On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, there are impeachable offenses that have been committed by President Biden that every American can understand and are affected by, like the obliteration of our immigration laws and giving aid and financial support to a regime in Iran that is attacking American soldiers. The mayhem and humanity taking place on the southern border will not be covered by the Democrat media, which is leaving tens of thousands of people dead. If we cannot control our sovereignty we cannot control our country, and this is being done intentionally to drive an ideological agenda. The Biden Crime family selling the office is definitely a reason to impeach as well, but other important impeachable offenses are not being discussed by the media or the Republicans. Meanwhile, Jack Smith is constantly pushing the envelope and looking for ways to twist laws and apply them in a way that was never meant to be applied, like with the Klansman Act. Judge Chutkan is setting a dangerous precedent by charging Trump, and we cannot allow a prosecutor or a judge that does something that violates the Framers’ intention of separation of government. Also, Biden is demanding that Israel conclude its ground war with Hamas within the next three weeks and telling the Israeli people that they must give up their ancestral homes to the Palestinians. Biden is undermining the state of Israel by blocking armaments and also calling for Netanyahu to be removed as Prime Minister while sabotaging him. Later, Mark is joined by Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) to discuss the impeachable immigration offenses committed by Joe Biden, his violation of the separation of powers and his funding of Iran.
Ifrah Law
No Need for Speed
Jerusalem Post
10 IDF soldiers, including battalion commanders, killed in Gaza battle
Photo by Chip Somodevilla
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-gf3811. A lot to cover this evening. I hope you’ll stick with us. I want to start with impeachment. I don’t know what it’s going to take. I really don’t. To try and shake some sense into our Republican friends in the House. I’m not one to typically hammer away at the Republicans in the House. They’re far superior to the Republicans in the Senate as a group. But that said, ladies and gentlemen. There are impeachable offenses committed by this president that punch you right in the nose. That every American can understand. That affects every American directly, some indirectly. When you listen to some of my friends on TV or on radio. Go through a long iteration. Of moneys that were given to. The Biden family. You need to understand that the vast majority of Americans, their eyes glaze over. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued constitutionally. Sir. Impeachment doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued criminally. But you’re selling impeachment, which is not a criminal process. The removal of a president of the United States. And when you have an overwhelming case that it’s understandable to Mr. and Mrs. America, why don’t you use it? Now, what’s Mark talking about now? It’s only a matter of time until everybody repeats it. On radio and TV and maybe some in Congress. I hope so. Here’s my point. I explained it briefly on HANNITY. I’m going to explain it at great length on Sunday on Life, Liberty and Levin. And by the way, four great guests Saturday and Sunday. Dershowitz, David Schoen, Leo Terrell. Richard Goldberg. These are fantastic gastric, fantastic issues, but. It’ll be the last weekend shows for life, liberty and living until the new year. We’ll have some specials that are fantastic because I just finished working on them. But this weekend is the last live. Two shows until next year. So I encourage you to set your DVR or your smart TV or whatever you do. Back to the point. President United States, for reasons I’ve explained, is violating the Constitution his oath of office. By not just defying our immigration laws. Obliterating our immigration laws and their purpose. You say what’s going on on the southern border is outrageous? Yes, it is. It’s also unconstitutional that he won’t enforce the immigration laws. He doesn’t get to change them. By executive fiats, executive orders and so forth are are blowing off the law. You don’t need depositions, you don’t need subpoenas, You don’t need documents. You only tax. You only witnesses. It’s just a fact of Biden regime policy. That there’s mayhem, inhumanity of an unimaginable level taking place on the southern border. Now, you know, it’s really, really bad because most of the corrupt Democrat Party media won’t cover it or they cover it a little, you know, swing into it and then swing out of it. But Americans are dying by the tens of thousands because of open borders. Drugs. People are being physically abused and raped and sold into slavery. Women and children. Elementary School age children. We don’t control the southern border. That’s our sovereignty. That’s our country. This is by intent. This is purposeful. It’s part of an ideological agenda. People say, let us impeach the head of DHS and why waste your time? He’s doing what Biden tells them to