On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, Bill Barr was Attorney General before and after Hillary Clinton’s private server with classified information and her cover-up by destroying documents and smashing cell phones yet chose to do nothing about it. Now his purpose in life is to be a Donald Trump attack dog, and he is welcomed with open arms by the media to cheer on Trump’s federal indictment over obstruction charges even though his reasoning goes around in circles. Hillary Clinton, Lyndon B Johnson, and Joe Biden did far worse than Trump but were never investigated under the Espionage Act. There is not any time in the history of the statute, since 1917, that it would ensnare a President, Vice President, or cabinet secretary. Also, President Biden is selling out the United States of America to Iran, whereas Donald Trump was as close as could be to toppling their Islamonazi regime. The Biden Administration is working on another deal with Iran, which is backed by China, Russia, and North Korea; an oral agreement where billions of dollars would be given to Iranians in exchange for a promise for them to stop doing what they’re doing. We did the same thing with North Korea, and now they have ICBMs with nuclear warheads. If Iran takes the final step, it will own the Middle East. A deal like this is supposed to be a treaty, which involves the Senate in order to approve, because if we are going to have a treaty with another country the body politic must be involved because it affects all of us.
Jerusalem Post
Nuclear deal nears, freeing Iranian funds and US prisoners
Lee Fang
Obama’s Personal Investment Deals Mirror Tax Strategies He Once Criticized
Daily Caller
‘Catastrophic Consequences’: Top US Grid Official Sounds The Alarm On Coal And Gas Power Plant Closures
The Hill
House blocks resolution to censure Adam Schiff
Photo by Drew Angerer
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. We’re going to have a little fun. We always have fun. Even when we’re serious, we have fun. On Fox News yesterday. A good buddy, Bill. Brett Baer. Had Bill Barr on his show. And unbeknownst to me. Brett decided to play some of my statement on HANNITY from the night before. And I’m glad he did. And mediocre right which has filled were prepubescent Neanderthals. They put a headline in there that has no connection, that a discussion. And we’ve come to notice here that one mediocre does that The Huffington Post in The Daily Beast usually regurgitate it. Why is that? Because they’re stupid, that’s why. We don’t much care about that. We more care about what Bill Barr said. Bill Barr is a former attorney general twice. Bill Barr. Was attorney general before Hillary Clinton. Destroyed her emails and destroyed her cell phones and had a private server in her home basement. Which had classified information traveling through it. And he was attorney general after that occurred as well. Now, his purpose in life is as a. Attack dog. Against Trump. He wanted Trump indicted. The enemy. The adversaries at the Department of Justice and FBI heard his calls. Figured they’d get cover from him and he’s on a conga line of media visits, whether it be Meet the Depressed or CBS or any of the rest where he’s welcome. Wasn’t welcomed before, but he’s welcome now. But let’s listen to what he said and let’s see if it makes any sense. Okay. So. Brett Beyer starts with a. An audio clip or a video clip of me cut one, go. It’s called the Presidential Records Act because he is the executive branch. He’s the executive branch. So he doesn’t have to rely on some subordinate. Here are the regulations. This is the way you do it, Mr. President. His power comes from the Constitution. He is a third branch of government. Him. He alone. Everything else flows from him. Mark Levin last night on HANNITY about the Presidential Records Act and how that fits into the former president’s defense. Let’s talk about former President Trump and President Biden’s legal troubles with former Attorney General Bill Barr. Thanks for being here. Thanks, Brett. You listen to Mark there and he is saying that these Presidential Records Act covers what they’re seeing here. How do you see that? Yeah, I think the position is being taken that this is really just a document dispute over custody of documents. And the president has good arguments as to why he should have kept them. I think the arguments are farcical and will be shown as such. But I also think more importantly, they’re sidelined and they’re taking their distracting from the real issue. The president is being prosecuted here because it’s an obstruction case and he’s in trouble for what he did after he got the subpoena. If he thought he had arguments that these were his documents, there are many things he could have done to raise those arguments. He could have moved to quash the subpoena. He could have given the documents to the government and sued to bring him back and made his legal arguments as to why they’re really his. But he didn’t do that. What did he do? He engaged in outrageous act of obstruction and deception that obstructed that subpoena. And that is wrong. That’s a law. I mean, that’s a violation of law. That’s a serious problem for him. What he did was, according to the indictment, he took the a lot of the boxes away, hid them from his lawyer, told his lawyer to go and search what remained, and then cause that lawyer to file a statement of the court saying that there had been a complete search. And if anyone did that, that would be obstruction. So that is why I think the Justice Department pulled the trigger. And that’s the central part of this case, talking about whether he had the right to have the documents or not. Well, it’s it’s ridiculous. It’s a it’s a sideshow. He has no you cannot defend what he did with that subpoena. Now, that’s very interesting. So I want to respond to this. Here’s one thing Bill Barr cannot do. Bill Barr cannot answer the question and it’s not put to him. If it’s an obstruction case, when Hillary Clinton destroyed over 30,000 emails or had them destroyed. When they destroyed her old cell phones with hammers. All of which were under subpoena. She wasn’t investigated for obstruction, let alone accused of obstruction, let alone formally charged with obstruction. Why is that? You just said, Mr. Barr. There. Nobody can dispute that this is an obstruction case. That the president’s conduct was outrageous and that my argument is ridiculous. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. It wasn’t that long ago. It wasn’t that long ago when the former secretary of state did what she did. And so, of course, the issue comes down to, among other things, whose documents are they? What law applies. As for subpoenaing the records. You talk about what President Trump could have done, I will tell you what the government could have done. The government could have used the Presidential Records Act. They could have made a claim, perhaps, that those records need to go to the National Archives where this matter would be sorted out. I don’t agree with that, but you can make that argument. Go to a federal judge. Tell the federal judge. We need an order. To get the documents from Donald Trump and his lawyers. Because we don’t believe that they have the right to keep them. Under the Presidential Records Act. He didn’t have to go to a five alarm fire. The law as an administrative law. There are civil potentially remedies or remedies and equity, if you will. And you go to the federal judge. And this is done all the time. I’ve done this. And you say we have reason to believe there’s problems with these documents. We need to get control over these documents. Can we have an order? If the judge agrees with you, you’re applying the correct law. Not the underlying law, the Espionage Act, but the right law, the Presidential Records Act, a possession issue. The judge can issue the order, turn the documents over. This is how I want them turned over. This is the place and time. I want them turned over. No delay. Every damn one of them. And if the judge’s order is defied, the judge can hold that party or those parties in civil or even criminal contempt. Couple of years back. When I was running Landmark Legal Foundation. We’re involved in a very complex. Piece of litigation with the Environmental Protection Agency. We sought an order from the judge. Before the end of the. Bush administration, I guess, is what? To direct the EPA to secure all the records that we had sought in our Freedom of Information Act litigation. The EPA was represented by the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.. And the assistant U.S. attorney gets up in court. And says we don’t need in order. There is no reason to believe that the EPA will destroy or even more won’t secure these records. After the end of the Bush administration. I said the assistant U.S. attorney doesn’t work there. Unless the assistant U.S. attorney is willing to put his name. On a piece of paper. Then don’t believe him. The judge ruled for the government. The new administration comes in and it turns out the EPA. Destroyed its backup records. After 60 days retaining records. These are the old days. They had these records electronically. And their system was set up to destroy them every 60 days. Destroy them, all of them day after day after day after day after day. We were back in front of that judge. And I said to the judge. While, Your Honor, we need in that order, you know. We didn’t get that order. Now, keep in mind, I’m not the U.S. attorney. The U.S. attorneys on the other side. Defending the conduct of the agents. And the judge turns to the assistant U.S. attorney and says, Is Mr. Levine correct? And he sheepishly says, Yes, but it wasn’t intended. And I said, yes, but they were on notice. And that’s good enough. And it went on and other things happened. We eventually got a contempt order. Why? Because the judge finally did issue an order and they violated that order to. And the judge says Mr. Lavin. The court would be willing to entertain. A request by you told the government, the EPA in civil or criminal contempt. So we gave the judge an option. Go ahead. Civilly criminal. He chose civil contempt. There was no federal grand jury that was impaneled. There was no search warrant, which only the government could get anyway. SWAT teams didn’t arrive at the various homes of the officials, even though twice now records were in fact destroyed. Nobody was indicted. I’m embarrassed. By Bill Barr and what he says and how he says it. I don’t know if he has much litigation experience or not. I just don’t know. But it’s embarrassing. When he sits there on Fox. And he says this is an obstruction case. Well, what kind of an obstruction case? It’s a criminal obstruction case. Well, then why wasn’t there an obstruction case brought against Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton didn’t even have the benefit of the Presidential Records Act. It didn’t cover her. She was a secretary of state. She had nowhere to hide. Nowhere. So why did the same Department of Justice, the same Federal Bureau of Investigation, decide not only wasn’t she charged with obstruction, that they weren’t even going to investigate her for obstruction? How does Bill Barr square this? He can’t. And he won’t. He’ll go, Oh, this is ridiculous. This is preposterous. So this is this. Now, I have to take a break. I want to continue on this point. I don’t know what a court’s going to do or what a jury’s going to do or all the rest of it. I have no idea. None. Except I know it shouldn’t be in front of a jury. What? Criminal charges? That much I know. More when I return. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
