February 21st, 2024

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, NY Judge Engoron and AG Letitia James are violating Donald Trump’s 8th amendment – “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Hundreds of years ago this is what the English monocry did. When you purchase a home or property, that represents your freedom and humanity. When a radical Judge and AG say they are taking it from you under the cover of a never-before-used statute – that’s an attack on your liberty and humanity. What should be done next? File a motion to stay accompanied by the motion with a request for expedited discovery in aid of the motion and 8th Amendment defense. Trump can bring about civil rights action, if the facts bear it out in depositions, against NY AG Letitia James and the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg that they were colluding for the purpose of denying Trump his constitutional rights. Also, brave Republicans in the House voted to impeach Mayorkas, correctly. Now the problem is some Senate Republicans. Thirteen Republican Senators are urging Sen. Mitch McConnell to force a formal impeachment trial, who might be trying to avoid a trial. Later, Iran is funding the wider conflict in the Middle East. Iran is training and arming the terrorists who are involved in this wider conflict and yet the Biden administration comes to the defense of Iran over and over again. This administration is pro-Iran, anti-American, and anti-Israel. Finally, Gov Ron DeSantis calls in to discuss Article V and the need for term limits and a balanced budget amendment. Gov DeSantis also explains why Nikki Haley is still in the Presidential race when Trump is dominating.

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. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. You know, what’s interesting is Rush used to call an echo chamber things that we say here. Often do wind up into the broader narrative, despite the fact that you have individuals who claim that they thought these things up or whatever, it’s okay. This whole Eighth Amendment issue. Which I’ll explain again, because things can get complicated. But over the weekend, a buddy of mine for how many years now? Wow. 44 years. 43 years. I started out in the Reagan administration almost right after law school when I was 23. This gentleman and I, Arthur Ferguson. We met each other. In the Reagan administration became fast friends and have been for decade. I’m a constitutionalist. He’s a constitutionalist. So I contacted him over the weekend and I said, Look what they’ve done to Trump here. His violated his constitutional rights. And we’ve got to hone in on exactly which way to violate it because. You can’t throw a 60 yard pass. It’s got to be something that’s substantive and something that can, in fact, be applied to the law. And the fact patterns in the case with Letitia James and the fraudulent judge. So we went back and forth to some extent. And we fell on the Eighth Amendment. Now, why did we do that? Again. We went back and forth and I said to Arthur, You need to write this up. First of all, I don’t have time, but you need to write this up. Nice short piece. I’ll send it over to Fox Digital. Which is where he wanted it to appear. And there were a lot of law professors. Steve Calabrese, brilliant guy who I also worked with at the Justice Department, and Jonathan Turley, who’s also brilliant at George Washington Law School. A very, very good man. But I thought they were missing the mark. This isn’t in any respect to put. People are trying to figure out how to how to address what’s taken place here. So Arthur’s piece focused on the Eighth Amendment. Why the Eighth Amendment? Most people don’t even read the Eighth Amendment. But this is what I do. And when I ask my friends, this is what they do. Craig Banister over at CNS News. He got it right. President Trump has an Eighth Amendment challenge to the unconstitutional fines levied against him by a rogue judge. Constitutional scholar Mark Levine noted Tuesday, commenting in the extraordinary $370 million fine with interest imposed by a New York judge. Later that day, former President Trump posted the text of the Eighth Amendment on Truce Social Platform, later linking the to the same article linked by Levin in his comment posted on X, formerly Twitter. The text of the Eighth Amendment. This aspect is quite simple. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now, let me stop there. Why do you think? The Constitution has its Eighth Amendment among its Bill of Rights. As you know, the Bill of Rights were added after the Constitution was ratified as a promise. The state legislatures and conventions. That the new national government would circle back and address some of the concerns the states had. And the states were going to vote against the Constitution without the assurances. And so these ten amendments. Our amendments that were basically demanded by the states. Accessible shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. Why would the states want this? Because hundreds and hundreds of years ago. This is exactly what the. English monarchy did to people who was trying to destroy the opponents of the crown. The crown needed money. The Crown wanted to punish people who spoke out against the Crown and on and on and on. They would use an attack on their private property. To shut them up or destroy them. That’s why private property rights were so crucial when this nation was founded, among other reasons. Your private property, your home, your cars, whatever. What does that represent? Just some theory about capitalism. Not much more than that. What does capitalism represent? They represent this America. How many of you work for a living? How many of you have worked but are now retired? Did he get up in the morning and go to work and come back at night? Did you do it five days a week? Did you work one job? Two jobs? Did you spend 20, 30, 40 years on the job? It represents. Your freedom. That is your application of your time on Earth. Physical and intellectual application. Of your humanity, of your time on earth, towards the production of something for which you are compensated. It’s a unique skill. We’re not a unique skill. We only have a limited amount of time on this earth. Try James