On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Donald Trump is the biggest threat that the ruling class has ever faced and now they’re coming after him to get to you. The espionage act cannot be applied to a President and was never even intended to be applied to a former president, and to do so would be unconstitutional. Woodrow Wilson threatened newspapers that challenged his views and used the Espionage Act to jail opponents. To date, more people have been tried under the Espionage Act during Barack Obama’s term in office than any other modern president since Wilson. Then, the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search or seizure. The search warrant into Trump’s home gave the FBI access to search anywhere, which explains why they went through former First Lady Melania Trump’s closet, violating the Constitution. Afterward, Harriet Hageman calls in with an update on her campaign against Liz Cheney on the eve of the primary election.
Fox News
Justice Department opposes release of affidavit justifying FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home
GovInfo.gov
4th Amendment US Constitution–Search and Seizure
Truth Social
Right Scoop
Federalist
Fox News
Newsweek
Former ‘Nuke Football’ Handler Hits Out After Trump Nuclear Code Claims
Rumble
Gov DeSantis Slams FBI Raid On Mar-A-Lago
NEO
More reflections on the Mar-A-Lago raid: Trump as an illegitimate president
Red State
Twitter Announces They’re Going to Put Their Thumb on the Scale for Midterms Again
Yahoo
The next steps in the fight against climate change after the budget bill
Photo by Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswire
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
You know, welcome. This Espionage Act of 1917. Was later amended, you know, espionage and sedition. You hear these phrases thrown around in the description of Donald Trump. Espionage, sedition. Espionage and sedition are intended for people who act in treasonous ways, spies. People who take our top secret send them to the enemy. Espionage, spies for the enemy. Sedition, who have as their purpose to undermine the constitution and the rule of the land. None of that applies to Donald Trump, of course, but they keep throwing these phrases around. You can read the Espionage Act of 1917 as amended. It’s right there on the Internet. This law. Has never been applied to a president or a former president. Why is that anybody now? Because it can’t be at least we’re forestall a constitutional republic, of which there are serious questions by me. The Espionage Act. The first sentence, as I said last night on Fox, the first sentence of Article two, Section one. In Article two is what creates the executive branch and the office of the presidency. The very first sentence, basically, is the sentence that provides. That the president is the executive branch now, the left hates to hear this, particularly their professoriate. Doesn’t mean he’s a dictator. He just is in charge of one of the branches of government and they wanted one person to be in charge. And then there’s separation of powers. And it is generally understood or used to be that you cannot pass a statute that diminishes. That diminishes one branch or another or alters the Constitution in any significant way. Let alone an institute, a regulation at the Department of Justice or anywhere else. A regulation is the lowest. Lowest of so-called. Requirements. Then comes the statutes, but the law, the line is the Constitution. When this law was passed in 1917, who’s never intended to apply to a president or even a former president. World War One, it started in one of the worst presidents in American history. Who was in and out of the closet, racist and segregationist, Woodrow Wilson, a long time Democrat, so-called progressive. And one of the early intellectuals of the so-called progressive movement, by the way. He put this in place as a broader part of other rules that he put in place. For instance, he set up. An entire propaganda network. An entire propaganda network where he would threaten newspapers. He would threaten newspapers. If they would dare to challenge his views on World War One. He used the Espionage Act. To put political opponents in prison, one of them was Eugene Debs. Now, Eugene Debs. Was a five time Socialist Party of America presidential candidate. He was very critical of our involvement in World War One. He spoke in Ohio and he urged young men to resist the draft. So he was arrested and charged with Ted counts of sedition. And he was found guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. And he couldn’t vote for the rest of his life. And he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. Supreme Court in Chank vs. United States, unanimously ruled against him. They said that speech could potentially undermine society or the government, particularly during the war, so it wasn’t protected under the First Amendment. By the way, you know who commuted his sentence to time served a Republican president? By the name of Warren G. Harding. The Espionage Act. Was used for such. Vile conduct as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They were spying for the communist Soviet Union. And they gave the Soviet Union top secret nuclear weapon designs, they were spies. As well as information on jet engines and radar and sonar. Long trial, they were convicted. Under the Espionage Act of 1917. Daniel Ellsberg. He was charged with violations of the Espionage Act. Over the Pentagon Papers. But a judge dismissed all the charges against him. Because the government had illegally collected and handled the evidence. Chelsea Manning, former US Army private, what’s he call himself now, Elizabeth Manning or whatever it is? He had faced 22 charges, including aiding the enemy. The most serious sentence would have been the death penalty. He was convicted on 21 charges. But he was acquitted in terms of aiding the enemy. And he was sentenced to 35 years maximum security, Barack Obama commuted his her sentence to the nearly seven years. He she had served. Edward Snowden. Charged under the Espionage Act, by the way, more people have been charged under the Espionage Act since Woodrow Wilson, by modern times, by Barack Obama than any modern presidents. Than any modern presidents. So