June 5th, 2024

June 5th, 2024

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, there is an argument that will be heard by Judge Aileen Cannon on whether the appointment of Jack Smith as special council was Constitutional. Smith is the most powerful prosecutor in the United States because AG Merrick Garland gave him that power without having the authority to do so. Cannon will hear arguments from both sides about whether there was a breach of the appointments clause with Smith. While we have judges like Chutkan and Merchan using their power to destroy the rule of law, we have judges like Cannon standing up to the corrupt Biden regime, mob attorney general, and rogue prosecutor. Later, Mark is joined by Josh Blackman, a lawyer who will be making one of the oral arguments about Jack Smith being unconstitutionally appointed, to discuss the basic points of the brief and the overstepping of Merrick Garland in appointing Smith. Also, the crisis on our southern border did not exist under the Trump administration but was created by President Biden through his open border policies and non-enforcement of our immigration laws. Everything Biden is doing now is to get re-elected, which is why he is acting like he is the savior and closing the border.  Finally, Mark speaks with Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL) to talk about the Biden campaign and the Democrat media hit pieces twisting his words and lying to smear him.

Washington Examiner
Trump Florida judge allows legal scholars to debate legality of special counsel

Appeals court halts Trump’s Georgia election case while appeal on Willis disqualification pending

Donald Trump Urged to Make Rare Supreme Court Move

Byron Donalds expresses nostalgia for the Jim Crow era, when ‘the Black family was together’

