On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, the U.S. Constitution is silent on whether you can indict a sitting president or whether a president can pardon himself, even for federal offenses. If Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024 and still has all of these indictments against him, or if he has been convicted in a jurisdiction by Democrats, the Constitution says nothing about it because the Constitution was written for virtuous people and not people like Joe Biden and Jack Smith. Given the conclusion of the DOJ that you cannot indict a sitting president, the logic would also be that a sitting president can pardon himself, including from state charges like what Trump is facing in Georgia and Manhattan. What Trump did in Georgia is common to any politician and completely normal behavior, yet Fani Willis is charging him with RICO and criminalizing challenging an election outcome for the first time in American history. The law is being stretched to extreme lengths to ensnare Trump for challenging the results of an election that he believed he won, and if it was legal in 2000 it should be legal now. These are backdoor insurrection efforts by Democrats to stop Trump from getting on the ballot and clear the way for Joe Biden in 2024.
Newsweek
How Trump Can Pardon Himself in Georgia, According to Mark Levin
X
Respectfully, Jonathan Turley is simply wrong.
Constitution
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
Daily Caller
Top Fulton County Prosecutors Repeatedly Donated To Democrats, Records Show
PJ Media
Trump Has One Potentially Advantageous Card up His Sleeve
Photo by Alexi Rosenfeld
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 bit of fun today. We want to talk ever so slightly about the Constitution. And you’re in the right place. You’re with Mr. Constitution, man. And I have to deal with the left, which in the aggregate is called Mr. Constipated Man. But that for another day. So Jonathan Turley and a few of us are in a little bit of a hubbub. All friendly, all respectful. There’s a writer, Newsweek, I’m afraid, who really doesn’t understand what she’s talking about. That’s okay. So let me do this in a way that is in plain English and starts from the top. Given what the Biden administration is doing. To President Trump. Let’s say President Trump gets elected president. And he still has all these indictments against him. Or in one of these jurisdictions, he’s been convicted by a jury, not of his peers of Democrats. What then? Only look at the Constitution of the United States, don’t we? What does the Constitution of the United States say about this? Absolutely nothing. Because you see, the Constitution was written for virtuous people. And a virtuous people serving in their government wasn’t written for Joe Biden and Jack Smith. And Fannie and the knucklehead in Manhattan. It was written for people. Who have virtue and they have none. So now what do we do? Well, some of the ground has been laid here. In the past 1973 and in 2000. What do you mean, Mark? The Department of Justice in 1973. In the re in the administration of Richard Nixon had to take a look at this. In case Richard Nixon was indicted. And the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the brain trust, the Department of Justice, the office that looks at these issues, gives advice to an attorney general and a president. Look very carefully at the pros and cons. And of course, it acknowledged there’s not much in the Constitution that upsets and there’s certainly not much. In our history that helps us even at the Constitutional Convention. There’s nothing on this. So they looked at it and they went through it very carefully and I read it. And they concluded no. Not because the Constitution’s constitution compels it, but you really can’t or shouldn’t indict a sitting president. Well, why? Because you will wound up decapitating the executive branch. You will undermine the voters who voted for that president. They didn’t vote for the vice president to become president. They voted for that president. You will endanger America’s national security. He will do all these things because a president cannot possibly. Effectively be a president and at the same time. Have time. To defend himself and keep himself free. Any citizen would have difficulty doing that, let alone a man who’s who’s the head of the executive branch and in fact, is the executive branch. He’s one third of our government. Moreover, there are other issues like how would he be able to negotiate with other countries? He’d have no respect whatsoever. And what if he’s convicted and he winds up in jail, Then what? We can always impeach him. Okay, great. But what if he can remove the. So impeachment is the process by which. The framers of the Constitution. Set up a a constitutional slash political process for removing a president, not a criminal process. And so they concluded in 1973. They using the best thinking and reasoning and practicality that we possibly can. But the official position of the Department