do. So they have. An impeachment inquiry resolution that passed with every Republican for it and every Democrat against it. I read the resolution, such as it is. It’s very broad. And it certainly would allow the House of Representatives. To consider. This issue. As part of the impeachment report, there should be Article one. Article one in an impeachment. Of Joe Biden, Article two. Without any constitutional authority whatsoever. In fact, worse. In violation of a Supreme Court ruling, in fact, worse. Undermining separation of powers by seizing the power of the purse from Congress. Joe Biden with a magic wand. Cost the American Treasury half a trillion dollars in student loan forgiveness, quote unquote. Student loan forgiveness. The president does not have the power. To seize that authority from Congress. He defied a Supreme Court ruling. He and his administration won around two branches of the federal government under our Constitution. One. It has complete control over the purse. The other that was asked to rule on it and did. And Joe Biden still stole half a trillion dollars out of the Treasury. To try and pay off part of his base. That’s a clear violation of his oath of office. It’s a clear. Violation of his responsibility to take care that the laws of the United States are executed. That’s impeachment, Article number two. Impeachment. Article number three. The main responsibility of a commander in chief. That is the president. Is America’s national security. That’s why he has the Commander in Chief title and responsibility. He is the executive branch. When the commander in chief knowingly and actively. Is providing aid. Financial support. Diplomatic cover. Per a terrorist regime that has killed American soldiers, that has kidnapped Americans, that, as I speak, is trying to kill more American soldiers and attack American bases in the Middle East. That is funding terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and many more. When the president of the United States specifically hires an envoy who’s a special pleader for the Iranian regime, and that envoy in turn hires people, one of whom may well be a spy. That envoy who’s so bad had his clearance revoked by the Biden administration. Under cover of darkness. They won’t tell us why. But when the president of the United States institutes waivers. On a regime. That ensures that tens of billions of dollars report into its coffers. That in turn takes that money and helps build weapons for Russia. To attack Ukraine that has built an alliance with North Korea, but an alliance with communist China. And is funding all this terrorism, these attacks on Americans. When a president of the United States, we arms this regime. We arms it. Regime the targeted. Our former secretary of state are a former national security adviser for assassination. These are collectively. An impeachable offense. It’s a high crime. Article one. Article two, Article three are high crimes. What’s a high crime? The framers looked at, among other things, English common law. So they came up with the idea of impeachment to begin with. They read it, they looked at it. And what did it say? It said that an individual. Who takes an oath. It is thereby in a unique position of authority. Who can affect. The well-being of a society. Who takes steps or fails to take steps. To secure that society. Has committed a high crime. That’s what the word high means in that context. In other words, it’s a constitutional violation. Joe Biden has done that on immigration. He’s done that on the power of the purse. He’s done that as a commander in chief who is funding our enemy. Article three. Is the third priority for impeachment. Article one. Article two. Article three in the Mark Levine Impeachment. I completely understandable by Mr. Mrs. America. Let the Democrats in the media and the other members of the Praetorian Guard circle the wagons and try to protect their president. They will fail. These are black and white issues. These are good and bad issues. These are good and evil issues. Right and wrong issues. And in every case, there’s no need for subpoenas. Documents, texts, phone records, witnesses. To matter of policy, the official policy of the Biden regime. To do these things. To do these things. And then you can have articles for. Which is discussed endlessly on cable. With a one, two or three chairman of the various committees are brought in where they speak quickly and. Talk about Evan Archer and Devin Archer and this, that and the other. They have a very strong case, I think. Against Biden. Apparently Chuck Grassley can’t see it. But then again, it’s not the standard. But Chuck Grassley can see. Marks Article one. Chuck Grassley can see Marc’s Article two. Chuck Grassley can see Mark’s Article three, and it becomes an imperative, an obligation. A members of Congress who also take a different oath of office, but one that is close enough to the oath that the president takes. That they have an absolute obligation. To vote an impeachment and indictment of Joe Biden. For the deaths, the rapes, the chaos, the economic consequences, what happens in our schools? Law enforcement with illegal immigration. They have an absolute obligation to prevent a president of the United States from seizing power under our Constitution from another branch of government. They have an absolute obligation. To impeach. Indict. And really remove. An American commander in chief. Who is subsidizing? Who is funding our enemy? Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler. Peace in our time. But he didn’t send funds to Hitler. He didn’t send funds to Hitler surrogates. He didn’t subsidize Hitler. By lifting waivers on sanctions. He didn’t stop. Who dies Hitler through international organizations. But that’s exactly what Joe Biden is doing. The Islamo Nazis in Tehran, in Gaza. In Lebanon, in Yemen, and all around the world. The American people see it and can understand it. Even those who aren’t focused on politics. Article four. The issue being discussed on the Hill and on cable and radio. They can’t follow that. And when you have Democrats in the media. Really gumming up the works. Claiming there’s nothing here. Lying about it. Covering it up makes it even harder. Again, it should in fact be Article four of impeachment because the Bidens sold Big Daddy’s office. They made over $30 million. You know, people don’t want to believe that they’re blind to it. But people will believe and do understand the first three articles. I am pleading this case over and over and over again. To the Republicans. Get your act together. You’ve got a strong, strong case if you do it right. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
You know when you meet Lindsey Graham. Very likable gentleman. Very likable guy. But sometimes our friend Lindsey says and does pretty stupid stuff doesn’t mean he’s not a nice guy. Doesn’t even mean his intentions are bad. But I watched a video where he was praising the hell out of Qatar. Qatar is a monarchy, in effect. It is run by inbred. Is a fake country that was created by. I guess, Britain not that long ago. It funds Hamas. It has protected the Hamas leadership. It funds Al-Jazeera. Why would you praise these bastards?
Segment 3
You know when we come back from the holidays begin our new year, we may have to lead a lovin surge here to press the Republicans in their house to get this right. Sometimes I think they suffer from their own Stockholm syndrome, Mr. Producer. They get so. ENMESHED and entrenched. In their own weeds that they can’t see the forest. Again for the 4000 time. I’m not saying they shouldn’t pursue. The selling of Joe Biden’s office. It’s very, very important. But there’s three things that we’re overlooking that should be priorities in any impeachment. Investigation. And they’re they’re they’re they’re they’re low hanging fruit. And the impact that these things are having on the American people, it’s significant. It’s very significant. You know, Jim Trusty is a friend of mine. Before I knew Jim, I would watch him from time to time on. On Fox, I often said, Who is this guy? He’s damn good. And he is damn good. And he has his own blog. Which is also damn good. And. It’s a law that i f r h law.com and. There’s a piece on there today that I saw, and I want to read this to you. In most U.S. district courts, the trial date for a defendant who’s not incarcerated is typically many months and often easily over a year. From the time of his or her initial appearance after indictment. Many trials are resolved by plea agreements without ever having set a real trial date. There’s lip service to the constitutional notion of a speedy trial. And the easily avoidable clock ticking under a statutory speedy trial framework. But of the single digit small percentage of cases that actually proceed to trial, most wait 12 to 18 months or more, depending on the complexity. For the actual onset of the trial. The scheduling of former President Trump’s criminal case in Washington, however, is shaping up to be quite different than almost any other prosecution in American history. The guarantee of a speedy trial has its origins in the notion that the government should not lock up individuals who are presumed innocent and have them detained for months or years before given an opportunity to exonerate themselves. It can be a Pyrrhic victory indeed, for a defendant to serve a couple of years in jail to win a trial and learn that the maximum penalty for the crime was less than what he actually already served in a pretrial setting. And while there is a largely academic public, so-called right to a speedy trial, the heart of the protection lies with the defendant. Enter the machinations within U.S. versus Donald Trump. At the August scheduling conference for this insurrection without charging insurrection case. Beautifully put. Jack Smith pushed for jury selection in December and a trial in January. Trump’s team asked for a highly improbable mid 2026 start date. But Judge John King said on March four, 2024, the day before Super Tuesday primary, and a date markedly closer to Smith’s high speed suggestion. Defense counsel noted that there were millions of pages of discovery materials to sift through and that they could not be ready that quickly. And by the way, they have a right to put on their own case, too. So that’s just dealing with the government’s part of