On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show, the Constitution provides no authority to any President of the United States to unilaterally forgive any debt owed to the people without any legislation from congress. This move by Democrats to forgive student loan debt and appeal to their base will affect inflation just like any other spending bill. This unconstitutional move will also cause tuition to go up as well. Then, the government refuses to release the affidavit of the Mar a Lago raid because they want to leak it so they can shape the narrative in the media. Prior court decisions have considered presidential records to be personal property that is archived by the government but not government property. Since there is a five-year period in which the former President can restrict access to his documents (both classified and unclassified) under the Presidential Records Act, Trump has not violated any law and the search against him was unconstitutional. Later, John Solomon founder of Just The News joins the show to discuss the media’s bias in their reporting. Solomon reiterated that reporting facts is sorely needed in our nation today. Afterward, Jared Kushner calls in to discuss his new book “Breaking History: A White House Memoir.” Kushner walks us through what it was like inside the Trump White House during the chaotic siege of Mueller’s Russia witch hunt.
Just The News
Biden White House facilitated DOJ’s criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos
NY Times
Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago
Post Millennial
New York Times’ ‘right-wing media’ beat headed by Buzzfeed journalist who pushed Steele dossier misinformation
Photo by Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
I think it’s the first week in September we will be celebrating 20 years on the air. Twenty years. An amazing. Starting as sun host in New York. Then a six to seven p.m. host and six to eight, six to nine. We have done very, very well in a slot that that never scored before. Because you’re up against the Mets, you’re up against the Yankees, right up against the Rangers, you’re up against this, that and the other, but. We’ve had our core audience. And there is no competition on any other stations, period. Some proud of you folks. And I thank you, folks. It’s a tremendous honor. To push out our mission excuse me. I want to get very deeply into now more information. On the tyranny that’s taking place with the Department of Justice, but before I do. I want to talk about student loan forgiveness. First of all, let me mention something nobody mentions. Where in the Constitution does the president of the United States? On his own. Without legislation. Without the law, have the power to forgive, quote, unquote. Indebtedness, loans. That are owed to we, the taxpayers. That money is owed to you. Now, about 35 to thirty eight percent of the people in this country have graduated from four year. Colleges are higher. Two thirds of not. That thirty five to thirty eight percent on average earns far more than the other two thirds. Seventy percent of the beneficiaries. Under this. Are in the top 60 percent of wage earners. So Joe Biden and the Democrats want to redistribute wealth. From blue collar workers. They’re not just college graduates, half of whom we’re talking about have graduate degrees. Graduate degrees. So the Democrat Party once again is serving their base, they’re serving their constituents, it’s not the American people. They’re empowering. Enriching. People who support them and vote for them. And they’re doing it again. So there’s no constitutional basis for that which makes this unconstitutional. Unconstitutional. And yet, here we go. To get votes, to put money in the pockets of their base, somebody estimated it’s about nine hundred dollars a month. Now, this will have two immediate impacts. Number one. Three to nine hundred and eighty three hundred and nine hundred and eighty dollars billion. University of Pennsylvania says over 10 years, that’s what it’s going to cost the taxpayers. So it’s going to affect inflation again. It’s another spending bill, if you will, a spending bill for the wealthy. Number two, what’s going to happen with college tuition? It’s going to go up. It’s going to make it less affordable for people who aren’t wealthy, for blue collar workers and their children. Tuition is going to go up, it’s already through the roof, and if you notice, we don’t have hearings on this, as I said the other day. And the reason is these are the indoctrination mills. The use of the indoctrination mills. For the Democrat Party. Chuma. Once 50,000 dollars in relief. AOC and her Anquan all of their debt, all of it paid for by you. How many of you have loans on your cars, on your homes? Loans on major appliances, loans on a second home. Loans on your businesses. Don’t you wonder why it is that you have to continue to pay down the principal and on the interest of your loan, but this set of individuals is treated uniquely by the federal government. There’s a carve out for them. How many of you have mortgages? Most of you. You think this is fair? Why is this lone? For the wealthiest among us. Those who have decided to go to college on your nickel. Apparently. Colleges and universities are making money like. Like drug kingpins with their tuition and so forth, why is there this carve-out? Well, Bernie Sanders wants everybody to go to college, so everybody’s indoctrinated. This is moral. And it’s unconstitutional. It’s all those things and more. And it’s going to cost us a fortune. All right, I just want you to keep that in mind excuse me, Colora. Maggie Haberman, a.k.a. Maggie Haberman, Jodi Kantor, Adam Goldman and Ben Protus. Have a piece last night in The New York Times, Trump had more than 300 classified documents, Mar a Lago. And now I see our friends at Fox are reporting 700 pages. I thought the government wanted to keep all of the secret. I thought the government was was on the trail, had witnesses. When I was on Hannity last week, he said to me, why? Why won’t the government release the affidavit, and I said because they