On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, since the beginning of this Republic, no charge has ever been brought against an ex-president let alone a sitting president. The Constitution mentions nothing about immunity, and up until Joe Biden became president and unleashed Merrick Garland and Jack Smith the idea of indicting a former president was preposterous. The Biden Administration has decided to burn down all notions of comity and tradition and have criminalized the election process, turning what used to be acceptable practices into crimes. What is being done to Donald Trump is a travesty of the rule of law, and the New York courts are a willing accomplice. Trump is being forcefully kept off of the campaign trail and held in a courtroom while being denied basic rights. Trump did not lead an insurrection which is why he has never been charged for it, and Democrats are grasping at straws to try and put him in prison. Later, Mark is joined by Kash Patel to discuss the funding of America and Israel’s enemies by the Biden administration and the unconstitutional cases against Trump.
Miller Center
Disputed Election Of 1876
Jewish News Syndicate
Report: ICC mulling Israeli arrest warrants with US consent
Photo by SPENCER PLATT/POOL/AFP
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. I’ll be on Hannity tonight, 9:30 p.m. Eastern time. So the immunity case went to the Supreme Court. Why is there an immunity case at all? Why? This issue hasn’t been litigated as to criminal liability and immunity. Until today. Since the beginning of this republic, since we’ve had a president. No charge. Has ever been brought against. Next president. Every. Let alone a sitting president. Since this is the first time this issue has arisen. Why? Why is it the first time this case has arisen? You see. I watched the debates and the discussion among the justices. I found it very compelling. If I were in a political science class or a philosophy class. But not in a constitutional class. Because there really wasn’t anything said. That had any constitutional strength behind it? Nothing. The Constitution says nothing about immunity. I thought it kind of precious when Kagan and Sotomayor mentioned. Mentioned there’s no immunity in the constitutional alone for after. An individual serves as president. While there’s no abortion clause in the Constitution, I remind him of that to. But they don’t seem to care about that. In fact, judicial review is not in the Constitution. It’s an implied power. Let me explain what I’m talking about. Up until Joe Biden became president, up until Merrick Garland became attorney general. Up until Jack Smith became an unconstitutionally appointed special counsel, never had to present his resume to the Senate, ever. It was voted on by the Senate. And yet he has these enormous prosecutorial powers. Up until these these three stooges came on the public scene. The idea of indicting a former president. Really was preposterous. None of the Justice Department memos from the Office of Legal Counsel addressed address this. Despite all the references to other cases. Cases involving civil immunity. None of the Supreme Court decisions directly address this. Excuse me. The reason why this case is a case of first impression. After almost 250 years. Of rocket selection. A brutal election. They’ve crooked elections. Is because the Biden administration. Has decided whether to prosecute. To burn down all notions of comity, comity, tradition. And honored processes. Now what am I talking about? Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve talked here before a couple of times before about the election of 1876 children and Hayes. And just to summarize, extraordinarily close election. Talent actually won the popular vote. Three Republican states very, very close. But the Republicans controlled the decision making process in those states. And they threw out a lot of votes until they could say that they were going to throw the electoral votes to Hayes. That’s what they did. Then we had a case, 1876, Oregon. All of a sudden one of the electors was the postmaster general promise. The Constitution says no electric can hold any federal office. So he was thrown off and then Oregon was thrown into chaos. So what happened in these states? Know what they did. The three Republican states. They sent in a separate set. Of electors. Now, today, the court calls them fake electors. Because the prosecutor calls them fake electricity, because the media call them fake electors. It’s nothing fake about them. It was a close election. An election is not decided until Congress decides the election. The news media don’t decide the election. States don’t even decide the election. Obviously, they participate. But under the Electoral College, both houses of Congress meet. They either sanctify the vote or they don’t. Challenges are made. Challenges were made in 2000, 2004. 2016 against Republicans. Who, quote unquote, won those challenges failed. Those challenges were made by the likes of Marxist Jamie Raskin. Sheila Jackson Lee Waters. They failed. The Electoral College vote is not over. Until Congress says it’s over. Not. Some bureau are a unit within a television channel. So these battles go on. So a second slate of electors from three different states were sent to Congress via the archivist. Were they trying to overthrow an election? Were they trying to obstruct the victor in the election? No, it’s part of the process. It’s always been part of the process. And yet this is one of the arguments that Jack Smith has made in federal court. This is one of the arguments that they make in their brief to this Supreme Court. About to take electors and Donald Trump’s role. And that’s not part of his presidential duties. Oh, and the fact that Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Eastman, tried to convince Mike Pence. That he had the authority to take certain action, said he wouldn’t take. That came up in 1876, too, by the way. Where the