NBC News
Trump’s VP search enters a new phase

Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post

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. Of course, a lot going on. A lot of it’s legal, which of course, is in my zone constitutional, which is right in the middle of my zone. The question is, ladies and gentlemen, and we’re going to cover a lot this evening. The question is whether the appointment. Now, Jack Smith is a special counsel. It’s constitutional. That is an argument that is going to be heard by Judge Aileen Cannon in a Florida Supreme Court Fort Pierce courthouse. Now he’s got the plaintiff’s brief and she’s got the government’s brief. And a few other briefs. Let me read you the coverage from The Washington Examiner, Caitlin Dees, a federal judge presiding over the former President Trump Florida classified documents case will allow scholars to participate in oral arguments for and against the constitutionality of Jack Smith’s appointment of special counsel. Now, she’s been criticized for this, but this, again, is a case of first impression involving the Constitution of the United States in the middle of an election. Jack Smith has put the judge in this position. The government. Merrick Garland. The Biden administration has put the judge in this position. Judge Trunk. And I firmly believe what it just shut it all down and been done with it and sent it up to appeal or whatever. US District Judge Aileen Cannon said in an order Tuesday that she will allow 30 minutes for each legal scholar to present their arguments at a June 21 hearing by why Smith may or may not have been legally appointed by the Department of Justice. The hearing is part of Trump’s broader effort to dismiss the 40 count indictment, accusing him of willful retention of classified records and efforts to obstruct the federal government’s retrieval. In other words, President Trump’s lawyers filed. Made the filing. They have the standing. That this appointment was unconstitutional. The government responds. It says it knew it was constitutional. And then people who have some knowledge in this field. Can file Amichai, a friend of the court briefs, if both parties agree. And the judges looked at those, apparently and said, you know what, We have some brilliant people here. We can certainly. See what they have to say about the subject. They have filed the briefs and I have some questions for them. Now experts are arguing in favor of and against. Trump’s position includes South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman. Attorney, Gene Scherer, former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. And Matthew Seligman, an attorney representing an anti-Trump coalition of constitutional attorneys and former ranking government officials. Cannon previously allowed the experts to file Amicus or friend of the court briefs for and against Trump’s motion to dismiss. In May, she allowed non-party to the case to request access to participate in oral argument at the hearing, so long as they made requests by Monday. Josh Blackman, South Texas college law professor, also an expert on this subject, will represent a landmark legal foundation. I’ve told you Landmark was involved in this. I am the chairman of the board of Landmark Legal Foundation. Now, that said, I don’t make these decisions. On specific cases. But as I’ve explained over the decades, Landmark Legal Foundation, this is what we do. So one of the three oral arguments, 30 minutes each is assigned to landmarks. Lawyer, Professor. There are actually several an additional expert. Blackman will represent Landmark Legal Foundation of Law Professor Seth Barrett Tillman. Who’s absolutely brilliant, if not the number one expert in the world on this issue. To argue Smith is not an officer of the United States, but rather the employee whose appointment is inconsistent with the separation of powers and political accountability. Right. Sheer will provide the argument that the special counsel is a principal officer whose appointment by Garland should require a Senate confirmation. That’s correct. Smith does not have authority to prosecute this case, according to this brief. And who does he represent? Citizens United and two former attorneys general Edwin Meese, attorney general during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Michael Mukasey, attorney general during the presidency of George W Bush. Seligman will be the one dissenting voice arguing in favor of Smith, contending his appointment. That his appointment, Congress may vest in the attorney general and who still answers to him may be removed by Garland despite his independent role. Some prominent legal minds are behind the argument. The usual. Philip Lacovara, Watergate era prosecutor. Laurence Tribe will sign anything against Trump. George Conway, who is, in my view, a complete buffoon at this point. A complete buffoon at this point. And it goes on. Kennett’s order came on the same day Garland testified to the House Judiciary Committee as Republicans grilled him on about what they see as the weaponization of justice against Trump as he faces four criminal indictments while seeking reelection. Representative Thomas Massie pressed Garland directly about Smith’s appointment to oversee the classified documents case. What gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel to to create You’ve created an office in the U.S. government that does not exist without authorization from Congress, Massie said. Garland argued that special counsel appointments that he and other attorneys general, including former Attorney General William Barr, made, cite a regulation that points to a statute. But Massie pushed back on the attorney general, saying even if it did not require an act of Congress to appoint Smith. You’ve already admitted that there was no act of Congress and so forth. The actual answer is William Barr appointed a a sitting United States attorney. Who had already. Gone through the Senate confirmation process was proved. So the delegation of authority from the attorney general to a sitting United States attorney who already was approved by Congress excuse me by the Senate is different than picking somebody out of The Hague who hasn’t been approved for anything. And this is one of the one of the points that we argue in the Landmark Legal Foundation brief. So I said I didn’t write the brief. Our lawyers to professors were involved. I’m the chairman of the board and I’m thrilled that they’ve done what they’ve done. And we’re going to have the attorney arguing on behalf of Landmark. On the program in a little over an hour, and I’ve actually never spoken to him. But we’ll speak to them together. Because he’s a he’s a high quality talent. Josh Blackman, he’s not a TV lawyer and that sort of thing, although there’s nothing wrong with him. But he’s actually litigating this case on behalf of Landmark and he will make one of three in oral argument presentation. Interestingly, I have no connection to the other. Argument. The other case that was filed, again, friend of the court, accepted by the judge, by the former attorneys general. But the one of the former. Attorney General Edwin Meese. Of course, I was chief of staff to him. So just so you understand what I make these arguments, whether it is seeking a common law writ, perhaps a writ of habeas corpus to get around all this. This unconstitutional conduct. But the judicial system in New York. I make this argument from a position of knowledge and experience. My knowledge and experience is different than your average former federal prosecutor or your superior former federal prosecutor or some other individuals who don’t do this sort of thing. We do. And in many cases we’ve succeeded. We have no idea, obviously, what Judge Cannon will do. But she’s under attack. She’s under attack by the same people who believe what happened in Manhattan was a quintessentially perfect constitutional case by a judge that they have a a man love for when in fact, it was a Stalinist. Star chamber in every respect. Every respect. I’ll be right back. My love. Ben. You know, folks, China, Russia, Iran, they’re all on the

