Levin: ‘In Many Ways, We Live in a Post-Constitutional America’ — Says 1/6 Committee ‘Major Participant’ in Demise

Sunday, conservative talker Mark Levin blamed the January 6 House Select Committee for what he declared to be the “demise” of the country, which he said was an effort to get an indictment against former President Donald Trump.

Levin deemed the effort evidence of a post-constitutional America.

Transcript as follows:

LEVIN: this is a pocket copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It all comes down to this, doesn’t it?

I’ve spent 40 years — 40 years of my life studying this, really longer if you think about it. And why is that? Because this is supposed to be the overall law of the land that protects our individuality, our freedom, and the civil society.

And in many ways, we live in a post-constitutional America and those who are waving around the Constitution today on the January 6 Committee had been major participants in its demise.

Let me ask you a question: Let’s say you’re going to go to a Court of law. There is no Judge. There’s no jury. You don’t have a lawyer. You can’t call witnesses.

You can’t provide exculpatory evidence. In fact, you can’t even be heard. You just have to watch and watch.

Let’s say the jury is chosen by Nancy Pelosi. But don’t worry, it’s bipartisan. We have seven Democrats and two Republicans. And there is the media in the back, taking pictures, rolling the cameras, taking notes as scribes for the prosecution, the prosecution being the jury.

And then reporting, oh, we have new findings. New information has come out.

It is not a perfect parallel, but it’s good enough.

That’s pretty much what’s been going on with this January 6 Committee. Nancy Pelosi chose every single member, which means they had to pass her test. Her test was loyalty to her.

Nancy Pelosi hasn’t been questioned once about her role in January 6, or her failure to defend that building, the Capitol Building. She was in charge. Isn’t that bizarre?

Her text messages, her e-mails, her documents, her staff, her family members, her friends, none of them have been called, none of them have been questioned.

Nancy Pelosi chose these nine Committee members in part to cover up for herself, so she wouldn’t be held to account. Nancy Pelosi is the most destructive Speaker of the House we’ve had in American history.

They say they’re very concerned and upset about what took place in the Capitol, it was very violent. I understand that.

Nancy Pelosi, as I speak, hasn’t said a word about the assassination threat against a Supreme Court Justice. She’s been given many opportunities. When the press asks her, she gets irritated.

She keeps urging on the mob, which will be in full throat, full force soon enough when Roe v. Wade is overturned, likely. She doesn’t seem to be concerned about any of that, and neither does Schumer and Biden, the President of the United States hasn’t issued a statement.

The Attorney General of the United States, a former Judge himself was very slow to provide protection for the Justices.

We have the governor of Virginia, Youngkin who is trying to pass in addition to the Budget Act now in Virginia, which would make it a crime to protest in front of or otherwise threaten Supreme Court Justices. So apparently three of them are so live in the State of Virginia.

That’s where we are right now. I watched this hearing, the third hearing for about 40 minutes and I thought to myself, “I’ve never seen anything like this before my life.” It’s totally choreographed. Members are reading off of teleprompters.

One member is given the responsibility for leading the hearing. He knows exactly when to stop, so video is played, cherry picked deposition video. Then they have their cherry picked witnesses, asking them questions.

This is a hybrid between a political prosecution and a criminal prosecution, which is exactly what the framers rejected. We have what’s called separation of powers. And of course, they keep talking about a coup and an insurrection — a coup and an insurrection.

Well, this was no insurrection. It doesn’t even meet the terms of insurrection, but it fits the narrative. And a coup? Well, they do know about coups — two phony impeachments and a phony criminal investigation, phony Russia collusion to try and prevent Trump from sitting in office.

But now I want to get into some other issues here related to this.

There was a piece written over a year ago by Professor Derek Muller at the University of Iowa. Now, he is not a special pleader for President Trump, and he’s not a special pleader for the Republicans, but he was a little annoyed while he was listening to and watching the Democrats some time ago, and the piece is entitled “Democrats had been shameless about your presidential vote, too.”

And in relevant part: “In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat of Florida since deceased, objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of quote ‘overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.’ Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, referred to quote ‘the millions of Americans who’ve been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.’ Representative Maxine Waters in California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as fraudulent.”

“In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.”

“Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that quote, ‘The democratic process was thwarted.’ Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was stolen. Miss Waters objected, too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ painted a dark picture of the presidency of George Bush.”

“In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited quote ‘the confirmed illegal activities engaged in by the government of Russia.’ Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral vote should be thrown up because, quote, ‘people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.’ She cited quote ‘the malfunction of 87 voting machines.'”

“Then is now each Member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection, but the objections were naive at best, shameless or worse, either way. The readiness of Members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting.”

Two of the Committee members on this January 6 Committee were involved in objections, including the Chairman, Bennie Thompson, and including the so- called constitutional expert, Jamie Raskin who is a radical leftist that is why he is on that Committee.

