March 4th, 2024

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court decided in a 9-0 vote that Donald Trump cannot be withheld from Colorado ballots under the Insurrection Act, saying that Congress determines whether the 14th Amendment applies. However, we have 3 radical leftist justices who do not care about the Constitution and know that Marxists will object to the counting of the ballots for Trump claiming he is an insurrectionist. The Biden campaign strategy for the 2024 election is to get Trump in front of a leftist Washington D.C. judge and jury where he will not get a fair trial. Also, Kamala Harris is now demanding a ceasefire in Gaza because she is a sleazeball just like President Biden, Antony Blinken, and the rest of the radical Democrats. The Palestinian terrorists did this to themselves, as did the Palestinians who gave them aid and support, and Israel should be allowed to deliver the final blow. Later, Nikki Haley has become a mouthpiece of the Democrat party, repeating their talking points and attacking Trump at every turn. Haley is breaking her pledge of supporting the Republican nominee if it is Trump saying she has serious concerns about him and is unsure if he would follow the Constitution.

Photo by Alon Skuy

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. Now, the Supreme Court decision today 9 to 0 was the vote. But the vote conceals what really took place. And should be very concerning to those of us who are constitutionalists. The 14th Amendment, Section three we’ve talked about ad infinitum. I was the first to really address this, to confront it. I said, this is what they’re doing. This is what they want to do is to take Trump off the ballot, claim insurrection and all the rest. The five justices in the majority were 100% correct. They said, look, essentially Congress determines. Congress determines if the federal constitutional 14th Amendment is violated. I would have gone much further. President’s not mentioned on the list of candidates. Office holders. This amendment would never, ever. Had applied to a matter of federalism. Since. Indeed. The Civil War had just been won and they were not going to confer power on states to make a determination about insurrection and whether or not a president could be on the ballot. The president was specifically, specifically not placed. In Section three of the 14th Amendment period. Look. Look. As you might. You have people saying, well, Congress. Doesn’t say Congress makes the only decision. Well, actually, Section five does. But let’s put that aside. It’s a federal case. It’s a federal matter. I would even argue, you know, they. So the majority went too far. No, it didn’t. So what am I talking about? Here’s the deal. You have four justices. They don’t care about the Constitution. The three radical leftists, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. They said, Just overturn Colorado and be done with it. Don’t go any further. And they claim, in essence, to be federalists, which of course they’re not. They’re leftists. Now, do you want to know why they did that? They did that because they know they communist Marxists like Jamie Raskin, who’s done it before in other electoral college counts. That take place on January six. All object to the the counting of the ballots for Trump and claim that he’s an insurrectionist. Now likely wouldn’t go anywhere. But nonetheless, that’s his plan. And the three Democrat radical justices are in on the plan. I don’t mean they’ve talked to them. It’s just obvious that they they’re trying to protect it so they can, in fact, pursue that. Barrett. Barrett is very worried about the media and politics. She actually is a very, very poor justice. And she says, Hey, look. Least we got the nine. That’s what the country needs to see. The regard to nine. I think the majority went too far. I can’t agree with them, with the minority. But then again, I’d become a rhino, a Washington insider, and that’s how I think she thinks she’s the new Sandra Day O’Connor. But if you read the Constitution. The fact of the matter is, even the majority opinion seems to be somewhat of a compromise. This is a slam dunk case. Slam dunk. You can’t have a person in Maine or a court in. Colorado or a former traffic cop excuse me, ticket judge in Illinois affecting a federal election like this. And even if you look at this situation as as a matter of insurrection, Donald Trump was not convicted of any insurrection. He wasn’t charged with any insurrection except that the Democrat House of Representatives and the Senate found President Trump not guilty. 