February 22nd, 2023

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, nobody is talking about environmental justice or environmental equity in the aftermath of the East Palestine, Ohio disaster because it happened in a poor white area, which is why this isn’t being racialized by the media bigots on TV. It doesn’t fit the modern narrative, but if this were a different type of community we would be hearing all across the Democrat media. President Biden or Pete Buttigieg have not visited the disaster site, but President Trump went to support the devastated community. The racial division in our country comes from the Democrat party and the Federal Government. Also, the grand jury foreman in the Trump Georgia case, Emily Kohrs, went from one media interview to the next and proved only one thing: this special grand jury is a clown show. Kohrs tainted this special grand jury by discussing evidence on TV, and nothing is being done by the DA to silence her and preserve the sanctity of the grand jury process. Kohrs demonstrated that she does not have objectivity, and Trump’s lawyers need to take careful note of this and deserves an investigation right now. It is now abundantly clear that you cannot get a fair trial in this country if you are charged with anything. Finally, Mark speaks with Mark Meckler about an update with the Convention of States.

Photo by NTSB

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour 1 Segment 1

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I want to get into this form in the assembly, cause the things she has said. And what she’s doing. She was on the special grand jury, as you know. It was set up by the Democrat district attorney, elected district attorney. To try and go after Donald Trump and a number of people around him in an unprecedented move. But before I do, as I have been watching the coverage of this, he’s Palestine. Ohio community, which is a relatively poor community, a majority white community, a blue collar community. It’s interesting how that affects the coverage. Have you noticed? Nobody’s talking about environmental justice or environmental equity, and we know that, said Mr. Producer. Even though the trains go right through this community. Go right through it. Including with toxic chemicals. Nobody has even attempted, including me. I’m just making a point to racialize this as the usual bigots and racists on TV and other aspects of the media do. You don’t see white privilege here. Quote unquote. So it doesn’t fit the the modern narrative. This was a different type of community. You’d be hearing all of this in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post on the consummated news network on Marcellus Day. It’d be day in and day out. There’d be headlines and Joe Biden would have been there already and he would have been there. Attacking. Attacking. Economic injustice, environmental injustice. Big business. But there’s nothing in it for him. These people tend to vote Republican. The congressman, there’s Republican. There’s nothing in it for. So we’re on day 20 or so and he’s not there. And of course, we know that Bush is not there. The EPA administrator has made two trips, one to drink water and say, see, it’s clean. Now they say they’re sending in the EPA to do the cleanup. The EPA doesn’t do cleanups. The EPA hires people to do cleanup. The EPA’s based in Washington, D.C.. It’s a top heavy bureaucracy like all the rest. Like all the rest. There are no civil rights activists to speak for these people. There are no columnists at The New York Times in The Washington Post to speak for these people. You’ll get a column here and there, I suppose. But no steady drumbeat, nothing. And the secretary of Transportation is constantly talking about equity and environmental justice and so forth, as I said. He hasn’t found his way there yet. Vice president hasn’t found her way there yet because they can’t make political hay out of this fact. They would be criticized for failing to act and act quickly. To do something about this. The division in our country. The abuse and maltreatment of people. Comes from the Democrat Party comes from the federal government. President Trump. Obviously, he was there today in East Palestine. And he brought several trucks filled with bottled water. And he spoke to the people there. And the media say it’s a press event. Joe Biden goes to. Here. That’s fine by me. Walks through the streets. All of a sudden, the sirens go off. He doesn’t even cover his ears. He never misses a shuffle. Secret Service is nowhere to be found. The Russians were told 3 hours ahead he’d be there, so they knew when to run the sirens. He didn’t come under fire. Mr. Beschloss, historian like Lincoln did. Like Madison did. He didn’t come under fire. It’s in a war zone. Walk through North Philadelphia. Walk through cities all over the country, even some suburbs. Those are war zones. I wasn’t planning to start off with this, but I’ve just decided that somebody has to say what’s so obvious. So I will. Yeah. We have the grand jury foreman. Who is on a media blitz. Going from event to event media interview to media interview. Something’s not right with her. I don’t know what it is. Something’s not right with her. But when you listen to her, what you