On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Chuck Cooper, who is in effect Joe Biden and the Democrats attorney, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal surmising that Bill Clinton’s private offenses were not impeachable but alleges that Donald Trump has committed offenses and these allegations are impeachable. Cooper erroneously reimagines the constitution to make the case for trying and removing a private citizen in a Senate removal trial. However, not a single founder at the Constitutional Convention ever suggested that the impeachment clause was for anyone but those currently sitting in public office. Then, even Nancy Pelosi had prior knowledge of a planned riot at the Capitol, and she did nothing. What did Pelosi and Mitch McConnell know and when did they know it? Later, Liz Cheney who voted to impeach President Trump does not deserve to be in leadership. Her home state of Wyoming has censured her, and she may not politically survive re-election. Afterward, the Biden Administration’s attack on American energy independence continues to cost more pipeline jobs. Solar energy creates new opportunities for Chinese manufacturing of solar panels.
THIS IS FROM:
Wall St Journal
The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Just The News
Growing evidence Capitol attack was pre-planned undercuts Trump impeachment premise
Fox News
Letter to Congressional Leaders from former Chief of Police, US Capitol Police
Washington Post
Wyoming GOP censures Rep. Liz Cheney for voting to impeach Trump
AP
Biden officials considering action on plan to cancel up to $50k in student loan debt
Daily Caller
Democrats’ Minimum Wage Increase Would Kill 1.4 Million Jobs, Congressional Budget Office Finds
Daily Caller
Business, Pro-Worker Groups Denounce Reintroduction Of Pro-Union PRO Act
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Stefani Reynolds
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
By the way, is anybody ever seen Anthony Fauci with a mask on, you know, other than at the stadium when it was off hanging from his ear? Has anyone actually ever seen him wearing a mask? Honestly, I haven’t. Maybe there’s a few rare occasions when he was putting on a show, but all over TV he’s not wearing a mask unless he’s wearing a Fauci mask. And Fauci be wearing a Fauci mask, Mr. Producer. All right, I want to address some of these impeachment issues in a way that you haven’t heard yet. Why? Because I’m trained in this field of practice, in this field. I’ve studied this field my entire life since I was a teenager. Since I was a teenager. Chuck Cooper, who was the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel at one point and at one point was a friend of mine, no longer a founding member and chairman of Cooper and Kirk p.l.c.. I guess I worried about a lawsuit there anyway. You may recall he was John Bolton’s attorney and now he is effectively Joe Biden’s attorney and the attorney for the Democrat. And so on the eve. Of the fraudulent phony rogue Senate impeachment trial. Chuck Cooper writes a piece in The Wall Street Journal. And of course, The New York Times is so impressed now with Cooper, who they used to detest, just like King Singer, who they used to detest, and Liz Cheney, who they used to detest, and Romney who’s they used to detest, you understand? That they reported on it. They reported on what Chuck shoppers, shoppers here, Cooper’s op ed in The Wall Street Journal. Well, let’s see what our genius counsel had to say in The Wall Street Journal, shall we? During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he writes, his defenders argue that his misconduct was ultimately private. I don’t know, lying in front of a federal grand jury. And lying to a federal judge. I don’t know if that’s purely private, didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense in the current impeachment, Donald Trump, that’s a hard argument to make with a straight face since the then president’s offenses, culminating in the siege of the Capitol, were obviously public and political. What president’s offenses? What are the offenses that he lists them, of course not. Of course, he does a ba ba ba ba head, we’ve got offenses that the president. Commit and commit any offences and not even no criminal offences. So Cooper doesn’t go through the speech because he can’t. The president’s objection to the election that has nothing to do with what happened in the Capitol building. Any more than Russia collusion did with the Democrats, so here you go again, he’s sort of the Liz Cheney of constitutional law now culminating in the siege of the Capitol, where obviously public and political. So his defenders claim instead that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try him now that he’s no longer in office. Seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, any sixth grader relatively literate in English and asked to read the impeachment clause of the Constitution would come to that conclusion. But not Chuck. Forty five Republican senators voted in favor of Senator Rand Paul’s motion, challenging the Senate’s jurisdiction to try Trump. But scholarship on this question has matured substantially since that vote. And it has exposed the serious weakness of Mr. Paul’s analysis. Oh, yes, it’s evolved. With the times, I mean, literally over the course of hours. So far, Cooper hasn’t said anything. Nothing of substance. Let’s see when we get to it, the strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article two, Section four