On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Big Media, Big Tech, and the democrats are perpetuating a fraud impeachment trial on the American people. What is the purpose of impeachment? It has its roots in British common law and exists to remove public officials from office, to undo an election. It does not exist to impeach a private citizen. Then, the Chief Justice is the only person that has any Constitutional authority to preside over any impeachment trial. No one else has such authority. The logic of the founders is clear on impeachment. Later, section three of the 14th Amendment gets misrepresented regularly. Anyone looking to this amendment with respect to the current impeachment has already found someone guilty of an insurrection and has no place serving in public office. Afterward, President Biden routinely misstates coronavirus facts and tries to take credit for the Trump Administration’s achievements.
THIS IS FROM:
National Pulse
Biden Rescinds Trump Order Banning Chinese Communist Involvement In US Power Grid
Newsbusters
WashPost ‘Fact Checker’ Admits They Won’t Count Biden’s False Claims
The Blaze
Horowitz: Parler lawsuit: The courts discover free enterprise at the exact wrong moment
Washington Examiner
Thousands of National Guard troops to remain in DC for Trump impeachment trial
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
House Democrats have picked their impeachment managers who are going to walk over to the Senate. But their charge against former President Donald Trump now. In addition. To these Democrats in the media, that’s so frustrating. What’s also frustrating to me are the frauds who are on TV posing as legal analysts and experts on this issue when none of them are. I spoke at great length last week about the John Roberts situation and so forth, and it’s obvious we have senators and congressmen listening to the show because they go on the Sunday shows and other shows and regurgitate exactly what I said. That’s actually a good thing. But since I am the horse’s mouth. And so many of these legal analysts are the horses asses. I want to go through this very, very carefully with you. So even phony legal analysts can understand it. Why do we have impeachment? Does anybody know why we have impeachment? Is impeachment aimed at private citizens? Of course not. In the first instance, can the House of Representatives impeach a private citizen? Of course not. Where did this idea for impeachment come from? It came from Britain. Common-Law going all the way back to the 14th century where the House of Commons would charge and the House of Lords would try. But not citizens, not private citizens. What does it make a difference if the private citizen was previously a public official? Well, why would it? Not a single person at the constitutional convention stood up and made that argument. You can’t find a single sentence, let alone a passage in the Federalist Papers, to support the. There’s no scholarship whatsoever. None that can substantively endorse their position, people are giving their opinions. That’s all they’re giving. Now, if you’re a constitutionalist, you look at the Constitution. And you try and discern what the text means, sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes it’s not, but you don’t project your views on top of it. That’s not originalism, that’s not trying to figure out the intent of the founders or the framers, I should say. No, that’s your intent, which you are using to promote an agenda and this is what we’re seeing on television. The logic of the framers of the constitutional convention. Arguing that you can impeach and try somebody who’s no longer in office is really quite clear. If they had meant to say that you could chase down a public official once they become a private citizen, they would have said so somewhere, somehow, nowhere, no how. Do they give any justification for that and why would they? Why would they? They set up all kinds of procedures to protect the country from tyranny, one procedure after another under attack by the Democrats, I might add. That senators would be chosen by the state legislatures while that was changed during the progressive era, mostly by Republicans. While that we’d have an electoral college, not a direct election, well, that’s under attack, too, by the left in the Democrats. But impeachment is not there to attack a private citizen, even somebody who’s been a public official, can you imagine? If that’s the case, why wasn’t there any discussion of that, because these were logical men, these were men of great virtue and they would have no idea what is being done to their document today by phonies at National Review. Phonies or are legal analysts phonies on the left, Democrats, Romney and all the rest of the reprobates? They can’t point to a single substantive, historical, factual basis for their position. None. The framers never said. That impeachment would imply in any way to a private citizen, let alone a trial. A trial. That’s number one. Number two, what kind of impeachment was this? This wasn’t an impeachment at all. The Democrats got together, they voted within 48, 72 hours. To try and trash the president of the United States on his way out the door because they were hoping that they would carry through with a trial so he couldn’t run again. But none of that is right. No hearings, no witnesses. Well, that’s not required, Mark, of course it’s not required, but a kangaroo courts, a kangaroo court. And now they say they won’t have a trial in the Senate, but they’re going to wait until the current Democrat president has a