conclude or what I conclude is this entire so-called special grand jury was a clown show. She was the foreman. It’s a clown show. And so we will play some of this audio. Because the D.A. in this case had to know the foreman was a clown. She didn’t pick the foreman. But she had to know what was going on. She runs the damn grand jury. He’s an elected Democrat. Atlanta. And they want to indict a number of Republican legislators. They may be gunning for Rudy Giuliani and they may be gunning for Trump. And I would say this. Now all of those individuals. It is my humble opinion. That it’s now abundantly clear that you cannot get a fair trial. Should you be charged? With all the publicity coming from the foreman, a 30 year old cook. Of the special grand jury set up and effectively run by the Democrat elected district attorney. I would also demand. An investigation of the four woman. And an ethics investigation of the prosecutor to determine whether she took appropriate action to shut the foreman down. This has been going on for 72 hours. What steps did she take to stop the form and from doing media appearances? Whatever steps she took, they clearly weren’t effective because it went on like a Jerry Lewis marathon. She’s out there making a mockery of the entire system. She’s laughing. She’s joking in the media participate. Is that justice in America now? I want you to listen to some of this. This is on CNN. Her name is Emily Course. This is the grand jury in the state of Georgia. Cut one. Go. Did you personally want to hear from the foreman? I wanted to hear from the former president. But honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in. And so I thought it’d be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump. Of me looking at him and be like, do solemnly swear. I’m getting this for him. And I just I can’t do thought that would be an awesome moment. I can see how trying to get the former president to come talk to us would have been a year in negotiation by itself. So it sounds like that was ultimately a battle that you all decided not to. Exactly. That’s it’s kind of how it ended up. Was that in. I’d be fascinated by what he said, but. Do you think he would have come in and said anything groundbreaking or just the same kind of thing we’ve heard? So at some point you don’t need to hear 50 people say the same thing. You know what I mean? At some point, you kind of start to get the gist. None of this is supposed to be discussed in public in any just an ethical system. And I would argue this is prejudicial. We wanted to hear what he had to say, but we didn’t bother because he’d be too difficult to get. I wanted to look him in the face, you know, get 60 seconds with him, so he would solemnly swear to tell the truth. I wanted to look at him. But we didn’t bother negotiating because it would have taken too long. Cut to go after everything that you’ve seen. What would your reaction be if the D.A. decides against bringing any charges after what you’ve seen? I will be sad if nothing happens like that. That’s that’s about my only request. There is is for something to happen. I don’t necessarily know what it is. I’m not the legal expert. I’m not the judge. I’m not the lawyers. But I. I will be frustrated if nothing happens. This was too much too much information, too much of my time, too much of everyone’s time, too much of their time, too much argument in in court about getting people to appear before us. There was just too much for this to just be. Oh, okay, we’re good bye. And if it was just a perjury charge or perjury charges, would that be acceptable to you? That’s fine. I would be happy as long as something happens. Unbelievable. I’ll be happy. Something needs to happen. Look, you know, I’m no expert on this stuff. I was just the jury foreman. But all the time and effort and resources we put into this all the court arguments we put in there, there’s just too much. The Jets say goodbye. So the day needs to do something, which the only thing the day can do is make a charge or not. I will be happy as long as something happens. Something needs to happen. Can you imagine? Your freedom is left to somebody like this. And that was yesterday. And we’re not aware of anything that the district attorney has done over the course of the last two or three days to put an end to this. And she should have put an end to it. The very first time that this special grand jury foreman showed her face. She’s 30 years old on TV. Cut three, Go. We do know, of course, one of the biggest questions remaining forever, one that wasn’t in that jury room with you is how many people are in trouble here? What can you tell us about how many people you recommended as a group to face indictments? Now, this reporter, Kate Bolden, she will be praised by her fellow corrupt journalists. For participating in the corruption of the process. We don’t do this to mass murderers. We don’t do this to terrorists. Not a single reporter has raised. Is the. Ethics issues related to something like this? Not one. Why is that? Well, we know why that is. They don’t seek justice. They seem to seek a hangman’s noose. That’s what they. Go ahead. I will. Thank you for having me, first of all. And I’m I’m hesitant to speak to something that the judge made