of the Constitution. Which provides the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He says the trials opponents argue that because this provision requires the removal and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried. Wow. Such obvious logic. Now, here we go, here we go with the pretzel. But the provision cuts against their interpretation, it simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a mandatory minimum punishment. Huh? Are you all may not know this, but there was no. Federal criminal law or criminal code? When the Constitution was adopted and ratified and so what Cooper does, having spent his life railing against activist justices and judges, is he’s become one now to justice or judge, thankfully. But an activist, he says that if incumbent office holder is convicted by a two thirds vote of the Senate, he’s removed from office as a matter of law. If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t, he says. Article one, Section three authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction, disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. So there’s Cooper who just rewrote the Constitution. He just rewrote it. You know, it’s interesting to me, and I’ll get to the rest of it painful, but I will they use the word removal from office. Removal from office, they didn’t say if the official if he’s not in office, if he’s no longer in office. Its removal from office. Now, Chuck, if the state if the language in the impeachment clause of the Constitution said. That the Senate. May prevent. A former. Public official. Who’s no longer in office from serving in office? That’s one thing, but it doesn’t say that these were a very, very bright man. They were looking at the Enlightenment, they were looking at Judeo-Christian history. They were looking at Cicero and they were looking at Aristotle. They were looking at so many great Montesquieu and Locke and they they knew everything. But for Chuck, they didn’t know how to write. Now, where is the historical evidence that time period, evidence anywhere, anywhere to support Chuck Cooper’s proposition anywhere? I challenge Cooper now, I challenge McCarthy now I challenge them all. Where is your evidence for your interpretation of the impeachment clause? There is nothing. No, none whatsoever, which is why they never talk about it. What do they say about this at the constitutional convention today that they say that you could. That she could try. A president who’s now a private citizen in the United States Senate. And then and that individual from ever running from off for office again. That is pretty draconian, and you would think if that were the case, since they spent three and a half months. Out of the five and a half months they were in Philadelphia debating the presidency, debating impeachment, constantly returning to it, you would think they would say something affirmative, something explicit. They don’t even hint at it. They’re going to dance around it. Not a single delegate made the case. That the Senate that they were creating. What have the power to reach into the private sector to chase down a former official of the federal government, to put them on trial? And prevent them from ever serving again. And you can imagine why, because they at least oppose tyranny. Apparently not these guys and some challenged them all right now. Where’s your evidence for your position rather than your kind of squirrelly language? Again, the Constitution specifically uses the word removal. Removal. From office. And then the prohibition. From serving again. The Constitution does not say. That the Senate contrives somebody who’s out of office. Out of office, not in office. And prevent them from serving again, it says removal from office. Now these guys pretend to be and I want I’m a textualist. You know, I’m I’m an originalist. You know, when I read the Constitution, I’m trying to figure out what was intended back then. No, you’re not. You’re trying to figure out what you want to accomplish today. These never troopers dressed up as constitutional lawyers. I don’t care if they’re former federal prosecutors. I don’t care if he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel. I know these guys. I know what they know and I know what they don’t know. I know what I know and I know what they don’t know. And when you read a piece like this in the Wall Street Journal and you read it, and there’s absolutely nothing substantive to support this guy’s opinion. Then you have to ask yourself, why is it in here? Why is it in here? To push an agenda. Shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. Why is Bill Clinton mentioned in this? So this this fails on multiple levels. This is problematic on multiple levels. Number one, he doesn’t list the offenses because there aren’t any. Number two, he rewrites the impeachment clause. He rewrites the impeachment clause. And as to that point, I’m trying to make the novel point that everybody is saying, look, it’s removal and then I’m making the additional point. They did not say. If he’s not in office, if he’s retired, if he’s in there, they said removal from office. Impeachment is a punishment. You’re charged and then tried. It’s a punishment, not a criminal punishment, not a severe punishment. They made that abundantly clear to at the constitutional convention. Now, if I’m wrong, but I’m right. And Cooper’s right, but he’s wrong. Can you imagine how different America would have looked for over the last 200 years? What really angry, treacherous