Ubiquitous
2024-07-09 02:05:00 UTC
On Mondays Mark Levin Show, the Constitution won today. The Supreme
Court majority has just made it harder to prosecute Biden for his
offenses in office, starting with immigration and the special counsels
report. The Democrats should actually thank the Court. It has been the
official position of the DOJ for more than half a century that they
cannot indict a sitting president for, among other reasons, it would
essentially decapitate the executive branch; moreover, those involved
in such a process (grand jury, prosecutor, judge, etc. ought not to
hold such power over a president who is elected by the entire nation.
The immunity issue flows from that that is, if a president knows he
can be indicted for his official acts by a subsequent administration
after he leaves office, it would cripple his ability to exercise his
duties. He would have to wonder whether a quick decision or a
difficult decision or a decision that seemed right at the time would be
subjected to criminal scrutiny after the fact, and after he had left
office. The presidency would be gravely damaged. This would have
fundamentally altered the separation of powers, greatly weakening the
office of the presidency, and effectively amend the Constitution by
criminal prosecution. No longer would there be the balance and
division among the branches that the Framers worked so hard to
enshrine. The January 6 case was built on 3-statutes having nothing to
do with the events of January 6 and nothing to do with insurrection or
sedition. The statutes have never been applied in the way that Jack
Smith applied them. AG Merrick Garland and Jack Smith are disfiguring
the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, as well as Judge Cannon, are
doing their best to set things straight and place things back in the
Constitutional box. It is Smith, a historically rogue and vile
prosecutor, who deserves our contempt, along with his boss, Garland.
The January 6 case is a farce. The documents case was utterly
unnecessary. He and the Democrats may be in a rush to destroy a
Constitution they have never admired, and whose authors they hate, in
pursuit of their American-Marxist police-state, but the rest of us are
not. Also, President Biden gave a primetime address and sent Smith,
Judge Chutkan, and Garland their marching orders: keep pushing this
farcical January 6 case and try and drag it across the finish line
before the election. Keep up the lawfare like never before. Biden had 4
executive orders stopped by the Supreme Court. If Biden believed a
president shouldnt be a dictator why did he defy the court? His
rhetoric and actions dont match.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811.
By the way, it is Covid. But Im feeling better. The medicine they came
out with is pretty good. So Im feeling about 70%, but Im at 70%.
Thats 150% for most people, dont you think? And this is why I want to
thank our affiliates. I want to thank Sirius Satellite. I want to thank
all the platforms who carry this program. Because the insight that you
and I discuss and provide. On these cases, on the republic, on the
country, the Constitution, were able to weave them in to whats taking
place in America so uniquely, not because of me per se, but because
this is what we do. This is who we are. Were not paint by the numbers.
I dont come to this as a. Person. Who spent 50 years in 15 different
radio markets. I come to this as a person who started in the biggest
market in America, in New York. And because of the power of our
message. The listenership and so forth spread throughout the country.
So lets get started. Some of what Im about to say. Youve already
heard because I spoke on Fox, but you havent heard it the way I do it
here on radio. This immunity issue came up. Early on. President Trumps
lawyers said we have a right to immunity. Period as a president period.
Why? Because a president cannot function otherwise. The position of the
government, that is the Biden administration, officially the Department
of Justice and their unconstitutional prosecutor, Jack Smith, was We
can prosecute a sitting president or. A retired president. Even for
things they did while president. Now, to be honest with yourselves, if
youre honest with yourselves, were not going to go back and get the
video and audio. Almost every legal analyst. Said that the Trump
position is nonsensical. Nonsensical. Slowly but surely, they began to
make the case that. Well Smith was too extreme to. But they said that
the court will more handily and quickly reject Trumps arguments. And
then came the oral argument. While many of the justices werent so
quick to do that. Not that they were embracing all of the Trump lawyers
arguments, but they were embracing the idea that you would damage the
presidents. The institution of the presidency, the Constitution and
separation of powers. Many of these legal analysts, some of whom are
professors and former professors. On other networks. Were still at it.
But I do, Mr. Producer and I. And others in my crew and staff and at
Fox and at plays. We kind of laugh. Because the positions I take are
positions based not on ideology. Theyre based on the Constitution. And
how can the Constitution function? In a republic. And so on. Fox as one
of the few, maybe the only I dont know, I dont watch it. 24 seven But
I said this is not a frivolous. A frivolous challenge by the Trump
people. I condemned what Chungking had done. The district judge. I
condemned the three judge panel who took about seven days to dismiss
this and gave the Trump lawyers a truncated period of time to even file
an appeal. I warned you about Chunky, and I warned you about Circuit
Judge Pompei. And shes a Biden appointee. Drunken Obama. And I told
you. But these are dangerous people. As is the attorney general of the
United States, as is the special counsel, that theyre going to destroy
the Constitution. If they get their way. Ive also made the point. That
this pursuit of Trump by the Department of Justice and through this
specific prosecutor. Is an attack on at least half a dozen parts of the
United States constitutional. The most important part is separation of
powers. But it is an attack. On the appointments clause of the
Constitution, which has now been seriously challenged. And if you read.
