June 3rd, 2024

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, the Democratic Party and their surrogates are cheering what is happening to Donald Trump because The Democratic party is the new Confederacy. This is part and parcel of their war on the Constitution, almost from day one, from a party that supported nullification, slavery, separate but equal, and Jim Crow. We have a judge and a prosecutor in New York nullifying now and will have a ripple effect on other states, which is why this is a federal issue, and the impact is nationwide. What was done to Trump in that courtroom is an attempt to nullify the Federal Constitution, due process, and equal protection. Also, the war on Israel by Biden and the Democrat party is like nothing we have ever seen before. America has never treated an ally as poorly as the Biden administration is treating Israel. Later, Anthony Fauci seemed to have memory loss at a COVID hearing today. Why are Democrats defending him? Fauci didn’t know why there was a 6-foot social distancing mandate. It wasn’t based on science. Finally, Mark is joined by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) about his experience with the Bush v Gore case and the Trump case being the most egregious case of election interference in our country’s history, as well as the introduction of in vitro fertilization legislation.

Daily Mail
Joe Biden’s administration gave ‘mass amnesty’ to illegal migrants after ICE official ordered termination of 350,000 asylum cases as border crisis rages on

CNN
Washington Post abruptly replaces executive editor Sally Buzbee in shakeup

Photo by Alexi Rosenfeld

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. Why are the Democrats defending forcing? The six foot rule, Mr. Producer. He doesn’t really know why there was a six foot rule actually testified today. I mean, I can remember all the floors, you know, stand here, stand at social distance saying we coined the phrase socialist distancing. And that’s what it turned out to be. He, like, denied everything he had anything to do with. But we’ll get to that a little later. Hunter Biden’s trial has begun in Wilmington, Delaware. I’m surprised they didn’t move it to Rehoboth, Mr. Producer, and move it to the. Lincoln Room at the White House so they could actually have a slam dunk jury. But nonetheless, this is a slam dunk case. And yes, people who lie on federal forms under penalty perjury are prosecuted. I heard a prosecutor, a good guy, say that he never brought cases like that. Well, I’m sorry to hear that. I’m sorry to hear that. You signed a tax form, a gun form, all these forms the government wants you to sign. And if somebody signs it and they’re lying under penalty of perjury. You don’t charge them. If we get charged for a hell of a lot less than that. I also like the moral equivalence. Again, we had the moral equivalence that the life loving democracy, the Jewish state in Israel, is akin to the monstrous, bloodthirsty butchers of Hamas. Now we have Donald Trump, convicted felon. They violated his due process rights as equal protection rights and everything in between. But now Hunter Biden is on trial in Wilmington, Delaware, and this judge in a federal court is not going to deny him his due process rights. He knows exactly what he’s charged with. Exactly. The jury instructions will be clear when the time comes. Everything will be copacetic, like a real republic with a real court system. They’re not the same. Not even close. And this is what I want to talk about briefly here. I’ve been spending every day and every evening on radio, on TV, on the Internet. Explaining why there must be an effort made to try and bring this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether it takes it or not, we don’t know. If we take it there and they say no, so be it. And the whole nation will have to live with the consequences of that. But I rejected the position. Many of the television lawyers. Who said, really, there’s no way to do it. It might happen, but it may not happen. It’s a difficult battle. You know, it’s an uphill fight. I’ve never heard of anything like this. Yes, it’s tough. It may not work. But I know it won’t work 100% if you don’t try. You need to give the Supreme Court the opportunity. It can’t act on its own. Particularly when you consider, as I explained over the weekend, and I want to put a fine point on it here. The what’s happened in this case in New York before it’s forgotten. And we move on to the next issue. And I forget nothing. It’s the greatest assault on our Constitution. The greatest assault on our union. Since South Carolina was the first state to secede. New York is the new South Carolina. New York is the home of the New Confederacy. Same party. I’m not talking about slavery and race. I’m talking about the war on the Constitution. You see, the Civil War was was a war about slavery. It was a war about the union. And it was a war over the Constitution. It was a war between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. As it is today. And it’s a war over the Constitution. All the talk. And on Fox, the talk was correct. All the talk by the former federal prosecutors. By the defense lawyers. By the legal this and the legal that fill in the blank. Most of them were right. And you can go down a whole list of due process violations and you can see the anguish. You can hear the passion here and there. People saying, I’ve never seen anything like this in my 35 years. It’s my year as a prosecutor, federal prosecutors, my years as a as a delay in a judge, my years as a defense lawyer, my years as a professor there. Correct. But then they throw their hands in the air and that’s the end of it. That’s where I pick it up. That’s right. Pick it up. Because I had battled these bastards for 40 years. That is the hard left and their tactics in the courtrooms. You can’t play patty cakes while they’re throwing legal Molotov cocktails. And that’s