On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show, the new precedent being set by Democrats is if you cannot indict a sitting president, you can wait in the shadows and indict them once they are out of office, which would be a disastrous consequence. The President is the head of the Executive branch and can theoretically tell anybody in any department what to do because they are unelected appointees. A hypothetical example brought up in court today to target Donald Trump was about what if the president used Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and it shows how extreme these courts and prosecutors have become. We have a DOJ, FBI, and Democrat media that allows this and acts like nothing is going on while Biden suggests Trump is Hitler and his supporters are brownshirts. Also, there is only one way to bring the Hamas hostage issue to an end in Gaza, and that is for Israel to take hostages too for them to make a swap. Hamas only takes hostages in order to get money from the Biden administration and to get their own terrorists back. If Israel wants to lose a war, lose more of its people, and suffer another attack like October 7, then they should listen to Biden and Blinken because that is what their resolution would lead to. Later, the people of Iowa should not be fooled by Nikki Haley and her nonstop campaign ads trashing Ron DeSantis. The plan of the ruling class Republicans and Mitch McConnell types is for her to come in second so she can try and beat Trump in New Hampshire. The GOP Establishment wants to get rid of the Reaganites which is why Haley is backed by organizations that we have been fighting for years.
ACLU
Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority To Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones (2010)
National Pulse
Hot Mic Catches Journos Joking About Trump Being Assassinated – ‘Like JFK! Take a Convertible!’
X
BIDEN v. HILLARY: 15 years apart
Semafor
Biden campaign brings top journalists to Wilmington
Photo by Anna Moneymaker
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. Lots going on here. Seems like every day. So I want to drill down on an area where most people are not going to drill down or may not be able to. And that is a court hearing today in Washington, D.C., in front of a three judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court, the appeals court. That court was expanded by Obama and Harry Reid. As you know, if you listen to this program, they added more seats and they filled them with radical Obama Democrats. And so they control that court. And the issue before the court is whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for decisions, even thoughts, as it were, that he had as president of the United States. Hmm. Now, we wouldn’t be in this position if this farcical prosecution hadn’t taken place in the first place with the Klan Act and the Enron Act and the Federal Contractor Act having nothing to do with January six. Violence, sedition or insurrection. So the Democrat Party, the Biden administration and rogue Jack Smith have dragged us to this point. Have dragged us to this point. So if you cannot indict a sitting president. You can wait in the weeds. You can wait in the shadows. And it died that president after the fact. That is, once they retired or their defeated once they’re out of office. That’s the question. Now you can see what kind of. Disastrous consequences that can have. You would think that Barack Obama and his ilk, his fellow Marxists, would understand this. You would think that judges on the court would understand this. But the result oriented and Donald Trump is Hitler. You know, so they have to deal with it. I want to remind people that the American Criminal Liberties Union. Back in 2010 condemned Barack. Millhouse Bonito Obama. What did they condemn? In a press release, they wrote, The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans. The executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit, says the ACLU by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, charging that the administration asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution International law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments on both sides. Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply, said CCR staff attorney Pardiss Kaboré, who presented arguments in the case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government’s claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration’s claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killings. Hmm. The government filed a brief in the case claiming the executive’s targeted killing authority is a political question. That should not be subject to judicial review. The government also asserted the state secrets privilege. The lawsuit was filed against CIA Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, President Barack Millhouse. Benito Obama. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia attorneys on the case. Our Jeffrey Toobin. Who cares? What did the court do? It ducked it. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. So could Barack Milhouse Bennett. Obama and the rest of his comrades have been indicted after they left office. For killing American citizens who they claim to be terrorists and may well have been. By the way, I’m not defending it. I’m just making a point. I’m making a point about logic and how these things are presented. Could Obama be indicted? For killing people overseas who are American citizens. Who he claims were terrorists. Maybe they were. Maybe they weren’t. That’s a lot of power. Ladies and gentlemen, you can hear the left saying it right now. Oh, my God. He must be Hitler. Of course, they only apply that to Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan. And Donald Trump. Democrats can’t be Hitler. No, no. So the Obama administration claimed absolute power. To assassinate American citizens abroad who they claimed were terrorists, terror sympathizers or collateral damage. Collateral damage because this involved the collateral damage. Could Obama be charged with murder? After he leaves office. Why not? Why not? Wow. Don’t ask Judge Florence Paine, a radical leftist on the D.C. Circuit Court. Here’s what she had to say. In part two, President Trump’s lawyer, Dean John Sawyer, cut to Mister Producer, go. But your position is that he can’t be prosecuted for that. That was as long as it’s an official act. I mean, certain cases, purely private conduct under Clinton against Jones, he’ll be subject to prosecution for that as long as he’s not in office. Could it be designed specifically for the president ordered SEAL Team six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act in order to seal Team six. He would have to be in would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal. And the answer to me, the better answer is yes. That’s one part of it. And removed from office. But can he be criminally charged? He would be impeached and removed from office and criminally charged because that’s not part of his official duties. Calling up SEAL Team six to assassinate a political opponent. I mean, how ridiculous is this Judge? They try to come up with these these fictions. He concocted examples, these fantasies. There are utterly extreme. In order to make their case, Why don’t they stick with the facts? But anyway, go ahead. Prosecution, no criminal liability for that Chief Justice’s opinion against Maxim and the end of our Constitution, written and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not. I asked you what a yes no yes or no question. Could a president ordered SEAL Team six to Mr. Level and judges say that I asked you a yes or no question. I don’t know. You ramble on with your question. So your question was not posed in a way that provides for a yes or no. You’re talking about the Constitution of the United States. A case really of first impression as a result of the Obama regime bringing the case in the first place, constantly bringing up these first impression cases, using phony charges like the Klan charges and so forth. And then you have to hear these these judges say that it was yes or no. This isn’t a criminal trial. This is an appellate court where you’re trying to work through the complexities of the Constitution. And like I asked you, yes or no. Well, if the answer is yes, then Obama could be charged or could have been. Go ahead. Was not impeached. He’d be subject to a criminal prosecution if he were impeached and convicted first. So your answer is, is. My answer is qualified. Yes. There is a political process that we have to occur under the structure of our Constitution, which require impeachment and conviction by the Senate in these exceptional cases. As the well See memo itself points out from the Department of Justice, you’d expect a speedy impeachment conviction. But what do you know about the OLC documents, 1973 and 2000? Because we’ve discussed them at length in the history of this program. By this program is much, much different. I’ve discussed them here behind this microphone. I’ve discussed them on the Blaze. I’ve discussed them on Fox. I waved them around. I’ve highlighted them. It’s been the position of the Department of Justice for more than half a century under Republican and Democrat attorneys general and a Republican a Democrat president said you cannot indict a sitting president because you will decapitate that branch of government. And in effect, you would really have the executive branch decapitating itself. Since the president is the executive branch and the Department of Justice supposedly reports to him despite all these talk. It’s independent. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But that’s irrelevant. So it would indict itself when you really think this through logically and rationally. The whole thing is absurd. If a president says you can’t indict and he’s the head of the executive branch, then he can’t be indicted. Let me repeat that, because that will confuse a lot of phony legal scholars, phony professors and phony pundits with websites. The president is the head of the executive branch. Theoretically, he can tell the attorney general, any U.S. attorney, all his appointees, any special counsel, Not particularly special. Sorry. Drop your charges. You’re going to run in front of courts and get an opinion. Excuse me. He’s the head of the executive branch. He can tell anybody in any department what to do. None of them are elected. They’re all his appointees. And if they’re not as appointees, they’re part of their vast administrative state. He’s in charge of all of it. He’s mentioned in the Constitution, there is no Department of Agriculture. There is no Department of Justice. There’s no attorney general. There’s no U.S. attorneys. There’s no federal criminal code. There is him. He himself, him. So if you really want to follow the text of the Constitution, really want to make an argument that these judges would laugh at because they’re so over the edge. Same with these phony professors. A president of the United States would actually have the power if we were following the Constitution, which they claim to be doing. And they’re not to say I dropped the case against me. What do you mean? We’re going to the Supreme Court to get an answer? I don’t care what the Supreme Court says. You report to me. You don’t report to the Supreme Court. They have implied judicial review. That’s it. Yes, they’re in the Constitution. But I’m in charge of you. And I have the power to make executive decisions. While the court has said this, the court has said that. But if we were to rewind all the way to the beginning, it wouldn’t matter. Okay, now we go forward. You order SEAL Team six to assassinate your political rivals. What should happen. And she want you to use that absurd example to make constitutional law. To make constitutional law. SEAL Team six to assassinate. Your political rivals. What do we do under those circumstances? And I need a yes or no answer. What do you mean? You need a yes or no answer? What a kind of an idiotic question is that, Judge? Cause he can’t say that. How about we deal with what’s going on today? Today. If you want to make exceptions to post-presidential immunity, that’s fine. In cases of murder. Okay. If a president orders the murder of a political rival, we’ll stipulate make an exception for that. But that’s not what Trump did. That’s what Mark would have said. Go ahead. Make your whole list of horribles. But the whole purpose of having a judge in a judiciary to adjudicate complicated matters is not for a yes or no answers. As I said, this isn’t a trial court. This is a circuit court where you’re actually trying to think through. The application of the Constitution. You’re not ruling. On the facts. You’re ruling on the Constitution, that is. What does the Constitution say? What was the intention of the framers? Sophie Ortiz, a hit by SEAL Team six against a political rival. Course, he would be impeached and removed from office. So the issue of indicting this president would be probably irrelevant. But can you indict him after the fact? Well, go ahead, Judge. You can say, look, this is an area that is relatively clear, but there can be some very extreme cases and maybe will make exceptions for very extreme cases. But this isn’t that despite their best efforts to try and portray it as that. Now I want to continue with this so you all have a better understanding than anybody else walking on the face of the earth. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
I guess you could call this show Public Service Radio. Could the industry benefit? In fact, listening to Judge Payne, ladies and gentlemen, as I sit here during a break and mulling over further, her example proves the point. Why do you have to go all the way out there with your hypothetical? Why do you have to make a preposterous example as an argument for the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? And what is her answer? Two past presidents. We’ve had past presidents who ordered assassinations of foreign individuals and so forth. What about that? And what would they have done? Charged Ronald Reagan with a crime over Iran-Contra? You damn well better bet they would. And so it would turn the entire system upside down. That’s why half a century. I’ve thought processes by Republicans and Democrats alike have said, don’t open this door. Forget about SEAL Team Six. It hasn’t happened. And if it happens, you deal with it. But you don’t make law based on a hypothetical. And they have to create these hypotheticals, don’t they? I’ve got a lot more I want to tell you about who this judge is. Thanks to our friend Julie Kelly. But I want to get on with analysis of this a little bit further, because it’s important. It’s important that you know about your Constitution and what’s taking place in these courtrooms. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
