On Thursday, December 14th's Mark levin Show

[Ubiquitous]

On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, there are impeachable offenses that have been
committed by President Biden that every American can understand and are
affected by, like the obliteration of our immigration laws and giving aid and
financial support to a regime in Iran that is attacking American soldiers.
The mayhem and humanity taking place on the southern border will not be
covered by the Democrat media, which is leaving tens of thousands of people
dead. If we cannot control our sovereignty we cannot control our country, and
this is being done intentionally to drive an ideological agenda. The Biden
Crime family selling the office is definitely a reason to impeach as well,
but other important impeachable offenses are not being discussed by the media
or the Republicans. Meanwhile, Jack Smith is constantly pushing the envelope
and looking for ways to twist laws and apply them in a way that was never
meant to be applied, like with the Klansman Act. Judge Chutkan is setting a
dangerous precedent by charging Trump, and we cannot allow a prosecutor or a
judge that does something that violates the Framers’ intention of separation
of government. Also, Biden is demanding that Israel conclude its ground war
with Hamas within the next three weeks and telling the Israeli people that
they must give up their ancestral homes to the Palestinians. Biden is
undermining the state of Israel by blocking armaments and also calling for
Netanyahu to be removed as Prime Minister while sabotaging him. Later, Mark
is joined by Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) to discuss the impeachable
immigration offenses committed by Joe Biden, his violation of the separation
of powers and his funding of Iran.

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-gf3811. A
lot to cover this evening. I hope you’ll stick with us. I want to start with
impeachment. I don’t know what it’s going to take. I really don’t. To try and
shake some sense into our Republican friends in the House. I’m not one to
typically hammer away at the Republicans in the House. They’re far superior
to the Republicans in the Senate as a group. But that said, ladies and
gentlemen. There are impeachable offenses committed by this president that
punch you right in the nose. That every American can understand. That affects
every American directly, some indirectly. When you listen to some of my
friends on TV or on radio. Go through a long iteration. Of moneys that were
given to. The Biden family. You need to understand that the vast majority of
Americans, their eyes glaze over. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued
constitutionally. Sir. Impeachment doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued
criminally. But you’re selling impeachment, which is not a criminal process.
The removal of a president of the United States. And when you have an
overwhelming case that it’s understandable to Mr. and Mrs. America, why don’t
you use it? Now, what’s Mark talking about now? It’s only a matter of time
until everybody repeats it. On radio and TV and maybe some in Congress. I
hope so. Here’s my point. I explained it briefly on HANNITY. I’m going to
explain it at great length on Sunday on Life, Liberty and Levin. And by the
way, four great guests Saturday and Sunday. Dershowitz, David Schoen, Leo
Terrell. Richard Goldberg. These are fantastic gastric, fantastic issues,
but. It’ll be the last weekend shows for life, liberty and living until the
new year. We’ll have some specials that are fantastic because I just finished
working on them. But this weekend is the last live. Two shows until next
year. So I encourage you to set your DVR or your smart TV or whatever you do.
Back to the point. President United States, for reasons I’ve explained, is
violating the Constitution his oath of office. By not just defying our
immigration laws. Obliterating our immigration laws and their purpose. You
say what’s going on on the southern border is outrageous? Yes, it is. It’s
also unconstitutional that he won’t enforce the immigration laws. He doesn’t
get to change them. By executive fiats, executive orders and so forth are are
blowing off the law. You don’t need depositions, you don’t need subpoenas,
You don’t need documents. You only tax. You only witnesses. It’s just a fact
of Biden regime policy. That there’s mayhem, inhumanity of an unimaginable
level taking place on the southern border. Now, you know, it’s really, really
bad because most of the corrupt Democrat Party media won’t cover it or they
cover it a little, you know, swing into it and then swing out of it. But
Americans are dying by the tens of thousands because of open borders. Drugs.
People are being physically abused and raped and sold into slavery. Women and
children. Elementary School age children. We don’t control the southern
border. That’s our sovereignty. That’s our country. This is by intent. This
is purposeful. It’s part of an ideological agenda. People say, let us impeach
the head of DHS and why waste your time? He’s doing what Biden tells them to
do. So they have. An impeachment inquiry resolution that passed with every
Republican for it and every Democrat against it. I read the resolution, such
as it is. It’s very broad. And it certainly would allow the House of
Representatives. To consider. This issue. As part of the impeachment report,
there should be Article one. Article one in an impeachment. Of Joe Biden,
Article two. Without any constitutional authority whatsoever. In fact, worse.