good 30, 60 day honeymoon period before they go after the former Republican president. Is that what the framers intended? Of course not. Impeachment is for the most dire circumstances. Impeachment is about reversing an election. Well, there’s no election to reverse here because the former president is the former president, number one, and number two, there is no dire circumstance now, period. Number three. In the case of the president, the United States. The Constitution is quite specific, Article one, Section three. Claus’s six and seven. The president. It’s tried, the chief justice shall preside. That’s what it says when the president, the United States has tried, the chief justice shall preside. Period. Well, he’s a private citizen now. Mark, anybody can preside and we’re going to have Patrick Leahy, they say, who’s going to preside? Patrick Leahy. The longest serving Democrats, senator, barely coherent slurs, his words much like the current president. The president pro tem, so they don’t want Kamala Harris anywhere near this. So Leahy or step in. Well, that’s no problem, the legal analysts tell us, because Donald Trump’s not present anymore. So follow this. They impeach him as president, they try him as a private citizen, but because he’s a private citizen, he’s not president anymore. The chief justice wants nothing to do with this. So they’ll give it to Patrick Leahy. He’ll preside over the trial. That’s not what the Constitution says, this is all being made up. They are amending the constitution on the fly. To fit their their narrative. If the chief justice of the United States won’t participate, what does that tell you? Moreover, it would be a conflict of interest, as I explained last week, at some length, considering this matter could wind up in the Supreme Court. Depending on whether former President Trump wishes to run or not. Patrick Leahy has no authority. To preside over a trial of an ex-president who’s now a private citizen. The trial itself is without constitutional authority, the purpose of the trial. Is to remove a sitting public official Hallmark, they want to prevent him from serving in the future, but it doesn’t work that way. You can’t have an impeachment, then a trial and a conviction that I can point. That’s not how it works. Now, if you’re a former federal prosecutor, you’re not used to this complicated stuff. It’s a lot too complex. It’s not in the criminal code. And so you let your mind wander, you start projecting and you start doing stupid stuff. The fact is, none of this is legitimate, period. The fourth point, this is United States. We don’t chase down former officials for the purpose of then preventing them from serving in the future. That’s what they do in dictatorship’s. Autocracies. The Third World. Maybe California, but that’s not what we do in the United States and we’ve never done. They point to these ridiculous while the secretary of war, you know, about who cares? Who cares if he had a row Congress back then? But they can’t talk about a previous president because they previous presidents never been treated this way, previous presidents never been impeached twice. Previous presidents never been impeached in two hours. And they think their case is so secure, so tight, so strong, they lay out no evidence whatsoever, there is no evidence whatsoever in their charge against the president, all 76 pages, 26 pages of which are nothing more than an appendix where they cite themselves, they cite their colleagues, they cite newspaper articles. It’s all supposition. It all be thrown out in a court of law. But we’re not in a court of law. No, we’re not. But we’re not in Congress either, because it’s over. The president’s gone. There’s no jurisdiction for this, there’s nothing. And so you have to be a real, real activist, what you expect from the Democrats. To think this is legitimate, you have to read the Constitution the way the left reads the Constitution, that is, they’re not bound by the words, they’re not bound by the tradition. They’re not bound by the intent of the framers. No. So the framers intended the Senate. To sit on articles or an article, wait to the most propitious time for the opposition party. To have a trial to make sure their president gets off to a good start, then they can bring the subject up again. Even though the former president is a former president, a private citizen, and they can have a trial for the purpose of preventing him from running again in the opposite party, they don’t want the Republicans to nominate Donald Trump ever again. Now, ladies and gentlemen. This is as fraudulent as it gets. This is as rogue as it gets. This is as unconstitutional as it gets. And you hear the moral preening and lectures from people who said things to their base to literally incite them in so many ways, so worse than the president ever said, is really just precious. From the same party and the same advocates who truly do want to burn down our Constitution. When they look at the Supreme Court, they want to create into a left wing ideological politbureau when they want to stuff the Senate with four more Democrat senators, and I don’t think they can get around the Constitution of the District of Columbia so easily. That’s my opinion, to want to eliminate the filibuster rule right now so they can ram through whatever they want to ram through and change this Republican to some kind of a parliamentary system. Where they always win. And then, of course, to destroy the Electoral College. So that the cities control the entire country and the large blue states control the entire country. They