the difference between those of us who are in the conservative legal movement and others who have practiced more traditional law. We have fought these people before. We know who they are. We’ve gone up and down the federal court system, up and down the various state court systems. And so there is the lane with the appellate courts in New York. But that’s not satisfactory because the damage has already been done to the entire system, the federal constitutional system. The federal election system. Reverse federalism. Reverse federalism, where a state seizes the authority. Are the federal government even worse? They seize the authority of the federal government to deny due process rights and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Projected onto the states through the 14th Amendment. That is a federal matter. A serious, grave, immediate federal matter. The father. Follow the Constitution. James Madison. In the 1830s as he could see the storm clouds forming for a possible war between states. He wrote about this extensively in a letter that Edward Everett, who, by the way. Was the man who gave the speech at Gettysburg. That went on for over 2 hours before Lincoln gave his speech. It was 56 words long. Nobody remembers Everett’s speech. Everybody remembers the Gettysburg Address. But he asked questions, important questions that Everett to James Madison and James Madison took the time to write write a multi-page letter. They didn’t have a computer in it. Typewriter. He handwrote his letter. And the father of the Constitution said some very, very profound things. Number one. You’re not just a citizen of a state. When the Constitution was adopted by the states, you became a citizen of the United States. Your protections in the state and your protections as a citizen of the United States. And if a state on its own seeks to deny a citizen the protections in the federal Constitution as a national. Citizen in the United States. That’s unacceptable. That’s number one. Number two states began nullifying federal law. And we’re talking about the southern states, the slave states in particular. They said we have every right to do this. The Constitution doesn’t say we can’t. And so we will. James Madison said no. Remember he was from Virginia. He said, No, that’s not right. Once you join this constitutional compact. Unless you. Didn’t mean it. You’re part of the United States. And so you have state sovereignty areas traditionally that belong to the state. And then we’ve created this new federal government that also has sovereignty over certain areas. And the Constitution does its best to determine what’s what, even though it’s not perfect. But you don’t have the power to nullify. A federal law. Because your state disagrees with it. Now you have the power to bring a lawsuit. In the federal courts. And by the way, often the states win when they do. When you have a conflict of laws or constitutional conflicts or a conflict of interpretation, of course. But you don’t have a right just to unilaterally nullify the law. We no longer have the United States and. You will have succeeded as a state or multiple states in destroying the compact that you committed yourselves to. And number three. I would add. We have a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was adopted after the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights were ratified by the states as well. And over the years I’ve read and studied these various state convention debates that took place. There have been excellent books written about it. There are transcripts of some of them. I would look very carefully at seven of them. Most of the Bill of Rights resulted from states. Telling what would be the new Congress. We will ratify this constitution. But there are changes or additions that we insist on. Because those men who drafted the Constitution adopted in Philadelphia, they didn’t want to open up the whole Pandora’s box and all of a sudden have 5000 things and criticisms and so forth. And so they said, Look. Please ratify the Constitution and we’ll revisit these issues. And so the Congress met. Under the Constitution. And for a while they were ignoring what they had promised the states. Except when. The follow the Constitution. A representative from Virginia at the time, James Madison, stood up. And so we made a promise to these states and we have to keep it. As a footnote, James Madison was elected to the House of Representatives by defeating somebody you may have heard of as well. James Monroe. They both lived in the same county. Monroe would become president later, of course. You. Was not involved directly in the Declaration of the Constitution. Just just a little bit of historical fact. Madison proposed to the new speaker of the House. Look, we ought to have a committee of the whole the whole House of Representatives should do this, put together a package. But they decided to set up a special committee. The Madison is the chairman. They came up with 17 amendments. Based largely on what the states had raised. The states were very, very concerned that this new big government would not protect the individual. There had been a big debate, you know, at the Constitutional Convention over whether there should be. They didn’t call it a Bill of Rights, but an enumeration of rights that belong to the individual and the person who pushed this the hardest. You may have heard of him. It was George Mason. And one of the people who opposed it was James Madison. Madison said, if we start listing them, what if we miss something? And Mason said, Well, if you don’t list at least those that we believe are core, then we’re not emphasizing them. Turns out Mason was right. Turns out Madison knew it. And so those amendments proposed were sent to the Senate. They would hold it down to 12. The House adopted the 12 two thirds vote of both houses. It was sent to the States. I went to pick it up from here. We’ll be right back.

