Wednesday on FNC’s “Hannity,” conservative talker Mark Levin discussed the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden green-lit by the House of Representatives earlier in the day.
He also weighed in on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s expedited request to the Supreme Court regarding former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim.
Transcript as follows:
LEVIN: Well, first, Sean, the No Labels Party, do they understand that the No Labels Party is a label? And secondly, he’s going to take a two-month tour of the country. Guy’s been a governor and senator, he’s going to take a tour, what? We used to call that a junket.
And then he wants the people to rally to the No Labels Party. What do you stand for? Well, can’t we all get along? So that’s going to fail.
But anyway, let me go on. First, I want to talk about impeachment here, and I want to say to the three guests you add on three great chairmen, I think you really need to focus in, I have no opposition to focusing on the financial fraud and the selling of public office by the Biden family, but it gets very complicated. So that should be article three of the eventual list of impeachable offenses because I think this president’s impeachable. Why? Because of what should be article one.
Let me explain. Article 2 Section 3 of the United States Constitution compels a president that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Laws be faithfully executed.
The president of the United States has his own oath, and it’s not till after he takes an oath, he puts his hand on the Bible and the right hand in the air, and he takes that oath that he can become president of the United States during his inauguration. I will faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and will the best of my ability preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
So the Constitution says you may not like certain laws Joe Biden but you’re going to enforce them, otherwise you’re destroying separation of powers in the power of the legislature. You can’t just blow off the legislature with executive orders, or directives or something of that sort.
Now, why is that important? Well, because that’s exactly what he’s done. We don’t need hearings. We don’t need depositions. We don’t need testimony. We don’t need text messages. We don’t need anything.
Joe Biden has violated every single federal immigration law that’s on the books. He’s doing it every day. He’s doing it intentionally. The border is wide open.
The American people are less safe. Terrorists are trying to get in. Criminals are getting in. Toxic drugs are getting in.
People are dying. People are being raped. They’re being sold into sex slavery.
Now, why is all that important? It’s important because it’s an impeachable offense. I just read you the two sections of the Constitution where he’s required to uphold the law. He is defying and undermining the law.
Now, let’s look at impeachment. The framers of the Constitution, impeachment, what did they look at? They looked at among other things 17th and 18th century British common law.
And you look at the impeachment clause, what is a high crime? Does a high crime means a president goes out and kills a whole bunch of people? No, well, what does it mean? High in the legal common vocabulary of the 17th and 18th centuries of high crimes. This is what the framers looked at — is the activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that is not shared with ordinary persons? He has committed a high crime — multiple high crimes by refusing to enforce our immigration laws.
Now is that easier to understand? Is that more important to the average American? Can the average American get behind an impeachment that makes it clear on Article One that this man has violated at least two clauses of the Constitution?
He will not uphold the law. He will not secure the border. That is a high crime, that is an impeachable offense.
You see how simple that is? We don’t need subpoenas. We don’t need depositions. All we need is the video from the TV cameras.
The second article should be the student loans issue. Separation of powers — president doesn’t have the power to seize the power of the purse from the House of Representatives. That’s another separation of powers issue.
The Supreme Court already told him. Joe, you don’t have the power to do that with those student loans. Joe says, boop, and he tries to find a way around it, and he has spent half a trillion dollars in funds by not enforcing student loan payments, in violation of the federal constitution, separation of powers, that power the purse and violating an order of the Supreme Court. How simple is that? How many hearings do we need on that?
And then we can have your article three and the article three of the other chairman. Well, this money went here, and Ernie did this, and Frank did that. I’m not against it. A crime is a crime.
But Mr. and Mrs. America cannot follow all this. Mr. and Mrs. America can follow what I call my article one. They can follow article two. They can see how that directly affects them.
That doesn’t give a pass to what should be article three, and this resolution that they pass for an inquiry allows for them to take all these things on. So as a special pleader for the Constitution, to make this simple, to get the people around you, will the Republicans in Congress please at least rethink the order of these things?
Now number two, there’s a motion in front of the Supreme Court by the special prosecutor. There’s nothing special about this guy. He’s a disaster, he’s a hack.
Jack Smith is trying to force the judiciary to follow his lead, to have a quick rump trial in front of a Democrat jury, with the Democrat judge, with four phony charges. One, the 1871 Klan law. Two of them, the Enron obstruction law, which is being challenged separately. Third is a federal contractor law.
He’s trying to bootstrap insurrection and seditious conspiracy into these four ridiculous charges, and he tells the judge, I’m going to argue that Donald Trump actually — the violence had occurred, he let it — the attempt to overthrow — but he’s not charged with any of that. So what the prosecutor is doing is outrageous.
More importantly, the Trump lawyers smartly have said, wait a minute, you can’t charge an ex-president with acts he took whether you like them or not when he was president. Why? Because he has immunity. Well, it doesn’t follow him, Judge Chutkan says, he’s not a king.
That is nothing to do with it. If the court takes this up and rules for the prosecution, that means that lawyers can sue Joe Biden after he leaves the presidency and indict him, and any ex-president the same thing. It would be a disaster.
The court shouldn’t take it. They should let it follow the process. Then they should kill — they should kill what Jack Smith’s trying to do.
I’m done. I hear the music. I’m going on a two-month tour to find out what the people want in my No Labels Party.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.