want to turn this republic inside out upside down and eviscerate it. And they lecture us about incitement. They lecture us about the Constitution, which they just assume burned. The fact is to summarize. This was an illegitimate impeachment based on what they wrote. Based on the way it was conducted. There is no support in the Constitution or any writings of any kind, contemporary or sense, in any rational, substantive, factual way. To support a post presidential impeachment trial. And to try and bootstrap in the cannot serve in the future language. It’s just that it is a result of. Oriented and there’s not a constitutional conservative who has any self-respect that would argue otherwise. And as for the chief justice taking a pass, he’s no fool. Plus, he knows a potential conflict of interest. He’s out of it. Kamala Harris, she’s no fool. Well, maybe, but she wants nothing to do with this. So they dig up Patrick Leahy, who’s been in the Senate, I think, since 1973, as hardcore partisan as it comes out of Vermont. And so he’s going to preside over an impeachment trial of an ex-president, there is not only no basis for this. There is no support for this, none whatsoever. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
I really do that my wonderful colleagues at Fox would stop putting these frauds on Fox, but keep misleading people in a terrible, terrible way. They do not know of what they speak, these people. So now they have another scheme. Ladies and gentlemen, just to show you what frauds they all are, the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, Section three. And we’ll talk more about this after the bottom of the hour here in the right place. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or electorate, a president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any state, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in and this is a civil war amendment, have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House removes such disability. No, I want to address this because they’re throwing this around loosely aimed at the president of the United States, the former president. I assume this means, Mr. Producer, that any member of Black Lives Matter may not serve in public office. I assume this means anybody active in Antifa may not serve in public office. I assume it means any politician who supported either must resign because they’re supporting the overthrow of the United States of America, I assume anybody who is a neo Marxist or Marxist cannot serve in public office. All right. Now, how does this apply to the president? I want to address this to when we return.
Hour 1 Segment 3
I want you to think about what’s going on here, and some Republicans actually have contributed to this, like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, among others, you see the the spreading of tyranny, of repression. You see an attack on free speech. By Big Media, Big Media is basically the. The hit machine. The propaganda machine for the left and the Democrat Party, so they keep trying to figure out how we’re going to take out a radio host or a TV host or a radio station or a radio company. So they’re out there just kind of scheming in a sleazy way because that’s what they do. They’re guttersnipes. Then you look at big tech with big tech, Don. And now you look at what they’re doing, the Democrats with almost no majority in Congress. To the former president of the United States and you look at what they plan to do legislatively, what they plan to do to our judiciary, what they plan to do to our voting system, they have no mandate whatsoever. But they’re power hungry. They’re power hungry, they’re sabotaging our system. There repressing and now they’re grabbing for all the power they possibly can. If you’re Donald Trump right now, you have no effective way to communicate with the American people. You have no effective way to defend yourself. You’re banned by Twitter, you’re banned by Facebook, you’re banned by all a big tech. If you want to speak, you have to speak through the enemy’s voice, the media. You literally have no way to communicate with the American people. So the big lie keeps going out there to quote Goebbels and Joe Biden, the big lie keeps being pushed out there that president of the United States incited an insurrection. He has no ability to defend himself publicly or otherwise. And they just keep repeating everything that’s written at The New York Times and The Washington Post, everything that’s said at these other news platforms, they keep repeating the big lie. And again and again, and there’s very little pushback. Very little pushback, which is why I’m pushing it back right here. But the president can’t even defend himself in the court of public opinion. And he won’t be able to defend himself no matter how many laws he hires in the U.S. Senate, because that’s all a ruse. Now, how do I know that’s all a ruse? Let’s do this again, the 14th Amendment, and then I’ll explain it. Section three, no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elect a president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States. It goes on. If he or she has engaged in insurrectionary going against the same or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. Now, isn’t that interesting? Many of those who are arguing that, yes, there should be a trial and there can be a trial. Once the presidents are private, citizens are saying, no, no, maybe we have to look at the 14th Amendment to listen very carefully to me. If you’re looking at Section three of the 14th Amendment, you’ve already