the case. Not even they’re part of the case. But the judge displayed no sympathy for their position, at least that early into the case. And she announced an unwillingness to let a defendant’s professional obligations pour. Political aspirations in this case serve as a basis for a delay. By contrast, in South Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon has taken a more typical incremental approach to the Mar a Lago documents case carefully. She’s concerned the process of sifting through classified materials for use at trial CPA procedures is going slowly. So while she set a trial date for next year, she’s also suggested that the date is not in stone because she’s treating it like a case, a real case. The parties will come back in court in March to give her a progress report. And presumably at that point, a final trial date will be set. Judge Cannon has also suggested that it is entirely appropriate for her to consider the calendars of all the parties when it comes to setting a trial date. And he says, From my 23 years in federal courts, that desire to set a collectively acceptable trial date is the norm. Not the exception. So what’s going on in D.C. is the exception in every respect. Meanwhile, back in D.C., the defense raised the issue of presidential immunity, which was shot down by Judge Tonkin in her December 1st order. Six days later, the defense appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Typically, the Court of Appeals ruling would not likely come before early March’s trial date. Consequently, the prosecutors did something quite unusual as they calculated the calendar of the appeal. They asked the Supreme Court to jump in and make a ruling without waiting for the intermediary court’s decision. The express reason for the petition, which was granted this week. That’s outrageous, by the way, was to do everything possible to keep the march for trial date. And in explaining the need for expedited Supreme Court involvement, Smith and his lawyers wrote, quote, Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that. A president who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct, unquote. Flowery and pejorative language aside, the quote does not explain the obsessive need that the case to take place on the eve of Super Tuesday. More directly, the government later explains its basis as, quote, the public interest in a broad sense, as well as the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, unquote. I, for one, am not overly comfortable with the Department of Justice prosecutors authoritatively declaring the public interest. We talked about this, but more fundamentally, we have to ask why in this case, and really this case only has Merrick Garland, special counsel, continuously pushed for such an early trial date Is the prosecution’s keen interest in a speedy trial one of principle or one of politics? Now the underlying issue itself, whether prosecution of a former president for allegations during his presidency is constitutionally permissible or whether there’s a way to carve up immunity between core responsibilities and conduct essentially unrelated to holding office as an interesting and important one. And the Supreme Court is poised to make a historic and apparently expedited decision. But lost in the procedural shuffle is a Department of Justice level of aggression and apparently similar sentiment from the trial judge that is propelling a complicated, unique and historic prosecution along an unnecessarily fast track. Whatever the verdict in any outcome on the appeal, a rush to convict and imprison a presidential candidate before the election will cause more systemic damage to our criminal justice system than were displays of fairness and patience. Very well said. And let me take the baton from there. That’s the process. He’s 100% right. Now, let me go to the substance. What is this issue? Well, Jack Smith is always pushing the edge of the envelope. He’s always looking for ways to twist the law. To creatively apply a law that doesn’t apply like the Klansman Act. He’s always putting courts in a position to make fundamental decisions. And in the case of the district court in Washington and quite frankly, the circuit panel, two Obama appointees, one Biden appointee, were more than happy to go along. So what’s at stake? According to Judge Champion, Donald Trump’s not a king. And just because he was president and made some decisions when he was president doesn’t mean he’s immune from prosecution for making those decisions when he was president. Now, think about that. Not only has that never been litigated, think about how dangerous that is. All because they’re trying to convict him in Washington, D.C., using four preposterous statutes that have nothing to do with insurrection or seditious conspiracy. Even though he’s arguing the case, making the case for both with without having been forced to prove it on these other charges that they’re bringing, that that is an abomination. But anything goes in Judge Duncan’s courtroom because she knows well, maybe she’ll be appealed and reversed, but it’ll be okay because she, in her mind, is stopping Hitler. Worse than Hitler. But back to the point. The