June 19th, 2023

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, a Judge ruled that Donald Trump can’t discuss or post on his social sites about the core of the appalling case that Jack Smith brought against him. Trump gets to defend himself – we don’t have secret courts in America. The government will have to let every one of these documents see the light of day. Also, Trump’s lawyers are being targeted by a dark money group. if you can’t get a lawyer, you can’t get due process. This group is destroying our Bill of Rights. Former assistant U.S. attorney Will Scharf calls in to discuss the major issues that need to be addressed by special counsel Smith in the Trump documents case. This isn’t a rock-solid case, it’s on a very shaky foundation. Later, Bill Barr has been all over TV and his attacks on Trump are becoming increasingly emotional and unhinged. He has smeared Trump more than he has ever criticized the Biden crime family and the millions of dollars they received from our enemies, including communist China. But something bigger happened today, President Biden sold us out to the Communist Chinese and sold out our ally Taiwan. Secretary of State says, ‘we do not support Taiwan independence.’ Under today’s circumstances, under endless threats from China to Taiwan – you don’t speak out this way about Taiwan unless you are selling them out. It was clear Blinken was groveling to Xi at the direction of Biden.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla

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. I’m going to circle back to this, but just to make an opening comment on it. First of all, I hope you had a great weekend, a great Father’s Day and so forth. So federal judge and I really a federal judge, but nonetheless, a judge rules that. President Trump cannot discuss or post on social media the substance of these classified documents. Sounds pretty sensible, right? Well, let me ask you a question. Should this matter go to court? Who brought up classified documents, Mr. Peterson? The government. Right. In fact, they took pictures of classified documents, at least the coverage boxes. They made allegations that. He’d endangered the United States there. Patsy. Bill Barr has been all over TV making the same allegations. Well, in this country, you actually get to defend yourself and you get to defend yourself in open court. We don’t have secret trials in this country. Framers were very, very shrewd. And we smart people. You know, if I’m Donald Trump’s lawyer and lawyer for anybody in this position. I go document by document. To make a determination, number one, if it is in fact, a classified document. What’s in the document. And how if he did, the former president. Declassified the document. Now, some might say the issue of declassification really doesn’t matter at this point because we’re dealing with an obstruction case. Excuse me. It’s all over the 49 pages. Why would you include photographs? Of the sort that the prosecution did, and then all of a sudden say, we’re not discussing this. So first and foremost. That courtroom at courthouse is going to have to figure out how they’re going to deal with this and the government put the judge in this position. But you have a right to go through every damn document. Even to question its classification. Things are over classified things that shouldn’t be classified. And the other thing that’s interesting to me is has there been a leak investigation taking place here by the Department of Justice and the FBI? Because there’s only one party leaking and that is the special counsel’s office. They’re the ones leaking. The leaking about the grand jury for months. The other leaking taking place. Is anybody going to trace any of those felonies or not? These are rhetorical questions, of course. And then ask yourself, we’re going to have a great Lord on this program. I read his piece that was in The Federalist last week, William Scharf, and he really is a former federal prosecutor, the top order. And he’s running for attorney general in Missouri. As it turns out, I’m going ham on this program. We’re going to go through some of these points. But one of I think the important points he raises, something I’d been thinking about myself was why didn’t they wait till after the election to bring the charges? Why not? There’s no statute of limitations that would have been violated. There’s no statute of limitations would have been violated. Ladies and gentlemen, you’ll notice Bill bars all over television now. His attacks on Trump are getting increasingly emotional. Increasingly unhinged and irrational. Nothing has changed. I don’t really watch the guy. I got other things to do. We do have some of the clips. But whenever you bring up a substantive point, apparently he just blows it off. Which means he doesn’t know how to answer it. And it’s sad he goes on these shows with these softball interviews. And the questioner doesn’t know enough about the law or practices involving these laws. To challenge him because they don’t want a challenger. You’ve got him on