a decision not to share. He I don’t know if everyone’s aware of this, but there was a hearing about what parts of the report should and should not be published in its various forms. And the list. Well, the sections that were removed were consciously chosen to be removed. And I don’t want to say I have better judgment than the judge. That’s totally understandable. Is it would you say, when it comes to there are and there are indictments recommended, of course. Is it more than 12 people? Is it more than 20 people? I think if you look at the page numbers of the report, there’s about six pages in the middle that got cut out, allow for spacing. I we’re going to continue this, have to take a heart break. So she just said there’s six pages in the middle allowing for spacing. It’s not a short list, meaning there’s a recommendation that a lot of people are going to be indicted. She was not freedom to say that. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 2

So the judge specifically, I’ll read what she says. I think if you look at the page numbers of the report, there’s about six pages in the middle that got cut out, meaning the judge said, no, don’t release those. Allowing for spacing. It’s not a short list. Not a short list. She asked the reporter. I mean, when it comes to 75 witnesses, I assume, of course, it’s not 75 people. Would you characterize it as 20 people? I can’t say I counted. Okay. More than a dozen, though. I think I had heard you say in another interview. I believe so. That’s probably a good assumption. That is more than a dozen. Sounds to me she violated the judge’s decision, the order. Those are six pages you’re not supposed to be talking about. And she’s talking about them. In any event, can indeed some good, strong defense lawyers and they need to take aim at the D.A. and this jury. I’ll be back.

Hour 1 Segment 3

Elliot Williams is one of thousands of former federal prosecutors and he’s on the Constipated News Network today. He’s been watching the jury foreman and he’s asked about this. Cut five. Go. She wouldn’t go in. More specifics. I see you shaking your head. Eliot, she’s just kind of talking here about some of the evidence, but there could be some more compelling sound out there. Sure. But but here’s the problem that is created with a statement like that, Victor. The entire Fulton County, Georgia, could potentially be anybody in Fulton County who’s over the age of 18 can be a potential juror in this trial. They’re hearing now evidence that’s going to be presented before them at trial and developing opinions about it, developing opinions about defendants that to content the prosecution. If this individual who we’re hearing from really wants these people charged with crimes so badly, she better shut her mouth about them because ultimately she could imperil their convictions if they ever reach that point. And on appeal after someone’s been convicted, that’s when attorneys can raise an argument like, hey, look, nothing was fair from the beginning here on account of the fact that the jury pool was tainted by information that was presented to them even before we got into court. Yeah. In other words, this so-called special grand jury was tainted. I mean, if you really want to be objective and you want to let the process play out, due process, if you want to let the process play out and let the chips fall where they may, you don’t do media appearances even before decisions are made about charging. And so the question is, what did the DA do, if anything? To coin silence, to try and silence this jury foreman. I already pointed out a problem, which is that she points to six pages of the report that were cut out. They were cut up by the judge. And she says, allow for spacing. It’s not a short list. Reporter It is not a short list. I mean, when it comes to 75 witnesses, I assume, of course it’s not 75 people. Would you characterize it as 20 ish people? I can’t say I counted. Okay. More than a dozen. I think I heard you say that in another interview. I believe so. That’s probably a good assumption. Decisions haven’t been made. And now this this jury foreman, this 30 year old, is talking about those six pages. Even giving numbers, estimates. And of course, she’s demonstrating that she does not and did not have objectivity. So I’m just raising this. So those state representatives, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, whomever else, President Trump, their lawyers need to take note of this very, very careful note of this, because this looks like a. A real Keystone Kops operation where the ends justify the means. And I’d want to know about each and every one of those grand jurors. And I think this may open the door to that, as it should open the door to an investigation right now. If I’m one of the lawyers. Right now. Or maybe they want to let it play out a little bit of get my drift. But at some point soon, what the D.A. has done to protect the sanctity of the grand jury process and to try and silence this individual. What’s amazing to me, I think this is a superior court judge in Georgia. He doesn’t have to wait around. He could act on his own, but he hasn’t done the damn thing. He sees what she’s doing. He doesn’t need a motion to be filed. He already made a decision