Justice Thomass concurring opinion with a majority, which nobodys
discussed on any network, including Fox. I mentioned it briefly. He
embraces the fact that theres been a challenge to the actual
appointment. Of the prosecutor. Mentioning me, mentioning the landmark
brief and so forth. Seems to me whether that is formally brought up or
not, it is a very important point. So we have the appointment clause.
Separation of powers. When you look at this case in the Florida case,
the First Amendment put this gag order nonsense due process. Under the
Fifth Amendment and the right to company counsel under the six with the
attack on attorney client privilege that took place. In the district
court in Washington, D.C.. Questions raised about the sufficiency of
the search warrant that led to the FBI SWAT team. Of course, questions
to come about. Presidential declassification. But even questions about
the use of classified information in an open courtroom. I can tell you
from my own experience as chief of staff to an attorney general, Edwin
Meese in the Reagan administration, that the reason a lot of these big
spy cases. With these American spies who spied mostly for the Soviet
Union. Deserved the death penalty but didnt get it. Was because our
Constitution requires, to the fullest extent possible public trials.
For reasons you can understand. And so the issue of what classified
information can be used at their public trial was so daunting and so
complex. But we tended to negotiate for life sentences. Because we
didnt want to reveal the classified information, which kind of
defeated the point. Right. Thats not so. In this case with Donald
Trump. What Jack Smith is saying. Just, you know, as a side point in
Florida is he wants as little classified information as possible, even
shared with the defense, because they cant be trusted. So how are you
supposed to have a trial of any kind? And Trumps not going to plead
the crap. But all these. All these efforts. In the January six case,
the documents case. Attacking all of these these aspects of the
constitutions, raising these questions, most of them for the first time
ever. And then demanding that the courts move quickly. Sky. Smith went
to the Supreme Court on immunity, said We need to act quickly. They
said, No, we dont. They ruled against him unanimously. This guy goes
to Judge Cannons courtroom. He sits there, tries to stare down. His
subordinates treat her with disrespect. The media treats her with
disrespect. Shes doing exactly what youre supposed to do. Shes got
serious motions that are fired. And unlike Judge Duncan, shes reading
them. Shes saying these are serious constitutional questions. Some of
them questions of first impression. Ive got to deal with them. Trump
can didnt do that. The Obama judge, she just rubber stamping and she
was utterly. Incompetent in the way she even responded to these,
including the obstruction charges. Lets get to immunity now. What does
the Supreme Court. Excuse me? What does the Constitution of the United
States say about presidential immunity? Nothing directly. And yet they
did debate the issue. Have. How do you deal with a president? Who
violates not just criminal laws, they didnt have a criminal code at
the time, but it violates even more broadly and more importantly.
Societal norms. Undermines the civil society. In other words, does
grave damage to the country itself. And so they created the impeachment
clause. Indicting a sitting president. There was some. Generalized
discussion. But they came up with impeachment. They didnt invent it on
their own. They looked at what the British were doing with impeachment,
and then they stylized it for an American. Small our Republican
constitutional system understanding they wanted separation of powers,
power, as they say over and over again. Power competing against power.
Thats what they wanted. Theyre worried about tyranny in many forms,
tyranny of a centralized government. They dont want to create a
president who was a monarch. On the other hand, they didnt want a mob
ocracy tyranny of the legislature. The American Revolution overlapped
the French Revolution. They wanted nothing to do with mob ocracy and
pure democracy. They wanted nothing to do a monarchy with monarchy. And
today we called dictatorship centralized power. And so they took mud to
excuse words from the spirit of the laws. Power. Checking power. Mixed
government. Aristotle talked about a mixed government. He certainly
wasnt the only one. John Locke talked about potential of three
branches competing against each other, but he didnt detail it. Marta
skewed did a legislative, a judicial and executive. Just a couple of
pages in a. Well over a thousand page book turned out to be a book. And
as Ive told you before, he was the most important. Philosopher during
the constitutional period. The most important philosopher during the
revolutionary period was John Locke. But it was Montesquieu for these
purposes. And he cited a few times in the Federalist Papers, and he
cited specifically for this separation of powers. Something very
perverse that nobody talks about. But its true. And Ill get to the
nub of this case in a minute. The Department of Justice. Obviously
didnt exist. When the Constitution was ratified. There werent U.S.
attorneys. There werent federal prosecutors. Let alone special
prosecutor. On the one hand, the executive branch is considered a
unitary branch. What does that mean? Its the presidential branch. Hes
the executive. Hes the commander in chief. He is the executive branch.
And yet. You can have the executive branch that is people with inferior
powers investigating the head of the executive branch. See what Im
saying, Mr.. Is. So you literally have subordinates investigating the
constitutional. Unitary head. Of the executive branch. And so we as a
society by government more particular struggle with this. Theyve come
up with an independent counsel act that these special prosecutors and
so forth and so on. It would be bizarre in the extreme if an inferior
officer of the executive branch had the power. To indict. The head of
the executive branch. Per official powers that hes exercising as
president of the United States. Do you see what Im saying? Maybe Im
getting too philosophical. All right. Im going to get to the nub of
this in a minute. Well be right back.
