On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, it’s shocking how many lawyers in the House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee do not understand the basics or the history of impeaching Presidents. The immigration laws have been intentionally eviscerated by Joe Biden and has not faithfully executed them under his oath of office, which is a violation of the Constitution and meets the threshold for impeachment. A President cannot and must not unilaterally decide he will not adhere to immigration laws and subsequently change the culture of our country. As a consequence of Biden’s lawlessness and purposefully sabotaging of our ability to enforce immigration laws, he has committed an impeachable offense and it is not even a close call. The Supreme Court also ruled that Biden does not have the power to give away billions of dollars in student loan forgiveness because it violates the separation of powers, yet Biden has ignored the law until the court can catch up to him – another impeachable offense. As a purely Constitutional matter, there is no question that when a President refuses to faithfully execute the law, or even worse sabotage the law, the threshold for impeachment has been reached. The Democrat argument is there is no evidence proving that Joe Biden did not take a nickel from Hunter’s foreign business dealings, but that is not the basis for impeachment, especially when the Biden Crime Family raked in millions of dollars. Also, Mark speaks with Dave McCormick about his campaign to be the next Senator from Pennsylvania and the violence and looting in Philadelphia as a result of Soros-backed DAs.
Fox News
First Biden impeachment inquiry hearing commences
Townhall
Decay: Major Retailers Announce Hundreds of New Store Closures Due to Mounting Crime in Cities
Washington Post
Alarmed Republicans are preparing to draft Glenn Youngkin
Photo by: Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group
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 are our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Honestly, I’m getting very frustrated here even with this hearing on impeachment. I’m getting frustrated by all the so-called legal analysis that’s taking place by people who apparently do not comprehend what impeachment is about, the history of impeachment or even the phrase in the Constitution. If you look at Federalist 65, Hamilton describes it not with specificity, but did as a pretty good job explaining what they meant by treason, bribery, and the most important phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors. The Congressional Research Service does a pretty good job of pulling together what delegates thought and said at the time and at the ratification conventions. And we’ve had impeachments before in American history. Presidents. And it comes down to this essentially. It is an offence against the public trust. That is, it’s considered a political or constitutional crime. Not a crime even within the Criminal Code, as there was no federal criminal code at the time I’m talking about. An offence. Undertaken in your office an offence taken against the body politic, An offence against your country. And it shocks me the number of lawyers on the House Oversight Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, people testifying today. So let me explain to you. What else am I going to go? Let’s start with the basics. Let’s put all the Hunter Biden stuff aside. Let’s even put all the financial issues aside. And by the way, I don’t mean for good. I mean just for the sake of this argument. Follow me and you’ll know more than anybody on TV is talking about this. The faithful execution of our laws under Article two of the Constitution. Twice. Not once, twice imposes a duty of fateful execution on the president, who must, quote, take care that the laws be faithfully executed and then take an oath or affirmation to, quote, faithfully execute the office of the president, unquote. These are called the faithful execution clauses of the Constitution. What does the Supreme Court say about this? Because they’ve said things about this. They’ve said, among other things, even if a president disagrees with the law. That has been adopted by Congress and signed by a prior president. He must faithfully execute that law, whether he likes it or not, unless there is some serious constitutional issue that needs to be adjudicated. What does that mean? Well. There’s coming around. They’re saying, where is the evidence? Alexander Hamilton and Federalist, 65, said the Constitution’s impeachment provisions described impeachable offenses as arising from, quote, the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, he says, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. Such offenses were political. This is Hamilton, not me, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. And these offenses obviously can take innumerable forms and simply could not be specifically delineated. So they’re delineated at the time the offenses occur. So as a tremendously important example. Where people say, well, we haven’t reached the impeachment standard yet. Are you kidding me? The immigration laws. I said laws in this country have been intentionally eviscerated, have not been faithfully executed. They