In violation of a Supreme Court ruling, in fact, worse. Undermining
separation of powers by seizing the power of the purse from Congress. Joe
Biden with a magic wand. Cost the American Treasury half a trillion dollars
in student loan forgiveness, quote unquote. Student loan forgiveness. The
president does not have the power. To seize that authority from Congress. He
defied a Supreme Court ruling. He and his administration won around two
branches of the federal government under our Constitution. One. It has
complete control over the purse. The other that was asked to rule on it and
did. And Joe Biden still stole half a trillion dollars out of the Treasury.
To try and pay off part of his base. That’s a clear violation of his oath of
office. It’s a clear. Violation of his responsibility to take care that the
laws of the United States are executed. That’s impeachment, Article number
two. Impeachment. Article number three. The main responsibility of a
commander in chief. That is the president. Is America’s national security.
That’s why he has the Commander in Chief title and responsibility. He is the
executive branch. When the commander in chief knowingly and actively. Is
providing aid. Financial support. Diplomatic cover. Per a terrorist regime
that has killed American soldiers, that has kidnapped Americans, that, as I
speak, is trying to kill more American soldiers and attack American bases in
the Middle East. That is funding terrorist organizations like Hamas,
Hezbollah, the Houthis, and many more. When the president of the United
States specifically hires an envoy who’s a special pleader for the Iranian
regime, and that envoy in turn hires people, one of whom may well be a spy.
That envoy who’s so bad had his clearance revoked by the Biden
administration. Under cover of darkness. They won’t tell us why. But when the
president of the United States institutes waivers. On a regime. That ensures
that tens of billions of dollars report into its coffers. That in turn takes
that money and helps build weapons for Russia. To attack Ukraine that has
built an alliance with North Korea, but an alliance with communist China. And
is funding all this terrorism, these attacks on Americans. When a president
of the United States, we arms this regime. We arms it. Regime the targeted.
Our former secretary of state are a former national security adviser for
assassination. These are collectively. An impeachable offense. It’s a high
crime. Article one. Article two, Article three are high crimes. What’s a high
crime? The framers looked at, among other things, English common law. So they
came up with the idea of impeachment to begin with. They read it, they looked
at it. And what did it say? It said that an individual. Who takes an oath. It
is thereby in a unique position of authority. Who can affect. The well-being
of a society. Who takes steps or fails to take steps. To secure that society.
Has committed a high crime. That’s what the word high means in that context.
In other words, it’s a constitutional violation. Joe Biden has done that on
immigration. He’s done that on the power of the purse. He’s done that as a
commander in chief who is funding our enemy. Article three. Is the third
priority for impeachment. Article one. Article two. Article three in the Mark
Levine Impeachment. I completely understandable by Mr. Mrs. America. Let the
Democrats in the media and the other members of the Praetorian Guard circle
the wagons and try to protect their president. They will fail. These are
black and white issues. These are good and bad issues. These are good and
evil issues. Right and wrong issues. And in every case, there’s no need for
subpoenas. Documents, texts, phone records, witnesses. To matter of policy,
the official policy of the Biden regime. To do these things. To do these
things. And then you can have articles for. Which is discussed endlessly on
cable. With a one, two or three chairman of the various committees are
brought in where they speak quickly and. Talk about Evan Archer and Devin
Archer and this, that and the other. They have a very strong case, I think.
