Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-
3811. Were going to have a little bit of fun today. We want to talk
ever so slightly about the Constitution. And youre in the right place.
Youre with Mr. Constitution, man. And I have to deal with the left,
which in the aggregate is called Mr. Constipated Man. But that for
another day. So Jonathan Turley and a few of us are in a little bit of a
hubbub. All friendly, all respectful. Theres a writer, Newsweek, Im
afraid, who really doesnt understand what shes talking about. Thats
okay. So let me do this in a way that is in plain English and starts
from the top. Given what the Biden administration is doing. To President
Trump. Lets say President Trump gets elected president. And he still
has all these indictments against him. Or in one of these jurisdictions,
hes been convicted by a jury, not of his peers of Democrats. What then?
Only look at the Constitution of the United States, dont we? What does
the Constitution of the United States say about this? Absolutely
nothing. Because you see, the Constitution was written for virtuous
people. And a virtuous people serving in their government wasnt written
for Joe Biden and Jack Smith. And Fannie and the knucklehead in
Manhattan. It was written for people. Who have virtue and they have
none. So now what do we do? Well, some of the ground has been laid here.
In the past 1973 and in 2000. What do you mean, Mark? The Department of
Justice in 1973. In the re in the administration of Richard Nixon had to
take a look at this. In case Richard Nixon was indicted. And the Office
of Legal Counsel, which is the brain trust, the Department of Justice,
the office that looks at these issues, gives advice to an attorney
general and a president. Look very carefully at the pros and cons. And
of course, it acknowledged theres not much in the Constitution that
upsets and theres certainly not much. In our history that helps us even
at the Constitutional Convention. Theres nothing on this. So they
looked at it and they went through it very carefully and I read it. And
they concluded no. Not because the Constitutions constitution compels
it, but you really cant or shouldnt indict a sitting president. Well,
why? Because you will wound up decapitating the executive branch. You
will undermine the voters who voted for that president. They didnt vote
for the vice president to become president. They voted for that
president. You will endanger Americas national security. He will do all
these things because a president cannot possibly. Effectively be a
president and at the same time. Have time. To defend himself and keep
himself free. Any citizen would have difficulty doing that, let alone a
man whos whos the head of the executive branch and in fact, is the
executive branch. Hes one third of our government. Moreover, there are
other issues like how would he be able to negotiate with other
countries? Hed have no respect whatsoever. And what if hes convicted
and he winds up in jail, Then what? We can always impeach him. Okay,
great. But what if he can remove the. So impeachment is the process by
which. The framers of the Constitution. Set up a a constitutional slash
political process for removing a president, not a criminal process. And
so they concluded in 1973. They using the best thinking and reasoning
and practicality that we possibly can. But the official position of the
Department of Justice says, no, you cannot and must not indict a sitting
president. You cannot allow a prosecutor and a grand jury and then later
a prosecutor. And a trial jury and a judge to determine the outcome. Are
they? Not just an election. But also the decision about whether you
remove a president or not. Can you imagine having a prosecutor? And a
jury deciding if a president stays in office or not. So this is the
opposite of democracy. Which leads us to Donald Trump. If Donald Trump
is elected president. The same argument applies that was argued in 1973
and 2000 that essentially went through all those arguments as well and
effectively rubber stamp the position the government took in 1973. So
you have a Democrat, Department of Justice and a Republican Department
of Justice saying no. You really cant indict a sitting president unless
you want to destroy the constitutional construct. And moreover. Youre
violating his due process because he cant possibly defend himself. You
know, he has to sit with his lawyers for hours at a time. They have to
go over depositions. They have to go over documents. They have to go
over exculpatory information. They have to go over now texts and emails
and on and on and on videos, perhaps a million documents, nine months of
videos. Thats just one case here. Just one case. And so the fear also
was you would open the door to the kind of activity thats taking place
today. By the Democrat Party. All right, Lets stay focused. So does it
follow that a president can pardon himself? We dont know. President has
never been indicted. A candidate who wins the presidency, hes never
been indicted. Can he part himself? Again you have to look at. What is
rational? What is practical, the impact it has on the nation. Because
the Constitution doesnt tell us. Theres nothing to stop a president
from pardoning himself. Thats number one. Certainly not from federal
charges. So. Given the the conclusion of the Department of Justice under
different administrations in 73 and 20. But you cannot indict a sitting
president. Then the conclusion logically follows that a sitting
president who is indicted can pardon himself. Theres no reason he
cant. Now, heres the next shoe on this. Having read this opinion in
2000, then includes the 1973 arguments and. Their own arguments and they
conclude, look, you cannot indict a sitting president because of the
dangers the nation faces, because you will decapitate the executive
branch, you will cripple the ability of of an elected president to
function. And on and on and on. The question is now, if the Georgia
indictments stand and Donald Trumps elected president, can he pardon
himself from these state charges? The truth is, the Constitution doesnt
tell us. In fact. Neither do the memos from the Department of Justice.