Madison, Talk about private property more broadly than actual physical, tangible property. Said you have private property in your being in your existence. And what he meant by that is. People do not have the right to impose illegitimate. Illegitimate demands on you. Government does not have that right. So I knew when you work hard and you purchase a home and you pay a mortgage every month. That represents your freedom, your liberty. They represent your humanity. Nobody gave it to you. You did this with your time, with your sweat, with your blood, with your tears, with your sacrifice and your family sacrifice day in and day out. You did this. Someone, some potentate, whether it’s a king or an attorney general in New York, steps in and says, I’m taking it from you. Under the Mirage or cover. I’ve never used statute. In front of a radical judge, both elected Democrats, The attorney general said she was going to get Trump and she uses this statute. That is an attack on your liberty. It is attack. When you humanity. That’s not about doing justice. That’s the opposite. And Brett, when we talked about Bashar last night. That is using the law to commit a crime against an individual and their property rights and their freedom. And then self-righteously claim that you are in, you’re enforcing the law. When you’re committing a crime that. That is camouflaged by the law and your use of the law. That’s why there’s an Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Because the men who wrote the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. We’re well aware of what happened in Britain. They’re well aware of what happens with a centralized power. The Eighth Amendment’s rarely talked about. For a lot of reasons. Among the most important. Is that the media, academia, law professors, most of whom are socialist, slash Marxist, only want you to be aware of it. Accessible shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. And they’ve used the Eighth Amendment to try and protect people on death row, particularly if they’re younger and so forth. Excessive punishments. But in 2018. The case was brought by. By a man. Who had some drug paraphernalia. In his Land Rover. The drugs and the drug paraphernalia amounted to about 1200 dollars. So what happened was. He was punished. It was brought to court. But they confiscated his Range Rover, which was worth $42,000. They effectively the state the town. And this occurred in Indiana. And so it’s called the Tim’s case Ambush. The penny was issued in 2019. He brought the case in 2018. So it’s a very recent Supreme Court case, the United States. So the district court agreed that that part of the penalty was excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The appellate court in Indiana agreed that that part of the Eighth Amendment was excessive. The Supreme Court of Indiana said, no, it’s not excessive. And by the way, the Eighth Amendment doesn’t even apply. It’s a federal matter. The Bill of Rights. It’s a federal matter. It’s not incorporated. To apply to the states under the 14th Amendment. Now is a footnote. When you look at the Bill of Rights, The Bill of Rights. The first date, the ninth and 10th part. Have nothing to do with the state. It’s all about protecting you from this new national government. But over the course of many decades, the Supreme Court has slowly. Applied Incorporated is called Incorporation Doctrine. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth. To the States. But what about the eighth? What about cruel and unusual punishments, in effect? What about excessive fines imposed in particular? The Supreme Court ruled. That the taking the Mr. Timms Range Rover in addition to the other penalties. Over a 1200 dollar criminal act. Was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. It ruled further. That the Eighth Amendment does, in fact, apply to the states. By way of the 14th Amendment due process clause, and that’s what they used to incorporate the other parts of the Bill of Rights, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, and if you read the 14th Amendment, you see a lot of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore the court ruled 9 to 0 with to not objectors. But two additional opinion. It’s. And by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. But in the end it was 9 to 0 that that was excessive. And in fact, the Eighth Amendment does apply in this regard to the states. It’s always applied in terms of the imprisonment and so forth. But in this regard, excessive fines imposed. It also applies to the states. It was the ruling in 2019. When President Trump was cited excuse me, was interviewed the other night. A great interview, I thought. He did a fantastic job. He raised the Eighth Amendment and. The response was. But that’s a state issue, this issue of fines and penalties. But under the Timbs decision in 2019, it’s not merely a state issue. In fact, the Eighth Amendment, in terms of excessive fines and penalties does apply to states. Now I want to go a step further. Yes. This is a constitutional law class. But it’s in plain English. But I want you to learn more about this because it’s very, very important. And I’m hoping the president’s lawyers pursue this. After I posted the article from my friend Arthur, President Trump retweeted it and he also had tweeted a text of the language of the Eighth Amendment. More when I return.

Segment 2
I just posted on all our social platforms. The discovery that should take place in an effort to seek a motion to stay. What’s taken place in this so-called courtroom in New York, Letitia James is all over the media. Speaking like by Castro, like Fedora. We have to seize this property to seize this property. Now, keep in mind, in order to make an appeal. He has to demonstrate that he has the funds. And in this litigation here to demonstrate is worth and what’s liquid and what’s not. So they look at what’s liquid, they see about $400 million and they say, okay, that’ll do. Give us $400 million and we’ll sit on it while you appeal for the right to appeal. Nobody has $400 million sitting in a bank account. And so this is where we are. So I’ve just posted for you to review and we’ll discuss in a moment the next steps. But I’m still not done. We’ll be right back.