have not been faithfully executed. Take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Under oath or affirmation to faithfully execute the office of the president. A president cannot must not unilaterally decide that he will not adhere to federal immigration law and change the entire nature culture. Law. Of the country on his own. There are executive orders. And third, the refusal to enforce those laws. That is a violation twice of the United States Constitution. And it certainly meets the standard. Set forth by the framers of the Constitution. What do they mean? We haven’t reached the threshold yet. What are they talking about? We’ve met the threshold a thousand times. And it’s a consequence of this president’s lawlessness and his failure. To faithfully execute the immigration laws in this country. In fact, you do the opposite. To purposely sabotage the ability of us to enforce our immigration laws. He’s committed an impeachable offense and the inhumanity that he has unleashed on the American society. What do you think the framers of the Constitution meant? This isn’t even a close call. Hundred thousand Americans die every year from fentanyl. We lost 58,000 men in ten years in Vietnam, almost twice as many every year. Because this president violates refuses to faithfully execute our immigration laws and secure the border and secure the country. Well, I don’t think we’ve reached the threshold yet. We haven’t reached a threshold yet. What? Another example. The United States Supreme Court ruled. That Joe Biden, the executive branch, simply does not have the power under the United States Constitution. Does not have the power under the United States Constitution. To give away hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps up to $1,000,000,000,000 in so-called student loan forgiveness. The court said rightly, that violates separation of powers. That is an authority that doesn’t belong to Joe Biden. That Congress needs to pass a statute. If that is to occur. Joe Biden has ignored the law. Joe Biden comes up with some cockamamie scheme and before the law can catch up with Joe Biden before the next court decision, can catch up with Joe Biden. What does he do? He grants hundreds of billions of dollars in, quote unquote, student loan relief. To one of his. Its most important political bases. That’s not faithfully executing the laws of the United States. Defying a Supreme Court decision where the Biden administration took the matter, defended the matter in front of the Supreme Court and lost. And then they say, Well, screw off, I’ll do it another way, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about. That’s not an impeachable offense. We haven’t met the threshold Mark. What are you talking about? Oh, I know. I know people want to talk about all this as it is an inquiry. I’m all in favour of an inquiry. An inquiry not to find out if Joe Biden committed impeachable offenses. But to gather and support the fact that he did with overwhelming evidence, pulling it together. To show the members of the House, the members of the Senate and the American people what he has done. And the consequences to the public trust, to this civil society, to the American people. Of his unconstitutional acts. An impeachable offense. We don’t need. To gather more evidence to prove the impeachable offense. It’s worthwhile to gather more evidence to persuade as many people as possible, given the media in the Democrat Party that they control the narrative. But as a purely constitutional matter. The language in the Constitution, the history behind the impeachment clause. Is there simply any question? That when a president not only refuses to faithfully execute the laws. And takes an oath. To do so twice. The framers put it in the Constitution here to faithfully execute the laws. The one he does worse. In fact, he sabotages the laws. He ignores the law as he eviscerates the law. I think we’ve met the threshold, Don’t you? Ladies and gentlemen, maybe. Yes. The families of the 100,000 people who’ve died. Maybe ask the people who’ve been raped. Maybe ask them. Supreme Court. They go on and on about Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans who are a threat to democracy. And yet who is it? That defies the rule of law. Who is it that defies a Supreme Court decision after losing in that case? Who is it that’s breaking our immigration laws? They are. Because that’s the Democrat Party. I feel that the House Oversight Committee. What have done and would do a far superior job. If it led off. If it let off as I have. With the obvious. Violations of the Constitution. And the constitutional crimes, if you will, or political crimes, if you will, as the framers talked about it. Against the public trust. Against the governmental system. The abuse of power. The failure of famed upholders of. The faithfully execute the laws. And the inhumane, hellish conditions he’s unleashed on the border and in the interior of the United States. This is exactly. What impeachment was for. Exactly what impeachment was for and let the Democrats defend them. Let them defend that Biden has done. Let them defend the inhumanity on the border. Let them defend the indefensible. That’s how I would start. And same with the student loan. Violation. Seizing the authority. And the House of Representatives, specifically in Congress, generally its core power. To tax to spend to borrow. Seized by Joe Biden. He gave relief. To his political constituents. So they come out and vote and thank him for giving them money that he has no authority to give to that. According to the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. Why wouldn’t you lead with these two things? Another case of the financial fraud and also overwhelming, don’t get me wrong. But everyone gets into the weeds. He didn’t play. He didn’t take money it. Okay, now after the break, let’s move on. To the the the bribery issue, to the money issue, to the bought and paid for issue, because that comes down to another simple argument. Under the Constitution. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Heritage Point out the Supreme Court is squarely rejected. The authority of the president to refuse to enforce constitutional laws is early as the court’s 1803 decision of Marbury versus Madison, the court recognized Congress’s authority to impose specific duties upon the executive by law, as well as the official corresponding obligation to execute the Congressional directive. The Supreme Court articulated this principle again in 1838, a case called Kendall versus United States ex Stokes involving the president’s refusal to comply with an act of Congress, observing that quote to contend that the obligations imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to three to forbid those executions. There’s a novel construction of the Constitution and entirely inadmissible. The court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with the statute, quote, would be vesting the president a dispensing power, which has no countenance for it, supported any part of the Constitution. And it’s asserting a principle which have carried out in its results to all cases. Falling within it would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress and paralyze the administration of justice. And there have been subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court. Then. In other words, what they’re saying is we don’t have rule by dictator where president decides a bill is passed, maybe vetoes it, pocket veto doesn’t matter, but it becomes law. Maybe a former president signed it. You can’t just nullify federal laws. And that’s what he’s done. So I am repeating this. I am urging this. I am raising my voice about this. So some come quiet on Capitol Hill. Why here? What the hell I’m saying? Now more on all the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, crime, family business, which is another article, as I’ll explain in a moment.
Segment 3
And let’s turn to the third issue impeachable offense relating to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and the rest of the family. What do we have here? It is indisputable. It is unequivocal. That the Biden family made tens of millions of dollars from foreign entities, including many of our worst enemies. It is undeniable that that money flowed into the Biden family through one hunter or whomever. As a result of Joe Biden’s position in government, including as vice president, including up to the point he was candidate for president. Joe Biden claims he didn’t know anything about any of it. America, he didn’t know anything about the shell corporations through which money was laundered. Millions. He didn’t know that when he was asked to speak. Scores and scores of times to foreign CEOs. Foreign governments. Front groups for the Communist Chinese and others. That he was even speaking to them or that there was any implication whatsoever. He was just told to say hello by the direction of his son and he said hello. What about some of the meetings Joe Biden had, which involved some of his party partners and some of his clients from overseas? What about all the trips that Hunter took on Air Force Two with Daddy? To meet with clients or to have doors open with new clients. And all the rest of it. What about it? What about a $250,000 wire from Beijing to Wilmington? The beneficiary address being Joe and Joe Biden’s home. What about the millions that flowed into the Biden Pence Center in Washington, D.C. at the same time? Joe Biden. Was no longer vice president, a no show job for which he was paid almost $1,000,000 a year. Coincidence? What about Burisma? His son sat on the board, made millions. Why was he so focused on Burisma? Why was he going after the prosecutor investigating Burisma? How do they even know about it? Vice president knows about a prosecutor investing a corporation that prosecutors, Ukrainian, the corporations, Ukrainian. Why did he give a damn? And it goes on. And so the argument is there’s no evidence. Demonstrating the Joe Biden made a nickel. Ladies and gentlemen. Is that what the impeachment clause says? That would high crimes and misdemeanors means. If Joe Biden didn’t know that these hundreds and hundreds of conversations meetings. Hundreds and hundreds of them involving his son, involving his brother. If I bring a staff. The flight. And all the rest of it. If he didn’t know about any of it, which of course is nonsense. But let’s play along. He should have. He should have known. He should have known all those meetings, all those