Against Biden. Apparently Chuck Grassley can’t see it. But then again, it’s
not the standard. But Chuck Grassley can see. Marks Article one. Chuck
Grassley can see Marc’s Article two. Chuck Grassley can see Mark’s Article
three, and it becomes an imperative, an obligation. A members of Congress who
also take a different oath of office, but one that is close enough to the
oath that the president takes. That they have an absolute obligation. To vote
an impeachment and indictment of Joe Biden. For the deaths, the rapes, the
chaos, the economic consequences, what happens in our schools? Law
enforcement with illegal immigration. They have an absolute obligation to
prevent a president of the United States from seizing power under our
Constitution from another branch of government. They have an absolute
obligation. To impeach. Indict. And really remove. An American commander in
chief. Who is subsidizing? Who is funding our enemy? Neville Chamberlain
appeased Hitler. Peace in our time. But he didn’t send funds to Hitler. He
didn’t send funds to Hitler surrogates. He didn’t subsidize Hitler. By
lifting waivers on sanctions. He didn’t stop. Who dies Hitler through
international organizations. But that’s exactly what Joe Biden is doing. The
Islamo Nazis in Tehran, in Gaza. In Lebanon, in Yemen, and all around the
world. The American people see it and can understand it. Even those who
aren’t focused on politics. Article four. The issue being discussed on the
Hill and on cable and radio. They can’t follow that. And when you have
Democrats in the media. Really gumming up the works. Claiming there’s nothing
here. Lying about it. Covering it up makes it even harder. Again, it should
in fact be Article four of impeachment because the Bidens sold Big Daddy’s
office. They made over $30 million. You know, people don’t want to believe
that they’re blind to it. But people will believe and do understand the first
three articles. I am pleading this case over and over and over again. To the
Republicans. Get your act together. You’ve got a strong, strong case if you
do it right. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
You know when you meet Lindsey Graham. Very likable gentleman. Very likable
guy. But sometimes our friend Lindsey says and does pretty stupid stuff
doesn’t mean he’s not a nice guy. Doesn’t even mean his intentions are bad.
But I watched a video where he was praising the hell out of Qatar. Qatar is a
monarchy, in effect. It is run by inbred. Is a fake country that was created
by. I guess, Britain not that long ago. It funds Hamas. It has protected the
Hamas leadership. It funds Al-Jazeera. Why would you praise these bastards?

Segment 3
You know when we come back from the holidays begin our new year, we may have
to lead a lovin surge here to press the Republicans in their house to get
this right. Sometimes I think they suffer from their own Stockholm syndrome,
Mr. Producer. They get so. ENMESHED and entrenched. In their own weeds that
they can’t see the forest. Again for the 4000 time. I’m not saying they
shouldn’t pursue. The selling of Joe Biden’s office. It’s very, very
important. But there’s three things that we’re overlooking that should be
priorities in any impeachment. Investigation. And they’re they’re they’re
they’re they’re low hanging fruit. And the impact that these things are
having on the American people, it’s significant. It’s very significant. You
know, Jim Trusty is a friend of mine. Before I knew Jim, I would watch him
from time to time on. On Fox, I often said, Who is this guy? He’s damn good.
And he is damn good. And he has his own blog. Which is also damn good. And.
It’s a law that i f r h law.com and. There’s a piece on there today that I
saw, and I want to read this to you. In most U.S. district courts, the trial
date for a defendant who’s not incarcerated is typically many months and
often easily over a year. From the time of his or her initial appearance
after indictment. Many trials are resolved by plea agreements without ever
having set a real trial date. There’s lip service to the constitutional
notion of a speedy trial. And the easily avoidable clock ticking under a
statutory speedy trial framework. But of the single digit small percentage of
cases that actually proceed to trial, most wait 12 to 18 months or more,
depending on the complexity. For the actual onset of the trial. The
scheduling of former President Trump’s criminal case in Washington, however,
is shaping up to be quite different than almost any other prosecution in
American history. The guarantee of a speedy trial has its origins in the
notion that the government should not lock up individuals who are presumed
innocent and have them detained for months or years before given an
opportunity to exonerate themselves. It can be a Pyrrhic victory indeed, for
a defendant to serve a couple of years in jail to win a trial and learn that
the maximum penalty for the crime was less than what he actually already
served in a pretrial setting. And while there is a largely academic public,
so-called right to a speedy trial, the heart of the protection lies with the
defendant. Enter the machinations within U.S. versus Donald Trump. At the
August scheduling conference for this insurrection without charging
insurrection case. Beautifully put. Jack Smith pushed for jury selection in
December and a trial in January. Trump’s team asked for a highly improbable
mid 2026 start date. But Judge John King said on March four, 2024, the day
before Super Tuesday primary, and a date markedly closer to Smith’s high
speed suggestion. Defense counsel noted that there were millions of pages of