TV, you’ve got John Bolton on TV. And interestingly enough. He was challenging John Bolton’s revelation of classified information, or at least allegations of classified information in his book. And Judge Royce Lamberth admonished John Bolton. They didn’t bring any criminal charges against John Bolton. Then you have his former chief of staff, General Kelly. He’s out there, too, doing his thing, saw the long knives are out. This is the ruling class. Bill Barr, John Bolton, General Kelly. They’ve all been in and around Washington, D.C. for decades. And they’re trying to strike back and they’ll be more. But in the end, they don’t matter. How many of you care what Bill Barr has to say? How many of you care? What John Bolton has to say. How many of you care? What General Kelly has to say. And I will also say this to Mike Pence. You read the prosecution’s document, you know nothing else. You’re probably being advised by your aide, Marc Short. To try to somehow distinguish yourself from the crowd. Actually, by trashing Trump, you’re not distinguishing yourself from the crowd. You’re making it more and more obvious that maybe you should have been charged under the Espionage Act. In other words, you don’t have clean hands. The issue isn’t whether you have really, really dirty hands versus just dirty hands. Apparently you did something that most vice presidents don’t do, Mike, and that is you had one or two or more documents at your home that were classified. So that means that you violated, according to Bill Barr. According to. Jack the Ripper. SMITH According to Merrick Garland, you violated the Espionage Act. You committed a felony. So keep that in mind. And Bill Barr has not been answering a single one of these programs. About his handling and classified information. I’ll continue to ask. I did on my show last night. Bill. Did you ever read classified information? While you were being ushered from home to work or worked at home. Did you or not? It’s a very simple question. You said you didn’t. I’d like to know the name of your FBI escort and your driver. Because this is how it works, you see. This is how it works. Donald Trump is not a threat to anybody. He didn’t threaten anybody. The classified information such as it was, was perfectly protected. When you mentioned Lyndon Johnson or Hillary Clinton. What about is it? No, it’s not. What about ism? It’s about equal application to the law. Let me ask you this question, ladies and gentlemen. I think Alan Dershowitz raises it and he does so very well as he does so many things. Do you think the nation’s better off? For Trump having been indicted. Then, if he hadn’t been. You think the nation’s better off? I don’t care about Bill Barr’s personal animus. And peculiarities. I don’t care about John Bolton’s personal animus and peculiarities and all the rest of it all trying to get even. I understand there’s been humiliated that they’re embarrassed. I got it. But it seems to me if they really cared about the country, they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. But they are. Bill Bar, one of CBS. He’s been on Fox repeatedly. Bill Barr has been on Meet the Press. Bill Barr wrote a piece in the Wall piece. What was in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Producer? He’s having a grand old time. He can’t get over this. He can’t get over the fact. That he was fired. Because he’s never been fired, I suppose. I don’t know. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Here’s a downer, so I didn’t mean to mislead you. I want to deal with this now. Get it over with. Bill Barr on Face the Nation. Here it is, Father’s Day. And this is what Bill Barr said when he’s on Face the Nation and he’s in New York. This shows you how desperate. And he’s being questioned by Robert Costa. Robert Costa used to work for National Review. Then he went big time to The Washington Post and now he does it Face the Nation. Cut one, Go. Would you believe that that he continues to claim that he has all these privileges and rights under the Presidential Records Act? Is he mischaracterizing the act? Absolutely. Absolutely. The legal theory by which he gets to take battle plans and sensitive national security information as his personal papers is absurd. It’s hard to stop. You see how Barr twists everything? He didn’t take them. Things were boxed up, just like in your damn office, Bill. And you know this. So why are you lying? Things were boxed up. And they’re boxed up by staff. They’re backstopped by the GSA. Who the hell knows who? It’s near the end of his presidency. It’s pretty hectic. It’s. And they box them up and they put them on the helicopter and they ship them up. Why? Because they want to make room for the incoming president. And they need the existing president, the sitting president, to get out. So the impression by which I want those national security secrets. Oh, I want this. I want that. That’s not the way it works. More in a second. Go bill doctrine they came up with for, you know, having the vice president unilaterally determine who won the election. The