Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Trump Supreme Court Presidential Immunity Ruling With Nathan Jones

Episode Date: July 2, 2024

In this episode, we're joined by Nathan Jones from Xlear to dissect the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Nathan, who has firsthand experience with the complexities of immunity in political positions, offers his sharp insights and perspectives. We delve into the implications of the court's decision, examining its potential impact on the future of executive power and accountability. Could this ruling benefit Former President Trump in his ongoing cases?We explore the nuances of the ruling, discussing the arguments presented by both sides and the legal precedents that shaped the justices' opinions. Additionally, we continue our discussion on the Chevron Deference, breaking down what it means in layman's terms and how it has affected Nathan's company.

I'm put up with changes. Come pick me up because I just want to see the light. I want to be waitless. Teach me to fly. I won't be coming down. Could somebody wake me up? I just see her face where ever look. She's standing in the crowd.

Hello and welcome to Investigator Earth Podcast. I'm your host, Chad, alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry, on tonight's episode. We're going to be talking about the Supreme Court ruling on the Trump immunity. decision. Obviously, the left has been losing their minds the past two days. We'll get in a couple of those clips too. They're pretty entertaining. But more specifically, we're going to break down what does this really mean for Trump? And also, could it be bad for Trump in some ways, because we do have to realize that President Biden is still in office. He still is the president right now. And so if this presidential immunity thing is so dangerous, right, for democracy,

and it basically gives the president unlimited power and so much above the law, it would mean the same thing, obviously, for Biden as well. Also, we have a very special guest, Nathan Jones from Clear. Nathan, how's it going, man? It's going great, and I'm looking forward to chatting about these topics. Absolutely. Nathan, we decided, obviously, to bring you on this episode as well, because, you know, you have a little, I guess, some kind of relationship with the government, not necessarily a guy. good one. It's kind of like a marriage. I love our great and glorious government. Yeah, absolutely. And also, we're going to, we're going to be talking about the Chevron deference and breaking it down just a little bit more on the latter part of this episode.

We had Collier and Nathan's attorney on just the other day talking about the Chevron deference. And we're going to explain it a little more in detail, a little more, I don't know, watered down. Is it a knife in the heart to the deep state of what many people are saying? We'll talk about all that. Guys, welcome to the show. It is July this second. I was about to say June, but July to 2nd, 2024. Name of this song is The Light by Loving Calibur.

Guys, we have two more days until July 4th. We will be at the lake tomorrow. And so had to get this episode out. We also have another episode scheduled for later on today. So looking forward to all those. Nathan, so you've heard, obviously, that the Supreme Court decided and they issued a landmark ruling Monday in Trump versus United States, concluding that a president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts

committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. The decision clarifies whether a former president can be criminally charged by prosecutors for acts committed while in office, and former President Trump brought the question before the court after special counsel Jack Smith accused him of various crimes related to Trump's attempt to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. What is just some of your first thoughts on the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court, Nathan? Well, my first thoughts on it are why are they even bringing this as a lawsuit other than warfare, lawfare, whatever you want to call it?

Because all government employees are shielded from liability when they're government employees. I mean, I'm seeing this because, you know, we've talked about the lawsuit that they brought against me. I think it's been incredibly frivolous. They have no leg to stand on. We haven't made any faults from this leaving statements. And Keith Fenton Miller must have woken up on the wrong set of the bed, but he's in the FTC. And he came after us. And they named me personally.

And when I went to my attorneys and I said, hey, why don't we go after them personally? because they didn't do their job. They didn't read the studies. They acknowledged that they didn't read the studies. They didn't do anything. They just said, oh, well, you know, here's someone saying something. Let's sue them before and incur millions of dollars in legal fees before they ever do any due diligence before they talk to an expert before they do anything. And my attorney said, no, government employees are shielded from liability.

I don't see any difference between this and what they're talking about with Trump. He did stuff when he was the president. He has immunity. Yeah, and obviously, you know, Biden has come out in a speech, which we'll get to in just a minute. Let you hear what Biden says about the immunity ruling in the Supreme Court, where he talks about, you know, this is going to give President Trump and all future presidents, they're going to be above the law. But they fail to mention that technically Biden does actually have the same powers right now under this Supreme Court ruling. I want to get a little more in this. Smith has charged Trump following a month.

long investigation into whether the former president was involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and interfered in the 2020 election results. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the United States. Now, I want to break down this first part here, right? Obviously, the Supreme Court ruling for immunity really stands tall on the January 6 case. And whereas this is the left's biggest. biggest ammo. I mean, against Trump, against Republicans, they all point back to January 6th.

And more specifically, they say that Trump was enticing an insurrection or he was instigating a riot. And obviously, for those that don't know, Trump did actually come out on Twitter and social media platforms in which Twitter, which was one of obviously his biggest social media presences, that tweet was banned and censored right after he had posted this. And we didn't even know that until after the fact when Elon Musk re-bought or sorry, bought X and found out that, yes, that tweet was banned about five minutes after Trump posted it. And more than likely, because of the fact, they wanted a way to say, look, Trump did nothing to try to stop these people.

This was him inciting an insurrection. What is your thoughts on that? Well, my thoughts are that if it was banned five minutes after it was posted, a tweet by the president of the United States than somebody, an individual at Twitter, because it was Twitter then, somebody should be held accountable for that because that is, to me, that's criminal. Yeah. And the reason why I'm saying is criminal is how did they know, and I'm not even saying it's just criminal against the employee at Twitter, but the question is, how did they know that the president

it was going to post something like that and within five minutes be able to take it down. I mean, I've read what that tweet is. I understand what it is and I have a couple of years of hindsight and deeper knowledge than what the person at five minutes did. And I can't see what the harm is in putting that up. But this person at Twitter obviously had already said, or somebody had already said, hey, there's going to be a tweet coming through from the president. you need to make sure it's banned because something's going to be happening.

So be prepared and be ready. Yeah, you're exactly right. And I've thought it was a setup from the very beginning. Donald Trump did tweet at 3.13 p.m. January 6, 2021. I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful, no violence. Remember, we are the party of law and order. Respect the law and our great men and women in blue. Thank you.

Also, in his speech before he actually, or sorry, before the protesters or the people on January 6 went to the Capitol. He did say we will go peacefully and patriotically protest at the Capitol building about the election, right? So obviously, in your mind, do you see any type of incitement of an insurrection? And just the very fact, do you even think it even came close to an insurrection? I do not. Absolutely do not believe that it was an insurrection. But to play devil's advocate, there were several people that came out and said, well, he didn't tweet for a long, long time.

He let it go on too long, is what a lot. a lot of people were saying, and that's why he's at fault. Well, apparently he did tweet and it was censored. Yeah. Yeah, I'm looking at this real quick. What time was the Capitol breach on January 6th? Because I'm just curious about that. I know that the speech was somewhere around 10 or 11, I believe, in the morning.

I'll figure it out in just a little bit. But, yeah, so we know that he did tweet that out. We know that he did encourage people to go peacefully and patriotically protested the Capitol. And listen, these same people that are calling Trump an insurrectionist and January 6thers insurrectionists and these people should all be put in prison for the rest of their lives, these same politicians that are calling this was also the ones that was enticing and agging on all of these riots in the summer of love, what they called it, in 2020, where BLM and Antifa basically burnt down cities across the nation, they also literally took parts of cities hostages or hostage as a part of the Chaz movement. I want to get into this real quick. These are some of the five key points I want to point out about what this immunity hearing actually says. In a six three decision in the case, the high court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justice did not apply the rule into whether or not the former president is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Roberts waiting for the majority said the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. And it quotes, the president is not above the law. Roberts continued, but Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the framers has always demanded an energetic independent executive. And it quotes, the president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and his entitled at a minimum to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts. He added that immunity applies equally to all documents of the Oval Office regardless of politics, policy, or party. What do you consider an official act, Nathan? I mean, what do you think they mean by official versus unofficial acts? Well, I can tell you that what I think is that an official act is something they're doing as they're trying to do their job to the best of their abilities. What my attorneys tell me is that it's any act that they claim is done,

while there as government employee. Okay. And the bar, the bar to change that is so high that you have a lot, and I'm saying a lot of government employees to get away with criminal actions because they're government employees. You can't go after it. Yeah. Yeah. And to me, that's criminal.