Segment 3
Well, this is not only important as a matter of principle, I hope. I hope you’re glued to your radio or however you listen to your podcasts to see how this all works, because you’ll be reading about it either later tonight or tomorrow after I after I talk about it. But first, the part of the discussion I was talking about in the excellent interview of President Trump the other night. Take a listen. Cut 13, go. And what happens is this guy ruled that I was guilty before the trial started. He didn’t even know anything about it. He ruled that a house in Florida called Mar a Lago is worth $18 million. What it’s worth from 50 to 100 times that. Would you give up one of your properties to. Well, would you settle that? Look, we have you know, I wrote this up because it was so it was so great. I just looked at it. People call up, all of your friends are lawyers call up. They say it’s the most egregious punishment anybody’s ever seen. Tim Scott knows it. He sees it. The Eighth Amendment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. That’s the Eighth Amendment. Excessive fines. I have to state I had a fine. Yeah, I did business here to state court ruling. But under the 2019 Supreme Court Timbs case states. In a state court ruling where I held to be accountable under that specific amendment, the Eighth Amendment and excessive fines and punishment to President Trump is 100% correct. And let me continue with this excellent piece from CNS News and Craig managed her. He says. Installing this $370 million Judgment against Trump should be vacated immediately, writes my friend Arthur Ferguson. And he points out does Ferguson professor Jonathan Turley called the 370 million judgment confiscatory, extreme and abusive. Professor Stephen Calabrese termed it a travesty and an unjust political act. The subhead of his own commentary employed the term Stalinist term I use often. Both law professors are right. He says, because the judgment does not relate to any loss. Says Ferguson. The 370 million is not properly understood, violative of the prohibition against grossly excessive punitive damages. It does fall, however, directly within the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Now let’s take it a step further. What do you do about this? Other than whine about it. You file a motion to stay? And in that motion of stay, you seek discovery. Company. The motion. Again, hat tip Arthur with a request for expedited discovery in aid of the motion and a Eighth Amendment defence. All documents relating to any communication by Leticia James or her agents or employees about the case or President Trump or his companies with White House. The day Bragg or his staff. Would D.A. Willis or her staff. With Special Counsel Smith or his staff and with Governor Hochul or her staff and the DNC with any Democratic officeholders and their staffs. And you ask the court that it be produced within a few weeks. Followed by another subpoena and depositions. And urged the court that it can all be accomplished in six weeks. Now. That goes a long way. In seeking to prove your Eighth Amendment defense. Why, Mark? Because this is not only a matter. Of prima fascia violation of the Eighth Amendment. But you create a factual. Basis in order to strengthen the case. And you show that this was always the intention. To bankrupt Trump. The Steelers money to distract him was a political act, an unconstitutional act. So you need you need a motion to stay and you need to pursue discovery. And so it comes to my mind. One other thing. You ready, folks? This is the way serious constitutionalists think. Section 42. Or Code 42, Section 1983 1985. As relates to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mark. What does that have to do? Anything. A lot. If you have state actors, federal or state and state includes local. If you have state actors. To act for the purpose. I’m denying somebody their constitutional rights. And you can prove it. You can demonstrate it. The veil of immunity is lifted. From those state actors as it is at the federal level. We call it a Bivens action, but now I’m talking about the states. Under sections 1983 1985. In other words, you can literally bring a civil rights action. If the facts bear it out. If the facts bear it out in these depositions, so forth. Against the attorney general of New York. And the district attorney in Manhattan. If they were colluding, conspiring, call it what you wish for. The purpose of denying Donald Trump a constitutional right in this case. Relating to his property rights. But there can be other rights to. So we have a potential civil rights action. This isn’t theory. It depends on what the the discovery would discover. And you could even go beyond that, at least in Mark’s world. Did Letitia James speak to Fannie Willis and about what? Did Letitia James speak to Alvin? Bragging about what? Did Leticia James speak to Jack Smith at the federal level and about what? Did Letitia James speak to anyone at the White House? Did she speak to anybody at the Democratic National Committee? What did she say to them? What did she say to her staff? Same with Alvin Bragg. But in a strange way, if the law is not an ass, and if it’s actually. Complied with by the people who are supposed to enforce it. That is judges. This could potentially create an opportunity. To blow it all up, Mr. Produce. You understand what I’m saying? Under 1983 1985, in its application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s worth a shot. And it’s more than a 60 yard pass. In