On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show, unfortunately Donald Trump will probably be charged in Atlanta and Washington D.C. at the behest of Biden’s Department of Justice and be convicted. Democrat DA’s in Manhattan and Atlanta brought bogus charges against Trump, and now he has been found liable of sexual battery in a civil trial against E. Jean Carroll. This is occurring in Democrat cities with judges allowing bogus trials, and more are coming because Trump is being overwhelmed with criminal and civil investigations. Everything is playing out perfectly if you are a Democrat, especially President Biden running against Trump in 2024. Mark speaks with trial attorney Brian Claypool about the evidence used in the Trump civil case and the integrity of the verdict. Also, we have the highest percentage of debt in terms of GDP in American history, not even during WWII or the Great Depression. This is why inflation is going through the roof, and Biden is lying and deceiving the American people about spending cuts because he hasn’t made any. Biden is overwhelming the American citizens through inflation and immigration because he has thrown in with the Marxists like the political chameleon he is. Later, Mark is joined by Congressman Chip Roy to discuss Title 42 and Biden’s disastrous border policies.
Fox News
Trump to appeal verdict in E Jean Carroll civil case, says he has ‘absolutely no idea’ who she is
Washington Times
Biden Energy Dept. releases proposed rule to slash water use and energy consumption in dishwashers
Photo by Spencer Platt
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 87738138118773813811. Well, folks, I want to tell you something. I want to speak to those of you who love this country. Patriots. Here’s the deal. Donald Trump. Is probably going to be charged in Georgia. Specifically, Atlanta. At the behest of a Democrat D.A. He’s probably going to be charged in Washington at the behest of the Biden administration. A Democrat, attorney general, Democrat prosecutors. And he’s probably going to be convicted. 100 years from now, it’ll be written. The Donald Trump was impeached twice and two bogus impeachments. He was subjected to a two year criminal investigation and the Mueller report on a fraud that was committed against him by the Democrat Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as the FBI, among others. It’s going to be written that the Biden administration sent. Their star. See the FBI. To his home in Florida. Armed. To take documents out of his house. It’s going to be written that they tried to accuse him of a sedition conspiracy, which is a fact, effectively treason. And obstructing the transfer of power on January six. It’s going to be written at Democrat days in Manhattan. And a lighter. Brought bogus charges against him. It’s going to be written that a an attorney general in New York who campaigned on charging Donald Trump. Moved to a civil case. Against him and his businesses. Which will occur in October. And now this case. And I read yesterday Byron York’s piece. We’re going to have an experienced criminal defense attorney on the program, even though this was a civil case. Brian Claypool, I’ve never had on the program a trial lawyer. I do not understand. I understand the argument. I do not understand how it happened. But the Access Hollywood video. Could possibly be used as evidence. Used to persuade a Democrat jury. Against a man they already hate in New York. Donald Trump. In every instance where there’s criminal investigations, we have Democrats on grand juries. Every case where there’s trials, we have Democrats on jury trials. We have Democrat judges, Democrat prosecutors. This will be written about 100 years from now. There were very few John Adams types among us today. The media. Generally, outlets like media and media and media matters, they will be remembered. Not for good, but for evil. The piling on the. The lack of real process, due process. Could Trump have? Made a stronger defense. Yes, of course. But this case should never have been brought. The jury sits 27 years later. There’s no contemporary evidence of any kind. She told two friends. Who didn’t come forward either. Those friends testified that they were told. I don’t know what kind of witnesses that that makes two friends. Who never come forward. And yet if they were believable, I suppose they would have said that Donald Trump committed the act of rape, and yet the jury didn’t find that. They determined that he committed sexual battery. How do we know? We have no idea. None. And why did Ms.. Carroll wait so long? Well, as we discussed yesterday from Byron York’s piece, she met a lawyer by the name of George Conway. She never actually sought out legal advice, but he gave her legal advice in 2019. At a resistance event. Resistance to what? To Trump. He said, look, he knows New York law and he suggested she get a lawyer and sued Donald Trump for defamation. And she says that’s what caused her to do it the next day. And a billionaire. Never Trumper help fund the case. And a New York jury in a civil trial. Found President Trump guilty again, not of rape, but of battery, sexual battery and defamation ordered in repay $5 million. And I am just telling you the truth. Which is. Get ready for more. This is occurring in Democrat cities. I don’t know