And so obviously that would also apply to Biden. Now, in this case, could Biden then go and have Trump killed? as a political opponent for whatever reason. He may classify Trump as a threat to democracy because guess what? They've been doing that the entire time. And so if you think about someone they're calling an exciter of an insurrection, a political, I mean, he's basically Hitler in their eyes. Would that classify as an official act if they decided to murder or assassinate President Trump?

Well, I think that all depends on the courts. And the reason why I say that is because I think that both the Democrats and the Republicans could, both extremes of our political parties and the political spectrum could sit there and say, well, yes, this is an official act. And it would be up to the courts to really come back and say, no, you arresting President Trump because you think he is a threat to democracy. He may be a threat to your style of democracy, but he's not a threat to democracy. But I do think that that would come down to the courts. And it is sketchy. That's a scary concept because that sword is going to cut both ways. Yeah, I believe so, too.

I mean, and I think most people don't realize this. I know a lot of people are celebrating the immunity ruling by the Supreme Court, especially in light of all of the Trump charges. But we have to remember that Biden is still in office. And when you hear some of his rhetoric that comes out of his mouth and the Biden administration, it sounds like they would do just about anything to keep him out of office. And in fact, Biden has said on video a couple years ago, he said, we will do anything to not let this man back in office. He is a threat to democracy. He's a threat to our nation. And he is the greatest danger to this nation we've ever seen. And so if you have a president talking like that, and now you're talking about President Trump has immunity potentially not to be charged in some of these cases. But, you know, damn, we're hearing from the left all of these crazy outlandish things talking about, hey, we should go assassinate the president. We should go do this. I actually want to give you guys an example real quick of one of these crazy loonies on social media, obviously on X.

And you know what the funny thing is on X? We've talked about this many times. We've talked about X supposedly being a free speech platform. And whereas it still seems on X that it is a free speech platform for people that whoever works at X that seems on the far left agree with. But if they do not agree with you, very similar to Facebook and Instagram, it seems like it's very similar to what it kind of always has been. Now, this is a post, and someone entitled this, Secret Service Needs to Arrest this person immediately. And I can't say that I disagree.

But this is what this obviously far left is said on X. Check this out. Done. I'm done. I'm fucking seriously done. The Supreme Court has pissed me off so much right now. Like so much. Joe, you're a reasonable man.

You don't want to do this, but here's the reality. This is a fucking war. This is a war now. And we are fighting for our fucking country. and these assholes are going to take it away. They're going to take it away. Fuck you, Clarence Uncle Thomas. Fuck you.

Joe, you now have the right to take that bitch Trump out. Take him out, Joe. If he was Hitler and this was 1940, you'd take him out. Well, he is Hitler and this is 1940. Take him the fuck out. blow him up. Blow him up or they'll blow us up. And so this is what we're hearing,

obviously, on X from the left. And this is not just from this one person. This is all over social media. And they are freely getting away with it on a regular basis. I'm seeing more posts like this on X than I've ever seen before, where there are literal open cause for assassination on a former president. What do you think about that? Holy crap.

I cannot believe that that is anywhere. and I cannot believe that that is not getting secret service attention. I mean, first of all, there's so many, there's so many lies and just falsehoods in that statement. First of all, Joe is not reasonable. I don't know that anybody believes that. I mean, mumbling Joe, that I, you know, I'll be honest. I did vote for Joe in 2020. I did.

I'm sorry. I apologize. I was not a fan of Trump because of some of the policies that he had and how he surrendered his, the pandemic response to people in public health who you would have thought were experts, but they really truly honestly weren't. You know, and that kind of pissed me off. But I did vote for Joe. I think Joe is the worst president we've ever had. And no, he, Joe, Joe has never said anything and he's not reasonable. Joe mumbles he does not talk.

but the big thing is Trump was president for four years. Okay. Did he blow up our country? Did he destroy our country? I mean, what makes this crazy lunatic think that he's going to blow us up next time? Yeah, it's nuts. He was in there for four years. Yeah.

I wasn't happy with him, but he never blew me up. And if you think about it, Biden is the one that threatens to blow us up all the talking. Yeah. Yeah. And threatens nonstop. These crazy things that we have run. our country right now. I can't even begin to

no, I can't even begin to go down there. And the thing is, Biden has continually threatened the American people. And in particular, he's threatened people that believe in the Second Amendment. He's talked about, hey, if you think that the AR-15 is strong or you think you're going to defend yourself when

we go a little crazy, well, we got F-15s, we got nuclear warheads. What the hell are you going to do about it? Jack. You know, I mean, this is what he does. He threatens the American people on a regular basis. His own people. And this is a president of the United States, and yet they're calling Trump another Hitler. Well, also, Harry Sisson, which is obviously, he's a pretty big account on X, pretty big social media. I guess you can call him influencer. He has been to the White House

multiple times. The White House has done various social media campaigns with people like Harry Sisson, the soy boy beta, that literally just post 24-7 about how amazing Biden is and how horrible Trump is, and he had just said yesterday, he said, Hang on, go ahead. Can I ask a question? Yeah. What the hell does Soy Boy Beta mean? Well, that's just basically what he is.

You know, it's hard to even explain. But according to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send a Sill Team 6 to take them all out, and he could send in the military to take out Trump. He has immunity for official acts now is what Harry sits and said. And then Chris let, I think is Las Savita. He is President Trump's campaign manager. said, expect a visit. He actually re-quote or retweeted that post. I want to play real quick, and we've got to get into a little more about the possibilities of what Biden could use this

immunity for. But listen to what Biden had to say. Before you play that, can I make a comment? Yeah, go ahead. I was in the military. Okay. And when you go into the military, they make it, and again, this is the military in 1989 when I joined, but they made it perfectly clear to us that there were a couple of ground rules with the military. One, we as soldiers in the military, were never going to be used as an offensive force against our own population. So the president, Sealed Team 6, any of the military members, if it's still the same today, granted it's been 30 years. But any of the members of the military would not, because they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they agreed in that both not to go after people in our country.

We are not here to fight our citizens. Yeah. And so I don't think that that's a realistic argument because I don't think that any Sealed Team 6 or Ranger team, you know, I don't even think Ranger Rick would go out and try to kill the president, a past president at the firm president told him to. Yeah, but I think, too, to your point to that. just getting in to that a minute. You know, we have to remember, though, how many new members of leadership in our military

they have put into place under the Biden administration. They are also doing these very woke recruiting methods, almost desperately trying to recruit people from the left, right? And I think it's a lot more to it than just diversity and inclusion and all this stuff. I mean, from what I've heard, the military has done pretty well that irregardless of whatever the Biden's recruitment campaigns are. But do you not think that maybe they're trying to potentially replace as many patriots of America and the ones that love America with people that kind of like don't love America

and are the ones that are screaming fascism and Hitler and all this stuff? I mean, is that, is it possible the military could turn, especially considering new leadership in place and how much that leadership may influence those decisions? I think it could turn, but I think you'd be, I think that the government, I think it would be more difficult to turn a unit. And if you were going to go out with CELT and sick or, you know, the Rangers or any of these other, you know, special ops groups, it would be hard to turn the whole team. I think it would, you'd have better luck with, you know, somebody from the CIA, which has already been turned. I mean, CIA is the one turning, turning it that direction anyways. Yeah, it's very interesting concept.

