On Friday’s Mark Levin show, the Federal indictment of Donald Trump shows just how political the Department of Justice is. The Espionage Act was never intended to apply to a president or ex-president, because the president is the executive branch and determines what is or is not classified and not bound by regulations of any department. Despite Hillary Clinton and her lawyers deleting emails subpoenaed by Congress and destroyed cell phones with a hammer, she was never indicted by the DOJ for actually breaking the law. The Presidential Records Act paves the way for how presidents handle documents, and some presidents used to take all of their documents, but only Trump is being targeted for keeping what belongs to him. The charges against Trump are so outrageous that they carry sentences so long that he would die in prison, which is exactly what Democrats want. Biden wants Donald Trump removed from the 2024 election, which is why the DOJ and media are doing everything they can to make it happen.
Reuters
Commentary: What the FBI didn’t say about Hillary Clinton’s email (2016)
Business Insider
Jailed Putin opponent Alexei Navalny has been found guilty of fraud and may face up to 13 years in a maximum-security prison camp (March 2022)
Politico
Judge clears way for disciplinary proceedings against Trump ally Jeffrey Clark
Photo by James Devaney/GC Images
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 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Now, you know why they indicted President Trump yesterday and they have a full campaign of propaganda today. The Friday before the Sunday shows just shows you how political the Department of Injustice is. I’m going to make a statement that nobody else has made. Many of the things I’ve said are being regurgitated all over the place, and that’s actually a good thing. I’m going to tell you, I’ve been doing a lot of research on this Espionage Act. I already know a lot about it many, many years back. This law was never intended to apply to a president. Or even an ex-president. First of all, it was never intended to apply to a president because the president is the executive branch. He determines what is and is not classified. And even though there are rigorous rules, they tell us, and regulations on how you do that. President United States is not bound by regulations in any department. They’re even rules set forth by prior presidents. That’s the Constitution. That’s the Constitution. That’s number one. Number two, let us take a look. At the various titles under the. Espionage Act, which was passed in 1917. Section 791 repealed Section 792 harboring or concealing persons. Section 93 gathering, transmitting or losing Defence information, Section 794 gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government. Section 1785, photographing and sketching defense installations. Does this sound like it applies to an ex-president in America? Section 1786 use of aircraft for photographing defence installations. Section 797. Publication and sale of photographs of Defence installations. Section 798 Publication and sell photographs of Defence installations. Section 798 Disclosure of Classified Information. Section 798 temporary extension of 794 Section seven, Nina in violation of regulations. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA. This was never intended to apply to a president or an ex-president, which is why it’s never been applied to a president or an ex-president. The Espionage Act has been in existence since 1917. It was instituted by Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson used it to prosecute opponents of World War One. Including Eugene Debs, who was a socialist candidate for president. Wilson had him put in prison and he ran for president from prison and he got a million votes. 2000 people. It’s been amended since then. But in its 116 year history. Check that 106 year history. 106 year history. It’s never been used against a president. Never. Still yesterday. So yesterday. Wasn’t used against Hillary Clinton. The Department of Justice took the position in 2012 that despite the fact that Hillary Clinton, her staff and her lawyers. Deleted permanently. 30,000 subpoenaed emails. Supported by Congress. Despite the fact that she destroyed. Or her staff did. Her prior cell phones with a hammer. So the information in those cell phones can never be recovered, despite the fact that that information had been subpoenaed. No warrant, no SWAT team in Westchester. Nothing. Hillary Clinton also lied. She had a private server in her bathroom at home, installed the moment she was sworn in as secretary of state. The moment she was sworn in as secretary of state, classified information passed to that private server. She also brought that. Private communications information, whether on foreign trips that was noted by the government as well. Easily accessed. She said she didn’t have any classified information. She lied. And we’ll get to that later in the program. This is completely relevant. We’re talking about the same Department of Justice. Which chose. Not to pursue a criminal case of obstruction, of conspiracy, to obstruct a false statements of the gathering, transmitting losing defense information. These things that they’re using against President Trump, who was a president and former president, unlike Hillary Clinton. They were not used against Hillary Clinton. This is a significant issue. When I was on with Martha MACCALLUM, who is a fantastic host. I explained something that seemed obvious to me after I read these 49 pages of this indictment. Number one. There’s not a shred of information here about the destruction of any document, tape or other information belonging to the government, classified or non-classified. Number