On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the so-called January 6th case against President-Elect Trump at the request of the rouge Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Jack Smith Florida case is about to be dismissed and the State cases will eventually die. The Democrats have failed in their goal to take out Trump because of you! Also, Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s appointment as Labor Secretary is troubling. She has opposed right to work, and Randi Weingarten was very excited about her. Yes, Trump should get the nominees he wants. If they don’t work out – he’ll fire them. Later, Ukraine is trying to defend itself; they didn’t start this war. They gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994. In return, they got an agreement that Russia, the United States, and Britain would defend Ukraine against its enemies. They gave up their nukes then Putin killed his way to power and ripped up the agreement. The idea that Ukraine is going to start World War 3 is ridiculous. Afterward, the federal government can cut funding off from a city or state that defies federal law. Tom Homan and company can cut off sanctuary city and state federal funding if need be. Finally, Professor Steven Calabresi calls in to discuss his new book, The Meese Revolution: The Making of a Constitutional Moment. It’s a fantastic book about the former attorney general’s brilliant and courageous revolution to reinstitute the Constitution in our legal and justice system.
Fox News
Special Counsel Smith seeks to dismiss Jan. 6 charges against Trump
ABC News
Judge dismisses federal election interference case against President-elect Trump
Washington Post
Trump plans to fire Jack Smith’s team, use DOJ to probe 2020 election
Breitbart
‘The View’ Hosts Forced to Issue Four ‘Legal Notes’ in One Episode over Trump Cabinet Selections
Photo by Andrew Harnik
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. I hope you had a great weekend. Well, as you’ve heard by now, most of you judge in the federal district judge appointed by Obama, radical leftists in a black robe has now dismissed the so-called January six case at the request of the rogue unconstitutional prosecutor Jack Smith. She dismissed it about 90 minutes ago. Now. She did it without prejudice at the request of Jack Smith. The reason they did that is because there’s some other individuals who may be involved in that case, and that means they might want to leave it open to pursue. But it will never happen when Donald Trump takes over the Department of Justice in a couple of months, the cases will be fully eliminated. And he always has the pardon power. In the Florida case, Smith also moved to have that dismissed. That’s in front of a federal appeals court. It was already dismissed, a great, brilliant judge. And she she ruled that he was unconstitutionally appointed. And there are others like Landmark Legal Foundation, of which I’m chairman, and as well as of two former attorneys general. That said, Smith’s appointment violated the appointments clause. And judge and the judge ruled exactly that way. Aileen Cannon Then we have these state cases. They will eventually die, may take a little longer, depending on how Judge Machan rules and what President Trump’s lawyers do in response. It just depends. And it looks like in Georgia, the appellate court where the case is sitting has has cleared the schedule of any oral arguments whatsoever. So it looks to me, if I read the tea leaves that they’re about to kill the case to now, No brag. Just fact, though, as we’ve been listening to this program over the last few years, now that I’ve been right about these cases from day one, I explained that the rushing to the courthouse because of town of Trump’s elected president, they can’t charge him. I pulled out and dusted off the two Department of Justice memos that nobody had been talking about, the one from 70 excuse me, 1973 and 2000. I’ve cited them here multiple times. I’ve cited them on Blaze. I’ve cited them on Fox. Now, finally, it’s in the bloodstream of the media and and the chattering classes that made it impossible to pursue a sitting president. And, of course, Donald Trump won the election. And that’s that that’s why they were in a race to the courthouse to influence the Election Day, interfere with the election. They hope to take Trump out to create a constitutional crisis where the Republicans would have to have another convention and choose another nominee. That was their goal, and they failed. They fell because of Donald Trump. We’ve never seen anybody like him before, and they failed because of you. In the end, you said no. In the end you were in charge. And so we were right here from day one on every one of these cases. On the unconstitutional appointment, right? 