Another Lee Harvey Oswald and another Jack Oswald or Jack Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby, yeah. The whole thing with me, with these two new things that have come out lately with the Chevron difference and now this, it just sounds so open, open ended. And I am still as a regular human being, you know, in America, still confused of what these laws actually mean and how are. are things going to be different? Yeah. Well, the immunity case, I think, I don't necessarily know a whole lot will be different. In my opinion, I think, though, that we may see presidents desperately try to manipulate

or abuse the immunity ruling. And that's what I think scares me the most, right? How far will each president be able to take their official acts? But were they not immune before this ruling? That's a good question. I mean, I think they definitely had some sort of immunity. That's why I was still a little confused why we ever actually got to this immunity case to begin with. But we have to remember that Trump is a very, very different president in this particular case

because we've never technically had a president that has been charged with all of these various crimes, in particular with special councils and the opposing political party that has so much say and stake in all of these charges being brought about. Is that how you would look at it? Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of that's a bunch to answer to. But I think that what they're doing is is completely absurdly crazy because Trump already had immunity. All of our government employees have had immunity. They all do.

If they didn't, then it would be a constant battle of lawsuits between the public and the government. I don't know if that makes sense. Yeah. And I think, too, that if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, then you can't have separation of powers if you're going to face criminal prosecution after you leave office. And I think that was the major difference is you can't face the criminal part after you leave office. Yeah. Yeah, for something you did in office. And I think that was the main ruling what they did yesterday. Yeah, which is essentially what they did, you know, in a lot.

in most ways of what they're doing now. I mean, they're trying desperately to go after Trump. They're trying to prosecute him for as much as they can to keep him out of office. And this really does, at the very least, protect especially political opponents in some ways, with the exception of what happens when a new political opponent comes that wasn't in office before. And then they go after this person for whatever various reasons they can possibly find to go after him. I think that our justice system has already kind of failed in a lot of ways. And I know when we talked to your attorney, Nathan, the other day, I mean, I know he's still, in a lot of ways, believes highly in the justice system.

But I just think that there's so much failure that we have seen, especially with all of this Trump stuff, with not just the Trump things. But, I mean, you look at how people on one side of the political spectrum are treated by the justice system and how the other side is treated by the justice system. You know, on the one side, you can go rob stores. You can murder people. You can rape people. You can get out the next day. On the other side, if you were at the Capitol to build in that day, you were going to be. you put in prison without due process in a lot of ways.

And by the way, also subject to very harsh treatment. And we're seeing this across the board. Yeah, and I agree with what you just said. I do think that there is some, what do you want to call it? It's not at level. The justice system is going after people who they feel are political opponents. I mean, I feel that they went after us, not because we're political opponents, because we're in hygiene.

that's not political, but because we actually spoke up against the public, the government's narrative. And we continue to speak up against that. And I think that it's important that people do speak up against it. I mean, I'll give you a great example. You can go back to AIDS. And when AIDS started happening, you had a whole bunch of doctors who were trying to work it out and trying to find a solution to it. And there was a small group of doctors who came out and, you know, researchers, and they came out and said, we think this is a retrovirus.

And everybody said, no, no, no. And they tried to, and they tried to, you know, ignore them and they ignored them. But at the end, they didn't censor them. Yeah. They didn't censor them. And it turned out that those doctors were right. And that put an end to the AIDS crisis in a much more timely fashion. Today, if the AIDS crisis had happened today, I think we'd all be dead before we ever found a

solution to it simply because there's so many agencies out there and so much in the public, the media censoring what other doctors would be saying. We came in and said, hey, you know what? Simple saline irrigation studies showed that it worked. And there's other studies that show that if you use something with xylitol, the blocks adhesion or iota carogene and the blocks of these viruses, it works even better. And the government censored it. And Nathan, by the way, in my opinion, in my humble opinion, I think that the COVID pandemic should have been over in May of 2020.

Yeah. And like I was saying, I mean, if you would have had your nasal spray around back in AIDS days, back when they were actually finding treatments for AIDS, right? You know, you would still be in court, if not in prison, especially if you had studies that said, hey, this cures AIDS. Guess what? You're going to prison because they didn't want a cure for AIDS. They wanted a treatment. They wanted a money-making market for the AIDS virus or, you know, the AIDS disease. I'm going to come back and disagree with you there, Chad and Sherry.

Because I don't know how anybody, anybody would think to spraying something up your nose is going to protect you from an STD. Well, no, I know. But you get my point, right? I do. The point is if it did work, right? or you had some other kind of, I don't know, jail that you could use. Never mind. We're not even going there.

Oh, my gosh, Chad. Xylitol jail. But the point is, is they censored people that they didn't want public to know about because they didn't want people to get healthy again. They wanted them to use their protocol and their treatments, and theirs was the only way to go. My argument that I was making is that during the age crisis, these doctors that that had dissenting opinions were not censored. And so that ended the age crisis rather quickly.

Yeah. It never became a huge issue because once these doctors came out and said, it's a retrovirus and they weren't censored, the doctors, the medical establishment was able to treat it more effectively. Had they been censored like Peter McCola, Pierre Corey, all of these other doctors that came up with, to treat COVID and all of the companies that had ways to prevent it, had we not been censored by the government, COVID would have been gone by the middle of 2020.

And instead, it became a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that our government was throwing to the pharmaceutical industry. And I don't know if you remember, but, you know, Falky played a pretty big role in the AIDS crisis when he became the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Efectious Disease in 1984. and during the early years of the AIDS epidemic. And initially, his response to the crisis was criticized by the LGBTIA plus L MNOP activists who felt that the government was not doing enough to address the disease.

However, Falshie later became an ally to these activists and worked closely with them to accelerate the development of treatments. Falshi was instrumental in the creation of the President Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or PEPFAR in 2003. Now, I mean, keeping also in mind, we do know. just based on our research with this podcast, and we're getting a little off topic, but we have to because this all has to do with, you know, immunity and bureaucrats. You know, Fauci worked on gain a function in the bird flu, which we didn't know until we actually

started to study in the bird flu. He had worked on this for quite some time. And he also worked on AIDS. He also worked on AIDS potentially. Well, we know he did in a lot of ways. There was a reason why they had this emergency treatment act. And, you know, there's a lot of people to speculate that, number one, the entire reason and we even have bird flu in circulation to even be able to infect people today,

potentially is maybe because of the gain of function that was done. This was back, I think, in 2012 to 2010, 2010, 2012. Obviously, we know about the gain of function with COVID, Dr. Ralph Barrett and NIH and Anthony Falsh. It's just interesting to me that Falki was also involved in the AIDS pandemic. So I felt that was pretty interesting. I want to get to, before we get any further off topic a little bit here, I want to get into Biden's response to the presidential immunity ruling. I want you to hear what, oh, President Biden had to say. And I got to say, he actually sounded better this time than he did.

And he looked better. Did he say it or did he mumble it? Well, he actually said it decently, but he looked very orange. He looked like he had a hell of a tan. And I've actually been seeing some memes where it shows, like, Donald Trump's hair on top of President Biden. And, you know, he's like, he's orange. I was going to go there. I'm glad you went there first.

And it says, and the meme says, look, guys, we have to do something different. Let's make him look like Trump. Maybe people will like him. I thought that was pretty funny. But this is what Biden had to say in response to the ruling. Here you go. The presidency is the most powerful office in the world. It's an officer not only tests your judgment, perhaps even more importantly,

it's an office that can test your character. Because you're not only faced moments when you need to courage, to exercise the full power of the presidency. You also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency. This nation was found on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each of us is equal before the law.

No one. No one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. With today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all, for all practical purposes. Today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle, and it's a dangerous precedent, because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States.

The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone. This decision today has continued the court's attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman's right to choose to today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation. Nearly four years ago, my predecessor sent a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. We all saw it with our own eyes. We sat there and watched it happen that day. Attack on the police. The ransacking at the Capitol.

