May 29th, 2024

May 29th, 2024

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, President Trump calls in with his first comments after the first day of jury deliberation in NY. He explains that there has never been a judge who has been so conflicted. The prosecution has no case, there is no crime.  He weighs in on Israel, Iran, and Biden’s failed economy.  Later, the weight of precedent and the outrageous behavior of the prosecutors and Judge Merchan favor President Donald Trump. In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court’s deliberations because that court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the Equal Protection rights of Florida voters. The state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election. The Manhattan trial court has done worse in the farcical “hush-money” case.  This state court could easily have avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case. If Trump is found guilty of any of the 34 charges, he should encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part, on Bush v. Gore. Also, Biden is desperate to win Pennsylvania.  He goes to Philly only when he needs the Black or Union votes. What has Biden done for Black people in his 50 years in D.C.? Nothing. He’s done nothing for any community. Finally, Dave McCormick calls in to discuss his race against Sen Bob Casey, who is out of touch with Pennsylvania.

The Blaze
Levin to Trump’s attorneys: Next stop? The Supreme Court!

Photo by Jabin Botsford/Pool

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here.  Our number 877-381-3811.  877-381-3811. Well, this is how the Democrats work. Donald Trump. In a Stalinist like. So-called trial and Sam Alito because his wife flew two flags. Or maybe she flew on and he flew on there demanding that he recuse himself as a character, assassinate him as they have character, assassinated Clarence Thomas, slave character assassinated Neil Gorsuch. And the list goes on and on and on, because we’re not dealing with a normal American political party. The Democrat Party hates America, and it will do whatever it has to do, including destroy our institutions, our traditions. Our committee. C. O. M. I. T. Y. And, of course, the Constitution to get what it wants. Ladies and gentlemen. I don’t know how to put this without sounding the wrong way. First of all, I want you to know President Trump will be on the program at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. He was supposed to be on the program last evening, but obviously the bloviating Stalinist prosecutor couldn’t shut the hell up in front of the jury. So we moved it to today, which was always one of the options. So President Trump will be on the program 7 p.m. Eastern Time. Come hell or high water. He’ll be here. You know, I’ve spent. How old am I? Well, I’ve spent a long time, let me put it that way. 40 years, give or take. On constitutional issues. Unconstitutional litigation. Debating it, studying it, analyzing it. Diving as deep as the water allows me to go. And it is, in fact, very interesting, very informative to listen to the lawyers on TV, the defense lawyers, the former federal prosecutors, even some professors. But there’s something missing. I watch. I said there’s something missing. And what’s missing is the lack of the same kind of tenacity. The same kind of motivation. To win these battles. I don’t mean just to analyze them at a relatively surface level or to watch the jury say, well, I used to watch their eyes and or mouth and whether they got up and had to go to the restroom or got it. It’s all very interesting to me. Very. But what do we do about all this? And they’ll tell you they don’t know. There’ll be an appeal. They’ll tell you. But it’ll take time. And in the meantime, Donald Trump will be wearing a scarlet letter on his forehead. Exactly what the Democrats want to take two, three, four or 5% of the vote. A convicted felon. That’s that’s Biden. That’s what his campaign says. They’re going to call Trump if this jury convicts him. I’m one of 34 preposterous counts. The whole thing’s a setup. The fix is in. And so you’ll hear the lawyers go on about this and they’ll say the instructions are horrendous for a variety of reasons. And they’re correct. They’ll say that this is the greatest judge for the prosecution, even though I was a former prosecutor I’ve ever seen. And they’re correct. And they will say the judge’s instructions to the jury not to infer Trump’s guilt from Michael Cohen’s pleas. It’s correct, even though the judge threw out. Kept connecting the two. Great point. I agree 100% and for a thousand other reasons, this case has been one manipulation after another. To what end? To interfere with this election. To get a conviction on anything. Anything. Maybe it’s a tax issue. Maybe it’s an invoice. Anything. Just one. Yes, one. Because by the time the appellate process in New York, Democrat judges and so forth and so on hear the case, maybe they’ll even rule for Trump. It’s too late. And they now have no answer to this. What do we do? What do we do? I posted something that my friend Arthur Ferguson, a fantastic lawyer, had said not that long ago. And. I posted it and then I’ve added to it effectively. I’ve added to it effectively. And I see our friend Brett Barras using it on TV. Good for him. Somebody finally. The Bush versus Gore in Bush versus Gore. The United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court’s deliberations. Because that court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly. Thereby violating the equal protection rights of Florida voters. The state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election. The Manhattan trial court has done worse. In the farcical hush money case, it has taken up a case in which there is exclusive federal jurisdiction. Involving the federal election campaign, despite the fact that the federal agencies with authority over enforcing federal campaign laws, that is the