if you if you look at this Espionage Act and you look at the history of it, it literally has nothing to do. With what’s being done to Donald Trump. And it’s also unconstitutional as it applies to Donald Trump. I’ve been the first to say this. I think I have to write it in the National Review. Mr. Producer, what do you think? We were the first to talk about how this was used as a subterfuge for January six and broader investigation. It was during the second hour on Monday when we first heard of this news. And last night on Life, Liberty and Levine and I’ll do it again on radio, I pointed out that as applies to the president of the United States, the Espionage Act is unconstitutional. Now, why is that? Why is the Espionage Act as applies to the president that is Trump unconstitutional, anybody know? Let’s go back to Article two, Section one, the first sentence. And it’s generally understood that the president, the United States has absolute. Ultimate authority to classify or declassify whatever he wants. So prior to his leaving office. If he makes a determination that he is going to take classified information with him. Nothing can stop him. The Espionage Act of 1917 can’t stop him. If you have the power to make classifications and unmake classifications. Then you have the power to take a document, whether it’s classified or not, as president of the United States. Well, Mark, what about the presidential? The Presidential Papers Act, or whatever they choose to call it, was passed in 1978. Do any of you collect all presidential signatures and documents and so forth? You see, prior to 1978. Most of these things belong to the president who left office. That’s why you’ll get a certificate signed by Abraham Lincoln. And I had possession at one time and gave it to the Hillsdale College of the first appointment. The first associate justice of the Supreme Court. It was in private hands, I purchased it and gave it to Hillsdale College. And oh, no, no, no, not so it wasn’t till 1978, so this law was passed. It’s an administrative law. It’s not a criminal law. To the administrative law. But that law does not trump the Constitution any more than the Espionage Act trumps the Constitution. I would argue that, as applies. To a president, it, too, is unconstitutional. The president makes a determination that he is going to take the documents with him. People will say, but the government produced it. That’s fine as it applies to everybody else in the government. But not to the president. He’s the one. To which Article two, Section one first sentence applies, he’s the one. And nobody else. Equality under the law when it comes to Donald Trump is equal treatment as a president and former president under the law, not as Ernie Grabovski handling the fryer at McDonald’s. The case of Hillary Clinton is so compelling because she never was president, she was nothing more than the cabinet secretary. Article two does not apply to her. She’s a subordinate in the executive branch under the unitary executive, which is under the president. It doesn’t apply to her. Or any support. That is the powers that are given to the president of the United States upon his election and to the extent the Espionage Act or some paper pusher act. Attempts to diminish or reduce the circle. A power that a president has there unconstitutional. You want to change it, you amend the Constitution, that’s what you’re supposed to do. Now, of course, as I explain this to you, we have radical judges throughout the District of Columbia thanks to Obama Biden. With a few Trump judges who do not appear to be all that sharp at the district court level. I believe we have Supreme Court justices that understand what I say if they haven’t been so thoroughly intimidated by the DOBs decision. But the Espionage Act, to me, as it was originally applied, was unconstitutional anyway. It’s certainly unconstitutional, as applied to a prison in the United States. That’s why it’s never been applied to a president of the United States. That’s why an attorney general and a U.S. attorney have never attempted to apply it against a president of the United States. They have no idea if, as I speak, Barack Obama took documents with him, let alone classified. Documents, how would they know unless they issue a subpoena to search his five mansions, they have no idea if George W. Bush has classified information down there in Waco or Waco, Texas. They have no idea. They have no idea if Bill Clinton has classified documents as I speak, they have no idea if Dick Cheney has them. They have no idea if Vice President Biden took any none. Because they’ve never looked. They’ve never locked how would they know? Well, Mark, you yourself said they had batch numbers and track, but apparently not. It took 19 months to figure out that Donald Trump had material related to nuclear weapons, which, of course is a lie, but I’m just playing it out 19 months. Some urgency. So I want to encourage those listening. The Espionage Act of 1917. Cannot be applied against a president. But what about a former president? He didn’t take the documents as a former president. He took them as president. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
Now, the Department of Justice announced about an hour ago that it will not release the affidavit of the declaration spelling out the core substance, the fundamentals of the search warrant. Now, if you’re just a pedestrian, like the rest of us and you heard the attorney general, Merrick Garland, speak out the other day, you would have thought he was releasing everything we’re going to release. You know, he said the you know, the search warrant, but obviously not the affidavit. I don’t much care. I think the whole thing is crooked and corrupt and unconstitutional. That said, I want you to know what they said about why they’re not going to release. And I also want you to know that the reasons I said that they issued this search warrant or saw it and got it in the first place, still hold. Apart from the violation of the Constitution by using the Espionage Act, I would argue this search warrant, this search warrant. I know former federal prosecutor, so I can actually address this objectively without the taint of their careers was defective. I’ll explain why in a moment.
