On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, University presidents like those of Harvard, MIT, and the now former president of UPenn, do not understand the history of the 1st amendment and allow their institutions to criminally promote anti-Semitism. These anti-Semitic threats and mobs on college campuses are not protected speech, and what they are arguing for is not protected either. The Supreme Court has said so as well, but under President Biden and Merrick Garland not a single U.S. Attorney has brought charges against anybody. Also, Mark speaks with journalist Julie Kelly about another effort by Jack Smith and an extraordinary effort by the Department of Justice to go after Donald Trump. We don’t know what the Supreme Court will do next, but if they get involved, they may rule the wrong way because John Roberts has been weak among others. This would do severe damage to the presidency and the country as we continue our descent into a banana republic. Jack Smith and Tanya Chutkan are doing the bidding of Merrick Garland and Biden by rushing Trump’s case along in order to affect the 2024 election. This country and this court will never be the same if they involve themselves where the court has never before, and it will open the door for other future presidents to charge them with crimes.
JNS
Explaining the First Amendment to university presidents
Tablet
It’s Time for Congress to Open Harvard’s Books
Media Matters
On Hannity, Mark Levin Accuses Obama Of Being Anti-Semitic (2015)
Breitbart
Bernie Sanders: U.S. Giving Netanyahu ‘Another $10 Billion’ Is ‘Irresponsible’
Declassified
Jack Smith’s Rush to Judgment
Right Scoop
Joe Biden refuses to allow American families of Hamas hostages to attend Hanukkah event
The Weekly Dish
The Day The Empress’ Clothes Fell Off
Photo by Kevin Dietsch
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. Man, oh, Manischewitz. We’ve got a lot of territory to cover you with me. We’re the only audience that can handle this. I want to talk about the First Amendment briefly. One of the great experts on the First Amendment and other parts of the Constitution is a gentleman by the name of Nathan Lewin. Nathan Lewin has litigated in front of the Supreme Court in America’s appellate courts more times than I can count. He’s a brilliant man. He’s taught at Harvard and Columbia and Georgetown and University of Chicago. But he with his brilliant daughter. They run their own firm. They bring their own cases. Big, big cases. Big Supreme Court cases. Big First Amendment cases. So he wrote a piece. In Japanese. Talk join us. Jewish News Syndicate dawg. Explaining the First Amendment to university presidents, it’s called, Shockingly, the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT do not know that the First Amendment does not protect anti-Semitic hate speech or support for terrorism. In the wake of the astounding testimony before Congress by the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, three important questions must be asked. Number one, why are the presidents of leading American universities abysmally ignorant of Supreme Court rulings on the limits of protected speech under the First Amendment? The presidents claimed in their testimony that anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protesters, quote unquote, on their campuses, are only exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech when they call for an intifada. And Chin Hamas is battle cry from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Both clear calls for violence against Israelis and Jews. Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, repeatedly declared that her university will act only quote when speech crosses into conduct, unquote. She might be surprised to learn that not a single Supreme Court justice, not one agrees with her. In fact, it’s unlikely that the three presidents have bothered to read the most recent definition of, first of all, First Amendment speech guarantees it’s exercised by all nine Supreme Court justices, albeit in various opinions. Not one of the justices believes that threats and incitement have blanket constitutional protection and cannot be punished unless they, quote, cross into conduct. This is Sunny Hostin on The View, another pathetic, pathetic buffoon, the other legal analysts on TV who don’t know a damn thing. It’s incredible. That’s why you’re here. We know a lot of things. On June 27. The United States Supreme Court decided a case titled Kellerman versus Colorado, which dealt with harassment on the social media site Facebook. The case generated much discussion precisely because it dealt with the issue of what limits can be placed on speech protections. All of the justices agreed that the Bill of Rights does not guarantee any right to send threats over social media. None. Nor did they hold that the First Amendment entitles the speaker to say anything so long as it does not, quote, cross into conduct, unquote. The justices differed only over how relevant the speaker’s intention may be to the question of criminal penalties. A majority in the courts. Speaking through Justice Elena Kagan said that expressing a threat would be a crime if the speaker uttered it with, quote, reckless disregard, unquote. Four How will that be understood by the listener? Four Justices differed only in part. All the justices agreed that freedom of speech does not protect a speaker who makes a threat with reckless disregard for the listeners. Fear of violence. And we have more than fear of violence with actual violence and threats going on on these campuses. Jewish students locking themselves in rooms, locking themselves in their dorms, in the libraries and attics, not wanting to go to class. Lewin writes, The campus protesters in question are obviously