concluded that you are incapable of trying anybody. You see, because you’ve already concluded that the president of the United States incited an insurrection. Many of the people, almost all the Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media. Have already concluded that the president, the United States has incited an insurrection. There can’t be any kind of trial. Not even a kangaroo court with that kind of mentality, so if they’re already pointing to the 14th Amendment, Section three. This trial is exactly what I said, it’s worse than a kangaroo court. I don’t want to get to the bottom of anything. They’re the ones who are at the bottom of everything. So they’re not serious about justice, they’re not in any form. They’re not serious about a trial in any form, they’re certainly not serious about due process or gathering information or facts or anything. We know that because of what the House did and now what the Senate wants to do. This is all treachery. It is diabolical. There’s no constitutional basis for treachery. And for people who are diabolical. And so these are the people who really shouldn’t serve in public office anymore, but of course, there’s no way to deal without that other than vote them out. But Nancy Pelosi will never be voted out because she’s from San Francisco, a one party ultra left wing kook city. Schumer can only be voted out of his challenge from the left because New York has gone to hell. Not all of it, but the heavily populated areas. This nation is being ruled by San Francisco. And by New York City. And over and over again, they keep trying to impose their will on the rest of us. So we have a situation today where the president of the United States cannot even defend himself in the court of public opinion. We have a situation today that many of the people are talking about. Let’s have a trial. Are also talking about the 14th Amendment, so they’ve already drawn their conclusions. Many of them are projecting their own opinions as activists, not the facts and substance when it relates to what took place at the constitutional convention. There was no talk, no talk whatsoever about impeaching or trying a private citizen, regardless of what office they held. None. And the same provocateurs on the left. Wish to burn down different aspects of our constitutional order that we’ve talked about in the past and even earlier in the program for which they’re not held to account in the least. As I’ve told you, tyranny comes in many forms. You can come as a newspaper publisher. It can come as a Jeff Zucker running a. And network, it can come as members of Congress all dressed up and ready to roll. Or it can come at the point of a gun. In the last month, we’ve seen it all. We’ve seen it all, so this is not a constitutional process that is unfolding and it’s going to do severe damage to our constitutional system. These are selfish, narcissistic, egomaniacal hack politicians. And among them, the Democrats, of course, but among them is Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is an utter chameleon. He managed to get elected governor of Massachusetts and senator from Utah. How do you do that, Mr. Producer? Unless you’re. Aligarh. It goes from the most liberal state to the most conservative state. One of the most Democrat states to one of the most Republican state. Is because Mitt Romney is such a. Magnificent statement. No, it’s the opposite. He’ll prostitute himself, he doesn’t care. And then he beats his chest and self-righteous pronouncements, much like, you know, Joe Scarborough, he’s the Joe Scarborough, the Senate. And here he is on Fox News Sunday. With Chris Wallace, I guess Chris knew Mitt Romney was going to say he wanted them to amplify it, right. Why else would you invite somebody like Romney? And it was quite predictable, here it is, cut three go. You also, I’m sure, have read that there was a report over the weekend that President Trump was talking seriously at one point in December about firing the acting attorney general of the United States, putting in a new acting attorney general who supported the idea of trying to get Georgia to overturn its election results. I love the way they say, you know, he was talking about and he was thinking about and he was doodling about. And he was he did no such thing. He did no such thing, Trump. Period. He didn’t fire the acting attorney general to put in a new attorney general to order Georgia to do anything. Why is that news? And yet nothing is said about what took place in some of these states in terms of undermining the Constitution, violating Article two, Section one, clause two. I don’t know if FOX is Sunday shows. They even discussed that. I’m available. Seriously, I am. Go ahead. Part of the trial? Well, that’ll be up to the prosecutors, of course, but I think it’s pretty clear that that over the. Now that these men have apparently read this 76 page document, the House quickly pieced together. The 50 relevant pages. Which are non substantive. Will that be part of the trial? You see, Chris, the so-called jury doesn’t decide what’s part of the trial. They have to sit there and keep their mouths shut and then at the end, they get the right questions and hand them to the presiding officer. You don’t know that. But that’s not in their. But you see, this is the media piling on, it’s well, that part of the trial, in other words, you need to make it part of the trial. But here’s Romney, constitutional scholar, principled man, go ahead. So there has been an effort to corrupt the election in the United States and it was not by President Biden, it