100% right about Manhattan. Right about Georgia. Just a matter of time until it was proven. I had to be honest with you. Ladies and gentlemen, this assault on our justice system, in our electoral system, the unconstitutional appointment of a so-called special counsel, the abuses of power by the attorney general and his subordinates, no doubt. And the abuses of power as well when it comes to. The courts. In Washington, D.C. This can’t just be blown off. I do believe the Department of Justice, the incoming new Department of Justice at the highest levels, needs to take a look at this. All the documents must be retained under the Presidential Records Act, even without an order or a demand from Congress or a court or even the incoming administration. Those records are supposed to be protected, as we’ve now long learned. Right. And if they destroyed any records and if they touch on the classified nature of any documents, well, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. And if they did any of that or any individual did any of that, they should be pursued. They should be pursued to the full extent of the law because the court the sword cuts both ways. So I think this is very, very important. We’ll continue to monitor this. I do want to add a few other things and then then we’ll circle back some of these comments by these radical left wing kook members of the House. On what the court did not excuse me on what had to be done with respect to the Department of Justice. They had no choice. This appointment to the Labor Department, I forget her name really doesn’t matter. Is very troubling to me. Donald Trump picks who he wants and he’ll get who he wants. So my opinion is my opinion. But she supposed a right to work. What is right to work? A right to work state is a state that says that employees have a right to go to work even if they don’t want to join a union. I believe strongly in right to work. I believed in right to work my entire life. That’s number one. Number two. So she wanted to eliminate it. She’s a big sap. For the teachers unions. The NEA in the AFT. They have fought school choice. They have fought parental rights. They have fought the removal of pornographic material from our classrooms and from classroom studies. She’s a big sap for them. She’s a big mouthpiece for them. And so when it was learned that she was the nominee. Randi Weingarten was very excited and so was the Teamsters Union. But I’m not so much worried about the Teamsters Union because there’s a lot more overlap when it comes to our views in the Teamsters views. I’m not talking about private sector unions here. I’m talking about specifically a public sector type union, the teachers unions. Now they went out in full force. Two and a half million members, not all of them, some of the Republicans, but most of them. They campaigned against Trump. They contributed against Trump. Weingarten was the first endorsement that Kamala Harris got. So if we’re going to ban people who helped the Santas and so forth from serving in the administration, how do you justify this? That’s just my opinion. No, I’m not lobbying against her for her. I’m not lobbying at all. As I’ve made my point abundantly clear, President Trump should be able to get the team that he wants. But I just hope she’s not one of these bad appointments. We saw a few of them in the first term who sabotages his efforts because he believes in school choice, He believes in parental rights. He believes in cleaning up our classrooms, in our school libraries, from the filth and so forth and so on. She does not. Maybe she’ll say she does, but she has a record. Now, I also read that there were a number of Republican leaders, quote unquote, that encouraged President Trump to appoint her. I would love them to come out of the shadows, stop leaking, and tell us who they are. Tell us who they are. So-called Republican leakers, our leaders. Well, they’re not going to because they’re cowards. So I just wanted to voice my concern about this. We’ll see how it plays out. Maybe she’ll do beautifully. Beautifully. It’s a big damned department with a lot of power. The Labor Department. And. Her position is not a moderate position. It’s not a RINO. It’s an extremist position. She’s only one of six Republicans who voted in favor of a bill that would federally eliminate state right to work laws that violate a federalism that violates the right of workers of labors. That imposes from the top down from Washington, D.C.. A requirement that you must join an organization even if you don’t want to join an organization. And she’s all in with the teachers union. So this is problematic to me. I’m sure we could have found a different kind of moderate to liberal. That may have assuaged some of the the private sector union leaders. But this this one is way out there. Way, way, way, way out there. All right. I’ve said my piece. And for the media out there that will say Mark Levin criticized, I’m not criticizing anybody. I’m simply talking about her. And what she stands for. That’s my job. That’s what I do. She’s the nominee. She will probably very likely be confirmed. But, you know, we are radio hosts and TV hosts that are so gutless and so lack any kind of courage, her independence or knowledge or anything else. They’re going to keep their heads down. There’s no need to keep your head down. I’ve