Sean Hannity Show - Mark Levin - August 17th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 18, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show

36:00

Mark Levin - August 17th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	And I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
	Well we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound We'll all be expired.
	High in the jail under banging, come along.
	They keep turning up documents and witnesses showing that the president wasn't involved.
	Uh never discussed these business dealings and did nothing wrong.
	There's been zero evidence showing showing otherwise.
	I make decisions in this office based on the facts and the law.
	Um the law is completely nonpartisan.
	It's excessive, and I think it's also dangerous.
	It is sort of the Jackson Pollock School of Prosecution.
	She threw it all against the canvas.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome.
	To the revolution.
	Yeah, we're coming.
	to your city gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song Sean Hannity The new Sean Hannity Show More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show.
	Thank you for being with us, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the uh program, he is the chairman of the very powerful, very important and very productive House Oversight Accountability Committee.
	Uh James Comer is with us.
	Congressman, great to have you back.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm well.
	Thanks for having me on, Sean.
	All right.
	You have sent a letter now to the National Archives to turn over emails where Joe Biden disguised his identity and and apparently had a lot of while he was vice president, uh, email accounts under pseudonyms.
	Um is that a hundred percent confirmed?
	You you know that's from him.
	We're we're 99% sure that that's right, Sean, and uh they're not denying it, and they're not sending web ads attacking me, so I'm gonna go out on limb and say we're 99.9% sure that that's right.
	Yeah, it's very odd behavior, but nonetheless, it's not unprecedented to have uh fake names, but with with respect to what we found with this particular email, uh his son was blind copied on it.
	And that's uh that's a very serious concern because the email pertains to Barisma.
	It pertains to what we all believe is a quid pro quo with respect to Joe Biden uh holding up foreign aid in exchange for Ukraine firing the prosecutor who is investigating his son for corruption, and it shows that the White House once again lied about saying there was a wall between the president and his son and their shady business schemes.
	Well, we know all of that is true.
	I I think the most evidence is on the Ukraine case, but not uh not in a very close second would be the Chinese energy conglomerate, and I think why those two deals in particular pertinent is well there's two admissions that we now know about Hunter Biden.
	He admitted he was an addict during the time that these deals were happening, and it was in the energy sector with CEFC uh connected obviously to the Chinese Communist Party, and that's the WhatsApp message that said I'm sitting here with my father, and then to me the rest of the message was a complete shakedown.
	Have you completely confirmed and corroborated after that WhatsApp message within what about a week?
	Uh five million dollars made it into the Biden family coffers.
	Yes, something like that.
	There was a big wire uh within a week of that message.
	I think within the next day or two, there was a hundred thousand dollar wire, and then a few days after that was a several million dollar wire.
	So, yes, once the once Hunter Biden sent that WhatsApp message uh to the Chinese foreign national?
	Then the money started transferring immediately.
	So let's go back to Barisma for just a second here, because again, Hunter's admission, no experience in energy oil, gas or Ukraine.
	Um and yet, so we we have this need DC help message.
	This is correct me if I'm wrong on the date, December 4th, 2015, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	One of the things that you are looking for, it was what, five days after that, December 9th of 2015.
	Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
	Um, that Joe Biden gave a speech to the Ukrainian Parliament.
	Is that true, sir?
	That is true.
	In that speech, did Joe Biden begin the process of demonizing Victor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Barisma that was paying his son who had no experience and was an admitted addict at the time.
	Um, in that speech, did he mention Victor Shokin?
	Yes, sir.
	And what did he say about Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor in Ukraine?
	Well, he implies that he was corrupt, and that uh that was one of the reasons that the United States had concerns about assisting Ukraine and because they had a uh you know corruption, and uh he cited that prosecutor shocking as as uh that's a perfect example.
	What is the date when Joe Biden said and he was bragging about he leveraged a billion taxpayer dollars uh to fire the prosecutor and oh you only got about six hours and son of a bee, they did it.
	Uh which the net result was Ukraine got a billion dollars in loan guarantees, but uh in terms of his own personal family, that that paved the way for Hunter with no experience to continue to be paid massive amounts of money from Barisma, of which he still continued to stand on that board.
	Is that correct, sir?
	That is correct.
	And remember how long ago, how long after that speech did that firing take place?
	It was days after that speech.
	I mean, it wasn't wasn't long at all.
	I don't have the exact date, but it wasn't long at all.
	I mean so let me go through that.