pope, What does that have to do with anything? Absolutely nothing. Zero. The Presidential Records Act is what’s to stop presidents from taking official documents out of the White House. It was passed after Watergate. That’s the whole purpose of it. No, that is not the whole purpose. I don’t think he’s read the act. The purpose was to prevent them from privatizing all the papers. That’s true. But what else does the act say, Bill? Are you a lawyer? Who makes the determinations about what’s personal and what’s not. The former president that. Even a federal judge said that in 2012, a judge appointed by Obama, was she wrong? Because if she was wrong. It’s very interesting because that was the position the United States Department of Justice prosecutors took in defense of Bill Clinton and his classified tapes. That’s the position the United States government took. This is why he goes on these shows with these patsies. Why did the United States government take that position? Bill? Why? And then why didn’t they use? The Espionage Act against Hillary Clinton. Why didn’t they use the Espionage Act? Against Lyndon Johnson before there was a presidential Records act, they would have had clear sailing. Right? Nothing to stop them. Why didn’t they? He can’t answer those questions, and he won’t. Go ahead. Restricted what a president can take. It’s as it’s purely private. That had nothing to do with the does restrict when a president can take. But the idea the president has no role. And determining what is and is not is a lie. It’s simply not true. The archives has said so. A federal judge has said so. The statute says so. Go ahead. Operations of government policy. Obviously, these documents are not purely private. It’s obvious. And they’re not even now. Our, you know, document is purely private. Any document that’s on presidential stationery is not private. The test isn’t whether documents are private. That’s not the test, whether the documents are private documents. As a matter of fact, if you understand the presidential records act like our buddy Andy McCarthy, no doubt there is no such thing as private documents in the Oval Office. In fact, if you try to cut around the Presidential Records Act and try and create a separate avenue of document creations and emails and texts and so forth, you’re violating the Presidential Records Act. This is so stupid, Mr. Producer, that I go to respond to this one bag. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
All right. Let’s keep going. Let’s finish this clip. Mr. Producer with Bill Barr. Go ahead a bit. What they’re saying is the president just has sweeping discretion to say they are, even though they squarely don’t fall within the debt. Actually, Bill, we’re saying the statute says what the statute says. But it doesn’t mean the government’s without recourse. You’re not paying attention. How did you get through law school? In fact, the government has a lot of options, but one in particular is not an option to criminalize the manner. Back like the former president of the United States stole classified information. When he didn’t. And of course, they were in discussions. Well, that’s what happens when you’re joking around a government, you know. That’s right. Just roll over. Now what? He won’t say and I’ll say it and I’ve said it already. He’s a bad listener. Is Bill. The government had options including. Civil option. I’ve had to deal with this sort of thing in the past myself. In fact, when the shoe was on the other foot and we were suing the government, we sued the Internal Revenue Service, we sued the EPA, we sued other agencies. We got a. An order from the court. Federal court in Washington, most cases. Number one, to protect the material in number two, to order the agency or department to turn it over. The federal government could have done exactly the same thing with these documents. They could have gone into court. They could have laid out whatever record they wanted to lay out and say Judge Lamberth is an example. Good man, Judge Lamberth. By God, we can’t get our documents. Had a President X, Y, Z in his state. We have tried, here’s the record, so forth and so on. And then the president’s lawyers have an opportunity to respond. See, that’s what the government didn’t want. In a criminal case, It’s very difficult. And so they go there and they make their argument. So it’s laid out in front of the judge civilly in a civil proceeding. As opposed to a criminal proceeding. There was no need for a federal grand jury. None. But if you want to be ham handed, you want to use the iron fist. You want to use police state tactics. That’s what you do. And that’s what Bar is arguing for. Not too bad. He wasn’t that aggressive when it came to other issues when he was attorney general. But let’s move on. And so the court says, let’s say the court says, okay, government, I’m with you, Trump lawyers, you turn all that stuff over. I’ll give you a ten days. Don’t reveal anything. Don’t destroy anything. Not that they were, but still. So here’s my. We want Dr. Walter. Okay. Order of