fact, the hurdle will be to get a court to actually comply with the law and the process. And enable the Trump lawyers. Should they agree? To pursue. Information. That Donald Trump has a right to know in order to defend himself. It’s not a game. So we have the Eighth Amendment, the excessive fines provision really here for sentence. And we have. Potentially the Civil Rights Act. They’re supplied by the Equal protection clause. But. Actual federal statute. Sections 1983 and 1985. To go on offense and bring civil rights claims depending on what the discovery determines. I hope I’ve explained this in a way that’s understandable. That’s my intention. Have. Also posted what was sent to me by my buddy Arthur. But I’ve come. The 1983 issue is one that I’ve been noodling and I do think this is the way to get to that as well. That is discovering. So you need a request, an emergency. Stay to file a motion. And I would try and distinguish that from an appeal per se. So you’re filing a motion for the purpose of gathering additional facts and information. Now, this guy Erdogan, sounds like Erdogan, the guy in Turkey. Very similar in their approach, I would argue. The fact of the matter is. He may rule against the motion, but that’s okay. You’re building a record. A record on top of a record. And that’s that’s the way it ought to be done. I hope I’ve cleared this up in a minimum. I think you can see. They’re depending on good lawyering. There may be, in fact, some opportunities here. Maybe not, depending on how the rulings go, but I would argue yes. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have another problem with the Republicans in the Senate. The brave Republicans in the House voted to impeach America. I hope you saw my Sunday show where I laid out impeachment. It’s funny. The show that followed. I don’t think they were ready for my show, but they went on and on about why this is not legitimate. Well, they’re dead wrong. The fact is, Mayorkas was impeached and should have been impeached. In fact, under the Constitution, the House had an obligation, a constitutional obligation to impeach. But now the problems the Republicans in the Senate, a group of Senate conservatives, says reporting by Axios, a left wing site, but one that the rhinos use, often is demanding help from Mitch McConnell on forcing a full impeachment trial for a homeland security secretary. And how did he ever. Axios has learned. Now why does it matter? Senate Democrats will control the process, but the historic impeachment articles are proving to be the next flashpoint for the GOP minority leader. Why? He doesn’t want to have a trial, ladies and gentlemen. The Democratic effort to dismiss the impeachment articles would be an action rarely contemplated and never taken by the US Senate, said the constitutionalists in the Senate. But the tables were turned. The opposition would be fierce, and the volume from Democrats would be deafening, they wrote. Lee and Cruz met quietly with the Senate parliamentarian a week ago, arguing that Majority Leader Schumer should not be able to simply set aside the historic impeachment articles so early in the process. And these are the two big constitutionalists, Lee and Cruz. The parliamentarian whose job is to interpret Senate rules and precedent has not yet provided them any kind of formal response. Senator Lee told Axios he doesn’t know where GOP leadership will end up, but he hopes they aren’t complicit in the Democrats effort to just table the motion as if this were some childish, sophomoric exercise. And Cruz told Fox News it’s a chance for Republican leaders to finally demonstrate some backbone. Schumer hit back at Cruz, his comments saying Cruz is the one who wants to do nothing on the border by voting against the bi partisan border. Do you see Schumer? Is a lying sack of. A lying sack. They’re bipartisan, bill. This is what they hide behind. Pretend legislation. McConnell told CNN he hasn’t really thought about it. When asked about a vote to dismiss the charges. But is he an idiot? Yes. That vote will require a majority instead of the two thirds required to convict during a parchment trial. I don’t think we’ll have to enlist trials like we’ve recently had, McConnell added, in deference to Democrats like landing things quickly. Kevin Cramer, Republican North Dakota, called the articles dead on arrival and the dumbest exercising. You’re a big A-hole, you puke from North Dakota. Kevin Cramer. That is your deal. What a complete fraud. Kevin Cramer from North Dakota. Another rhino, they come into Washington. They sell out. Biggest waste of time, America. Biggest waste of time to do America’s Constitution, according to Kevin Cramer and his ilk, is a waste of time. We’re very busy up here on Capitol Hill. Creating deficits, ensuring that the borders open. Watching our allies run out of ammunition. We’re very busy here in the Senate, we Republicans. Draining resources, added the Department of Defence to fund the climate change agenda. Very busy. These jackasses, they go to a microphone, they talk tough and everything else. The House just impeached Mayorkas. It wasn’t easy. They got it done. The articles are rock solid. The basis for a high crime rock solid. But they won’t take it up. That’s never been done in American history. Never. It’s a waste of time. So we’ll go ahead and burn the Constitution with our Democrat friends. Chuck Schumer, one of the most sleazy, vile, not just politicians, but people to roam the planet, just a complete liar and fraud. I’ll be right back.