two, there’s not a shred of information that any of the information was altered in any way or molested in some way. None. None. The government got all the information it wanted. Number three, by criminalizing this case, rather than handling it as an administrative case or worst, a civil case. The original U.S. attorney and the phony special counsel. We’re able to trigger the usual tools and mechanisms that prosecutors use when they’re targeting somebody. They bring in scores and scores of witnesses. They gather as much documentary information as they can. They see if there’s any conflicts, any disagreements. They push witnesses on memories. They push witnesses to testify. They threaten witnesses with jail time. You’re in front of a grand jury. Where witnesses have no lawyers. They can’t provide exculpatory information. They can’t record the proceedings. They can’t provide a rebuttal. They can provide nothing. That’s all the jury hears. Jury typically depending has 23 grand jury. Grand jury. 23 members. It takes a simple majority to bring an indictment. 12. And if your grand jury has 17 members, that’s permitted takes nine. That’s how you bring indictments. And in the District of Columbia or in Miami. Or New York. When you’re talking. TRUMP It’s not that tough. It’s not that tough. The relevant statute. Here is the Presidential Records Act. Passed in 1978. After Nixon left office. Change the way that presidents handle documents. Presidents used to take all their documents on. If you’re a signature collector or a document collector, That’s how these documents are in the private sector. That’s how they’re available for sale. Or if a president, writes Ernie Grabowski in Peoria, Illinois, there’s a document that the government doesn’t control around. That’s how they come on the market. But no longer do the documents created by a president that are in the possession of the government belong to the president. Now, importantly, I want to underscore this because the legal analysts are missing the boat. They always missed the boat. As you’ve no listening here, there is no criminal penalty for violating the Presidential Records Act. None. So at this prosecuted did is he moved to the Espionage Act, which has never been used against an ex-president. To criminalize his investigation. But why is it important that the Presidential Records Act has no criminal? Penalty because it shows you the mindset of the United States Congress. And Jimmy Carter, who signed it into law, originally said that they had no intention of applying a document act. Against a president or vice president in a criminal context. Period. And so you have prosecutor who moved over to a 1917 law. That’s where it gets its Genesis 1917, the Espionage Act, and uses it against a president, a former president, a leading contender for the Republican nomination, who, if he’s successful, will be running for president against the very regime that’s charging him. And as I also pointed out on HANNITY. Which has been regurgitated by legal analysts all over cable. If Donald Trump is convicted of one of these major felonies, which has a 20 year maximum sentence. He will die in federal prison. Because he’s 76 years old. Furthermore, on Martha’s show, I pointed out that there are 37 counts that that mentioned Trump, one count in addition that mentions his aide. Why? Because they’re trying to pressure the aide to turn on the president. But 31 of these 37 counts. 31 of them. 31 of them. Have to do a gathering, transmitting or losing defense information that is retaining records has to do with retaining records. 31 of the charges could have been one charge, could have been three, maximum five, but they spread them out. And they take. Each one of them as they spread them out. And attach a 20 year maximum sentence to them. That’s what they do. If you’re a corrupt rogue prosecutor, that’s what you do. That’s what he did. So he knows. That a defendant in this case, President Trump, has to run the table. He has to win in every instance. The goal here is to destroy Trump, to imprison Trump. For Trump, the die in prison. That’s their goal. Nothing more, nothing less. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Never before in American history. Since 1917, 106 years has the Espionage Act been used against an ex-president. Could have been. You know, an ex-president when they leave office. They have a lot of classified information between their ears. They spent a lot of time traveling. He spent a lot of time meeting people like secretaries of state and so forth. Some of them serve on boards. How do we know they’re not revealing classified information? And if this is such a big deal, why aren’t they being monitored? Because it’s preposterous. When you read the titles. Within the Espionage Act. And when you read those sections, it’s clear that even the more ambiguous or generalized parts, they’re not intended to apply to an ex-president, period. I think it was Andy McCarthy who said today, Look. We’ve charge people in lower ranks. He’s a commander in chief. He has to apply the same law to that person. That’s not. Correct. In fact, that’s absurd. The Constitution creates three branches of government. The president is one of the branches. They created that office. He’s the commander in chief. The idea that. He can be held criminally responsible under the Espionage Act, just like some lieutenant who leaves a document somewhere. Like it or not, is preposterous. Which is why it’s never happened before, which is why the government doesn’t monitor ex-presidents. Which is why they ex-presidents don’t get approval to go to certain meetings or to meet with certain heads of state. The Presidential Records Act provides for no criminal penalties. That’s the law that applies.