Federal Election Commission in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York declined to bring charges. Judge Juan Machan is conflicted. His daughter Lauren, is raising tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her Democratic Party clients. Collateral evidence has been abundant. It has no probative value. The opposite. The elements of the supposed federal offense were never articulated by the state or the court. The imposition of a gag order on the defendant, who’s the future Republican nominee for president during a national campaign raises all manner of First Amendment questions, problems and concerns. Moreover, this state court could easily have avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election. This is from the blaze that published it merely by setting a later time for the case if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring it. Therefore, there’s not only a federal constitutional equal protection violation and that this state trial court has purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential election without authority or jurisdiction. But the court has also violated the federal constitutionally protected due process rights. The future Republican nominee for president. And the voters are to determine the federal election outcome without the interference of a state court attempting to influence the result. If President Trump is found guilty of any of the 34 charges, I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, based at least in significant part, on Bush versus Gore. Now, I’ve added online the following. In Bush versus Gore. Five justices agree that there was an equal protection clause violation and using differing standards of determining a valid vote in different counties, causing, end quote, unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. As I said earlier here, it is actually worse to crystallise even further. Here we have a state court acting without jurisdiction, influencing a federal presidential election by, among other things, preventing the putative GOP nominee from campaigning, meaning hundreds of thousands of voters are rally draining resources from the campaign to legal expenses, etc. That is handicapping Trump and the GOP, thereby causing, quote, an unequal, unquote, federal election playing field. And in doing so, the state court has eviscerated the candidate’s due process rights and a host of ways. No need to list them here. There’s a very. Famous attorney. Who doesn’t accept this? And I posted this An attorney who argues against my prior post regarding Bush versus Gore essentially asserts that a jury might convict based on tax law or false invoices, but not a constitutional issue. Further, he argues that if the judge stays sentencing during appeal, there would be no reason for the court to take up the case. I, I find this all the time that these guys totally missed the point. I write. Unfortunately, this misses the point entirely. This would not be an appeal based on the jury’s choice for conviction. It would be based on the actions and process used by the state court and the prosecutor. That is the state of New York to get a conviction, that is to interfere with a free and fair election. That is the purpose of all the manipulation, absurd rulings from the state court on behalf of the prosecution. Now, you’ve heard them say this for weeks, but they don’t put two and two together. The state appellate process has nothing to do with this as a federal constitutional matter. In fact, it would just further delay. And ultimate resolution up the state chain. And I’m saying that process is the problem. And of course, the urgency of the high court, the Supreme Court of the United States taking up the case quickly seems obvious. That is, every day that passes this unconstitutional state interference has an impact on the federal election. Now, it is impossible to predict what the high court would do, including whether it would take on this case. But that’s always the situation. I’m simply paving a possible road to the Supreme Court as if that is a preferred route. And I think it is. So to put even a finer point on it, the rebuttal is, well, what if they convict on a state tax issue or what if they convict on the state? Financial issue reporting issue. Well, first of all, that reporting issue would be dead altogether. As they keep saying on TV correctly, they had a two year statute of limitations. So you need at least an inference of some kind of federal law, federal election law. In this case, they argue with great ambiguity. But that misses the point, too. I said Bush versus Gore. Where they changed the voting system in county after county after county, and the Supreme Court of the state kept changing the voting system for the state over and over and over again. And finally, the United States Supreme Court steps in, stops this Florida Supreme Court and says what? It doesn’t say what I argued, even though Scalia and Thomas and I agreed, which was this is a violation. Of the election process for the state legislature. Has the party and the state Supreme Court is rewriting the law, as the chief justice then of the Florida State Supreme Court indicated, in order to get a majority. They wound up with a72 vote, the majority, the other five joined by Scalia and Thomas. They said, no, what we have here is an equal protection problem. I said, not really. Oh, yes, we do. Voters don’t know when which district. They have different standards. For allowing their votes to count. Therefore, it violates the equal protection clause. Well, ladies and gentlemen, obviously the facts are different in the Trump case, but it does involve the equal protection clause. For the reasons I said. The putative Republican nominee. That is the man who will be the Republican nominee for president. The Republican Party. Republican donors, Republican members of the Republican Party and Republican voters are being handicapped. It’s not a level playing field. The playing field is unequal. Quote unquote. Because a state court and a state prosecutor are interfering with the election process. It has nothing to do with the specifics of the conviction and has everything to do with the fact that they conviction based on the manipulation by the state. Now, does the guy understand what I’m saying? You know what I’m saying? Right, Mr. Producer? I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