that those six pages shouldn’t be talked about. Well, she’s talking about them where they is a judge. Some of these local judges, they aren’t particularly sharp. Remember that judge out of Washington State? She didn’t know what Article one of the Constitution was, but she wanted to be a federal judge. Or more to the point, Biden wanted her to be a federal judge. But then again, Biden doesn’t either. Maggie Haberman, is that The New York Times? But she’s also a commentator for the Constipated News Network. She wears many hats. She’s supposed to be an objective journalist, but she’s a partisan commentator. And she hates Donald Trump. So she saw what? Poppy Harlow. Puppy. To give her opinion, not to report any news. Cut, forego. It was interesting to John’s point about what the what Trump came out and said on social media and through social thanking this federal grand jury, saying total exoneration. I can’t imagine being finding Willis right now. Like you’ve got your foreperson out there as you’re trying to make this decision. Didn’t she say, like, did he actually read the documents when he said that? Yeah, I mean, this was not a total exoneration, frankly, any more than the Mueller report was a total. She talks. She thinks she’s Chris MATTHEWS. This fanatical generation welcome American media because they want you to believe that makes them sound smart. No, it makes them sound stupid, actually. She says this was not a total exoneration, frankly, any more than the Mueller report was a total exoneration. What she said about that, you know, maggot, if you were investigated by about a score of federal prosecutors and three score of FBI agents. And you weren’t charged with something. That’s an exoneration. That’s a clean bill of health. Now, maggot may not understand the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights either. Trump was not charged with anything. And the fact that prosecutors write things in a document is meaningless because you can’t challenge it. There’s nobody to cross-examine. You can’t present your own evidence. You can’t do any of it. That’s one of the reasons people have a serious problem with these reports, Megan. And if you were really a journalist, you would point this out. And he wasn’t actually exonerated because you know what? Go ahead. At about that, too. But that’s, I think, a separate issue from what the grand jury forewoman is saying. I mean, she’s given this extensive media tour. I saw some quotes that I think she gave to the Atlanta Journal Constitution where she was asked about that quote, where Trump said this is an exoneration. And she started laughing and said, oh, that’s fantastic. I love that. I don’t see how that’s helpful if you’re a prosecutor, because Funny Will is still has it’s not automatic that charges get filed. Now, that seems like that’s the likeliest thing to do. Funny, Louis is a very aggressive prosecutor, but this is just, you know, at least in my experience covering courts, not helpful to a district attorney when they are trying to put their case together. She’s 100% right. So why doesn’t Fannie Wallace stop her? Why does it the judge independently stop her from violating his decision? And the. Oh, that’s fantastic. I love that. That goes to her state of mind that she was a partisan or she was not objective and impartial, let me put it that way. That is the foreman. Why am I not using the word for woman? Because if a sitting associate justice of the Supreme Court cannot define what a woman is, who am I? Who am I to define what a woman is? And I’m not going to put up with the maggot Habermas and the others who pretend there’s not a binary, biological, scientific fact between a man and a woman, except when they want to use the word woman. So I’m not dealing with that. So why should I call her a four woman? I should call her a four birthing person. But I’m not going to do that either. It just takes too much time. Oh, that’s fantastic. I love that. And she starts laughing. The foreman. What do you folks think of that? And notice that every one of the commentators, the former federal prosecutor, may get hammered. They’re not worried about justice. That is. They’re not worried about the rights of the potential accused or charged. That’s not what they’re worried about. They’re worried about how are we going to get a conviction? How are they going to get a conviction? They’ll have appeals. They can argue that the jury was tainted, that the jury was was partial from the get go. That is the grand jury. I’ve been covering prosecutions for much of my life, my career. I know a district attorney. There’s not helpful it’s not helpful to the D.A.. Well, what about the rights of the people whose heads are on the chopping block? And what about the ethics of the D.A.? Shouldn’t she take some steps now? What about the Constitution of the United States? It does apply to Georgia, even though they have their own state constitution, it could literally violate two constitutions at the same time simultaneously. What about it? Is this the way people want to be treated in a criminal process? Where people are compelled to give testimony, compelled to give testimony to this grand jury, the special grand jury without a lawyer. And then the jury foreman goes out. Before