how this judge let this kind of information in. He even had and allowed two women to testify who said Donald Trump? Had groped or attacked them. Well, how do you prove or disprove that? They never came forward either. Donald Trump says, I don’t even know who this woman, Carol, is. Her evidence for showing that he did was a picture long ago. We’re Donald Trump and three other people were in the picture. Quickly shaking hands. Civil case is preponderance of evidence. It’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why the attorney general in New York is looking now to bring a civil case. Or has. Trial of which will begin in October. Donald Trump is being overwhelmed. With criminal investigations. With civil investigations. In Democrat cities. And then they talk about the politics of it. Well, with all this going on, it’s hard to see how he can get elected in a general election, how women will vote for men, independents. And you’ve got blowhards like Chris Christie out there and others piling on and. Perfect. It’s playing out perfectly. If you’re a Democrat, if you’re Joe Biden. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Boy, you’ve seen Brian Claypool on on Fox and elsewhere. He’s a highly regarded trial attorney, defense lawyer. Nice to meet you, Brian. How are you, sir? Great, Mark. Nice to be on your show. Thanks for having me. I you know, I do a lot of constitutional stuff. I have to admit, I’m perplexed and I. I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the law in New York and so forth. But how the hell are the Access Hollywood video wound up in this case? Yeah, that’s a great point. I was on Neil CAVUTO Show earlier today and, you know, he asked me, what are some issues for appeal? Right. And to me, that that is the big ticket item for an appeal. I tend to agree with you. You know, some analysts were like, oh, well, the laws are such that you can bring in comments made by somebody, right. That for propensity. Right. To show that somebody has a propensity to do something. But there’s two issues I have with that. Number one, look at the context in which that and his comments were made by Trump. And and I forget the guy’s name from Access Hollywood. Right? You know, they’re they’re they’re chitchatting. There’s nothing specific that Trump said about, you know, a person, a woman. It’s just a general comment. Right. And then and then the next problem I have with that is, is this. In in jury trials, whether it’s civil or criminal, even if a judge decides that a piece of evidence like the Access Hollywood tape is deemed relevant to the case. Right. The judge still has to do an analysis as to whether the any undue prejudice outweighs the relevance. And if the prejudice does, you don’t let it in. And that’s where I have a problem. I mean, anybody that hear any juror that hears that tape, I can’t see how they would not find Trump guilty. It’s just extremely prejudicial, particularly when you’re talking about a jury in a city where about 7% of the people voted for Trump. I mean, it’s it’s obvious that plaintiff’s counsel and I will argue these prosecutors, they’re playing to this. They know that he’s he’s largely despised by the populations in these various metropolitan areas, that his support comes outside of those areas. So to your point about prejudicial, it’s prejudicial in the specific way in which it’s used, but it’s prejudicial because it’s really pouring fuel on the fire people. Now, wait a minute. I know I didn’t like this guy. Now, there were two women who testified who have absolutely no connection to the facts of this case, too. How did that happen? Yeah, I mean, I handle sexual assault cases and sexual abuse cases. So now I’ve actually represented and I do represent victims of sexual abuse. And I still even though I represent victims of sexual abuse, I’m still troubled with with with how the laws have developed in states like New York, California. And what I mean by that is that laws are becoming more lenient to let in evidence, for example, of of prior encounters that a defendant has had with other women. Now, years ago, Mark, that that that evidence clearly would have not come in. It would have been because it’s what’s called inadmissible character evidence. Right. You’re attacking somebody’s character. You’re you’re trying to say they’re they’re a bad person on this occasion to prove that they’re they were a bad person on on the occasion at trial. And that’s the risk. You run with these with these with these new laws, I mean, these two incidents with these other ladies. They’re vastly different. I said it on. I said, I’m not sure this wasn’t a case of what the other two women of, for example, Trump being at a bar and they’re drinking and then he takes them back into a hotel or a dark hotel room and forces himself on them in a locked hotel room. It was just it was just different. I mean, these two other incidents were not really similar to Carol’s incident. So it is it is a bit troubling. Well, isn’t it also problematic in another way, which is what he’s supposed to do at many trials on these two other cases, nobody’s been charged with anything. And Trump wasn’t charged with anything respecting these two women. Who knows if they’re telling you what he’s supposed to do, hold a whole set of depositions and so forth on the side