Hour 1 Segment 3
Hagaman running against Liz Cheney. The in-person vote is tomorrow in Wyoming, will be on this program in the third hour. And I do want to remind our friends in Alaska, please do not vote under any circumstances for Lisa Murkowski, period. She’s a disaster. So why was this warrant defective, least under the Constitution? I don’t care what practices have been in place. Let’s read part of this together, shall we? I think we shall attachment be property to be seized, all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 USC 793 S. Espionage Act 2071. Records production are 15 19 obstruction, including the following any physical documents, but classification markings, along with any containers, boxes, including any other contents in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers, boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and container boxes. B. Information. Including communications in any form regarding the retrieval, storage or transmission of national defense information or classified material, see? Any government and or presidential records created between January 20, 2017 and January, twenty, twenty, twenty one DNA evidence of knowing alteration, destruction or concealment of any government and or presidential records or of any documents but classification markings. Now, there’s a lot to unload here, but let me unload what really matters. Any this is see any government and or presidential records. Created between January 20, 2017 and January, twenty twenty one, that would be during President Trump’s term in office. Now, let’s talk about the 14th Amendment. What does excuse me, the Fourth Amendment, what does the Fourth Amendment say? Part of your Bill of rights. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. That’s that affidavit. Here we go, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things. The BBC’s. Any government and or presidential records created between January 20, 2017 and January, twenty, twenty, twenty one. Now, obviously, you can’t know in advance, can you? If such documents exist, but if they exist everywhere, in somebody’s house, everywhere. What this search warrant did and in my view, violated the Fourth Amendment, is they gave. Unconstitutional power, a grant of power. To the FBI and prosecutors who have a hate on for Trump to go into his home and search everything. We’re not even talking here about the plain view doctor in which I talked about last week. Nothing to do with that. This warrant authorizes this kind of a search. By this master. The warrant signed by a master. It’s not a federal judge. Any government and or presidential records created between January 20, 2017, in January, twenty twenty one, you can search for them and seize them. Perhaps that explains why they went into Melania Trump’s clothes closet. Because see, out of A, B, C and D, and I would argue otherwise, but let’s stay focused on C violates the particularity requirement. Of the Fourth Amendment one more time. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Why do we have a 4th Amendment? Because several states demanded it before they would vote on the constitution that was adopted in Philadelphia. They didn’t call it the Fourth Amendment, but they were very concerned about. What we’re called general warrants are writs of assistance. The British would abuse the colonists. By printing these general warrants, which became known as writs of assistance in which the monarchy would grant soldiers. These broad powers to search the homes, the businesses, the persons, the papers of the colonists. So they could search virtually any home they liked at any time they liked for any reason they liked or no reason at all. What was happening, obviously, is they wanted to see who was joining this resistance and then revolution. So the framers of the Bill of Rights, which came after the Constitution, considered this to be unreasonable, of course they were right. Of course, they were right. So that the government have a valid interest, such as public safety, which is a key one. In searching through Melania’s closet. And searching through the entirety, virtually. Of the living quarters at Mar a Lago of the Trump family. Public safety issue or concern about a potential crime, apart from maintaining documents, apart from maintaining documents, which is why everybody’s at first scratching their heads, it’s you doing a search warrant for. Threatening is the president of the United States, an unprecedented act? Because of documents. Because of documents. The presumption is even the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 under patent vs. New York. That a search without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. Some cases they can be reasonable for a number of reasons I don’t need to get into here. But there are also cases where search warrants are issued that are unreasonable. For instance, if they grant way too broad of authority and undermine the entire purpose of a judge ordered and judge overseeing a search warrant in the first place. So not only. Is the Espionage Act not a justification, in my view, because it would be unconstitutional, was applied to a leaving president? And by the way, the argument the president, his lawyers make is they already declassified them. I want to get into that in a sort of a footnote point. But here, I argue the search warrant was simply way too broad. The judge, this master. Authorized far too of an ambiguous and generalized search parameters, it doesn’t fix it by saying, oh, by the way, look for classified information. And of course, they knew there