Segment 2
If you want to read Landmark Legal foundations brief in the in the case in Florida on the appointments clause violation by the attorney general of the United States meritless Garland. You can go to the Landmark Legal Foundation dot org website. It’s right there. Mr. Bruce, if you will link to it and you can check it out. Landmark Legal Foundation dot org. You know, I’ve been there for decades and now I’m the chairman. We have a fantastic president, fantastic staff. Pete Hutchison, Mike O’Neill, Matt Forays and others. And they get little notice. But they are absolutely a fantastic group of serious constitutionalists. We don’t just take risks for risk sake. We work things through and we make a decision. This was very annoying when some of these other lawyers. I don’t know about that. You don’t know about anything. Honestly, so you can check out their brief. And also you can check out I don’t know where you go, but it’s very easy to find it. I’m sure the brief that was filed on behalf of the former attorneys general means some AKC. And then in Georgia, honest to God, folks, I thought I brought this up yesterday. So there was some kind of article out when I was on the air last night. But I guess it’s been formalized or it’s just now getting out. The Associated Press Appeals Court Halts Trump’s Georgia Election Case While Appeal on Willis Disqualification is pending. See, these are real judges. These are cases of first impression that have an enormous impact on our country. And while the shrunken judges and the porn judges and the Martian who’s really barely a judge yet acting state judge, judge while these guys are in a rush. While the Democrat prosecutors. Are in a rush. The source, prosecutors, the Biden prosecutors, while they’re in a rush, they want to get this done. They want to. They want to dirty up Trump. And of course, the George STEPHANOPOULOS, the Bill Clinton host on ABC News, Arnold Cheney connection because you’re an idiot. Your buffoon. Everybody sees it. They just don’t admit to it. It’s their problem. We don’t have to go along with the scam. In any event. There you have it. You have some judges who are saying, Let’s slow this down, boys. We need to take a look. These issues are very important. Immunity. The appointments clause. Look at all the constitutional attacks. From these prosecutors. We’ve never seen anything like it. It’s like a mob of prosecutors. Charging the National Archives to destroy the Constitution. Well due process and equal protection violations in New York and the federal Constitution. We have reversed federalism that is nullification that’s taking place by a serious prosecutor and a Biden judge. And they’re now in this muck of an appeals process and there’s article after article coming out. What might this judge do to Trump? Will he prevent it from campaigning? Will he do this? Will he do that? That’s the problem. This is an ongoing violation. Then we have in Georgia, we have a prosecutor. Who was sleeping with the special. Laura that she appointed, taking trips only using cash, of course. She says that’s what all black people do. Now, that’s what the mob does. I don’t know about all black people. But apparently she represents all black people and the use of cash. How do I know she said so? Of course. And serious questions about her ethics and what she’s done, including contacts with the White House through her lover. That’s never been fully explored. Then we have Jack Smith. Regardless of any court, you know, decides, Mark decides for Mark, who clearly was unconstitutionally appointed. Unconstitutionally. They picked him because he’s a hitman. They brought him in from The Hague. They said Sikkim, Sikkim. And that’s what he did and that’s what he does. So we see what’s going on. But the appeals court has halted the trial. In in Georgia. They said, look, there is a serious question whether or not Fannie Willis is disqualified or not. And we’re going to take a look at this one. So that one’s on hold. We’ll be right back.