here to check their credibility. And so, I mean, how would that even work? Yeah, I mean, you’re raising another good point, which is these other two women now are coming into court. And by the way, I think Trump’s lawyer made a point to the jury that they were Democratic as well. They’re they’re, you know, anti-Trump. And you’re right. Where is where is the veracity of these two encounters that these two women have claimed? Did they file, for example, a police report? Did they? I mean, if they did it to me, if I’m sitting on a jury, I start wondering whether it really happened. Did did those two other women run to other friends or other people and disclose? Was that was that talked about? Right. Because disclosures are really important in sexual abuse cases. You know, was that delved into and then you’ve got to look at something you raised earlier, which is what you know, what what what is the the political affinity of these women? I mean, what what what what’s what’s in it for them? Right. Think about that. Why would they come forward after all these years? I think one of the ladies was like back in the seventies. She said something happened all these years go by and then all of a sudden you’re going to walk in and say, this happened. So, yeah, it is. It is troubling. And you know, what I like to see in these cases is is a fair playing field. Let let’s have the evidence in a manner where it doesn’t facilitate like a political kind of attack on somebody. And here, you know, here I you know, I think this case should have been just about what Carol said happened right in that dressing room. And that’s it. That’s my view. And is it the problem with that, that it would be almost impossible to make a case if it’s limited to that? That’s why they had to bring in all this extra information, if you will. Now, I’m sure my audience is sitting there and wondering, well, how would a jury be able with the the limited, serious, limited information it had? To find guilty on sexual battery but not rape. What exactly did this jury have? What information did it have to be able to distinguish? I want to hold you over, if you don’t mind, to be able to distinguish between one or the other, because I haven’t heard anything. I know there’s a different proof issue, but any proof? How would you how would you if you’re going to believe the plaintiff and if you’re going to believe what she told these these two friends, then how can you say, no, it’s not rape, it is sexual battery. So I believe them to a point. I’m just curious what you think about that. We’ll be right back with Brian Claypool.
Segment 3
Brian Claypool, long time trial attorney, Defense counsel. So to reiterate my question, how would this jury know if one physical act occurred versus another physical act when all they have is what the. What the plaintiffs said. And then they’re not really believing the plaintiffs because they didn’t go as far as the plaintiff said that she claims she was attacked. You know, Mark, actually, that’s a great point because it suggests that what the jury did back in the hours at some some jurors might not have agreed with her version at all. Right. And and some were were saying, oh, no, I believe that President Trump raped her. Right. So it connotes that maybe jurors met in the middle. Right. So you pulled some in from who thought he raped her with some that said maybe he didn’t. And that’s not that’s not a proper way to conduct a jury deliberation. To your point, because if he’s saying I was raped by President Trump, she’s not saying I wasn’t raped or I was raped. But if you don’t find me raped, he touched my breast. Exactly. Yeah. Right. So it can’t be one or the other. So if they’re saying no to the first one, what what what’s the what’s the basis, the evidentiary basis for, for finding sexual assault. And to your point, there wouldn’t have been any evidence of that, which suggests I’m not saying this is true, but it could be potential juror misconduct. Maybe Trump’s lawyers now need to look into and interview, by the way, some of these jurors and find out what was discussed. Just so your listeners know, after trial is over, most of the time lawyers can hire investigators, track down jurors and question them about what happened, what happened that jury room. And this is a case where maybe, maybe that should happen because I say the logical matter. If you believe the plaintiff and her two friends. Or you don’t. And they’re not claiming that she he only want this far and no further. They’re claiming he went all the way. Yeah, not that I mean that and that’s that’s really I mean if you ever quit TV and radio, maybe, you know, maybe the legal world maybe the legal world is up your alley. It really is an excellent point because. Because she’s not she’s on the stand. She’s not like a prosecutor that argues like in a criminal case, prosecutors can argue, oh, I want you to find so-and-so guilty of first degree murder. But if you don’t find him guilty of first degree murder and second degree or involuntary manslaughter, that’s okay for a prosecutor to do right in a criminal case. But in a civil case, in a sexual assault case, you you can’t do that. It can’t it can’t be one or the other. And to your point, she didn’t even do that. She she put all her eggs in one basket. I was raped. Jury says, no, you