[09:34.300 --> 09:41.580]  I present is based on hard, indisputable evidence. So then, what constitutes evidence
[09:41.580 --> 09:47.340]  in terms of alleging election fraud? That depends on where it is alleged. When people
[09:47.340 --> 09:53.260]  are speaking to others in casual conversation or on social media, zero evidence is required.
[09:53.260 --> 09:57.900]  In that setting, people can say whatever they want without regard to evidence. In many cases,
[09:57.900 --> 10:03.580]  when speaking casually, a person will claim that some other guy said something that proves
[10:03.580 --> 10:11.180]  election fraud or the person speaking will say the proof is on YouTube. Another setting in which
[10:11.180 --> 10:18.540]  election fraud can be alleged is a court of law. In the courtroom setting, evidence is mandatory
[10:18.540 --> 10:25.020]  and has a specific meaning. So what is evidence in a courtroom? Well, evidence can take several
[10:25.020 --> 10:30.780]  forms. One form is documents, more properly referred to in law as writings. Another form of
[10:30.780 --> 10:37.100]  evidence is sworn testimony given by a witness. As I'm sure you're aware, all legal proceedings
[10:37.100 --> 10:41.740]  are adversarial. In other words, each side is attempting to use evidence and the rules of
[10:41.740 --> 10:47.820]  evidence to show their position is factually true and or the other side's assertions are not
[10:47.820 --> 10:53.260]  factually true. To convince a jury who they should see as credible and who they should not,
[10:53.980 --> 10:59.420]  writings submitted as evidence can be challenged. Such challenges can be based on several issues
[10:59.420 --> 11:05.980]  such as authenticity, relevance, or factualness of content. In short, writings submitted to a court
[11:05.980 --> 11:12.860]  as evidence by one side can be challenged by the other side. Clearly, the standard for evidence
[11:12.940 --> 11:19.580]  in the form of writings in a courtroom is completely different from some guy at a bar
[11:19.580 --> 11:25.100]  or on social media asserting election fraud took place. Before I delve into witness testimony,
[11:25.100 --> 11:29.500]  please take a moment to subscribe to the channel and like the video so the algorithms will show
[11:29.500 --> 11:35.820]  it to more people. Thank you for that. Let's talk about personal testimony. All personal testimony
[11:35.820 --> 11:40.700]  must be sworn, meaning you take an oath to tell the truth and if you are caught lying,
[11:40.700 --> 11:46.620]  you can be prosecuted for a felony and put in prison. Just as with writings, witness testimony
[11:46.620 --> 11:52.700]  can be challenged. The most common form of that is cross-examination, which you've all seen on TV
[11:52.700 --> 11:58.300]  shows. The questions asked by the attorney conducting the cross-examination seek to show
[11:58.300 --> 12:05.100]  the witness's testimony is not factual or inconsistent, biased, or otherwise non-credible.
[12:05.900 --> 12:10.780]  Sometimes the witness's testimony is bulletproof. Other times, cross-examination reveals serious
[12:10.780 --> 12:15.420]  flaws that will cause the jury to dismiss or minimize the significance of the witness's
[12:15.420 --> 12:21.260]  testimony. Occasionally, cross-examination will reveal the witness is lying, which can result in
[12:21.260 --> 12:27.180]  the witness being convicted of perjury, which is a felony. The important thing to keep in mind
[12:27.180 --> 12:32.940]  is that if a witness's testimony can't survive cross-examination, the consequence may be that
[12:32.940 --> 12:39.020]  the side for whom the witness is testifying will lose the case. This illustrates, again,
[12:39.020 --> 12:45.020]  that the standard for evidence in the form of witness testimony has virtually nothing to do
[12:45.020 --> 12:51.420]  with some guy blabbing in a bar or on social media about election fraud. I wanted to make sure you
[12:51.420 --> 12:58.060]  understand how courtroom evidence works to make a particular point. After the 2020 election,
[12:58.060 --> 13:04.380]  Donald Trump and groups acting on his behalf filed roughly 65 lawsuits alleging election fraud.
[13:05.020 --> 13:09.580]  While some were dismissed for lack of standing, most were dismissed for lack of evidence.
