May 17th, 2024

On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, the New York Times is betraying America and Jews today just as it did in the 1930s during the rise of Nazi Germany and also during the dictatorships of Stalin and Castro. The misreporting or underreporting of events in Berlin and Moscow betrayed millions and allowed for two human rights atrocities to occur. The New York Times hates America and has a long continuing history of supporting genocide and fascism. Also, Alvin Bragg is a lawless government official who should be disbarred and face charges of perjury. Bragg violated the Brady Act by withholding exculpatory evidence and using Michael Cohen as a witness, and Bragg and his staff have been supporting perjury. Later, the Biden Administration flew hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into America and fast-tracked them for citizenship all at the expense of the taxpayer. At the same time, our government is funding Iran and Hamas and supporting the enemies of America and Israel.

Photo by Shelby Knowles/Bloomberg

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 Hello! 877-381-3811. Well, it’s Friday, but we keep our foot on the gas pedal. In fact, as I sit here and think about this, Mr. Producer, I’m on radio five days a week and then I’m on Fox on the weekends. Plus I’m on Blaze TV. I’ve never gone, Mr. Producer. I’m always here. How do you like that? Well, ladies and gentlemen, I want to start with something a little different today. Like Monty Hall. You know. That mighty high. What does it matter? Representative mtg. Going at it with Jasmine Crockett. And I have to admit I’m rooting for MTG and then she’s going at it with AOC. And then she’s going at it with Jasmine Crockett again. And I think it’s worth a listen. Let’s start. And this is an oversight hearing in the House on holding meritless garland in contempt. And I’m going to get into that a little bit later. Cut for a go. I’d like to know if any of the Democrats on this committee are employing Judge McCann’s daughter. Please tell me what that has to do with Merrick Garland. Is she a porn star? Oh, Goldman. That’s right. He’s advising. Okay. There was would. Do you? Do you know what we’re here for? You know we’re here. You know what you’re here for. Well, you don’t want to talk about. I think your fake eyelashes are messing up. And hold on, Hold on. There’s no order, Mr. Chairman. Beneath even more order of your committee. Order! So let’s stop. So. The Democrats are blowing up the country. But the fake eyelashes, Mr. Producer. That’s what really gets under their skin. Go ahead. A point of order, Mr. Lynch. State your point. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the parliamentarian if your conduct here in raising money in connection with this hearing is referable to this. Now, that’s pretty funny. Now that’s pretty funny. These slime balls are raising money on these hearings, on the attacks on Donald Trump, on the impeachment, on Donald Trump, on the criminal charges against Donald Trump. They raise money all the time. So all they’re doing here is throwing political grenades to try and prevent this hearing from going forward so the American people can hear why Meritless Garland should be held in contempt. But this is what the Democrats do. Go ahead. Then this hearing is a motion in order to refer your conduct. And this is this guy, this clown, Lynch. He used to chair this committee. And you can tell he’s from New England. He’s from Boss Bastien. Okay. In any event. Remember, he’s the guy that led the charge to get Donald Trump’s tax returns two weeks before the. Democrats left the House and turn it over to the Republicans, and then he leaked it to the press. So he’s you know, he’s very stand up guy, this guy. LYNCH Point of order. Point of order. Go ahead. Point of order. I do have a point of order, and I would like to move to to take down Ms.. GREENE. By the way, this is AOC action. They’re very concerned, these Marxist Islamists, with the order you see in the house. There. People are running around with their little crystal knocks all over the country. But we have a point of order here, for crying out loud. Decorum now. Decorum. Not in our colleges and universities. No, no, no, no. Not in our streets. Na, na na na. We need to korma. Point of order, for crying out loud. She dared to talk about the fake eyelashes. The fake eyelashes which were getting into the way of. Of Jasmine Crockett’s ability to see and think. Go ahead. That is absolutely unacceptable. How dare you get involved with another person? Are your feelings her words down? Oh, oh, Oh, girl. Baby girl. Oh, really? Don’t even play, baby girl. I don’t. We are going to move and we’re going to take your words down. I second that motion. So? So who will have to pay? Okay. We’re suspending out of. Chaos is the coin of the round with the Democrats. You can call. White men failing up. That’s okay. You can call Donald Trump an MFA. That’s okay. And Hitler. That’s okay. You can