guilty of reckless disregard for the fears of their Jewish fellow students under the most recent Supreme Court rulings. They can be charged with crimes and punished accordingly that the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the former president of Penn are ignorant of. This is shocking. Number two. Why are major donors to these universities only terminating future grants rather than demanding that billions of dollars in past donations be refunded? Benefactors who’ve given huge donations to Harvard and other universities with enormous endowments, have announced publicly that they will not continue to contribute to these institutions because they promote and fail to control anti-Semitism. It is possible that this may influence public declarations of Union university administrators who are unhappy that the flow of funds has been interrupted. But given the vast resources of these institutions and the contributions likely to come from anti-Semitic and Israel anti-Israel sources, it will only have a modest impact. A far more powerful response would be for major donors to file lawsuits seeking to recover the billions of dollars they’ve donated in the past. They could do so on the grounds that these donations was secured by false representations. They claimed the universities were providing proper, meaningful education to their students. And I might add an important footnote here. Parents who’ve paid the tuition. Of their kids to be students at these universities. They would have the same cause of action. With different facts, the same cause of action to get their tuition back. For example, Harvard’s original charter of 1650 stated its students will be taught knowledge and godliness, quote unquote. Contributors have now discovered that Harvard does not abide by this charter. Instead, it egregiously violates it by nurturing hate and violence against Jews. As such, donors are legally entitled to recover the funds they were convinced by Harvard’s false representation to provide. Again. Same. With the students. And three. And finally, why are no federal grand juries investigating the probable violations of American anti-terrorist laws committed by organizers and participants in pro-Hamas public protests in 1996? In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which makes it a criminal offence to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations, unquote. Violating this law can be punished with a long prison sentence. The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a six person majority, upheld the law in 2010 and rejected claims that its restriction of, quote, material support, unquote, for terrorism violated First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. The case is Holder versus Humanitarian Law Project in 2010. Advocating for a terrorist organization and supporting its activities, even if they constitute otherwise lawful protest, violates this provision of the federal Criminal Code. Organized protests supporting Hamas are accompanied by costly printed signs, customized uniforms and caps that Palestinian flags assuredly qualified as, quote, material support, unquote, for Hamas. And I bet if they look further during discovery, they’ll find money there to. So Nat Lewin asks this Why has the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland, a descendant of Holocaust survivors, failed to initiate a federal investigation into these probable violations of America’s anti-terrorism laws? Why is no one U.S. attorney impanel a federal grand jury and subpoenaed witnesses? These are just some of the questions that an American lawyer must ask in these turbulent times. And now he has set the record straight. As I have, quite frankly, on the First Amendment. These threats are not protected. These mobs. And what they are, what they are arguing for is not protected. The Supreme Court has said so. Every member in their own way has said so. Another. Joe Biden and Merrick Garland, not a single U.S. attorney, has brought a single charge against anybody. Nobody. What about some of these faculty members who go out there? And celebrate. These threats and the violence. And Hamas, a terrorist organization. I said before, we’re not required to fund this. In America, we’re not required to provide safe havens. For homegrown and foreign supporters of terrorists and terrorism. And turn the other cheek. That’s not academic freedom. That’s not free speech. That’s quite the contrary. And so things that can be done are not being done by the Department of Justice. By Joe Biden. But not a single U.S. attorney in the United States. Now, one of the 93, none of them. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
I think Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened a sleeping giant. In a horrific way, of course. Israel has warned Hamas. I won’t say defeat. Excuse me, Hezbollah. I think Israel’s had enough of this crap once and for all, even though the United States keeps funding the wrong party. But, Mark, they gave arms to Israel. Well, then why are you giving funds to the terrorists? Elise Stefanik just posted this. The Democrats are circling the wagons around the. These presidents of these universities giving aid and comfort, therefore, to Hamas and for anti-Semitism. The Democrat Party, America does hate America. I’ve tried to explain it a great length, both here on TV and certainly in my book. And Representative Elise Stefanik tweets the following Desperate and deranged Democrats are now attacking us for uniting the country around calls for these university presidents to be fired. Here are the facts. Congresswoman Kathy Manning approached me on the House floor with a rough draft for a joint letter to the boards of MIT, Harvard and Penn. I told her I would like to review and would