weren’t. We don’t find you were raped, but we’re finding you were basically groped and touched inappropriately by Trump. And to your point, what is the evidence that supports that? And that, again, suggests to me that there might have been some shenanigans going on in the jury deliberation room where we were. Jurors are bartering. Right. Let’s meet in the middle one. Well, that’s not how that’s not how the the process is supposed to work. So what happens now in a case like this? Are they able to raise that issue? And these other is on appeal. Yeah, well, yeah, that’s a great question. So in terms of the juror misconduct, that wouldn’t be that would be something for what’s called a motion for for a new trial. And that’s why lawyers for Trump should probably get on it in terms of trying to to talk to some of these jurors to find out what went down, get investigators, go try to talk to them, because then what you have to do, Mark, is you file you would file a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. But you need to support that. You need affidavits from the actual jurors. Right. Where they they might say what I just said, hey, I didn’t you know, I didn’t think he, you know, sexually assaulted her. But I, you know, decided that to meet in the middle. Right. That would be inappropriate. But you’d have to get affidavits from the jurors, file a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. That happens before an appeal. The issues. So then the issues regarding letting in evidence of these two other ladies and the Access Hollywood tape, that would be for an appeal. And you don’t file a notice of appeal until there’s a final judgment in the case and there hasn’t been a final judgment. And then you have, like I think, 30 or 60 days to file a notice of appeal. But I’m sure Trump’s lawyers are going to clearly appeal. But look, you’ve raised a good point, and I think they might want to pursue potential juror misconduct in a new trial. Hmm. Hmm. Well, listen, you’ve been terrific. I want to thank you, Brian Claypool with We might want to pull you in again someday. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, can I tell you one other thing? It’s really interesting. Absolutely. Civil cases, to your point, again, you made an excellent point in a civil case. It’s the plaintiff has to prove by preponderance of the evidence. What does that mean? It’s 51 to 49. It’s not 50 to 50. Right. To your hearing. Kind of. She’s got the earlier like even if it’s a even if it’s a stalemate. Right. With these jurors. And that’s that a stalemate is not good enough. It’s got to be 5149 anyway. I think that’s just an interesting component on on, you know, the integrity of the verdict. But thanks for having me. Listen, you’ve been great, Brian Claypool, thank you, my friend. And you take care of yourself, all right? Thank you. Take care of yourself. Mr. Producer, can we go to. Well, they’re having duel comments now. Biden and McCarthy, who do we have, would fall into a recession. It would devastate retirement accounts, increased borrowing cost. According to Moody’s, nearly 8 million Americans would lose their jobs and our international reputation would be damaged in the extreme. The last part is me International and Moody’s did not say the last part, but damage is extreme. I made clear during our meeting that default is not an option. Repeated that time and again. America is not a deadbeat nation. We pay our bills and avoiding default is a basic duty of the United States Congress. In fact, they did it three times under my predecessor without warrants at one time, creating a crisis. Rattling the markets are undermining the unshakable trust the world has in America because Trump negotiated with the Democrats. Go ahead. That went up 40% over the 200 year, went up 40% under my predecessor. And that’s the problem we’re dealing with today. I might know parenthetically, in my first two years, I reduced the debt by $1.7 trillion. No press. He’s been told repeatedly that he’s been lying about that because he’s counting COVID, the one time spending on COVID. Go ahead. It is, but not under the threat of default. As I said, I’ve already cut the deficit by 1.7 trillion in my first two years in office. And the budget just submitted to Congress cuts another $3 trillion in debt over the next ten years. My budget I submitted. I made it clear that we can cut spending and cut the deficit. For example, my budget cuts $200 billion in spending by strengthening Medicare’s power to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. In addition, that’s on top of the $160 billion in budget savings we passed last year by being able to reduce the price of insulin and other drugs for those on Medicare. And my budget cuts 30 billion, 30 billion in spending on tax subsidies for big oil companies they made. All right, that’s enough. That’s enough. That’s enough. His proposed budget creates another $1.2 trillion in debt. Does anybody out there actually believe that Joe Biden is slashing spending? Which is why Bernie Sanders is so gung ho about him and his spending. Does anybody believe that? The way these guys talk, they’re such liars. Like his spokesman did today, giving the list, as Biden did. You’re going to be cutting funds for law enforcement. How so? You’re going to be cutting funds for