On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, Today the Democrats unconstitutionally impeached an innocent man in the House. Jerry Nadler was the point man in today’s impeachment and he was also the man that, years ago, requested that President Clinton pardon domestic terrorists from the Weather Underground. Even the Washington Post timeline proves that the attack on the Capitol building occurred before President Trump concluded his speech, which called for a peaceful and patriotic protest. Chief Steven Sund, the outgoing Police Chief of the US Capitol Police, says his requests for help were hamstrung by the House and Senate leadership who directed their respective Sergeants-At-Arms. Then, Jake Tapper questions combat veteran and amputee, Brian Mast’s, commitment to America. Also, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggests a media literacy commission so that more Americans can better understand the media. Later, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft hold thousands of contacts with the US military and federal law enforcement, yet former employees say they prefer to not deal with the military. In effect, the American taxpayer is subsidizing these tech companies. Google is considering a censored version of its search engine called project Dragonfly specifically designed for China.
THIS IS FROM:
Wall St Journal
No, Trump Isn’t Guilty of Incitement
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Brendan Smialowski
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
While I watched part of what took place on the floor of the House today, and a couple of things immediately struck me. The head of the House Judiciary Committee, the point man. For impeachment on the floor today. Jerry Nadler. The irony, the sick irony. On his last day in office. Bill Clinton. As reported by front page and they’re right, acceded to Jerry Nadler’s request to commute the sentences of both Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg of the Weather Underground. So he pushed for their pardon and as a result of him pushing, their sentences were commuted. Now, Evans was arrested with 740 pounds of dynamite intended for, among other targets, the Capitol building. She had 24 years left in her 40 year sentence when Clinton pardoned her at. Nadler’s request, Rosenberg also partnered at Nadler’s request, arrested for weapons possession at 42 years yet to serve on her 58 year sentence. Now, this is pretty. Incredible, don’t you think, that, number one, he’s still a member of Congress, but number two, today, there he was front and center. Leading an impeachment, which is said to have been an impeachment based on inciting an insurrection. Now, I have the document that was prepared by Chairman Jerrold Nadler, it says was actually prepared by his staff. There is no Republican response because the Republicans didn’t get a copy of this soon enough in advance of today’s vote, because what’s happened here is the equivalent of a political kangaroo court. The first 50 paid 76 pages long, the first 50 pages of the report claims to provide the material supporting the impeachment for Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors, the remaining 25 pages. Are said to be I’m looking at it. An appendix. It’s filled with references to. Newspaper articles to op ed to speeches, references to comments by the likes of Susan Collins and others. This is not a document that makes the case for high crimes and misdemeanors because it can’t. There is not a single, single substantive constitutional argument. For impeaching the president of the United States in the document that purports to provide the materials in support of House Resolution 24, impeaching Donald John Trump, nothing in here. The Washington Post the other day ran a story I believe was on Sunday. Of course, they write in a funny way to protect and defend Black Lives Matter, and they don’t pull together the timeline and things of that sort, but others have. Because a document was leaked or information was leaked to The Washington Post and others have taken a look at it. Including at the National Pulse, and they point out that The Washington Post and I’m going to get to the Post in a minute right here, The Washington Post has reported that the ongoing Capitol Police chief, outgoing excuse me, Steve Sund, believes his efforts to secure the premises were undermined by a lack of concern. From House and Senate security officials who answer directly to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, you got to listen to this. The Washington Post timeline reports the national pulse proves it was impossible for Trump speech attendees to have made it to the Capitol in time for the breach. People are pulling this timeline together and they’re saying, wait a minute, the Capitol building was attacked. Attacked. In some cases, even before he spoke or 20 minutes before he stopped speaking. In addition to the fact that Trump openly called for cheering on of congressmen and peaceful protests, and we’ll play that in a moment. The timeline is established from numerous establishment media reports, simply doesn’t stack up the admission that House and Senate security leaders failed to provide Capitol Police with resources on that day will raise questions over their role in the day’s events. Now, right away, it raises questions to me. What did Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell know and when did they know it about these threat assessments? And I’m going to get into that more deeply in a minute with the help of The Washington Post, among others. Two days before Congress was set to formalize President elect Joe Biden’s victory, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was growing increasingly worried about the size of the pro Trump crowds expected to stream into Washington in protest. To