On Friday’s Mark Levin show, with everyone talking about how much prison time Donald Trump might get as a result of his federal indictment, why is it not discussed how much President Biden would get if he were held to account for his crimes? If Republicans retake the presidency, it must be a top priority to hold the Biden crime family accountable for their corruption. It is time to clear out U.S. attorneys’ offices and FBI offices across the country by imposing term limits, and we need a full investigation of top officials at the Department of Justice. The Democrat Party is a corrupt, totalitarian enterprise that will do anything for power, and today they own the legal system and most of the lower courts. This cabal has sought to destroy the governmental and justice systems in this country, and these people need to be held to account with swift justice. Trump has been treated so abusively and endlessly as if he were part of the mafia, when in reality that would be the Biden’s. Also, Barack Obama hates America and is still doing whatever he can to drive racial division in this country. Obama is not proud of America despite being elected as a Senator and President. Racism has always been a tool of the Democrat party since Woodrow Wilson, and now it is used as a weapon against whites.
The Federalist
6 Reasons DOJ’s ‘Get Trump’ Documents Case Is Seriously Flawed
Lee Fang
Obama’s Personal Investment Deals Mirror Tax Strategies He Once Criticized
Epoch Times
Girl Sues Hospital for Removing Her Breasts at Age 13
Photo by John Moore
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. The Department of Justice has been going around the country identifying local police forces and in every case has found them to be wanting. This time it’s Minneapolis. But they’ve never investigated a police force that they. That they didn’t condemn. For using excessive force, for being racist and so forth and so on. Now, of course, they never condemn themselves. It’s true. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I posted something I want to share with you, and I’m. Very much interested in your views on this to. Because I got to thinking earlier today. We’ve got to do a hell of a lot more. Now, what do I mean by that? There are stories out there. How much prison time. How much prison time might Donald Trump get? I got to thinking to myself, how much prison time might Joe Biden get? He was involved in bribery scams. He was involved in other felonious activity obstruction. How much prison time might he get? Let’s say he runs for re-election and he loses. So I asked how much prison time could Joe Biden face if he loses his reelection and is charged with felonies running the gamut from tax fraud, bribery, obstruction, a host of other federal crimes? How much time? How come that’s not in the discussion? You see, it’ll be my mission. And it should be our mission. To push. For Biden to be held to account for his crimes. The Republicans take the presidency. The DOJ. The FBI will report to them. We must make sure it is a top priority to hold Biden and the Biden crime family accountable. The tactics used by today’s Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the D.C. Judiciary and the Democrat Party must be unleashed against them. Lemon. It is time to clean out the U.S. attorney’s offices and FBI offices, including field offices. Across the country and main justice. My time limiting those who serve in these offices. Attorneys should serve a term of no more than five years. Period. Then get out in the private sector. There will need to also be a full investigation and counting of the top brass at DOJ and FBI, including but not limited to Garland Ray. And this guy Smith, among others. This cabal has sought to destroy the political, governmental and justice systems in this country. They must not simply be able to walk away with big jobs from the corrupt media. This is compelled not to get even, although that would be fine. But to ensure that our country never has to go through this again, or at least make it less likely. In other words, these people need to be held to account. Not by a two, three, four year investigation. But by swift justice. The Democrat Party is a corrupt totalitarian enterprise. They will do anything for power. Today, it owns our legal system and most of the lower courts. This has to be effectively addressed. Let the discussion start here and now. There must also be an examination of how the judiciary in Washington has been set up and how appointments are made to these courts. Under the Constitution, Congress creates all courts below the Supreme Court. So Congress by statute creates these courts. Typically, it’s called a Judiciary Act and determines how many of these judicial positions to assign to the various judicial districts. We’ve seen the Democrat Party, Biden in particular, packing these lower courts just as they’ve threatened to pack the Supreme Court. And we, the GOP, must become proactive now in addressing this. We should look at term limiting all federal judges, all of them, including the lower courts. The experiment with lifetime appointments hasn’t worked, at least not well. And impeaching judges for their blatant disregard of the law and the Constitution and their political partisanship won’t work. It hasn’t been tried effectively since the Jefferson presidency, and it didn’t work. And so what needs to be done and we’ll think about it in the weeks, months ahead, How to reorganize the federal judiciary, including in Washington, D.C.. Which is working hand-in-glove with the corrupt Department of Justice and the corrupt FBI. So the question is, how much prison time will Joe Biden get? Hmm. Well, he ought to get a lot. It’s another reason we need to win the presidency, folks. It’s a very interesting piece in The Federalist, which has been doing a hell of a great job over there by Will Sharpe. By well sharp six reasons the Department of Justice’s Get Trump documents case is seriously flawed. You won’t read this at National Review. You won’t read it at National Review. You won’t hear from Bill Barr. Because they’re not the font of wisdom, let alone all wisdom. Now that this indictments been laid out, you have serious people thinking seriously about various aspects of it, how to confront it, challenge it, address it. Schaff writes. Proving