argument was. That the vice president, then the president of the Senate and the manager of the Electoral College vote. Had the power to accept or not certain electoral votes. Then the vice president decided that he did have the power, but that he wouldn’t exercise it. Because of the hostility that would come with it. Johnnie’s been has been disbarred in California as a result of giving. What is that opinion? But it’s not a crime to give an opinion and it’s not a crime to give that opinion. And that’s not an insurrection and that’s not obstruction or anything of the kind. It’s an opinion. There’s the Constitution is silent on the point. What I’m saying is that the Biden administration. The Department of Justice. Jack Smith and the Democrats in Arizona. In Georgia. They’ve criminalized the election process. What used to be acceptable. Acceptable practice. Alternative slates. A candidate calling a speaker of the House and a particular legislature in a particular state. All these things. We’re part of a rough and tumble electoral process. They’re not crimes. You can throw around the word obstruction or insurrection. Their interference. But elections are challenged at every stage, from the voting stage to the counting stage. In court. The legal stage. Whether fraud has or has not been committed. They’re challenged at every step by Democrats and Republicans throughout American history, throughout American history. Some of the most. While aggressive elections. We’re held early in our history between Jefferson and Hamilton as an example. Between Adams and Hamilton and Adams and Jefferson. Brutal. There was constant give and take, constant promises. That’s our history. But it’s all being criminalized now. If I were to ask you what is legal and what is illegal today in terms of election processes, you couldn’t tell me. You can tell me, can a lawyer give legal advice? Apparently not. But what if that advice challenges what’s taking place? Urges the vice president to take a different action? No, they’ll be disbarred. Why? Why? When you understand the electoral process ends with Congress and not anybody else. This is why people fight to the bitter end. And the Democrats have done it all the time. All the time. So let’s swing back to the Supreme Court today. We have Justice Coney Barrett, who is very obsessed with what’s private and what’s official. She turns to the prosecutors brief and says. And says to counsel for President Trump, well, it says here, this is private. Do you agree? Yes, That’s probably she’s caught into the weeds of the Jack Smith. The Jack Smith model, which is the criminalisation of the electoral process. Why does it matter if it’s official or private? He’s the president of United States. He’s running for reelection. They do these things. Al Gore was vice president of the United States running for president. He didn’t just roll over and accept the election results. He litigated and won county after another after another. His lawyers weren’t brought up on ethics charges or criminal charges. He wasn’t accused of obstructing the outcome in Florida, trying to change the outcome with litigation. Not by any prosecutor. It wasn’t criminalized the 2000 election. CRS lawyers didn’t face ethics complaints, didn’t lose their the law licenses. Despite the litigation going on and on and on, one county after another, as Gore tried to, quote unquote, overturn the results. Remember? It’s not obstruction. And so the issue before the court. Really has been Post-its, what’s official and what’s not. And I posted that. That’s what they’re going to debate. And obviously that’s what they debated. But that’s not the real issue. Not a single justice. In my humble opinion, understood what the real issue is and was. They’ve criminalized the political and and electoral process. That’s why there’s now a struggle over what’s official and what’s not. They have embraced. Jack Smith and the Department of Justice. Criminalization. A free campaign system. It’s not a crime to send a separate slate of electors. You’re not imposing it on anybody. Congress has the final say. It’s not a crime to pick up the phone and call politicians, whether they be legislators or congressmen and so forth. Ask them what they can do legally, of course. It’s not a crime. Democrats do it all the time. It’s not a crime, as alleged by Jack Smith. To claim that the election was thrown and to encourage people to challenge it and to speak out against it. We used to call that the First Amendment. And look at the charges that Jack Smith has brought. 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. The Enron Obstruction Act. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. In fact, the court’s considering that issue now as a result of Mr. Smith. And the federal contractors. The statute that used to charge them when they’re crooked. What does that have to do with January six? Nothing. So this case against Trump is the perfect illustration of why a president needs immunity even after office. But more than that, it’s the perfect illustration of a prosecutor gone rogue, twisting the law and criminalizing elections. That’s why the court. It confounded. Because they don’t understand what the issue was. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Mr. Producer is going to be monitoring the legal analysts as we watch them plagiarize. The argument I make was none of them made the argument. And yet to me, it slaps you right in the face. The reason this line drawing is almost impossible and the reason they’re going to figure out some middle way to throw it back to the district court is because it should never have been in court in the first place. The political system, the campaign system works these things out themselves itself. In the states, at the state level, in the Congress, when the counting day arrives for the Electoral College. Not prosecutors, not grand juries. They don’t sort this out. There was no obstruction. There was no obstruction. Period. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