A mob literally hunting down the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Gallows erected to hang the Vice President of Mike Pence. I think it's fair to say is one of the darkest days in the history of America. Now the man who sent that mob to the U.S. Capitol is facing potential criminal conviction. for what happened that day. And the American people deserve to have an answer in the courts before the upcoming election. The public has a right to know

the answer about what happened on January 6th before they asked to vote again this year. Now, because of today's decision, that is highly, highly unlikely. So that's enough. I don't want to hear any more of what he has to say, but, you know, obviously he just keeps going about January 6th. And I remember January 6th like it was yesterday.

And I remember saying, especially after how the media reacted to it, right? I knew right then they were going to use this forever. They were going to use this to classify all conservatives, all Republicans, or anybody that liked Trump as terrorists. They wanted to deem them terrorists. But as Biden says right here, virtually no limits the president will have. He will have pretty much unlimited power. And this is the president of the United States addressing the American people saying this, right? I mean, he's saying there is no limits to this.

Yet, obviously, we know the president lies. We know the Biden administration lies. We know pretty much all politicians lie. But when you're coming out and saying that you virtually have no limits to your power as president now based on this ruling, is that an outright lie? Or could he be partially right? I think, well, of course, I think it could be partially right, but that partiality on a scale of one to 100 is pretty low. I mean, I don't think that January 6th even compares to the darkest day in the history of America. In my opinion, the darkest day in the history of America was the day Kennedy was assassinated because there we had a coup.

You know, our government was taken over. I mean, we had a coup. Yeah. I don't, you know, we all know that. And if what Biden is saying is so true, then why is it? the government is hiding so much of the data, so much of the video, so much of everything, and why is it, you know, why has it disappeared? All of the stuff from the January 6th hearings where they were talking about it.

Yeah. If it was such a bad day, why was that, why is that not, all that data not being public? Why did we have to wait for two years for it to become, you know, to where we can see some of the videos where they're all walking through the Capitol building, peacefully, where we could see that the protesters were peaceful until the Capitol Police started shooting tear gas and, you know, other objects at them. Yeah. There was a lot of antagonizing things that happened a day as well.

And we still don't know how many actual FBI agents were in there or instigators, antagonizers. And I agree with that. But let me go back to this one thing because one of the other things that Joe Biden just said is in his statement is, that it was a dark day because now people, it says that the president is above the law. Okay. I've had to deal with this. And it's not just the president that's above the law. All government employees are above the law.

Yeah. Now you're right. They're all above the law. Because when they can go out and cause an independent company, a small company like us, to go and spend millions of dollars fighting baseless. lawsuits with no ability to go back to the government and recoup that. Isn't that kind of saying they're above the law? Yeah, absolutely.

So why is it that the president shouldn't be above the law? I mean, every other government employee is above the law and immune from being sued by private citizens for bad decisions that the government, you know, these government agents made. So why is it that the president shouldn't be immune from them? Yeah, you're right. And speaking of that video that has, you know, there was some subpoenas that were going through that they were trying to get some of this video that the select subcommittee, the January 6th committee, they had supposedly all these documents and this damning evidence. And then apparently they lost a lot of this as well. But we have seen videos on X and on some other social media accounts on Rumble and so on wherever it has not been censored. There are videos on there literally showing people that are dressed in black or, very, you know, almost like Antifa-like clothes that are changing out of the black clothes, putting on Trump supporter clothes. And we're talking about 20, 30, 40 plus people that were behind bushes and trees that were, you know, changing out of clothes and then putting on Trump gear and going into the crowd.

And yet we see, you know, on January 6th, all the media wants to ever play is, you know, the ones that were smashing windows or trying to force their way through doors. And you can even also see a lot of people that were trying to keep these people from doing this. and it became a shit show. It was at one time, you know, where people were walking in. They were invited in, in a lot of cases. There were police officers open indoors. We've had Jake Angeli Chanceley on our podcast quite a few times.

He was just on a video with us the other night. And where he talks about, yeah, I mean, I was led around by police. You know, I was, you know, basically getting a tour. It was very strange. And then obviously Jake became the face of January 6th. And so there's a lot of shit that they don't tell you because I think that the entire January 6th thing. was a massive setup. And we just did the Julian Assange episode a few days ago where, you know, when you get into

the WikiLeak documents about what Hillary Clinton and her staff and team have said before about getting people into place in all of these various riots to where they could start a basically a riot. They could do all these things to instigate crowds. And this is what they do. They actually have this on WikiLeaks documents showing Hillary Clinton and her staff talking about this. And apparently this is a very commonly used method.

These are what's known as provocateurs. I think we've seen them with Black Lives Matter. We've seen them with Antifil. We've seen them with all groups. But more particular, on January 6th, I think we had a huge influx of those provocateurs or those people from Antifa or whoever the hell was paid in coordination, potentially with FBI or some other law enforcement agency. And this has been used ever since. And I think they thought that they were going to be able to truly use it to keep Trump out of office. Because if we remember, this is what Joe Biden said on November 9th, 2022.

And remember, this is only 13 seconds. But listen to what he said. We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by if he does run, making sure he does not become the next president. Making sure he does not become the next president. So he vowed, do whatever. it takes to make sure he does not become an ex-president. And I think that you see this playing out. I think they have said it multiple times.

They have had, you know, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, all of these various prosecutors and special counsels and whoever, these people that have ran on getting Trump or putting Trump behind bars or making sure he never sees the light of day again. This is not, in my opinion, a democracy anymore. And I don't really know that it technically ever was. Technically, we are a constitutional republic. But how do you see this thing playing out that with the immunity deal? Do you see Trump ever being in the White House again?

Well, yeah, that's a good question. I think he will win the election, whether or not he's in the White House, because I do think that the Democratic Party, the party that's in power, will do everything they can to keep him out. Yeah. I mean, you know, they used all of this stuff about January 6th. And I completely agree with what you said. I think January 6 was a complete setup.

How is it that all of these people dressed in khakis and, you know, the provocateurs, as you call them? I agree that they were there. But it's also pretty strange that Pelosi, they had a video team there, videotaping this. Okay? She's been in office for, what, 150 years now? Yeah, forever. Civil War? I think she's finally now.

I'm kidding. She's only been there for like, three decades or four decades. But they had a whole team in there recording it. And they were taking retakes of their responses to some of this stuff. I mean, those are videos and those are retakes. They're out there. You can go and look at and see them.

So I do think that January 6th was a complete setup by the Democratic Party. And I do think that there were people when they show up in khakis and dark shirts and then they change into Trump supporter clothing. I think that outside the DNC, when you had the cameras all, you know, point to the sky or something. I mean, there's all kinds of irregularities. Yeah. That happened on January 6th and January 5th and January 7th.

You can't come to a different conclusion. Yeah. That something's not right there. True. No, that's true. And before we get into breaking down a little bit more of the Chevron deference, especially just kind of a watered down version, the ruling has several implications.

We're talking about the immunity case, and here they are. I just want to make sure everybody understands these. Presidents are now shielded from prosecution for official actions. So the course decision means that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions they take in their official capacity. This includes decisions made, orders issued, and policies implemented as part of their duties as the head of the executive branch. So this can mean a lot of things, right? I mean, if you think about broadness, well, okay, an official act. That also means decisions made orders issued and policies implemented.

So decisions made and orders issued, who knows what kind of orders those may be, right? I mean, if you classify a political opponent as a terrorist or a potential domestic terrorist saying that, you know, it's the greatest threat to our nation we've ever seen, the Biden administration 100% could use that to their benefit. Number two, presidents are not above the law for unofficial reasons. So while presidents are protected from prosecution for official acts, they can still be held accountable for unofficial actions. This means that if a president engages in criminal conduct outside of their official duties, they still can be prosecuted for those actions. Now, number three, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecutors. So the court's decision also places the burden of proof on prosecutors to prove that a president's actions were not official in nature.