a defendant’s intent and knowledge can often be tough. But it’s even tougher here because of the Presidential Records Act. Stick with me. Says I’m a former assistant U.S. attorney who worked on two Supreme Court confirmations and clerked for two federal appellate judges. I reviewed the indictment brought by special Counsel Jack Smith and the documents case against former President Trump. And have serious concerns with the way this case is being framed in the public eye with some aspects of the way the prosecution itself is being conducted. You haven’t heard that from Bill Bar or our buddy Andy McCarthy, have you? Here are six major issues. I see they need to be addressed by the special counsel’s team. Number one. Interplay between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act. Others have already spoken insightfully about the scope of the Presidential Records Act. Mike Davis. The Article three project was published in spoken on the subject, and Mike of Berkshire of Judicial Watch had a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal detailing his experience litigating the Clinton sock drawer case. Basically, their argument distills down to the idea that the president’s authority to retain personal records. As well as his rights to access his presidential records, make it impossible to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. And that Section 73, because the government cannot prove unauthorized possession is required under the statute. Now, with all due respect, Judicial Watch deserves enormous amount of credit, as does their lawyer. But within 12 hours of this case, we brought it up on radio and on TV. Because I have lived these things close up and personal. Not me. Involved in any litigation. But people I know having served at the Department of Justice. But interestingly says, I want to make a different point relating to the intent element of the Espionage Act. The statute Trump is being charged under. Section 79 three requires the government to prove that the defendant knew he had national defense information in his possession. Knew there was a government official entitled to receive the information and then willfully failed to deliver it to that official. This is a very high set of mens rea. Meaning while knowledge is good enough. To jump in any circumstances. State of mind proving a defendant’s intent and knowledge can often be tough. But it’s even tougher here because of the Presidential Records Act. You see what’s going with this. It’s actually quite intelligent. Presidential Records Act sets up a system where the president designates for a record, said he creates either his presidential or personal records. A former president is supposed to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives. And he has the right to keep his personal records. Excuse me. Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions I’ve read about, I believe Trump viewed his boxes as his personal records under the Presidential Records Act. There are statements he made quoted in the indictment that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be a purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as personal records, did he knowingly retain national defense information? This is a very important point. Somebody else made this point a few months back, but I don’t remember who. I just remember it was made such a good point then. It’s a good point now. They actually use the quotes. And Trump has said it over and over again. Those are my document. Sometimes he references the Presidential act, sometimes he doesn’t. Now the Department of Justice, I’m talking now, not the article The Department of Justice has attempted to cobble together these quotes for obstruction arguments. Well, what this gentleman is saying. Hold on there. This shows. Trump’s state of mind. That those documents belonged to him. That was his belief. Whether it’s right or wrong doesn’t matter. That was his belief. Did he really think these documents, like years old, briefing notes and random maps jumbled together with his letters, news clippings, scribbled notes, and random miscellaneous items, quote, can be used to the injury, the United States, unquote. Or did he just think of them as mementos of his time in office, his personal records of the four years akin to a journal or a diary? If he thought these boxes were his personal records, he may have believed NARA National Archives simply had no right to receive them at all, meaning he did not willfully withhold anything from an official he knew had the right to receive them because he didn’t believe that anyone had the right to receive them, that they were his. I breathlessly bandying around classified levels and markings. The special counsel is trying to make the scheme this case seem much, much simpler than it is. And so the legal analysts on TV. And so is the hapless former Attorney general Bill Barr, and so many others. And so many others. So. He says here. By recklessly banning about these things. They’re trying to make it seem simpler. Classification levels do not automatically make something. National defense intelligence documents, and having classified documents in your possession is not enough to convict here. It is simply not the case that the fact that previously classified documents were found in boxes in a Mar-A-Lago bathroom means Trump is guilty. And yet they put all those pictures in there. Why try and influence the public and a jury? He says that’s what they want you to think. And that is the media’s view for the most part. But it’s dead wrong. More than anything, this case hinges on the ability of the special counsel to prove, quote, beyond a reasonable doubt, unquote. Aspects of Trump’s state of mind that will be extremely difficult to prove in this case because of his obligations and rights under the Presidential Records Act, in addition to all the other usual issues. In other words, Trump, he’s saying, does not have to be right. About which law applies if he believe the Presidential Records Act did apply. And these clowns in the special counsel’s office actually put some quotes. In their charging papers. That should help defense counsel with this point. I’ve got several more bullets here that this gentleman raised, and I don’t want to. To speed past them. So we’ll be right back.