The onus should never have been placed on the former president to figure out the myriad of defenses. To a rogue prosecutor’s efforts. That’s not the way this is supposed to work. Lyndon Johnson had classified information removed. About the Vietnam War in 1968, one of his aides rushed out, took the information at his direction. This is before there was a presidential records act. Again, no justification for. Those records were kept from the public. Give or take, half a century. So the why question is, one they’re never going to answer. Well, why? To the archives. Let me get away with it. Why wasn’t he pursued with a federal grand jury? Why weren’t his lawyers dragged in front of a federal grand jury? Because it’s outrageous. That’s not the purpose of the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act originally was created to go after spies. And in the case of Woodrow Wilson, his political opponents, it got bigger and bigger and bigger. The mishandling of information, the retention of information. But it was never seen as a trap or a web to get a president or a vice president or a secretary of state or an attorney general. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
Now, Bill Barr said more yesterday with Brett Baer. I really like Bradbury’s a hell of a reporter. Cut to go using the Espionage Act to make the decision at first to go after him like this you think is justified. Now, let’s stop here. That is a very good question. Let’s hear what he says. Go! The law against retaining, retaining, willfully retaining national defense information, even though it’s the president used it at the time. He’s leaving with it as president. United States. Yeah, that that was a that is a sound charge. That that is right. He did not have the right to keep those documents and stronger. Did he not say in the prior clip, Mr. Producer, that this is not a documents possession case but an obstruction case? And now I hear him saying here he did not have a right to possess these documents. You see, folks, obstruction can’t possibly come before a determination. How about an underlying law in which the government is seeking, in this case documents? This is why he’s making no sense to me. You criminalize a case like this. Then you say obstruction is separate and apart from the underlying crime. And so he wants it both ways. There would be no quote unquote, conspiracy to obstruct, which is a crime, but for the criminalisation of a civil act, An administrative act. So that’s a circular argument and it’s an outrageous position. Particularly since Donald Trump is the only person to ever hold. Top public office president, vice president, cabinet secretary had to be treated this way. And of course, there were talk will be. Well, he should have given the document. No. That is a dispute. That’s okay. Go ahead. Here. Put yourself in the government. Suspicion. You don’t know what he has. He can have and you don’t know. Why don’t you know what he has? You don’t know where your classified information is. You don’t know what he has. Even so. How would a civil order going to a court seeking an order for the production of information, even an urgent order? We need it in a week. We need a list. We need whatever. That would give you the same information probably quicker than waiting three months, going dark for three months. Three months. That’s how urgent it was. Three months. And then getting a search warrant. And then doing a SWAT team examination. Make any sense to anybody? No. Go ahead to see that stuff. What are they to do? What I just said. But of course, they should know. If they believe it’s top secret information that it’s missing. They’re supposed to know that. What are they to do? Check the records. Go to a federal judge, get an order. Tell the judge we don’t know what he’s got. We don’t know that they’re telling us everything. Go ahead. That was a legitimate charge, but I don’t think they would have charged it had he given the documents back. It was the it was the obstruction of the subpoena that I think led the department to pull the trigger. Okay. Now, he’s not making any sense whatsoever. He just moved in two sentences from it’s a possession issue to an obstruction of a subpoena. And this is the way it works, bouncing back and forth and back and forth. I do think he’s right, though. When you have a Democrat jury in a Democrat city, whether it be New York, Atlanta. Even Miami. You know, pretty good shot. They’re pretty good shot. So what what kind of prediction is that? Snow prediction at all. And so from my perspective, Bill Barr doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Now, he’s not the only one. He’s not the only one. He’s the most prominent. Annie McCarthy used to be a buddy of mine. Another former this sort of former that. He said the other day that Presidential Records Act doesn’t apply. Because most of these records weren’t created by the White House. I thought to myself, Are you kidding me? The issue isn’t who created the documents. The issue is in whose possession they are. But who created the documents? Why would you say such a ridiculous thing? Then today, apparently on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and I don’t know the full extent of it. He says, You know, I don’t even know how the president defends when it comes to the declassified declassification of information because he’d have to testify. Well, that’s how he would defend what he’s talking about. I guess you should just surrender and say, okay, throw me in prison for 250 years. I’ve