Segment 2
The word is nullification. We haven’t seen nullification since the Civil War. And we’ve seen it in New York and we’ve seen it in a courtroom. And this is the nullification of basic that is core. Core American principles and fact principles of Western civilization, due process, equal protection to go back to the Magna Carta in 1215 turned on their head the same party they’ve been attacking the Constitution. The 1619 project. Attacking the Constitution as an illegitimate document. Put in place by the white man. I’ve addressed all these things before. Attacking, attacking. And now the result in this courtroom in Manhattan. Was the nullification of due process and equal protection under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Now, what does that mean? I’ll explain when we return.

Segment 3
So it’s not even the state of New York that’s nullifying anything. It’s a judge and a prosecutor. Now, what’s the effect on other states? Obviously. You have New York. That’s interfering with a federal election. So it’s interfering with all the other states. That’s why it’s a national a federal issue. New York. Via this court. Via that judge, via that prosecutor. Have violated due process, violated the equal protection clause, and the impact for the American people is nationwide. The impact is in Kansas. Utah. Pennsylvania. Illinois. Colorado. Texas, Florida. Every single state. All over the country. That’s why I can’t be it can’t remain simply a New York issue with their lumbering appellate process and the first level of appeal, you have the same kind of Democrats. The ultimate appeal. Maybe, maybe not. The problem is we have an election right now, and now you have Democrat members of the House and Senate, Democrat members of the media. Demanding. Right now that Donald Trump should be put in prison. Now imagine that that won’t affect the campaign, will it, on bogus charges that violate the federal due process and equal protection clause. Now, I want to say this to the Supreme Court justices. You can’t duck this forever. There’ll be an election in 2028. And when there’s an election in 2028, there won’t be an incumbent. There won’t be an incumbent either Trump or Biden wins. Now it’s possible one can pass while they’re in office. But let’s. Let’s stipulate. No. And so what happened then? I guess some local D.A. You understand there’s 2500 district attorneys and thousands more assistant district attorneys. There’s 50 attorneys general. There are thousands of state judges. If the case in New York stands, of course, then this will be. Down again and again and again, particularly in blue state. But. Potentially anywhere. So it could be done in 2028. What’s the problem? We now have a precedent that set. We have a precedent. You don’t require intent. You don’t require any kind of specificity with respect to the actual crime. You don’t require the following of rules of evidence, even in a state. You don’t require. Jury instructions. Jury instructions that are both ethical and legal. And we can go down the list, and I’m not going to do it again. That’s the problem. This won’t go. This won’t go away. You can’t put it back in the box just because you’re wishing it would. And that’s what annoys me with some of these lawyers. Well, you know, we’ll go through the process. The people get out. The people in Bragg’s district are not going to get angry. They’ll vote them over and over there, give them a ticker tape parade. But that’s irrelevant to. We have a justice system. It’s not supposed to be subject. It’s not supposed to be subject to. Popular demand. It’s a justice system. We don’t put it out for a vote among the population, whether you’re innocent or guilty, God forbid. Now we have a whole system set up and not just us. Again, this is called the Enlightenment. This is called civilization. Except in that courtroom in New York. It’s called tyranny. We have nullification of due process in equal protection. You have reverse federalism. Where prosecutor and a judge sees the authority of the federal government for their own courtroom and then in doing so. Eviscerated due process and equal protection. If that’s not the case, rate for the Supreme Court in the middle of a federal election. I don’t know what the hell is. I don’t know why we need a Supreme Court. And so as you know, here. And as you know, on TV, I’ve been leading the charge that there needs to be a path made to the Supreme Court. Through various constitutional methodologies that I am not going to bore you with. I’ve talked about it before. Common law writ. It could be a writ of. Probation, a writ of magna mandamus, a writ of habeas corpus. But now there’s another way. You ready for this, Mr. Producer? And it comes from a man who I admire, who has argued many cases and successfully in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s well into his 80. You know, I’ve been working with him now today. And the plan is he’s going to write a piece that will put out. I will put out that he’s writing and it’s this. President Trump has this ability under the law, under the Constitution, to file for a common law writ. One of the writs I mentioned to give the court the opportunity to take up this matter. Again, I have no idea if the court will or won’t. And if they don’t, the damage will be done. It’s not like the filing creates the damage. The damage will be done because they don’t take the case. But there’s something called original jurisdiction. Stick with me. You won’t hear this anywhere else. There’s something called original jurisdiction. And that would include when a state or states sue another state. In matters of significant consequence. That involve potentially in in this case, in reality, the Constitution of the United States. Now, what does that mean? That means. If Republican attorneys general, two, three, four or five, you could actually have won. But the numbers matter. Sue the state of New York. For, among other things, interfering. In a federal