Segment 2
All right. Immunity. Whats immunity? More than 50 years ago. More than
half a century ago. I got one minute. Okay. Ill explain this after the
one minute and Ill explain it in a way that Ive discussed some time
ago but is not being discussed now. But its very, very important. But
the Democrats are arguing for today is the crippling of the executive
branch. After Biden leaves office. In other words, do anything you have
to do to get Trump. Anyway. You have to do it. Just do it. The
candidate we have is, in fact, a halfwit. Hes got dementia. We worry
that he cant win. Theyre up to their antics today. Ill get to that
in a minute. Bidens going to give a speech at 745 to try and change
the subject. And Ill be right back.
Segment 3
All right, here we go. Its been the official position of the
Department of Justice for more than half a century. That it cannot
indict a sitting president for, among other reasons, it would
essentially decapitate the executive branch. Moreover. That those
involved in such a process, the indictment and so forth. Grand jury.
Prosecutor, Judge. Or not hold such power over a president who is
elected by the entire nation. Now, I have argued in part that the
immunity issue flows from this. That is, if a president knows he can be
indicted for his official acts by a subsequent administration, that is
after he leaves office. It would cripple his ability to exercise his
constitutional duties. Because in the end, the issue. Is it resolved?
On whether the act is criminal or not, per se. Until the indictment
occurs and theres a trial. So he would have to wonder whether a quick
decision or a difficult decision or a decision that seemed right at the
time when he was president. Will be subjected to criminal scrutiny
after the fact. And after he left office, the presidency would be
gravely damaged. Yet that was the position of the Department of
Justice. That is the Biden administration and Jack Smith. Now, this
would have fundamentally altered separation of powers by greatly
weakening the office of the presidency. It would have effectively
amended the Constitution through criminal prosecution. No longer would
there be the balance and the division among the branches that the
framers worked so hard to enshrine in our Constitution? The weakest
branch by far would be the executive branch. The January six case. Is
the first of its kind. Ever. It was built on three statutes. Having
nothing to do with the events of January six. All the talk of
insurrection. But there was no charge involved in the insurrection
statute. All the talk of sort of sedition or conspiracy. But those
charges were brought either. Because the object, the target of the
prosecutor, didnt commit those crimes. So we had a look around. Rather
than shut the case right there and say, okay. Theres no insurrection.
Theres no sedition. Theres nothing to prosecute here. Thats not what
Jack Smith did. Thats not what the Department of Justice did. Thats
not what the Biden administration did. They went through and they
looked at all the statutes they could. They went through the criminal
code and they found three, they thought. Which they believe they could
creatively massage fashion. And take facts that they creatively
massaged and fashion. In apply one to the other. Which is why the
indictment itself has what they call a talking indictment. In other
words, it goes on and on and on. Rather than just lay out a concise
case. There is no concise case. So you have section 1512 of the
Criminal Code. The. Saxby Oakley act or what I call the Enron Act. To
keep it simple. What Enron did when it knew it had huge problems is it
began massively destroying documents with the expectation. That thered
be congressional oversight in investigations. Thats why when you read
the statute, the plain language of the statute. Which language of the
statute? Is focused exclusively on documents, the destruction of
evidence, that sort of thing, as obstruction. And then at the end it
talks about or otherwise the word but or otherwise applies to the
facts. That were involved in Enron and the law. The Enron law. It had
nothing to do. With January six. It had nothing to do. With the
protests or even the violence that took place on January six? Nothing.
But they didnt have any other obstruction statute. So they used it.
Jack Smith picked it up from the U.S. Attorneys office in Washington
that had been applying it to one protester after another and used it
against President Trump as two of his four charges. But what did
President Trump do to obstruct a proceeding? Even his public
statements. About peaceful and so forth. That was administration. He
has every right to talk to the vice president about what he should do,
as the court noted today and what he felt he should do and so forth.
But thats irrelevant. Its not obstruction. So. The Court By 6 to 3.
Said no to obstruction. And then we have clever legal analysts who say,
well, Jack Smith, you know, we could say that this document was written
and find some kind of documentary evidence that he did. You see what I
mean? Youre talking about. A past president. The leading candidate for
president. In one of the major parties in America. And theyre looking
like scoundrels for something, anything. Thats not the way this is
supposed to work. But thats only one way Jack Smith knows how to
practice law. So we have those two. Okay, well, theres two other
statutes left. Two of the charges. What are they? One of them is a
statute that is used to prosecute federal contractors who on their own
or conspired to rip off the government. Fraud. Jack Smith took that and
said, well, what Donald Trump was saying publicly and urging, whether
its in Arizona or Michigan or elsewhere. Whats front? What? That has
nothing to do with that statute either. Fact that statute can be used
against virtually any politician who challenges any election. Its
crazy. Whats the other statute? The other statute is the 1871, some
say 1872, but it began in 1871, what they called the Ku Klux Klan Act.