So here we have a federal circuit judge is a radical leftist, and I will demonstrate that in a moment. He uses the case. The example of a president ordering. SEAL Team six to murder a political rival. To try and demonstrate that you cannot have blanket immunity during or after president. Now, what’s amazing about that example is it underscores. The outrageous targeting of Donald Trump. Why? Because Donald Trump was not charged with insurrection. Donald Trump was not charged with seditious conspiracy. Donald Trump was not charged with any violent act. All right. Conspiring to commit any violent act. So her example demonstrates what how extreme these courts and these prosecutors have become. Most Americans would agree that if a president orders the the murder of a political rival, that there should be some kind of an exception. Carved out. Under such an absurd example. But that’s not the case. Despite all the talk about insurrection and sedition and violence. Despite having tens of millions of dollars been spent by the Biden administration, the Department of Justice and the prosecutor, two federal grand jury. Endless opportunities to investigate endless FBI agents and assistant prosecutors at the behest of the special counsel. They have not found a shred of evidence of insurrection, of sedition. Our violence. Directed by reported by, encouraged by Trump. The best they can do is say, well, he was silent. He wasn’t that interested in it. That’s not a crime. You may not like it politically, but that’s not a crime. There was another answer. But it’s easy for me with 2020 hindsight to give the answer. Who is this Judge Pan? This is why you listen to this show. Now, I know I’m not glitzy. We’re serious and we’re substantive. Our friend Julie Kelly posts. Some information on Judge Florence Pan, one of the judges on the three judge panel, hearing oral arguments on Trump’s appeal today of Judge Duncan’s order denying presidential immunity in the January six case panel was appointed by Joe Biden. And she’s married to Max Stier. Max Stier, a Democrat Party activists and one of Brett Kavanaugh’s chief antagonists. Stier claimed he observed Kavanaugh engaged in lewd behavior at Yale. He reported it to the FBI and Senate during Kavanaugh’s debacle of a hearing. He was recently featured in a film about Kavanaugh that criticized the FBI’s investigation into various claims that their husband, a long time D.C. fixture. Judge Pan has friends in high places. From The Washington Post in 2021. Quote One of our first hearings Wednesday from 2021, Penn took over the politically sensitive lawsuit brought by 2016 Trump campaign advisor Carter page against the FBI, DOJ and several former officials alleging they unlawfully surveilled and investigated him during the FBI’s Russia probe. ADC veteran Penn offered to recuse herself from the case, saying she’s been friends with the lawyer for defendant, Lisa Page. A former FBI attorney, Pan said she has known Page’s attorney, former Justice Department, a lawyer, Amy Jeffries, for 27 years, attended her wedding and met Page at a party. Jeffries is married to D.C. District Court Judge Chris Cooper. It was appointed by Obama. Look at the incestuous relationship of this. And Merrick Garland officiated that wedding. Although three judge panels are supposed to be randomly selected, Right? Julie Kelly. Judge Penn, oddly, is seated on unusually high percentage of consequential political cases. She is on both panels to hear arguments on an appeal related to 1512 C to obstruction of official proceeding, though that would be the Enron acts. The Enron acts. Penn was the decisive 2 to 1 judge in both of those decisions upholding the Department of Justice’s use of the post-Enron statute, which is extremely controversial. Her lead opinion. Lead opinion in Fisher versus USA is now under review by the Supreme Court. She’s sort of a ninth Circuit Court of Appeals radical heck, even though she’s on the D.C. Circuit. But look at all the political connections and they all go one way. How can this woman even have been confirmed with a vote, a Lindsey Graham, among others, to be on the court? While Pan admitted the novel, quote unquote, use of this statute, in just six cases, more than 300 defendants were slapped with evidence tampering felony for their conduct on January six under that controversial use of that statute, as is Donald Trump. But she nonetheless adopted the broadest reading of the statute to uphold DOJ’s interpretation. Penn and Childs, also on today’s panel upheld Judge Beryl House and she appointed by Obama and worked for Patrick Leahy. Nondisclosure order preventing Trump from notifying excuse me, preventing Twitter from notifying Trump about Jack Smith’s subpoena of his data. And Judge House $350,000 fine against the company. Pants at the whole point of the nondisclosure order was to avoid tipping off former