the court. We protect the documents, and you have until this date at noon or five. Whatever. Turn this stuff over. If you want to dispute it, will dispute it. But I want that stuff at the courthouse. It’s number one. Number two, let’s say president’s lawyers. The time of day comes. They say, well, we change our minds, which they wouldn’t say. The judge then says, what judge turns to the government says to the government, I will entertain a motion for an order to hold them in contempt. In fact, why don’t you draft two of them? One for civil contempt, one for criminal contempt, because they have different elements. Then the judge can issue an order. He can send the the lawyer or lawyers to jail. They can punish the former president. He can impose civil penalties. He’s got a whole panoply of options. Why didn’t they take that route, Mr. Barr? Why they didn’t like being jerked around about that. That’s not an answer. Who do you think you’re talking to? Robert Acosta. Why didn’t they take that route? So Bill Barr goes on TV. He doesn’t understand the Presidential Records Act. He doesn’t reveal to the public because most in the public are not lawyers, that there are processes available short of a federal grand jury, short of a warrant, short of a SWAT team that are just as effective. And particularly when you’re dealing with an ex-president, you’re dealing with the dispute, complicated novel issues of declassification and so forth. Why wouldn’t they follow that route? And why wouldn’t they? If they’re going to criminalize the matter. As our guests will discuss further in our three of the gentlemen I mentioned last week, William Scharf, in his fantastic piece. Why wouldn’t they wait until after the election? There were no statute of limitations issues because it gives you a sense of their mens rea, of their mindset. In committing this case to a criminal case. With extraordinary steps that were taken. Extraordinary. Outrageous. Go ahead. Third argument. Do you believe if he is convicted, he should serve his prison sentence? But we haven’t even gotten to the point of whether he’s been convicted and also if his sentence should be. I you know, I don’t like the idea of a former president serving time. Really? Now, you make no sense whatsoever. You say it’s an open and shut case. You say he’s convicted of half the stuff. He’s toast. What does that mean? You think the same prosecutor, Jack the Ripper? Smith You think the same government? If they get a conviction or more than one, it’s going to go easy. They’re going to say, okay, no time. Well, you know, I don’t think they should serve any time. And listen and then all the uproar that would be created by that one way or the other. This is what I mean. All right, let’s let’s finish it up. Got to go. How strong is the special counsel’s case and what kind of questions are these other than stupid? And you know, from prior interviews, he thinks it’s a killer case. And ladies and gentlemen, the truth is that when you’re dealing with a jury in Miami, when you’re dealing with some of these judges. It can be very tough to win these cases. But there are a number of motions that need to be filed that the judge hears where they can be appealed to the appellate courts or even appealed to the Supreme Court as issues of first impression, among other things. And you don’t want to just leave it to the jury. Go ahead. How strong is the special counsel’s case on obstruction specifically? Well, it’s very strong because a lot of the evidence comes from his own lawyers. And furthermore, there’s evidence of him saying things that are completely incompatible with any idea that this was an innocent document dispute. Do you believe he lied to the Justice Department? I personally believe it. Yes, I do. Well, that’s all that matters, because if you personally believe it now, a couple of things here. Couple of things here. He completely. Moves quickly from this issue of a lot of this information comes from one of his lawyers. Now, what he would tell you is really a former antitrust lawyer. That’s what he was. What he would tell you is. Look, there’s a crime fraud exception. And by the way, we’re going to discuss this in our three to. I just can’t do it all at once. There’s a crime fraud exception here. Any judge heard it, and she decided that the case had been made by the government, that he was conspiring with his lawyer or using his lawyer to commit a crime. So you can’t do that. So there’s an exception for this, and that information had to be turned over to the prosecution. That was all done in secret. Ladies and gentlemen. We don’t even know what arguments were made. Let alone the fullness of the judge’s ruling. What arguments were made. We talked about this last week. Let’s take this away from Trump. You’re talking to your lawyer. Let’s say you’re being threatened by the government. Let’s say it’s tax case. Are you free to say to your lawyer? Well, what if I can’t find that document? What if this. What if that What if? Fill in the blank. The answer is yes, you are. That’s different than