election. To the detriment. Of the election process to the detriment of the citizens of their states. And you can see how you can develop this. That they asked the Supreme Court. To step in under original jurisdiction. You don’t even need a writ. Just, I mean, a British search yard. But you don’t need a common law rep. They asked them to step in and to address this in order to protect the citizens of Florida, the citizens or whatever. I’ve tried to make contact with the attorney general of Texas. I’ve heard crickets so far. I’m working through a few other states to just convey this information. I’m hoping just by my speaking in this microphone. The conga line of columnists and articles and broadcasters will well pick it up a little bit and I’ll get back to these various public officials. And so my thinking is. President Trump. Seeks his writ, his common law writ that I’ve discussed at some length here and written about online and so forth and discussed on Fox and plays. But certain states. Pursue an original jurisdiction case with the Supreme Court in order to. Defend the equal protection rights. Of their citizens. From the acts. Every single judge and prosecutor under the color of New York state law. Because it impacts more. The New York. Get the point. Mr.. I raised that and the usual response. It could be tough. I don’t know if it’ll work. We’re well aware that this is unusual. But it’s more than impossible. It is possible. When you look at Bush versus Gore and Bush versus Gore. President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I should say, their election efforts at the time. They sought what they termed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They found an emergency appeal, quote unquote, and they asked the Supreme Court to stop. The Florida State Supreme Court from allowing the vote counting to continue. Because there was mass confusion about what the rules were now. Moreover, under Article two, the state legislature writes the election laws. And the fact that. The court keeps changing the election laws. There really are no more election laws in the state of Florida. That was a remarkably. Rare effort because Bush versus Gore didn’t have any precedent to point to. Furthermore, you’re literally in the middle of a vote count in a state that will determine who the president of the United States is going to be. And so the question was for the Supreme Court to stay the Florida state court’s decision. Stop the vote counting. Rule against what the Florida State Court did, which would result in the Electoral College votes ultimately. Going to George W Bush as then would be president of the United States now. You talk about climbing a hill there, man. That’s a hill. That’s a hell. Bigger than this hill. Nobody’s asking anybody to start counting votes. Nobody’s asking anybody to rule in a way in which it would be clear the Electoral College votes would go to one candidate or another. And what’s this emergency appeal stuff to the Supreme Court? Well, the Supreme Court took the case, as you know. And they issued an accepted as a writ of surgery. Meaning based on some constitutional or statutory challenge. So that’s how they treated it. Never been done before. And ultimately the court cobbled together a seven vote majority. And said, Hey, look. Because you have so many different ways of voting in these counties. And the counties are counting it differently. In one county, the hanging chads in another county, this you have the disparate treatment that is the unequal treatment of the voters. That’s unconstitutional. And you know the rest. What I’m saying is. You have one judge. And one prosecutor. Who seized federal authority wouldn’t even define it. Use the federal election law. As a sort of nebulous reference to breathe life into a state statute. And then they used the state statute. To impact a federal election by handicapping. The Republican candidate against the Democrat candidate. This isn’t a normal election just here. This has never been done before in American history. So why is it being done now? Why is the timing now? How the hell do you breathe life into a state statute when you can’t even point to the federal statute? And why would you use a state statute like this for that’s never been used like this before in the history of the state? I will go up that process lumbering New York. No, no, no, no, no. You don’t understand. You can do that. But that doesn’t help the people in Texas and Florida and Kansas and Iowa, that that’s irrelevant. We’re saying there’s a federal violation. It’s not to be decided by the New York appellate courts. They can decide the innocence or guilt in that court, but they don’t get to decide the federal question. So they don’t get to decide for all the other states how this current election is going. So President Trump, in my view, has a path to the step of the courthouse if they choose to embrace it. And now there’s also an original jurisdiction issue. When you have a dispute between states on a federal matter like this, where a federal matter like this that’s called original jurisdiction, and that Lewin, who is a fabulous lawyer, litigator, expert on Supreme Court jurisprudence, this is what he’s looking at and I’m looking at it with him. We’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Wow, that’s interesting. Mr. Producer, Alan Dershowitz now says there should be emergency appeal. Greg Jarrett literally minutes ago just posted there should be an emergency appeal. It’s not so lonely anymore. Mr. Producer, others are saying there should be an emergency petition. They’re not saying what type because they have researched it. But that’s okay. That’s okay. We’re getting there. And that’s why I do what I do. Let’s see. Here we have. Okay. Anyway. And there will be more. It’s the nature of the beast. It’s what I do. And then. And then we’ll get this thing going, as we must. But the more, the merrier. Come on in, boys. I’m all for it. We’ll be right back.