likely have many edits to strengthen the language. My office sent back significant edits to the Manning office, who went radio silent while we circulated among Republican members. Our offices then decided to go in different directions with two separate versions of the letter. One Representative Manning did not want to call for the firing of the president. Among other significant edits, she refused to accept this. There’s something that happens every day on Capitol Hill. Our updated version of the strong letter was significant and it’s got much more bipartisan support because it was the right thing to do because Kathy Manning got much less support for her weaker letter. She’s now trying to do a hit piece to help panic Democrats who are clearly on the wrong side of history protecting these university presidents while the mainstream media is refusing to cover the actual plagiarism. Have Claudine Gay. What about that, TAPPER? TAPPER is such a puke. Let’s just be honest. Let’s just be honest. He’s a fraud, a phony and a fake. Wolf BLITZER. Same damn thing. Mika Brzezinski, an IQ of -74. Which is at least better than her husband, Joe, with a negative IQ of 170. He is sort of the. Auntie Mensa. You know what I mean? Mr. Producer is like the anti Mensa. Is it clowns? There’s a lot more going on out here, too. Let me get to this. Hold on one second. That computer has computer and out. 500 faculty members. Have come to the defense of gay. She’s credibly accused of plagiarism. Even before she was credibly accused of plagiarism, her scholarship was almost non-existent. She is a DEA appointed president. That’s who she is. She doesn’t have the grand qualifications to be the president of Harvard. And Harvard could care less. Harvard’s busy, discriminatory, discriminating against Asian-Americans, blocking so many of them from getting admitted into their college. Very, very busy protecting the Hamas. Network and the Hamas supported fact faculty and students from doing what they do. And there’s a great piece in the tablet. And in the tablet they say, well, isn’t it time to get to the bottom of what Harvard actually does? With all the taxpayer money it gets, with all the donations, it gets tax deductible. Isn’t it time to get to the bottom of this? I think it is. In fact, I think it’s past time to get to the bottom of not just that, but all the rest of them. They take in hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. With no accountability whatsoever. That’s going to end. That has to end. In my opinion. Americans views of Hamas and Israel with Republicans support for Israel is very, very strong. Very, very strong. Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, opposition to it a lot. 65%. A little 9%. And you know, most of those who. Majorities of both Republicans and Republican leaning independents. 73% say Hamas has a lot of responsibility for the conflict. Democrats, 50% are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say the Israeli government.
Segment 3
Almost nine years ago, when I was on Sean Hannity’s program, I had something to say about Obama and anti-Semitism. Of course, media matters when they highlighted it, thought they were smearing me. No, we appreciate the publicity media matters gave us because it’s very much a pro Soros organization, anti Semitic. anti-Black. Bigoted, anti-gay. At least that’s what the president of Media Matters has been, certainly in the past. And now he tries to walk it back, but he can’t walk it back. He is who he is. He’s a grotesque, loathsome bottom dweller. Now, that said, here I am on HANNITY. Almost nine years ago. March 18, 2015. One go. So they have the president with contempt and an outright loathing of the prime Minister and his liberal media clapping seal audience. They’re regurgitating basically the president’s lines. Here’s what I have a problem with, Mark. Prime Minister Netanyahu had to battle not only liberals in his own country, but the Obama machine on the ground there. The president didn’t pick up the phone today, but he did call the president of Iran when he won. He did call Putin when he won. He did call Mohammed Morsi, who referred to the Israelis as descendants of apes and pigs. He called him when he took charge in Egypt. He called the president of Turkey. He called leaders when they won in China and in Saudi Arabia. Why can’t he pick up a phone and call our number one ally in the only democracy in the region? Why? He just said it. He doesn’t like democracy. He doesn’t like Congress. He’s got a pen and a phone. And when Congress doesn’t do what he says, he’s off doing his best. Benito Mussolini. He doesn’t like Netanyahu there. Netanyahu just won in a landslide. Obama has never won in a landslide. The American people rose up in November and told Obama how how they are disgusted with his programs and his policies. And what did he do? He turned around and spat in our faces and he does the same. And in 2010, when they lose the House of Representatives, Obama has more ability to work with dictators and genocidal types than he does with people who are elected democratically. The fact of the matter is, Sean and I want to say this and this is important. Eric Holder said that this nation is full of cowards because we won’t have a discussion about race. Well, I think this nation needs to have a discussion about what’s going on in this White House and this administration about anti-Semitism, because this White House and it’s reaching out to to. Sharpton the Muslim Brotherhood care, all these radical nutjobs and groups, their policies which are which are not. It’s not just Netanyahu. They’re willing to throw Israel over the side for the Islamic regime. And in Tehran, this president’s former relationships with Khalidi, the professor in Columbia, now. WEST