always wanted to die in prison. I am just shocked by this. Here’s something. The Espionage Act has no application here. None. It didn’t have any application when it came to President Johnson. Didn’t have any application in any other case. You know, the National Archives cannot tell us today. If any other president or how many presidents have taken classified information with them, they can’t even tell us. And if they could, they said they won’t. What’s that all about? What’s that all about? So let’s at least agree that this is a case of first impression since this has never been done before. Can we agree to that, Mr. Producer? He’s the only one that’s been charged. Correct, America. When they want to call an obstruction case a possession case. In the case of Bill Barr, call in both cases depending on. I don’t know, depending on something. You don’t take a case of first impression. And bring a slew of indictments. You don’t do that and you certainly don’t do it with an ex-president and you certainly don’t over the next president who’s running for president again. Because the matter is not going to be resolved before the election’s over. That’s a huge problem. Huge. It’s a huge problem. But if you’re Jack the Ripper Smith, you don’t care. The case of Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia, he ruined him. He took a basic bribery statute, a so massively expanded it to include meetings and phone calls and all these other things that the Supreme Court in an 8 to 0 decision, It was a very pointed decision. Reversed the conviction. So Bill Barr’s write, you might be able to get a conviction, but is it right to get the conviction? Now the head of the public Integrity section. At that point, the man who signed off on it was Jack the Ripper Smith. Bennett. John Edwards had been the first to raise this, just so you know, in North Carolina. BRIGGS Another preposterous case, Jerry, North Carolina. Massively expanding the campaign finance laws to include payments to his girlfriend. As well as putting her up in an apartment while he’s running for president. And raising donations for that purpose. It was Jack the Ripper Smith contention again. Head of the Public Integrity Section. That that money wasn’t reported and it violated the limitations on how much a federal candidate can raise. You might say, well, why won’t. Does that have to do with anything? Because he took the law and he expanded it. To expand it it. Expanded to include those donations, which had nothing to do with the law whatsoever. But he wanted to get Edwards. Some of these guys, it’s they don’t care about doing justice. It doesn’t matter. There were six felonies brought one. But the jury found Edwards not guilty. The other five was a hung jury. And as it turned out, there were a couple of holdouts. The overwhelming majority of the jury was opposed to this and ABC News interviewed them. The vast majority of them said there wasn’t any evidence. There wasn’t any evidence. One said there wasn’t enough evidence. This is the same guy who’s now taken the Espionage Act and twisted it into a pretzel. Well, the cheerleading Bill Barr and Lainey McCarthy. And I don’t take this personally whatsoever. It’s a debate. It’s a debate. That’s what it is. Who’ve take it, in my view, insane positions. When it comes to the Espionage Act because they can’t answer the why. Why? Why wasn’t Hillary Clinton even investigated for obstruction? Why? Why weren’t her lawyers, who had a very active role in destroying the emails? Why weren’t they brought before a grand jury? Why wasn’t there a grand jury? Why was it their attorney client privilege? Undermined through the crime fraud exception. Why did none of these things happen? Hey, Bill is right. They should have, should they not? And again, she didn’t even have the Presidential Records Act. To deal with. And here’s another why Why did a Clinton in the Clinton Socks case? When Obama appointee 11 years ago. Rule that the Presidential Records Act. Gave a very broad. Write to a former president to determine what is his personally and she and not the National Archives or anybody else had the power under that federal statute. To claim otherwise. Why did she rule that way? No bar. Why did she rule that way? Andy McCarthy. Why? And with a case out in the open like that. How come the attorney general didn’t trigger the Espionage Act? Impanel a grand jury and go after Bill Clinton? Why? Why? Yeah. Why? I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Now, I share a lot with you folks that I suppose most broadcasters don’t. Well, Tuesday night. And when I apologized, I worked very hard, all 3 hours of my radio show. Because I respect you to present you with a substantive program, an interesting program. I go over things I don’t believe others do. We try to have a good time as well. We laugh, we entertain. There’s music I like. But of course, at the top of the list is saving the country. Well. The third hour. I got information that my wife was ill. She’d been taken to the hospital in an ambulance. And I couldn’t just leave the microphone, although, trust me, I thought about it. I know the show was choppy. It’s not what I want it to be. And I’m in the state of Florida and she’s in the state of New Jersey, for crying out loud. There were no jets getting out of here Tuesday night. So I did. HANNITY As I promised. Then I worried. And the next day she turned the corner. I’m going to get in the specifics. I don’t want to violate hip hop, Mr. Producer. Anyway. The good news is she went home. She’s at home now. And I’ll be back this weekend as well. So I just wanted to apologize to you for that. I wasn’t thrilled with that hour, but that’s the best I could do under the circumstances. I’ll be right back.