of Justice says, no, you cannot and must not indict a sitting president. You cannot allow a prosecutor and a grand jury and then later a prosecutor. And a trial jury and a judge to determine the outcome. Are they? Not just an election. But also the decision about whether you remove a president or not. Can you imagine having a prosecutor? And a jury deciding if a president stays in office or not. So this is the opposite of democracy. Which leads us to Donald Trump. If Donald Trump is elected president. The same argument applies that was argued in 1973 and 2000 that essentially went through all those arguments as well and effectively rubber stamp the position the government took in 1973. So you have a Democrat, Department of Justice and a Republican Department of Justice saying no. You really can’t indict a sitting president unless you want to destroy the constitutional construct. And moreover. You’re violating his due process because he can’t possibly defend himself. You know, he has to sit with his lawyers for hours at a time. They have to go over depositions. They have to go over documents. They have to go over exculpatory information. They have to go over now texts and emails and on and on and on videos, perhaps a million documents, nine months of videos. That’s just one case here. Just one case. And so the fear also was you would open the door to the kind of activity that’s taking place today. By the Democrat Party. All right, Let’s stay focused. So does it follow that a president can pardon himself? We don’t know. President has never been indicted. A candidate who wins the presidency, he’s never been indicted. Can he part himself? Again you have to look at. What is rational? What is practical, the impact it has on the nation. Because the Constitution doesn’t tell us. There’s nothing to stop a president from pardoning himself. That’s number one. Certainly not from federal charges. So. Given the the conclusion of the Department of Justice under different administrations in 73 and 20. But you cannot indict a sitting president. Then the conclusion logically follows that a sitting president who is indicted can pardon himself. There’s no reason he can’t. Now, here’s the next shoe on this. Having read this opinion in 2000, then includes the 1973 arguments and. Their own arguments and they conclude, look, you cannot indict a sitting president because of the dangers the nation faces, because you will decapitate the executive branch, you will cripple the ability of of an elected president to function. And on and on and on. The question is now, if the Georgia indictments stand and Donald Trump’s elected president, can he pardon himself from these state charges? The truth is, the Constitution doesn’t tell us. In fact. Neither do the memos from the Department of Justice. But the Department of Justice, those memos do tell us something. What do they tell us? That the reason. The reason. Why it’s the Department of Justice’s position to federal prosecutors that you cannot indict a sitting president is because the dire circumstances that could create in our constitutional system with a decapitated executive branch and without the president being able to defend himself. That’s their conclusion. That’s all there is. It’s a rational argument. Some might even call it an equity argument. Whatever the argument is, that’s it. So the question then becomes and I’ve heard Jonathan Turley say this, perhaps some others, I don’t remember who they are. They have nothing but respect for him, by the way. But a president cannot pardon himself from state charges. Why is that? Well, the president doesn’t typically in fact, he does not at all reach into state charges or convictions based on state law and state judicial systems and pardon people. It’s a federalism thing. We just don’t do that sort of thing. And my point is that is wholly and completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with what the Department of Justice said. We’re not talking about Ernie Grabowski down the street. We’re talking about elected president of the United States, who is the executive branch. That a guy has been embezzling funds from a bank and then he president decided, You know what? I feel bad for that guy. I’m going to pardon him. So I would agree. No, the president does not have authority to do that. But does he have the authority to pardon himself for the very reasons the Department of Justice said? You cannot indict a sitting president at the federal level. Am I making any sense to you so far? Mr.. Well, let’s step back and take a look at this. Since we’re not really talking strictly about the Constitution, we’re talking about what happens to the Constitution. Let’s step back and take a look at this. There are literally thousands of days in assistant days. State prosecutors and local prosecutors all across the country. If it is the position that Fannie Wallis and Alvin Bragg and the others can get away. Let’s say. Prosecuting Donald Trump, even if he’s elected president. What do you think would happen to