the day makes decisions and starts spewing her opinions. Now, she believes she’s she hasn’t crossed a line, but she has. But she has, in my view, not that she’s necessarily prohibited from speaking, but she did violate the judge’s order here. You know, there’s six pages of the gaps going on here. And there’s a lot of information in there. Look at the page numbers, six pages in the middle of that cut out, you know, allow for spacing. That’s not a short list. What are you talking about? You know, the people we recommended to be indicted, 75? No, I’m not sure. I didn’t count, you know, 20 ish. I didn’t count a dozen. Yeah, that sounds about right. She just talked about the six pages. What’s the DEA going to do about it? What has the DEA done? And I think you’re arguing would be made if the DA didn’t do anything or anything effective, then the D.A. in part is responsible for this, not directly, but her failure to act, her malfeasance. Malfeasance. Googling. In this economy, you need to make every dollar count. You especially need to protect your retirement funds, folks. But huge investment firms, names that you know who control trillions and trillions of dollars, some of them run commercials on TV. Trillions and trillions in your retirement funds, your pensions are risking your financial future. Playing woke politics with your with your money. They’re using a radical system called ESG. We’ve talked about this. And it is the radical left agenda, the Marxist agenda. And they’re doing it without your consent. So what they’re doing is they’re telling companies you want money from us, you want investments from us, you want loans from us. You want subsidies from us. Well, here’s our political agenda, and you better adhere to it. Well, wait a minute. We’re supposed to maximize the profit for senior citizens and others, which is difficult enough in this, for that matter. We’re telling you what we expect. So they’re pulling investments from solid companies to advance their social causes, one of which is, of course, climate change and climate activism. Just recently, every Republican senator and Democrats, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, who said ESG puts our entire economy in jeopardy, introduced a bill that would prevent ESG from overtaking profits as a leading consideration for how your retirement money is invested. And many state leaders are fighting back, telling these firms to cut it out with your pensions. But to protect your pensions. In 2022 alone, state Treasuries divested $5 billion from one of these investment firms. Problem is, it’s going to take a lot more than that. To learn more about how to fight back against woke investment firms, here’s what I want you to do. These people are your advocate. Go to Consumers Research Board. That’s consumers with an S on the end Consumers research dot org. They’ve been protecting consumers from fraud and abuse for decades. They’re one of us. Go to consumers research dot org to learn about their mission to protect you from these woke investment firms that are going to destroy your hard earned retirement. That’s consumers with an S at the end. Consumers research dot org paid for by consumers research. We’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 4

I agree with Mike Pompeo. If anyone thinks that Putin intends to stop in Ukraine, they’re there. They’re smoking something. I agree with him 100% because he read what Putin wrote to. He read it, too. So. As I continue to think about this, here’s what I would do. This foreman may well be in contempt of court. That is in contempt of the order that this judge signed those six pages. She said, I’m not allowed to talk about it. And she did. So the prosecutor should be threatening her with a contempt. Or just seeking contempt from the court for violating the court’s order. Anything that’s covered by the order. And if I’m one of the individuals they’re targeting, I demand an investigation into this whole matter. What steps, if any, the district? Look, I’m not doing this for my health. I’m trying to get these lawyers to do something. What steps, if any, the district attorney took and has taken. In other words, this process has been breached. And it’s opened a hole for them to go through. And they should not hesitate. They should not hesitate because justice must be done and justice isn’t done just by the government. Justice is done by people who are innocent. Do. She’s doing a massive media presentation. And just to test this out, I had Mr. Producer try to reach this jury foreman to get her on our program. We don’t have her number, really, but we think he found the number in her email. Correct. And there was no response. Send it to five different likely emails. You know what that tells me? That she would only do certain media. CNN, NBC, the Atlanta newspaper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. These are all liberal pro-Democrat platforms. She may have done others, but she wouldn’t come on this show. Why? Because it turns out, in my view, I don’t believe she’s impartial. That’s why. He and she’s out there, the 30 year old. I don’t believe she’s impartial. Why do all those shows are not mine? My show has more listeners than all those platforms combined. I’ll be right back.