9 to 0. That’s a good day in that regard. But here’s the problem. That same division, that same animosity, that same political partisanship, particularly by the three, is going to have a huge impact on the immunity decision. This was easy for John Roberts. It was easy for Kavanaugh. This was an easy one. It really was was low hanging fruit. But even Barrett was incapable of handling it. And the three Democrats. Well, they want to protect the. The Biden administration and they want to protect Raskin and their ilk. The majority said that’s enough for shutting this crap down. But that division is there. That’s what today showed me. That division is there. It’s going to be there in the immunity case. It’s going to be there in the potentially the obstruction case. People have raised the issue of using the Enron obstruction issue. And, of course, it’s going to be there. Should Donald Trump’s lawyers I hope they will raise the issue of whether Jack Smith is constitutionally appointed or not. These are the big decisions. This was an easy one. And yet there was that division. There’s way too much politics going on on this court by the leftists way too much. And their opinion reeks of politics. Their opinion reeks of anti-Trump ism. And Barrett said, Can we all get along? She’s the Rodney King of the court. And so this will potentially I would even go further likely to have an impact. And a couple of these justices that voted among the nine who were appointed by Republicans, that is, this was an easy one. Little complicated for Barrett because she’s really playing a different role and that’s how she views it. They’re all looking for legacy, They’re all reading the media, but it is possible. I’m not making predictions. I’m just telling you what I see. Because I could be wrong. But what I see from here as I’m not inside the court. Is that Roberts. Potentially Kavanaugh? Barrett. They’re going to be weak, particularly Roberts. And Barrett when it comes to immunity. And when it comes to some of these other issues. I just want you to be alerted to this. Because, as I’ve said. Maybe for ten years. Now we live in a post constitutional America. We can no longer rely on the virtue and prudence of many judges and justices. Not all, but many. So while everybody’s celebrating this 9 to 0, I see some writing on the wall that I don’t like. That concerns me. The kind of approach. That some of these justices are going to bring to the job. And just remember. Jackson skyrocketed to the Supreme Court. She’d been a district judge. She skyrocketed. To the Supreme Court. Just remember Sotomayor. Next to. Harry Blackman is one of the dumbest justices in American history. And Kagan, of course, is a Clinton hack. A Clinton hack who never served one day on any court. And I don’t even know if she ever litigated. A Harvard law professor. And the like. So this is my take. Some people were international. There’s a sloppy court decision. It’s not a sloppy court decision. The court is broken into pieces right now. And the problem is the lefties on the court have no compunction about what they’re doing whatsoever. And I love it when you have these people in the media today. You know, you cannot distinguish between so-called news people and people at The View or so forth. The media have so corrupted themselves and destroyed the entire profession. That they see their job now is to do everything they can to destroy the credibility of the court. I’m telling you now what’s going on in the court. You have this former federal judge, Michael Luttig, who’s made a complete assault himself, Laurence Tribe. Who I don’t think is even with it anymore, complete ass out of himself. And you have all these legal analysts who said we have a shot at this. And so were buffoons, absolute clowns. But it’s worse than this. And I give credit where credit is due. And I’ve talked about this myself. These issues have come to the fore because of Jack Smith. These issues have come to the fore because of leftists who are litigating in state courts. These issues have come to the fore because of Democrat district attorneys and a Democrat attorney general in New York. The Supreme Court is busy because the Democrat Party is trying to litigate its way into the White House civilly. Criminally. Local, state or federal? That’s what they’re doing. They may succeed. I’ve told you now, I don’t know how long. That the goal of Jack Smith and the others is to get a conviction on any count, just one count, so they can call Donald Trump a felon. Over and over again. They’re trying to provide Joe Biden and the DNC and his campaign with commercials. You really want a felon as president and a felon and a jury found a felon and a felon. That’s what they’re doing. This is evil. These people are evil. They’re mouthpieces in the media. They’re evil. They don’t care about the country. They’re grifters. They’re trying to create their own legacies. They’re trying to demonstrate that they have influence. And they’re all Democrats, every damn one of them. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
The media wants Donald Trump in prison. They can’t get that. They want him convicted of a felony. Everybody written the script. Rich Lowry at National Review is a good piece. You might have noticed the left didn’t take it very well when the Supreme Court said it’s going to hear Donald Trump’s immunity case. The reaction was telling in all sorts of ways. It showed how conspiratorial minded prominent left wing commentators are and demonstrated how vested many of them in the hope that Jack Smith’s January six case will make it impossible for Trump to win the presidency again. Perhaps most important, the firestorm was more evidence for how woefully misconceived Jack Smith’s prosecution is. The lamentations and denunciations over the past few days have been remarkable, but we ain’t seen nothing yet. Whichever way Smith’s case bounces, if Trump is convicted in the case and loses the election, Trump and his allies will have a ready made argument that the