Right. The the the so-called reverend from Chicago. This president has a lot to answer for. And his conduct is contemptible. And I don’t care how many liberal Democrat donors who are. Hold on now. I don’t care how many liberal Democrat donors he has who are Jewish. He can hide behind them all he wants. But Mr. Holder, Mr. Obama, let’s have a national discussion about the anti-Semitism that reeks from your administration. You think the president’s anti-Semitic, Mark? I personally do. Yes, I do. Has he demonstrated otherwise? Israel is surrounded. Israel was under attack with Hamas. His State Department puts out these preposterous statements about moral relevancy. Israel’s taking missiles. This president’s holding back ammunition, slow walking it. Does this sound like a guy who has a rational reason for his belief system? I don’t think so. That’s my personal opinion. There you go. Was right then and I’m right now. Jake TAPPER gives a platform. A platform. To people like this Obama holdovers in the Biden administration, Anthony Blinken among them. And he asks questions in a way. That are intended. To undermine the state of Israel, even though he’s Jewish. Jake TAPPER. But I’ve explained this issue before. They’ve explained this issue before. Jake TAPPER has a long, long history of being a leftist and being a Democrat. Even writing for Salon, which is my view is it’s not just flat out Marxist, a quasi Marxist site. And he has a long history of undermining Israel after Israel was attacked by Hamas and other terrorists. A long history. He’s one of these reporters that says what happened is terrible. But he’s a but reporter, not beauty, but beauty. And here he is with Anthony Blinken on his Sunday show that has literally well, not literally, almost literally no viewers. Cut to go. Will the US continue to back Israel the way it’s backing Israel right now? If this continues for months and months as opposed to days or weeks? And Israel has to make these decisions. Of course, everyone wants to see this campaign come to a close as quickly as possible. But any country, faced with what Israel is facing, a terrorist organization that attacked it in the most horrific way possible on October 7th, and as I said, has said repeatedly that it would do it again and again and again. It has to get to the point where it is confident that that can’t be repeated. But you make another point that’s very important. When the major military operation is over, this is not over because we have to have a durable, sustainable peace. And we have to make sure that we’re on the path to a durable, sustainable peace. From our perspective, I think from the perspective of many around the world, that has to lead to a Palestinian state. So let’s stop. Do we have a durable, sustainable peace with the Taliban, Mr. Producer? Isn’t that important. A durable, sustainable peace with the Taliban if you listen to these people. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re talking about terrorist regimes and terrorist organizations. There is no durable, sustainable peace with terrorists. And I know the fiction is out there in the media. Push it. And their front groups mediate media matters. They push it, too. They want you to believe that all the Palestinians are just innocent people who want to live the good life under Jeffersonian democracy. But the Jews in Israel won’t permit it. They won’t permit it. Who stopping them? The vast majority in the Middle East is controlled by the Arabs and Muslims. Israel is a pinprick of a country in terms of its geography. Who’s stopping them? Who stopped them in the Golan Heights? Who has stopped them in certain territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Nobody. Who has stopped them hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into the Palestinians. Some of them become billionaires. Where are the refugees? Because they want refugees. When you control land, how do you have your own people as refugees on the territory that you’re in control of? No other place in the world except their chest as Hamas wants civilians killed because CNN gets off on it? That’s right. I said it. The Palestinian Authority or better the PLO, Arafat’s original organization. They want refugee camps. Oh, Mark, what are you talking about? It’s widely understood. That the leadership of the PLO steals the money, turns over portions of its economy to its most loyal. Terrorists. Abbas. His family members are rich. Rich. They steal the money that’s supposed to go to the people. That’s how you have refugee camps. That’s how you it’s not Israel that’s creating refugee camps. It’s not America that’s creating refugee camps. It’s not Jews who are creating refugee camps. It’s the Palestinian leadership that’s creating refugee camps. It’s the Palestinian leadership. That puts its own civilians out front. And we have the survey. From an Arab institution. I don’t believe that media matters or media either CNN or MSNBC. But then he explains with the compost rally, the rest of the media have reported on this, certainly not diligently. Certainly not more than once. That gives a completely different story. Then the fictionalized story we’re getting from these so-called press. And when you bring it up, Mr. Producer, it’s. Oh, the Vince says there aren’t any. Innocent civilians. I am given up dealing with. Radical left wing propagandists. Now, I say, haven’t given up every now and then when they annoy me. But most of the time you have to give it up. Because these are sick, demented people. So there’s Blinken two state solution. They don’t want a two state solution. They want a caliphate. I have to say it over and over again. Jake TAPPER, are you an idiot? Yes. Are you a moron? Yes. Are you an imbecile? Yes. Read Hamas’s mission statement. In