So this could make it more difficult for prosecutors to bring charges against a former president, as they would need to demonstrate that the actions in question were not part of the president's official duties. Number four, the ruling could impact future cases. So the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump immunity case sets a president that could affect future cases involving presidential immunity. It provides a framework for determining when a president is entitled to immunity from prosecution and when they are not. So the burden of proof is on prosecutors. And if you think about special prosecutor Jack Smith with a January 6 case in particular, there's a lot of people saying that Jack Smith will still try to pursue these charges.

but now, obviously, he's going to have to prove that what they are actually pursuing him under is not technically an official act. And do you think that if they could even prove somehow that Trump incited an insurrection, do you think they could prove that that was an unofficial act as president? I think they're going to have a very hard time trying to prove that that was not an official act as president. I mean, the fact that Twitter could delete that in five minutes tells you that there was something else going on behind the scenes. I mean, that would be the first thing. The second one is, you know, the message that he was trying to send that was deleted was stand down.

It was don't go into the capital. It was be peaceful. It was everything the opposite of what actually the narrative set. Yeah, absolutely. And so I do think that they're going to have a hard time trying to prove that. that. And the thing is, is what the court's left there is, how do you define what is an official act? Yeah. And, and, you know, was he, was he, you know, are you the president from nine to five? Are you the president from, you know, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. I mean, you know, it was famous that Trump, you know, he'd be tweeting out all these tweets when he was president before.

And, you know, we'd laugh and joked as the American people. We'd be like, oh, he's just sitting on the toilet and tweeting without any censorship going on. You know, that's what I do. You know, you're trying to pinch one off and you're trying to tweet. Yeah. You know, sorry. But isn't that what we were thinking? We're like, oh, my gosh, what's going on here?

You know, these. So the question is, how do you figure out what is a official action? The whole entire thing. And can I add something? real quick. Yeah, go ahead. I disagree with what they said, but yet I still agree that it was the right decision. Okay.

I actually think that our public servants should be held more accountable. But according to what the law says, I do think that the Supreme Court made the right decision. I think that the law needs to be changed, and the law needs to be changed, not by the courts. the law needs to be changed by Congress. Yeah. And I think that Congress needs to come back and limit the immunity of all government employees. Yeah. I totally agree.

Because those are the people we elected. This is a segue. This is a little bit of a segue into, you know, the one you did the other day where you were talking about the Chevron doctrine. The fact that government employees have no liability for what they do when they're acting. and I'm putting up air quotes when they're acting in their official capacity, that's a pretty high bar for a lawyer or, you know, a plaintiff to come back and say, hey, what you were doing wasn't in your official capacity. And I think that that, you know, sorry, I think that that's a pretty high bar. I would like that to see lower. So I disagree with what the court said, but I do agree that according to what the law is, they made the right decision.

Yeah. And, you know, by the way, the January 6th thing, I think this one 10-second clip completely blows their entire narrative in the very beginning. This is what Trump said. It's 10 seconds long. This is at the Save America March in Washington, D.C. on January 6th, when all these people were there before anyone ever went to the Capitol. But this is what he said. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices. heard. There you go. How is that an insurrection move? How is he inciting an insurrection by saying you will peacefully and patriotically march and make your voices heard? That is not an insurrection. That is not a threat. That is not inciting violence. That is not inciting a riot. And if you can classify that as inciting a riot or insurrection, then you know how many people on the Democrat side

should be put in prison? I mean, they should all be in prison. Yeah, I mean, it's ridiculous. us. So let's get to the Chevron thing. So we had your attorney on Nathan the other day, Rob Hausman, he's a great guy. I thought that he answered a lot of the questions very well. There were still some people that were like, you know, I'm still kind of confused by what the Chevron deference technically even really is or what it even means. So let's break it down kind of in a very layman's term way. Chevron is basically the Chevron case and the ruling, which basically overturned the the the what's called the Chevron deference is basically where it takes these agencies right so it could be CDC it could be the FTC SEC all these various government

agencies and it basically makes them have to then before they just make up rules to go after companies or people and you know they call by the way this the fourth branch of the government because it technically is I mean and the fourth branch of the government are all of these unelected people that are in power, because they are in power. I mean, they have a lot of power. In a lot of ways, these agencies had more power than our government itself. They could make up rules that the government then would, or I guess they would, I guess, utilize or they would, you know, presidents or administrations would utilize these agencies

to kind of go around Congress, to go around elected officials, to kind of do their dirty work in a lot of ways. and then even outside of what the presidents or administrations wanted, these agencies would make up their own rules outside of what the politicians even really ever knew about. And so this, in turn, kind of led to specifically

what happened to you and Clear, and this happened to a lot of companies. I mean, it's not just you, but in this particular case, the FTC basically had a rule, right, that said, what was the rule exactly of why they're suing clear? Well, I don't know how I'm supposed to,

to define something that is so unclear because they haven't given us a rule yet. You know, the way I'm trying to think of how to say this without taking four hours. But the way that it came down is when the FTC sent us a warning letter and said, you know, you're making false and misleading claims. I looked at it and I said, I haven't said anything that's false or misleading. What I'm looking at is I'm looking at data. I'm looking at research studies and saying, you know, xylitol blocks adhesion of SARS-COVID2, that using a saline nasal spray or nasal irrigation product makes it so that even after you have COVID,

you're going to recover 100% of the time. I'm looking at studies showing that xylitol, you know, all of these different studies. How is that making a statement that's fault from misleading? And they came back and said, well, because, you know, we don't agree with your science. And I said, well, okay, but how does that have to do with me making a false and misleading statement? And they came back and said, well, you have to have substantial science. And so we sent them in a response, I want to say probably 30 or 40 studies, all foundational studies showing how xylitol would work to prevent COVID. okay how saline irrigation would work to prevent COVID all of these were studies that were published okay yeah

and then they came back and said well we don't like those studies and I'm like well you can't come back and change this in the middle of the game but they did and then they sued us because of that and after they sued us they came out with more and I'm putting up air quotes right now guidance and in that new guidance, they said, well, what we think is anything that is not substantiated by two RCT studies for each claim is now considered false and misleading. And to tell you how dumb and stupid this, this, that concept is, when we were deposing them, we actually asked the attorneys for the FTC or the people in the FTC who are attorneys. We actually asked them and said, so you want to tell us that in order to

for a claim to not be false and misleading, you have to have two RCT studies. Yes. Okay. So are you telling me that if I can show you two RCT studies, then it is 100% factual.

No. Because there's lots of, there's lots of products on the market who have, they've gone out and done two RCT studies showing that they work. and then they're called off the market because they don't work. I mean, famously there was one, I want to say 18 months ago where they took off a whole bunch of nasal sprays

because they've known for like 15 years that they don't work. But they had RCT studies showing that they worked 20 years ago. And what was the difference in you guys studies in RCTs? Well, nothing. RCT just is a randomized controlled trial. Oh, got you. Yeah, yeah. And so there were randomized controlled trials that were done in early 2020 at Vanderbilt that were paid for by our government by the NIH showing that saline, just salt water, not a product that I sell, but showing that saline, if you had COVID, 100% of the time, if you just use saline irrigation, you were going to get better. In real life, I don't know that it would be 100%. but in the studies they had 60 people over the age of 65 all of them testing positive all of them having COVID symptoms and everything and 100% of them were better in a week oh that's way better saline was way better than the vaccine yeah yeah I'm sure I mean there's no doubt and I know that Rob talked about this the other day is that they had studies in early 2021 out of India where they took a product incredibly similar to clear and

And they had hospital workers using it. And it reduced transmission by nearly 70%. Yeah. And that's just trans- How would that have changed the response or the impact, I should say, to America and our wallets and to our lives if the FTC had said, okay, that makes sense. Something's coming in your nose, washing it in your nose, and just said, hey, you know what? It's not fault for misleading. And they let it and they let us talk about it. Yeah.