But the Department of Justice, those memos do tell us something. What do
they tell us? That the reason. The reason. Why its the Department of
Justices position to federal prosecutors that you cannot indict a
sitting president is because the dire circumstances that could create in
our constitutional system with a decapitated executive branch and
without the president being able to defend himself. Thats their
conclusion. Thats all there is. Its a rational argument. Some might
even call it an equity argument. Whatever the argument is, thats it. So
the question then becomes and Ive heard Jonathan Turley say this,
perhaps some others, I dont remember who they are. They have nothing
but respect for him, by the way. But a president cannot pardon himself
from state charges. Why is that? Well, the president doesnt typically
in fact, he does not at all reach into state charges or convictions
based on state law and state judicial systems and pardon people. Its a
federalism thing. We just dont do that sort of thing. And my point is
that is wholly and completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with
what the Department of Justice said. Were not talking about Ernie
Grabowski down the street. Were talking about elected president of the
United States, who is the executive branch. That a guy has been
embezzling funds from a bank and then he president decided, You know
what? I feel bad for that guy. Im going to pardon him. So I would
agree. No, the president does not have authority to do that. But does he
have the authority to pardon himself for the very reasons the Department
of Justice said? You cannot indict a sitting president at the federal
level. Am I making any sense to you so far? Mr.. Well, lets step back
and take a look at this. Since were not really talking strictly about
the Constitution, were talking about what happens to the Constitution.
Lets step back and take a look at this. There are literally thousands
of days in assistant days. State prosecutors and local prosecutors all
across the country. If it is the position that Fannie Wallis and Alvin
Bragg and the others can get away. Lets say. Prosecuting Donald Trump,
even if hes elected president. What do you think would happen to the
country then in thereafter, Mr. Peters. In other words, the exposure to
destroying the executive branch and the federal constitutional construct
is a thousand times worse. So clearly its an important federal
constitutional matter, is it not, America? And surely let me even throw
in Article six the Supremacy Clause would apply. Would it not? America,
as applies to the President of the United States, Not Ernie Grabowski,
the embezzler, the bank embezzler. In Atlanta, Georgia. Im not talking
about him. And neither was the Department of Justice. They were talking
about if hypotheticals involving a president of the United States. How
can it possibly be as a matter of practicality and logic? At the
position at the Department of Justice is you cannot indict a sitting
president. And it follows from there that he cant pardon himself.
Except if youre a state prosecutor or local prosecutor, then. Prosecute
away. Go ahead. Do it. That cant be right. That makes no sense. So we
have claw a clause in the Constitution that helps us work our way
through this. The Supremacy Clause. And the president does have the
pardon power. And so would follow, seems to me, without much argument.
These are all novel questions because of what the Democrats are doing
today. There are novel questions, but there are better answers than
others. It would certainly follow. Then, based on the conclusion that
the Department of Justice reached in 73. And in 2000. That states cannot
indict a sitting president and that if a candidate running for office is
indicted and becomes president. That the president can, in fact, pardon
himself. With or without the supremacy clause. I think the supremacy
clause makes it stronger, but for the same reasons. That we say federal
prosecutors can indict the president and that a president can pardon
himself from federal charges. Its not that complicated. And its
certainly a much stronger argument than the one our friend Jonathan
Turley is making. Ill be right back.
Segment 2
And one of the things a good lawyer does are even more than that. A good
strategist, military strategist, political strategist, financial or
business strategist does is try and figure out whos moving in what
direction, try and get ahead of the. Ahead of the curve, as they say,
or. While theyre playing checkers. Youre playing chess. You know,
whatever the the argument is. And so you look at this and you say to
yourself, Why? Is Smith so desperate to get this trial on these phony
January six issues started in January. On January 2nd. Why is Willis,
after spending two and a half years so desperate to begin a trial? In
January or February, obviously to affect the election. But what is the
reason? The possible reason from a constitutional perspective that
theyre doing this. Stick with me.
Segment 3
This is what I do, folks. Not conspiracy theories, not collusion. People
who are a lot dumber than I do have a lot lower IQ than I or people who
didnt come to the proper conclusions. They like to besmirch other
people. Just stick with me. Were so far ahead of these people tonight.
Even funny. So Ive laid out indictment and pardons. But lets move on a
second. Ask yourself a question. You got a guy, Jack Smith, whos been
known to twist the law. To rewrite the law. To expand the definition of
laws. That is among several of the unethical, if not illegal tactics
that the man uses. So why did he charge Donald Trump with insurrection?