fact, the other day. One of these Hamas Nazi leaders said, So we don’t want another state. We want a caliphate. Iran has its own country. They want a caliphate. The mother of the Muslim Brotherhood wants a caliphate. That’s why they call for intifada. It’s intifada is not about another country. The ignorance of TAPPER and his ilk. The outrageous propaganda of Thomas Freedom and his his bosses at The New York Times. The insidiousness. A Bernie Sanders Marxism. Has no limits. They tell you what they want. They show you what they’re going to do. It’s not a secret. So why are there apologists in the American media? Why? They’re apologists in our State Department. Why are there apologists in the Democrat Party? Well, why were there in the 1930s and forties? Same thing. Same thing. Try. You’ll never know the truth about Franklin Roosevelt and what he did in the thirties and forties during the Holocaust. That’s why the meeting America will never remind you of what they did. They did, including their their great leader of every media outlet, The New York Times. They will never remind you of that. And as I pointed out on my Fox show last night, universities in this country. Supporting the Nazis. Supporting. Students coming to this country at our universities to promote Nazi propaganda. Professors promoting Nazi propaganda. These are facts. And there’s books written about it. I know, I know. These people are distracted by other books that show genitalia what you can do with genital. Read the books. They’re out there. It’s unbelievable. Then blankets on ABC’s This Week with Obama supporting Martha RADDATZ. Cut three, Go! If you’re continuing to send these weapons without any accounting for how they are used except talking to the enemy. So she is a Democrat. She’s regurgitating what the radical Hamas supporting anti-Israel wing of the Democrat Party is saying. There’s no accountability for Israel using these weapons. There’s no accountability. Does she mention that this administration is funding Iran and there’s no accountability for what they do with their money? Not a word. Not a damn word. Or on writing the money that’s flowing into Hamas. And what’s happening with that money? Using it for weapons in tunnels? Not a damn word. It’s the Israeli Jews. They need to be controlled. Don’t you understand? Go ahead. Other leverage can you use to make sure they take greater care in this campaign? Isn’t this sickening? She’s got the IQ of a 15 watt bulb. Regurgitating the lines from the radical left from Bernie Sanders. It’s like they’re all in a cabal. They all say the same thing. They don’t want Israel to win. That’s the bottom line. But Israel’s winning. Israel is winning and the Hamas leadership is freaking out and Hezbollah is picking it up. They’re starting to fire more missiles. And Israel just warned Hezbollah, we’ll kick your ass, too. And so. RADDATZ And the Democrats and the Marxists in Congress and elsewhere and the clowns in the media are saying, can’t you control Israel? While their favorite president in administration is funding the enemy. Go ahead. Martha, we’re focused on two things. Shut up, you idiot. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Well, here we be. It would be Bernie Sanders on Face the Nation. So it’s all over the Sunday show, all over the Sunday shows. Same propaganda. Why would you ask Bernie Sanders to go on national TV? Who does he represent? Comes from Vermont, a beautiful state the size of most counties. Just saying. He’s a marxist. And yet Face the Nation wants his opinion. Margaret Brennan on what he thinks about Israel, already know what he thinks about Israel. He hates Netanyahu and he keeps talking the religious parties keeps talking about them as extremists. And Netanyahu is a racist and he believes in apartheid and all these are lies. So the only reason possible reason. Face the Nation CBS Margaret Brennan bring him on is because they want him to repeat himself. Now, this is a guy that has embraced every communist regime. Since he was in college. Now he’ll distance himself from him once. People. Wait a minute. They murdered 4 million people. All right, Major vitamin check guy. The honeymoon’s in Moscow. This is a guy who supported Castro, defended Castro. But he hates Netanyahu. What is that? Why is this man considered a legitimate voice? He’s actually not even a Democrat. He’s a Democratic socialist, a.k.a., he’s a marxist. So why do they bring him on to spew his his Israel hate? And is American hate in the past. Why do they do that? You know why Cut for a go. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that he sees a gap between Israel’s stated intent of limiting civilian casualties in reality. And the secretary of defense said they could face a strategic defeat given civilian casualties. Yeah, there’s amazing to me. First of all, Blinken knows nothing about military military operations. This is a man who basically was in Washington, D.C., the vast majority of his life, except for those occasions when he was at poison Ivy League schools. And by the way, I want to thank my brothers and sisters at Fox for picking that up. It’s very good. Poison Ivy College it. They used to call them Ivies, Ivy League schools, because the Ivy, they grew on their buildings, you know. Anyway, putting that aside, and I’m glad that it’s being repeated, by the way, it’s important. What do you need from me? Oh, I don’t know if I can get there in time. Let me try. I want to continue where I’m leaving off. There’s a lot to say. Julie Kelly’s coming on the program because there’s now an effort. To again go after Trump. Now with the Supreme Court in an extraordinary effort by the Department of Justice and this bum prosecutors. So I want to get into that with you as well. I’ll be right back.