said it again. President Trump should get the nominees he wants. This is his government. He got elected. I didn’t. He won by a landslide. This is the team he wants. So give him his team. If things don’t work out, he’ll be the first one to fire people. He’s not like Joe Biden. He’ll be the first one to remove people he’s removed. And in the first term, he’ll remove them in the second term if it doesn’t work out. I’m just throwing out a cautionary note about her in specific. And by the way, I don’t know what the president’s been told. I don’t know what his adviser said. I don’t know any of it. I’m not involved in it. So who knows? But she is what she is. She is who she is. Now. When we come back, I’m going to circle back on Jack Smit dropping the case now, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not really Jack Smith dropping the case. It’s the cowardly attorney general, Merrick Garland. He’s ordered the case to be dropped just as he ordered the case to be brought. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
You know, the Manhattan case against President Trump. We’ll see what Marshon does in early December. Actually, second week, I guess, or thereabouts. I think this will encourage him to dismiss the case with the feds are doing that said. Honestly, if we’d followed the Levin path, this be overall already be done. Supreme Court would have seen it. They would have dealt with it. And even more than that, they were dealt with this specific case. But they would have made it clear that the entire process was violative of. You know, supremacy clause, federal jurisdiction and so forth and so on. So it wouldn’t happen again. But I don’t think that’s going to happen unless Mershon continues to delay this. And I suspect at this point he may not. One other thing before we get back to the rogue prosecutor and what some of these rogue members of Congress have to say about it. And it is my job to expose them, I think. Russia now has North Korean troops. It has Iranian drones. It has communist Chinese missiles. And ammunition. And now it is. Apparently going to get hoodies from Yemen to help. In terms of infantry attacks against Ukraine. I have to say, I’m not only surprised, I’m disgusted. Whether they be radio hosts or podcasters, whether they be TV host who are trashing Ukraine. You know, it’s one thing to say, I don’t think we should have anything to do with Ukraine or something. Ukraine is defending itself. It’s defending itself and they’re trying to get arms and support whenever they can. If it’s your petition, they shouldn’t get any from us. That’s perfectly fine. I don’t agree with it. That’s perfectly fine. But they then start trashing Ukraine as starting World War three is stupid. Ukraine didn’t start anything. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons to Russia in 1994. In a deal, we we urged them to sign. We put a gun to their head. And it was signed by Russia, the United States and Britain that the nuclear weapons were in Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union would go to Russia. But. What did they get in return? They got in return an agreement that Russia, Britain and the United States would defend Ukraine. Against its enemies. In order to give up its nuclear weapons. That was the deal. Like it or not, 1994. So they gave up their nuclear weapons. Putin kills his way to power. Putin takes other parts. What? We’re freed nations. He grabs Crimea, grabs half a Georgia. Among other things. And then he decides I’m going to take Ukraine. Biden’s in town. He just surrendered in Afghanistan. He gave the Taliban Afghanistan. He gave them all their weapons, even gave them the biggest air force base. Probably in Europe. But it doesn’t really matter in Southeast Asia, I should say. And he sees all this. He puts about 100, 125,000 troops on the border. Biden cracks some kind of joke. Just don’t take it all or something. Something to that effect. And he invades. There’s Ukraine. Now it’s Ukraine’s fault. I mean, what is it? What is what kind of spell is Putin have over some of these damn fools? Why do they regurgitate what he says? I’ve been talking about this for not, what, two years now? Why all the focus? And Ukraine is the enemy. Ukraine is not the enemy. They don’t threaten us. They don’t have nuclear weapons aimed at us. No. Any nuclear weapons? Donald Trump is not an isolationist, folks. Some of his supporters are. He is not. He is not he’s not a hawk. He’s not an interventionist. He just uses prudence, common sense to make his decisions. But he armed up Ukraine more than Obama did before he left office. Obama gave them blankets pretty much. Trump gave them weapons. But the idea that Ukraine is going to start World War three when Russia is all in, when China’s all in, when North Korea is all in, when the Houthis are getting involved, when the Iranians are supplying these these massive killer drones to overwhelm their defense systems and they’re aiming at their citizens centers. Ukraine’s not aiming at anybody’s citizen centers. When they do fire these missiles now, in the last few days, they’re aiming them at military depots. To try and take out their ammunition. But it’s like Hezbollah. Hezbollah is specifically aiming at citizens at population centers where Israel’s not. But I don’t get it. I really don’t. I’ll never get it. This love affair with this killer, Putin. Like I said, you can have whatever position you want in terms of supporting Ukraine. I think we should. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
