During the Sunday broadcast of “Life, Liberty & Levin,” host Mark Levin argued against the Justice Department’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
According to Levin, President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland had to authorize the investigation.
Transcript as follows:
LEVIN: First, I want to tell you a little bit about this prosecutor, Jack Smith, who I call Jack the Ripper Smith. He is a very bad guy in my opinion.
I want to tell you quickly, as I’ve told you in the distant past. He has had two major defeats when it came to public corruption cases when he headed the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division over at the Department of Justice. He was the big mahoff, and he blew these cases.
Supreme Court overturns Bob McDonnell’s corruption convictions. This is Politico from 2016: A unanimous Supreme Court (it was eight to zero, one justice recused) has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a boundless definition of the kinds of acts that could lead politicians to face criminal charges.
So it takes a bribery statute and expands it so preposterously that even the Supreme Court says you can’t do this: The justices set for a straightforward rule. Setting up a meeting, calling another public official or hosting an event that does not standing alone qualify as an official act — an official act in return for a favor, like a trip or something like that.
So they destroyed Bob McDonnell’s career — destroyed it. Bankrupted virtually the man, ruined his marriage, and then oops, eight to zero, the Supreme Court says, this is outrageous. Who was behind it? Jack the Ripper Smith.
Here’s another one.
This is from ABC News. 2012: John Edwards jurors say evidence wasn’t there to convict. We’re talking about a case in which John Edwards, or his people, asked donors to contribute money to put up his pregnant girlfriend at an apartment to try and cover it up during the course of his election. And what did Jack the Ripper Smith conclude? That’s a crime under the federal election code. How?
Well it contributed positively to his campaign — it is sort of the Alvin Bragg argument. So what did the jury say? There were six counts brought against Edwards: “There wasn’t enough evidence there, one of the jurors said, adding that she did not believe the case should ever have come to a courtroom in Greensboro, North Carolina. The jurors with whom ABC News spoke believe the prosecution had not made its case, but said there was a small group of holdouts convinced of Edwards’ guilt. I felt like the evidence just wasn’t there, the juror Teresa Fuller, had mentioned it could have been more, it could have been a lot more than what it was.”
So, he brings a frivolous case on six charges, again, takes a statute dealing with elections and pulls it out of existence. He is rewriting these statutes, not because he wants to do justice, because he wants to do injustice.
He has the wrong mindset, this man. He targets people, he hunts them, and then he destroys them.
Now, they shipped him off to The Hague where he could chase down genocidal maniacs, but before they did this, he was the acting US attorney in the Middle District of Tennessee. Where is that? Nashville.
The acting U.S. attorney, he assumed he would become the U.S. attorney, but then who became president of the United States in 2016? Actually, 2017 he was sworn in, it was Donald Trump.
Donald Trump did not appoint him as the U.S. attorney, Jack the Ripper Smith. He appointed somebody else. So Smith resigned, he wasn’t happy.
So you can see, and this is the first you probably heard, unless you listen to my radio show, the man has a chip on his shoulder.
The Espionage Act from 1917 to last week was never ever used against a former president or a former vice president or even a former Cabinet secretary. That was never the intention. The law is 106 years old. It was not intended to be used this way to criminalize document cases whether the documents are classified or not. It doesn’t matter who created them. They’re in the possession of the White House, the president, his staff or whomever.
The Presidential Records Act, which was passed in 1978 and instituted effectively in 1981 has no criminal penalty. So, you can’t start with the Presidential Records Act and all of a sudden say, okay, let’s move to the Espionage Act even before there was a Presidential Records Act.
Even before there was a Presidential Records Act, the Espionage Act was never used against Lyndon Johnson who directed his staff to remove top secret information involving the Vietnam War in his illegal taps on Nixon’s phones. The war was still going on. That information was taken by a staffer to Director LBJ, was eventually turned over to his library where they sat on it for decades. Nobody even thought about charging anybody with the Espionage Act.
And there are other cases, too. I mean, you’re talking about Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Clinton case is so obvious. She wasn’t even a president or a vice president. The Presidential Records Act doesn’t even apply to her.