the country then in thereafter, Mr. Peters. In other words, the exposure to destroying the executive branch and the federal constitutional construct is a thousand times worse. So clearly it’s an important federal constitutional matter, is it not, America? And surely let me even throw in Article six the Supremacy Clause would apply. Would it not? America, as applies to the President of the United States, Not Ernie Grabowski, the embezzler, the bank embezzler. In Atlanta, Georgia. I’m not talking about him. And neither was the Department of Justice. They were talking about if hypotheticals involving a president of the United States. How can it possibly be as a matter of practicality and logic? At the position at the Department of Justice is you cannot indict a sitting president. And it follows from there that he can’t pardon himself. Except if you’re a state prosecutor or local prosecutor, then. Prosecute away. Go ahead. Do it. That can’t be right. That makes no sense. So we have claw a clause in the Constitution that helps us work our way through this. The Supremacy Clause. And the president does have the pardon power. And so would follow, seems to me, without much argument. These are all novel questions because of what the Democrats are doing today. There are novel questions, but there are better answers than others. It would certainly follow. Then, based on the conclusion that the Department of Justice reached in 73. And in 2000. That states cannot indict a sitting president and that if a candidate running for office is indicted and becomes president. That the president can, in fact, pardon himself. With or without the supremacy clause. I think the supremacy clause makes it stronger, but for the same reasons. That we say federal prosecutors can indict the president and that a president can pardon himself from federal charges. It’s not that complicated. And it’s certainly a much stronger argument than the one our friend Jonathan Turley is making. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
And one of the things a good lawyer does are even more than that. A good strategist, military strategist, political strategist, financial or business strategist does is try and figure out who’s moving in what direction, try and get ahead of the. Ahead of the curve, as they say, or. While they’re playing checkers. You’re playing chess. You know, whatever the the argument is. And so you look at this and you say to yourself, Why? Is Smith so desperate to get this trial on these phony January six issues started in January. On January 2nd. Why is Willis, after spending two and a half years so desperate to begin a trial? In January or February, obviously to affect the election. But what is the reason? The possible reason from a constitutional perspective that they’re doing this. Stick with me.
Segment 3
This is what I do, folks. Not conspiracy theories, not collusion. People who are a lot dumber than I do have a lot lower IQ than I or people who didn’t come to the proper conclusions. They like to besmirch other people. Just stick with me. We’re so far ahead of these people tonight. Even funny. So I’ve laid out indictment and pardons. But let’s move on a second. Ask yourself a question. You got a guy, Jack Smith, who’s been known to twist the law. To rewrite the law. To expand the definition of laws. That is among several of the unethical, if not illegal tactics that the man uses. So why did he charge Donald Trump with insurrection? Because he didn’t have to. Stick with me. Tony Willis in Georgia. She’s clearly been. Collaborating with Smith. She wouldn’t say no when she was asked. What is her case really all about? It’s really about insurrection without calling it an insurrection. Rico. Week of false statements. Fraudulent statements. 19 defendants. Who all get together in one form or another, all commit some piece of the action to prevent the true vote from coming out in Georgia. And she even goes further into six other states. This is a county prosecutor. Six other states. As examples. Of this grave injustice. People say she’s throwing in the kitchen sink. It’s preposterous. So what is she doing? Come on, now. We’ve got to go deep here. We’re going to be really, really smart. What are they doing? Jack Smith, who charges everybody for anything, chooses not to pull the insurrection trigger. Fannie Wallace. Does a 98 page indictment, 41 charges 19 defendants. The president. His chief of staff, his lawyers, other staffers. What is she up to? She goes interstate. Raises federal issues. Well, there is no state insurrection law, to my knowledge, in Georgia that would apply to a federal election. But nonetheless. She’s making the claim in so many words that this was an insurrection. Let me read something to you. Stay with me. Follow me. Section three of the 14th Amendment. This thing’s been bouncing around. Bouncing around two knuckleheads at the Federalist Society who are so-called conservative professors. They’ve taken a view. You don’t even have to be convicted of insurrection to be denied the ballot or even the presidency if you’re elected under this Section three of the 14th Amendment. But they’re not the first to say this. There’s an entire movement under the radar funded by dark money, the usual Democrat billionaires. We’re trying to persuade election officials and state attorneys general, particularly in blue states, that Trump shouldn’t be on the ballot, whether he’s convicted or not. Let me read it to you. And the relevant part comes near the end. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress. We’re electing a president and vice president. Or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any state. Who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress and officer, the United States is a member of any legislature. There is an executive or judicial officer of any state. To support the Constitution of the United States shall engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. So in other words, you don’t have to be convicted of anything. But. Jack Smith wants a conviction on something, so he lowers the bar. He brings in the Klan statute, he brings in the Enron stench. He brings in the financial obstruction statute. Insurrection would be very difficult, if not impossible to prove. But he can do it through the back door. How do we know? Because at his press event, what did he say? He basically accused Donald Trump of leading an insurrection. What was done to the Capitol building and so forth. But that’s not certainly not precisely the charges that he brought. He doesn’t have to prove an insurrection. His view? Just one charge. That’s all. And the sooner, the better. We got to have this trial immediately, and I’ve got the perfect judge to do it. The most radical Obama judge. I’m in the perfect city to do it. They’ve voted 5% for Trump. He can’t possibly have a fair trial. I’ve got a judge that’s going to move this thing along as fast as possible because she knows what the prosecutor’s thinking. I know what the prosecutor’s thinking. All I need to do is get him on the Klan statute. All I need to do is get him on one of these Enron. Charges. All I need to do is to get him on this financial abstraction statute. Something. Then I’ll put out a press statement and say, See? See what Donald Trump did on January 6th. I don’t even have to use the word insurrection. The media, the law professors and the others will do it for him. So we have this Willis in Atlanta. What the hell is she up to? Other than the obvious. What is she up to? She’s basically shadowing Smith’s case. She’s saying I got a lot of stuff here in the state. You know, we got the president with this phone call, which was perfectly fine. We have him and his staff talking to state representatives, which you’re allowed to do. We have in claiming that he actually won the election, which is allowed to do and on and on and on. He’s being charged for things he’s allowed to do. And then she pulls it all together. She throws in 18 other defendants. We got quite a quagmire here. All I need is one charge. Just one. John. And honestly, she says, I don’t even need that. She goes extra constitutional, add his extra Georgia constitution to bring in the U.S. Constitution, bringing in another state to. Why? Because of Section three of the 14th Amendment. There’s already a head of steam building among the radical Democrats who hate America. We’re destroying our country, destroying our electoral system. They’ve destroyed law and order in the cities, and they’re destroying federal law enforcement, starting with Hillary Clinton and the DNC and Russia collusion. But it’s never stopped. Despite the dorm report exposing it, it’s worse. It’s the Obama holder. Biden, Garland, Department of Justice. Which isn’t about justice at all. It’s about a revolution. It’s about monopolizing the voting system. It’s about controlling the government. It’s about silencing your opponents through massive censorship efforts that were exposed. And if they don’t shut the hell up, it’s about punishing them, targeting them. Presenting them. Certainly investigating them. Parents pro-life for doesn’t matter. So Section three of the 14th Amendment, which they bastardized, but nonetheless. If you’ve engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same. You cannot run for president of the United States. That is, you cannot be a president. This is what Jack Smith is up to. In his phony January six case. And this is what. Fannie Willis and her Fannie are up two in Atlanta. You got to be thinking strategically. Be thinking about what they’re thinking. And that’s what they’re doing. That is exactly what they’re doing. The venue matter. You can tell when you’re over the target, when MSNBC is wetting itself collectively because that is the network them and CNN. Maggie Haberman, New York Times and the rest of them, Washington Post. They are the go to state media operations when the government wants to get its message out. They’re the ones. And so when I mentioned Jim Trusty mentions. Why are they bringing charges in a