Segment 3
No one’s above the law, say the Democrats who are destroying the law. Using laws like they’ve never been used before, and then telling us, lecturing us that no one’s above the law except, of course, all the killers and rapists. And shoplifters. But that’s a whole nother story. No one’s above the law, Don’t you know? Chip? Hillary Clinton. She’s celebrating today. Hillary Clinton should be in an orange jumpsuit. I don’t mean the usual one. I mean in prison. Sharing a cell with Loretta. Oh, yes. Or maybe Bertha were these days. Maybe Frank. One never knows. One never knows. Hillary Clinton was caught red handed, being the red that she is. She and her team of miscreants and malcontents. Destroying 30,000 emails that have been subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee. And Jason Chaffetz was the chairman of that committee. She and her team destroyed her cell phones with hammers. Is that obstruction of a lawful subpoena? Of course it is. But. The FBI and the Department of Justice said, no, we’re not going to do that under the Espionage Act. And so when you bring this up, they try and now it doesn’t apply because on the day she did it, she was wearing a wig and Trump was not. And she was standing on one leg. And there now excuse me, it’s right on point. It’s right on point. How can the Department of Justice have one position in Tokyo and a totally different position in 2023? It can’t. Now, this won’t matter in court, but ought to matter with you. It ought to matter with you. The relevant law here is the Presidential Records Act. Now, I heard of a good guy, Harold Ford, say, I’m just responding. These people, I’m not attacking them. I heard Harold Ford say, well, you know, the the Trump laws have changed their arguments now. First, they said that Trump could unilaterally declassify, and he did. And now they’re saying the espionage doesn’t apply that law. Well, both can be correct. A president is declassifying under his authority as. President and commander in chief under the Constitution has nothing to do with the Espionage Act. Moreover, it is I who have begun the argument. I who have put the marker down that the Espionage Act does not apply to a president or even an ex-president. There is absolutely nothing in its history that suggests otherwise. You know, you’re not supposed to apply that law to that person the way you would somebody else. The president and an ex-president are different. They are created by the Constitution of the United States. They are different. Then the rest of us. That’s the way it works. Period. I just read you those headers of there’s various titles, right? When you read them, it becomes more than obvious. That a president and ex-president were not contemplated. And then on top of that, when you consider the Presidential Records Act that was passed specifically to apply to presidents, how specifically to apply to presidents. And there is no criminal penalty of any kind. That should help you understand, but not the legal analysts. Certainly not on me. LSD and the Constipated News Network. Which is full of morons, miscreants and prepubescent malcontents. Oh, yes, it’s true. And in the end, no document was destroyed. No document was altered. How do I know? Was I there? No, but the government was. And in this 49 pages of charges. Not even a footnote suggesting otherwise. So they criminalize this so they can create obstruction issues and other criminal issues that otherwise would not be applied. Hillary Clinton’s treated one way, even though she was not an ex-president. She’s a secretary of state. Donald Trump’s treated another ex-president who’s running for president. And I want to get into that now. Meritless. Garland is the attorney general of the United States who was appointed by Joe Biden. Meritless. Karlan is an angry old man. He believes his place on the Supreme Court was blocked. By the Senate Republicans. And he’s never gotten over it. He’s never gotten over it. As attorney general, he has launched a war. Against Trump. And against the Republicans and against their supporters. That’s why they go after the January six parades. Not even talking about the fighting, the violent people. That’s why they go after the pro-lifers, like there’s no tomorrow. That’s why they won’t protect the conservative justices. Why they go after the parents who rally against. Radical left wing school board members and educational bureaucrats. He’s trying to settle a score. The rogue prosecutor who was dragged in from The Hague was the wrong man for the job, but the right man for the job if you’re the Democrats. Having destroyed former Governor Bob McDonnell in Virginia, even though the conviction was reversed 8 to 0 because this prosecutor pushed the edges of the law. To the point where every single justice on the Supreme Court one recused. Every single justice on the Supreme Court said it was unacceptable. At that time. Jack Smith was head of the public integrity section of the Criminal Division. He was a big half baked, big half. Overturned 8 to 0. They bring a case against John Edwards. They take the campaign loss. Stretched out of existence to make no sense whatsoever. The jury, the trial jury. Fines innocent on one count. And hung on for. The Justice Department drops the case straight to. Then they send this bastard to the