election was rigged. That’s I’ve been making that point, by the way. Not that they’ll have a ready made argument, but that it was rigged. A Biden administration prosecutor rushed the case to trial on a political timetable, get the result, a felony conviction. And all the polling said we’re here. Trump’s prospects most. If there’s no trial before the election and Trump wins, the left will have a ready made argument that the election was illegitimate. The MAGA court did Trump’s bidding by delaying the proceedings or ruling in the former president’s favor on some question of law. The public was denied crucial information and so forth. You see, that’s not a legitimate position. Because they have created this legal scenario with the Biden administration and they’re demanding that the courts accommodate them. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s playing defense. He can demand whatever he wants. He has to file like anybody else defense’s motions. But he says Jack Smith and Short is a legitimizing machine. His prosecution is a stick of TNT in the middle of an already fraught election. I had mentioned this on Fox, too, and I think I came under attack by one of the usual Soros operations or something like that. Levin says that, you know, Biden, these prosecutors are creating a scenario. I certainly said it on radio, Mr. BLITZER, where the Democrats are going to say, we don’t accept the election results and Republicans are going to legitimately say we don’t accept them if Trump loses, given what’s taking place here. It’s a historical and their attacks on the Supreme Court in the past several days, left wing opinion makers have said how worried they are that if the January six trial doesn’t take place, justice as they see it, won’t be done. Trump could win the election again and order an end to the prosecution. But their fear that Trump might not be hobbled by the case as they hoped and expected adds an extra element to the outrage. Democrats might tax change in a social media equal parts enraged and despondent over the news. Former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer wrote in his Substack newsletter, The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case. Some worry Democrats comforted themselves by believing Trump’s chances to return to the White House would end with a conviction. And what wasn’t exactly breaking news No trial before the election means no conviction. It’s always been about interfering with the election. Always. They’re out of the closet now. They’re screaming it at the top of their lungs. They’re saying, Who gives a damn what you think? Who gives a damn about the system? Who gives a damn about the Biden administration interfering in the election and Biden and Obama judges interfering in the election? That’s what we want because we’ve got to stop Hitler, don’t you see? More when I return.

Segment 3
Now here’s a piece by Annie McCarthy, also National Review today. Now, I don’t agree with everybody all the time. But these guys are saying things that I have said here because they’re happening, because this is the reality. And it’s not pleasant. Jumpin Jack Flash Prosecutor Smith to Light TNT stick in September, he says in this column. And it’s c maga and it goes on. I mean, pick it up where it may start planning for that step. 2 billion in September, a little over a month before Election Day, a low boil issue that we’ve discussed, he says several times, I assume the courts would think are too unseemly to commence a trial of the Republican presidential nominee on the eve of the election. He said, I’ve second guessed myself on that over the past few weeks, reasoning that there’s no norm. Democrats and their prosecutors are unwilling to bulldoze in their quest to get Trump convicted. And he’s no fan of Trump’s, by the way, but he’s making the point in accordance with the campaign calendar. Despite unambiguous Justice Department rules against election driven prosecutorial maneuvers by which Smith is supposed to be bound. Hence, why should the vaunted 60 day rule, which is not even a rule, stand in their way? And sure enough, and pretrial proceedings and Smith’s other Trump prosecution, the Mar a Lago documents case. Prosecutors announce a this is yesterday that or Friday that the Justice Department’s make it up as you go along 60 day rule the unwritten guidance that in the two months prior to an election prosecutors should refrain from taking actions that might influence the outcome does not apply in Trump’s cases. I have shown you those memos on Fox. I’ve read them to you on the air here. Republican and Democrat attorneys general alike, including this current Democrat attorney general, which is a joke. They’ve said, stay the hell out of elections. Don’t pull any triggers. Certainly within 60 days of an election. Official. I took Attorney general memo, all of them. But Trump has her say argued Trump has already been indicted and everybody knows at the trial of his case the public parading of the witnesses and evidence against him. What prosecutors are hoping will be a jury verdict of guilty couldn’t possibly influence the election. Sure, he says. Sure. They can’t write other words. That’s ridiculous. The glean from the media Democrats complex was manifest at first. He said he thought, well, it remains to be