political parties chasing down former presidents of the United States concocting allegations. Putting them on trial in the United States Senate in order to prevent them from running again. It’s never happened. It’s never happened and there’s a reason for it, it’s unconstitutional. Well, this is different, Mark. Donald Trump, excuse me. We’ve had periods in our history. Were former presidents have been hated, hated, hated. We’ve had very difficult periods in our history. Very difficult periods in our history. And yet no party and no Senate has ever lowered itself to do this. And when you have people like McCarthy and Cooper. And others who are really become fringe on this issue, especially defending it. They are humiliating and degrading themselves. It’s that simple, they have no no historical, substantive evidence whatsoever to support their position. And Chuck Cooper, if you have a list of offenses that the president committed, let’s see him. Let’s hear him. If you have any evidence, whatever in our history to support your interpretation, don’t hand me some secretary of war. I’m not talking about that. In a deal with some goofball, Ed, you’re dealing with me. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
You know. I have explained the impeachment clause and removal for how long now, Mr. Producer, since before they tried to impeach the president, the United States behind this microphone on FOX with guests on live in TV. It’s in the brief. It’s not an argument people were making two and a half, three weeks ago, they’re making it now, but I’m trying to make a different point. Taking it to the next step. It’s not simply what’s in the Constitution, although that clearly is controlling, it’s also what’s not in the Constitution. What’s not in the Constitution? Is any support for the position? That the pseudo constitutional scholars. Never troopers are taking. The Constitution does not say what they wanted to say. It doesn’t say what they wanted to say. There’s nothing self-executing but an absurd argument. Utterly irrational. The Constitution does not say it was never said at the constitutional convention. It’s not in the Federalist Papers, it’s never been done to a former president, that is, that you can ban a former president from office. Hold a Senate trial, even though you cannot remove him since he’s not there, and then impose a punishment, a punishment while they’re in the private sector to prevent them from ever running again. There’s nothing even close to that in the Constitution. There’s no wording in the Constitution, whatever that supports it. Period. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
What do we have, 5,000 National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., Mr. Producer. We’re 24, rolling through Washington, D.C. this weekend, threatening to burn down the city. Threatening shop owners, threatening people who are eating in restaurants, and there’s the Guardsmen. Now that the mayor of Washington, D.C., a left wing kook, an incompetent buffoon. Did she ask the National Guard to protect the city from Antifa? No. Democrats don’t do that. Democrats don’t do that. Are they inciting, Jake Tapper? Are they inciting Chuck Cooper? They’re directly threatening to burn down the nation’s capital. It’s as if somebody sneezed, no big deal, no big deal. Now let’s talk about the specifics. This is really. The first trial I’m aware of where there is no. Specific allegation. There’s emotion, there’s political statements, and then we hear the geniuses, it’s a political process, is that what the Constitution says? It’s a political process. Why do they spend so much time on this? Now, this is a governing process. This is a constitutional process with political elements, no doubt. But if it’s simply a political process, is what the pseudo scholars like to say, then there’s no point in having any process. Just bring out the guillotine over. What’s with the two thirds calling it a trial, supposed to have the chief justice of the United States? It’s just political. Why is the chief justice of the United States supposed to be there when a president is tried, if it’s just political? Why are the senators supposed to shut their mouths and sit down if it’s just political? Because it’s not just political. Again. This is the fallback position for people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, but they’re paid to talk anyway. Where are the specific detailed allegations? I can’t find them in the charge against the president. Where are the specific detailed allegations of the president? Not broad generalizations, not anger over his speech, not projection by Liz Cheney. Where are the specific details? With whom did he collaborate? Which individuals, which organizations, how did he do it? How do they get their weapons if they had weapons? Oh, Mark. President didn’t do any of that. Well, what specific words did he use during his, oh, the word fight? That’s going to be rammed up there, took us tomorrow, I’m sure, by the president’s lawyers. So the word fight now. The word fight. Means incitement to insurrection. Well, you know, we need to do now, Mr. Producer, take some crime tape and rap the Capitol building, because every one of those morons, like crackpots in the Capitol building, have talked about fighting. Let’s fight them. Let’s fight them. Fight them. Oh, you’re inciting our insurrection. And while we’re at it, we might as well round up any individual who challenge the 2016 election because now challenging elections. His