	So on the f on the fourth of December 2015, uh his son Hunter is in Dubai.
	He's with Barisma executives, correct?
	Yes.
	They called Joe Biden on the phone uh while they're in Dubai, correct?
	Correct.
	We know that Barisma executives had sent multiple messages basically the same message, need DC help.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	Five days after the phone call that Joe got on with Barisma execs and Hunter, he gives a speech where he begins publicly now trashing the the prosecutor investigating Barisma.
	Is that correct, sir?
	That is that is correct.
	And then at and shortly thereafter is when he leveraged the billion dollars uh to fire the prosecutor, son of a bee, they fired him, and and Hunter continued to get paid for some time thereafter.
	As a matter of fact, two years, if I'm not mistaken.
	That is correct.
	Wow.
	And and remember, Sean, there's also that form, that FBI form that Senator Grassley and I released.
	The 1023 form.
	The 1023 form that alleges that uh the owner of Barisma paid Hunter Biden and Joe Biden five million dollars each, and with Joe Biden, he did it in a way that we that investigators would take ten years finding the money, they went through so many different banks.
	That is a pattern.
	Everything we're seeing.
	Let me go through this because I want to be very clear.
	In that 1023 form, you have a credible FBI source.
	How do we know they're credible?
	Isn't it true the FBI had paid this source in the past hundreds of thousands of dollars?
	Yes.
	The FBI told me this was one of their most credible, respected sources, and they had paid him over two hundred thousand dollars throughout the time they had had a relationship with him.
	And they had used his testimony in cases that they had in one with.
	And in this in this 1023 form, he he he outlines a conversation that he had with the CEO of Barisma, who said that he thought Hunter was stupid and his dog was smarter, And that he didn't want to pay the Bidens, but he paid them five million dollars each, one five million for one Biden, five million for another Biden.
	And didn't he also say there that and and it would take ten years for anybody to figure out how I paid them the money?
	Yes, which is you know what we're seeing every day with all these different shell companies and bank accounts and bank violations.
	I mean, it's the walls are k are closing in here.
	Now um now one other point on these pseudonyms, because you're asking the National Archives to hand over these emails and you Robin Ware and J.R.B. Ware or some of the the pseudonyms and accounts, uh Robert L. Peters uh is one other address, uh and you know, he was uh Obama's second in command and that his aide, uh John Flynn.
	Now what weren't some of these emails uh under pseudonyms copies of his speech that he was going to give to the Ukrainian Parliament sent for I guess for approval to his son Hunter?
	That's what it appears to be, Sean.
	And it's all in this same time period.
	It's all in the same time period.
	I mean, you've got the evidence.
	We know he fired the prosecutor because Joe Biden did an interview and bragged on it.
	Well, you said son of a bee, they they fired him, you know.
	That he said that.
	That's Joe Biden's own words.
	We have testimony from Devin Archer, who was also on the barisma board with Hunter Biden that said he saw the owners of Barisma squeeze Hunter Biden and say he needed to call Washington to get help from this prosecutor who was giving them all sorts of trouble investigating them for fraud.
	Someone on the Barisma board testified that, Devin Archer in our transcribed interview.
	So now we find that there were emails to fake names pertaining to what he was going to do when he went to Ukraine, and they were blind copying Hunter Biden on there.
	Why would they do that?
	They've always used the excuse from day one.
	Well, Hunter Biden's not in the government.
	Hunter Biden doesn't have anything to do with the government.
	He was just a drug addict.
	Well, what what's he doing being included in all this?
	But he didn't know that his son was in business with Barismo, or I never once spoke to my son Hunter, my brother or anybody for that matter.
	He said it numerous times as candidate and as president.
	Let me move on to the issue of this plea deal, the sweetheart plea deal.
	Now it's true that Mr. Weiss's office, uh then the uh the the investigator into this, but not special counsel at that point.
	Um didn't his office recommend felony charges in terms of IRS violations?
	Is that true?
	That's what the IRS whistleblowers said, yes.
	And didn't the IRS whistleblowers also said that pressure from above prevented them from doing their job?
	Yes.
	They testified that and said that they felt like their investigation of Hunter Biden was going to lead directly to Joe Biden, and that's when they were told to stand down.
	And didn't your committee discover that the FBI tipped off the Biden family about uh a surprise interview that they were gonna have with Hunter?
	Yes, they tipped off both uh Hunter Biden, they tipped off Joe Biden, and they tipped off the transition team.