Hague. They want to get rid of them. Nobody’s heard from them. And out of all the lawyers that could be chosen to be a special counsel. Marilyn Scarlett picks this guy. He doesn’t even know. Why does he pick this guy? Because his number two, the deputy. Monaco, the bomb throwing radical Marxist who worked for Obama, she recommends. I’m her. She’s the Svengali. She’s the invisible man behind it all. So they bring him in. They’ve turned the country apart. Fine by them. Fine by them. You dare raise your hackles. You will be monitored. You go online. I’ll open a file on you. This is an America, as you remembered it, three years ago or even 48 hours ago. That America, at least for now, doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist. And now, of course, they’re trashing the judge. I even saw that with some of our legal analyst friends. Guess which judge has been assigned to TREB Stocks case. This is the headline at The Daily. Bestiality. Joe Pagliarulo and Dan Lad in the Hall. Two schmucks. The same Donald Trump appointed federal judge who went out of her way to slow down the federal investigation into the former president’s mishandling of classified records has been selected to initially oversee the criminal case filed against him this week, according to a source briefed on the situation. Her name, Federal District Judge Aileen Aileen Cannon. Aileen Cannon is now to be hated. She’s now having a reputation destroyed by the legal analysts, the Democrats and the media. I read this in at least ten news outlets. And I even heard it on my favorite cable channel. So now that pressure is on, the pressure is on for this judge to rule. Time and again against Trump and their emotions. That’s what’s going on here. She was Smash Mouth by. Bill Barr. Other legal analysts. Because she dared to suggest a special master when the Department of Justice was out of control. I happen to believe she was correct. Under these circumstances. 100% correct. It is the lawyers. Who are giving excuses for this tyranny. Who will be remembered? If they remembered at all. In history as those who excused or supported tyranny. Because that’s what you’re looking at right now. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Life, liberty and love. In this Sunday 8 p.m. Eastern was probably the most important show I’ve ever done on Life, Liberty and Live. And I hope you will watch it. I will. Five What is five segments in the program? I will be doing three of them. Jim Trusty is no longer President Trump’s lawyer. I wasn’t aware of it when I interviewed him. And Marco Rubio will be on the program as well and the last two segments of the show. So I want to strongly encourage you to watch this. I wouldn’t say that if I didn’t believe it. I believe this is the most important life, liberty and livin that I’ve ever read. If you can’t watch live or you have some kind of conflict, please set your DVR right now. You don’t have to wait till Sunday for 8 p.m. Eastern time, 5 p.m. Pacific, obviously 7 p.m. Central and all the other times, depending on where you are, I don’t believe you’re going to want to miss this. So I don’t want you to miss it either. What in the hell have I been waiting for? Oh, yes. Yes, sir. Next hour, we’ll begin the hour. A piece in Reuters. From seven years ago. I tell you, folks, nobody works as hard as I do. To put on a radio show or a TV show or to write a book. A lot of hosts just show up. Some of them, well, overweight. They get their guests on. They blow 60 minutes. And at the studio they go. We don’t do that here. It’s Friday. My feet aren’t up there firmly planted on the floor. What’s the issue? What the FBI didn’t say about Hillary Clinton’s email. Even today. Andrea mitchell comes to Hillary Clinton’s defense. Why? They’re buddies, that’s why. Just because Hillary. Destroyed. Stuff that was subpoenaed. We like Hillary. And keep an eye on Atlanta. They’re next. They’re going to be emboldened now. They’re going to bring a phony case on what’s called fake electors. But there are no fake electors. And I’m going to have to deal with that next week to. So this is the place to be. 3 hours an evening, 3 hours an evening, All 3 hours. This is the place to be. Okay. So Hillary Clinton actually, it turns out. Her situation was worse. Then Comey said her situation was worse than has been generally reported. And I dug up this piece from seven years ago, and this guy knows what he’s talking about. His name is Peter Van Buren. But do you know we had a president, Martin Van Buren Right. And I believe he was after Andrew Jackson. And Andrew Jackson’s economic decisions turned into a disaster and they all fell into Martin Van Buren’s lap. And so he lasted for years. But Peter Van Buren served the State Department at this time when he was right, wrote this essay for 24 years. 24 years. And he goes into detail what Hillary Clinton actually did. What she actually did. You see, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump didn’t destroy anything. Hillary Clinton destroyed thousands of things. Thousands. And she’s walking around the planet on the face of the earth, not actually walking more like waddling waddling around the face of the Earth, much like a dictator saying all these things that need to be changed. But not her, of course. Anyway, very important. We’ll be right back.