discovery materials to sift through and that they could not be ready that
quickly. And by the way, they have a right to put on their own case, too. So
that’s just dealing with the government’s part of the case. Not even they’re
part of the case. But the judge displayed no sympathy for their position, at
least that early into the case. And she announced an unwillingness to let a
defendant’s professional obligations pour. Political aspirations in this case
serve as a basis for a delay. By contrast, in South Florida, Judge Aileen
Cannon has taken a more typical incremental approach to the Mar a Lago
documents case carefully. She’s concerned the process of sifting through
classified materials for use at trial CPA procedures is going slowly. So
while she set a trial date for next year, she’s also suggested that the date
is not in stone because she’s treating it like a case, a real case. The
parties will come back in court in March to give her a progress report. And
presumably at that point, a final trial date will be set. Judge Cannon has
also suggested that it is entirely appropriate for her to consider the
calendars of all the parties when it comes to setting a trial date. And he
says, From my 23 years in federal courts, that desire to set a collectively
acceptable trial date is the norm. Not the exception. So what’s going on in
D.C. is the exception in every respect. Meanwhile, back in D.C., the defense
raised the issue of presidential immunity, which was shot down by Judge
Tonkin in her December 1st order. Six days later, the defense appealed the
ruling to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Typically, the Court of
Appeals ruling would not likely come before early March’s trial date.
Consequently, the prosecutors did something quite unusual as they calculated
the calendar of the appeal. They asked the Supreme Court to jump in and make
a ruling without waiting for the intermediary court’s decision. The express
reason for the petition, which was granted this week. That’s outrageous, by
the way, was to do everything possible to keep the march for trial date. And
in explaining the need for expedited Supreme Court involvement, Smith and his
lawyers wrote, quote, Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that.
A president who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held
accountable for criminal conduct, unquote. Flowery and pejorative language
aside, the quote does not explain the obsessive need that the case to take
place on the eve of Super Tuesday. More directly, the government later
explains its basis as, quote, the public interest in a broad sense, as well
as the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, unquote. I, for one, am
not overly comfortable with the Department of Justice prosecutors
authoritatively declaring the public interest. We talked about this, but more
fundamentally, we have to ask why in this case, and really this case only has
Merrick Garland, special counsel, continuously pushed for such an early trial
date Is the prosecution’s keen interest in a speedy trial one of principle or
one of politics? Now the underlying issue itself, whether prosecution of a
former president for allegations during his presidency is constitutionally
permissible or whether there’s a way to carve up immunity between core
responsibilities and conduct essentially unrelated to holding office as an
interesting and important one. And the Supreme Court is poised to make a
historic and apparently expedited decision. But lost in the procedural
shuffle is a Department of Justice level of aggression and apparently similar
sentiment from the trial judge that is propelling a complicated, unique and
historic prosecution along an unnecessarily fast track. Whatever the verdict
in any outcome on the appeal, a rush to convict and imprison a presidential
candidate before the election will cause more systemic damage to our criminal
justice system than were displays of fairness and patience. Very well said.
And let me take the baton from there. That’s the process. He’s 100% right.
Now, let me go to the substance. What is this issue? Well, Jack Smith is
always pushing the edge of the envelope. He’s always looking for ways to
twist the law. To creatively apply a law that doesn’t apply like the Klansman
Act. He’s always putting courts in a position to make fundamental decisions.
And in the case of the district court in Washington and quite frankly, the
circuit panel, two Obama appointees, one Biden appointee, were more than
happy to go along. So what’s at stake? According to Judge Champion, Donald
Trump’s not a king. And just because he was president and made some decisions
when he was president doesn’t mean he’s immune from prosecution for making
those decisions when he was president. Now, think about that. Not only has
that never been litigated, think about how dangerous that is. All because
they’re trying to convict him in Washington, D.C., using four preposterous
statutes that have nothing to do with insurrection or seditious conspiracy.
Even though he’s arguing the case, making the case for both with without
having been forced to prove it on these other charges that they’re bringing,
that that is an abomination. But anything goes in Judge Duncan’s courtroom
because she knows well, maybe she’ll be appealed and reversed, but it’ll be
okay because she, in her mind, is stopping Hitler. Worse than Hitler. But
back to the point. The reason sitting presidents are not to be indicted. And
there’s several important reasons. Is that because the Constitution says it?