	Why the transition team would have anything to do with this, but this was at the time when Joe Biden was uh you know in the transition period between winning the election and and taking office.
	Didn't those IRS whistleblowers uh say that Mr. Weiss was now since been uh appointed special counsel in this case, had told them with certainty uh that he did not have the authority to pursue uh investigations in other states, other jurisdictions like DC and California, and that they took contemporaneous notes as he was saying it.
	Yes, they did, and he said that uh he had requested special counsel status and was denied, and that he wanted to prosecute in other states, but wasn't allowed because it wasn't in his jurisdiction, only Delaware was in his jurisdiction.
	And doesn't that contradict the testimony of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland?
	Absolutely.
	One of those two individuals is lying, and I think I know which one, but yes.
	Was that testimony given under under oath?
	Yes.
	He it r it regardless, whether it was under oath or not, If you lie to Congress, it's a felony.
	And but yes, Merrick Garland.
	Did Mr. Weiss ever say the same thing to Congress that he that he had the authority?
	We haven't had Weiss in front of Congress yet.
	And that's why I think one of the reasons they appointed the special counsel, Jordan and I had already announced we were going to try to bring him in and question him, and then that's when they...
	And they signed off on it for September, didn't they?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And then now he's a special counsel, so if you do bring him in, why do I guess every answer is going to be uh, as you know, Congressman, uh, this is uh an issue under uh investigation, and I'm not allowed to comment on an ongoing investigation.
	Isn't that gonna be the likely answer?
	Uh it's uh I would bet a lot of money on the uh dice table that that's would be his answer.
	Yes.
	And that that would probably be Merrick Garland's answer too.
	Yeah, yeah, I doubt we see Merrick Garland again, but yes.
	You doubt you ever see him again.
	Uh well, I would think that the oversight committee there ought to be cooperation from the, you know, uh we you should have gotten sp suspicious activity reports, you should have gotten the 1023 form, we shouldn't have had to fight for all this, and I assume now you'll be in a fight with the National Archives and you might get something after you threaten them with contempt of Congress charges.
	So we now have a situation where where Merrick Garland to protect what he said has now given the authority, but isn't this guy, Mr. Weiss, the same guy that offered the sweetheart deal and buried within the gun provision diversion program uh with the two misdemeanor tax charges?
	Isn't this the same Weiss that let the statute of limitations run on on tax uh issues that Hunter had not paid tax on for certain years?
	And isn't it the the same guy that offered the sweetheart deal slap on a wrist with buried deep within the gun provision diversion aspect of it that said he would have full immunity from any other prosecution?
	Isn't that the same guy?
	Same guy.
	He let the statute of limitations run out on a bunch of tax uh evasion uh crimes, as well as he had hidden in the plea deal blanket immunity, which means if you I mean he could commit a crime tomorrow and probably couldn't be prosecuted, much less all the crimes he committed in the past.
	Two weeks after that, he gets appointed special counsel after he gets rejected and called out by a judge for offering an unprecedented sweetheart plea deal with blanket immunity.
	Now he's supposed to be the special counsel in charge of the investigation.
	Is America now currently looking at the real possibility that the president of the United States is compromised in terms of his activities, knowledge, actions that he compromised in terms of uh having his actions enrich his own private family from foreign entities, including hostile regimes, geopolitical foes of the United States of America.
	Is that what we're what we're looking at as a country?
	I fear that.
	That's why I wanted to lead this investigation, and I believe the evidence every day points to that concern that this president's compromised.
	They cannot explain what their family did.
	No, received the twenty-one million dollars that we've we've identified thus far.
	And we really haven't gone in depth yet on China, and that's something we hope to do in September.
	You've identified eight and a half million dollars, though, from China in terms of payments.
	Now, what do you have any reaction to Ian Sam's in the White House counsel's office that has been very mean to you in his comments?
	Sean, Ian Sam's, you know, he he's a guy that looks to me like he spent his whole high school career stuffed in the locker because he was a smart elect.
	And uh, you know, now he's out and got a little power, and he just always, you know, just picking on me and tweeting against me and everything, and he's getting paid by the taxpayers to do it.
	Look, I I don't pay any attention to him.
	I think it says a lot about Joe Biden that he has little guy like Ian Sam's come out and and just lie from the podium.
	Everything that we've proven is backed up.
	Everything that I have talked about has been backed up by the case.
	Oh, I think they're responding because I think you hit a lot of nerves here, and the walls are closing in.
	Uh James Comer, uh Chairman, House Government uh Oversight Committee, sir.