If you’re going to apply anything, it’s the Espionage Act, and even that doesn’t apply in my humble opinion, but okay, fine.
They’ve even investigated for obstruction even though she destroyed tens of thousands of emails, permanently, even though they destroyed her past cell phones with hammers, you ever try that? I’m sure that’s not easy.
So they never investigated her for obstruction, never investigated her for perjury, even though there were existing subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee under Chairman Jason Chaffetz and he’s talked about this. So she gets away scot-free, no federal grand jury. No warrant. No SWAT team. Why?
Bill Clinton and the socks case. For years, he is recording any top secret information. He wants to keep it for a book he’s going to write and posterity, his legacy and all the rest of it, keeps it in the sock drawer, leaves the presidency, takes it all with him. He takes it all with him. Nobody charged him with violating the Espionage Act. Nobody even thought about it.
So what happened? So Judicial Watch walks in and says under the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, National Archives, you go get those tapes, we want to look at what we can look at. Goes in front of a federal judge in 2012, eleven years ago, in Washington, D.C. She is appointed by Obama. She’s a leftist.
She went after Manafort, she went after Stone. And what does she rule? She rules, I can’t do anything. My hands are tied, even with judicial review, I can’t order anything, the Presidential Records Act says that these documents belong to the president, the ex-president and he has very broad authority in that respect, so I can’t order the National Archives. He has the right to segregate what he believes is private and what’s not and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Wow. The government’s position, the Department of Justice, the prosecutor’s position was that that was the correct decision, because they fought Judicial Watch when it came to the acquisition of this information. So there never should have been a grand jury on the documents case ever.
There should never have been a violation of attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception. It should never had occurred. There should never have been a search warrant. There should never have been an FBI SWAT team raid on President Trump’s house.
Obstruction — obstruction, illegal criminalization of a document case here.
If the government really felt it had had to do something about all this, they follow the civil track. They go to a judge, they get an order, a civil order where if they can convince the judge, he orders President Trump and his people to turn over all the documents. So that judge would have to ignore the Presidential Records Act, but let’s play along.
Let’s say the lawyers say no, we’re not going to do that. You don’t start a criminal investigation as Bill Barr suggests. We move from the Presidential Records Act to the Espionage — no you don’t.
You can go to the judge who issued an order and say, OK, we need civil contempt. You need to hold these lawyers. You need to hold them in contempt. They never did that.
They didn’t follow that route. Why? Because they want to put Donald Trump in prison, that’s why.
Hillary Clinton, the Espionage Act. She retained classified and unclassified information for a period of years. She put a private server in her basement, and that was illegal. That’s what it was. Intentionally bypassed the government’s security system. She lied about it repeatedly, destroyed thousands of emails permanently, as I said, destroyed cell phones permanently, as I said. Never criminalized under the Espionage Act.
That is, they talked about it, but they said we would never prosecute anybody under this Act, never investigated for obstruction, no warrant, no SWAT team, nothing.
Lyndon Johnson, nobody even thought of the Espionage Act. Joe Biden, as a senator, stealing information from the Senate SCIF, spreading information in four different locations, not saying a word about it for decades — for decades. No Espionage Act consideration there. If there was, he would be indicted today.
Jimmy Carter’s documents. Nope. Mike Pence’s document Nope. Bill Clinton’s tapes. Nope. Former presidents and vice presidents, former secretary of State — nothing.
And I have a question for former attorneys general, Bill Barr, others. Did you ever read classified information in your vehicle when your driver was taking you from home to work at the Justice Department and back? Because if he did you violated the Espionage Act.
There was a piece in The New York Times from six months ago, January: The National Archives and Records Administration delivered a gentle request this week to representatives of former presidents and vice presidents, could you please check again to see if you have any classified documents laying around? Asking nicely is about all they can do.
Legal experts said that officials at the Archives do not have any independent ability to enforce that request or to require that the country’s former leaders conduct searches for the materials they say they still have in their possession.