Because the Constitution doesn’t say anything. It’s because it’s been agreed
by Republican and Democrat departments of Justice alike, attorneys general
alike. And it’s been agreed for more than half a century. But you can’t
charge a sitting president because he is the executive branch. He’s the third
branch of government. You cannot allow unelected prosecutors, unelected
judges, unelected trial juries. To decapitate the executive branch. The
president of the United States and the vice president of the United States
are the only people in our body politic. Were the American people vote for?
As a whole population, not like a senator or congressman or what have you.
So, number one, the thinking is you cannot allow a prosecutor. Or a judge. To
do such a thing. That clearly violates the intention of the framers when they
set up three branches of government. Number two. If you’re just your typical
defendant and you’re charged of a crime. You fight for your life, you fight
for your freedom. You fight for your reputation. You fight to keep your
house. You have to be focused on it 100% of the time. You’re up against the
United States government. It has endless resources, endless prosecutors. It
leaks like a sieve to the media. It’s a frightening thing. Now when you’re
president of the United States. And you’re indicted and they’re trying to do
that to you to actually put you in prison while you’re president of the
United States. You have all these responsibilities to the country. You are
the third branch of government. It’s not all the bureaucracy. You are the
third branch of government. You’re the only person elected by the body
politic as a whole. And the belief is and it’s correct. That you can’t spend
your time full time fighting for your liberty. Fighting for your innocence.
And at the same time serving as commander in chief and all the other
responsibilities presented to a president of the United States. That’s the
second reason. Now I’ll give you the third reason. Why a president has
immunity which should carry forward. To the ex-president under very specific
circumstance. If you’re president of the United States. And the Supreme Court
rules, whether in an expedited fashion or ultimately. That this immunity
thing. Goes as far as the moment there’s an inauguration of a new president.
After that, you have none. Well, this is a. A decision, if that’s the
position. That confuses two points. President Trump isn’t arguing that he has
brand new immunities as an ex-president, but he can do anything he wants as
an ex-president or any ex-president could do anything they want and therefore
can’t be indicted. Yes, they can. But if you had immunities as president. And
what the prosecutor is looking at is your your decisions, your actions. When
you were president of the United States. And the prosecutor says there’s
protections for those specific actions do not carry forward to when you are
an ex-president in the United States. That is a completely different animal.
You’re not creating a new immunity on a new matter, on a new action. That
doesn’t make Trump or any ex-president a king. What it means is. The incoming
or different administration cannot now indict the prior president, maybe from
a different party for actions that he took as president that were immune from
prosecution when he was president. Otherwise, you undermine the entire notion
of immunity. A president will be looking over his shoulder all the time. A
president won’t know what he can or cannot do. He cannot predict what a check
Smith will do when a Judge Trump can all do what a Merrick Garland can do.
You cannot know in advance. And they throw the Klansman Act. The Enron
Obstruction Acts, a federal contractor Act, and a president of the United
States, a former president of the United States. Utterly unpredictable,
utterly unprecedented. So any president. Once the next president. Would be a
sitting duck to the criminal justice system. Because that new administration
might go through all the decisions that president made, including some
controversial ones and soon and some they disagree with and argue, excuse me,
what you did in office. Was illegal. Now that you’re not president, we’re
going to indict you. Now, you can understand the disastrous impact that this
can have. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Next hour, stick with me. I’m going to demonstrate how as a result of a
decision by the circuit in Washington, DC, Joe Biden could be subjected to
hundreds, if not thousands of civil lawsuits when he leaves office. Mark What
do you mean? Stick with me, folks. This is cutting edge here. You can tell I
don’t regurgitate what others say. They regurgitate what I say. Just stick
with me. I’m going to explain how Joe Biden can be swamped, swallowed up,
devoured by civil litigation. How he could lose everything he owns. As a
result of an outrageous decision. But the circuit court in Washington, DC,
where they were trying to destroy Donald Trump’s finances. Stick with me. I’m
going to explain how Biden will be subjected to many civil suits when we
return.