July 23rd, 2025

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, the whole point of the Russia hoax was an effort to de-legitimize and destroy Trump’s candidacy and presidency. Leaks from the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies, along with a fabricated Steele dossier and a false narrative about Russia wanting Trump elected, were used to undermine him and DNI Tulsi Gabbard has the evidence. Barack Obama was aware of these efforts and ordered a misleading intelligence assessment to support the claims. The media is ignorant regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. Crimes committed by a president outside official duties are prosecutable after their term if the statute of limitations hasn’t expired. However, actions within official duties are protected from prosecution. Obama twisting intelligence or leading a coup against an incoming president is not part of official duties. Also, a federal judge in Florida ruled against releasing grand jury information in the Epstein case, citing grand jury secrecy under Rule 6C. Grand jury proceedings lack due process protections like cross-examination or counsel for witnesses, and information may include unverified or inaccurate claims, justifying secrecy to prevent trial prejudice or reputational harm. Later, in ‘On Power’, negative power uses coercion, control, and propaganda to enforce conformity and centralize authority, with positive power, rooted in divine sovereignty and individual liberty. Negative power, exemplified by the “new bourgeoisie,” manipulates language and thought to dominate the masses, rejecting moral order and representative government. Positive power, based on Judeo-Christian values and Enlightenment principles, prioritizes the people’s well-being, unalienable rights, and religious tolerance, as embodied in America’s founding. Afterward, Mahmoud Khalil refuses to denounce Hamas when asked on CNN. It’s unbelievable these radical judges allow this person to remain in America. Finally, Columbia University has agreed to pay a $220 million fine to settle allegations from the Trump administration that it failed to protect Jewish students from harassment, violating their civil rights.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla

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. We are going to jump into this so-called Russiagate matter with both feet in a moment. A federal judge ruled. Earlier today. That she would not release any of the grand jury information involving the Epstein case in Florida following the the requirements of grand jury secrecy, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and. She further stated that the legal standard for transfer the petition to another district is not met by this case. So she held the case. He said the 11th Circuit says no. Now, why is grand jury information secret? It’s called rule six. Does anybody know? Well, I’ll tell you why. A grand jury is established by a prosecutor. And there’s all kinds of testimony that’s received by the grand jury that would never be received in a court of law. The witnesses who testify are not free to have counsel represent them. There’s no cross-examination. All the standards of due process that exist in a courtroom do not exist. Any grand jury. I don’t like grand juries. I wish we would abolish them. Most prosecutors would disagree with me. So it is a tool that prosecutors use. And in our federal Constitution. It’s intended to protect the citizen, but it really doesn’t. Can’t speak for the state systems. And so names can be dropped. Information should be given that it’s not credible or what have you. So the courts say, look, if people are going to testify in front of a grand jury and they’re compelled to testify and they’re compelled to testify without counsel, there’s no cross-examination. There’s nothing of the kind, then that needs to stay secret. Why? Because, first of all, for trial purposes, that could taint the conduct of a jury in a trial. That’s number one. Number two things can be said about people that are not accurate, that are not true because they’re not challengeable in a grand jury. In fact, the individual whose name or individuals may come up don’t even know they’re mentioned in a grand jury, let alone have counsel present to object, because none of it. Is applicable. None of those standards. That’s why the courts. Are not going to release grand jury information unless there’s some really, really compelling reason. Pure in interest isn’t enough. So this is what I was trying to explain, that people release this release that it does. It’s not so simple. In a case like this. Now. Bondi and her department have sought the release of the grand jury information and a federal judge said no. Perhaps it could be appealed to that circuit. We’ll see what they decide when a panel decides. And. Public officials, lawmakers, pundits, ordinary citizens remain deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matter. Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanch, wrote in the motion to the court seeking to unseal the records, the transcripts and the court so far said, No, we’re not doing that. So we’ll see how that plays out over time. There is a Wall Street Journal report saying Trump’s name is mentioned and Trump says that’s fake news. But you know, your name can be mentioned. Anybody’s name can be mentioned. That really doesn’t mean anything. So we have no idea what context anything is mentioned or even if it’s mentioned at all. We just don’t have any any insight into this. Maybe Bill Clinton’s mention, Who knows? Maybe members of Congress are mentioned. Who knows? We don’t know. I do know this. The media lie, cheat and steal. So. We’ll take the best course of action given that witches wait and see. I want to get into this stuff with this with Russia. I posted a few things for you if you want to check it out on social media. My. Interview where Pete Hegseth interviewed me for Fox and Friends Sunday, and I posted the presentation there, which really laid out the case. There’s some confusion out here. It is troubling to me. There’s some confusion. I see the media are horrendous. Other than Fox, the way the media reporting this is repulsive. There’s nothing new here. Nothing we didn’t already know. Now, of course, the media are co-conspirators. The media were involved in this this effort to the destroy the Trump campaign and then to undermine his presidency. So we’re not going to hold our breath with the media. That’s for sure. But the whole point of this Fox. Was to de-legitimize the Trump campaign and then his presidency. That was the point. So the debate over what Russia was doing or did it do enough or did it not do enough? Did it do it? That’s not the point. The point is, the information was used. It was used for the purpose of trying to destroy the Trump candidacy. De-legitimize it and destroy. His new presidency. That was the point. And there were leaks from the FBI, leaks from the Department of Justice, the mothership, leaks from the intelligence agencies. The CIA director turns out to be a liar, as we knew he was the head of national intelligence and other liars. We knew he was Obama. How could Obama not know about this? I said this way back eight and a half years. How could he not? It was in the newspapers. It was in the newspapers. That’s where I got it from. But of course, he had a more active role in that, didn’t he? It’s just like this game where. Where they play. They didn’t know anything about the Tea Party that was under relentless and broad assault by the Internal Revenue Service. Remember that one? So. The Obama part of this is the claim that Russia wanted to get Trump elected. That never made any sense. We said it at the time. Why would they want Trump elected? He’ll be tougher on Russia than Hillary Clinton. So that was a lie. Russia didn’t want Trump to get elected. Then the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier was a lie, was a fiction from beginning to end. And yet, as Garrett points out, it was the main piece of information, as well as three discarded pieces of fake intelligence or useless intelligence as a basis. For creating this fabrication. And Obama ordered a. In an intelligence rewrite, if you will. A new assessment. Even though we know that he knew there was nothing to it, he ordered a new assessment. In order to get some kind of basis for claiming there was something to it. So that’s all they had. Now, keep in mind, this is the same administration that lied about Biden’s cognition. The same administration that lied about the laptop, the same media, I should say. And now the Russia collusion hoax. And of course, the media just blow this off is no big deal. They’re very focused now on the Epstein matter, which of course, all during the four years of Biden, they never mentioned not once. In any significant way. But I want you to hear from Tulsi Gabbard herself. Many of you, if not most, were at work, so you weren’t available to hear what she had to say. And after the break, we will do that. We’ve got a lot of stuff to get into, a lot of good stuff. So stick with me. We’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Let’s get going, maybe. Tulsi Gabbard at the White House press briefing today. Cut to go. The stunning revelations that we are releasing today should be of concern to every American. This is not about Democrats or Republicans. This has to do with the integrity of our Democratic Republic and American voters having faith that the votes cast will count. There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump when selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t. The report that we released today shows in great detail how they carried this out. They manufactured findings from shoddy sources. They suppressed evidence and credible intelligence that disproved their false claims. They disobeyed traditional tradecraft, intelligence, community standards, and withheld the truth from the American people. In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump in that election in November of 2016. They worked with their partners in the media to promote this lie, ultimately to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump and launching what would be a years long coup against him and his administration. We’re here today because the American people deserve the truth. They deserve accountability and they deserve justice. Mm hmm. Cut three ago. Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former President Obama in criminal behavior? We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this for even the evidence. Obama corrupts the evidence that we have found and that we have released. Directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact. And I want you to know, I’ve looked at the main wire stories, the main media, the big media. They’re all coming to. Obama’s defense, as you noted, said Mr. Producer. They’re all coming to Obama’s defense. They’re all dismissive of what’s being said. Cut. What are we cut? Forego. The president yesterday moving forward that the former president helped lead a coup based on what you now see. Do you believe President Obama is guilty of treason? I’m leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice. I’m not an attorney, but as I have said previously, when you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as. A years long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump’s administration. And by the way, what else would be the purpose of doing this other than to try and destroy the administration? Now I keep hearing people and it drives me nuts. It’s very frustrating, the ignorance of some of these reporters. Somebody whispers in their ear, they regurgitate something they don’t really dig into or don’t recall. And then it goes, goes and goes and goes around and around the same line. That’s a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity would apply here. So Obama can’t be charged. Let me repeat, and I don’t care how this turns out, but let me repeat, regardless of who does what with this. The fact of the matter is. If you commit a crime while you’re president of the United States, you can be prosecuted afterwards if the statute of limitation has not run. But if you do something in your official duties as president of the United States, which somebody would argue is a crime, you cannot be charged for that. It is not part of your official duties as president of the United States to twist intelligence information and lead a coup against the incoming president of the United States. That’s not part of your official duties. And I want the media to listen to me. I want you to go back and read the decision. I want you to educate yourselves at least once, if not again, and understand the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. If a president of the United States. Where to commit a federal offense while he’s president of the United States. Let’s say he would assassinate an FBI agent. Now, this is far flung, but it’s to make a point. He’s not immune. The court made that clear. That is a crime. A crime committed by an individual whose president not part of his official duties. You see the difference, Mr. Producer? Now, if you’re the president of the United States and you order in defense of the United States, the elimination of a terrorist, say, in Yemen, as Obama did, people said he should have been prosecuted for that. There was a U.S. citizen. There wasn’t due process. Now we shouldn’t. And he can’t be. At least now under this Supreme Court decision, was part of his official duties to protect the country, his commander in chief. So you understand it’s not part of your official duty as president or commander in chief to use the instrumentalities of government. To try and destroy the incoming president. So I hope I’ve made that clear that even reporters can understand what I’m saying. By Kelly O’Donnell from NBC News. Here she is. Cut five, Go. What is the accountability that you would like to see in this current president is the one who brought the case. Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts made clear in his opinion that a sitting president responsibilities in office cannot lead to prosecution immunity. So what is it the president President Trump wants regarding President Obama, given that fact and special counsel at the time, Durham, when that Supreme Court matter was not in effect, could have charged anyone and did not. So on those two points, how do you respond? Look, the president has made it clear that he wanted these documents to be declassified. He wanted the American people to see the truth. And so this. Number one, she’s wrong on the first point. As for Durham, I don’t know that Durham had access to these documents, did he? Who knows? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. So both questions are stupid. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
Now during the break, I pulled up the Supreme Court immunity decision Trump versus the United States. It was issued July one, 2024, about a year ago. Says a federal grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during the his presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleges that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud, to obstruct the collect and counting and certifying of the election results. You remember, ladies, you know, I was way ahead of everybody on this. I said, this is bogus. I said, he has immunity on this. I we went on and on about it, but let’s go on. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity, arguing that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities and that the indictments allegations fell within the core of those official duties. That is an election. The district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss holding the former president. Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. That was the D.C. Circuit confirmed. That is the panel of leftists. Both the district court and D.C. court declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. We hold the following Under our constitutional structure of separation of powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclude of constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution from all those official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Got it. So. If you’re Obama’s lawyer, you argue I have absolute immunity or the president does that. OBAMA Or at least it’s presumptive immunity. And if you’re the government this time, the government being the the Trump Department of Justice, you argue, excuse me, this does not fall within his official acts. In fact, it falls outside his official acts for the things that he said and the things that he did. But at a minimum, the this presumptive immunity it’s presumptive can be overcome. And they say in the case that was before them, this is the case first criminal prosecution of our nation’s history of a former president for actions taking during his presidency, determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office, at least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. So I would argue this case would hurt Obama. The argument would be over whether using the CIA, using the FBI, using the instrumentalities of the federal government to spread lies about the incoming president in order to usurp. The incoming president in order to raise questions about the incoming president and the legality of his actions. We are hardly within the core functions constitutional powers of a president. Now we’re only here even talking about the possibility of indicting a former president because they indicted Donald Trump. So when they wave around this case, Trump versus the United States, the so-called immunity case, in the past, we never indicted former presidents really for anything. But they went ahead and they indicted Trump and they lost the case at the Supreme Court on the counts that are relevant to the case, as they said they would. Now, I’m telling you that it is a much different case when it comes to using the instrumentalities. Of the FBI, the CIA, the NIA, the the the the DNI, that is the director of National intelligence office and so forth. That is a very different question, isn’t it? Even if he has presumptive immunity, that can be overcome. And I would argue that’s hardly part of his official duties. And we’re only here, as I said, because they breached that wall in the first place, which is the indictment of a former president for putting that aside. As I explained the other day, you don’t launch a criminal investigation knowing whether or not you’re going to indict somebody, at least theoretically you don’t. You’re supposed to try and be objective. Now we know they’re not, but you’re supposed to launch a criminal investigation if you think you have enough information. That a reasonable person would conclude is potentially illegal and you pursue it and then you you build your case. You don’t have to launch an investigation and have your case figured out in advance that says backwards. So you conduct the investigation, you make determinations of who you think crimes were committed. Then you look at Trump versus the United States, perhaps some other cases, and you make a decision if you’re going to pull the trigger. Now, that said. Why not investigate Obama for his conduct and his activities? I mean, these people were investigating Trump over stuff he never did. They were investigating Trump and issuing indictments and had grand juries issuing indictments, I should say. Really at the drop of a hat. They’re trying to make new constitutional law. They failed thanks to the court. Thanks to the court. The real issue here is the interference with the election and the interference with the incoming presidency. That’s the real issue, not a debate over the information, which clearly was false, clearly was false. It clearly the Russians try to influence our elections. Clearly, they failed. But here, we’re not even talking about the Russians influencing the election. We’re talking about Obama and the Democrat administration, the regime trying to interfere in the election and then trying to interfere with the incoming presidency. That’s worse than the Russians. That’s being done here with the enemy within. The enemy within. And I feel that’s being lost on people. And not only that, the media assisted every step of the way. They were working with the FBI. They were working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They were working with the CIA. They were working with the White House. They were fielding the leaks. They were printing the leaks. That’s how I was able to to help break the front end of this thing on March 3rd, 2017. By putting together the leaks. Now, what’s new about what Tulsi Gabbard has done is she actually has the evidence. They keep saying, well, we haven’t learned anything new. No, she assures us. How have. You learn that people like me have been right and others were right. While we already had criminal investigations. And Mueller. Excuse me. We now have a report from 2020 from the House Republicans that lay out a lot of fascinating and new information, troubling as hell. We now have actual documentation with redactions, but actual documentation going over to the Department of Justice to underscore Obama’s role and the role of others. And they’re telling you this is no big deal. No big deal. They’re still chasing Epstein. We don’t have anything there about anybody, and they’re still chasing that. Here we have a lot and they’re telling us it’s nothing. And it’s nothing. Just thought I would point that out. There’s a lot here. And of course, the media don’t want to know why, because the media are implicated. The media are implicated. The media were involved in this every step of the way. Because they were the recipients