want to leak it. With their salami tactics, they want to cherry pick. They want to create the narrative. That’s why. Because they go in court and lie. And outside of court, they leak to their favorite publications, especially The New York Times. Now, Maggie Haberman first worked for The New York Post, then she worked for the New York Daily News and she worked for Politico. Now she works for The New York Times, where she got a Pulitzer. For effectively lying about Russia collusion. She sees if you want to make money, you want to get awards. You need to work for a corporation. They cover it up, the Holocaust testing. That encourage Stalin to encourage Castro. And has an anti-Semitism problem. And I would be The New York Times. So information has been leaked to The New York Times, information has been leaked to the Washington Post, information’s been leaked. To Newsweek. In other reliable sources. CNN, where Maggie Haberman also works. So there’s a leak. And now here’s the narrative. Here’s the narrative. What in the world is Donald Trump doing with 300 classified documents? We don’t know. But the markings are exactly we don’t know what the documents are, of course, and now now it’s 700 pages. Next it’ll be how many words? He’s obviously up to no good. Obviously. We have Andrew Weissman on MSNBC, MSNBC and CNN. Hire the slimiest of the slimeballs they used to work. As prosecutors, as FBI agents, the CIA and all the rest, these are the lowest of the low lives and Weissman is at the top of the list of the low lives on mouthless day to day. He said the following cut one go. Andrew, let me begin with you. Just from an FBI point of view and a legal point of view, both of which you have, what do you make of the revelation in the Times that three hundred classified documents were found at Mar a Lago? Yesterday was a big news day because you had The New York Times reporting that you also had John Solomon issuing a letter from the archives in May that was also quite damning. And you had former President Trump’s filing for a special master. So there was a lot of news. None of it was good for the president that The New York Times reporting I found most interesting because of one particular sentence, which is that several sources said that when the archives were trying to get the documents back, that it was the former president, Donald Trump, who personally reviewed the boxes in deciding what to return. And that means he also decided what not to return. And we know from the archives, not just from The New York Times, that in those 15 boxes were substantial number of classified documents. OK, wow. Cut three go. My question is, what about the unclassified documents that were unclassified documents and there are two those also to you and me and the American people about Donald Trump and is that not a crime? Maybe not as much of a crime as compartmented information, but isn’t that theft? Did me steal these documents from us? Absolutely. The crime is the federal crime is 18 USC 640 one for all of the nerds out there who want to look it up that governs if you steal government property. So that would comply. So this sleazeball has Trump guilty of substantial criminal activity, including stealing government property. You have so-called reporters who obviously have studied very carefully what the laws are. Now, why am I playing this? Why am I exposing you to Andrew Weissman? And this other guy. On MSNBC. Why am I exposing you to this? I’ll explain after the break. We’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
I want you to think about the Democrats have rewarded illegal. Immigration. Illegal immigration. Democrats have awarded criminals. The Democrats. Have rewarded. Students now. Students, Democrats have awarded. Environmentalists, Tumi. America. Who do you think’s paying for all this and what rewards have you gotten? They say they’ve controlled the price of drugs, first of all, that doesn’t even kick in until 19 excuse me, until 20, 26. But that’s not a reward. You’re going to lose new drugs and technologies, we’ve talked about that. All right, so you have four so-called reporters at The New York Times, and these people are basically propagandists. For the state. And with the Republicans control the elected branches of government, they’re still propagandists for the state, that is for the Democrat Party and the bureaucracy that pretty much is the state. And so they just switch hats as fast as they can, Habermann, Cantor, Goldmann, and protest. The Democrat administration comes in, they are the recipients of leaks to help the Democrats and hurt the Republican. Republican administration is and they are the recipient of leaks to use against a Republican administration. Leaks from Democrats, of course, and the bureaucracy. So Habermann, Cantare, goldmann, and protests took for them. Are basically scribe’s for the leaker’s say, look at this, three hundred documents for classification markings. How to be from the government? The Trump people want to know exactly what was taken. They don’t have a. A clear inventory, so the New York Times knows more about the documents than the. Former president now we’ve got it down the pages, 700 pages. And now we have MSNBC through men announcing. That Trump is violating the Espionage Act, that Trump has stolen documents. That Trump has obstructed and you don’t need intent, he says. He’s ready to go, baby. He’s ready to go because he’s an ignoramus, he’s a moron. So are these four reporters that provide no context to the American people? Nothing. There are ideologues and they are utterly unprofessional and unconscionable about how they conduct themselves. I only have a minute left in this segment, but when we come back, I want to read something to you, which is why I first I exposed you. To the lies that come out of the corrupt media and how the corrupt media use. Use hacks, vicious, evil hacks like Weissman. There was a piece in The Wall Street Journal today. By two constitutional experts who actually litigate at the appellate and Supreme Court levels. What worked for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush? Not just former federal prosecutors, these are serious people who have to litigate these cases at the highest level, and you are not going to want to miss this. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