It was a civil rights law. That was passed. To stop the Klan from
preventing newly freed black slaves from voting. And its been amended
since. To protect the right of people to vote. January six had nothing
to do with the right of people to vote. And yet thats one of the
charges. So you look at these these obstruction, two counts. Federal
contractors statute, as I call it, the Klan statute, as I call it. This
is what they brought. And so youre supposed to take this case so
irresponsible, so outrageous. They cobble this together. And destroy
presidential immunity. To try and reach Donald Trump on U.S. president.
And so Donald Trumps lawyers went to the Supreme Press. Wait a minute.
These were acts he took while he was president. The district court
dismissed out of hand what Trump lawyers argued. The three judge panel
on the circuit court in DC faster within a week said, Nope, you lose.
And by the way, you got one week to appeal. Then he would take any time
with it. Why? Because. They know the deal. This has to get done before
the election. We have an imbecile running for president and the
Democrat side. Youve heard what he said. That Donald Trump has Hitler
effectively. Okay. A Supreme Court. Gets it in. What happens? Jack
Smith says, okay, this is crucial Supreme Court, we need to resolve
this quickly. We ask you to take this up as an emergency case and put
everything else aside and resolve in the court in a unanimous
responses. No, were not going to do that. Why? And I know what theyre
thinking. Just because you have the election calendar on your list has
a federal prosecutor, which youre not supposed to. Its a serious
matter. And were going to take it seriously. Were going to have oral
argument. Were going to go through the motions here. Thats what you
do. When a case of first and possession that involves a major
constitutional issue that could destroy. The construct. But the federal
government. They took up the case. They had their own argument, the
position of the government. Was utterly and completely unsound, almost
irrational. I just want to remember the legal analysts said the same
thing about the Trump lawyer argument, which was we have complete
immunity. And why did they argue that? Because in the past, no former
president has ever been indicted, number one. Number two, for anything
associated. Two when they were president. Official or not? Well, the
court said that goes a little too far for us in its decision today.
They said, look, Solomon couldnt cut the baby in half and he wouldnt
have they wouldnt been very wise. And were not either. Heres what
were going to do. A president cannot be indicted. While hes
president, he has full immunity for his official duties. Thats number
one. Okay. Just so you know, thats the first time the court has ever
said that. Because its never had to say anything before. Jack Smith.
Merrick Garland. Joe Biden. Judge Chunking the three blind dummies on
the circuit Court. They brought the court to the point where it had to
make some decision. They said, thats number one. Number two is that
you heard during our argument this issue of whether what is official
conduct versus official conduct. We cant assume, based on the record
presented to us here on the Supreme Court, that thats been resolved.
Just because a prosecutor puts in his papers a bunch of facts that says
its the case. And just because a district judge says, okay, I agree,
just because the three judge panel. In Washington, D.C. The circuit
court panel said not only do we agree, we agree with an exclamation
mark. Now hurry up and get this done. Were not going to take that. As
serious, professional, legitimate adjudication. So what did they say?
They said, Look. There are obviously occasions when a president can
take actions. That have nothing to do with his job as president. And
you heard the list of preposterous hypothetical idiocy coming out of
Sotomayor and the others. SEAL Team six This will become infamous.
Should be on our epitaph. When the day comes. Because its so damn
stupid. But Ill get to that in a minute. So the court said, Look.
Youre a trial judge. Were up here. High up here. We got these cases,
these constitutional matters, legal matters. Weve got matters
involving jurisdictional questions. Which state has authority
questions? And he tries all kinds of questions. Damn it. You do your
job down there. And you conduct a hearing at evidentiary hearing you
many trial, whatever you want to do, and you tell us what you conclude
and back it up, because they didnt say this, but we know itll be back
up here. So do your damn job and you, circuit court. Youre a joke.
They didnt say it, but they almost did. And so the new test is a
presidential action. That is an action by a man or a woman whose
president will be presumed as presumptively official unless proven
otherwise. So thats the standard. Its a brilliant standard.
Brilliant. Nobody criticizes his court more than I do or many of the
justices. This is a brilliant decision. And so now they have to do
that. People are trying to read the tea leaves from Barrett, who goes
off in the others. Well, what about the elector? She said that shes
one justice. And what about that? Its not. What about. The system is
intact. Separation of powers and the Constitution are intact. Theres a
process now in place. The Constitution one today. When we come back,
the responses. Ill be right back.
Segment 4
Turns out, America. That Joe Biden is going to give a speech at what
time? 7:45 Eastern Time. He wants to make sure its primetime on the
Supreme Courts immunity decision. So this is very obvious. What
theyre trying to do, folks, is change the subject. The guy at least is
fairly competent, not completely in reading the teleprompter. He will
talk about the rule of law, the threat to democracy. The right wingers
on the court. How if you elect Trump and you dont elect him, therell
be more right wingers on the court. This is exactly what hes going to
do. Trying to change the subject. The media will run with this. The
media, who demanded his head 24 hours ago, will now soothe him, massage
him and give him a wet kiss. You watch. Ill be right back.
