March 22nd, 2023

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, American parents were being targeted and classified as terrorists by AG Merrick Garland, and there is extensive collusion between the Biden administration and the National School Board Association. Landmark Legal Foundation led the way showing that the NSBA worked with the DOJ, the Department of Education, and the White House to push for federal law enforcement investigations into parents speaking out against CRT in schools. The Garland memo classifying parents as domestic terrorists was unconstitutional and exposes how far the Biden administration went to silence political opponents. Also, the Manhattan Grand Jury in Donald Trump’s case was told to stay home today, which means there is either disagreement in the DA’s office or that Alvin Bragg and his staff do not think they can get a majority of the jurors to go along with their plot. They’re starting to downplay the Manhattan case while building up cases in Georgia and D.C which is appalling. The courts in D.C. are working faster than ever and are packed with left-wing Democrats to take down Trump at any cost. Next, Governor Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are the two leading candidates for the Republican nominee for President, and we’re going to need every vote to win in 2024. Some Republicans would rather lose based on their positions which are not necessarily conservative positions than win the presidency, which will doom the country and re-elect President Biden. Later, Mark is joined by Jim Trusty, one of President Trump’s lawyers, to discuss the leaks and abuses of the rule of law to destroy Trump. Finally, Mark speaks with Ian Prior about his new book, Parents of the World, Unite!: How to Save Our Schools from the Left’s Radical Agenda.

Daily Mail
Xi Jinping delivers a chilling message for the West as he tells ‘dear friend’ Vladimir Putin ‘change is coming that hasn’t happened in 100 years… and we are driving it’ on day Russian despot said UK risked ‘nuclear collision’ with its aid to Ukraine