And so I would ask the justices what now is legal or illegal when it comes to voting activities, by lawyers, by activists, by state representatives, by presidents, because the Biden administration has made a disastrous mess of everything. A separate slate of electors is not illegal. It’s not a crime. It’s not obstruction. It’s happened. Now what? So the criminalization of the political process, particularly elections that has taken place here, because they’re trying to get Trump. And it’s not just at the federal level. It’s by district attorneys. We now have it in Arizona, Georgia. You literally have thousands of days in this country. And as far as the radical left wing justices on the court are concerned, that’s perfectly fine. And their hypotheticals just go to the point of how stupid this is. What happens if the president calls in the military and martial law? That’s not this case. Now what happens? Well, I guess the Constitution, everything else goes to hell, because now we’re fighting in the streets. That’s what happens. What happens if he directs SEAL Team Six to take out his political opponent? Well, I don’t know. What happens if his Department of Justice is trying to imprison his political opponent? I mean, the hypotheticals. Our infinite. And the more serious, the hypotheticals. The more condemnatory. What the court is doing. It is entertaining, something it shouldn’t entertain. It should question. Look. Just because somebody handed King Solomon a baby didn’t mean that King Solomon was going to cut the baby in half to accommodate the mother and that woman claiming to be the mother. As we know, the mother said, no, no, no. King Solomon. Did the right thing. Now the court’s been handed a baby. By the Biden regime and by the same prosecutor. That the court renounced in an 8 to 0 opinion. Who took the law in Virginia and stretched it and rewrote it so horribly that even the justices, every damn one of them. Had to say, No, no, no, you’re going too far. Well, it’s the same prosecutor who’s doing it again. Using the Enron obstruction law. And. Now this immunity. The only reason immunity is raised at all is because of the conduct of the Biden administration, the Department of Justice, and this prosecutor in bringing the KKK Act of 1871, the Enron Act, and, of course, a federal contractor law. Digging at the bottom of the barrel, dusting off statutes, trying to force facts into the statutes to take out a candidate are the opposite party. Criminalizing the electoral process so nobody knows what the hell goes and what doesn’t. And the court sitting there. This parrot, it got me on the right. That’s private, correct? Private kind of, yes. And that’s private conduct. Right. And she she was so proud of herself, like she accomplished something, accomplished nothing, but all due respect. Sounded like an idiot. And then there’s the chief justice on bribery. Let’s say that the somebody who’s up for an ambassadorship. Can you speak up, Mr. Jay? We can. Let’s say somebody is up for an ambassadorship. So the official action is that they get the ambassadorship. But say they paid to get the ambassadorship. Oh, you mean like they always do, by the way. But let’s pretend. Let’s go along. Now, let’s say they paid a bribe. How are we supposed to bifurcate the two? The official act from the private act? I don’t know. Why does it matter? Why are you taking up this case? They’ve criminalized the electoral process system. You’re going to sit there now. Every judge in America from now till the end of this republic is going to sit there and decide how to split the baby. In every election, the lawsuits will be flying left and right. Rather than let the politicians, the political system, the electoral system work it through and work it out. Gee, we only have done that for 250 years, but not now. Now we got Jack Smith. We’ve got Merrick Garland, we got Joe Biden. The whole world has to change for them. The whole world. And we got to hurry up. Got to get this done before the election. Harry, come on. Come on. Come on. Harry. Harry. Harry. Harry! I’m embarrassed for these nine justices. I really was. Although Clarence Thomas made a point. It’s a good point. I’ve made it here. Why the hell didn’t the Trump lawyers raise the issue of the unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith? I could see the counsel of the president getting up in front of the Supreme Court if he had. If he had briefed the issue, which apparently didn’t, and say, why are we here, this man? Who’s delegated authority by a prosecutor who was unconstitutionally opponent is immense prosecutorial powers. He’s involved in the election process. He’s brought us to this court at least twice, and he wants to bring us more often. He’s involved in the election. He’s never, ever had to provide his credentials to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He’s never had to come out of committee. He’s never had to get a vote of the Senate for confirmation. This violates the appointments clause while you can delegate authority to a subordinate. Yes, you can. The attorney general can delegate authority, for instance, to a U.S. attorney. Why? Because the U.S. attorney went through the appointments clause process. He got the consent of the Senate. Jack Smith never went through the process. The attorney general cannot delegate authority to somebody like Jack Smith, who’s basically a private lawyer. That’s all he is. But they didn’t bring it up. We brought it up in the southern district of Florida. Well, that’s great. You should bring it up everywhere and as often as you can. But putting that aside. Everybody’s saying everybody’s writing the same thing, but they’re pretty much going to have to decide, you know, that the trial court’s going to have to figure out some of theirs, and I’ll give them some broad guidelines that I guarantee that’s what’s going on now. In their cloistered conference room. That’s what’s going on. How do we how do