Yeah, and that's, I mean, that's the thing. I've always known that y'all's product worked for sure, especially against COVID. I think the thing is, is they wanted to make the money, and they don't want any other company to make them money, and they're going to make more money on the vaccines than they are going to make on your clear nasal spray. They're not going to like anything on yours, yeah. And just so, you know. There's so much, there's so much stuff in public help that, that I think needs to be examined. You know, and you and I've had this discussion off, off.

line, but public health, I think the surgeon general and I think the CDC and a lot of these public health state at the state level, I really think they should just be banned from discussing any pharmaceutical intervention that they should only be focused on public sanitation, personal hygiene, and exercise and nutrition. Because if we really want to stop a pandemic from happening in the future, and I'm saying this because I've been watching the House Judiciary Committee, they've been having hearings on pandemic response. And it's apparent that they're not even focusing on how to prevent one. They're focusing on how to make the vaccine hesitancy go away.

But if you really want to prevent a pandemic and the World Health Organization, this whole treaty that they've been trying to push through that failed, thankfully, it has one little paragraph. I think it's four lines in the whole thing. where they talk about, we're going to spend some money on hygiene and sanitation. Yeah. Okay. The number one way to prevent a pandemic is through improvements in hygiene and sanitation.

You've got 45 pages of, you know, what they're going to do the next time there's a pandemic. And you have one little four-line paragraph saying, hey, we're going to spend five or six bucks on educating the whole world about hygiene and sanitation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure they, I'm sure they threw the end just to make it look like they were doing something about. that because they got so much shit during the COVID pandemic coming from all the podcasters, including us and Joe and everybody about, you know, these doctors that would go on Joe Rogan or

various other shows. I mean, we're talking about CNN or Fox News even where they were talking about, oh, this is all you can do, wear a mask, stay away from people, six feet apart, distance yourself, but didn't even ever mention vitamins, exercise, none of this stuff. They wanted you believe that none of that would save you. The only thing that's going to save you is us, big daddy government, and you have to listen to everything we say because if you don't, then you're going to die. And that's what they really wanted to portray the people. Now, the Chevron Devereignty, I want to make sure everyone understands this again, is a legal doctrine that gives federal agencies more power to interpret laws and regulations.

It stems from a 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA Incorporated versus Natural Resources Defense Counsel Incorporated, where the court held that courts should defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute with a natural resource. in its jurisdiction. This means that when a statute is unclear, courts should accept an agency's interpretation of the law as long as it is reasonable. And the doctrine also has given agencies more power in several ways. Number one, it allows agencies to interpret the laws that they administer more broadly, basically expanding their regulatory authority. It also reduces the likelihood of judicial review of agency actions, as courts are more likely to defer to agencies' interpretations

of the law. And number three, it gives agencies more flexibility in implementing regulations as they can adjust their interpretations over time to adapt to changing circumstances. So obviously, you hear when you talk about the FTC never really gave you clear cut answers of what the hell you're even being sued for. It really does go back to the Chevron because this entire thing basically says, well, without the court, we're just going to let the agencies do what the hell they want to do. And they make up their rules as they go. make up the rules. They're basically the judge, jury, and executioner. And, you know, I know that Nathan, how much, when an agency sues a company, do you, do you have any stats on how many of these companies or people typically win those cases?

I don't. That's actually a good question. I would think that it's a pretty low number. I think that the government, you know, I don't, I think that the government and I think the DOJ and all of these government agencies. What I've learned is they don't seek truth. They don't seek fairness. They don't seek honesty. They seek convictions.

They want to be able to say, well, we've got a 98% conviction rate, which I think it is pretty high. I think it is that high. But the playing field is so level, it's so, sorry, is so not level that it's ridiculous. And I think I've used this analogy before is everybody talks about David and Goliath. Well, the government going after when the Chevron doctrine was in place, the Chevron, you know, it allowed it, it allowed it to be so unlevel. It wasn't a David and Goliath. It was a Goliath on Royd rage going after an infant that had just been born. Yeah.

Okay. An infant that couldn't even walk, we couldn't talk, couldn't crawl. And, you know, you have Goliath on Royd rage. That's how fair it was. and you know the FTC and some of these other agencies they came in and absolutely destroyed a lot of companies

from ever being able to go out there and talk about products that could help Americans okay there was some during COVID and you know I don't I can't get into it right now but there was one where a woman actually reached out to the FTC and talked about a product that she had had for burn victims and the FTC said well we're not here

to advise you, so don't do anything. And so she didn't. But it was a vitamin cocktail that she had actually developed years before for people that were burn victims because her child had been a burn, burn victim. And she was a pharmaceutical type person. But when they all got burned, she was looking for something to help. And somehow, and I don't know because that's not my expertise, that same cocktail would have helped people with COVID.

And she actually reached out the FCC and said, hey, I have this. this is what it does. What can I do to help people? How can it? What language can I use? And the FTC kind of responded and said, we're not here to advise you. We're just here to enforce the law. And you might think she was lying, but the FTC told me that multiple times.

Yeah. So that isn't the question. But the FTC did stop that from happening. And what I'm going after is that, you know, it's not that it's reasonable. Yeah. And I got to ask you a question, and this is after I read this, right now, breaking news, House Republicans now have the votes to hold Merrick Garland and inherent contempt, which would instruct the House Sergeant of Arms to immediately arrest the Attorney General. Representative Luna actually brought the inherent contempt complaint to Merrick Garland because of his noncompliant nature of what they had requested from him in regards to President Biden. How much does the DOJ play roles in these agencies like the FTC and others when they sue a company?

Because I think I've heard you potentially mentioned DOJ before. Well, they have a large role. And the reason why they have a large role is, you know, if you want to go and sue somebody, it's not really you that goes to the courts and files a lawsuit. You can. But really what you do is you go hire a lawyer. and that lawyer then goes and files a lawsuit. And so the FTC is suing us,

but the law firm that they use is the DOJ. So the DOJ is really the law firm of the government. Gotcha. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so it isn't that the DOJ is suing us. It's that the DOJ is the law firm that the FTC is using to sue us. Gotcha.

you. And so obviously when the Department of Justice comes in, obviously Merrick Garland, and we've seen how much of a role he has played in the Biden administration as far as Trump and just the, you know, so many things. I mean, we're talking about when the FBI and all these other agencies would go to school board meetings where parents just did not want their kids reading books about blow jobs or they, you know, didn't want their kids seeing trans, trans stuff. or whatever the case may be, or even the masking rules. And, you know, Merrick Garden, Garland, Garland, and the Department of Justice, you know, these agencies or this agency, the Department of Justice actually was the ones that was saying, hey, these guys are domestic terrorists. You know, the 2A symbol, domestic terrorist.

So how is a law firm, even though I guess it is a Department of Justice? How do they classify stuff like that? I mean, it's like, yeah, they are a prosecutorial agency. but it's just very weird how they're so tied to these agencies, these underagencies, I guess, of the Department of Justice. And so I guess every lawyer that you guys have worked with during this entire trial, or not trial, but this entire case has been Department of Justice attorneys. I'm trying to remember.

