May 30th, 2024

May 30th, 2024

On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, the Trump NDA matter is a case that should have been dismissed, and corrupted by a crooked Judge Juan Merchan, a crooked prosecutor Alvin Bragg, and an overwhelmingly Democrat jury. This underscores the point that we must turn out in large numbers to win the election and put people who love our country in positions of power. This result will have enormous consequences because it will embolden other Democrat judges and prosecutors to attack President Trump and other Republicans through this political lawfare. The Supreme Court may or may not take up this case, but it cannot take up the case without a petitioner, and with every day that goes by the actions of the NY lower court bleeds into the federal presidential election system. Later, Mark is joined by Brent Bozell, founder of MRC, to talk about the overwhelming media coverage attacking Donald Trump during these trials, and Alvin Bragg’s Democrat affiliation.

Fox News
Trump guilty on all counts in New York criminal trial

WRAP-UP: TV’s Negative, Nasty, Lurid & Obsessive Coverage of Trump’s Trial

Fox News
ABC, CBS, NBC reports omitted Alvin Bragg was Democrat in NY v. Trump coverage: Study

Photo by Stephanie Keith

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, I feel exactly the way you do. And we should feel this way. And once we’re done feeling this way, we dust ourselves off. We put on the political and legal brass knuckles. And we never say, Uncle. Not now. Not ever. There’s been enough talk on TV and radio to make it abundantly clear. That we had a crooked judge, a crooked prosecutor, and an overwhelmingly liberal Democrat jury pool. This case should have been dismissed. At least summary judgment. And once that door was opened, we knew it would be difficult. Then we. The judge was hand-picked. He’s not even a full-fledged permanent judge. He’s an acting judge. And this judge has been picked for every Trump related case in New York City. Every single one. Trump Organization. Bannon. Trump himself. That’s not by accident. This judge should have recused himself, but he didn’t. We knew there was a problem. He should have moved the venue. To a more balanced community when selecting the jury pool buddy Warden, we knew that was a problem. He ruled repeatedly for the prosecution and against the defense on material issues. We knew that was a problem. He showed anger toward the defense counsel when they sought to defend their witness and raise substantive issues. And he let the prosecution ramble on and on and on. We knew that was a problem. The jury instructions could have been written. Could have been written by any Marxist. Any hanging judge. He gave this jury a hundred different ways to convict the former president. And he also withhold withheld critical testimony and information. He interrupted Robert Costello, the key witness in challenging Cohen. He prevented. Brad Smith, one of the nation’s experts on the federal election law, from testifying. He allowed in collateral evidence, as we revealed here, that is evidence that shows, quote unquote, a pattern, but is not provocative. In fact, it is destructive of due process. When Trump says he’s an innocent man, this was rigged. He’s correct. You really don’t need me or any lawyers to tell you how corrupt this is. But in the end. We need to rally to the cause. Does this not underscore the point? We must win this election. Does this not underscore the point? That we must put people in positions of power who love the country, who will follow the rule of law, the Constitution, and our traditions. There’s this not underscore the point. What happens if we don’t win the next election? This is an election. Between good and evil. Between right and wrong, between justice and injustice. Democrats are giddy with joy. Their goal is to imprison Donald Trump. They’ve interfered with the election process. They form shopped. They found the city. They found the prosecutor. They found the judge. And they got their jury. Now, this will have consequences. Enormous, grave consequences. First of all. It will embolden more of these Democrat judges, both in Fulton County. Washington, D.C. Truckin. They’re going to feel righteous. They’re going to feel that they they have to stand between the country and Hitler. They’re going to feel that they have an obligation as a judge to deliver. A Biden victory. And in order to deliver a Biden victory. You must twist the law. You must use your power as a judge. To pave the way for the prosecutors. You don’t charge a former president who’s running for president with cockamamie fictionalize crimes. We talked about that many, many times during. So what does Trump do? Well, I have a view. It’s a little complicated. And it would involve. Not just the Bush versus Gore decision, but how do you get a case to the Supreme Court? From a state trial court. It’s not normal. It’s not normal. I’ve been looking at some research done, for instance, at the Yale Law Review Federal Court Review by extraordinary RIP. They write it to invoke common law writs. That is not statutory based writs, but common law based writs. That is really matters of equity, I suppose, as instruments of review. A litigant must show that ordinary channels of appeal offer them no adequate remedy. The appeal may be non-existent. Lower court action may have obstructed