	Thank you for your time.
	Um we're gonna update all this tonight with you on Hannity.
	Thank you for your time.
	We appreciate it.
	Look forward to it, Sean.
	Thanks.
	800 nine four one Sean as we continue.
	When we come back, the great one, Mark Levin, straight ahead.
	Hey there.
	I'm Mary Catherine How And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling.
	And with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional SAS.
	You're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
	On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional SAS.
	You're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	You can't always believe what the other side claims.
	That's why there's the Shaw and Hannity Show.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	Thank you for being with us.
	I want to remind you about our friends at Lone Star Transfer.
	If you have a timeshare.
	Well, you know what's happened in recent years.
	It's almost impossible now to book your own timeshare.
	And most owners, they're shocked to learn that their timeshare is now available to the public.
	That limits their availability and booking options.
	Also, many owners reaching out, upset.
	Their yearly dues have nearly doubled yet again during this maintenance fee season.
	Uh I got a family-owned business.
	Wonderful, wonderful people.
	For over a decade, they have been helping tens of thousands of people legally and permanently get out of the never ending timeshare fees.
	They have an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau.
	Hundreds and hundreds of five-star testimonials.
	Their clients do know Lone StarTransfer.com is the only company they can trust, the only one I trust.
	Wonderful people.
	Lone Star Transfer will guarantee the release of all liability to your timeshare in writing and in a specific time frame.
	How do you like that?
	They'll give you a free, no obligation consultation.
	They'll take your call now, 833-594-0075-833-594075.
	Check them out online at LoneStarTransfer.com.
	I call them the great one.
	Thank me.
	God bless us.
	Um Mark Levin for a reason.
	You know, I'm part of I before the show, I usually go out and say hi to people, and you know, I do my imitations of of Clinton.
	Um I do a uh it's just the the number of people that I do.
	Marlon Brando, um, talk about how much we miss Rush.
	Sean the Hannity and Mark Levin, and and you know what?
	And you know, it's amazing the impact he's had on all of us.
	And then I do Mark Levin.
	And uh first question I always ask any Mark Levin fans here.
	The crowd goes wild.
	Absolutely wild.
	And I said the great things, if you're friends with Mark Levin, you get two things uh that you never would expect if you're one of his best friends, which I am, and one is his mind is encyclopedic.
	He's like chat GPT when it comes to all issues involving our constitution.
	Hey Mark, tell me uh give me a little more detail on the speech and debate clause in the Constitution.
	And I already told you that.
	Um, you know, and then he'll give it to me.
	Just spit it out in seconds.
	I'm like, all right, thank you.
	I forgot.
	Um, and also, you know, he he's like a wake-up call.
	Calls me in the morning.
	Did you read this Adam Schiff?
	And you know, when I do it, people seem to laugh.
	Um, he's got, and I have now my own copy of this, a book that everybody in this country is gonna need to read.
	And it's coming out very soon.
	If you want a first print edition, I strongly suggest you go to Amazon.com, order it right now.
	Um, I have my first print edition.
	And uh, or Hannity.com.
	It'll be I'll tell you when it's in bookstores.
	It's gonna be soon.
	And it's called The Democratic Party Hates America.
	Now the reason I wanted to have Mark on today was kind of to preview that, but more importantly, he put on Twitter, I guess formerly known as Twitter, now X, that he believes as a constitutional attorney that in fact President Trump could pardon himself from the Georgia charges if he's elected president.
	Uh but I call him a the great one for the re for a reason.
	Um how am I?
	Thank us.
	Thank thank me.
	Glad you're here, my friend.
	What's going on?
	You're great.
	Thanks.
	I want to walk through this very quickly.
	By the way, do you have no response at all to the fact that you get like the loudest response when I when I kind of try to do you a little bit?
	You don't respond to that at all.
	Well, what do you want me to say?
	Say thank me.
	I am blessed.
	You're blessed.
	No, but I do it in a very affectionate way.
	You know that.
	Yeah.
	Well, you're the Don Rickles of our time.
	May I say that?
	No, not exactly.
	That's uh now we're really dating ourselves.
	Anyway, I found this well, first of all, we'll get to the book in a minute.
	I found this theory phenomenal, and you give great explanations why.
	All right, let me walk through this.
	Our friend Jonathan Curley and others going on TV, and of course, all the Democrats and Liberals on the other channel say president cannot pardon himself on a state charge, and they have it completely wrong in my view, and I say that respectfully.