Court majority has just made it harder to prosecute Biden for his
offenses in office, starting with immigration and the special counsels
report. The Democrats should actually thank the Court. It has been the
official position of the DOJ for more than half a century that they
cannot indict a sitting president for, among other reasons, it would
essentially decapitate the executive branch; moreover, those involved
in such a process (grand jury, prosecutor, judge, etc. ought not to
hold such power over a president who is elected by the entire nation.
The immunity issue flows from that that is, if a president knows he
can be indicted for his official acts by a subsequent administration
after he leaves office, it would cripple his ability to exercise his
duties. He would have to wonder whether a quick decision or a
difficult decision or a decision that seemed right at the time would be
subjected to criminal scrutiny after the fact, and after he had left
office. The presidency would be gravely damaged. This would have
fundamentally altered the separation of powers, greatly weakening the
office of the presidency, and effectively amend the Constitution by
criminal prosecution. No longer would there be the balance and
division among the branches that the Framers worked so hard to
enshrine. The January 6 case was built on 3-statutes having nothing to
do with the events of January 6 and nothing to do with insurrection or
sedition. The statutes have never been applied in the way that Jack
Smith applied them. AG Merrick Garland and Jack Smith are disfiguring
the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, as well as Judge Cannon, are
doing their best to set things straight and place things back in the
Constitutional box. It is Smith, a historically rogue and vile
prosecutor, who deserves our contempt, along with his boss, Garland.
The January 6 case is a farce. The documents case was utterly
unnecessary. He and the Democrats may be in a rush to destroy a
Constitution they have never admired, and whose authors they hate, in
pursuit of their American-Marxist police-state, but the rest of us are
not. Also, President Biden gave a primetime address and sent Smith,
Judge Chutkan, and Garland their marching orders: keep pushing this
farcical January 6 case and try and drag it across the finish line
before the election. Keep up the lawfare like never before. Biden had 4
executive orders stopped by the Supreme Court. If Biden believed a
president shouldnt be a dictator why did he defy the court? His
rhetoric and actions dont match.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811.
By the way, it is Covid. But Im feeling better. The medicine they came
out with is pretty good. So Im feeling about 70%, but Im at 70%.
Thats 150% for most people, dont you think? And this is why I want to
thank our affiliates. I want to thank Sirius Satellite. I want to thank
all the platforms who carry this program. Because the insight that you
and I discuss and provide. On these cases, on the republic, on the
country, the Constitution, were able to weave them in to whats taking
place in America so uniquely, not because of me per se, but because
this is what we do. This is who we are. Were not paint by the numbers.
I dont come to this as a. Person. Who spent 50 years in 15 different
radio markets. I come to this as a person who started in the biggest
market in America, in New York. And because of the power of our
message. The listenership and so forth spread throughout the country.
So lets get started. Some of what Im about to say. Youve already
heard because I spoke on Fox, but you havent heard it the way I do it
here on radio. This immunity issue came up. Early on. President Trumps
lawyers said we have a right to immunity. Period as a president period.
Why? Because a president cannot function otherwise. The position of the
government, that is the Biden administration, officially the Department
of Justice and their unconstitutional prosecutor, Jack Smith, was We
can prosecute a sitting president or. A retired president. Even for
things they did while president. Now, to be honest with yourselves, if
youre honest with yourselves, were not going to go back and get the
video and audio. Almost every legal analyst. Said that the Trump
position is nonsensical. Nonsensical. Slowly but surely, they began to
make the case that. Well Smith was too extreme to. But they said that
the court will more handily and quickly reject Trumps arguments. And
then came the oral argument. While many of the justices werent so
quick to do that. Not that they were embracing all of the Trump lawyers
arguments, but they were embracing the idea that you would damage the
presidents. The institution of the presidency, the Constitution and
separation of powers. Many of these legal analysts, some of whom are
professors and former professors. On other networks. Were still at it.
But I do, Mr. Producer and I. And others in my crew and staff and at
Fox and at plays. We kind of laugh. Because the positions I take are
positions based not on ideology. Theyre based on the Constitution. And
how can the Constitution function? In a republic. And so on. Fox as one
of the few, maybe the only I dont know, I dont watch it. 24 seven But
I said this is not a frivolous. A frivolous challenge by the Trump
people. I condemned what Chungking had done. The district judge. I
condemned the three judge panel who took about seven days to dismiss
this and gave the Trump lawyers a truncated period of time to even file
an appeal. I warned you about Chunky, and I warned you about Circuit
Judge Pompei. And shes a Biden appointee. Drunken Obama. And I told
you. But these are dangerous people. As is the attorney general of the
United States, as is the special counsel, that theyre going to destroy
the Constitution. If they get their way. Ive also made the point. That
this pursuit of Trump by the Department of Justice and through this
specific prosecutor. Is an attack on at least half a dozen parts of the
United States constitutional. The most important part is separation of
powers. But it is an attack. On the appointments clause of the
Constitution, which has now been seriously challenged. And if you read.
Justice Thomass concurring opinion with a majority, which nobodys
discussed on any network, including Fox. I mentioned it briefly. He
embraces the fact that theres been a challenge to the actual
appointment. Of the prosecutor. Mentioning me, mentioning the landmark
brief and so forth. Seems to me whether that is formally brought up or
not, it is a very important point. So we have the appointment clause.
Separation of powers. When you look at this case in the Florida case,
the First Amendment put this gag order nonsense due process. Under the
Fifth Amendment and the right to company counsel under the six with the
attack on attorney client privilege that took place. In the district
court in Washington, D.C.. Questions raised about the sufficiency of
the search warrant that led to the FBI SWAT team. Of course, questions
to come about. Presidential declassification. But even questions about
the use of classified information in an open courtroom. I can tell you
from my own experience as chief of staff to an attorney general, Edwin
Meese in the Reagan administration, that the reason a lot of these big
spy cases. With these American spies who spied mostly for the Soviet
Union. Deserved the death penalty but didnt get it. Was because our
Constitution requires, to the fullest extent possible public trials.
For reasons you can understand. And so the issue of what classified
information can be used at their public trial was so daunting and so
complex. But we tended to negotiate for life sentences. Because we
didnt want to reveal the classified information, which kind of
defeated the point. Right. Thats not so. In this case with Donald
Trump. What Jack Smith is saying. Just, you know, as a side point in
Florida is he wants as little classified information as possible, even
shared with the defense, because they cant be trusted. So how are you
supposed to have a trial of any kind? And Trumps not going to plead
the crap. But all these. All these efforts. In the January six case,
the documents case. Attacking all of these these aspects of the
constitutions, raising these questions, most of them for the first time
ever. And then demanding that the courts move quickly. Sky. Smith went
to the Supreme Court on immunity, said We need to act quickly. They
said, No, we dont. They ruled against him unanimously. This guy goes
to Judge Cannons courtroom. He sits there, tries to stare down. His
subordinates treat her with disrespect. The media treats her with
disrespect. Shes doing exactly what youre supposed to do. Shes got
serious motions that are fired. And unlike Judge Duncan, shes reading
them. Shes saying these are serious constitutional questions. Some of
them questions of first impression. Ive got to deal with them. Trump
can didnt do that. The Obama judge, she just rubber stamping and she
was utterly. Incompetent in the way she even responded to these,
including the obstruction charges. Lets get to immunity now. What does
the Supreme Court. Excuse me? What does the Constitution of the United
States say about presidential immunity? Nothing directly. And yet they
did debate the issue. Have. How do you deal with a president? Who
violates not just criminal laws, they didnt have a criminal code at
the time, but it violates even more broadly and more importantly.
Societal norms. Undermines the civil society. In other words, does
grave damage to the country itself. And so they created the impeachment
clause. Indicting a sitting president. There was some. Generalized
discussion. But they came up with impeachment. They didnt invent it on
their own. They looked at what the British were doing with impeachment,
and then they stylized it for an American. Small our Republican
constitutional system understanding they wanted separation of powers,
power, as they say over and over again. Power competing against power.
Thats what they wanted. Theyre worried about tyranny in many forms,
tyranny of a centralized government. They dont want to create a
president who was a monarch. On the other hand, they didnt want a mob
ocracy tyranny of the legislature. The American Revolution overlapped
the French Revolution. They wanted nothing to do with mob ocracy and
pure democracy. They wanted nothing to do a monarchy with monarchy. And
today we called dictatorship centralized power. And so they took mud to
excuse words from the spirit of the laws. Power. Checking power. Mixed
government. Aristotle talked about a mixed government. He certainly
wasnt the only one. John Locke talked about potential of three
branches competing against each other, but he didnt detail it. Marta
skewed did a legislative, a judicial and executive. Just a couple of
pages in a. Well over a thousand page book turned out to be a book. And
as Ive told you before, he was the most important. Philosopher during
the constitutional period. The most important philosopher during the
revolutionary period was John Locke. But it was Montesquieu for these
purposes. And he cited a few times in the Federalist Papers, and he
cited specifically for this separation of powers. Something very
perverse that nobody talks about. But its true. And Ill get to the
nub of this case in a minute. The Department of Justice. Obviously
didnt exist. When the Constitution was ratified. There werent U.S.
attorneys. There werent federal prosecutors. Let alone special
prosecutor. On the one hand, the executive branch is considered a
unitary branch. What does that mean? Its the presidential branch. Hes
the executive. Hes the commander in chief. He is the executive branch.
And yet. You can have the executive branch that is people with inferior
powers investigating the head of the executive branch. See what Im
saying, Mr.. Is. So you literally have subordinates investigating the
constitutional. Unitary head. Of the executive branch. And so we as a
society by government more particular struggle with this. Theyve come
up with an independent counsel act that these special prosecutors and
so forth and so on. It would be bizarre in the extreme if an inferior
officer of the executive branch had the power. To indict. The head of
the executive branch. Per official powers that hes exercising as
president of the United States. Do you see what Im saying? Maybe Im
getting too philosophical. All right. Im going to get to the nub of
this in a minute. Well be right back.