I think that before they actually filed the lawsuit, we were on the phone trying to negotiate a settlement that made sense. And I think it was only FTC attorneys at that point. But the FTC attorneys were further up in the ninth than the DOJ attorneys were. I mean, the FTC attorneys, they were the ones that came back and said, you know, you've done studies showing that Xilatol blocks adhesion of RSV and SARS-COVID-2 and H-1N1. so you can say that it blocks H1N1 and RSD, but you can't say that it blocks SARS COVID-2,

which that makes zero sense. Why would that be that? That's what's weird. I don't know, but it was at that point, I was 100% certain that there was no logic, no rhyme or reason, no legal reason why the FTC would say that if it wasn't something personal and if they weren't just trying to make something up,

to try to get an easy win. And what's crazy to me is they have tied you up in court for how many years now? Was it two and a half? Two and a half years. And tying you up, I'm talking about monetary or money as well as everything. And you're spending all this money to fight them. And let's say you fight them and you do in your case, what then? Do they have to pay you back?

No. I think that if the Supreme Court truly, or if I think that if our government truly wanted to level the playing field, which I think they should, I think there should be a level playing field. Okay. I think that what they need to do is go back and make certain that if any government agency sues a company or an individual and they lose, then they need to repay their legal fees. Yeah, for sure. Okay. I totally agree. If you sue me and, you know, and I win, I have the opportunity to go back and get legal fees from you or if I sued you, vice versa.

Right. Why is it that the government is immune from that? Because that's just another way that the playing field is not level. Right. Because they're just tying your hands. And a lot of companies will just give up and say, I quit. We're not, we can't go against this manpower. You know, this company.

Why are we going to go spend, you know, three, four, five. $10, $20 million, finding the government, even when we win, you know, we're going to be out that money. And it takes, you know,

it takes a, I don't want to say it. I'm trying not to chew my own horn, but I'm not as wedded to money as a lot of people are. And I think that, I think that there's a need to push back on the government.

And I think that that need to push back on the government and stop the tear. I think that that's important. Yeah, for sure. Now, do you think that you'll hear from them as, you know, since this Chevron ruling, have you heard from anybody since the Chevron ruling? And do you think that it's going to help your case dramatically? I think, I don't think there's a way it's not going to help our case. I do know that within, and under 60 minutes from when the Chevron doctrine, when that, when that judgment was out, that they had contacted our attorneys to discuss. and they're like, hey, you know, what can we do to do some settlement discussions? I don't think that that settlement discussion is going to go anywhere for the simple reason that that the comments that they made, you know, they made comments like, well, you know,

Nate Jones, he drank the Kool-Aid, he believes what he's saying. Well, obviously, I believe what I'm saying. I've been, you know, saying it for 25 years, you know. I mean, even our government knows that if you say something over and over, for 25 years, you're probably going to believe it. I've got, you know, a plethora of studies backing up what I'm saying. The government doesn't have anything backing up what they're saying, and they've said it enough that now they believe it.

So who is it that drank the Kool-Aid? Yeah. But I don't think, I mean, in court, I know it's going to help. The question is, is, does do the attorneys at the FPC acknowledge that? I think the attorneys at the DOJ 100% see it. But I think that the attorneys at the FTC don't. And what I mean by that is that they're so vested in it, and they think that they're sticking it to me by making me spend money,

that what they're failing to realize is that the very first trial, the very first case that's going to go through the court systems after this, the Chevron deference being overturned is going to be our case. And we have a very solid case. I mean, what we have in our case is the FTC censored NealMed, our competitor. They censored Navaj, our competitor. They censored clear from sharing published data in the medical journals that could have helped save the lives of millions of people around the world, hundreds of thousands of Americans, saved our country trillions of dollars. And we know that.

That's a fact. The government, the FTC, is simply saying, well, you didn't have two RCT studies, and so we're suing you over that. And so when this goes to court, without that Chevron deference, it's going to be a wrecking ball to the FTC and their ability to oppose any guidance. Because really what they did is, you know,

the Chevron deference said that the government agencies would have the expertise to come in and, you know, so you should defer to the government agencies because they would have the expertise. Well, the FTC, they were so lazy in what they were doing, they didn't even talk to an expert. They came back and said, well, none of us read it, but we had a nutritionist read it. We didn't talk to anybody that knows anything about oral hygiene, nasal hygiene. We didn't talk to a pulmonologist. We didn't talk to an E&T.

We didn't even talk to the CDC because the CDC had on their webpage that's the best way to treat. a respiratory coronavirus infection was through nasal hygiene. But we didn't talk to anybody. Yeah. And so when you come back to the courts and say, hey, the FTC isn't even accountable to even discuss the topic with an expert. Well, if you can't do that, then you shouldn't have any responsibility at all. Yeah, in your case, I think is going to obviously have major case law implications,

whatever happens with the case. granted that you guys do not settle with them, and I don't even know what a settlement would look like there. I mean, what would that even mean? But regardless of that, I mean, I think whatever happens in this case is going to set president going forward. And so really, although, yes, this Chevron deference was overturned, that means nothing really until it is actually sussed out in a court of law to where there is officially case law now to where how the actual courts react. to the Supreme Court ruling. And I think it'll be extremely interesting to see the outcome of the case. I think, you know, obviously your case will go down in history, especially considering the

Chevron overturn, even in the Chevron deference case. You had the left. Once again, that was saying, oh, my God, this is a dark day for American history or sorry, for America. And this is such a dark day. This is such a huge thing that the Supreme Court messed up again. And it's like, why are these people always the one that are so supportive of the agencies that screw the typical American taxpayer over on a daily basis? And it's like that alone should tell you all you need to know.

And I know it's on both sides. I know there's definitely people in the pockets of agencies on both sides of the political fence. But nonetheless, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens with your case and see, you know, obviously how the court rules. And I think that they'll rule in favor. I think obviously that if they look at what is actually before them, and by the way, is it going to be a jury trial if it gets to trial? Or how does that? It will be a jury trial. Okay.

Because like I'm thinking about Trump's case where he became a convicted felon of 34 counts. He said before they even went into the jury box to even discuss the case, he said not even Mother Teresa can win this. Yeah. the way they made the rules. Yeah, I mean, they handcuffed the prosecution, or not prosecution of defense. They would not let them, you know, introduce evidence into trial.

They would not let them do a number of things that they obviously let the prosecution do. And a lot of times... Can I make a comment about that case? Yeah. Because you know where the 34 counts come from? Yes. Yes, each time.

Yeah, each time. Yeah. So he makes one deal. One deal. I'm putting my finger up. You can't see it. One deal. And he's making payments over 30, whatever it was, 34 times.

So there's 34 different checks to make one deal. And the prosecution is grasping it. Straw is so terribly that they say each check is a different infraction. Right. What's about the dumbest? Yeah, it's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Yeah. Well, it's going to be.

So if you have, if you're, if you're, if you're paying your mortgage over 30 years, what's 30 times 12? I don't know what that number is off top of my head. But you're talking 400 and you make, and you screw up one thing on that, you have 400 and you have 400 and fractions now. 360. Okay. So you have 360 and. fractions against you.

Yeah. Because, you know, you screwed up on one thing on your mortgage and you paid it all off. And at the end of the day, you were $20 short. Well, you have 360 and attractions of fraud against you because you wrote 360 checks. And so, you know, now you're going to have to go to jail for 1,500 years because that's 36 infractions. Yeah. It's ridiculous. Now, do you feel like they could possibly try to do something tricky to you in the case like this?

that is a fear but uh you know i mean what can you do you can have you can hire great attorneys you can hire people that can fight back for you and that can can try to spot those you know and i'm going to tell you that in being in this for two and a half years and maybe this is going to get me shot in the ass but um you know lawyers of the government are not that smart they really aren't i mean i'm surprised at some of the decisions and some of the things they do uh because I'm not a lawyer. And there's a lot of things that they do that I'm like, that was just stupid. Well, and it's because they got, you know, you got to remember, though, they have taxpayer money that's backing them.