be on the safe side, sunniest House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup. But Sun interviewed on Sunday, said they turned him down in his first interview since pro Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, Santa has since resigned. His post said his supervisors were reluctant to take formal steps to put the Guard on call. The National Guard, even as police intelligence suggested the crowd President Trump had invited to Washington to protest. Probably would be much larger than earlier demonstrations. House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t comfortable with the optics, quote unquote, of formally declaring an emergency ahead of the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Sergeant at Arms Michael Stanger suggested that son should informally seek out his guard contacts, asking them to, quote, unquote, lean forward and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help. Irving could not be reached for comment, a cell phone number listed in his name has not accepted messages. Sund called a conference call with Pentagon officials and officials from the D.C. government, he said on the call. I’m making an urgent, urgent, immediate request for National Guard assistance. I’ve got to get boots on the ground. But the request was apparently denied over optics. Remember the optics? At Lafayette Park, remember how the president and others were attacked? I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background, an Army officer replied. John Falko, chief of staff for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, admitted literally this guy’s on the phone, I mean, crying out for help, it’s burned in my memories. And while The Washington Post clumsily attempts to blame President Trump for the violence, despite the president calling for peaceful protests and the cheering on of congressmen, their own article admits the, quote, first wave of protesters arrived at the Capitol about 140 p.m.. President Trump’s speech didn’t conclude until one 11 p.m. and with at least a 45 minute walk between the two locations with crowd related delays that would put the first people from Trump’s feet at the Capitol Hill no earlier than 150 6pm, a full hour and 16 minutes after troublemakers arrive, they write. In fact, rioters who breached the perimeter would have had to leave before Trump’s speech even began at 12:00 p.m., precisely to make it in time for the events as they are detailed by authorities. The Washington Post also states, quote, Sun’s outer perimeter on the Capitol’s west side was breached within 15 minutes, unquote, meaning the Capitol was breached over an hour before Trump’s speech. Attendees could even have begun to arrive. This correlates with Sun’s interview where he admits, I realized at 1:00 p.m. things aren’t going well. I’m watching my people getting slammed at 1:00 p.m.. Again, one p.m. would have been a full 56 minutes before any Trump speech attendees could have even begun arriving, let alone breaching the perimeter, clashing with police. Downtown Washington roads were closed, there was no way of arriving fast, let alone before the president had finished speaking. That one or nine p.m. still before the president had finished speaking, son called the sergeant at arms of the House and Senate, he told them it was time to call in the National Guard. He even said he wanted an emergency declaration. Both, however, said they would run it up the chain, quote, unquote, and get back to him. At 1:00 p.m., the capital itself was breached still before most Trump speech attendees could have possibly arrived. What happened after this point was a back and forth over hours between D.C. officials, army officials and Capitol Police. Eventually, at past 5:00 p.m., the National Guard arrived. And while Sandy’s quoted in The Washington Post is blaming President Trump’s speech for the violence that ensued, the timeline means that makes no sense. The president’s fans are not known for leaving a speech speeches five or 10 minutes in, and by the time the Capitola was breached, those who had stayed to listen, even the first 15 minutes would not have even made it there in time. So that’s from one publication. Then we have John Solomon, who used to be a reporter for AP, by the way, a senior reporter and editor. At Just the news. And I want to expand on what he has written and then I want to go to The Washington Post itself. We’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing. And only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, it’s not inciting a damn thing. Do you want to hear somebody who’s inciting a damn thing? Cut to from August 20, go. I know that there are protests still happening in major cities across United States. I just not seeing the reporting on it that I think that’s right for the first few weeks. But they’re not. No, they’re not going to stop. And that’s they’re not this is a movement. I’m telling you, they’re not going to stop. And everyone beware because they’re not going to stop. It is going to they’re not going to stop before Election Day in November and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be everyone should take note of that on both levels, that this is they’re not going to let up and they should not. And we should not. Mm hmm. And amazing is amazing. We haven’t seen a.. For Black Lives Matter since the election, have we, Mr. Producer? Now, remember, everyone, everybody was boarding up their stores and so forth, and Biden wins and they don’t had to board up their scores anymore, just pointing that out. Now, I’m going to start this and we’ll continue right after the break, John Solomon. And just the news, I’ll get to The Washington Post in a moment. One thing recent history has taught Americans, the first storyline of major tragedies or controversies is never the most