reason sitting presidents are not to be indicted. And there’s several important reasons. Is that because the Constitution says it? Because the Constitution doesn’t say anything. It’s because it’s been agreed by Republican and Democrat departments of Justice alike, attorneys general alike. And it’s been agreed for more than half a century. But you can’t charge a sitting president because he is the executive branch. He’s the third branch of government. You cannot allow unelected prosecutors, unelected judges, unelected trial juries. To decapitate the executive branch. The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States are the only people in our body politic. Were the American people vote for? As a whole population, not like a senator or congressman or what have you. So, number one, the thinking is you cannot allow a prosecutor. Or a judge. To do such a thing. That clearly violates the intention of the framers when they set up three branches of government. Number two. If you’re just your typical defendant and you’re charged of a crime. You fight for your life, you fight for your freedom. You fight for your reputation. You fight to keep your house. You have to be focused on it 100% of the time. You’re up against the United States government. It has endless resources, endless prosecutors. It leaks like a sieve to the media. It’s a frightening thing. Now when you’re president of the United States. And you’re indicted and they’re trying to do that to you to actually put you in prison while you’re president of the United States. You have all these responsibilities to the country. You are the third branch of government. It’s not all the bureaucracy. You are the third branch of government. You’re the only person elected by the body politic as a whole. And the belief is and it’s correct. That you can’t spend your time full time fighting for your liberty. Fighting for your innocence. And at the same time serving as commander in chief and all the other responsibilities presented to a president of the United States. That’s the second reason. Now I’ll give you the third reason. Why a president has immunity which should carry forward. To the ex-president under very specific circumstance. If you’re president of the United States. And the Supreme Court rules, whether in an expedited fashion or ultimately. That this immunity thing. Goes as far as the moment there’s an inauguration of a new president. After that, you have none. Well, this is a. A decision, if that’s the position. That confuses two points. President Trump isn’t arguing that he has brand new immunities as an ex-president, but he can do anything he wants as an ex-president or any ex-president could do anything they want and therefore can’t be indicted. Yes, they can. But if you had immunities as president. And what the prosecutor is looking at is your your decisions, your actions. When you were president of the United States. And the prosecutor says there’s protections for those specific actions do not carry forward to when you are an ex-president in the United States. That is a completely different animal. You’re not creating a new immunity on a new matter, on a new action. That doesn’t make Trump or any ex-president a king. What it means is. The incoming or different administration cannot now indict the prior president, maybe from a different party for actions that he took as president that were immune from prosecution when he was president. Otherwise, you undermine the entire notion of immunity. A president will be looking over his shoulder all the time. A president won’t know what he can or cannot do. He cannot predict what a check Smith will do when a Judge Trump can all do what a Merrick Garland can do. You cannot know in advance. And they throw the Klansman Act. The Enron Obstruction Acts, a federal contractor Act, and a president of the United States, a former president of the United States. Utterly unpredictable, utterly unprecedented. So any president. Once the next president. Would be a sitting duck to the criminal justice system. Because that new administration might go through all the decisions that president made, including some controversial ones and soon and some they disagree with and argue, excuse me, what you did in office. Was illegal. Now that you’re not president, we’re going to indict you. Now, you can understand the disastrous impact that this can have. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Next hour, stick with me. I’m going to demonstrate how as a result of a decision by the circuit in Washington, DC, Joe Biden could be subjected to hundreds, if not thousands of civil lawsuits when he leaves office. Mark What do you mean? Stick with me, folks. This is cutting edge here. You can tell I don’t regurgitate what others say. They regurgitate what I say. Just stick with me. I’m going to explain how Joe Biden can be swamped, swallowed up, devoured by civil litigation. How he could lose everything he owns. As a result of an outrageous decision. But the circuit court in Washington, DC, where they were trying to destroy Donald Trump’s finances. Stick with me. I’m going to explain how Biden will be subjected to many civil suits when we return.