incitement to insurrection, right, Chuck Cooper? Oh, yes, yes. It’s inciting the mob. Now, how do we know the mob wasn’t incited, I’ve said this over and over again, how do we know the mob wasn’t incited by CNN? By Nancy Pelosi calling law enforcement storm troopers, oh, well, if Nancy thinks federal law enforcement, storm troopers, then we can storm the Capitol building. Who cares about. Right, right. Not only that, her sidekick, James Clapper, the number three, he said they’re storm troopers to. In fact, the Democrat Party, a conga line like the Rockets there, they are dancing around saying Trump was instigating Black Lives Matter and Antifa to get violent, to loot, to commit arson, to bring on whatever. Because he dared to use law enforcement to try and stop them. How do we know? That the Democrat Party, that The Washington Post, that The New York Times, that the news media. How do we know they weren’t ones? How do we know the Lincoln Project and all the others, whether outlandish over the top, vicious hate their vile poison that they put out every day. How do we know they didn’t let loose one of the nuts? How do we know Bernie Sanders did? Apparently, he did it before. Well, America America’s really bared its racist al Qaeda phobia, its unequal, they’re going to take your health care, they’re going to take your home from you, they’re going to do that. A ranting, not old read on a soapbox and he almost gets nominated by the Democrat Party. How do we know he isn’t responsible for inciting people? We know he did it once. Oh, no, no, not allowed to say that. No, no, he didn’t. I’m sorry. No, he didn’t. Please, please. And now we have the word that Jake Tapper’s learned. It’s more than three. More than three letters, but Jacobs, memorize this word. It’s called insurrectionists. Insurrectionist, oh, insurrectionist. The insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol building. Why are they insurrections, because they tried to stop our constitutional government. I see. But why aren’t you calling them insurrectionist when they attacked the White House? Or attack the people on the last night of the Republican convention. Or attacked a federal courthouse. Or have in their mission statement, the overthrowing the United States government. Because they’re Marxists, anarchists, and they committed over a billion dollars in damage. Attacked the cops, actually harmed and killed some people. How come those people aren’t insurrection? No, no, no, no. They’re mostly peaceful and it’s a new civil rights movement. Oh. I get it now. Insurrectionist. Let’s listen to that for a second insurrectionist, let’s deal with that. Who are the insurrectionist? Exactly who are they? What have the media done to find these insurrectionists, to identify them, the groups, the individuals who are the insurrectionists? Where are they, where are they, where are these groups, the insurrectionist, they don’t do it now. Why don’t they do that, Mr. Anderson? Why don’t they do that? America. Because they really don’t care about those people. They’re using the word insurrectionists. And the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. To try and destroy the character and reputations. Of tens of millions of Americans. Who despise them? And the Democrat Party. And what they’ve done to this country, what they tried to do to President Trump. This is what they’re doing. And they’re going to use the term insurrectionists as long as they can, which means forever. It is an attack on you. Make no mistake about it, you, the law abiding, taxpaying, hard working American who make this country work. It’s an attack on you. In other words, it’s better to smear everyone. Then be specific about whom they’re speaking about, and by the way, this is part of the critical race theory movement to. When we say white supremacists are white privilege or systemic racism, we’re not even talking about the Klan, they write, we’re not even talking about the neo-Nazis, they write. We’re talking about the white dominant culture, that white dominant culture. That’s what we’re talking about. They’ve written about this. I know, I read it. It’s like Payton reading Rommel’s military strategy, I have read their. Ideological and political strategy, they’re telling us what they do. And so it is being regurgitated and burped up by the media drones. By the media force. Repeating the same thing. And so you hear these hosts, you hear their guests very carefully chosen. To continue to push that narrative. Jake Tapper did it on the Sunday show. Jake Tapper is a clown. He’s also a moron, but he’s a clown. Anybody who dares to challenge. The results of this past election. Needs to be held accountable. Says Jake Tapper, who the hell’s Jake Tapper? Jake Tapper is a nobody. He’s a left wing Democrat. He was given a platform. By AT&T and CNN. Otherwise, you would dismiss him as another Starbucks moron sitting in the corner, snorting up his latte, sitting there on his laptop, writing stupid things to himself. Jake Tapper hasn’t accomplished anything, he’s never said anything profound, you said he said things that are profoundly stupid. So it’s better to smear everybody. You see the insurrectionists, the insurrectionists. Who carries more weapons? And Tiffin Black Lives Matter or these insurrectionists. Now, it’s interesting because the media want to have it both ways. They want to have it both ways. If these relative, few out of hundreds of thousands of individuals, there’s no defending this and I have never defended and I never