Segment 2
There are many reasons why the prosecution in this case didn’t want to get anywhere near the Presidential Records Act for reasons I’ve talked about. Judicial Watch has talked about and their counsel. And for reasons this gentleman talks about. You have to prove state of mind here. Mens rare, not the reasonable man. What was the actual state of mind with the President and former President Donald Trump? And he’s saying there’s an overwhelming amount of information, including in the charging document. He said it belonged to him. Now, if you listen to a guy like Bill Barr, he says, if we had turned over their stuff and stopped jerking around the government, they want to charge him. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Why did he hold these documents? They keep his. Why did he keep these documents? Because they believe they he believe they belong to him. They were thrown in boxes with newspaper articles. With other stuff. He believed they belonged in. Well, he shouldn’t have any. Does it matter? It’s what he believed, not what National Review believes, not what Bill Barr believes. Now, there’s five more points that he raises that I want to raise with you. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
Before we continue. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, some people collect stamps. Some people collect coins. I collect bumblers. And we have a new mumbled add to our list before I get back to this very, very important article. So we’re going to play You are famous mumble our collection and then listen to the very end so we can add the new one. Go. What are they? Can it go to finally the ghost trucks they have and I mean it. Cause when. If they just gave you gave them with the the withdraw. Bringing U.S. home troops from home and the the the. You know. You know. You know, you, you you you you need somebody. What is what finally and. Oh of of of of un of of about vegetable resist. We must we must and we will much about that be committed. I’m I’m a warrior so you know the the that it was it did take I mean it that that that they said that look the the lives of Austria was at him. Well I didn’t. If if if we if we you know it you know it we can walk and chew. Don’t the government we hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the go you know the you know the thing truly it I suffer to pressure and impeach for inciting the erection. Donald John Donald John Trump incited the erection Insurrection. And what am I doing here? I’m going to lose track here and to confidence in the integrity, private and private are ah, economic. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Don’t let a lot of not much more to do with the depth of this year bridges in those boards that are collapsing. And you know, it is it is. It is you know, it is not. It is. It is. Happy birthday, dear darling. Part of the the the the the the I knew some of you to some of the leadership of that. But John John the kitten G drown Jackson you docs or George is a jolly angel having they’re all nurses male female God save the queen man God save the Queen man. There was Biden. Today. In Connecticut. It’s some gun control event. Here’s the full context. Go. Now, some of you know, I’d usually come down and say hi to every they tell me there’s a storm coming in. Is that right? So is that still the deal? That’s the truth. Now, don’t make a lie. That’s that scene in the John Wayne movie. Don’t make me a dog faced lion pony soldier. All right. Well, I tell you what, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to ask the White House photographer to come up and I’m going to do it and I’m going to stand. I can’t I usually shake everybody’s hand, but I’m going to stand in front of each section. Now, I really mean it. Actually, I’m going to finish this for you. Hmm. What was that? Steve. And it’s the least consequential part of this whole meeting for you. I promise. All right. God save the queen, man. God save the queen man. Oh, I’m sure that won’t be on the front pages of any major newspaper in America should tell anybody. Now, may I ask you a question, Mr. Minister? When he says God save the Queen, is he still thinking of that pride event on the South Lawn? Is that? Is that what he said? That line was written for him at a different event. Hey, God save the queen, man. That’s all right. Say right. That guy over there, The queen over there. Hello? Oh, no, it wasn’t at that event. It was at a event in Connecticut. All right. I’ve got a lot to do tonight. It’s Friday. We don’t put our foot on the gas pedal. We put it down hard on the gas pedal. All right. So the first point that’s raised by this gentleman, William Scharf, and I’m told by my buddy Joel Pollak, he’s running for attorney general, Missouri. He has my vote. Alan Dawson without even talking to because he’s smart. He ought to be a legal analyst as opposed to a legal analyst. So he says, look, the first reason is state of mind. The interplay between the Espionage Act and Presidential Records Act. So, you know, he says there’s an independent issue here. You have to prove intent, the state of mind