[13:10.300 --> 13:15.500]  In some cases, attorneys were sanctioned for filing frivolous suits. In other words,
[13:15.500 --> 13:20.700]  their initial pleadings alleged justifiable issues, but when it came time to present the evidence,
[13:20.700 --> 13:25.740]  plaintiff's attorneys didn't. Phrased another way, when it came time to enter evidence into
[13:25.740 --> 13:31.100]  the record, the plaintiff's attorneys didn't have any. So what about the bloggers and social
[13:31.100 --> 13:36.140]  media influencers claiming they have all the evidence anyone could ever need to prove election
[13:36.140 --> 13:44.220]  fraud? Why didn't they take the stand in those 65 cases? Because bloggers and influencers depend
[13:44.220 --> 13:50.140]  on audience size to generate income. If they'd taken the stand in any of those cases and had
[13:50.140 --> 13:55.500]  their rhetoric obliterated on cross-examination, they would have lost a shit ton of credibility
[13:55.500 --> 14:00.700]  and with that a significant chunk of their followers, which would translate into lost
[14:00.700 --> 14:07.660]  revenue. Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, is one of the most notable people for claiming over and
[14:07.660 --> 14:13.420]  over again to possess evidence that election fraud took place. So why didn't Lindell take the stand
[14:13.420 --> 14:19.340]  in any of those 65 cases? Well, because he can't. He isn't the one who put together the so-called
[14:19.340 --> 14:26.140]  evidence. Lindell merely received it from others. So why didn't those who put the so-called evidence
[14:26.140 --> 14:32.940]  together and gave it to Lindell take the stand in any of the election fraud cases? Simple. They
[14:32.940 --> 14:39.180]  know that real expert witnesses would obliterate their credibility and under cross-examination
[14:39.180 --> 14:45.260]  they would be shown to have been morons or liars. I should probably let you know that I've testified
[14:45.260 --> 14:50.140]  in dozens of court cases, including as an expert witness. The parties for which I have testified
[14:50.140 --> 14:55.500]  have never lost their case. In one criminal case in which I testified as an expert witness,
[14:55.500 --> 15:00.540]  the jury acquitted the defendant because my testimony convinced them the arresting officer
[15:00.540 --> 15:07.180]  had lied in his report, which he had. I have been questioned on direct cross-examination,
[15:07.180 --> 15:11.500]  redirect, and recross. That said, I don't want to make too much of my experience testifying
[15:11.500 --> 15:15.180]  because I've always testified on behalf of the party I believed was in the right and of course
[15:15.180 --> 15:20.620]  I've always testified truthfully. I share with you that I've testified many times to make the
[15:20.620 --> 15:26.700]  point that what I'm telling you today is not hypothetical. I know how the evidentiary process
[15:26.700 --> 15:34.140]  works. Understanding how the process works allows me to see clearly why no one testified under oath
[15:34.620 --> 15:41.420]  and no writings were submitted into evidence in any of those 65 cases. The reason I'm trying to
[15:41.420 --> 15:46.860]  impart to you today why no one testified under oath and no writings were submitted into evidence
[15:46.860 --> 15:53.660]  in any of those 65 cases is because if Trump loses the election in November we will see a replay of
[15:53.660 --> 16:03.020]  the 2020 Stop the Steal narrative with just as much evidence, which is to say none. I'm sure
[16:03.100 --> 16:08.300]  someone out there is thinking that no one can prove a negative, so when I say there is no
[16:08.300 --> 16:13.500]  meaningful evidence of widespread Democrat-controlled election fraud, I can't prove that evidence does
[16:13.500 --> 16:24.060]  not exist. As far as that goes, it's true. But how many court cases in which no evidence was presented
[16:24.060 --> 16:29.020]  does it take before a reasonable person acknowledges that the failure to put any writings or witness
[16:29.020 --> 16:36.220]  testimony into evidence is an incredibly strong indicator that no evidence exists? Is it two cases?
[16:36.220 --> 16:43.100]  Five cases? Fifteen cases? Thirty? Fifty? I leave it to you to answer that question.
[16:43.740 --> 16:48.780]  I imagine one of the most interesting things about today's presentation is how it will be received. I
[16:48.780 --> 16:53.340]  haven't presented it for political reasons. I presented it in the hope that everyone on all
[16:53.340 --> 16:57.500]  sides of the political spectrum will consider any election fraud claims within the framework
[16:57.580 --> 17:04.940]  discussed here today, which is evidence. Trump supporters, let me ask you a question. How much
[17:04.940 --> 17:11.580]  do you trust the federal government? Is the answer somewhere between not at all and not very much?
[17:12.300 --> 17:19.660]  If so, you should absolutely be reading income tax shattering the mist. Unless, of course,
[17:19.660 --> 17:25.820]  you want to keep funding a government you say you detest by allowing yourself to continue to be
[17:25.820 --> 17:33.420]  fooled by the very government you say you don't trust. If you genuinely distrust the government,
[17:33.420 --> 17:38.380]  don't you want to know if the government is scamming you out of your property? If I'm right,
[17:38.380 --> 17:45.580]  which I am, shouldn't you want to get informed so you can stop participating in the government scam?