Bloomberg
Biden Judicial Nominee Stumbles Over Brady Motion Definition

Photo by Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times

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

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour 1 Segment 1

We have a lot tonight. Hello. A lot. We a couple of great guests and our three as well, including President Trump’s documents, lawyer and our buddy Ian Prior with the release by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the House Judiciary Committee. We’ve got a lot to get into, and I’m going to get into all of them. But first, I want to start with this issue of the targeting of parents just to underscore the tyranny that we are living under. With this buffoonish attorney general who’s a complete political hack. Katie Pavelich writing at Town Hall. A new report published by the Select Committee shows extensive collusion between the Biden administration and the National School Board Association, you may recall. You lie to listeners out there that this story was actually first surmised by me that this had to be involved, and then it began to break. There was no way. No way. A letter could have been produced this fast when it was received at the White House on a Friday, and they put out their memo on a monday without collusion. The partnership came as the group drafted a letter calling on the Department of Justice to classify parents as domestic terrorists. You remember that letter? The letter also asked Attorney General Meritless Garland to use the Patriot Act implemented after 911 to go after parents expressing criticism over school lockdowns, critical race theory, inappropriate sexual content in the classroom. Internal executive branch documents indicate the Biden administration’s use, says the Committee of Federal Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism Resources, an example of government weaponization against American parents. If the Justice Department performed any due diligence prior to the issuance of the attorney general’s memorandum, it would have understood clearly and forcefully that federal intervention was unwarranted. Because their due diligence did not occur in the administration, acted out of political motivations rather than for law enforcement reasons. Parents around the country had FBI assessments opened into them. The report states got that parents. The report, which is interim as the committee continues to investigate, gives a detailed timeline of how the National School Board Association worked with the Department of Justice, the Department of Education and the White House to push for federal law enforcement into into the is to investigate parents. The National School Board Association collaborated with the Biden White House to develop the language in their letter, September 29, 2021, to Biden. So they colluded with the White House to send a letter to the White House urging the use of federal law enforcement and counterterrorism tools, including the Patriot Act, against parents. The National School Board Association shared the draft language of its letter with the White House, which apparently raised no concerns with the reference to counterterrorism tools or the inclusion of the Patriot Act. The report says Five days after the National School Board Association letter to President Biden on October four, Attorney General Garland issued a memorandum that inserted federal law enforcement into local school board meetings. Attorney General Garland established a task force, including the department’s National Security Division, with responsibility for enforcing federal counter counterterrorism statutes to examine school board related threats, and highlighted the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center to serve as a snitch line for tips about parents at school board meetings. By the way, this is still going on. Now after the letter became public. The National School Board is. And by the way, we help do that, too. The National School Board Association apologized to a number of school districts, ditched the organization during testimony on Capitol Hill. Garland has denied any wrongdoing by the Department of Justice. While there’s a lot of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice. You just unleashed. Federal law enforcement against parents. Well, I want to salute Landmark Legal Foundation. For taking the lead on a big aspect of this and spending months and resources developing information that was eventually used by this committee. Shortly after the release of the Garland memo, Landmark Legal filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the records and reports from the United States Attorney’s Office meetings. These reports are important sources to corroborate the actual extent of threats to public school officials. So a landmark said us. Oh, really? You’re doing all this. You get all these threats. Well, let’s look into all these threats. Given their attendance by a broad cross-section of law enforcement agencies, the United States Attorney’s Office, which is in main justice. Their meetings are also an important lens into the government’s treatment of potentially protected speech activities. Landmark wanted to know whether federal law enforcement had undertaken any actions that improperly hindered Citizens First Amendment rights. They also wanted to know whether the Department of Justice meetings expressed political intent to accommodate the National School Board Association’s concern. And following months of stonewalling by the Department of Justice. Landmark finally obtained 127 pages of reports submitted by the U.S. Attorney’s offices to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Now, the deputy attorney General is an old Obama hack. In my view, she’s the invisible man and she’s just Bengali running the department. And so Landmark published these documents in their entirety on their website. Now the executive summary that they’ve put out. They say, despite the hysterical rhetoric from International School Board Association, the United States attorney’s offices, with very few exceptions, reported no increase in criminal threats directed toward school board members. The Democrats. The media have talked about these threats. There were no increasing criminal threats directed toward school board members, period. These reports show that parents never posed a substantial threat to public safety. I’m calling from their findings. Citizen engagement at school board meetings almost entirely falls under the protection of non-violent First Amendment protected speech. And the records show the fallacy of Garland’s claim it was necessary to mobilize federal law enforcement against specious complaints of, quote, threatening, unquote, speech. There were four major categories of reports submitted by the United States Attorney’s Office, their offices, 93 of them in response to the Garland memo. A plurality of these reports, totaling 31 officers, explicitly stated they had identified no threats. Too many reports totaling 27 stated they found nothing notable worth reporting to the deputy Attorney general. 313 of the officer’s reports were rather vague and non-committal, sticking to procedural summaries of their meetings. One either confirming or denying the presence of threats. Number four, only four officers reported any relevant threats in their jurisdiction in each of these districts. No more than one threat was identified in any detail. It’s troubling, however, that two of these four U.S. attorneys offices reported the mobilization of anti-terrorism resources to combat the perceived dangers of these threats. So the 93 total U.S. attorney jurisdictions. They found four threats. 15,000. School systems. And yet you would have thought. That this was a. A systematic problem that was taking place. Systematic. Landmark goes on. Many U.S. attorneys, to their credit, noted a commitment to the First Amendment and its values and a promise to intervene in what is properly a state. Law enforcement matter only for violent criminal threats carried by federal law, as shown in the Garland memo or the National School Board Association letter which prompted this investigation. The definition of criminal can be somewhat arbitrary in the eyes of politically motivated law enforcement agencies. Even so, the explicit affirmation of free speech principles in the reports shows that many U.S. attorney’s offices recognize the controversial, if not unconstitutional, implications of the Garland memo taken in their entirety. These officers reports show the Biden Justice Department issued the unprecedented Garland memo purely for political purposes. Purely. For political purposes, and it goes into great detail. I believe this is on their website. That they had no criminal activity to report, no actual criminal activity to report. There were four threats in the whole country. Other United States attorney’s offices responded in a very skeptical tone to the memo. There were some noncommittal reports. Where they just kind of blew off the request and so forth. And, you know, it’s interesting is the media could have done this. The New York Times could have pursued this. It did not. The Washington Post, this is all in their backyard. They could have pursued this. They did not. See, censorship is not. Just what you choose to report. It’s what you choose not to report. Across the several categories of response. Dozens of U.S. attorneys declared their intentions to never interfere with the First Amendment protected speech. In this, these are Democrats because they fired the offices, every single one of them. The presence of these statements emphasizes that most federal law enforcement officers understand the tenuous constitutional grounds of the Garland memo. The Western District of Texas, for example, quote, underscored they are sworn to uphold the Constitution and it is not their intent to interfere with individual rights of assembly and free speech. District of Idaho emphasized, quote, Their law enforcement will not interfere with and will protect spirited debate about policy matters of peaceful protest. Other districts included similar language in their reports. Brian Buchanan’s north district of Georgia, for example, may seek to better align their practices with their claim that their directives are not intended to chill free speech. And it goes on. So what’s their conclusion? And again, all their charts and all their findings are in the memo and obviously were used by this subcommittee. And they had a litigate to get the information. The United States Attorney’s offices reports obtained through landmarks FOIA request illustrate the need for further investigation. In debate on questions raised by the Garland memo, federal law enforcement in the various U.S. Attorney’s office has reported few incidences of credible threats against school officials. And yet several jurisdictions have, through their use of federal counterterrorism resources, reinforce the National School Board Association’s false and outrageous claim that unruly parents at school board meetings may embody, quote, a form of domestic terrorism, unquote. By any measure, the reports of the United States attorneys in response to the Garland memo demonstrate that the Biden Justice Department. Deployed the full resources of federal law enforcement to intimidate parents and silence political speech. This was an outrageous abuse of power. Landmark’s investigation will continue. I love those guys I worked with for all those decades. So there was no reason for the Garland memo. It was unconstitutional. There was no reason to unleash the National Security unit, the civil rights unit, the Criminal Division, 93 U.S. attorneys offices to put up a terrorism domestic terrorism hotline for people to call. They had no examples of terrorism. They had no examples of threats, really. And they did it anyway. The deputy attorney general, the attorney general of the United States, of course, they should be impeached. They should resign. They are corrupt. They are political. They are hacks. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 2