was by President Trump. And that that corruption we saw with regards to the. So there was an effort to corrupt the election of the United States. See, now we’ve gone further. So there was an effort to corrupt the election by President Trump. That’s. In addition to the insurrection led by President Trump, President Trump was very busy. Very busy leading insurrections and trying to corrupt the election, Mitt Romney will never come on this program because he’s a gutless wonder and I would be more than happy to discuss with him the issues I’ve discussed with you with respect Article two in four battleground states in particular. So let me ask Mitt Romney, AWOL from this program, something directly over the airwaves. Did Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia, did they or did they not? Change their election laws and the manner in which they choose electors for president and vice president. Without the agreement of the state legislatures, yes or no? Yes or no? And the answer is that’s exactly what they did, yes. And yet Mitt Romney hasn’t been asked that once and he won’t be by Wallace or Stephanopoulos or Tapper. Schmuck, Todd, none of them. None of them. Where are the laws in those states changed in violation of the federal constitution? Yes or no? And if no, explain. It’s simple. And if you raise the issue, then you have an ethics complaint filed against you by seven Democrats in the Senate against Cruz and Whorley, you may not even discuss it. Maybe what they should have said is China collusion. That the Biden campaign was colluding with China, maybe the Democrats in the media would understand that better. But think about this. All discussion of this has been cut off by big tech, by big media and any other major platform where American can communicate with American. Russia collusion, which was the greatest lie of the century, went on and on and on. And we knew then, as we know now, there was no support for it whatsoever. Incredible, isn’t it? Go ahead. Crane, as well as the call to secure St. Raffensperger, as well as the the incitation to insurrection, I mean, this is obviously very serious and I know you’re not interested in being very serious at all. Not in the least. You’ve already you should be part of the Democrat prosecution team. The call to the secretary of State, Raffensperger, was not illegal when you read the entire transcript. We did. It wasn’t even tawdry or untoward. Mitt Romney operates from newspaper articles and editorial page writings. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
Mr. Producer, can you help me with the phone calls, do we have a caller to whom I shall speak? Nothing good. Oh my God, you guys are pretty tough, aren’t you? Is Richie sleeping or he just says the callers don’t don’t make it open, Richie Visa, Mike, please. You’re not happy with the callers who are calling in receiving. Hello. Problem is that they can’t they want to talk about conspiracy stuff. Yeah, we’re not into conspiracy stuff. Those are other shows. All right. Thank you. I got it. Well, as they like to say on the what is it, the gym shopping channel, I’ll move on. Let’s move on. You ever see that channel, Mr. Producer? It fascinates me. With the wheels that go around, with all the jewelry, you do watch it sometimes. I love these. I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen, it’s my show, I’m just moving a little bit off. I love these guys like Marvin. And Daniel and others, sky, yeah, that’s just the greatest piece of jewelry I’ve ever seen in my life. My God, look at the sparkle in the now. Yeah, you’ll never see anything like this again. Now, this is a 24/7 Monju. And it’s fantastic, it goes round and round the it helps me sleep, it just but it is fantastic. To see how that market works and so forth, I really I really the gem shopping there, it’s really fantastic in my humble opinion. All right. There you learn more about me more than you want to know. My poor wife has to put up with this, by the way. Buy her stuff that said, Mr. Producer, how do you know I don’t? I am very generous with my family, absolutely, career scientists and front line staff at the CDC to blame for coronavirus shortfalls, not just Trump administration report finds. Wow, how much attention is this got, Mr. Producer? Like none. From our friends at the Daily Wire Ash ashow throughout the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump has blamed almost exclusively for the highly infectious virus from China. New evidence suggests the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s actions and inactions helped the virus wreak havoc on the United States. Reuters reported Friday that the CDC, quote, missed chances to spot covid silent spread, unquote, early on in the pandemic when 57 people with the virus showed up at a Nebraska military base in February after being evacuated from Wuhan, China, where the virus was discovered that people were quarantined. But the CDC refused to allow University of Nebraska Medical Center researchers from testing the group because it’s a fact bureaucracy. The agency, according to a letter from the CDC, brought up consent issues from the quarantine group wearing. They may feel coerced into testing and therefore the test would be unethical. CDC does not approve this study. A CDC official wrote. Please discontinue all contact with the travelers for research purposes. I want to circle back to this. I want to circle back. The bureaucrats are incompetent. I don’t care if they’re at the CDC or they’re working at at the side of Fouchier, all the rest of them. I’ll be right back.