Democrat city that went 5% for Trump in a grand jury and then throwing those indictments down into Florida? Against Department of Justice rules. The limitations on venue selection when it comes to grand juries. That’s their manual, not mine. Why are they doing that? On documents. Because they think that’s their easiest case. And they think it in part because Bill Barr and others keep telling him that’s an easy one. I don’t think it is. In the least. I think they have a lot of defenses. That’s the easiest one. That’s the easy. Please. You want. So with the Jack Smith so-called January six case is about which really has nothing to do with January six. And the Atlanta case is really about is building the case for insurrection under Section three of the 14th Amendment. Now, don’t get me wrong, they want convictions. They desperately want convictions. And Fannie Willis is hearing even from five very smart people who we respect, that if she gets a conviction on Trump, there’s nothing he can do about it. That’s simply not true. Any more than there’s nothing you can do about a federal charge. That’s simply not true. According to Department of Justice. But notice this, America. Notice the lengths to which the Democrat Party, their media. Their lawyers, their judges, their prosecutors will go to destroy America. We have never done this to our electoral system ever. The charges that. Willis and her family brought. These are garden variety practices by politicians and every state in the Union. Now I’m going to prove that to you. Prove it to you. As soon as we return. I really hope you’re. You’re zoning into this area, because I think it’s very, very important. We’ll be right back.
Segment 4
So what what the Trump people were doing in Georgia and elsewhere was actually rather common routine. Obviously, you don’t believe it if you hear the Democrat Party state run media. If you hear their propagandists, if you hear the judges in Washington, D.C., and the prosecutors, we’re not talking about violence. We’re talking about nonviolent protesters. We’re also talking about trying to find more votes, legally questioning voting practices. All of that is perfectly fine. Alan Dershowitz writing, writing in The Daily Mail. Today. He said The electoral challenges have been long part of American history. Only now are they being criminalized. I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida’s presidential vote in 2000, a margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W Bush, rather than Vice President Al Gore, won the state and thus the Electoral College votes. I was convinced then, and I am convinced now that this result was wrong. No one was indicted, disbarred, disciplined, or even much criticized for those efforts. Yet here we stand today. President Trump and eight of the defendants have been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more. And are a law designed to take down criminal organizations known as the RICO Act. Should Al Gore have been charged in 2000? What about me? Says Dershowitz. I represented the voters of Palm Beach County, many of whom voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan rather than Al Gore, because of the infamous butterfly ballots and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted. During the course of our challenges. Many tactics similar to those employed in 2020 were employed. Lawyers wrote legal memoranda outlining possible courses of conduct, including proposing a slate of alternate electors who would deliver our preferred election results to Congress. I’m telling you, this is normal stuff, America. I’ve been telling you this. For which, of course media matters and media and all the lowbrow low IQ bottom feeding Democrats apparently work. Now, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, along with others accused of conspiracy to commit forgery and false statements for drafting their list of alternate electors. In 2000, Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties, which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result. Now, this new indictment features Trump’s phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which was captured in audio recording in the conversation. Trump as crap and Bargain to find 12,000 votes. Now, having listened to that, not the whole thing, but in context, he doesn’t even do that. In my mind, this is among the most exculpatory pieces of evidence, says Dershowitz. Trump is entitled as a candidate to ask a Georgia state official to locate votes that he believes were not counted. And that’s what happened. In 2000, attempts were made to influence various Florida officials to recount the votes. Now, the former president’s request that Georgia Republican Speaker of the House reconsider the count has been charged as soliciting a public official to violate his oath. But if similar behavior was legal in 2000. How can it be illegal in 2023? I’m going to continue this piece because it’s so important. Dershowitz has so much guts to put it out there. I’ll be right back.