of the leaks. They knew what was going on. They knew who was leaking. They knew why they were leaking. And that was fine by them. It was encouraged by them. I just want to point this out. So, Obama. The claim that Russia wanted to get Trump elected is false. Brennan. There’s still dossier played no role. And yet what are Brennan do publicly even after the fact? Clapper. Comey. Brennan. They used it. They used it, even though they knew it was fabricated, even though they knew it was fabricated. That’s what the evidence Tulsi Gabbard has released indicates. And to the media. That’s no big deal because the media were in on it. Obama. He directed that there be a new intelligence assessment because he wasn’t getting what he wanted. The intelligence assessment was that, yes, the Russians are trying to penetrate the election, but they’re not they’re not able to do it. They’re not really affecting the votes. And also so they knew that. But they still kept pushing the Russia collusion story, that number one. Yes, Russia affected the election. And two, they wanted Trump said they were helping Trump. And I should add three. Trump was working with them per the Steele dossier. And that’s the message that was out the you were alive. You know that that was all a lie. Now, he might say, it’s no big deal to me. It’s a big deal. Because now the fingerprints. Now the fingerprints. That’s a big deal. And the whole goal was to delegitimize the Trump campaign. During the course of the campaign to defeat Trump. And during the early days of his presidency to destroy his presidency. That was the game. He was never trying to assist Trump. And they had zero evidence, zero. So they manipulated it. They concocted it. Just remember, these are the same people who who covered up for the the Hunter laptop. These are the same people who would later cover up for Biden. And his mental state is remember. And then, of course, they perpetuated this Russia hoax. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
I’m writing to one of these news people who I know trying to explain to them the immunity decision because they just keep not this individual. People keep coming on these programs and literally lying about it. The immunity decision last year talks about absolute immunity, presumptive immunity and no immunity regarding a president in office. And after holding office, I shouldn’t say no immunity, but if a president uses intelligence services, FBI, DOJ face, etc. for the purpose of interfering in the presidential election on behalf of the Democrat candidate and then further uses them to undermine an incoming president and. And perhaps even. Stick with me. Folks, this is real time where I live, a national even a set off criminal and another investigations. It’s hard to see how it’s hard to see how that is part of his official duties. As president. Um, certainly a presumption. I’m doing this for you. To have a presumption of immunity can be overcome. It can be challenged, if not overcome. In terms of absolute immunity. An example would be Stick with me. This is for everybody. An example would be. Obama ordering, as I discussed with you before, ordering the the the deadly strike. On a U.S. citizen. Let’s put it this on, a U.S. citizen in, say, Yemen, who is believed to have been involved in 911. That that would be that. That would that would that would include. Let me put it this way. This is where absolute immunity. Would apply. And so I will send it to my friend so he has a better understanding of what’s going on. And others, I hope, will tell you, Well, of course, you’re going to be smarter than all these people who think they’re smart and are commenting on these things, but they’re not smart and they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. That’s what I’m here for, right, Mr. Producer? Okay. How are we going to have a wonderful life, Liberty. And in Saturday. A wonderful life. Liberty and Levin Sunday. Saturday. We’re going to get deeply into this stuff about Obama and the effort to overthrow Donald Trump. Really, the only way that the way that we put it will be really the only way that really should be put. So you’ll be able to follow it very simply. We’re going to have Brett Tolman, the former U.S. attorney from Utah, on the program. He excellent. And there’s a number of other issues I want to discuss. We’re going to have our buddy Ben SHAPIRO on. I don’t think I’ve had Ben on in years. He’ll be with us, too. Sunday, a very, very special life, Liberty and Levin with Sean HANNITY is going to interview me for the entire hour. And we’re going to go through my brand new book on power. Remember yesterday we talked about very generally negative power and I got a lot of input that you love that while conversely, there’s something I’ve called positive power. And we’re going to discuss that a little bit next hour as well. Just to give you a flavor for what’s going on and Amazon.com, you can pre-order your copy. They have a nice deep discount there for you have 27%. So the book is now under $20. That’s a great value. And you can get your copy of On Power very readable. And I think in many ways it’s going to have a significant effect on the way you think about things even in your personal life. But that’s not the focus of the book. The book is to understand human nature as it applies to power, how power applies to liberty and tyranny, property rights, Republicanism, democracy, Islamism, Marxism. It’s a big deal. We’ll be right back.