I just find an interesting memory. Mr. Producer, The 14th Man. Remember America when I was getting wind through this group or that group on the radical left that they were looking at the 14th Amendment? The so-called insurrection Clause had applied to the Confederacy. To block Donald Trump from certain state ballots. You remember how much time we spent on that? Mr. Producer actually wrote about it. The same. Lawyers. Zero. That’s an extremist position. They’re not going to do that. It doesn’t have a chance. And I said, oh, no, no, no, no, may not have a chance, but we’re going to have to, you know, gear up for this battle and beat it back. I remember this. And I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
President Trump was supposed to be on last evening. I did announce and it advanced because we didn’t know how long the prosecutor would go. He went on and on and on, as we pointed out then, to try and confuse the jury through everything against the wall and create distance between the defense closing argument and what they were saying. It’s all strategy. And so we had a back up time, which was this evening at 7 p.m. And so President Trump will be here in about 30 minutes, 7 p.m. Eastern Time on the program outside the courthouse this afternoon. The president said this cut one go. I would say in listening to the charges from the judge, he was, as you know, very conflicted and robust because of the confliction, very, very rhetoric. Mother Theresa, you do not read these charges. These charges are really the whole thing is rigged. The whole countries of the mess between the borders and the fake elections. And you have a trial like this where the judge is so conflicted, they can’t breathe it. He’s got to do his job. And it’s not for me that I can tell you. It’s a disgrace. I mean, that mother, they’re racing and dumping those charges. But we’ll see. We’ll see how we do. It’s a very disgraceful situation. Every single legal scholar and expert said this is no case. It shouldn’t be brought and it certainly could have been brought seven years ago now in the middle of a presidential election. It was all done by Joe Biden. And this judge contributed to Joe Biden. And far worse than that. But I’m not allowed to talk about it because I have a gag order far worse than that. Boy, that was in the times, worse than the worst I’ve ever heard. But I can’t talk about it. It’ll be talked about, but I’m not allowed to talk about it. But it’ll be talking about on the history books. What’s happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody sees me for ever. And that’s the point, is it not America? We hear the legal beagles and they make the point to. And they go into the weeds and they make the point. Defense counsel, former federal prosecutors, professor of this, professor of that and are good points. And let us hope there’s at least one great patriot who can cut through this. Including what the judge did today with these. And the other day with these contemptible instructions. But what if there is not? They don’t have an answer. Just go up the appellate line in the blue state of New York and hope for the best. And yet they will tell you, they will tell you you won’t have an answer until after the election. In other words, you want an answer until Joe Biden is elected president. What good does that do? Anybody? You’ve got to be an advocate. And I don’t mean a lunatic. I don’t mean a crazy. You’ve got to be an advocate. Not just accept. As a lawyer. What you’re watching. But the gears in the brain have to keep moving, not just talk about your own experiences, but the gears in the brain have to keep moving. This is what I’ve done for 40 years. Give you some examples. We were told we could never win the school choice cases. We and certain other conservative legal groups. We couldn’t win the cases. There’d be equal protection issues. There’d be all kinds of issues. Related to the federal funds. And what about religious institutions? What about this? What about that? We fought. For 20 damn years. We went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Wisconsin was battleground ground zero twice. And at the US Supreme Court, we and others twice. And we won. Finally won. They said it couldn’t be done. Now, school choice is a crucially important issue. Landmark Legal Foundation. The Institute for Justice and a handful of others. We want. I’m watching. I’m watching as Bill Clinton lies in front of a grand jury. And I’m watching even more as Bill Clinton lies during a deposition in which Judge Susan Wright, federal district judge at Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas, comes to Washington to oversee to ensure that president. Clinton is treated with respect, but he lied. So we put our heads together at Landmark Legal Foundation with our friend Arthur Ferguson. Who was a clerk many years ago for Chief Justice Warren Burger and was also assistant counsel on the 1976 free speech case, Buckley versus Valeo, which they say they couldn’t win and they won. Nonetheless. We came up with an idea. We did not have standing in that case where a third party. To file a motion to hold Bill Clinton in contempt. But we found an arcane procedure. A letter of notice. A notice to the court. That informs the court. Of the commission of an offence against the Court. We’d never seen it used, but there it is. And the federal rules. And so we wrote a detailed. Letter of notice to the federal judge on how Bill Clinton committed criminal contempt. Against. The