president about the warrant’s existence. Well, why? Why? So there you have a cabal of leftist Democrats activists. Won on a district court. One on a circuit court. And, you know, they’re in the same social circles. You know, they’re buddies. A decision, by the way, that never should have been made in D.C. since the alleged crime happened in southern Florida. Panics, press, no jurisdictional concerns whatsoever. Potter has been assigned to several panels for appeals filed by January six defendants. Just last week, she denied the appeal of Russell Alford, convicted by a D.C. jury of four misdemeanors and sentenced by Judge Junkin to a year in prison. This is the thinking January six is must deal with. Henderson on today’s panel wrote this. But panel the Ponte pant concurred trial evidence indicated that during Alfred’s brief time within the capital, he was neither violent nor destructive. Nevertheless, we affirm his convictions because a jury could rationally find that his unauthorized presence in the capital as part of an unruly mob contributed to the disruption of Congress’s electoral certification and jeopardises public safety. This man was inside the Capitol for 11 minutes, didn’t do a thing, didn’t touch a person, didn’t break anything. And he does a year in federal prison because his very presence was intimidating. Pan’s performance today was less than compelling. Superior, smug, combative and dull. She clearly came in ready to defend the Department of Justice and Jack Smith. And her preposterous hypothetical that I just discussed with you. A president using SEAL Team six to kill a political rival was a setup to result in all the deadlines we are already seeing. Now, what she means by that is it is extraordinary that this appeal court appeals panel of the appeals court even took up this case as quickly as it did, because Judge Pyne and the other radical left wing Democrat judges on the circuit court that oversees the other radical left wing judges on the district court, they’re in a hurry. This has to be decided fast. Because Hitler is Donald Trump. We got to stop Hitler. And when you heard Joe Biden the other day in his speech. And part and the others are very receptive to what he has to say. Stop Trump. He’s Hitler. He’s a dictator. He threatens democracy. And yet these judicial oligarchs, these judicial tyrants. We don’t have to talk about what will happen prospectively they’re doing at present day. Keller writes, As I have suggested to some officeholders and candidates, the D.C. federal courts must be shut down. While Julie, as I have suggested here behind this microphone, microphone for several years, even before the Trump situation. Don’t. You can’t shut it down. You can break it up. Break up The D.C. courts break up their jurisdictional authority. Congress has that power. We’ve had Judiciary Acts since the beginning of our republic. Break them up. And rather than shut down the court, you can eliminate some of these judicial positions. So right close I agree on most of this. Now that’s the only way to, quote unquote, reform. As you can see. Imagine being a defendant in front of these judges and knowing you don’t have a chance. And that’s the situation Donald Trump said right now. That’s the situation. Judge Karen Henderson was appointed by George H.W. Bush. She’s on the panel. And she raised the question with James Piercey, assistant special counsel at the Department of Justice. In other words, when a Jack Smith’s thugs. Cut, forego. How do we write an opinion that would stop the floodgates? Your predecessors in their old companions recognize that criminal liability would be unavoidably political. So a couple of responses. For one, of course, that was with respect to a sitting president. I think the analysis is extraordinarily different with respect to a former president, which which Noel see in that very same I’m sorry, but with respect to being. Necessarily political? Well, I think there is a political process which is impeachment, and we can talk about that. But there is a legal process which is decidedly not political. And that is a process which has the kinds of safeguards that a couple of course, it is political and we know it. And there have been political prosecution. What kind of an ass is this guy? Well, we know there’s a criminal process that’s not political. Really? Isn’t it amazing? The Democrat Party for decades has argued that the courts are skewed against minorities, that the courts are skewed against certain types of defendants and so on. But now the courts are perfect. The courts are not political. No. Judge Charlton. She’s a straight shooter. Judge Pan She’s a straight shooter. Judge how straight shooters forget about their past. Forget about their ideology. Forget about their comments about Donald Trump on and off the record. No. And let me tell you something. I know enough judges and I have over the decades. I’m serious about this. I am well aware. They talk about