accurate. Americans were told by the Bush administration that they were sucker punched by a surprise attack by 11 on 9/11 by terrorists, only to learn the CIA and FBI had significant advance evidence of the plot and its players and failed to connect the dots. Susan Rice originally told the nation that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was carried out spontaneously by a mob angered by an anti-Muslim video. The attack, it turned out, was preplanned and carried out by al-Qaida aligned terror group in Libya. The country was assured Christopher Steele’s dossier provided credible evidence of Donald Trump colluding with Russia when in fact the CIA and FBI knew almost immediately was uncorroborated and based in part on Russian disinformation. And now, just a week after the heinous and deadly siege of the U.S. Capitol, the final narrative of what actually happened is still being written, revised and unmasked. Since the weekend, major bombshell revelations already have substantially revised the initial story of a spontaneous mob overrunning an unsuspecting Capitol police force. The FBI admitted Tuesday it received information ahead of the January six tragedy, suggesting some participants were planning a war, quote unquote, on the capital, including killing officers and distributing maps of the complex. It alerted Washington, D.C., law enforcement through the Joint Terrorism Task Force Alert System. It also disrupted the travel plans of some of the suspected troublemakers. Quote, We developed some intel that a number of individuals were planning to travel to the D.C. area with intentions to cause violence, Assistant Director Steven M. Dantonio said. We immediately shared that information and action was taken. The great NYPD, the New York Police Department, is reported to have given the Capitol Police similar intelligence warnings of impending violence. The chief federal prosecutor in Washington declared Tuesday he’s pursuing conspiracy charges, signaling the attacks on the capital involve multiple acts of multiple conspirators working in concert with each other. The prosecutor talked about the planning of carefully constructed IEDs as one such act, in other words, there was preplanning for some elements of last Wednesday’s chaos. And the official timeline of events constructed by The New York Times through videos shows protesters began breaching the perimeter of the Capitol a full 20 minutes before Trump finished his speech. OK, now that’s the New York Times timeline, this new evidence raises the first compelling question that remains unanswered. How could Trump incite an attack that had already been preplanned and was in motion before his speech ended? A senior intel official told us the news he’s found no evidence that the president at the White House or national security was alerted in formal intelligence briefings to the prior warnings or suspicions of violence. The FBI and the NYPD, APD have admitted they had. This is astounding to me if it’s accurate. I’m talking about The New York Times and Washington Post, not John Solomon. That you have information that individuals are coming armed, they’re going to attack the Capitol building, that this is a war and you don’t even alert the president of the United States. I know what you’re thinking. I’m going to ask the question to what did Nancy Pelosi know? What did Mitch McConnell know? Were they not tipped off about this? Because apparently the sergeant of arms of the House and the sergeant arms of the Senate were aware of this and each reports, respectively, to Pelosi and McConnell. I think we want to know some facts, right. Paul Farhi? He is not how this works. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
Let’s go back to this John Solomon piece on Tuno. This is the field director for the FBI in Washington explained that one of the concerns the FBI had was trying to distinguish whether those writing despicable things on. Now, this is pretty outrageous, he’s tipped off. By the NYPD. He’s tipped off by a field FBI field office in Virginia and they’re trying to figure out whether this is just bravado on the Internet. Now, let me ask a question. Wouldn’t you take it seriously just in case? Now getting the facts, he writes, Solomon, to resolve this question is essential for congressional and federal investigators, both for the legacy of Trump and for learning how to avoid a repeat of the deadly tragedy that struck last Wednesday. The second major question that remains unanswered is what did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders in Congress know? And I would add McConnell. And when did they know it about the possibility for violence and the Pentagon’s pre attack offer to send National Guardsmen to reinforce the Capitol Police? We know the mayor of Washington waved it off. Now, I pointed out earlier. That the U.S. Capitol Police chief, Steven Sun, told The Washington Post that security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his earlier request to call in the National Guard ahead of a protest. And he alleged that House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the optics. So it goes on there. They’re citing the post piece. So the question is. The sergeant of arms of the House and the sergeant at arms at the Senate or anybody else conveyed to the speaker of the House or the the leader of the Senate. One a Democrat, one a Republican. About the threat assessments and the likelihood for violence before the president spoke before the rally. This is why you don’t do rush impeachment’s in additional, severely, gravely damaging the Constitution in the United States, which I’ll get to a little later. Now, here’s The Washington Post piece from January 12th. A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and war, quote unquote, according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official