Well, it looks like it goes on and on and on. Joe Biden had an event for Women’s History Month. We had the International Day of the Woman. However, I get Men’s History Month or the International Day of Men. I’m not familiar with it if we do. But here again, I have to raise the question. What is Women’s History Month? Did anybody ask Joe Biden? Can you define what a woman is? Hmm. Can you define what a woman is? Now we know you’re accused of molesting one. We know your son knows what on woman is having hired multiple prostitutes. And of course, giving birth out of wedlock. Another woman and then, of course, dating his late brother’s wife and then dating his late brother’s wife, sister. So he obviously knows what on my mind is. The question is whether Joe does because obviously Justice Jackson didn’t. She needed a biologist. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 3

Well, a couple of things in the let’s get Trump news today. Let’s start with Manhattan. As you’ve heard by now, no doubt the grand jury was told to stay home, but to be poised in case they’re called in. People are trying to read the tea leaves. What does that mean? I will tell you what that means. It means one of two things or both. It means there’s disagreement in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office between the Soros appointed hack, rogue D.A. and the career staff, and or it means that Bragg and his staff doesn’t think they can get a majority. Of the grand jurors to go along with their with their plot. Now, why is that? Well, first of all, they’re watching TV and listening to radio. But more than that, they’re testimony from a very serious witness, Robert Costello, former federal prosecutor. Longtime defense lawyer in New York and has just the news reports that a lawyer who formally advised Michael Cohen alleges that in 2018, by my calculation, a little over four years ago, the Ex-trump adviser claimed to know nothing about the former president committing wrongdoing, including on hush money to women. Now, unlike the federal case in Washington, which I’ll get to in a moment. Michael Cohen waived attorney client privilege on his own. It wasn’t compelled by a judge. An attorney who advised. Disgraced Trump organization lawyer writes Nick Gibson. John Solomon Michael Cohen provided Manhattan prosecutors with voluminous documentation, including contemporaneous emails and memos purporting to show that in 2018, Cohen wanted Donald Trump to help cover his legal bills and repeatedly claimed he had no evidence incriminating the former president in a hush money deal with porn actress Stormy Daniels. Cohen said he had no information against Trump. One memo summarizing Attorney Costello’s interactions with Cohen stated These are called contemporaneous notes. They’re very powerful. Are contemporaneous evidence. That memo, dated April 2019, recounted Costello’s interview with federal prosecutors about conversations he and colleagues had with Cohen a year earlier. Costello, a former federal prosecutor who has represented famous clients like George Steinbrenner, Leona Helmsley, Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, told just the news on Tuesday he provided Manhattan District Attorney Alan Bragg’s office with more than 300 pages of emails, memos and texts chronicling his dealings with Cohen. He said his documents showed Cohen took out a bank loan known as Halak HELOC, on his own during the 2016 presidential election to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 under a nondisclosure agreement. Oh, no, it’s hush money. Under a nondisclosure agreement, an NDA. So she would remain quiet about her alleged relationship with the president. Cohen bragged he kept the situation quiet so that Melania Trump and Cohen’s own wife wouldn’t learn about it. Costello said in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast. He said. I didn’t believe the information. But I knew that this was a situation that would cause embarrassment. So this is Costello talking about what Cohen told him. So I negotiated with this lawyer and we worked out an NDA for the payment of $130,000. And I said, Did you get that money from Donald Trump? No. Did you get it from any Trump organization? No. I said, did you take the money out of your own savings? Are checking. No. I said, Well, how’d you get the money? He said, I took out a loan, HELOC. Why would you take out a loan to cover something like this? And he said, Because I wanted to keep it secret. If I took money from my account, my wife would know about it. But I didn’t want my wife to know about it. I didn’t want Melania Trump to know about it. That’s why I did it that way. Now, if you’re going to do it that way, that means you’re keeping it from Donald Trump and Melania Trump, Costello added, summarizing the story he offered grand jurors and Manhattan prosecutors. You see this key witness with a stellar background. Just throw a turd through a turd in the prosecutor’s swimming pool and a 2019 summary of Costello’s interview with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York. Costello alleged that in 2018, Cohen wanted to talk to Giuliani, then a lawyer for the 45th president, about getting Trump or his insurance company to pay Cohen’s legal bills. Yes. During that long conversation on June 23, 2018, Cohen asked me. To talk to Giuliani and ultimately Trump about Cohn applying to an insurance under the D.A. policy to pay his legal fees. And Cohen did not want the big guy to oppose Cohen’s request, Costello said. Costello also provided a contemporaneous email with a colleague from June 2018 when she recounted his conversations with Cohen about Giuliani and payment of legal bills. He asked me to communicate with Rudy and have him tell the