of the president. And if he believes it’s the Presidential Records Act and he has a right to every damn thing that when he was president as a private citizen. It’s the Presidential Records Act. Then that’s his state of mind. And these clowns. My interpretation. At the Office of Special Counsel. They include quotes where Trump is saying, Those documents belong to me. Now they’re doing it to say, See that obstruction? What this lawyer is saying is, no, it’s not obstruction. It shows a state of mind. He believes that his documents and even the government quoting him. Right. Bill Barr got that. Number two classification and national defense information. Just because something is classified, even top secret. And all these other code words. The alphabet soup does not mean it reads. Excuse me, Cholera does not mean it is national defense information within the meaning of the Espionage Act, national defense information for the purposes of an Espionage Act, prosecution is defined as one of a long list of items, quote, relating to the national defense, which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation. He says a lot of the documents listed in the indictment are older or seemingly random with Trump in 2020 to have had reason to know that a 2019 briefing document, quote, related to various foreign countries with handwritten annotation in black marker unquote, could harm the U.S. or help foreign countries. It’s tough to say because we can’t see the documents. But that is a question the jury is going to have to decide in the end. And Trump’s legal team needs to drive home this point over and over again. That is classification is not dispositive in this case. Harm to America or benefit to foreign countries is the standard. Anyone who’s worked around government knows that overclassification is a huge problem and a ton of documents end up being classified because of arcane technical rules that may not reflect the real world. The president were to ask the Navy what’s for lunch for the next week in Coronado, for example. There’s a good chance the answer comes back with a classification marker on it. To put it simply, not everything classified constitutes national defense intelligence information. This case revolves around actual legal standards and statutory language. Not a bunch of scary looking, all caps, acronyms. And by the way. Not a bunch of covers on documents thrown on the ground. Pictures taken up by the government either. Number three. What, Nora? Remember, this was the president’s confidant. What? Not a new to and Department of Justice misconduct. Far and away. The most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far are the allegations made by Trump aide and co-defendant Walton Augur’s lawyer last week. You may have missed it if you blinked. Not surprisingly, the corporate media mostly buried this one. Not as lawyer Stanley Woodward alleged in a court filing in a court filing that during a meeting with prosecutors about his client’s case, the head of the counterintelligence section at the Department of Justice National Security Division, J. Brett Brodie, quote, suggested Woodward’s judicial application for a D.C. Superior Court judge ship might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump, quote unquote. That’s a crime. If true. And I find it hard to believe that Woodward just made the whole thing up. This is a wild misconduct. Truly wild. Could undermine the entire case against both Trump and audit. It could end careers at DOJ if fairly investigated. Woodward is a highly accomplished, not the mealy mouth idiot, phony journalist. They’re talking about a real lawyer here. Woodward is a highly accomplished lawyer who spent a decade at Akin Gump. A top law firm clicked on the D.C. Circuit and its very substantial experience in government investigations. This is not some fly by night TV lawyer. You know the legal analysts. He is a legal heavyweight and he is leveling an extremely serious allegation of misconduct against a senior official at the Department of Justice. Watch this issue as the. It’s against Trump and not it begins to move. We will all hear more about it, I am sure. Number four. Attorney client privilege. The indictment relies on a significant amount of information received in one form or another from one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, Evan Cochran, who was compelled to testify in front of the grand jury. According to news reports, the argument for breaching the privilege was the crime fraud exception, which is worth examining in greater detail. The attorney client privilege protects from disclosure to the government confidential communications made between clients and their attorneys. It’s been around for centuries and is considered a core protection in our system of justice. It’s been around for. Many, many centuries since it’s even raised. In the Magna Carta. Now it goes on. The attorney client privilege protects from disclosure to the government confidential communications made between clients and their attorneys. The crime fraud exception, though, allows the attorney client privilege to be broken in