call Netanyahu Hitler, who is murdering Palestinians. That’s okay. You can go on and on and on, but do not talk about Jasmine Crockett’s fake eyelashes. That’s beyond the pale. I don’t go with me, girl. Don’t go there now. Hey. What? Say what? All the street talk is getting good. Let’s continue. Cut. Six, please. You agree to strike your words? Yeah. Okay. Miss Green agrees to strike her words, I believe. No, no, no. Cherry. Hold on. Then after Mr. Perez, you’ll be recognized. Ms.. I’m not. I apologize. Okay. Reserve the right to your way. I am not apologizing. Let’s go. Come on, guys. Why don’t you debate me? And Mr. Chairman. This is Raskin. Here it is. Raskin. The man is always concerned about proper order. He’s a marxist pig. He’s always in the middle of every effort to overthrow a Republican administration. Have you noticed that? Mr. Cameron. Shut up, you moron. This, by the way. This is why I could never, ever be a member of Congress, Mr. Peterson. Can you imagine me sitting there watching this? And the one liners that I would throw at the Democrat. Can you imagine that, Mr. BLITZER? Or hearing if they asked me to testify. You think I’d put up with their crap for 2 seconds? No. And to be honest, folks, this is why Bernie Sanders won’t come on the program. All these phony journalists won’t come on the air. I will eviscerate them. I don’t care. Oh, proper order. Proper order up your usual. People are ruining my country. Destroying my country. Go ahead. You’re not. Yeah, you’re not. You don’t have enough intelligence to recognize this, Mr. Perry. Okay. I’m just trying to get at that to request to strike. That’s to request a strike. And they say I’m seeking camp. That’s a good one. Go ahead. Another motion to strike her words again. All right. Okay, So here’s the correct, the correct parody. Miss GREENE, do you ask unanimous consent? Do you agree to unanimous consent to strike your words? I repeat again for the second time. Yes, I’ll use my words, but I’m not apologizing. What? Objection with that. Chairman, I have the right to this. People are very upset about this. America very, very upset about this. I have articles here where we now have half a million communist Chinese single military age men pouring into the country thanks to Biden. I have article here that Biden Blinken had gone forward with importing Palestinians from Gaza into the country. I have articles here about executive privilege being used to make sure that we never, ever get to hear the Biden tapes in the cover up and on and on and on. They’re trying to put Donald Trump in prison. They violated his due process rights in a thousand different ways. And I’m supposed to be upset about this. I’m supposed to be upset about this. Let me tell you something, folks. The left is attacking us. They use whatever words they want. They try to humiliate us. I’m going to get further into Sam Alito. Our update on you that they don’t care. Their media don’t care. And I don’t care when we slap him back. I really don’t. I really don’t. This doesn’t bother me in the least. In the least. Now. I was on HANNITY last night. And I want to play this for you because everybody can’t watch TV, listen to the radio, and vice versa. But it’s time to go on offense against Mr. Bragg. Alvin, it’s time to go on offense against this judge. It’s time to go on offense. Period. Cut one. Go. Well, you don’t want to hear my closing argument because I’d be held in contempt. But instead, what I’d like to do, if that’s right, Shawn, is give you my opening argument on why Alvin Bragg should be disbarred, why he should be facing a charges for suborning perjury, which I’ve talked about on my radio show for the last three days, and also why he’s in violation of the Brady Act. We have very smart lawyers, some fairly smart lawyers who are talking about this case. They’re all saying the same thing in a different way because the case is so outrageous. We’re running out of words and explanations for it. None of us have ever seen anything like this. If collateral evidence, which is unconstitutional, you have somebody being charged and he’s not sure what he’s charged with, which is unconstitutional. You have all kinds of allegations being made which are absolutely outrageous and irrelevant. You have a dead state statute that remains dead today that’s being used. You have a federal campaign law and nobody knows exactly what part of the federal campaign law we’re talking about. And so I want to talk about Alvin Bragg, rather than keep talking about the same thing. There’s a Supreme Court case called Brady versus Marilyn. In the Supreme Court rule. And I keep it tight that the government, the prosecutor, must not withhold exculpatory evidence, must be given to see. Defense. And in fact, if they know that evidence is false or might be false, they’re not supposed to use it. That doesn’t mean you don’t have impeachment and these other things taking place. If a prosecutor affirmatively knows that there is materially false information that this witness may give or any lawyer for, that they’re not to present that person. Now, exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court says, well, we have exculpatory evidence. Robert has been here. COSTELLO On all these shows. Look, he’s not Stormy Daniels. This guy’s the former deputy chief of the criminal division of the Southern District of New York. Does it get any higher than that? And he was Cohen’s lawyer for a critical period of time. And he’s been on my show Saturday. He’s been on other shows. He was on a show this morning. He testified before Congress under oath and he said, look, this guy’s a liar. I was his lawyer. I have 300 emails. I have contemporaneous information. I’m telling you, he’s a liar. On top of all the other lies, the guy is told and nobody wants this guy’s a witness. That’s why the U.S. Attorney’s office didn’t want him. That’s why Vance didn’t want him. That’s why Bragg initially didn’t want him. So what happened? What happened is Mr. Bragg. Mr. Bragg should be disbarred. Mr. Bragg has violated the Brady Rule. That’s a half century old rule. The emails, he has access to the emails. Mr. Costello said he only showed six to the grand jury, but he had access to all of them. Mr. Costello Again, that’s contemporary communication between the lawyer and his client, for which Mr. Costello got got a waiver. This is a very, very big case, a very, very big matter. So when that government witness is on the stand, that means the district attorney and the government are vouching. For the truth, the integrity, for the testimony of that witness. And that witness was put up there, despite the fact that the government knew from these emails and Mr. Costello’s testimony that he is a liar. And even if it wasn’t a Brady violation, you don’t have your main witness as somebody who is a complete reprobate and he doesn’t go to prison for a thousand different reasons, goes to prison because he’s a liar. Now suborning perjury. I’ve been talking about this on radio. And Judge Jeanine brought it up earlier, touched on it, and U.S. Attorney Tolman brought it up a little bit. I want to expand on this. We lawyers, we need to police what’s going on here. We can’t just wring our hands. This is terrible. It is terrible. And these people need to be held to account. Bragg put Cohen on the stand after. Obviously they worked with them. They knew what he was going to say. Any prosecutor does that. They let them know what kind of questions they’re going to ask. In other words. Part of this is performance art. Bragg knew that there were material matters that implicated Cohen. He was aware of it. Information, contemporary emails. Mr. Costello’s testimony, among others, that directly contradicted what his own attorney said and what others have said. And he still put him on that stand. And this is material information. This is their key witness. Look at the text. We still don’t know about the texts. Well, that’s an important issue, too. Did this government not have his texts? If they had the text, did they give it to the defense? Had a defense, get the texts. And this isn’t the first time. Remember when 30,000 pages of documents showed up from the U.S. Attorney’s office two or three weeks before the case started? And the judge said, that’s fine, that’s enough time to prepare. All right. You get the drift? I thought it was very, very important to lay the marker out there for the Fox audience as well. I just feel that the lawyers, many of them good, many of them are okay, are getting repetitious and each one is trying to outdo each other with their outrage. That’s not good enough. We got to take it to the next stage in the next stages. This case should now be about Alvin Bragg and the judge. Not about Donald Trump. And this judge, as I say later in the broadcast on Fox, he will not allow. He will not allow Brad Smith to testify. So far, the expert he’s been on our radio show here. He’s been on my TV shows. He’s one of the foremost experts in the United States of America. The former chairman of the Federal Election Commission on federal campaign law. And he would testify that the nondisclosure agreement unequivocally does not violate federal law. He would shoot a torpedo right into the side of that case. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
The New York Times has tried to smear Sam Alito. I knew they were. That’s why I jumped on top of that last night. I want to update you on this. The New York Times also started a three part series, its first part put out today. In which it is character assassinating and libeling the Jews who live in Judea and Samaria as part of their efforts. Working with Blinken and Biden. To force Israel to surrender Judea and Samaria. Of course, the Jews there are the oppressors. They’re violent, they’re the terrorists and the poor. Palestinians are the victims. They are the oppressed. But I want to remind you about The New York Times when we come back. I told you, my foot on the gas pedal. We’re on the move here, folks. Just hang on. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
All right, folks, I want you to settle in a little bit this a little differently. I told you, The New York Times has published first of a three part series of horrific character assassination against Jews in Judea and Samaria. As part of the coordinated effort by the American media, the Democrat Party, this administration, and our State Department. Just as in the 1930s. Just as in the 1930s. A wonderful author by the name of Laurel Leff. Professor wrote a great book. On the betrayal. By The New York Times of the Jews. And some of you are saying, what does this have to do with anything that’s to do with everything? You see people from The New York Times on the Sunday shows, you see them on CNN and MSNBC. They are working for a corporation. That hates America. It is filled with Jew haters and self haters. It is a radical left wing newspaper. That seeks to destroy this country as it destroyed Cuba. As it promoted Stalin against the Ukrainians and as it supported Hitler against the Jews. So this is Laura left in the Tablet magazine, The New York Times Nazi correspondent, as Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany and then embarked on his program of world conquest and mass extermination. The New York Times Berlin bureau chief was busy slanting the news in Hitler’s favor. She says today it slants the news, ladies and gentlemen. You know, Hamas is favored. Here’s an example of a title, a headline back then. And the individual by the name. His name was Guido and Darius. Guido and Darius. Here’s a headline Hitler Puts Curb on Zealous Nazis Orders Governor of States to Suppress all Unauthorized revolutionary activities holds a secret meeting up his Lycian town councils are rebuked for acts of discrimination against Jews. Guido Andrus. At the outbreak of the Second World War. The New York Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Andrus, was known to sit in the bar of the city’s famous al-Din Hotel, spouting a loud mouth defense of Nazi ism, quote unquote, eventually provoking another reporter to complain to the New York Times publisher. Isn’t it about time that The New York Times did something about its Nazi correspondent? He wrote, but the Times had no intention of doing anything about interest. In fact, it valued his close connections to the Nazi government, as it had throughout the 1930s. All American newspapers found reporting in Nazi Germany difficult. The government tightly controlled information and harangued and threatened reporters who managed to publish what it didn’t like. The Nazi regime also didn’t hesitate to use its strongest weapons, banning a newspaper from distribution in Germany, kicking a reporter out of the country or denying a reporter’s re-entry. As a putatively Jewish owned newspaper. The New York Times considered itself a special target. Bureau chief Andras. His job, therefore, was, quote, administering reasonably soothing syrup, unquote, to Nazi officials. As another Times reporter wrote yet interest, his actions weren’t purely strategic and the consequences were grave. This The New York Times. And they knew this guy was a Nazi sympathizer. He was the bureau chief throughout the 1930 Centre has helped steer Time’s coverage to play down Jewish persecution and play up Germany’s so-called peaceful intentions. He kowtowed to Nazi officials, wrote stories presenting solely the Nazi point of view and reined in other times, reporters whose criticism he thought went too far, shaping the news in favor of a genocidal regime bent on establishing a thousand year Reich. Did you know this about? The New York Times, Mr. Producer? You heard from me. Other New York Times reporters, most conspicuously, Walter Durante, who deliberately minimized the Soviet famine that took millions of Ukrainian lives in the 1920s, have become notorious for misrepresenting the news once. Once time had passed in archives, it opened. Endor is, however, has remained largely under the radar. And she wrote the book Buried by the Times, The Holocaust, and America’s Most Important Newspaper. To be clear, the Times had no agenda to bolster Nazi ism. In fact, Arthur Hayes Sulzberger, the Times publisher during most of the Nazi era, detested Hitler and advocated U.S. intervention to stop German aggression. Nor was under us a Nazi collaborator, a charge that should be leveled carefully, given that Nazi propaganda services actually enlisted American correspondents. Instead what crippled the Times coverage of Hitler and the Nazis was a timidity and a deference to authority borne of being an institution controlled by Jews who definitely wanted to fit into a Protestant society rather than run the slightest risk of being tossed out of Nazi Germany and causing a ruckus over its Jewish ownership. The Times led a figure like Andras, a pitiful ally of some of history’s greatest villains, Leaders Berlin Bureau during its most consequential decade. Guido and Doris acquired an affinity for Germany as a young age. Born in Chicago in 1874, he moved as a child to Milwaukee, a city with a large German American population. Andress father founded one German language newspaper there and had had advertising for another. A third German language paper said the Young Interest of Berlin in 1916. After stints as a reporter for two Milwaukee papers the following year, Andreas joined the Associated Press wire service in Berlin and developed a reputation for his, quote, intimate knowledge of Germany and German personalities, unquote. A decade later, the New York Times hired him for its Berlin bureau chief. Naming him Berlin bureau chief in 1930. Andress was 56, never married and producing loud suits and bright red ties. From the beginning and arrests, journalistic deficiencies were apparent, and Harris has a ponderous, wordy style that is often so vague that we have to change his dispatches to let the reader know what he means, wrote one editor who also wrangled with his weird words, words and dictionary phrases. Andress, who fought every alteration and just copy, retorted the improvement, volunteered at the other end, offered no impressive evidence of superior literacy acumen, given how impenetrable his published prose remained, and there is might have had a point enriched, his reporting was no better. He was too credulous, whether result of intention or ineptitude to be a good journalist. In 1932, Frederick McCall, the Times acting managing editor who had just assumed a new position as chief foreign correspondent, visited Berlin and reported back to the publisher in waiting Sulzberger Sulzberger, his father in law, Adolph Ochs, who was ill, had the publisher title until his death in 1935. The bureau’s problems lay with its chief, Bacall concluded. That would be under us. But Bacall, who had Sulzberger here, didn’t recommend replacing Andras. He is, incidentally, an excellent office manager. Bacall wrote Sulzberger note that the Berlin office expense, including the salary list, is down considerably but low a year ago, he said. Instead, Bacall suggested putting a younger, more enterprising and pitch fresh man in just below him, which is what the Times did in 1933, hiring 43 year old Otto Tull Schutz, a German born American bred wire service reporter Bradshaw would pop in from time to time. Had the news flow been anything like that of a normal foreign capital, this might have been a harmless arrangement. But on January 30, 1933, January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, and Berlin became the center of the news universe. Hitler quickly disabled the legislature, open concentration camps, booted Jews from government and university positions, and took over the domestic press along with all other media. Rather than figuring out how best to cover these momentous events. Andrus of The New York Times began plotting how best to get in good with the new regime. The Times Worldwide photo subsidiary, a photo distribution service incorporated in Germany, provided an opportunity. In July 1933. Enter his phone. BACALL To suggest ways, quote, to accord with the general tendency of the Nazi government. And there is advised changing the service’s name to some nice Germanic form. Firing its manager, Julius Bulger, who quote, is of Jewish origin and moreover has borne himself in dealing with Nazi protests in a highly independent spirit. Alarmed, Burchill advised against yielding to the pressure these miserable fanatics and tried to persuade interests with such emphasis is the good Lord would get to me. But Andrus insisted his recommendations be passed on to the top management. Both Ochs, who were still nominally in charge and Sulzberger sided with Birkhoff. Sulzberger shot back. I’m sorry if this is disturbing to Mr. Andrus, but what in the name of heaven does he think a jaw is for? Except they said it firmly when the occasion demands. But the Times jaw soon proved a bit wobbly. Over the next two years, The Times allowed a Nazi shop sale to form, and its subsidiary didn’t stop a swastika flag from being flown on the building that housed the Berlin. Bureau permitted its German employees to march in a may Day celebration of Hitler and fired its Jewish photographers from worldwide photo. And when a scheme to hire Aryan camouflages quote unquote to cover for the Jews who continue to toil behind the scenes didn’t work. Well, the Times just closed down its worldwide photo operation. And this wasn’t just meddling on the business side. Quote Scarcely an item has gone to the New York Times that he’d done that inspired supervised and frequently edit virtual wrote managing editor Edwin James in April 1934. Plus, Ender continued to report and write his own stories, having more bylined articles during the regime’s decisive first year that is underling. Endor has produced puffy profiles of leading Nazis chose Joseph Goebbels. Joseph Goebbels, head of the Reich, newly created Ministry of Propaganda and Popular Entertainment, has been the outstanding go getter for his party. Andras wrote in 1933, a year later, his ardor had not called Goebbels as a volleyball but versatile master of Nazi ballyhoo with a gift for rhetoric, Enders wrote about Goebbels. A Goebbels speech exalting Jews, banishment from the film industry. Andras wrote lighthearted stories about bachelors, including Hitler pushing Nazi campaigns for bigger and bigger families, about Hitler’s 50th birthday celebration that turned Berlin to all motion color and noise. The biggest failing of analysts is early reporting, and journalists, too, was reading into every move. A Nazi drive toward moderation. Entrances article articles short quote Hitler threatening Nazi radicals. Another one government accepting council for moderate quarter. Another one Hitler puts curbs on zealous Nazis the same time. The biggest failing of interest is reporting throughout the Nazi era was to offer up without hesitation or qualification Nazi refutations of criticisms of its regime. And when there were charges are brought of atrocities in this country, quote unquote. And it is reported that the government would not tolerate persecution of the Jews and it’s established no discrimination against them, quote unquote. Andras attributed his denial to Captain Hermann Göring. You may have heard of Hermann Goering, Federal Minister without portfolio Commissar, Minister of the Interior, and pressure his breathless listing of Nazi titles being another sign of his fealty. Andreas wrote again and again of Germany’s peaceful intentions. Despite its expansion in the Tsar in the Rhineland region’s annexation of Austria and take over Czechoslovakia. Quote, A peaceful, prosperous Europe was envisaged today by Chancellor Hitler In a speech before the Reichstag Read the beginning of one story, Andras continued. The tenure of the speech was self assertive, yet free of aggressive emphasis, and it ended on a note that left full scope for diplomatic action or mediation. If the tone of the speech can be accepted as a gauge here, Hitler sincerely desires a peaceful solution of the conflict with Britain and France, quote unquote. Remarkably, Hitler delivered the speech and interest wrote about it five weeks after Germany had invaded Poland and ignited World War Two. It’s hard to know which took more spot for Hitler to say it, for Andreas to write it, or for the Times to publish it. And then there are the stories that entrants didn’t want to write often about what was actually happening to the Jews in 1933. Publisher Sulzberger asked for a story about the fate of Jewish scientists and was delayed and delayed and then said it couldn’t be done. Managing editor James prodded under his twice to write about the Jewish reservation near Lublin, Poland, and was told it held 1 million Jews and was apparently didn’t reply. Only feeding two paragraphs into the Times story at a Paris. And it goes on and on and on and on. This is The New York Times. The New York Times was his professional home for 17 years. However, it did not author its own obituary, acknowledging the death of the Berlin bureau chief. It may do the syndicated wire piece. And today, The New York Times is doing the same thing to the Jews in Judea and Samaria. And a summary they call them the settlers in a three part series. Intended to further advance. The terrorist regime, Iran and its terrorist surrogates propaganda to destroy the state of Israel, including its. Forced abandonment of Judaea and Syria and its official original capital as it continues its war on the Jews from the Holocaust to today. That is your New York Times, and it is read by every liberal in the media. It is regurgitated by every liberal in the media and every Democrat in the media. And so much of it is written by Blinken, Sullivan, the Biden crowd, the Obama crowd. So much of it is written by the Jew haters and the American haters. That’s The New York Times. We’ll be right back.

Segment 4
That’s The New York Times. Just a little snippet for you. America. When it was needed, a report was taking place, the Third Reich in the Holocaust. It was spewing propaganda on behalf of Hitler and it was concealing what was taking place. In the effort to exterminate all European Jews. As The New York Times. Next hour. At the top of the hour, I’m going to tell you about The New York Times and Stalin. So we have The New York Times with Hitler. But I want to tell you about The New York Times. Was Stalin just as The New York Times today is with Hamas? And Hezbollah and the PLO and Iran. You’ve got to listen to this. You’re not going to hear it anywhere else. You’re just not. When we come back. Things you have not been taught in school and things the media will not say about itself. And that is The New York Times Roll next. The New York Times role in hiding Stalin’s mass murders in Ukraine, hiding Stalin’s mass murders in Ukraine through Walter Durante, their bureau chief in Moscow, promoting Hitlerism, in covering the Third Reich with their correspondent in Berlin. I’ll be right back.