was classified information. They’d been in there two months earlier and they didn’t take it. So there was no urgency. There really wasn’t. And so the privacy. And the property. Was violated. By the government in violation. Of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, we learned more today. Of course, the Justice Department opposes the release of the underlying affidavit. They say it would serve as a roadmap to the government’s instigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps. Talk about a future president. I have no idea why they would have to say this. But the president of the United States tweeted out, oh, great, has it just been learned that the FBI and its now famous writer, Omar Gallaga, took boxes of privileged attorney client material and also exclusive privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken by a copy of this truth? I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to a location from. They were taken, thank you. I heard one legal analysts say that they’re going to have to set up what they call off, like it or not, a Chinese wall within the Department of Justice. Where there are certain lawyers who will be on the other side of the wall to independently review the documents, to make a determination of whether they’re applicable or not. That might be fine when you’re dealing with. Discovery matters. Particularly when you’re dealing with discovery requests involving the Department of Justice, where it needs to make such decisions and so forth. But when you’re dealing with a search warrant and documents and boxes have already been taken. You can make the presumption that the attorney client privilege has already been pierced. Because at least theoretically, although I don’t believe they did this, but even according to parts of the warrant, at least theoretically, they’re looking through the boxes right there, they’re nine and a half hours. How can you prove a negative if you’re the defense? So the presumption is they violated attorney client privilege. And the Department of Justice doesn’t get to decide whether they did or not. A court has to decide whether they did or not. So this is far more complicated as a result of the way the Department of Justice conducted itself. Let people make it seem. Yes, attorney client privilege does actually apply to Donald Trump, even though I know they keep subpoenaing his lawyers or getting warrants and taking their documents and saying there’s the crime fraud exception and they make these these assertions and just start grabbing all the documents. You wouldn’t want that to happen to you, would it, would you? Presidents ask them to return them. I don’t believe they’ve gotten an answer yet. President also points out in another tweet in the raid by the FBI, they stole my three passports, one expired along with everything else. This is an assault on a political opponent at a level never seen before in our country, third world. Well, why don’t they return them? Where are these boxes? Who’s in charge of them? There’s the court overseeing it. Has the court done anything? How about the attorney general? Is he concerned about the Constitution, isn’t he concerned about attorney client privilege? He’s not supposed to do the dirty work of the Bush administration, of the Democrat Party. Or to be the hatchet man for the U.S. attorney, Hatchet. There’s supposed to be a lot of protections in place on the criminal side. So once again, it’s my contention that the Espionage Act of 1917 cannot apply to a president. And he is president. At the time that he takes the documents and leaves office. That’s number one. Number two, this act was never intended to apply to. Ex presidents under any circumstances. That’s why it’s never been applied in the. We have no idea of the living ex-president or what they have in their homes and in their offices, the living vice presidents, what they have in their homes and offices, neither does the National Archives. They can assert while they follow the rules. But that doesn’t mean they know whether their files in the homes or the businesses of these individuals. You know the foggiest idea. None. Number three, the search warrant, in my view, was way too broad. And therefore defective under the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutional. Way too broad. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
For those who say we need more facts to figure out what’s going on here, actually you don’t if you understand the Constitution. They want to send you down a rabbit hole. Wow, I need to get into the weeds. I need know you don’t. At the Federalists, Treston Justice is a very smart young young man, points out the FBI search warrant authorizing a government raid of former President Trump’s Florida residents saw an exhaustive list of any White House records the president ever came in contact with, according to the document obtained by the feds that we all have now seen. Outlining the property to be seized by the more than 30 agents who rummage through the former president’s mansion, the White demanded confiscation of any document Trump oversaw or created for the entirety of his four years as commander in chief. In other words, had Trump written something down on a napkin. Federal officials were authorized to raid the former president’s home and capture it. The affidavit, allegedly asserting probable cause has not been made available to the public by the DOJ or the federal court that sealed it. That is the M.O. on behalf of the federal court. That’s because what was done here was unconstitutional. Case closed. I’ll be right back.