president that all of these stories about cooperating are B.S. To tell him that he’s not talking to reporters, he’s not talking to friends. These stories from sources are fiction. Of course, he was. I believe the issue for Cohen is money. Explained in the email. Who’s going to pay for these lawyers? Cohen did not respond to requests by email or text from just the news for comment. His lawyer, Lanny Davis. Lanny, declined to answer questions, instead offering an attack on one of the reporters in this story. In interviews with Manzullo, Steve Cohen acknowledged having contacts with Costello, but suggested the former prosecutor was, quote, making up stories, unquote, to the grand jury and carrying out a typical Trump play. Oh, really? Scott notes from 2018 and 2019. What do you have more on? What do you have? And those interviews. Cohen also claimed he did not believe he had waived his attorney client privilege from his conversations with Costello. I don’t recall waiving anything, he said. But again, this is I don’t know what he’s talking about. You see his problem? I don’t know what he’s talking about, but I didn’t wave privilege. But one of the documents that Costello provided, the just a news shows that Cohen signed a declaration in 2019 for federal prosecutors waiving any claim of privilege from his interactions with Costello. Although I do not believe that any of my communications with Costello or other lawyers a DHC, are subject to attorney client privilege, he said. I hereby weigh whatever attorney client or other privilege that might be argued have attached to such communications. That is a michael Cohen declaration signed on February, signed on February 2019, and they attached the document to the story. The back and forth between Costello and Cohen is just one of many signs. Experts said the Bragg’s office is going to face challenges if it brings an indictment and state charges against Trump based on the testimony was former lawyer who pled guilty to making false statements to Congress and other crimes and served time in prison. Using Cohen as a witness would be the greatest gift to Trump, Harvard law professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Just the news. If they’re smart, they’ll try to work around Cohen, try to pick some of the other witnesses, maybe some tapes. I don’t think they’re going to put Cohen on the witness stand. He’s making some of this stuff up. Costello says a Cohen He’s embellishing. Costello said he told grand jurors that Cohen appeared distraught when they first met in the spring of 2018 at a hotel that he even talked to committing suicide. He said he repeatedly asked Cohen if he had incriminating evidence on Trump that could be used to get Cohen a plea deal and that Cohen repeatedly said he did not. Even a serial liar tells the truth once in a while, Costello said. And when a person like Michael Cohen is in extremis, he’s ready to kill himself. That’s the one time that he’s going to give up Donald Trump if he adds something at that point in time. But he did not. Costello’s account in the interview Tuesday matches what he told Congress during the Russian collusion investigation against Trump. And it goes on. So he’s got contemporaneous emails and texts, he’s got documents, he’s got a declaration in which Turney claim privilege is waived and signed by Cohen. Why are they even still thinking about this case? First of all, there is no case. There’s no illegality. There’s no crime, state or federal. Well, that misdemeanor. There’s no crime, state or federal. There’s a nondisclosure agreement. That’s the beginning and the end of it. There’s no federal crime. There’s no state crime. Well, if he put it was a legal expense. But what? But he said Trump said from the beginning in this Costello. Undergirds this point. They didn’t pay for. That he didn’t pay for. And he didn’t. Cohen did. And then he wanted legal fees paid for and he wanted a reimbursement. And then there’s reports that he wanted a pardon. And so now Trump is the victim. And of course, nobody talks about Stormy Daniels and the fact that she violated a nondisclosure agreement. She got $130,000 and violated the Michael Cohen nondisclosure agreement, the Michael Cohen hush money. So what kind of witness would she be? Very poor. So the state law. No good, Federal law, No good. You got. Cohen contradicted a thousand ways by a stellar witness, his former attorney. Where he waived attorney client privilege. And then you have Stormy Daniels. That’s what you’ve got. Now we have a an appellate court in Washington, D.C., not the full court, a panel. And it’s interesting. I’ve been looking for what judges sit on this panel. Three judge panel has ruled against President Trump in record time, upholding the decision by the Obama judge last Friday who ruled in record time. Um, this court that the Donald Trump’s Laura Cochrane must testify in front of Jack the Ripper Smith’s grand jury. And the lawyer, as it turns out, has to turn over the notes. The judge did not do that, as I mistakenly said the other day. But I didn’t say because I mean it said it because the article said it. But now we clarify either way, it doesn’t matter. Now, normally these things take months. So why would this panel give Donald Trump’s lawyers till midnight last night and give the Department of Justice till 6 a.m. this morning? To make their arguments and then rule. 2 hours ago. Why would they do that? We don’t know. We’ll have to wait for the next leak from the special counsel’s office or the court to tell us why. But what’s the rush? Nobody knows. Nobody knows until the government leaks. And they’re not going to leak that because it doesn’t do them any good. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 4