There’s a lot going on. Folks are bouncing around just a little bit. We are going to what is president weaving were weaving as president trump would say, brilliant point. I had come home when On Sunday on Life, Liberty and Levin and I brought up with him something that I remember from the Reagan years, and that is as well as subsequent to that, you can cut funding off from a state that defies federal law or defies the execution of federal law. And so I put it to Tom Holland and he agreed with me. I said, Look what you can do at the sanctuary towns. The sanctuary states has cut off their funding. Cut it off. If they defy you. You know, on the one hand, they claim to be sanctuary. On the other hand, they demand federal tax dollars to deal with the hotels and the feeding. And they say, no, not only don’t they get it, but cut off federal funding. And he agree with me. And so that took off. That was in almost every news organization, certainly online. Even think one Fox program repeated it, Mr. Producer, which is pretty interesting. I think John Roberts and and and the Sandra Smith, they have a great show, by the way. I don’t believe I saw it on Hemmer and. PERINO Did you see it on him? PERINO I don’t think I did, Mr. Producer. No. So there’s a report now that Congressman Republicans, because this is the way they operate, said, you know, we can cut off funding to these town. Yeah, Really? Well, it’s good you thought of it. Not. Not he got to do. Look. I spent my life litigating against these people, fighting these people on the left. You’ve got to use your brain. You can’t just paint by the numbers. And so cutting off funding. Particularly to a blue state governor is a big deal. It’s a big deal. Pursue them criminally if you can. I don’t have a problem with that. But you’re going to have a lot of problem with various judges and so forth. But cut off funding. Just do it. And that will have an effect and that will have an immediate effect on the people of the state will need to know you elected these people. They got to file federal law. The other point I made, which is important. I think the governor of Texas has been fantastic. This guy Abbott’s been standing alone, duking it out down there hard. I mean, he’s got other Republicans supporting him, but that’s ground zero. Look at the mess with the Arizona governor’s absolute mess. Abbott has really been very courageous. In what he’s done. But what has he done? He’s tried to enforce federal law because the feds won’t enforce federal law. What are these Democrat governors want to do? They don’t want to enforce federal law. They want to go off on their own. You know what that is, America. That’s not federalism. That’s a confederacy. It’s the same argument they used in the Confederacy, same one. That is, there’s no justification under the 10th Amendment for what they’re doing. None. There’s federal law. Immigration. Supremacy. Law. Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court has ruled fairly recently, about ten years ago, maybe 12. That the federal government really. Has all the power in this regard. Great. So states want them to enforce. When you look at what to say to states in Florida, these other camp, what he they’re trying to enforce federal law say, hey hey fed you got to enforce your law, secure the border, protect the nation, national security and on and on. But that’s not what these Democratic governors want to do. They’re lawless, the reckless. They should decide policy for the nation. They’re confederates. The Democrat Confederacy is back. But as I said, cut off federal funds, cut them off. And so they get a report I just saw Mr. Producer said, oh, these two Republican congressmen say cut off federal. What is with these congressmen? Don’t they think for themselves they should be way ahead of me on this stuff? This is their job. All right. I told you we’re going to be doing a little bouncing around, but I am weaving, as President Trump puts it. Representative gang. Goldman was an assistant U.S. attorney, former federal prosecutor with the Southern District of New York. He’s a frighteningly stupid man. Very partisan man. And so he’s very upset that Jack Smit dropped the case. But it’s again, it’s not Jack Smith. It’s the attorney general of the United States. Smith put in his papers today. That they consult with the Office of Legal Counsel. This is the brain trust for the executive branch when it comes to the Constitution and pretty much what they say is the final word. Most of those attorneys generals rubber stamp it, and I get it. They’re also the most objective of the officers at the Department