photographs at the golf courses. All those flights with his son. All those shell corporations. All these things that were taking place in front of his nose. In which he was involved, but apparently was a sucker. Meets the impeachable offense standard. There’s no requirement. The Joe Biden took a penny. His family took tens of millions. Tens of his family took tens of millions. If people wish to believe that that really wasn’t. Known to Joe. They believe whatever they want. If you failed to protect the country. If you fail to protect the office of the vice president. If you fail the public trust in such a consequential. And grey way. If you fail in your duty to uphold the Constitution. That’s an impeachable offense. It’s not an excuse. The fact that his family was involved in all this corruption. Using his name, selling his office, pretend that he’d even know about any of the swirling around him day or night. It doesn’t matter. It swirled around him day and night. And if he wasn’t involved. He should have at least been aware that his family was raking in tens of millions of dollars. You know who else knows that I’m right? Jill Biden knows that I’m right. That’s why when he was first confronted over this during the campaign, he said, I don’t know anything about my son’s business activity. Because Joe Biden knows what I know. And what apparently the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee don’t know apparently, what the legal analysts on TV don’t know. Joe Biden does not have to commit a crime under the federal criminal Code. The Constitution, our political crime, if you will, as the framers talked about, it, is against society and the public trust. Andrew Johnson wasn’t impeached because he took money or even his family took money. Neither was Bill Clinton. Neither was Trump twice. So why are we changing the standards? Joe Biden. This should be Article three should be impeached. Because he was not. Was not doing his duty. And one of the highest office is in the land of that country to ensure. To ensure. That his son. That his brother. That his family. We’re using his office. We’re using government resources. We’re using his name as vice president to enrich themselves. If he didn’t know about it, he didn’t want to know about it. That’s not good enough. These aren’t specious allegations. They’re backed up with emails. What texts? Well, I pop software with witnesses. They’re backed up. With wire accounts, With bank accounts. They’re backed up by the IRS. The only person he didn’t know is Joe Biden. Rope a dope is not a good enough defense. I know nothing is not a good enough defense. If you’re a family. Is using your position as vice president and using your name to get access with foreign governments, foreign corporate front groups. Corrupt potentates, corrupt oligarchs. And your family or a family member is enriching him or herself as a result of it, using your name, using your office. And you say, I don’t know anything about it. That’s actually more frightening than knowing something about it. Then Joe Biden by not knowing about it or intentionally not knowing about it. And now covering it up, lying about it. Trying to prevent a House committee from getting the documents using his taxpayer funded White House counsel. I’ve never seen this before. To trash the investigation as if they’re guilty. His attorney general using his position to prevent any kind of a criminal investigation. That further underscores the problem. If Joe Biden didn’t know anything, Joe Biden should be coming forward to say, look, I apologize. I didn’t know any of this. I prepared to provide testimony in writing in person to the committee. I don’t have a problem with an independent investigation. I didn’t do anything. And go ahead, try and prove that I knew something and that I was complicit. But he doesn’t. He acts like a guilty man. But even that doesn’t really matter. The fact of the matter, all of these activities took place while he was were most of them while he was vice president. He was at meetings. He was at phone calls. His address at his home was used. His name was used all the time. Hunter Biden basically will be a perfect witness. An impeachment and an impeachment trial of his father. What did you mean by 10%? What did you mean by Mr. Big? His laptop. It’s devastating. So the point is that people understand what impeachment means, what the impeachment clause means. It doesn’t mean anything goes. Maladministration was rejected. We have a difference in policy or that’s a political thing. No. If you’re subverting the Constitution, that is. If you are committing an offence. Against. The public. The public trust, the civil society. Your country. It doesn’t even have to be in the Criminal code. Ladies and gentlemen, there was no federal criminal code at the time. Then that’s enough. That’s enough. I don’t know if we reached the threshold for impeachment. I do. I don’t any problem with a hearing. There ought to be a hearing. That’s the tradition. You hold these hearings. And we should hold hearings. Nancy Pelosi violated that tradition in multiple ways. Second, impeachment of Donald Trump. They don’t even hold a hearing. Didn’t matter. They knew what they wanted to do. And Trump did not lead an insurrection and didn’t