their cases. Usually they’re cloistered with each other. That is of an ideological bent. Often at lunch, sometimes at parties. This is a ruse. This is a joke. This system is not political. Really? Go look at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Tell me that’s not political. The people who run it. Well, we were there. It was a rat’s nest of leftists with an agenda. Oh, that’s not political. And if it’s not political, why do we have political appointees at the Department of Justice, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, the assistant attorneys general of every major division that deputy assistants, the associate deputies are almost that many political appointees. But it’s not political. My political. Not fooling me. I was chief of staff at that department. That’s a rat’s nest. Thousands of employees. When we were there in the Meese and Reagan administrations. We had whole lovers from the Robert Kennedy period. We had LG pay, LG, LBJ lawyers. They were there. They were radical as hell. It was leaked to their Washington Post and The New York Times. What’s prosecutorial discretion? Me? Well, they’re not political. Ladies and gentlemen. We have thousands and thousands of prosecutors in this country. They’re not political. Most days are elected. They’re not political. That’s right. Braggs Not political. That’s right. Tish James is in Politico. Oh, that’s right. Sure. Sure. And yet when you look at our history, we had many political prosecutors during a period of segregation, which Joe Biden is well aware of. But we have many political prosecutors today. Don’t hand me this crap that politics doesn’t play any role whatsoever. The special counsel is example one. Bringing cases in Washington, D.C. on documents. Now we’re flying a case, bringing an indictment in a jurisdiction that has nothing to do with. And then trying to cover his ass. No, no, no. Mark, you don’t understand. I understand all too well. Go ahead. Q You have already referred to we’re talking about prosecutors who fall, who are, you know, follow strict codes and who are presumed to act with regular law. And I’ve had enough for you. Can’t even complete a sentence without that. But he speaks for the entire bureaucracy of. FBI and prosecutors. He knows, you see, but we don’t have any blood. They follow a very specific who does. Can’t even name 25 of them. Who does? Mr. Prosecutor. So they have a prosecutor defending prosecutors? Oh, I don’t know. We’re not political. Why do you think Biden appointed this woman pan on the circuit court? Political. Why do you think Obama expanded the court with Reid and put three hacks on their political. How do you think Trump can got her job? Political. How do you think? How. From Capitol Hill got her job. Politico There are political. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
But right after the hearing today, two reporters were making jokes. You need to listen to this and it’s going to be a little staticky and I will read it to you afterwards. Cut five. Go to the window open. He’s hanging out of it on the other side. He’s driving. Yeah, he’s driving. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wouldn’t. Yes. Then someone told him, You know, what you should do is you take a convertible. It’s so nice out here. Here’s to reporters joking about assassinating Donald Trump. Now we don’t know who they are, but the media outlets would have no problem figuring it out if it’s one of theirs. And let’s see if they do it. You know what the worst part is? Even if he has his window open and he’s hanging out of it, he will be in the other side of the street. In other words, they won’t have a good shot. Next. Reporter Number two. I mean, if he’s driving, we’d have a good shot. REPORTER Number one. Yeah, if he’s driving with the front window open. REPORTER Number two Yeah, if it’s a convertible. REPORTER Number one. Yeah, I was just thinking about that. REPORTER Number two. Yeah. Like if he pulls up. REPORTER Number one, like JFK, maybe someone just like they told JFK. You know what you should do? You should take a convertible. It’s so nice. Have two reporters joking about assassinating Donald Trump. Who are they? Well, the media ask, who are these two reporters? You damn all know if it was any other president or a potential candidate, they would. But the American people left, right in in between. We have a right to know who these reporters are. Who are these reporters? And the reporters are such coward. I’m sure they won’t come forward and identify themselves. They’re joking about. An assassination of a former president and a presidential candidate. And they think it’s funny. And I want you to understand America. This is the mindset. The American media. This is why they keep calling Trump Hitler. This is why they keep trying to dehumanize the man. Who are these two reporters? Jake TAPPER. Who are these two reporters? Joe Scarborough, Media corporations. Who are these reporters?