All right. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, two top appellate litigators, appellate litigators. At the circuit court level and at the Supreme Court level. And they’re quite renowned. Not merely former federal prosecutors posing as experts like Andrew Weissman. And they wrote. Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar a Lago? The judge who issued the warrant wasn’t a judge, actually was a master from our Largo has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting him. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no. The FBI had no legally valid cause for the right. Now let’s stop. I have made the point that the Espionage Act of 1917 cannot apply to the president or former president that takes documents with him. Because of Article two, Section one, the first sentence, I’d made the case that under the Fourth Amendment, this was unconstitutional, not just overly broad, but overly broad because it’s unconstitutional. They grabbed all the boxes. I’ve made the case that they have violated Donald Trump’s privilege rights under attorney client privilege because they grabbed all the boxes. Now they are making a case. That the issuance of the warrant itself was not legally valid and I want you to listen to this. The warrant authorized the FBI to seize, quote, all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime or other items illegally and they stress illegally possessed in violation. And they cite three statutes. That is the Justice Department does, including the Espionage Act. They say these criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts. The materials to be seized included, quote, any government and or presidential records created between January 20, 2017 and January twenty twenty twenty one. That is Donald Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar a Lago are likely to fall within that category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them, his possession of them is entirely consistent with that legal right and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant. Wow. Halsell. Those statutes being cited by the FBI are general in their text, in application, but Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Now. The four reporters so called it The New York Times, haven’t read it. Weissman hasn’t read it. None of these former federal prosecutors and legal analysts have read it. They say it’s long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton vs. Management, Karzi man Carrie 1974, that quote, where there is no clear intention otherwise a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. So the former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump any application of the laws the FBI warrants cites. So this statute, 1978. Trumps those criminal statutes. Why? Because of what he said or what they said. That this is a specific statute having to do with presidential records and how they’re to be handled, not general, criminal or otherwise type statute. Now, the Presidential Records Act dramatically changed the rules regarding ownership and treatment of presidential documents. Presidents from George Washington through Jimmy Carter treated their White House papers as their personal property, and neither Congress nor the courts disputed that. In Nixon versus United States 1992, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that Richard Nixon had a right to compensation for his presidential papers because they were considered personal, which the government had retained under the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974, which applied to only him. In fact, the court ruled custom and usage evidence is the kind of mutually explicit understandings that are encompass within the constitutional notion of property protected by the Fifth Amendment. That’s a fancy way of saying. It was Nixon’s property. So going from Carter all the way back. It wasn’t considered government property was considered the property of the president. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 became effective of 1981 at the start of the Reagan presidency. It established a unique statutory scheme, balancing the needs of the government, former presidents and history. The law declares presidential records to be public property and provides that, quote, The archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, preservation and access to the presidential records. OK. The law lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist’s is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public and impose restrictions on access. Notably ready, it does not address the process by which former presidents records are physically to be turned over to the archivist. Or set any deadline leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president. It’s why you have negotiations that. There is nothing in the statute that says. When the former president has to turn the documents over the archives. The law explicitly guarantees a former president listen to this, continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public. But in the meantime, unlike with all other government documents which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive branch officials. The Presidential Records Act establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five year restriction on access applicable to everyone, including the sitting president, absent a showing of need which can be extended into the records, had been properly reviewed and processed before leaving office. A president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years. The only exceptions are for the National Archives personnel working on the materials judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress in cases of established need, they have to prove the need and the former president himself. The Presidential Records Act, section twenty five, subsection three specifically