Because he didnt have to. Stick with me. Tony Willis in Georgia. Shes
clearly been. Collaborating with Smith. She wouldnt say no when she was
asked. What is her case really all about? Its really about insurrection
without calling it an insurrection. Rico. Week of false statements.
Fraudulent statements. 19 defendants. Who all get together in one form
or another, all commit some piece of the action to prevent the true vote
from coming out in Georgia. And she even goes further into six other
states. This is a county prosecutor. Six other states. As examples. Of
this grave injustice. People say shes throwing in the kitchen sink.
Its preposterous. So what is she doing? Come on, now. Weve got to go
deep here. Were going to be really, really smart. What are they doing?
Jack Smith, who charges everybody for anything, chooses not to pull the
insurrection trigger. Fannie Wallace. Does a 98 page indictment, 41
charges 19 defendants. The president. His chief of staff, his lawyers,
other staffers. What is she up to? She goes interstate. Raises federal
issues. Well, there is no state insurrection law, to my knowledge, in
Georgia that would apply to a federal election. But nonetheless. Shes
making the claim in so many words that this was an insurrection. Let me
read something to you. Stay with me. Follow me. Section three of the
14th Amendment. This things been bouncing around. Bouncing around two
knuckleheads at the Federalist Society who are so-called conservative
professors. Theyve taken a view. You dont even have to be convicted of
insurrection to be denied the ballot or even the presidency if youre
elected under this Section three of the 14th Amendment. But theyre not
the first to say this. Theres an entire movement under the radar funded
by dark money, the usual Democrat billionaires. Were trying to persuade
election officials and state attorneys general, particularly in blue
states, that Trump shouldnt be on the ballot, whether hes convicted or
not. Let me read it to you. And the relevant part comes near the end. No
person shall be a senator or representative in Congress. Were electing
a president and vice president. Or hold any office, civil or military
under the United States or under any state. Who, having previously taken
an oath as a member of Congress and officer, the United States is a
member of any legislature. There is an executive or judicial officer of
any state. To support the Constitution of the United States shall
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or giving aid and
comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two
thirds of each House, remove such disability. So in other words, you
dont have to be convicted of anything. But. Jack Smith wants a
conviction on something, so he lowers the bar. He brings in the Klan
statute, he brings in the Enron stench. He brings in the financial
obstruction statute. Insurrection would be very difficult, if not
impossible to prove. But he can do it through the back door. How do we
know? Because at his press event, what did he say? He basically accused
Donald Trump of leading an insurrection. What was done to the Capitol
building and so forth. But thats not certainly not precisely the
charges that he brought. He doesnt have to prove an insurrection. His
view? Just one charge. Thats all. And the sooner, the better. We got to
have this trial immediately, and Ive got the perfect judge to do it.
The most radical Obama judge. Im in the perfect city to do it. Theyve
voted 5% for Trump. He cant possibly have a fair trial. Ive got a
judge thats going to move this thing along as fast as possible because
she knows what the prosecutors thinking. I know what the prosecutors
thinking. All I need to do is get him on the Klan statute. All I need to
do is get him on one of these Enron. Charges. All I need to do is to get
him on this financial abstraction statute. Something. Then Ill put out
a press statement and say, See? See what Donald Trump did on January
6th. I dont even have to use the word insurrection. The media, the law
professors and the others will do it for him. So we have this Willis in
Atlanta. What the hell is she up to? Other than the obvious. What is she
up to? Shes basically shadowing Smiths case. Shes saying I got a lot
of stuff here in the state. You know, we got the president with this
phone call, which was perfectly fine. We have him and his staff talking
to state representatives, which youre allowed to do. We have in
claiming that he actually won the election, which is allowed to do and
on and on and on. Hes being charged for things hes allowed to do. And
then she pulls it all together. She throws in 18 other defendants. We
got quite a quagmire here. All I need is one charge. Just one. John. And
honestly, she says, I dont even need that. She goes extra
constitutional, add his extra Georgia constitution to bring in the U.S.
Constitution, bringing in another state to. Why? Because of Section
three of the 14th Amendment. Theres already a head of steam building
among the radical Democrats who hate America. Were destroying our
country, destroying our electoral system. Theyve destroyed law and
order in the cities, and theyre destroying federal law enforcement,
starting with Hillary Clinton and the DNC and Russia collusion. But its
never stopped. Despite the dorm report exposing it, its worse. Its the
Obama holder. Biden, Garland, Department of Justice. Which isnt about
justice at all. Its about a revolution. Its about monopolizing the
voting system. Its about controlling the government. Its about
silencing your opponents through massive censorship efforts that were
exposed. And if they dont shut the hell up, its about punishing them,
targeting them. Presenting them. Certainly investigating them. Parents
pro-life for doesnt matter. So Section three of the 14th Amendment,
which they bastardized, but nonetheless. If youve engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same. You cannot run for president
of the United States. That is, you cannot be a president. This is what
Jack Smith is up to. In his phony January six case. And this is what.