Segment 2
All right. Immunity. Whats immunity? More than 50 years ago. More than
half a century ago. I got one minute. Okay. Ill explain this after the
one minute and Ill explain it in a way that Ive discussed some time
ago but is not being discussed now. But its very, very important. But
the Democrats are arguing for today is the crippling of the executive
branch. After Biden leaves office. In other words, do anything you have
to do to get Trump. Anyway. You have to do it. Just do it. The
candidate we have is, in fact, a halfwit. Hes got dementia. We worry
that he cant win. Theyre up to their antics today. Ill get to that
in a minute. Bidens going to give a speech at 745 to try and change
the subject. And Ill be right back.
Segment 3
All right, here we go. Its been the official position of the
Department of Justice for more than half a century. That it cannot
indict a sitting president for, among other reasons, it would
essentially decapitate the executive branch. Moreover. That those
involved in such a process, the indictment and so forth. Grand jury.
Prosecutor, Judge. Or not hold such power over a president who is
elected by the entire nation. Now, I have argued in part that the
immunity issue flows from this. That is, if a president knows he can be
indicted for his official acts by a subsequent administration, that is
after he leaves office. It would cripple his ability to exercise his
constitutional duties. Because in the end, the issue. Is it resolved?
On whether the act is criminal or not, per se. Until the indictment
occurs and theres a trial. So he would have to wonder whether a quick
decision or a difficult decision or a decision that seemed right at the
time when he was president. Will be subjected to criminal scrutiny
after the fact. And after he left office, the presidency would be
gravely damaged. Yet that was the position of the Department of
Justice. That is the Biden administration and Jack Smith. Now, this
would have fundamentally altered separation of powers by greatly
weakening the office of the presidency. It would have effectively
amended the Constitution through criminal prosecution. No longer would
there be the balance and the division among the branches that the
framers worked so hard to enshrine in our Constitution? The weakest
branch by far would be the executive branch. The January six case. Is
the first of its kind. Ever. It was built on three statutes. Having
nothing to do with the events of January six. All the talk of
insurrection. But there was no charge involved in the insurrection
statute. All the talk of sort of sedition or conspiracy. But those
charges were brought either. Because the object, the target of the
prosecutor, didnt commit those crimes. So we had a look around. Rather
than shut the case right there and say, okay. Theres no insurrection.
Theres no sedition. Theres nothing to prosecute here. Thats not what
Jack Smith did. Thats not what the Department of Justice did. Thats
not what the Biden administration did. They went through and they
looked at all the statutes they could. They went through the criminal
code and they found three, they thought. Which they believe they could
creatively massage fashion. And take facts that they creatively
massaged and fashion. In apply one to the other. Which is why the
indictment itself has what they call a talking indictment. In other
words, it goes on and on and on. Rather than just lay out a concise
case. There is no concise case. So you have section 1512 of the
Criminal Code. The. Saxby Oakley act or what I call the Enron Act. To
keep it simple. What Enron did when it knew it had huge problems is it
began massively destroying documents with the expectation. That thered
be congressional oversight in investigations. Thats why when you read
the statute, the plain language of the statute. Which language of the
statute? Is focused exclusively on documents, the destruction of
evidence, that sort of thing, as obstruction. And then at the end it
talks about or otherwise the word but or otherwise applies to the
facts. That were involved in Enron and the law. The Enron law. It had
nothing to do. With January six. It had nothing to do. With the
protests or even the violence that took place on January six? Nothing.
But they didnt have any other obstruction statute. So they used it.
Jack Smith picked it up from the U.S. Attorneys office in Washington
that had been applying it to one protester after another and used it
against President Trump as two of his four charges. But what did
President Trump do to obstruct a proceeding? Even his public
statements. About peaceful and so forth. That was administration. He
has every right to talk to the vice president about what he should do,
as the court noted today and what he felt he should do and so forth.
But thats irrelevant. Its not obstruction. So. The Court By 6 to 3.
Said no to obstruction. And then we have clever legal analysts who say,
well, Jack Smith, you know, we could say that this document was written
and find some kind of documentary evidence that he did. You see what I
mean? Youre talking about. A past president. The leading candidate for
president. In one of the major parties in America. And theyre looking
like scoundrels for something, anything. Thats not the way this is
supposed to work. But thats only one way Jack Smith knows how to
practice law. So we have those two. Okay, well, theres two other
statutes left. Two of the charges. What are they? One of them is a
statute that is used to prosecute federal contractors who on their own
or conspired to rip off the government. Fraud. Jack Smith took that and
said, well, what Donald Trump was saying publicly and urging, whether
its in Arizona or Michigan or elsewhere. Whats front? What? That has
nothing to do with that statute either. Fact that statute can be used
against virtually any politician who challenges any election. Its
crazy. Whats the other statute? The other statute is the 1871, some
say 1872, but it began in 1871, what they called the Ku Klux Klan Act.