will. That’s our capital building, too, and these bastards defiled it. Got it. I agree. And the cops, the attack on the cops, it’s grotesque. If you believe. As we believe. For the left in the media, they didn’t have a problem with the attack on the cops until. January six, before that, it was evidence that the cops are racist systemically. Racist and we have to defund them, we have to handcuff them, we got it, you know, this, that and the other. It’s funny you don’t hear about that anymore. But what if the relative handful of individuals who charge that Capitol building? We’re armed. Wouldn’t that cut against, again, the Liz Cheney’s and the Chuck Coopers and the Adam King zingers and the Ben Sassy’s and the Mitt Romney’s, wouldn’t that cut against the whole left wing Democrat media propaganda machine? I mean, they came to a peaceful protest to listen to the president, armed to the teeth. Mr. Producer in America, do you remember early on when I said, I have never seen people attempt to attend a Trump rally wearing gas masks and helmets and backpacks with hammers and stuff? And I remember I said that. Remember that American? Some of them did. When we come back, I will underscore a point I made earlier with the help of our friend John Solomon in Just the News. We’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
By the way, my beautiful wife, Julie, wrote a brilliant piece on the issue of impeachment, we will link to it on my Web site because parlor’s still not up. We quit Twitter. We quit Facebook. People said, hey, can you promote this and link it? No, I can’t. But thanks for asking. Go to Mark Levin Show Dotcom, Mark Levin Show, dot com. It’ll be up there shortly if it’s not up there now. Now, I don’t have time in this short segment at the end of the first hour to complete this. So stick with us. I’m marching through the left, marching through the Senate, marching through the media and marching through the other reprobates malcontents and miscreants like Sherman through Atlanta and Georgia. Days before former President Trump’s impeachment trial begins, right, Solomon? Newly filed federal charges and by the way, you know, any reporter could have found the sub, but they don’t want to. Instead, they want to sit there. Like Jake Tapper. As if he’s sitting on a loaf of. Never mind. Compelling evidence that the accused perpetrators of the capital riots preplanned their attack days and weeks in advance in plain sight of an FBI that vowed to be vigilant to extremist threats. So Washington is covering up and the Democrats are using this as an opportunity to try and destroy half the country, doesn’t FBI affidavit supporting charges against more than 200 defendants charioteers engaged in advance planning on social media sites? By the way, you know it. Their favorite social media site was for planning violence, Mr. Producer. Facebook. The planning included training casing sites, identifying commanders on the scene and requests for donations of cash as well as combat and communication gear. Oh, wow, that Trump’s speech must have really gotten him worked up, don’t you think? More than a half dozen of the suspects are now charged with conspiracy to commit violence for actions predating the January six riots, the early actions identified in court documents date back to November, with planning and rhetoric accelerated after Christmas. Court records show that growing body of evidence raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. I would vote, they didn’t. It also undercuts the House Democrats impeachment claim, supported by 10 Republicans, that Trump speech spontaneously incited the riots. Legal experts told just the news. I would hope. That those 10 Republicans and hopefully even some Democrats would say, as we now look at the timelines that media, The New York Times, The Washington Post and all the reporting on here is exactly at the facts, said Ken Starr, the former federal appeals judge, solicitor general, Whitewater, independent counsel. House lawmakers made a huge, colossal blunder, Starr said, who was a member of the defense team for Trump’s first Senate impeachment trial. So walk back and apologize to the former president, apologize to the American people that I never should have voted in favor of this without the benefit of all the facts. I rushed to judgment. Yeah, but but, you know, Chuck Cooper thinks that’s OK. All these offenses were apparently committed. Nobody’s ever going to want Chuck on their jury. I don’t think I’ve ever worn them defending me. Trump’s lawyers are planning to argue the president’s speech did not, in fact, incite violence, but rather call for a peaceful protest and was protected by the First Amendment. They’re also preparing a video montage showing Democrats making comments encouraging violence dating to last summer’s BLM protests. George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat who has defended Trump on impeachment issues, argued in a column published Sunday in the Hill newspaper that the impeachment claims do not meet the legal standard of incitement. They don’t meet any standard of incitement. None. It’s much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made for television charges, Turley wrote, I don’t fault these experts for speculating about such a case, but many claim that prosecution would be relatively simple. That is just not true. All right. More stay with me. We’re making a very comprehensive case and we need to go beyond the first hour. Stick with me. I’ll be right back. network.