seen whether the courts will allow themselves to be the puppet on the end of the Democrats string. But then, as ever, he says, Trump’s too clever by half. Lawyers undermine his position. What is he talking about? Because the other day in Florida. When Smith came forward and said, we can start our case in June or well, I guess it was July. The response, and I was a little surprised by this. July 8th, Trump’s lawyers said, Well, we can start it on August 12th. And so I thought McCarthy thought on his own. Now, wait a minute. You’re arguing that none of these cases should be held before the election. And he says they did that as a strategic move. They did it as a strategic move, but it was self-defeating. And he believes that’s going to undermine their case for Chungking. But we’ll see. And that’s the one they’re passionate about. And he’s right. The Clean Air Act, The ridiculous. Enron. Obstruction Act and so forth. In an unusual move last night, the Supreme Court indicated it may announce some rulings this morning. And, you know, it did 9 to 0. And it issued its decision, and we’ve just discussed that. But he says it follows the pace. In other words, the court harried up and had to rule on the immunity case. That is Trump’s claim that he has immunity from prosecution. On Smith’s January six indictment, which the court has agreed to review. But it’s a decision that could and that could land in late May. And if Trump loses, pretrial proceedings would resume and the trial itself might start barring other hurdles in late September. He says that’s the plan. Boys and girls have a felony trial of Trump on the January six charges before a hostile Washington jury pool and an unfriendly Obama appointed judge beginning after Labor Day and running through Election Day. That is the Biden campaign strategy. That’s the Biden campaign strategy. It’s also the Marc Elias campaign strategy. Remember him? He’s the slip and fall. Ambulance chasing leftist lawyer who was involved in the Russia collusion matter. And he’s going around the country trying to have the laws changed, as he did in the last presidential election. Who advantage the Democrats? This is from the Federalist. I’m just putting all the pieces together for you so you don’t have to. Left wing election disruptor. Marc Elias admitted Sunday that former President Donald Trump cannot get an impartial jury trial in Washington, D.C.. The Biden Department of Justice is trying to throw Trump in jail on multiple charges, including charges related to his speech about the 2020 presidential election on January six. Elias, whose legal campaigns are often funded by left wing billionaire George Soros, posted a screenshot on Twitter of a headline announcing that former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley won her first primary, the 2024 election in the D.C. swamp. He posted this in a city of 700,000. Donald Trump got 676 votes in the GOP primary. A tough jury pool, he commented. A tough jury pool. Our allies appear to trying to make a political point about the Republican presidential primaries. Post pointed out the constitutional concerns about trying Donald Trump in such a deep blue district. The Sixth Amendment requires that defendants receive an impartial jury of the state in district or in the crimes shall have been committed. But how is Trump going to receive a fair trial in Washington, D.C.? Elias just made the case. He just made the case. Trump’s team has argued the former president will be unable to receive an impartial jury in a city where President Joe Biden received 92.1% of the vote compared to Trump’s 5.4%. That’s like a a Putin vote. In fact, the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1971 case, scrappy versus Wisconsin, that there are some cases where only a change of venue is constitutionally sufficient to assure the kind of impartial jury required by both the sixth and the 14th Amendment sets. That’s the due process clause. And the court previously ruled in reduced versus Louisiana that it was a denial of due process of law to refuse the request for a change of venue in that case. And that precedent was later applied to federal trials in Nebraska Press Association versus Stewart and United States versus Fowler, according to University of Chicago Law Review. But it’s not just the jury pool that may create an unfair trial for the former president. Judge Tanya Duncan, who’s overseeing the case, has appeared to bemoan the fact that Trump has so far escaped imprisonment. She told January six defendants during a 2021 sentencing hearing that, quote, The people who exhorted you and encourage you and riot and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. Chongqing also said during sentencing for January six, defendant Christine PEREIRA that, quote, The people who mob the capital were there and felt in loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me woefully ignorant, not to the ideas of this country, not to the principles of democracy. It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day. That was Junkin. She refused to recuse herself. An Obama judge. So you have the radical left, this Trump hating Obama judge. You’ll have a jury that even the slip and fall ambulance chasing lowlife lawyer Elias. Says it’s a tough jury pool as he’s mocking it. Because he