commit sedition, and that’s what they impeached him for. Now the Democrats want you to believe that you have to have a rock solid criminal case showing financial crimes. And unfortunately, Republicans are allowing this to occur. No, don’t go ahead. Keep digging. Get the information. I have no problem with this. But at the same time explain time and time again to Jamie Raskin, who was involved in all the Trump impeachments, who was involved in trying to overturn three Republican presidential elections on the floor of the House. Who was and is now or was on the January six committee and now is on this committee. There’s a reason why Jamie Raskin’s history. The father was a Stalinist. Got that mediocre right. Any any like the communist regime in Russia. Jamie knows this. That’s why he won’t come on my program and discuss this with me. We’ve asked him how many times, Mr. Producer? Three, four, five, six. Go ahead. Set me straight. Jamie is a radical left wing bomb thrower politically. But that’s what impeachment means. That’s why the clauses in there. And let me put it to you this way. If it is the position of the Department of Justice that you cannot indict a sitting president, a position I agree with. If he can indict a sitting president. And you can’t impeach a president who violates the Constitution. And secondarily. His family commits financial crimes, tax cheats, violations of fair and so forth. And apparently you can’t do anything if your name is Biden. Now, if your name is Trump, everything goes. Everything and anything goes. And you’ll get help from Republicans like Romney. Murkowski. In other reprobates. Now you know the rest of the story. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Most of the post-debate analysis I’ve been reading and listening to is about as stupid as anything I’ve ever seen or heard. All the advice for the candidates. 4000 pieces of advice. When you get 10 to 12 minutes over a two hour period and there’s seven people on the stage to amazing. Here’s Biden in Tucson, Arizona, today. Cut 27. Go. I’m here to speak about another threat to our democracy. And we’re all too often ignore the threat to our political institutions, to our Constitution itself, and the very character of our nation. Democracy is maintained by adhering to the Constitution and the march to perfecting our union, by protecting and expanding rights with each successive generation, including that little guy. He’s going to talk about it. And it’s okay in my house. Kids prevail. Okay. This is here. Is in this an option? We can’t be situational. We can’t be only be going there when is good for yourself. It’s constant and unyielding, even when it’s easy. And most important, when it’s hard. It is amazing to hear from Mr. Autocrat about democracy when everything he does is top down by executive order, by bureaucratic regulation, by radical judicial edicts, through a corrupt Department of Justice, corrupt prosecutors, corrupt FBI. And this man talks about democracy. The same party that’s trying to destroy the Republic, separation of powers. He violates his constitutional authority, violates at war with the First Amendment and freedom of speech was censorship at war with the free exercise of religion by rounding up pro-lifers who dare to protest at abortion clinics at war with parents. Trying to come between them and their cherished children. We don’t need lectures from this jerk about democracy. We don’t need lectures from him at all. Pat, take go. And there’s something dangerous happening in America now. Yeah, it’s, you know, you schmuck. You and Harry is going to go with his inferences, if you will, to neo-Nazi ism. MAGA Republicans. No, it’s Biden. Democrats. Who are the lawless, violent on American crowd. It is them. It is you. You buffoon. Go ahead. And there’s something dangerous happening in America now. There’s an extremist movement, does not share the basic beliefs and our democracy. The MAGA movement. Is anybody going to stand up to this and give a speech confronting it? The MAGA movement Make America Great Again. The Party, the Klan. The Party of lynching. The party of eugenics. The party of segregation. The party of slavery. The party of abortion on demand. The party of no borders. The party of burn the American flag and replace it with the the pride flag. The party of destroying a nuclear family, the party of destroying women’s sports, the party of equity rather than judicial equality. The party that rejects capitalism. That party is going to talk about extremist mark maga Republicans. They’re talking about you. This is how demagogues talk. This is how. Autocrats talk. This is a sick, nasty, pathetic excuse. For an operational human being. It’s sickening to the core. He uses race. He always did. He’s a race punk. Goes into the Senate. It’s anti-black racism today. It’s anti-white racism, whatever works. And why anti-white racism? Well, if you’re going to support the 1619 project and CRT and all the rest of it. Yes. Remember, that’s white supremacy. Here’s a man who was a white supremacist. Active in segregation. Talking about an extremist movement afoot. Maga MAGA, while he’s violating the constitution, he’s he’s a disgrace. And the people who follow him, Biden Democrats, they’re the worst. I’ll be right back.