Fannie Willis and her Fannie are up two in Atlanta. You got to be
thinking strategically. Be thinking about what theyre thinking. And
thats what theyre doing. That is exactly what theyre doing. The venue
matter. You can tell when youre over the target, when MSNBC is wetting
itself collectively because that is the network them and CNN. Maggie
Haberman, New York Times and the rest of them, Washington Post. They are
the go to state media operations when the government wants to get its
message out. Theyre the ones. And so when I mentioned Jim Trusty
mentions. Why are they bringing charges in a Democrat city that went 5%
for Trump in a grand jury and then throwing those indictments down into
Florida? Against Department of Justice rules. The limitations on venue
selection when it comes to grand juries. Thats their manual, not mine.
Why are they doing that? On documents. Because they think thats their
easiest case. And they think it in part because Bill Barr and others
keep telling him thats an easy one. I dont think it is. In the least.
I think they have a lot of defenses. Thats the easiest one. Thats the
easy. Please. You want. So with the Jack Smith so-called January six
case is about which really has nothing to do with January six. And the
Atlanta case is really about is building the case for insurrection under
Section three of the 14th Amendment. Now, dont get me wrong, they want
convictions. They desperately want convictions. And Fannie Willis is
hearing even from five very smart people who we respect, that if she
gets a conviction on Trump, theres nothing he can do about it. Thats
simply not true. Any more than theres nothing you can do about a
federal charge. Thats simply not true. According to Department of
Justice. But notice this, America. Notice the lengths to which the
Democrat Party, their media. Their lawyers, their judges, their
prosecutors will go to destroy America. We have never done this to our
electoral system ever. The charges that. Willis and her family brought.
These are garden variety practices by politicians and every state in the
Union. Now Im going to prove that to you. Prove it to you. As soon as
we return. I really hope youre. Youre zoning into this area, because I
think its very, very important. Well be right back.
Segment 4
So what what the Trump people were doing in Georgia and elsewhere was
actually rather common routine. Obviously, you dont believe it if you
hear the Democrat Party state run media. If you hear their
propagandists, if you hear the judges in Washington, D.C., and the
prosecutors, were not talking about violence. Were talking about
nonviolent protesters. Were also talking about trying to find more
votes, legally questioning voting practices. All of that is perfectly
fine. Alan Dershowitz writing, writing in The Daily Mail. Today. He said
The electoral challenges have been long part of American history. Only
now are they being criminalized. I was one of the lawyers involved in
objections to Floridas presidential vote in 2000, a margin of less than
600 ballots determined that Governor George W Bush, rather than Vice
President Al Gore, won the state and thus the Electoral College votes. I
was convinced then, and I am convinced now that this result was wrong.
No one was indicted, disbarred, disciplined, or even much criticized for
those efforts. Yet here we stand today. President Trump and eight of the
defendants have been charged with election fraud, conspiracy,
racketeering and more. And are a law designed to take down criminal
organizations known as the RICO Act. Should Al Gore have been charged in
2000? What about me? Says Dershowitz. I represented the voters of Palm
Beach County, many of whom voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan rather than
Al Gore, because of the infamous butterfly ballots and hanging chads
that prevented their votes from being accurately counted. During the
course of our challenges. Many tactics similar to those employed in 2020
were employed. Lawyers wrote legal memoranda outlining possible courses
of conduct, including proposing a slate of alternate electors who would
deliver our preferred election results to Congress. Im telling you,
this is normal stuff, America. Ive been telling you this. For which, of
course media matters and media and all the lowbrow low IQ bottom feeding
Democrats apparently work. Now, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, along with
others accused of conspiracy to commit forgery and false statements for
drafting their list of alternate electors. In 2000, Florida state
officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties, which we
thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600
votes that would change the result. Now, this new indictment features
Trumps phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which was
captured in audio recording in the conversation. Trump as crap and
Bargain to find 12,000 votes. Now, having listened to that, not the
whole thing, but in context, he doesnt even do that. In my mind, this
is among the most exculpatory pieces of evidence, says Dershowitz. Trump
is entitled as a candidate to ask a Georgia state official to locate
votes that he believes were not counted. And thats what happened. In
2000, attempts were made to influence various Florida officials to
recount the votes. Now, the former presidents request that Georgia
Republican Speaker of the House reconsider the count has been charged as
soliciting a public official to violate his oath. But if similar
behavior was legal in 2000. How can it be illegal in 2023? Im going to
continue this piece because its so important. Dershowitz has so much
guts to put it out there. Ill be right back.