it where it is available, or thirdly, where appeal is available and unobstructed. The lower court’s order may be abnormally detrimental to one party. That would seem to fit this case, would it, Mr. Produce? Because it might take three months, they say, to get a sentence, but Trump can appeal in 30 days. In my view, I don’t know the New York appellate process, but I’m sure there is an emergency process. He should do that. And if the court doesn’t rule and he seeks emergency ruling from the highest court in New York and they don’t rule, then he’s got a final determination or it’s final enough. You can certainly make a strong or colorable argument to try and get to the Supreme Court. That said. What’s extraordinary here is we’re in the middle of a general election and the issues raised are jurisdictional issues at the heart of this. How does a state court, any state prosecutor, use a federal law, a federal election law not defined. To affect a federal presidential election. And you need to keep something in mind. The issue. Is we the people. It’s our election. We’re the voters. It’s our election where the voters. So this is really an attack on us. Donald Trump for six weeks was unable to campaign. He was unable to speak to us directly because of this not only being stuck in court, but this horrendous gag order. That was intentional. Unable to do rallies on Mondays and Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays and also mostly Wednesdays because he had to get back to court. Substantial redirection of resources to legal expenses away from campaign ads and other campaign activities. In other words, he is and has been unable to run a routine, normal presidential campaign. First time in American history. Why? Because of this lawfare. Because of this lawfare. So I mentioned that to you. I’ve talked about Bush versus Gore. Because I believe substantively that’s important, the equal protection clause. But the question is, it’s difficult. It’s doable. How do you get to the U.S. Supreme Court? And they’re going to have to think about that because the way I would do it, as I would obviously point out that this was the what I would call the. Reverse federalism or a state court assumed authority over federal issues. Is impacting a federal election, a presidential election, the choice of the most powerful official in the United States, a choice of one of the three branches of the federal government. The question is whether you leave that to states. And to their courts and to a D.A.. Now, the the court’s instructions allowed the jury to convict Donald Trump for concealing a non crime. The court allowed the jury to convict on any one of three possible predicate crimes without unanimity. So the jury could have convicted the predicate crime of a federal campaign act violation. That is the payment of monies to Stormy Daniels. This alleged crime was committed, if at all, prior to the entry. Of the allegedly false business records. Bragg stated in his April four, 2023 press conference announcing an indictment, a total of 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment. So while the New York criminal statute requires that the state must prove the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, the alleged federal election crime is already committed. So the bizarre I’m not saying it was a crime, but under their theory. So the business record entry could not have been to commit a federal offense. Or to aid the commission of a crime. It could have only been to conceal that crime in and of itself. If you follow the logic. But the jury was told that the state need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed. So the jury was empowered to convict Trump of intending to conceal an act that was not a crime. Trump wanted to keep quiet, something that he had every right to keep quiet. And the list of horribles goes on and on and on. Yes, the issue isn’t whether there is reversible error here. Many of us think there is. I have no idea what these judges in the state line up will do. But the question is even bigger, because now we have DEA. And an acting state judge. You’ve impacted a federal election, a federal campaign. To the detriment of the voters. By placing a scarlet letter. Letter. I’m President Trump, which was the intention all along. Do you leave that to the state court process? Did decide. Do you hope that you’ll get a good appellate decision or do you try and take it out of that? In that jurisdiction that shouldn’t have it in the first place. And how do you do it? I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Anyway, I don’t want to get into the legal weeds here about how you would get to the Supreme Court if you try to get to the Supreme Court or the possibility of getting to the U.S. Supreme Court. The problem here is, I think both a legal one and a political one. The vast majority of you aren’t lawyers. Those of you who are lawyers, vast majority of you aren’t litigators. The vast majority of you who are litigators have never had a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court or even a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is a way to get around. The New York courts. If the New York courts allow you to get around them. And as you do research, what you find is while there is a way, but the court, you know, makes it fairly difficult. So I want to get into some of this a little bit, and I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