[17:45.580 --> 17:49.980]  It's simple to do. I haven't filed or paid a penny in income tax in 31 years,
[17:49.980 --> 17:56.460]  but the first step is to learn how the scam is being run on you. Only then can you decide
[17:56.460 --> 18:01.500]  whether you've had enough of being defrauded. Now let me speak to the folks who are middle of the
[18:01.500 --> 18:08.220]  road or maybe lean left. Should you read income tax shattering the mist? That depends on whether
[18:08.220 --> 18:12.780]  you want to hold on to the trust you have in the federal government. You can avoid reading income
[18:12.780 --> 18:17.020]  tax shattering the mist because you want to maintain your emotional attachment to the idea
[18:17.020 --> 18:22.940]  that the government is good and trustworthy or at least not so horrible it would commit the largest
[18:22.940 --> 18:28.860]  financial crime in world history against the very population it ostensibly exists to serve.
[18:29.500 --> 18:34.540]  Or you can read income tax shattering the mist and have that comforting facade ripped away.
[18:34.540 --> 18:41.340]  So what are you into? Comforting lies or uncomfortable truths? My view is every single
[18:41.340 --> 18:45.820]  American should know the truth that the income tax has never been imposed on ordinary hardworking
[18:45.820 --> 18:52.300]  Americans like you. I don't mean to know it in some abstract way, but in a very concrete way,
[18:52.860 --> 18:59.020]  you should know this truth with the same certainty as you know your own name. Even if you choose not
[18:59.020 --> 19:04.780]  to do anything with what you learn, at a minimum you should be able to speak authoritatively to
[19:04.780 --> 19:11.420]  others about it so that in time enough Americans will learn the truth that the scam will collapse.
[19:11.420 --> 19:18.140]  And what could be better than that? As Sun Tzu said, the supreme art of war is to subdue the
[19:18.140 --> 19:23.500]  enemy without fighting. If learning the truth and telling others about it will result in the scam
[19:23.500 --> 19:28.940]  collapsing without a fight, isn't that what we should want? As I mentioned in the beginning,
[19:28.940 --> 19:34.300]  the reason income tax shattering the mist is the nation's best-selling book on the subject
[19:34.300 --> 19:40.780]  is because it's based 100% on evidence. Because of that, countless thousands of Americans have
[19:40.780 --> 19:45.740]  already safely walked away from the income tax scam, having never heard from the IRS again.
[19:45.740 --> 19:52.620]  To get income tax shattering the mist, go to drreality.news. While you're there, also pick up
[19:52.620 --> 19:57.500]  a copy of my groundbreaking work on human physiology, body science. You may have noticed
[19:57.500 --> 20:03.340]  that the health of the American people is sinking like the Titanic. 70% of our population is overweight
[20:03.340 --> 20:10.140]  or obese. Diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's are exploding. Obesity in children, which was
[20:10.140 --> 20:16.140]  almost unknown a few decades ago, is now commonplace. Due to trillion-dollar industries
[20:16.140 --> 20:22.300]  pouring money into bogus research, fake science is everywhere these days. Corrupt studies are
[20:22.300 --> 20:30.940]  making absurd claims such as that things like salt or red meat cause type 2 diabetes. In short,
[20:31.580 --> 20:36.540]  America's health is in the shitter and getting worse every day because certain industries
[20:36.540 --> 20:43.820]  and the U.S. government have engaged in massive disinformation. Body science shows you
[20:43.820 --> 20:49.340]  their disinformation and then shows you the factual science of how your body properly operates.
[20:49.900 --> 20:54.220]  60 years of disinformation has led the people of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced
[20:54.220 --> 20:59.820]  nation on earth to be the sickest people in all of human history and getting sicker every day.
[21:00.780 --> 21:06.300]  If you read body science and put into action what you learn there, you will leave the ranks
[21:06.300 --> 21:12.620]  of those who are misled and sick and become astoundingly healthy. I practice what I preach.
[21:12.620 --> 21:19.020]  I adhere to everything in body science and at 65 I'm as healthy as an 18-year-old or as healthy as
[21:19.020 --> 21:24.700]  18-year-olds were back when 18-year-olds were healthy. Body science has never gotten anything
[21:24.860 --> 21:31.580]  less than a five-star rating and readers rave about the fact that they look and feel decades
[21:31.580 --> 21:36.940]  younger after putting into action the truth they learn in body science. So go to DrReality.News
[21:36.940 --> 21:41.580]  and pick up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist and Body Science. They will be two of the
[21:41.580 --> 21:48.780]  most fascinating books you've ever read. My word to you on that. Also, by purchasing Income Tax
[21:48.780 --> 21:53.020]  Shattering the Mist and or Body Science, you help me to continue to be here for you with these
[21:53.020 --> 21:57.820]  revealing and thought-provoking presentations. Please share this information with others.
[21:57.820 --> 22:09.180]  Thanks for being here. Take care.