saying to your lawyer, Look, I destroyed that document and I don’t want you to say a word or here’s the document. I need you to secreted or destroy it. That is enlisting your counsel to commit a crime. Now, when you’re asking your counsel what is or is not a crime. That’s the whole purpose of a lawyer. We have no idea what took place, and neither does Bill Barr. And yet look how he does this, because he’s he’s filled with it with with with fire. Do you believe he lied to the Justice Department? Personally, I do. We didn’t even talk to the Justice Department through his lawyers. Oh, okay. But one of those lawyers think we have no idea. None. None. So if I don’t take time to do this, nobody really is capable of doing it. They’ll just sit there and look at today’s headline and watch. The New York Post today, Mr. Producer. Watching the New York Daily News today. Bring in 17 guests, and that’ll be it. Now. We got to dig a little more deeply here. But something even bigger has happened today. Something even bigger. And when we come back, I want to discuss it with you. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Keep something in mind, folks. Trump is, at least for now, polling north of 50% among Republicans. So when you get a guy like Bill Barr or John Bolton or General Kelly or even other commentators on TV that just keep trashing, trashing, trashing away, rather than really try and look at these things, they’re attacking you, too. They’re attacking you, too. They’re in attacking your intelligence. They’re putting you down. It’s one thing if you disagree with somebody. I have no problem with that. I do my show my way, so I’m not even talking about me. But it’s one thing if you pretend to be a journalist or a commentator. I’m an activist. I’m an advocate. Life’s too short for me to pretend that I’m some, quote unquote, objective, bipartisan type. I don’t want to be bipartisan. There’s an enemy and there’s a good guy. Where the good guy? I don’t have time to be one of these stupid phony journalists, and I’m not interested in it again. Life’s too short and the country’s in trouble. But all that said, Mama says things like. And it’s stupid that he’s talking about you. You’re stupid and absurd. So, Christie. We have more to Christie today. Boy, he’s out there, isn’t he, Mr. Producer? When it comes to youth and their genitalia. I guess Christine’s been thinking about that one a lot. The issue, of course. Nonetheless. All right. As you know, I’ve been on the air. Soon it’ll be 21 years, I guess. And I started out in New York. And almost from day one when I talked about gold, I would come under attack. I did. From Politico. Maybe it was The Washington Post. I don’t remember. And I would go back and look. And that they had goal advertisers all the time, The Post, Politico, the rest of them. But that’s not even the point. The point is, you look at investments over a long period of time, not on even a year to year basis. You look at it through a decade’s time. And if you look at that, maybe 12 years, seven year old doesn’t matter. I’m just ballpark. You can see the diversification is the key. Absolutely the key. The market really controls the price of gold in the market. Your neighbors. Not big banks. Not stock speculation. Not government caused inflation. The market responds to these things. That’s why they hate it. They want you to believe all your money should be in a piggy bank or in a savings account. That’s why they hate it. Or it ought to be in the stock market, in equities. Well, that’s idiotic. The bond market. That’s idiotic. Or you put it. Try. Diversification is so important. Something horrible happened today. The Biden administration sold us out to communist China. They also sold out our ally, Taiwan. If you want to see. 1930s type appeasement. It’s happening before your eyes. If you watch and listen closely, I don’t have time to get to all this in one segment, but let’s get started here. Anthony Blinken in a news conference in Beijing today. Cat seven go on Taiwan. I reiterated the long standing U.S. one-China policy. That policy has not changed. It’s guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three joint communiques, the six assurances. We do not support Taiwan independence. We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side. We continue to expect the peaceful resolution and the rest of it. So here’s the deal. Under the circumstances that are taking place today under the endless threats by communist China against Taiwan. You don’t speak out this way, in this manner. About Taiwan. Unless you’re selling out Taiwan. The communist Chinese are well aware of the Taiwan Relations Act and all the rest of it. So when you say we do not support Taiwan independence. I could be communist China and say, okay, good, we’ve got the green light. What do you mean? We say we don’t support their independence. Neither do we. We’re communist China. We don’t support their independence either. Well, we said that we don’t care what else you said. Now I want to explore this further. I’ll be right back.