rare circumstances when two requirements are met. First, there needs to be a prima fascia showing that the client was engaged in criminal conduct. Second, the client has to have obtained or sought the attorneys assistance in furthering that crime. I’ve not seen the Department of Justice filings on Cochran. But I would be interested to know how they argued this. First of all, what was the crime they used as a predicate? Was it unlawful retention of the documents? If so, there’s nothing in the indictment that I can see indicating Cochran’s communications with Trump would have further that in any way that would justify breaching privilege. Was it obstruction? It’s the most likely option. They pierced attorney client privilege using obstruction as the predicate crime for the crime fraud exception, saying that Trump’s conversations with his lawyer amounted to him attempting to enlist him in a criminal obstruction scheme. Now we will see how this theory goes for the government. I have my doubts. So do I, by the way. Big doubts. But if that is the case, just reading this indictment, it seems as though the obstruction charges may have been structured specifically in part just to get Cochrane’s testimony in to help buttress what would otherwise be a much weaker case against Trump on the substantive charges. In any case, the special counsel is going to have to show why the communications in question were a solicitation by Trump to his lawyer to join him in a criminal act, as opposed to Trump asking a lawyer he hired to advise him on his legal defense, to tell him what his options were or to outline what defensive steps may be possible and what was done by others in previous cases like Hillary Clinton’s emails. In other words, if Donald Trump said, What if I don’t give the documents? Or what if I burned them in a fire, What if I tear them up? What if I use a hammer to destroy my cell phones? What if I bleach bit all the material? What if I put them in my sock drawer? What if I stick him in my pants like Cheney? What if I do these things? What he’s saying is that’s not. Brown’s. To breach attorney client privilege when an attorney when a client is asking questions. If the client says, on the other hand, I insist. But you help me destroy this evidence. It has to be pretty black and white. I insist that you light the match. When I throw these documents in the fireplace and help me burn them, I insist that you take these documents with you. As Lyndon Johnson said to one of his assistants. And don’t tell a soul that you have them. Is that what Trump did? Very unlikely, but we don’t know. He says, reading the conversations in the indictment, they sound a lot more like honest attorney client communications than they do crime fraud to me. Even with all the ellipses and modifications made by the special counsel’s team. I expect the motion by Trump’s legal team on this issue, and if they win, that will cut the guts out of much of this case, which I’ve also been saying. And I agree. They’ll be very tough to prove intent and willfulness the way the government needs to without Corcoran, at least based on what we see in the indictment. And by the way, this has a tendency to resonate throughout all the other allegations and charges. That’s what he means about cutting the guts out of this. Now we have two more points I want to raise with you. But first, we’ll be right back.
Segment 4
You remember that phrase that Bill Barr used and others Trump was jerking around, quote unquote, the Department of Justice. You just given them what they wanted. There wouldn’t be a problem. Well, Bill Barr doesn’t realize is he’s helping Trump’s defense. Not intentionally. And that’s why people say, well, why didn’t he just give them the documents here? That’s why. Because he believed they were his. You believe that they were his? Under the Presidential Records Act, but even without the presidential records. So he wasn’t intending to give the information to the enemy or anything else, that sort of thing. There needs to be an intent. Now, you would think these lawyers know these sorts of things, but apparently they don’t. Why? Because when you keep bringing in former federal prosecutors, you keep leaving out current defense counsel, many of whom were former federal prosecutors. You’re bringing in people who give you the answers that you want. There is no reason to keep putting Bill Barr on TV when he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Now they’re slobbering all over him in the left media, mediocre right and all the rest. Fine. Let them slobber over each other. And I want to do the .5.6. In. And Will Sharpe’s piece at The Federalist we will be linking to it on Mark Levin showed. I come as we do all the information we use so you can go to original source. That same way I write my books. We have more notes than anybody else. So you can go look at original sources. This gentleman is running for attorney general of Missouri, and we’re going to see if we can get him on the program on Monday. It’s time that people who make sense get a little bit of air time, you know, like me. I’ll be right back.