Well, here’s the problem. We haven’t had any witnesses, any testimony, anything in defense of the people who are being smeared and character assassinated in front of a national media every time this Committee meets. They are putting out a narrative and we’re told they are debating in order to make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

Several members have let the cat out of the bag and said their entire purpose is to indict Donald Trump. That’s their entire purpose.

So let’s get to a few of these questions quickly.

The Vice President of the United States, what is his power as President of the Senate when it comes to counting electors? We really don’t know.

If you read the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, it really doesn’t tell you very much. The 1887 law that everybody points to is convoluted and even ambiguous. This is why people are debating this issue.

But I do know this: Everybody takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States. And I do know what Article II, Section 1 Clause 2 says in the Constitution, “Each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” The legislature — rare.

The framers actually talked about which branch and state government is to be in control — the legislature. A number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress.

You know why they never talk about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Because Article II was violated, flatly, openly, in sunlight, and before our eyes when the majority Democrat elected Supreme Court of Pennsylvania changed the election laws right up to a week before the election, when the governor of Pennsylvania, and the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania changed how the election laws were instituted in violation of this article, even though the Republican legislature objected to what they were doing — objected to what they were doing.

And so lawsuits were brought. They were brought in Court. Of course, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that violated the Federal Constitution ruled on it and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take it up, even though it appeared that three Justices wanted to take it up and it takes four.

Unlike 2000, when Al Gore was trying to litigate his way into the White House, the U.S. Supreme Court under then a great Chief Justice William Rehnquist said “Enough is enough.” Because the rogue Florida Supreme Court, overwhelmingly Democrat kept changing the election laws in violation of Article II.

Now, what does this have to do with anything? Is it your duty, as the President of the Senate, overseeing this process and the Vice President, the United States, to accept the counting of electors, even if you know, the Federal Constitution has been violated? Didn’t you take an oath to this the Constitution of the United States? Doesn’t this supersede everything else?

Now, I’m not bringing this up to criticize anybody. I’m bringing it up, because this matters much more complicated than this Committee would have you believe because what they seek to do is create criminal predicates that Donald Trump knew that Vice President Pence couldn’t do what he wanted him to do, but he kept threatening to violate the Constitution and obstruct an election anyway.

So they are trying to create a criminal predicate, and he had to know this because his lawyers were telling him that Pence could not stop the vote and turn to Pennsylvania or any other state and tell them to take a look. It’s not clear at all, either way.

And so this entire thing is a scam. It’s a railroad job, which is my point, the point I want to make. And one other point while I’m at it, Mike Luttig testifies, a former Federal Judge, why did he testify? What does he have to do with anything?

And his testimony was bizarre, his mannerisms were bizarre. He testified because he is considered as icon on the conservative side with the Federalist Society, which they hate, of course. And he testified because of his connection to Vice President Pence. He was a legal adviser to Pence through this period, but he wasn’t.

A senior adviser to Vice President Pence, without solicitation from me, contacted me and told me, Michael Luttig was not a lawyer for the Vice President. Michael Luttig was not an adviser for the Vice President.

Michael Luttig sent unsolicited a memo of his views on the law to the Vice President of the United States. He never even spoke to the Vice President, according to this senior aide to Vice President Mike Pence. Wouldn’t it have been nice if he had been examined on that issue? So why was he there?

Bill Barr now is celebrated. Soon, they’ll have a ticker tape parade for him on his testimony. Why? Because they want him to be the key witness in a criminal trial, where he says that everything Trump said was BS, I know, because I, as the head of the Justice Department looked at everything. There was no systemic fraud.

And yet he is contradicted by the former US Attorney for Philadelphia, who specifically has said on Election Day and afterwards, “Our office received various allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities. As part of my responsibilities as US Attorney, I wanted to be transparent with the public and of course, investigate fully any allegations.”

“Attorney General Barr, however, instructed me not to make any public statements or put out any press releases regarding possible election irregularities. I was also given a directive to pass along serious allegations to the State Attorney General for investigation, the same State Attorney General who had already declared that you could not win. I disagreed with that decision, but those were my orders.”

Now in a normal Committee hearing, even a Committee hearing, a Subcommittee overlooking agricultural subsidies, you would have more opposition than you have in this Committee, which is none.

So you put the former US Attorney in one chair, you put the former Attorney General in the chair, you swear them under oath. They give testimony under penalty of perjury, and they look at each other and you’ll work it out right there in front of the Committee and in front of the American people.

But you get none of that, you see, because that’s not what Nancy Pelosi wants. That’s not what she wants.

The media have to stop taking the spoon-fed propaganda from this Committee. It might as well be run by the Democratic National Committee and these phony legal analysts ought to stop pretending that we’ve learned something new and compelling.

You’ve learned nothing. You’ve learned nothing.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.