I mean, that's, that's a whole other level of, that's a whole other category of if, if our courts and our Congress truly want to level the playing field so that the government is on a level playing field with the individual in the industry, that's something that, they need to to address. Yeah. Is how if the government, which has unlimited funding, it wants to go after someone who makes $100,000 a year, how do you level that plane? And I'm saying this because I don't know the answer. But I think there are people that are smart enough to figure out a way

that if the government is trying to go after someone, and Trump is a great example, okay, they're going after Trump for 100, what was it, $130,000 check. Mm-hmm. Something like that. Mm-hmm. Our government is spending tens of millions of dollars to go after that. Okay.

That is absolutely stupid. Whatever attorney is doing that is stupid. I'm just flat out saying it. Okay. You don't spend good money after bad. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the problem is they know.

If you lose a quarter rolling down the street, you don't go, you know, you don't go pay $50 to go hire a search squad to go find that court. Yeah. But that's really what they're doing right here is, is, okay, so yeah, he paid someone, whether or not you agree that it was right, whether or not you agree that it deserves to be 36. The government, and this just tells you about government waste, the government just spent

$30 million to bring someone to, quote, unquote, justice. over $130,000 check. Yeah. Really? I mean, that's like the government spending $20 million going after us. And I'm sure that that's what they're going to say they're spending, going after us for actually helping people who had COVID, for actually helping people who had respiratory issues, for helping people clean out their upper airway while they were sick. Yeah, and I think just there's so much stuff and waste in our government. just doesn't make sense.

And we can't hold our government employees responsible for them. Yeah. And the thing is, I mean, they're dumb probably in a lot of ways because, you know, you don't have to be the brightest bulb to use money that you don't have and get away with anything that you do. I mean, there's literally no oversight. It even says in the Chevron deference about how the courts, well, most of the time, refer back to the agencies.

And then if you think about it, these agencies have their attorneys. well, they basically run their own, I mean, they don't have a law. They are lawless in a lot of ways. And they can do whatever the hell they want to do. So, you know, the people that are the people that are above the law, you know, as Biden says, are a lot of these agencies and the bureaucrats. And that's really the reality, the way I see it. But it'll be interesting. I think it's the way that they see it.

They act like they're above the law. They know that they're above the law. That's why they do the stupid stuff that they do. For sure. Well, Nathan, I'm glad you came on. I'm glad we talked about the Chevron deference to the immunity case as well. I think that, you know, like I said, we'll obviously keep in touch and see how that plays out. I don't know.

You have no idea, I guess, like when it may ever even see a courtroom. Probably 2026. God, that's nuts. At the earliest. Yeah, that's crazy. And you've already been in at two and a half years. So, yeah. Yeah.

Fun. Yeah, they'll probably also especially try to hold this off as long as possible, especially considering the huge impact is going to have for case law. Oh, I think it will. And I'm not going to give up. Yeah. I mean, I've already spent, you know, over $3 million fighting it. And the way that I look at it is it's an investment into making a better America,

better rules, better guidance, better guidelines for industry without government overreach and censorship. Yeah. You know, and, you know, I'm two and a half years into it and three million dollars into it. And even if the government came back and said, hey, we'll pay you back your legal fees, we'll give you back the $3 million. The question is, at that point is, do you take the $3 million and go out and have them sue you again for something else and start over from ground zero?

Or do you just continue this one through and keep fighting? Yeah, that's true. And that's a decision that, you know, I obviously have to make. That is true. Well, we are obviously, we're going to. If anybody has any input, please let me know. Yeah, for sure. Absolutely.

And Nathan, I think that, like I said, I mean, we'll obviously have you back on the future. You come on quite a bit, especially we just did a, we did the debate live stream with you the other night, which was very, very fun. That was a fun night. Very interesting. But Nathan, thanks so much. What do you mean? It was not fun.

Yeah. There's no fun when there's a shit show and there's no TP around. Yeah, that is true. That is very true. Well, Nathan, thanks for joining us, man. We'll definitely talk to you again very soon. Okay, well, thank you. Not a problem.

Have it going. That was Nathan Jones with Clear guys. Yeah, I mean, it's just crazy, right? I mean, it just shows you how much bullshit is in our government. And when you hear cases like the clear case with Nathan Jones and you hear, you know, what some of the, I mean, the people on the left are saying even about the immunity case. And listen, I agree with Nathan on the point of, you know, should all these politicians have absolute immunity? No, they shouldn't.

All of our politicians should always be held accountable as much as possible. And the only way that I want the immunity ruling to actually, I guess what I would agree with the immunity ruling on some things for is that at least it stops your current president or a political rival from going after you by using the courts. especially during things that you did in your presidency, right? And I think it obviously highlights the Trump case. Now, we will see if the immunity ruling is abused by even just the Biden administration. We don't know, but wouldn't that be some shit? Because that's what everyone on the left is calling it. They're saying, oh, yeah, why don't you go after him with siltine 6?

Let's just assassinate him. I mean, shit, since you've got immunity now, Biden, right? And you already, you already apparently have F-15s and nuclear warheads waiting for Americans. And this is the logic that the left has. The reality of this is is that we only have what we're in July now. I mean, it's just a few months away until elections. Yeah. It's crazy.

And it's going to. And they're trying their best to have him go to court before elections. Yeah. And they're trying their best to get him in jail? I don't think, well, obviously, yes. But I think that at the very least, this immunity. ruling will probably not allow Trump to see a courtroom until November or basically after, right? So I don't think he'll be back in a courtroom other than sentencing in New York.

Now, he will be back in courtroom, I think it's July the 15th for sentencing. And, you know, a lot of people are looking past that, but I don't think people understand that this judge is going to maybe try to put his ass in prison. You know, what does that mean? What does that mean even for him if he gets elected? you know, I mean, I've actually heard that he would actually remain in prison, technically. He could remain in prison. Our president. And be the president.

Be the president in prison. I mean, and see, that's just an absolute shit show, right? And when you see this stuff happening, you see, you see this happening, but yet you, so many people are afraid to say anything or afraid to say, like, okay, well, the, you know, the president that people voted for, they just put him in prison. You've lost your country. I mean, regardless of who it is that you do this to, whether it's Trump or someone else, you should realize that when that happens, if that happens, right?

I mean, I think we're already there. I think obviously the fact that they have went after Trump in every single possible way they possibly could. I think that went far enough. But now we're talking about potential prison time for the president or potential future president of the United States. And I think that most people just don't realize how far gone this country is. And I think it's scary. I still don't think Trump's going to be in the White House. And I'm not just saying in the White House because he's in prison.

I'm saying I don't think he's going to become president one way or the other. Because the election will be rigged again. Allegedly. Or they will try to keep power. Are they going to stay in power because of all these wars? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, it'll be a TV show in the making is what it is or some lifetime.

Now, it's not even a lifetime. It'll be a blockbuster movie. But unfortunately, they won't play it because they're all liberals in blockbuster. So they wouldn't play a Trump movie. But anyways, guys, we are going to get out of here now. We have another podcast episode where we're going to do with Dave talking about aliens and megastructures that potentially they have found outside of seven distant stars. We will be doing that podcast in about an hour. And so we will be releasing it while we are at the lake.

So in a few days from now. But guys, we hope you all have it. an amazing 4th of July. Go back and listen to our Julian Assange episode. I think that really highlights a lot of government corruption, especially when it comes to Clinton and all of the shit she was involved in. I encourage all of you to go listen to that episode. But if you want to listen to two alien episodes, we had Aliens Among Us episode that came

out about two or three weeks ago. I think it was one of our better episodes we've done in a while. And so if you want a lead-up episode to what we're going to be talking about on tonight's episode, which will be releasing in a few days, go check that one out. But anyways, guys, happy 4th of July. Until next time, we love you. Peace out. Peace out, guys.

A spreads in the air to dark days. Do you have a period of a carpool startup? When they love you, they must know it's fake or even hate. Don't be scared the way paralyzed since you stayed at the game. It's a lot to take in. It's designed to know when. Don't wait.