I should point out, America, that every Gateway pundit, Gregg Jarrett. Said that in so many words, Costello went into that grand jury room and it was obvious that the grand jury did not have access to hundreds of pages of his material that he gave to the district attorney’s office. Now, that is shocking what’s going on here. And I want to warn you and remind you of something. What’s going to happen here is all these former feds are going to unite in their condemnation of the case in Manhattan because they know it’s a loser. But they’re also going to unite in their argument that the case in Georgia is strong, unlike Manhattan. And they’re also going to argue that the case. In Washington, D.C., whichever case you choose, January 6th. Those are strong, to say the least. A lot of these people are Svengali. A lot of these people are two faced. Okay. A lot of these people just follow the crowd. So you got to be careful with so-called legal analysts, a.k.a. legal analysts. So you have a lot of these Never Trumpers dressed up as prosecutors just because they take a close shave and put makeup on and wear a tie doesn’t mean you can trust them who are jumping all over brag, who deserves to be dumped all over. But if you listen to what they say out of the other side of their mouth, they’re building up Georgia and they’re building up Washington, the prosecutors there, which is really appalling. I want you to keep that in mind and look how the courts are working in Washington, D.C. You never have courts work this fast, never to have a panel of the circuit court in Washington, by the way, that that court in Washington, D.C., they did to that court what they’ve been wanting to do to the Supreme Court. They added a number of seats and then packed it with left wing Democrats. That was done by Obama and Harry Reid. They expanded the circuit court, which didn’t need any more judges. The Court. That meritless Garland sat on. They expanded the numbers, then packed it with Democrats, left wing Democrats. And so you get rulings like this. That court used to be pretty straight, pretty down the middle. Not anymore. Now it’s quite liberal. I just thought I would point that out because they ruled in record time like we’ve never seen before in ours to uphold the Obama judge and the lower court. She issues her ruling, then she retires and she’s replaced by another Obama judge. And these chief judges are responsible for all the motions litigation that occurs in the grand jury. They sign that power to themselves. And Donald Trump has never won a single one. Not one. Gee, I wonder why is he a bad Lord? Now is great, Lord. We’re bad judges. You know that’s possible. Did you know judges are flesh and blood? You know, throughout history, judges have been brilliant and they’ve also been stupid that judges have been very ethical and very unethical, that judges have been crooks and haven’t paid their taxes. That judges have colluded with presidents behind the scenes. Yeah, that’s true. And I’m talking about Supreme Court justices. I’ll be right back.