	Number one, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about indicting a sitting president or whether a president can pardon himself.
	So where do we look?
	We look at what is the position of the Department of Justice over the last half century.
	So in 1973, the Nixon Department of Justice said you cannot invite a sitting president because you will decapitate one third of the government, the executive brand, because the president will have to fight full time to defend his liberty, which is not an easy thing to do no matter who you are, while at the same time protecting us from foreign enemies and all these decisions that have to be made as one third of the government.
	So they said there's no way the framers of the Constitution would have even contemplated this or supported this.
	So remember, this is before there was a Department of Justice and U.S. attorneys and all the rest.
	And I agree with that.
	In 2000, the excuse me, in uh, yeah, 2000, uh the Clinton Justice Department went through the analysis of the Nixon Justice Department and came to exactly the same conclusion.
	And moreover, let's say a president is indicted and convicted.
	What's he supposed to do?
	Run the presidency out of the uh jail.
	So if you want to remove a president, the only way is impeachment.
	So I keep hearing these people say, okay, if Trump is indicted and he's elected president, well, he's been indicted, so let's say he's elected president or he's convicted of something and he's elected president, he can only pardon himself on the federal charges, not the state charges.
	And I said, Where'd that come from?
	It's certainly not in the Constitution.
	So they argue federalism.
	You know, the states have the right to do wait a minute.
	This has nothing to do with federalism.
	You've got thousands and thousands of local and state prosecutors, thousands of them.
	They don't have the power to decapitate the federal executive branch either.
	So if uh if if uh Willis and her fanny there in Atlanta indicts President of the United States, uh, and he becomes president.
	Forget about conviction right now.
	I said, of course he can pardon himself for exactly the same reasons the Department of Justice said in 1973 in 2000, as applies to a federal charge.
	It has nothing to do with federalism.
	In fact, it's reverse federalism.
	You cannot have a county prosecutor.
	That's what Willis is.
	She's a Fulton County prosecutor.
	You can't have a county prosecutor, of which there are so many.
	And by the way, so many of them are politically corrupt.
	Take out a president by indicing him.
	And so the argument that Jonathan And others have made is I'm not exactly clear, but they say it's clear that a president can pardon himself if he's cited at the federal level, that you cannot in fact indict him at the federal level.
	But the state gets another story.
	And I'm saying, no, it's not.
	It's exactly the same story.
	It's exactly the same explanation the Department of Justice gave before.
	Prosecutors, grand juries, judges, are not free to decapitate one third of the government.
	Furthermore, both memos say the American people voted for this person to be president.
	So if the representatives decide he should be impeached, and their senators decide he should be removed, that's what the Constitution provides for.
	But an unelected grand jury and an unelected jury, an unelected judge, and in many cases an unelected prosecutor or a Democrat prosecutor.
	They do not have the power to reach into the federal government to reach into the Constitution and decapitate and cripple the executive branch.
	So I don't know why these people think it's necessary to keep making the same foolish argument that a state or local or county prosecutor could do what a federal prosecutor cannot.
	So remember, this isn't a constitutional issue per se.
	It is a rational, practical answer.
	But it becomes a constitutional issue if a local prosecutor can decapitate the federal executive branch.
	I hope I'm being as clear as I can.
	I'm using as much plain English as I can as I can figure out.
	Does that make sense to you?
	It makes complete sense, and I think you explained it perfectly.
	Quick break, we'll come back more with the great one.
	Mark Levin, 800-941 Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Don't forget his new book, The Democratic Party Hates America, uh coming out soon.
	Uh if you want a first print edition, Amazon.com, Hannity.com, uh, as we continue with Mark Levin.
	Very important, I think people also hear the other part of what you're saying.
	A sitting president cannot be indicted, and and that is critical.
	Okay.
	So uh my next question is you know, we've never had a former president indicted never mind four times, Mark.
	It's never happened in history.
	Um we've never had the chief rival of a current president heading into a presidential election year, facing four trials in the middle of primaries and that election.
	It's never happened before.
	President Trump's argument is that in and of itself is election interference.
	How do you react to that?
	Well, they're making this argument because I've made it on your show, my show, and on radio, which is this.
	Take the rationality or the rationale that's being used with respect to what I just said.
	You're indicting a candidate who's running for president of the United States.
	You're trying to take him out.
	This is why every one of them say we need to have a trial quickly.
	They start with December, one wants it in in January, another one February, uh, and another one March.