Segment 3
Funny how Biden, his party and his media never mentioned that the House GOP signed a real tough immigration bill to the Senate. H.R. two. Which Schumer killed at the direction of Biden. Are the Republicans or their mouths broken? I don’t understand. Do they know how to speak and explain things? Apparently not. Biden signed over 90 executive orders to eviscerate our immigration laws. Biden’s new executive order allows at least nearly 2 million illegal aliens into this country every year. Biden is flying foreigners into our country and immediately putting them on a path to citizenship. As for the so-called bipartisan bill, a handful of Senate Republicans negotiating in secret with the Democrats and then dropping a horrendous pro illegal immigration bill and the rest of the Republicans is a shameless and deceitful excuse for which we can thank Mitch McConnell, who wound up voting against it. A great legislator, the great strategist. He gave the Democrats the talking points. The Democrats just lie. That’s all they do. That’s all they do. It’s like this executive order. He signs to strengthen the border. Secure the border, they say, after they spent a year saying that the border is secure. We can’t do anything by executive order after he used 94 executive orders to destroy existing immigration law. As I said last night, all you need is one executive order repealing all of his executive orders and then making a statement that henceforth existing immigration law will be enforced. You need a law to say you’re going to enforce the law. No, that doesn’t work that way. That’s not how it works. Now, committee chairmen in the House Republicans saying criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, which means it will die. That’s how bad this is. That’s how bad the legal system is in Washington, D.C. and in America now. You actually had people who lied under oath. You have their testimony. You have a recorded. You have a transcribe lied under oath. And it’ll be a dead letter over there at the U.S. Department of Justice. Because it’s Hunter Biden and James Biden. Part of the Biden inbred family. Is there an honest Biden on the face of the earth? Just one. If so, who is it? Who is it? Over the age of 18. Hunter lied about his role, they say, in the biting family holding company. Now that’s black or white, and either is or it isn’t. And James, the stupid brother, if he can imagine that a stupid brother, Joe Biden, he’s got to be really stupid. He said he was not in a meeting with his brother when he was in a meeting with his brother. All of this is intended to cover for Joe Biden. He’s the head mobster. He’s the he’s the clear goal, if you will. And so there we have real crime. Doesn’t matter. Peter Navarro sitting in prison. They want to put Bannon in prison. They put they wanted to put stone in prison. They put Manafort in prison in solitary confinement. Wow. You’ve got Democrat attorneys general all over the country going after. Patriotic American citizens who dared to challenge the last election. Nobody knows what the law is anymore. All we know is that Republican candidates, Republican activists. Are being targeted. And by the way. They’re eviscerating Republican and conservative lawyers who’ve been involved in representing in these various cases, stripping them of their law degrees or suspending them. Not like they were representing mass murderers. Not like they were representing terrorists. Not like they were representing. People want to overthrow the country. Not like they were representing, you know, Black Lives Matter or Antifa or what? No. They dared to make the argument. About ballots, about drop boxes. They dared to make the argument. And that their interpretation of the Constitution. Wow. Well, they got to they got to lose their law license. Mershon won’t lose his law license. Bragg won’t lose his law license. Letitia James won’t lose her law license. Despite the fact those two prosecutors campaign to get Trump, that should have been the end of them. And despite the fact that Mershon is the most corrupt, conflicted acting state judge in America. That’s okay. Despite the fact they breathe life. Did the corpse. Of this guy Smith, who they bring back from The Hague, who I think he was probably deported to The Hague, not literally, but effectively. Given how he’s destroyed the lives and the careers of so many people, given how he gave the nod, go after the Tea Party when he was asked by the IRS, given how early he tried to take out the governor of Virginia and eventually did. Robert McDonald I can go down the list how he won after even John Edwards. But John Edwards was never liked by the Democratic establishment. So they bring this thug, this low IQ, vile, vicious knuckle dragging thug into Washington, D.C. and they appoint him purposely because they know he’s a low IQ, knuckle dragging, low thug. I think Garland also knew that he could never get them approved by the Senate, so he bypassed that process. He could have picked one of 93 U.S. attorneys. He could have picked any of the top brass at the Department of Justice who had already been confirmed by the Senate, but he chose not. Just as a common sense matter circling back. Have you ever seen a prosecutor with this kind of power? Very few have this kind of power. Very few. To mazing. They passed the independent counsel statute. Back in the seventies. Memory serves, I think was 1978. They literally had to pass a statute passed by Congress, literally had to pass a statute passed by Congress. To empower the attorney general to make a request of a court. If a court to make these appointments a special division court, they called it Special division Court under the independent counsel statute. To look at the Constitution, they had to make these decisions, but they still violated the Constitution. Nonetheless. The Supreme Court voted. The Supreme Court upheld it. The Supreme Court upheld it in the Olson case. Only one justice said no. Antonin Scalia No. They have to go through the appointments clause process and this is like setting up a separate government over here with no accountability and you’re mixing the powers of the branches. Prosecutors are appointed judges who who are appointed by a response or a response, both by judges. No, but he was right. Try. Even if you’re a patriot of one, you can be right, you know. They don’t