William J. Bosanko, the chief operating officer at the Archives wrote the representatives of the former presidents and vice presidents urging them to look again in light of the discoveries made by Biden, Trump, and Pence. But so far the letter does not appear to have yielded any significant new action. Wow. Send the SWAT teams in, baby. No, can’t do that. Search warrants? No, I don’t think we’ll do that. No, I don’t think we will.
Now moving on. Durham report says they treat Trump one way and Hillary Clinton another.
The Levin report tonight says they treat Trump one way and Biden another. Here we have The Daily Mail. Exhibit 1 against the Bidens. Exclusive: Joe’s missing millions. Financial records reveal Biden had $5.2 million in unexplained income. As e-mails show, he paid Hunter’s legal bills for one megabucks Chinese deal that was tapped as Big Guy to get a 10 percent cut in another. E-mails from Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed Joe Biden agreed to pay his son’s legal fees. Joe was able to pay the bills after earning millions of dollars through his and his wife’s companies after he left office. (They set up these S-corporations.)
But an analysis by TheDailyMail.com where the president’s financial record show $5.2 million is unexplained. The missing millions in e-mails in Hunter’s abandoned laptops suggest Joe would have a 10 percent share in Hunter Biden’s blockbuster deal with a Chinese. Exhibit 1.
How about Exhibit 2, The New York Post: Hunter Biden and other family members received millions through tangled web of middlemen and shell companies House investigators disclosed. The bank records show the Biden family, their associates, their companies received over $10 million from foreign nationals in their companies said Mr. Comer. The Committee received thousands of bank records of individuals and companies as a result of four subpoenas sent to financial institutions over the course of the investigation. Exhibit 2.
How about Exhibit 3: Senator Grassley, FBI redacted references to recordings in Biden allegations shared with Congress. He says that form 1023 involves an alleged bribery scheme between the Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden and a foreign national, and on the same day the FBI provided a redacted version of the 1023 to the House Oversight Committee, the Justice Department announced that former President Trump had been indicted and charged with 37 crimes.
Wow. What a coincidence.
The 1023 produced to the House, redacted, referenced that the foreign national allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden has audio recordings of his conversations with him, 17 total recordings. The bribe turns out to be closer to $10 million, and the FBI hid the recordings. Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4: Exclusive: Chinese donors to university housing Biden think tank have ties to Hunter’s business deals. Tens of millions of dollars poured into the University of Pennsylvania in this so-called think tank that pay Joe Biden a million bucks a year.
Exhibit 4: Chinese elite have paid some $31 million to Hunter and the Bidens. This is from Peter Schweizer a year ago. The Bohai Harvest $20 million payout and there’s more as I pate through this.
Deal 2: Burnham Asset Management payout: $5 million.
And there is more, Deal 3: Hunter teams up with China’s dragon head payout, $188,000.00-plus.
Deal 4: CEFC, a China front energy company. Payout: $6 million.
Deal 5: CEFC’s Patrick Ho. Payout: Another $1 million.
Exhibit 6: Biden reportedly bragged about the firing of a prosecutor who was investigating his son’s firm. You remember that? It’s on video for everyone to see.
So a prosecutor in Ukraine is investigating Burisma, and of course, this company is critical to the Bidens because it employs Hunter and pays him $83,000.00 a month. Now, there is some suggestion that Joe Biden got him the job. Oh, but the prosecutor was corrupt and we have to get rid of the prosecutor. Oh, really?
And yet Donald Trump is investigated criminally and the attorney general, Merrick Garland won’t even appoint a special counsel despite all of those predicates that are pouring out of every orifice of the Department of Justice.
What do we know?
President Biden had his White House Deputy counsel, as Mike Davis points up, Jonathan Su, waive President Trump’s claim of executive privilege, leading to the unprecedented raid in August and resolving indictment now. So Biden was behind it.
Number two: Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland personally approved the Trump indictment the other week.
Merrick Garland is involved in all of it, the White House through White House counsel and Biden, they’re involved in all of it. The Archives doesn’t have the power to turn an investigation or a request into a criminal investigation. This is what is going on. It is sickening.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor