On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Mark’s interview with former FEC commissioner is part of the reason why the Alvin Bragg judge, Juan Merchan, will not allow Professor Bradley Smith to testify – because he will completely torpedo anything left of this Stalinist show trial. Smith made it clear that this Stormy Daniels NDA did not violate federal election law. Also, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida is very concerned with Jack Smith’s case in Florida. She realizes that Smith is trying to play the court. Later, the International Criminal Court, ICC, turned on Israel – they issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, and he fights back. Out of all the cases in the world that they can bring like Xi in China or Kim Jong Un in North Korea, and they want to arrest Netanyahu? This warrant will spread further antisemitism throughout the world. Why didn’t President Biden and Antony Blinken speak out earlier against this? Afterward, Biden spoke at Morehouse College but if he wasn’t going to apologize for his racist past, why invite him? Shouldn’t Biden have been wearing a white gown? But for politicians and professors like Biden, this country would be far more united in every respect. Finally, MRC President Brent Bozell calls in to discuss the political prosecution of his son. He has been sentenced to 45 months in prison for entering the Capitol building on January 6 after breaking two windows. The DOJ in action is truly frightening.
Epoch Times
Judge in Trump Case Says She’s Concerned With Special Counsel Jack Smith
BBC News
ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Hamas leaders
You Tube
Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Newsweek
Amal Clooney Plays Key Role in ICC Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Sinwar
Townhall
Biden Sure Told Some Shameless Lies About Voting Rights at Morehouse College Commencement
Photo by Michael M. Santiago
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. Look, I normally don’t do this, but we have 3 hours and there’s three huge subjects I want to cover. One is the trial in Manhattan. The other is what the International Criminal Court did. And then the last is Biden’s speech at Morehouse College. And there’ll be other issues, too. But these are three big deals. Three big deals. And I want to start with the Trump trial. On March 31st of this year. Really? Not that long ago. What is that? Six weeks ago? Can we take Mr. Brazier? I had Brad Smith on Life, Liberty and live in. And, you know, I do these long form interviews and we talked. About the allegations and the charges against President Trump. And we talked. About federal law. He made it abundantly clear that this nondisclosure agreement did not violate federal law. That is federal election law. He’s a former chairman of the FEC. It’s probably due to that interview because this judge knows what he’s going to say. But this judge determined that. Bradley Smith is not going to testify as an expert witness on behalf of Trump. I have never seen one abomination after another like this. I have never seen anything like this. Seriously, folks. This judge is barely knowledgeable about the law in the state of New York, let alone federal campaign law, which can be very complex. Apparently he’s doing everything he can to undermine Robert Costello’s testimony today. So Costello can’t tell the story what took place as the prosecution keeps objecting, objecting, objecting and interrupting. The judge should have put an end to that, but he didn’t. This guy is so in the tank. He’s like a mob judge. Except I don’t want to, really. Libel the mob. Guy is a punk. And so we went back. Know, we found part of the audio of the March 31 interview with Bradley Smith, the first segment and the full text here. Honestly, we shared this with everybody at Fox as well to remind them that we know what Bradley Smith is going to say rather than speculate. Rather than the lawyers talking to lawyers, lawyers talking to non-lawyers, non-lawyers talking to non-lawyers about what he might say. It’s he said it. He said it. Right there. For millions to hear. And millions did hear. So let’s begin with this. What Bradley Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, a not only an expert on federal election law, but he still teaches at today, is a professor. Cut. 29. Go! The Alvin Bragg case rests on an effort to federalize state law to turn a misdemeanor, if there is one, into a felony. Based on a bizarre interpretation of a can a of a violation of our federal finance laws and federal campaign laws, one that was already tried, but interestingly enough, by Jack Smith with John Edwards and fell flat. Do you want to explain to the American people the core of what Alvin Bragg’s attempt is with respect to federal election law? Sure. So to upgrade what would be a very routine misdemeanor in New York to a felony, the D.A. has to show that this misreporting, as he alleges, was done in order to conceal a crime. The crime he says it was being concealed was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. And what he says that was, was that by paying money to Stormy Daniels for her silence, that that amounted to a campaign expenditure and therefore it was not properly reported under federal law. And that jacks the whole state claim up to a felony. Now, the problem with that is that federal law does not say that anything that you think might help you win an election is a campaign expense. Rather, it’s an objective test in which things like polling, paying for staff, paying for headquarters, you know, paying for advertisements and so on. Those are campaign expenses. And the law, in fact, specifically prohibits someone from using campaign expenses or making campaign expenses for personal use. That is to pay, you know, things that might help you like good looking clothes or plastic surgery or a good looking haircut or, you know, an ice cream that actually vacations, that you’re fresh on the trail. Country club memberships you can entertain or settling a nuisance business suit so that they’re not an issue in the campaign. Those are all viewed as personal expenses and they’re not something you can pay with campaign expenses. So I think that’s the problem that they have. He’s trying to allege that these campaign expenses I mean, I’m sorry, these these payments to Stormy Daniels were campaign expenses. And I think quite clearly they exist from an obligation independent of Mr. Trump’s campaign for president. You mentioned the Edwards case will go back to Edwards. This was tried a similar case with John Edwards. People remember him, ran for president back in the early 2000. Edwards had supporters who spent money to support and keep quiet a mistress whom he had gotten pregnant and that went to trial. The jury ended up either hung or acquitting Edwards on a number of counts. But that was, you know, finding that that was not a not an offence under federal campaign finance law. And live now, this is what the judge does not want the jury to hear. The judge is conspiring with the prosecution to keep the ambiguity of some federal offense sort of hanging over the trial as a dark cloud. And he doesn’t want it defined because if it’s defined, it becomes clear it’s inapplicable. There’s nothing there. And of course, if he don’t have the federal offense, which requires intent, by the way. Then you don’t resuscitate the state. Law, which has expired, let alone increase it from a misdemeanor to a felony. Now we’re unable to find the remaining part of the interview. So I want to read this to you. So I go on. But the theory is the same theory, which is that if anything is done, that may positively impact your campaign as opposed to negatively impacting your campaign. Let’s say it’s it’s then it’s an illegal, unreported corporate contribution or in the case of Edwards, just an illegal contribution. And this is why people are saying that this is a preposterous case. It’s sort of a a maze they have to go through and follow. It’s why the U.S. attorney’s office wanted nothing to do with it. It’s why the prior district attorney wanted nothing to do with it. Bragg dusted off and he says no. Even though I’m a local D.A., I’m going to pass judgment on federal campaign laws, which he has no jurisdiction to do. I’m going to assert that this nondisclosure agreement that was provided, but it is in the wrong category as a legal expanse, or maybe it should have been a business expense. And I’m going to assert all of that was done in violation of federal campaign law and order to create a positive campaign image. Is that about right? So, ladies and gentlemen, I’m playing this so you know why the judge does not want Bradley Smith his testimony. And also to point out one other thing. You watch me on Fox, you listen to me on radio and on place, because we’re way, way, way ahead of the curve on this stuff. Bradley Smith answers. Yeah, I mean, that’s his theory. He said some, by the way, Mark, also the Federal Election Commission chose not to act on this. That is on the Trump issue. And they, under the statute, are supposed to be the primary interpreter of federal campaign law. And here’s the thing about this is that had Trump used campaign expenses to pay off Stormy Daniels and filed this as a report, you can pretty much bet your house that people on the left would be coming after him for misappropriating campaign funds to pay personal expenses. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the nondisclosure agreement was a personal expense. It was an expense for the campaign. It wasn’t a campaign expense. And that’s how the FEC considered it a personal expense categorized as a legal expense by the corporation. All perfectly legal. Nothing triggering federal campaign laws, period. And he went on did Brad Smith. And in fact, even now people on the left in the last week or so have released a spate of columns and commentary arguing that Trump cannot use campaign funds to pay his judgment against him. And another, I think, kind of preposterous suit, and that’s this alleged civil fraud suit with 450 million judgment or whatever it was. So I have a sense that they were going to get get him coming or going if he paid for it. That is the nondisclosure agreement with campaign money. They would say it was personal use. Now that is misusing campaign funds, a felony. If he doesn’t pay for it with campaign money. They want to say, hey, you didn’t properly pay for it. We can’t pay money and report it as a campaign expense. And you can’t have it both ways. And he says, and I think the D.A. theory ultimately is going to crash. He may even win a trial there in New York and everything. But eventually, I don’t see it standing. Me. But in the case of John Edwards. It was even more direct, even though it wasn’t a violation of law. That is, donors did raise the money and provided to protect Edwards from the negative publicity. And in that case, and in this case, rather, and Trump, we’ve a state law reporting issue that I would argue isn’t even a misdemeanor. And then you have the D.A. going into federal law where he has no jurisdiction. You just said the FEC, the FEC that oversees it, says no, no violation. The U.S. attorney doesn’t want anything to do with the prior D.A. and he’s twisting the law. He’s twisting it to try and apply it to Trump. So it’s even, in my view, worse than a John Edwards case. Brad Smith. Well, I think it is. And it’s worse and yet another way, which is in the Edwards case, it’s entirely clear that they were paying his supporters. They were paying this woman in order to protect the political viability of Edwards. Whereas in the case of Donald Trump, well, that was probably a consideration, or at least may have been a consideration. He also had a number of other considerations of protect himself, his wife, his children, commercial interests and so on. So, yeah, I just don’t think that there’s any real basis for alleging that this is a campaign expenditure. I always put it to people, you know, when you contribute money to a campaign, is this what you expected to be spent on? The answer is no. This was a personal expense. Now, by the way, I personally means corporate, too. By personally means it’s not a campaign expense. We’re with Bradley Smith. Capitol University law professor, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He founded the Institute for Free Speech. I say non-disclosure agreements. H.R. departments enter into those all the time, every day. Media corporations that are calling this hush money. I noticed NBC has entered into nondisclosure agreements, agreements. Most nondisclosure agreements are secret, so I didn’t even know they inserted into my c net’s entered into them. All kinds of people have entered into them. So and by the way, members of Congress, since my wife reminded me in 2017 and added a whole ton of them. So is it the effort here by the media and others, the Biden campaign, to try and turn this into some kind of a treacherous, evil event? He’s trying to cover it up with hush money and then he uses corporate money and then he uses it in violation of campaign federal campaign laws. Isn’t this all bogus? Bradley Smith, the probably number one expert in America on the federal campaign law, responds. Yes. There’s a lot of smoke. And as you point out, Mark, I mean, hush money is just a pejorative term. You can call lots of settlements hush money or you could call them settlements and nondisclosure agreements. And usually they’re called the ladder. And in this particular case, for example, I draw the comparison, you know, they’re businessmen. I think Trump will always have a lot of lawsuits going against his various businesses and he may in. Particular point, you know, tell his local council say, look, I want you to settle this lawsuit. The guy says, no, it’s a good case. He says, Now just sell it because I don’t want it distracting my campaign. He’s doing it to help his political campaign, but that doesn’t make it a campaign contribution. He couldn’t expense it on his campaign funds to pay off that settlement and with a non-disclosure agreement. And that’s, again, the problem that the D.A. has here, as you said. It’s a lot of rhetoric, it’s a lot of smoke. But if you really start pouring into it, you start asking people, okay, where is the legal violation? That is, it becomes pretty flimsy. This case is also weird in another way. I said the U.S. attorney, so I’m not going to get into that. It’s too long. I hope this helps explain things. There’s personal or what’s better to say, non-campaign expenditures and campaign expenditures. If the Trump Organization has lawyers as it counts, Trump may pay this out of the campaign. It would be a federal offense. An illegal corporate contribution that wasn’t reported. But they didn’t. They put it down as a legal expense on their business ledgers for the whole world to see. They didn’t conceal anything. As a nondisclosure agreement. There is no federal campaign law issue. That’s why this Judge Mershon does not want Bradley Smith, Professor Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, testifying because he would shoot a big torpedo in the side of this case and once for all, sink it. And I encourage my brothers and sisters at Fox, play it so your audience understands it. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Yo, yo, yo. Where, where? Where is Judge in Florida? Is a real judge. And she knows how to be a real judge. This judge in Manhattan is a low IQ, mentally challenged political hack nitwit who’s appointed by a Democrat who in turn is elected by a Democrat and they’re elected by the same people who elected Alvin Bragg. The judge, Aileen Cannon in Florida is about had it. With Mr. Rogue prosecutor Jack Smith. I want to tell you a little bit more about that when we return. There is a ton to do, all of it important, and we’ll do it only the way we do it, you and I together. We’ll be right back.
Segment 3
You know, ladies and gentlemen, takes a lot of self-restraint to do their. I’ll give you an example. The topics I want to address, you know, fully, but I can’t wait to get onto the next one, The one after that. I just want to get them addressed. But now and then you just kind of pull the reins bite down on the bit. Now just do it. Syria. Just do it. Syriana. So we have the judge in Florida. And we have this this guy, Jack Smith, who’s an unconstitutional prosecutor. And our friends, they call themselves Epic Times. Mr. Producer, did you know that? I thought it was epic. Epic. It’s a fantastic site. Zachary Steber, the federal judge overseeing one of the criminal cases against former President Trump on May 19, expressed concern, a disappointment with special counsel Jack Smith. So this is over the weekend. That’s why I don’t want you to miss this. US District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is a fantastic judge, an appointee of President Trump, said that Mr. Smith and his team have taken inconsistent positions during the case as it pertains to keeping some information sealed or hidden from the public. She said. In two separate filings related to sealing, the special counsel stated without qualification that he had no objection to full on sealing a previously sealed document entries related to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and later that repeated representation. And in the absence of any defense objection, the court unseal those materials consistent with the general presumption in favor of public access, she said. The materials that were unsealed, though, contain information such as grand jury details that the special counsel has and continues to say, and all other filings should be kept sealed. Judge Cannon asked for an explanation of this inconsistency. She said. In response to those inquiries, counsel explained that the special counsel took the position on unsealing in order to publicly and transparently refute defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in pretrial motions. Fair enough, she says. But nowhere in that explanation is there any basis to conclude that the special counsel could not have defended the integrity of the office while simultaneously preserving the witness safety and Rule six. That’s grand jury information. That’s not to be disclosed. It will succeed. Concerns he has repeatedly told the court and maintains to this day are of serious consequence, which the court has endeavored with diligence to accommodate in its multiple orders on sealing and redaction. Judge, can you described yourself as being disappointed in these developments. She added The ceiling and redaction rules should be applied consistently and fairly upon a sufficient factual and legal showing, and parties should not make requests that undermine any prior representations or positions except upon full disclosure to the court in appropriate briefing now. Why is she concerned about this? Anybody know? Because the prosecution is deciding in one situation. To waive the six year that is the grand jury protections or the classified document protections. With a witness safety protections. And then in other filings, they’re demanding that the court embrace all three of those and not release the grand jury. Information or the witness identities or the classified information. And what she realizes is he’s trying to play the court. They want information out that they think will help them and they want information concealed that they don’t think will help them. Or just for fun. If President Trump’s lawyers want information out. The government is saying no. And the the lack of integrity. That this prosecutor and his team are using obviously is undermining. Due process and the rule of law. You don’t get to pick and choose. The government doesn’t get to pick and choose. The order came after Mr. Smith and President Trump filed competing proposals for redactions in response to a may nine order from the judge that directed the parties to submit their proposals. The order concerns several motions filed by President Trump, including a motion to dismiss the case based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct which have not been placed on the docket. The proposals for redactions are also not yet public. There have been many issues of prosecutorial misconduct, including the mishandling of classified information, which disgustingly ironically. Are the subject of the charges against the former president. Both parties and the judge agree that the names of potential witnesses are information that would clearly identify them should be kept hidden, along with ancillary names and personal identification information such as addresses, Redactions agreed upon by both parties were accepted by the judge in the new order and a few exceptions. President Trump’s proposed redactions to some witnesses statements were rejected. Continue. And I’m sure you didn’t hear any of this. Why I’m here. I fill the gaps. No basis is provided for these redactions. And the court has previously denied requests to redact the substance of potential witness statements. I relied upon a pretrial motions. That judge also turned down a request by the special counsel to redact some of the same information. Judge can see, let me give you a bigger picture. This year from my several years at the Department of Justice, including his chief of staff. When we would catch spies. But we’ve kept spies. And we could see the extent of the classified information and the level the classified information that they had stolen. And they were paid for in almost every case, but not every. And turned over to the Communist Chinese or the Russians or whomever it was. We always had a concern because going to trial. Trials are supposed to be open and open to the public. That’s what the Constitution compels. Why? Because they feared. The British judicial system where the judges work for the crown. And they were effectively show trials and the public wouldn’t know. And you didn’t have juries of your peers and everything. And that’s why all of this is pretty much in the Bill of Rights. Now, all that said. How do you try a spy and bring out all the evidence, all the classified information, all the information about investigative techniques, wiretaps, eavesdropping, monitoring. That you don’t want the enemy to know. In an open court. I mean, you can’t seal the whole court for the whole trial. So typically. Glee, the most notorious of the spies. They face the death penalty. So what we did. Or what the department did. Was in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table. They were plead, in many cases the life sentences or what were equivalent to life sentences. You know, the guy is 70 years old, 40 years, something like that. So the information didn’t have to be publicly revealed. Jack Smith has a problem. He’s trying to. Persuade the court he is going to have to persuade a jury about the nature of these classified documents. And that is what Judge Cannon is having to balance here. That’s what she’s having to deal with here. And that’s why I’m guessing I don’t know where I am guessing that’s why she’s frustrated, because Jack Smith wants to have it both ways. He wants to release what he wants to release and he does want to release what he doesn’t want to release. Well, that’s not a principle. That can be applied equally in across the board and also protect the defendant’s due process rights. So what do you do? And that’s the issue. I think I’ve made that pretty clear now. No, Mr. Producer. Maybe I’ll teach law one day. Ernie Grabowski, Law School. Now. Judge Cannon said that for the redactions where the parties disagreed, she would accept for now President Trump’s characterization of portions of the material falling under privilege pending her review of privilege arguments. She would also accept the special counsel’s position on sex. The Fed on oral sex or the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure. Despite the concerns in her outline. So what she’s saying is, look, I’m going to. Just in case. I’m going to choose for the side of non. Public information on the grand jury information because we do have this rule 60. And I’m going to choose on the side that the information the president and his lawyers say is privileged, is privileged for now. As we go through this. Until and unless we work it out. I don’t know what else she could have done. She did the right thing. And she warned the prosecution, You better get your ass in gear and get your act together. This isn’t about you winning the case. This is about we need to have standard standards of work, standards that follows closely the laws passed by and standards that are applied to whether it’s classified document A or classified document B, unless you have an argument on why B is different from A. Very, very important. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
In our third hour, by the way, around 820, we’re going to have Brent Bozell, founder, chairman of the Media Research Center, on the program to talk about January six and his son and how he was treated. And I think you’re going to be very concerned, very, very, very concerned. You’ve heard a lot about a lot of these. Folks who got caught up in this. And but the kind of punishment, the kind of treatment. It’s important that he explains it. And I certainly want him to have an opportunity on this platform to do it. I’ve known him a long time. His family, they’re fantastic people, great patriots. Her boy. All this legal stuff going on. You got to wonder at some point. You got to wonder at some point if we’re ever going to get this country back. But I’ll tell you this. I go to this diner five days out of the week when? On our home in Florida. And such fantastic people there. Just down the earth, people. And the waitresses. What do they call them? Waitstaff. I call them waitresses and they, like bingo, are really special people. And obviously the live off of whatever they earn each day. And they walk an enormous amount in that restaurant and they’re always smiling and they’re always friendly. And one of the ladies said to me, Why don’t people see what we see? Why don’t people meaning not you? Obviously the others see what we see. I said, that’s a very complicated question, but to put it as bluntly as possible, because they don’t want to see it. Because one degree or another they are fanatics. They’re zealots either for their party. Certain bizarre principles. Belief systems. They’ve been indoctrinated, but they don’t think for themselves. I said the vast majority of people. Who support a Biden. Our trash runs support Hamas. They’re not. They’re not people with functioning properly functioning minds. And so they’re susceptible to indoctrination. And those who are busy indoctrinating them are quite evil, whether they be professors. Will they be politicians? Will they be family members? Whatever their evil. Ladies and gentlemen, Marxism is not a new idea. It’s been around since the 1850s. 1850s. It’s been tried in 14, 15, 16,000 different ways. The end result is always death, destitution. Horrendous inhumanity. Like Islamism. It’s not like it hasn’t been tried. It’s been tried for several thousand years. It is diabolical. Civil. It’s inhumane. Islamism. So the president of Iran and the foreign minister died in a helicopter crash. And our government sends out its condolences. The President. Of Iran has a long history. He was called the Butcher of Tehran. Do you know why he was called the Butcher of Tehran? Because when that revolution take place, took place. He was responsible directly and indirectly for the slaughter of 15,000 Iranians. And we, the United States government, officially put out a condolence for his death. How sick is that? I’ve got more. We’ll be right back.