judiciary, the judge that is the court itself. We laid out the case. Robert Bennett at the time, Bill Bennett’s brother, well-known attorney, actually a very good attorney, was representing Bill Clinton. He immediately filed to have our letter of notice rejected. He said they don’t have any standing. And I replied, We never said we did. This is a letter of notice to the court. You don’t need standing. To which he replied, Mr. Producer. Nothing embarrassed him, sir. After the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. I think it was a couple of weeks later. Judge Wright again, who we hadn’t heard from. Hell. Bill Clinton in civil contempt. The vast majority. The legal point she raised had been raised in our letter of notice. And Bill Clinton, she said, had the opportunity to defend himself in front of the court with a full trial in which he could present evidence to defend himself. But of course, he didn’t want to do that, given what he had done. And so he reached an accord. A negotiated accord with Robert Ray. Who taken over the case after Ken Starr was appointed. To an academic position. As a result, Bill Clinton had his law license suspended for eight years by the Arkansas Supreme Court before the U.S. Supreme Court could pull his Supreme Court license. He resigned from the Supreme Court bar. And he had to pay. Paula Jones I think it was 80,000 or 100 or whatever it was. And it was all triggered. But a letter of notice. I told you folks about the 14th Amendment. What was percolating. I know the enemy. I do not have blinders on. I don’t need to go into. Exquisite detail. About who I am. I’m telling you the difference between those who. Who have the gears moving in their brains as advocates trying to figure out a legitimate legal way to confront the enemy. Pushing the edge of the envelope without stepping over it. And I explained that the 14th Amendment was going to be used by these kooks to try and deny. President Trump. A ballot position in some of these states. It was dismissed by some of the great legal analysts out there as a kook. I did. I’ll never happen. No, it’s not a kook idea. They’re going to use it. We have to be prepared for. It’s an outrageous idea. And then it happened. And then I see these guys commenting on it. Mr. Producer, The same people who dismissed it. And, you know, folks, I’ve been talking about and I wrote about it. So here again, we’re back. With a snark in the smirks. We have no way of knowing what a judge is going to do. We have no way of knowing what the Supreme Court is going to do any more than we know what a jury is going to do and so forth. And so. But if you don’t try and make. In effective, reasonable, substantive case. Against tyranny and the tyrants. Then you’ve surrendered. Then you lose. Then you surrender and you lose. They win. You shouldn’t make. And we make callers who make, you know, pretty sometimes out of left field. Very strange argument. We ought to do this one. And I say, no, that doesn’t work. That doesn’t work. But if your thought process is based on the Constitution, on Supreme Court precedent. And if that president. Has a potential for serving. Our mission, which is liberty, which is Republicanism with a small R, which is constitutionalism, freedom. Then you use it. Hard cases require smart thinking. Easy cases don’t require legal analysis. Their routine. The routine. The legal community in many ways is like the media community. In many ways it’s a social circle. In many ways, there’s groupthink. In many ways, it’s just. One, patting the other on the back. I don’t belong to social circles. I don’t do that. I don’t like it. As I tell you folks all the time, be independent. Think for yourself. It doesn’t mean everybody else is wrong. But our greatest inventions, our greatest entrepreneurs, our greatest products. The naysayers, the people who said no, the people say it can’t work. They’re the problem. There is a problem. And notice the people going after Trump and going after the people around him. They don’t worry about it. Immunity. The Espionage Act. Look what’s going on in the Manhattan case. Anybody? That’s crazy. But they brought it. Look what’s going on in the Georgia case, Rico. That’s crazy. But they brought it. So if you go to battle a legal battle wearing mittens and they’re wearing brass knuckles, you’re going to lose. You’re going to lose. You can have the most brilliant lawyers, the most experienced lawyers, they’ll most wise lawyers on the face of the earth. But if they’re not going to engage, then who cares? Does this make sense, Mr. Producer? School choice. The way we talk about now, it didn’t just happen. It had to be fought for for 20 years. Bill Clinton wasn’t just held in contempt because the judge thought so. It had to be fought for. And I can go on and on and on. If I ever listened to the naysayers. Well, I guess I’d just be like an antitrust lawyer or maybe something like that, But I’m not. We talk about the Constitution here. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Boy, the losers on CNN and MSNBC, they love this trial stuff. They lie about process. They lie about substance. They lie about the state law, federal law, the Constitution. They lie about the prosecutor and the judge. And worst of all, they lie about Trump. They just want a guilty verdict on something, anything. And the judge, well, he allowed the 34 charges to stand. He gave them a choice of three potential crimes. He said they don’t actually have to all agree on the same one. His definition of intent is as broad as I’ve ever heard, which basically neutralizes the whole notion of intent. What exactly is the federal crime? Election. Crime? We still don’t know. But it is certainly inferred and implied by the prosecution, despite the judge, you know, saying that it shouldn’t be. He allowed it in over and over and over again. He could go on and on and on. When we return, President Donald Trump will be with us today right back.