of Justice, although not completely, but more than most. And they said, yes, their 1973 memo, the 2000 memo, those memos that Levin I brought to your attention, brought to the whole nation’s attention, because I remember them from way back. That there’s still the law. We do not believe you can indict a sitting president. And that obviously applies to a man who was just elected president, is involved in a transition to become the president. And so he says, effectively, my hands are tied. There’s nothing I can do. But you see, that’s why he was racing to the courthouse. They were aware of those memos. They wanted to take Trump out. Take them out, put them in prison before the election, or they hope destroy him so that people would vote against him. Now we know that backfired. But you can’t have this. He can’t just walk away and say, okay, I give up. I can’t do anything. No harm, no foul. Excuse me. There’s a lot of harm and there’s a lot of foul. And so it’s very important that the next Department of Justice. And I’m not talking about recriminations or anything like that to find out exactly what happened. Who called the shots? Look at all the material, whether it’s electronic or document or documentary or whatever it is, and get to the bottom of this, because I have a feeling the person calling the shots wasn’t even the attorney general. My guess it was in the deputy attorney general’s office. But whatever officer was. People need to be held to account. There need to be congressional oversight hearings. You can’t just interfere in an election like this. And then when the people put an end to what you’re doing, say, okay, fine, no big deal. I’m going to resign. See you later. Back to The Hague. No. Look at all the time this talk from President Trump. Look at all the money, our money that was spent, maybe $100 million. Look at the damage that was done. To the legal process, to the public’s faith in the justice system. Look how it was politicized. And still there have been rulings by the court that the Supreme Court shouldn’t even have to have getting involved. It got involved and then you see shrunken her rulings. She bent over backwards almost right up to the end. She twisted the rules of criminal procedure to accommodate the government. There was a lot done here, the abuse of power with the grand jury. The use of the Enron obstruction law, the violation of immunity. They were trampling all over the Constitution to try and get their man as they were hunting him down. You can’t just let this pass because it’ll happen again. And this is my point with the Manhattan case. If you get it to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will put an end to it. Even if Marshawn eventually rules the right way on December 9th or 10th or 15th or whatever he does, there’s been damage done. So here’s Goldman. One of the dumbest former federal prosecutors I’ve ever heard before. Cut one. Go. Well, look, I certainly understand why he did it. Given the Department of Justice Policy that you cannot prosecute a sitting president, I think it is a shame for justice in this country. It establishes that Donald Trump is above the law. No, it doesn’t establish that Donald Trump’s above the law. You A-hole? Doesn’t establish that at all. It establishes that the federal government can’t conducted some of the way that it did. To try and put somebody in prison who they knew was going to run, in fact, did run for president of the United States. And the public said no. And these protections. Remember those two memos written by the Department of Justice? One was written half a century ago, 1973, and another was written a quarter century ago in 2001 by a Republican administration, one by a Democrat administration. It’s been the Holy Grail for a half a. A century, the Department of Justice. So how is it that Donald Trump’s above the law? Was Obama above the law because he wasn’t charged with crimes he could have been. Well, Biden be above the law after he retires, after he’s out of office. He can be pursued. You think that’s right, Dan Goldman Should he be pursued for his violations of the immigration laws and the and the consequences that flow from that, the inhumanity, the injuries, the destruction of private property? Just listen to this guy. And I like the way they said he needs to be held accountable for the crimes he committed. Wasn’t convicted of committing crimes. In fact, this whole thing was a sham. To criminalize challenges to an election. Yes, we’ve had. Electors sent to challenge electors who have been. Who’ve been chosen by the state before 1876. Perfect example. So that has happened. It’s ridiculous. Or that you you call a secretary of state or a speaker of the House and say, can’t you find any votes? That’s not a crime. They don’t mean create votes. Can’t find any more votes because these elections, you may recall, particularly before reforms in places like Georgia were going on and on and on. You’re allowed to ask these things. You’re allowed to challenge an election. In fact, almost every election has been challenged in the