knows Trump will get convicted. Trump is trying to recuse herself from the case, a motion she herself then denied. This is a piece by Brianna Layman, and she’s doing a hell of a job over there at the Federalist. It’s an excellent piece. So I pulled it together for you. At least most of it. And that’s why. There’s no need for Happy Days are here again with this so-called 9 to 0 decision by the Supreme Court. There were nine votes against Colorado. There were five votes against the effort to use Section three of the 14th Amendment in ways it was never intended. There were three votes in which the three radical left Democrat justices said, No, just stop it, Colorado and Maine and so forth. We’ll leave it up. To others to figure out the rest down the road. And then, of course, there’s. It. Who was a traffic cop, basically. This whole thing stinks. It’s all stacked up against Trump. And that’s why I’ve been saying year after year after year, because it’s not just Trump. You’ve seen this coming. If you follow this program and listen. I watch me on television or certainly read my books. We live in a post constitutional America. That is exactly the case. And you’re seeing it play out. And those three justices in there are. Opinions. The three radical left. It was a disgrace. It was an op ed. It was an essay. And Barrett there. Can’t we all get along? It’s just that when you’re facing a. A revolution like this. When you’re facing. An attack like this. We don’t have time for traffic cops. When we come back. It’s an amazing thing. It’s a horrendous thing. What, Mark? That the people who have committed the most heinous, sickening, monstrous acts of terrorism. Have convinced the world that they’re now the victims. Have convinced the world that they’re now the victims. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
You know why the people in Gaza are without food? It’s not because of the Israelis. If it wasn’t for the Israelis, no food would be getting there. They build these areas where they’re trying to get food to the Gazans. The Egyptians won’t let them out. Hezbollah, excuse me, Hamas is stealing over 60% of all food and medicine that comes in. The International Red Cross is working with Hamas. The U.N., so-called UNWRA, is working with Hamas. But you want to know the biggest reason why what’s taking place in Gaza is taking place in Gaza? Because the overwhelming majority of the people in Gaza voted for Hamas. And according to two surveys, one done by an Arab organization, one done by a so-called Palestinian organization, almost 90% of the people. In Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians. Would vote for Hamas and support what Hamas did on October 7th. That’s why what’s happening to Gaza is happening. How many terrorist attacks was Israel supposed to withstand? Iran did this. Hamas did this. The Muslim Brotherhood did this. The Islamic Jihad did this. Their leaders are protected. They’re living as billionaires in Qatar and in Turkey. So Israel’s supposed to just take it, but they’re not going to just take it. Kamala Harris comes out demanding a cease fire. Because she is a political. I can’t say that I can. I must admit it. She’s a sleazeball. That’s why. Just like the rest of them. The terrorist. Palestinians did this to themselves. That is Hamas and the rest of the groups and the people there who gave them sanction, Who gave them cover? Who gave them support? They did this, too. You cannot build a subway system, in essence, that’s bigger than the New York subway system, the Philadelphia subway system. And any other substances. Some combine without the help of the citizenry. And they got the help of the citizenry. His Hamas leaders were not knocked off by some opposition group, by freedom fighters, by peaceful Palestinians. It’s almost unanimous. 90%. Almost 90%. That’s pretty damn. Well, it’s as unanimous as you’re going to get. And so now. The United States and Jordan. Are dropping food there. They’re not dropping food in Syria, where perhaps half a million Syrians have been slaughtered. They’re not dropping food. Excuse me. In any other part of the Middle East or the rest of the world. They’re not dropping food for the Weavers. Two and a half million Muslims who are in concentration camps in communist China. The world is full of genocidal maniacs. They make up a super majority, the United Nation members. And they make up the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and I might add, anti-American crowd. And so that’s what’s taking place. And so these people go on TV, they make these statements. Biden and the rest. And they make it seem like Israel’s not trying to feed these people. Israel’s got to stop, Israel says. And so there’s this piece that I encourage you to read in PJ Media by Rabbi Michael Barclay. The greatest trick evil has ever done is convince the world that it is the victim. So now the perpetrators and their supporters and their voters, they’re the victims. You haven’t heard that Israel’s economy has shrunk by 25%. Have you? You haven’t heard what’s happened to IDF soldiers over the last week, have you? You haven’t heard that there’s. Well, what else can I say? The way for the Gazans to have lived in freedom, safety was to turn on the people they voted for rather than voting for them. I’ll be right back.