	Because their hope is they can evict him of at least one charge.
	And then what happens, America?
	Ready to get even deeper into the weeds, Mr. Mr. Hannity.
	I can tell you where you're going, and that is when the president would want to appeal this, and I would believe that uh I don't think any one of these jurisdictions are good for the president.
	New York City, do I think Donald Trump can get a fair trial?
	I do not.
	DC, same thing.
	Fulton County, Georgia.
	I'm not confident there either, Mark.
	And however, on appeal, I believe the president will be successful.
	However, the appeal will likely come after the election, won't it?
	Yes.
	So that's that.
	But let me tell you how evil and diabolical these people are.
	Here's what they really want to do.
	They've already been talking about it, it's already static, it's already floating around, as absurd as it is.
	Under section three of the fourteenth Amendment, remember the 14th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War.
	There's an insurrection second section and a rebellion section.
	So if you participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the country, you're not qualified to serve in any public office, local, state, or federal, certainly president of the United States.
	So what they want to say is on the on the Georgia case, and on the January 6th so-called case in Washington, DC, that he was convicted of one charge, just one.
	And therefore he participated in an insurrection.
	Even though they're not charging with an insurrection, you will notice.
	You will notice what uh Jack Smith said when he gave his little statement.
	He explained basically that Trump was involved in an insurrection without charging with an insurrection.
	All they need to do is convict him, maybe under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the Enron Acts that they're using, the Financial Obstruction Act that they're talking about, because these are actually very simple laws to convict people on, even though they have almost no application of what happened on January 6th.
	He will say that these are January 6th invictions.
	All they have to do is persuade Democrats, Secretaries of State not to put Trump on the ballot, or if he's elected president to rule on behalf of the state that the electors cannot possibly go to this man because he was involved in an insurrection and a rebelling against the country.
	Now listen to me.
	These are arcane rules, arcane parts of the Constitution.
	This has never been used against a president before.
	This is where they're going.
	As Alan Derschwitz wrote in the The Daily Mail, they've taken every aspect of a typical challenge to an election during a presidential election.
	It wasn't over.
	The elections never over until Congress counts the electoral votes.
	That's when it's over.
	So you can't steal an election when you're asking for dual uh uh electors, when you're asking officials maybe to uh change the law, when you're asking Republican counties that aren't fish counting, finish counting, if they're under counting to go see if you can find some more votes.
	This is all perfectly legal.
	When lawyers are writing memos on how to take on um the the Bush, excuse me, the Biden and the Democrat Party in Georgia.
	There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional.
	Everything I just told you, everybody's been indicted for this.
	And then to make things worse, she throws them all together, claims it's a mob operation, basically under RICO, that it's a racketeering operation, and I'm gonna have all 19 in front of the court, which she won't, but she wants to, and they'll all sort it out, so somebody will be convicted of something, and then we have our insurrection.
	Uh I've I've felt the same way, I've expressed the same sentiment, not as articulate as you.
	Really well done.
	And if you look at the case in Georgia in particular, almost every single charge, uh the the bar is they have to show criminal intent that uh Donald Trump and all these other uh defendants intended and knew and understood that what they were doing was criminal.
	Uh a very high bar, except if you have a jury pool that is uh not favorable to a particular political party.
	I don't think a motion to uh change venue will be successful, unfortunately, but I I think you're right in terms of bringing all of this to a federal court and hopefully getting it before the Supreme Court.
	You know, we had Bob McDonald on yesterday.
	You know, he got convicted of eleven charges, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimous decision, uh they they looked at the actual weakness in the statute and immediately overturned that conviction and vacated it.
	Uh anyway, the great one, Mark Levin, uh his book, The Democratic Party Hates America coming out soon.
	If you want a first print edition, Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores everywhere.
	By the way, Mark is the only guest in the history of cable news that will tell the host, that's it.
	I'm done.
	I give you a lot of credit for that.
	You're you're not laughing at my jokes today.
	I'm I'm really falling flat with you.
	What's going on?
	I gotta get I gotta get you in the happy place.
	Uh you know what?
	I haven't been in a happy place.
	Ask my wife.
	This stuff's swirling around the country.
	That's terrible.
	No, I know it's it's it's we've never lived through this, Mark, and it's scary.
	Uh Mark Levin, great one.
	Thank you, sir.
	I love you, buddy.
	The best.
	Same to you.
	800-94-1 Sean.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	Now I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally, it's about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get in your podcast.

▲