So the Trump campaign donations say crashed the we know what. But the link is for that Mr. Producer. We’re going to find out. I’ll announce it. It won’t be crashed forever because so many people were trying to donate. There are things you can do. You need to do them. Do not allow these people. Do not allow these people. You know, 24, 48 hours. We all need to take it in and understand what’s at stake. We already knew what’s at stake, but it’s it’s unfortunately progressing. But we can’t be. You know, paralyzed by grief or dispirited to a point. We surrender the country to these people. It’s Donald J. Trump dot com. Donald J. Trump dot com. We understand it’s back up. Yeah. All right. So I’m working on my own theories here, but I don’t want to be so esoteric. So esoteric. The Bush versus Gore. I think the bottom line with that case is it shows that the Supreme Court will act immediately. When the election of a president is under threat. That’s what they did then. And this this presents no lesser threat. No less demanding intercession by the one body with the power to preserve our democracy. I hear some of the legal analysts saying I still have heart in the system. The problem is the system is an ass, as they say. And it’s slow. The timing of all this is intended to use the system against the system. We are told that Alvin Bragg will be speaking soon. If you want to hear what he has to say, then you need to tune to another channel. I don’t need to hear his victory lap. I don’t need to hear from a tyrant. And I my gut tells me you don’t want to hear it either. You go to MSNBC and CNN. I’m sure they’ll play it live. I will not. So I’m letting our affiliates down the line. No case. They want to take it. We will not it’s not news. It’s propaganda. It’s out of the mouth of a tyrant. That’s what it is. So. Let’s get beyond this a little bit. I have to analyze all this stuff. It’s hard to do it on the fly, but I think I’ve done okay here. Let me let me try it this way. Let me go through it this way. Let’s take a look at this. Stick with me here. There are rules that the court has. There are federal statutes. About processes. About a petition. About writs. Common law writs. Statutory writs. Rich. A writ of surgery is a basically a statutory read, a writ based on statutory law, and then you have common law writs. Which are really extraordinary regrets, very rare. They have been granted in the past under certain circumstances. But when you’re looking at this, you get to take a lot of things into consideration. Maybe the Supreme Court says, well, why would we go there? You can come directly to us, but. Hell, we don’t want to get involved unless you stick with the state court. Wouldn’t the response be? But the state court usurped federal jurisdiction, and this hasn’t gone away, and it affects a federal election. And it’ll affect federal presidential elections from today to the end of the republic. What about that? Well, that’s something to worry about, I would think, particularly since they intervened in Bush versus Gore. When a presidential election is under threat. So. That is an issue. The question is what mechanism do you use where you can use a. Common law. You can try. Judge Jeanine and I texted back and forth. She said, Well, you have to. Without getting into the common law. She said, You’ve got to. You know, go through the state appellate process first before you go to the Supreme Court. Generally, that’s true. But under very extraordinary circumstances, the court will take up a case. And so my question is, isn’t that one of those circumstances right now? We’re in the middle of a presidential election. The lawyers who are familiar with the appellate process in New York say it’s going to take months, maybe years. Well, that doesn’t resolve anything. And isn’t it true if they get away with this, that it is going to be tried again and again and again and again? But for us isn’t. The bigger question is why all this hate for Donald Trump and don’t we know the answer? They hate us. They want to lord over us. They want to rule us. Climate change, open borders, massive debt inflation, massive tax increases that they have planned. Brainwashing our kids in our public schools. The Hitler Youth on our college campuses. They have agendas. They have Marxist Islamist agendas. And the rule of law. That is, justice gets into the way. So you must devour the justice system. And we make it so that it can be used to serve your ends and your purposes. Isn’t that what’s taking place here? Of course, it’s what’s taking place here. I heard one lawyer say, I don’t blame the jurors. They got bad instructions from the judge. There’s no question about that. The judge basically said you have to rule that he’s guilty. You have a multiple choice of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn’t have to actually be beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though I’m telling you. To ignore. You know, information about Trump that has nothing to do with the case. I’m willing to let it in. Wink, wink through the back door. Stormy Daniels had no reason to testify. None. And then, of course, the judge picks sides. And it was pretty obvious from day one to everybody the media were getting. They’re celebrating tonight. So our republic has a problem. We don’t have an honest media, a media that