schools, funds for. There’s funds for that. In other words. The federal governments involved in anything. And everything. So if you don’t vote for a massively bloated budget with all this debt, that means all these other core and basic functions. We are not going to be funded. So it’s not that the Republicans are cutting them. It’s that he’s saying if the Republicans don’t go along with everything I want, it will impact these other areas. Joe Biden has cut a penny out of the debt. We have the highest percentage of dead, 129% of GDP, not just since World War Two, but more. Then we had in World War Two. The United States has never seen anything like this before, not even during the Great Depression. We have never seen anything like this before. That’s why inflation’s going through the roof. Now Joe Biden has spent his entire life as a liar and a plagiarist. And that’s what he’s doing right now. He’s lying. They’ve written this. Propaganda down for. And nothing frustrates me more than when a president of the United States or a leader of one of these parties deceives the American people. He didn’t cut $1.7 trillion from anything. Period. No, he didn’t. How is it that he cuts? $1.7 trillion. It doesn’t affect education, law enforcement, health care or anything else. But the Republicans want to cut a measly 1%. And that affects education and health care and everything else. Do you understand what I’m saying, Mr. Producer? How is it that he cuts $1.7 trillion? Which theoretically is 20% of the budget he proposed. More than 20, almost 23%. And everything grows. Nothing’s affected. Nothing. Nothing receives a a reduced amount of funding. A huge increase in funding. And yet what the Republicans say, all right, we want to cut 1% a year for the next two. Wow. That’s going to blow up education, blow up health care, blow up everything else. I hope you can follow what I’m trying to communicate. Maybe not that well. The Republicans want to cut a small amount. Biden care says I’ve cut more than any president in American history. And yet he’s expanded the government. How do you do that? This is why none of these people will sit down with me. Not on radio, not on TV, not on digital. They don’t want to have a debate with me. They don’t want to go over the facts with me. They don’t want to have a discussion with me. None of them. I’m not interested in the spin doctors who get paid to lie. That’s why a Schumer won’t come on the show. A Jamie Raskin won’t come on this show. That’s why none of them will come on the show. Bernie Sanders won’t come on this show because I have the goods on him. Because they’re liars. So McCarthy’s cuts will hurt. I told you they pull this. I tell you, they pull this. And so Joe Biden is not serious at all. Is a full. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
You know, it’s amazing. I remember this when I was a little kid. Maybe it was kindergarten, first grade. They used to do these intelligence tests. And I don’t remember what I got on all these different. But in the one area that I do remember, like. Because my mother mentioned it to me. And as I got older, I saw a sheet. Was in reasoning capacity. And, you know, like anything else, that 0 to 100%, it was 100%. There’s a little kid. And it has served me well through my life. I’m no expert in everything, that’s for sure. If. If in anything. But I know how to reason. So when Joe Biden gets up there and says he’s cut spending more than any president in American history. I have to ask myself. Well, then how come you’re cuts? Don’t destroy families and pensions? Health care, schools, law enforcement. But the Republicans who want a 1% cut per year for ten years voted for that. Plus, they raise the debt ceiling. Their cuts will bring eternal devastation. How is that possible? It’s not possible. So when you listen to their own pre-prepared propaganda, it doesn’t even make any sense. None. So the Republicans have already passed a a bill that would increase the debt ceiling, but they require minimal cuts. And when we talk about cuts in Washington, they mean about reductions in increases. They don’t mean actual cuts, reductions and increases. I also want to thank you because if I don’t mention it, I won’t get mentioned. For so many of you watching my Sunday show, Life, liberty and live in either live or by DVR. It was the number one show in prime time on Sunday night and Saturday night on all of cable. And that’s due to you? Not due to me. That’s due to you. And it was almost the number one show for the entire weekend on cable. But for one hour of. Charles as coronation as King. So we are kicking around. We’re doing well, thanks to you. Trust me, I really appreciate it. And we will continue to do so as long as you’re interested in watching. I’m not going to do it for myself or to myself. And I want to thank all of you who come up to me. Whether I’m in Virginia or Florida or anywhere else. And thank me for this radio show and thank me for life, Liberty and Levin. I really do appreciate it. It’s very, very kind of you. I’ll be walking down a street in somebody. Hey, Mark. Where Mr. Levin or Mr. Levine or Mr. Levin. Okay. I don’t mind. Sometimes I’ll even say, Hey, great one. I certainly mean the great big one. That would be me. But nonetheless, I really appreciate. That’s very kind of you. I’ll be right back.