we split this baby? Well, maybe you don’t. Maybe you cobble together a majority that says, We listened to all the arguments. And we’re being asked to do the impossible. And if we wrongly balance this, which is likely because we can’t possibly conceive of every potential situation that’s going to arise from today forward to the end of this republic. We cannot have court second guessing presidents. But this matter should never have been criminalized and never brought to this court. This is a perfect case that illustrates. The case before the court. The case before the court is the perfect case that illustrates it. Then you have these other cases. In Atlanta. The Maricopa County. There’s no end to this. And in fact, if the court rules. Substantially that this is okay, then I would strongly encourage Trump or the next Republican administration to do exactly the same thing as Biden. Exactly the same thing. Maybe they’ll use the same law, the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act or the Enron obstruction law. But a federal contractor. The federal contractor law. Yes. Both sides get to use. It’s called. It’s called using the law. If that’s the law, if the law becomes corrupt and unjust and that’s the law. And the Democrats need to feel the wrath of what they’ve created here 100%. I love it when Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump said she’s going to use the law to come after his opponents. Donald Trump they’re trying to put in prison. Does she not understand the irony? Is she that stupid and moronic? Yes. Is the answer. They’re already doing it. Now. When we come back, I want to deal with this New York case. And I want to mention a couple of things that I don’t think have been mentioned. But look, I can’t read everything and know everything that everybody says and who the hell wants to anyway? I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Don’t worry. I haven’t forgot the Hitler Youth. That’s what we’ll call them, the Hitler Youth on our college campuses. And we’ll be circling back to that. The Hitler Youth in America is a key core voting bloc, and the Democrat Party. The Hitler Youth. The Islamists, the Marxists. All the hate America types. The anti-Semites, the bigots, the racist. Yeah, that’s the new coalition of the Democrat Party. And you know what, America, the FBI director says he’s not monitoring what’s taking place on the college campuses. No, he’s very busy. You see, monitoring MAGA. Parents, the Catholic Church. Pro-lifers very busy monitoring and then warning about possible terrorism. But he won’t monitor the Hitler Youth. What have they done about the Hamas funding network in the United States of America? That’s funding groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, which means students. For the extermination of Jews in Judea and Samaria. What’s he doing about Qatar? Those little inbred Zen robes and scarves. A fake country, a fake monarchy pouring billions of dollars into colleges and universities. To turn the Hitler Youth to create the Hitler Youth against the Israelis and the Jews. What the. What’s he doing? What’s he doing about the Confucius Institutes for Communist China, which has death camps all over its country from Muslims, no less. What are you doing about that? Well, look, we’re going to be hit here. It’s. Good for you. Good for you. We need a man of action. We get a man of no action. How many of these Hitler Youth had their student loans paid for by you and me as a result of the anti-Semite who sits in the Oval Office? That’s right. I said it because if he’s not putting on a pretty damn good show. He’s counting on the Hitler Youth and the Hitlerian in Dearborn to stand in other parts of the country. He’s giving $100 billion directly and indirectly. To the Iran Islamo Nazis. To the Hamas. Mass murderers to the PLO, mass murderers and all the rest of the mass murders. And a little later, I want to expand on this, the International Criminal Court, which we have never recognized. The reports are that they’re going to issue a criminal warrant. Mr. Producer for Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. And his cabinet member in charge of defence. And others. And if the Biden Blinken. Regime were to object and let the International Criminal Court know the International Criminal Court would pull back. But instead, the word is that your president and your State Department have greenlighted this. Now notice no criminal warrant. For any of the terrorist leaders. No criminal warrant for the Islamo Nazi who runs Iran. No criminal warrant for perjury in China. Our own in North Korea and all the other genocidal maniacs. That’s coming. And Biden’s for it and Blinken’s for it. Don’t tell me I can’t call him an anti-Semite. He is a sleazeball extraordinaire. He can’t even come out and condemn the Hitler Youth because he wants their vote. His administration has done next to nothing. Despite the little puke mouthpiece that comes in front of the Washington press corps and spews her stupidity. Yes, that’s right. But before I get there. I want to talk to you about what take what’s taking place in Manhattan against our president. That may have to wait till after the break as well. So a couple of key points that are being missed by the legal analysts when it comes to the case in Manhattan. What’s the crime? Everybody says, what’s the crime? But it’s worse than that. There was no crime. There was no charge against Donald Trump for a federal election law violation, a felony. Let alone an adjudication, a conviction. So how does Alvin Bragg use that as the basis to turn? A so-called misdemeanor with a statute of limitations, has already run into a felony. When he says I can use a federal violation of law to breathe life back into the state law and raise a misdemeanor to a felony. But Donald Trump wasn’t charged and convicted of a federal felony. How does he get away with that? Because you have a crooked hack, moronic low IQ ideological judge. More when I return.