seeks to be impartial. We don’t have that. Any more. Yeah, it’s a huge problem. But we can’t just sit back and lament. And wring our hands. We’ve got to do whatever we have to do, whether that means donations, whether that means spending some time now every week or on the weekends getting our people registered to vote in states that have early voting. It’s not good enough for you just to vote. You got to make sure people vote early. You’ve got to work on it. You’ve got to take your. Your dispirit and being spirited, if you will. And say, You know what? I haven’t been doing enough. I can no longer leave it to the system because the system isn’t working. It’s being devoured. The other side is energetic. Don’t believe this crap. I tell you all the time. Polls, Polls, poll. Listen to me. All that creates is lethargy. I don’t care what the polls say. There’s a lot of things going on under the radar that are not picked up by the polls. There’s a lot of things going on in the shadows. Whether it’s using federal employees to register people. And our dollars. God knows what. We have to turn out in large numbers. And if we don’t turn out in large numbers. They’re going to win. It’s that simple. That’s on us. We need to take control. In our own lives and in our own roles. Let this be a lesson to all of us. The rule of law. In most parts of the world is not a just law. And it wasn’t just here. Even if this is reversed somehow, some way, severe damage has been done. The judicial process is very slow. That’s why they timed it the way they did. That’s why they didn’t give a damn about appeals. And when you see Bragg and the others celebrating, smiling, saying justice was done, Donald Trump’s not above the law. You can’t cheat the people of New York. You can’t cheat the voters in 2016. Turn your anger and activism. I’m not kidding. It’s now or never. It’s now or never. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Now, the issue also in Bush versus Gore at that shows that the Supreme Court will treat a presidential election differently. That is, he could well act immediately, which it pretty much did in Bush versus Gore when the election of a president is being challenged or is potentially under threat. And they didn’t really use a particular doctrine that was in existence. They created one. And that is the application of what was taking place to the equal protection clause. Obviously they didn’t create the 14th Amendment. I’m saying the application of the 14th Amendment. So what they said there was look. You keep changing your voting rules. So that voters have been treated differently in different parts of the state. So that violates the equal protection protection. The voters who are in and the voters who are out because it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to determine what the standards are, certainly after the fact. Certainly after the fact. This case is worse than Bush versus Gore. The assumption of federal jurisdiction. The the failure to define the the the federal statute or statutes that are involved. In fact, a reference to a federal offense only in the closing statement of the prosecution. And it goes on and on on all that is the multitudinous due process violations. But what does that have to do with equal protection of the voter? Everything. The purpose of this litigation. This to affect the election. Was to interfere with the election. What’s to prevent Donald Trump from campaigning? That’s why it was brought seven years later. To prevent you, Mr. and Mrs. America, from hearing what he has to say other than when he was speaking from the courthouse steps or maybe on a weekend. But that’s not a normal, routine campaign. That’s not a regular campaign. Obviously was handicapped. Regardless of people saying it won’t affect the outcome. It doesn’t help them. Let’s put it that way. And he says it over and over again. I’m stuck here. I want to campaign. I’m stuck here. I want to campaign. And that was the goal. All along. To prevent you from participating in a normal regular campaign. But really, it’s focused on. A small percentage of the voting bloc that maybe hasn’t made up its mind and maybe those individuals in those key battleground states, everybody says it’s going to be decided by 40, 50, 60,000 votes. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know about you, but you ought to believe it will be and fight hard. So it doesn’t take much to move the needle. But clearly the Democrats feel that it will move the needle. That’s why this was undertaken the way it was undertaken when it was undertaken. I have a basic question. Why didn’t the Federal Election Commission rule? That Donald Trump’s NDAA was a violation of the Federal Campaign Election Act. They said no. They have federal jurisdiction. Why did the U.S. Attorney’s office? Say. Man. We have a case here. Let’s bring it. It’s not like they’re bashful about bringing cases or taking risks on cases. They said no. Why? And yet, without that federal connection, there’s nothing. They said no. It’s because this is corrupt. They hid the ball. They saved it to the end. They didn’t have. The expert on to say what he needed to say. Would it change the whole thing? The state law would not have been revived. And so to manipulate federal law, to manipulate federal jurisdiction, it seems to me there needs to be a way for the feds to get involved. I’ll be right back.