It was a civil rights law. That was passed. To stop the Klan from
preventing newly freed black slaves from voting. And its been amended
since. To protect the right of people to vote. January six had nothing
to do with the right of people to vote. And yet thats one of the
charges. So you look at these these obstruction, two counts. Federal
contractors statute, as I call it, the Klan statute, as I call it. This
is what they brought. And so youre supposed to take this case so
irresponsible, so outrageous. They cobble this together. And destroy
presidential immunity. To try and reach Donald Trump on U.S. president.
And so Donald Trumps lawyers went to the Supreme Press. Wait a minute.
These were acts he took while he was president. The district court
dismissed out of hand what Trump lawyers argued. The three judge panel
on the circuit court in DC faster within a week said, Nope, you lose.
And by the way, you got one week to appeal. Then he would take any time
with it. Why? Because. They know the deal. This has to get done before
the election. We have an imbecile running for president and the
Democrat side. Youve heard what he said. That Donald Trump has Hitler
effectively. Okay. A Supreme Court. Gets it in. What happens? Jack
Smith says, okay, this is crucial Supreme Court, we need to resolve
this quickly. We ask you to take this up as an emergency case and put
everything else aside and resolve in the court in a unanimous
responses. No, were not going to do that. Why? And I know what theyre
thinking. Just because you have the election calendar on your list has
a federal prosecutor, which youre not supposed to. Its a serious
matter. And were going to take it seriously. Were going to have oral
argument. Were going to go through the motions here. Thats what you
do. When a case of first and possession that involves a major
constitutional issue that could destroy. The construct. But the federal
government. They took up the case. They had their own argument, the
position of the government. Was utterly and completely unsound, almost
irrational. I just want to remember the legal analysts said the same
thing about the Trump lawyer argument, which was we have complete
immunity. And why did they argue that? Because in the past, no former
president has ever been indicted, number one. Number two, for anything
associated. Two when they were president. Official or not? Well, the
court said that goes a little too far for us in its decision today.
They said, look, Solomon couldnt cut the baby in half and he wouldnt
have they wouldnt been very wise. And were not either. Heres what
were going to do. A president cannot be indicted. While hes
president, he has full immunity for his official duties. Thats number
one. Okay. Just so you know, thats the first time the court has ever
said that. Because its never had to say anything before. Jack Smith.
Merrick Garland. Joe Biden. Judge Chunking the three blind dummies on
the circuit Court. They brought the court to the point where it had to
make some decision. They said, thats number one. Number two is that
you heard during our argument this issue of whether what is official
conduct versus official conduct. We cant assume, based on the record
presented to us here on the Supreme Court, that thats been resolved.
Just because a prosecutor puts in his papers a bunch of facts that says
its the case. And just because a district judge says, okay, I agree,
just because the three judge panel. In Washington, D.C. The circuit
court panel said not only do we agree, we agree with an exclamation
mark. Now hurry up and get this done. Were not going to take that. As
serious, professional, legitimate adjudication. So what did they say?
They said, Look. There are obviously occasions when a president can
take actions. That have nothing to do with his job as president. And
you heard the list of preposterous hypothetical idiocy coming out of
Sotomayor and the others. SEAL Team six This will become infamous.
Should be on our epitaph. When the day comes. Because its so damn
stupid. But Ill get to that in a minute. So the court said, Look.
Youre a trial judge. Were up here. High up here. We got these cases,
these constitutional matters, legal matters. Weve got matters
involving jurisdictional questions. Which state has authority
questions? And he tries all kinds of questions. Damn it. You do your
job down there. And you conduct a hearing at evidentiary hearing you
many trial, whatever you want to do, and you tell us what you conclude
and back it up, because they didnt say this, but we know itll be back
up here. So do your damn job and you, circuit court. Youre a joke.
They didnt say it, but they almost did. And so the new test is a
presidential action. That is an action by a man or a woman whose
president will be presumed as presumptively official unless proven
otherwise. So thats the standard. Its a brilliant standard.
Brilliant. Nobody criticizes his court more than I do or many of the
justices. This is a brilliant decision. And so now they have to do
that. People are trying to read the tea leaves from Barrett, who goes
off in the others. Well, what about the elector? She said that shes
one justice. And what about that? Its not. What about. The system is
intact. Separation of powers and the Constitution are intact. Theres a
process now in place. The Constitution one today. When we come back,
the responses. Ill be right back.
Segment 4
Turns out, America. That Joe Biden is going to give a speech at what
time? 7:45 Eastern Time. He wants to make sure its primetime on the
Supreme Courts immunity decision. So this is very obvious. What
theyre trying to do, folks, is change the subject. The guy at least is
fairly competent, not completely in reading the teleprompter. He will
talk about the rule of law, the threat to democracy. The right wingers
on the court. How if you elect Trump and you dont elect him, therell
be more right wingers on the court. This is exactly what hes going to
do. Trying to change the subject. The media will run with this. The
media, who demanded his head 24 hours ago, will now soothe him, massage
him and give him a wet kiss. You watch. Ill be right back.