even go through the motions with this guy Smith. No statutory authority. They have to twist. Twist. The Department of Justice regulatory process for making an appointment in order to give it to this guy. Now, they going to Courtney. They act like this is offensive. What? What? You’re going to challenge the legitimacy of the special counsel. Yeah, I think we are. Now think. Always think back to the framers of the Constitution. Do you think for a minute? Of course. There was no Department of Justice, U.S. attorneys. None of it. None of it. But do you think for a minute they would have thought it was okay? For a cabinet official. To pick an individual. Who he does not subject to the confirmation process of the Senate. To have such enormous authority and power. To interfere in election. They issue search warrant or to seek search warrants. Against a former president, a SWAT team. But do you think they would have thought of that? What do you think they would have thought of one candidate for president? Unleashing the full authority and power of the federal government against another. A date. Through. The operation of an individual who’s only overseen by the candidate who never went through the Senate. Why do we have a Senate confirmation process? Anybody know? It’s in the federal. Excuse me. It’s in Madison’s notes. Why? Because the fear was the presidency would become too powerful. So they wanted a role. For Congress, They decided that the House would be a little too unruly. They’re directly elected, so they chose the Senate. The Senate. Which would be selected by the state legislature. Now state legislatures can vote to pick their senator in other ways. A few of them did win by popular vote, but not to the 17th Amendment, where they all pick by popular vote to another populism, quote unquote, progressive era in America. But that aside, the point is this. They wanted. Another branch of government to have a role in the appointment of the most powerful individuals. In the executive branch. They wanted the Senate to have some role. And the selection of what would become cabinet officers. And so the argument. That the Biden regime is making in court is not. Wait a minute. This is an officer, a presidential officer, because he was selected by. Garland. Oh, I see. So Garland can now approve presidential officers without going through the appointments clause. Where is that written? Where did that come from? You don’t take actions and then try and figure out how to institutionalize them, if you will. On what basis? What Jack Smith appointed. Provided with this enormous power. On what basis? Statutory basis? No constitutional basis? No. Why is there an alternative? Of course there was an alternative. Pick a U.S. attorney. Pick the associate attorney general of the United States. Pick the head of the criminal Division, all of whom have been confirmed by the Senate. So when you have an avenue to do it constitutionally, why do you pick a different avenue? So now we should change the Constitution and the appointment clause to accommodate the Biden regime. The mob attorney general. And the clown prosecutor. We should somehow fix it. Where does this end? What if Donald Trump won at a point me as a special counsel, Mr. Producer. No, I’m not. Just give me an example to freak out the left. If. The Biden regime if their mob attorney general and their rogue prosecutors succeed. What’s to stop, let’s say, Donald Trump as president? From appointing Mark Levin as a special counsel to investigate the Biden crime family. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Zero. And there’s not a damn thing Congress can do about it. Well, honestly, the framers did not intend that. They intended the opposite. Otherwise, why have an appointments clause? In fact, I look at it this way. You have a man in Jack Smith who has more power than any U.S. attorney in the country. Because he’s investigating a presidential candidate, a former president, And the influence in our electoral system is obvious. It’s obvious to everybody and anybody. It’s why the left is cheering it on. That’s why some of us are saying, what the hell is going on here with this lawfare? So you actually have a prosecutor who has more power, focuses all of his resources and unlimited resources, personnel and funding. I think government on one person. One person. Now there’s collateral damage with this guy. No, no. But he’s focused on Trump. And he was never, ever confirmed by the United States Senate. He just walked in, attorney general said, here, I’m giving you all these powers. So their argument, well, it’s delegation authority. Not so fast. Then why send any U.S. attorney any. And he would be U.S. attorney. Why would you require any? Any nomination for the U.S. Attorney’s position to be sent to the Senate under the appointments clause. Why would you do that? When you have Jack Smith out, there is a perfect example. While he doesn’t have a broad based. You know the agenda here where you can do this. That’s exactly the point. You’re picking somebody. To focus on investigating basically one person. There needs to be a check on that process. Here’s the other problem. Ready for this, Mr. Producer? Footnote. I’ll tell you the other problem. I got to take heart break. There’s another big, big, big problem with their argument. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Where I live in Virginia, where we do in Leesburg, we’re right on the Airstream line so the Airstream can move slightly, slightly west, and that determines the weather here. So during the break, my iPhone is buzzing and Mr. Bruce says, What’s that? And I looked at it. We have a tornado warning. I would tell the people in the mail listening area, we have a tornado warning and they’re telling you to go to the lower floors of your home. So let me recommend because I hear the thunder. You hear it, Mr. Producer, that people who who can hear me in the WME listening area. I’m not trying to freak you out. I’m just telling you there is a tornado warning and it’s very difficult to warn about tornadoes with a degree of accuracy. But they’ve reached a point where they can see them, see the movement of certain forces out there, which suggests that it’s very possible. They didn’t say probable, but possible. So there you go. But I will continue hearing Mr. Producer holding down the fort. I’ll be right back.