commands that quote, The presidential records of a former president shall be available to such former president or the former president’s designated representatives regardless of any of these restrictions. Nothing in the law suggests nothing that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes, the criminal statutes on which the Mar a Lago warrant is based. Get the statutes text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal law provisions would interact with the Presidential Records Act provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review retention, removal or destruction of records of the archives. Nothing is said about the former president himself. But applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced statutory scheme. So the Justice Department saw complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House. He should be in the clear, even if some of those records. Ah, classified. The law makes no distinction between them. In making a former president’s records available to the former president. This law doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t. Have heard that was a deliberate choice by Congress as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978 and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present, making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12 year moratorium on public access. They’re saying the president can take these documents home. There’s nothing to prevent him. His absolute access to the documents, his designees have access to the documents as long as they haven’t violated some prior crime under the statute, and those documents include unclassified and classified documents. You follow me, Mr. Producer. The government obviously has an important interest in how classified materials are kept, whether or not they are presidential records in this case, it appears the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock when the relevant Mar a Lago storage room. If that was insufficient and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a warrant, a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump’s continuing access. Surely that’s what the government would have done if any other former president were involved. So let’s recap. These for Washington excuse me, New York Times shlubs. Taking information leaked to them by obviously by the Department of Justice, the prosecutors, and regurgitating it with their own opinions, and this guy, Weissman, a former federal prosecutor. A nasty, nasty piece of work. I have no idea what they’re talking about and they don’t care. Because we have a rogue Department of Justice, a rogue U.S. attorney, a rogue FBI. The reason no president has been prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 because to do so would be unconstitutional, this statute passed in 1978 and applicable in 1981. Forward obviously recognizes that. And the president has given special access to and control over the documents, there’s no mention in the statute whatsoever where the documents are, where they should be. Whether they’re classified or unclassified, nothing. Unless Donald Trump is a spy, he didn’t violate the Espionage Act, even if you argue it applies to. And he’s not required. To turn the boxes and boxes of information over. And let’s is negotiated and he agrees with it. Regardless. And. The second level of defense, may I say, is the violations of the Fourth Amendment, the third level, the violations of attorney client privilege and potentially executive privilege. I think that’s the weakest. But that’s OK. So let’s be clear. By taking documents. To his home in Mar a Lago. He did not violate any statute. Because the Presidential Records Act gives him control over and access to the documents classified are not. It says nothing of where they have to be like he has to show up at the National Archives and go to the basement every time he wants to read them. And this obviously was a balancing act because prior to that, presidents took this stuff home, which is exactly why I keep saying, what does Obama have? What is George W. Bush had? What is Gore had? What Cheney had? What did Biden take? Maybe nothing, maybe something. But the fact of the matter is. It wouldn’t have been illegal, let alone criminal. I think this is why you listen to this program, I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
What I just read to you and then further explain to you, you haven’t heard from a single legal analyst on television, not one. You’ve not heard from a single former federal prosecutor, not one. You’ve not heard from a single professor of law, not one. Not one. That the president is authorized to have access for years to classified and unclassified information and. There’s absolutely no requirement. They have it at a certain location, in fact, he can take them home and review them and other presidents have. Period. It’s like Trump authorizing twenty thousand. Twenty thousand. Armed National Guardsmen to protect the capital, it gives the lie to the entire thing. As does this. As does this. So they’ll bring all these Bushi guys on on all these Cheney guys on and all the rest of them. To tell us what’s going on, they don’t have the foggiest idea what’s going on, they bring on these former federal prosecutors who are not constitutionalists, they really don’t have the foggiest idea what the hell is going on. And they they bite the hook. That’s thrown out there by the media and the government like everybody else. Rather than think for themselves. In the third hour, we have a special guest, Jared Kushner. And we’re going to go behind the scenes, behind the curtain at the Trump White House. His book is I think it’s topping the list or near at Amazon.com. And it’s going to be fascinating, very, very compelling for those of you who are curious about it. Don’t forget, our podcast is available, you go to Mark Levin Show dot com and it lays out how to get there. Don’t forget satellite radio on Patriot. Don’t forget streaming Mark Levine’s show, Dotcom, there’s a thousand ways to listen to this show for your convenience. I’ll be right back.