last 20 years. So what, you don’t criminalize it? And the documents case. How ridiculous was that? Hello? One lawyer. Me? I said that case was weak and preposterous. Yeah. Yet, Bill Barr. This is a slam dunk. It’s a slam dunk. Can you pass the Cheetos, please? It’s a slam dunk. You should’ve just given him the damn documents. Just give it to them. No, no. And it wasn’t a slam dunk. And these guys don’t understand motion practices, which I’ve done over and over and over in the years. They can make the difference and in this case did make the difference. And two former attorneys general obviously disagree with Bill Barr and question even the constitutionality of the investigator. And the judge agreed and she wrote a brilliant opinion. It could have been a law review article, but too many stupid people don’t know how to read it. Now they’re Zoe Lofgren. She’s been in Congress for a very, very long time. Undermining our Constitution every step of the way. What does she have to say from California? She’s on Mhsaa stay today. Nobody knows why. Who cares about so Lafc’s not playing it because she’s a foil. But why is she in a news program? Why? That she’s still awake. Is that news? Cut to go. I’m not surprised. When Mr. Trump was elected president. I think it became clear that this prosecution could not go forward. You know, it’s ironic that the top Republican in the Senate pointed out in the impeachment that he should be prosecuted, that we’re talking about McConnell. So here you have a loser, Zoe Lofgren, quoting a loser, Mitch McConnell. Like that means anything. But that means anything. Cut three. Chris Janson. Gwen Lofgren, Go ahead. You said last month you were disappointed DOJ hadn’t started their investigation even earlier. I think you’re definitely not alone in that feeling. Looking back, do you think that not charging Trump until more than two years after January six? All right, stop. You see, this is the problem of themselves. D and the other constipated networks like the Constipated News Network is. The problem is we didn’t start earlier to take them off the ball field here, the political field that we didn’t take them out earlier. Isn’t that the prompt? Now, notice Trump won in a landslide despite all this, but they’re saying, isn’t it a problem that we didn’t put him in prison beforehand so he can be voted for? Now, who’s sick here? It’s a huge mistake. She says they waited two years, two years to bring the charges. Two years. We had the Hurry up. Hurry up, hurry up. Get them in prison. Hurry up. These are totalitarians, Marxist slash fascists. That’s what they are. That’s what they are. And unlike so many who are giddy in the news business or the media business, the opinion business. I’m sorry. They’re not going away. They’re never going away. Evil never goes away. It may change its form, but these people are evil. They’re not going away. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Washington compost. It took one, two, three, four reporters to write about this, the O.J. thing right there. Mr. Bezos, you can slash at least two of them. President elect Donald Trump plans to fire the entire team. The work with special counsel Jack Smith. Good to pursue two federal prosecutions against the former president, including career attorneys typically protected from political retribution, according to two individuals close to Trump’s transition team. Number one, there’s too many damn leaks coming out of there. And number two. And number two. Political retribution? No. It’s in the name of justice. This should never have happened. And you don’t get to hide as a civil servant the kind of certain kinds of protection. Trump is also planning to assemble investigative teams within DOJ to hunt for evidence in battleground states that fraud tainted the 2020 election. One of the people said. Is there a problem with that? The proposals offer new evidence. They say that Trump’s intention to dramatically shake up the status quo in Washington is likely to focus heavily on the Department of Justice, the nation’s premier lawn. Okay, hold on now. You just used the friggin Department of Justice to try and take out a presidential candidate, yet threw everything. The book, the kitchen sink, Judge Champion, and every other lunatic radical judge you could think. You used a law that should never have been used, the Enron obstruction law. You went back to the Ku Klux Klan Act and you use that. Then you used a federal contractor law. You had nothing. Nothing except a partisan Democrat Party grand jury, an Obama judge. That’s all you had. In Florida, you had a judge who’s a real judge and said, wait a minute. What are you doing here, Mr. Special Prosecutor? You’re appointed unconstitutionally. And Donald Trump is the problem. Now, this needs to be fixed. This needs to be fixed. No amount of propaganda and BS from the media and the Democrats and their members of the House and the rest of them is going to change the facts. You and I, we lived through this. This needs to be fixed and let the chips fall on whom they may. I’ll be right back.