declaration, the bureau had no intel indicating anyone at last week’s demonstrations in support of the president planned to do harm. A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex’s tunnels and possible rallying points for Would-Be conspirators to meet in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington. Quote, This is from the document. Through the via the Washington Post as of five January twenty twenty one, FBI Norfork received information indicating calls for violence and response to unlawful lockdowns to begin on six January. Twenty twenty one in Washington, D.C., the document says. And online thread discuss specific calls for violence to include stating, quote, be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking doors being kicked in and blood from their BLM and pantie for slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march or rally or protest. Go there ready for war. We get our president or we die. Nothing else will achieve this goal, unquote. Now, let me let me ask you something. So you’re at Main Justice at the FBI. You’re at Main Justice at the FBI and the Terrorism Working Group gets this meaning local. Regional national state police and law enforcement. And you’re not sure? Whether this is just bravado. The warning is the starkest evidence yet, writes the post of the sizable intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem which claimed the lives of five people while three of them died of natural causes. I’m just pointing that out. That doesn’t make it any better, but that needs to be accuracy. Including that poor law enforcement official, by the way. At the FBI office in Norfolk, the report was written within 45 minutes of receiving the information official said and shared with counterparts in Washington. The head of the FBI’s Washington field office, the Stephen Nuzzo, told reporters last Friday that the agency did not have Intel suggesting the pro Trump rally would be anything more than a lawful demonstration. He held a news conference Tuesday after the Post’s initial publication, he said the alarming January five intelligence document was shared with all our law enforcement partners through the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, D.C. police and other federal local agencies. But apparently they never told the president, the United States he goes to this event. I assume they didn’t alert his Secret Service. But I want to know who was alerted on Capitol Hill. I think that’s very important. And Stephen Sonna resigned as Capitol Police chief said in an interview to say he never received nor was made aware of the FBI’s field bulletin, insisting he and others would have taken the warning seriously had it been shared. I did not have the information, nor was that information taken into consideration our security planning. But he’s also the same guy that says he alerted the sergeant of arms in the House and the Senate. That they needed to bring in the National Guard. And so here it is. None of this is in the impeachment report, all 50 pages were 26 pages of appendixes of appendix information. What do you make of that? I have no problem with a thorough investigation of what took place that day, including before and after. No problem whatsoever. But we now know that armed, dangerous. Militants, militarists, whatever you want to call them. Came to that event for the purpose. A breach in the Capitol building, and I’ll tell you what, maybe killing people and maybe taking people hostage, you know what else they found, not handcuffs. What do you call those things that are used instead of handcuffs? What were they using? The zip ties? They had zip ties. And Molotov cocktails and God knows what else. Now, the United States has done a lot of rallies in his short political career, including like 50 of them before the last election, not one of them was violent. There was no violence whatsoever. This is different. And what should have happened is the FBI, frankly, should have warned the president not to go. For one, it’s too dangerous. But it does raise questions because information was shared with the. Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police. Who knew what? Are you telling me that Sergeant of arms of the House and the Senate, you’re given information that there’s a grave concern by the head of the Capitol Police that we need the National Guard and they’re blowing it off and they don’t tell McConnell and they don’t tell Pelosi? I guess that’s possible. But they just impeach the president without a hearing, without an investigation, without any due process whatsoever. Based on assumptions and projections and conclusions and opinion pieces and opinions among their colleagues and. This violence occurred. And they impeach the president because they say he incited an insurrection. Liz Cheney statement. Says in part, I can’t read everything, I’m just saying the president of the United States summoned his mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack, everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president. She’s a liar. She put this statement out on January 12th at 622 pm. She put this statement out January 12th at 622 PM. But before that time, on the same date. The Washington Post issued its story, which I just read to you in part. So she knew that wasn’t true. So you get words like, well, he contributed to it, he did this and that, and then I give you the timeline that John Solomon has worked through based on the New York Times timeline and the timeline the national police work through, based on the Washington Post story. I suppose they can be challenged, but let’s see the challenge. So you know what happened today, here’s the headline. They impeached an innocent man. Now, here’s a better headline. They unconstitutionally impeached an innocent man. That’s what they did. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people there, there were many, many reporters, there were all kinds of recording devices and video devices. We call them iPhones and so forth. There’s not a single word of incitement, of violence, the president has challenged the legitimacy of this election. The Democrats in the media challenged the legitimacy of his election for years with the Russia collusion story. I have a Washington Post reporter here, listen to the questions that Paul Farhi’s he’s now asking me. If I can find them. Hello, Mr. Levin, I’d like to get your input for a follow up article to the one I wrote the other day about a memo issued by Cumulous Westwood One’s executive vice president, Brian Philip. As I understand, you had received Mr Phillips memo, is that still the case? So this memo was leaked to him and yes, I never received this memo. Many of us never received this memo, wasn’t for us. Second, even if you haven’t received it, I’d like to know if if you have in any way changed your approach to talking on the air about the election since last week’s disruption at the Capitol. Do you still feel that the election was fraudulently conducted and that President Trump was the rightful winner? In essence, do you still see a path, as Mr. Phillips put it in his memo, for the president to remain president? Do I still see a path, Mr. Bush? Is this guy serious? I see a path, no path. And even when I talked about it in the past, I said it’s very, very unlikely, right, Mr. Peterson? Right, America. It’s a very difficult, if not impossible hurdle. My focus and this guy says he listens. My focus has been on four states in particular. Where they change their voting, not talking about machines and everything, they change their voting system unconstitutionally, Article two, Section one clause to all these people, talk about defending the Constitution, right? I’m defending it. Only the state legislatures can change the election laws that didn’t happen in these four states. I’ve talked about it at length over and over again. And nothing that happened on Capitol Hill changes that, nothing that happened that day changes in. Period. The Constitution is the Constitution. It’s that simple. And these state legislatures need to try and fix what took place, although there’s a serious question whether even if they fix it, the courts in those states and the executive branch in those states will adhere to what the state legislatures have done because they didn’t before. So these questions are intended to be inflammatory, they’re set up questions. Have I changed my approach to talking on air about the election? Why would I change my approach? The Constitution hasn’t changed. The arguments I made are still relevant, they’re relevant after this election, but I would ask Mr Farhi. Has its newspaper. His newspaper, The Washington Post, changed its approach. Is it still bank banking on Russian collusion? For years, we hear about Russia collusion. But I’m not going to waste any more time with this, Mr. Producer. Why don’t you actually take the a little clip of what I just said so I can send it to the guy? Why don’t we do it that way? In any event. There’s more to get to here because it’s very, very important, the damage to our Constitution. We had 10 Republicans, as I understand it, who voted for impeachment. No due process, no factual inquiry, no investigation of any kind. A complete rejection of the past processes for impeachment, because they say the president’s way too dangerous and he needs to be punished and punished right now. They know full well there won’t be a trial in the Senate, and if there is, there won’t be a conviction. But I knew as soon as this happened, they would paste it on Trump because the media, the hosts were immediately saying the president’s language did this and they do not ever speak specifically to what language they’re talking about. And so you can see the broader brush, the attack on Ted Cruz, the attack on Josh Hawley, the attack on 139 members of the House, the attack on other individuals who thought we have a commission like we did in 1876. Now, you can’t question anything. This is how it works. Nothing. Because then you’re tied to the violence that was preplanned on Capitol Hill. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
I’ll be on Hannity tonight, approximately nine thirty PM Eastern Time on. I hope you’ll watch us. That’s Hannity nine thirty p.m. Eastern Time. Tom McClintock, I thought, had a very good and concise statement on the floor of the House today. Congressman from California. Let’s take a listen. Cut three go. You know, I didn’t like the president’s speech on January 6th either. I thought he was wrong to assert that the vice president in Congress can pick and choose which electoral votes to count. It was wrong to set such a confrontational tone in a politically tense situation. But what did he actually say? His exact words were, quote, I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard, unquote. That’s impeachable. That’s called freedom of speech. Now, he also threatened to oppose candidates in future elections. And by the way, that was directed at Republicans like me who resolved to uphold the constitutional process and protect the Electoral College. Well, so what that’s called politics. If we impeached every politician who gave a fiery speech to a crowd of partisans, this capital would be deserted. That’s what the president did. That is all he did. He specifically told the crowd to protest peacefully. And yet all day long on the floor, not all day, there were only two hours. The Democrats and 10 Republicans said he incited violence. He got the gang going. He gathered the gang. We’re getting more and more reports of how this actually occurred. And he is an innocent man who was wrongly impeached.