Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:00]
Mark Levin
It's all quiet in the underground bunker, doors closed, locks bolted. But the Great One isn't just resting on his laurels, he's making sure your weekend is even better by giving you his best. This is the best of Mark Levin.
- [00:20]
What a day, right? My wife and me, we started watching the tube around 12 in the morning and here it is, 6:06pm Eastern time, watching every bit of it because it is historic in every respect and making some calls and taking some calls from fantastic people who've had various roles in this process. Let me start with Saturday night. Saturday night my wife Julie and I are having dinner with dear friends and I get a call and it's the President. And such a great honor invites me to go on Air Force One to accompany him and his cabinet and the other folks to Israel for his Knesset speech. And of course I desperately wanted to go, but I couldn't. And of course online people are making all kinds of horrendous comments about why I wouldn't or couldn't. So I feel compelled just to share with you. I couldn't because I'm not comfortable leaving the country with my brother as ill as he is. That's why I didn't. But it was a fantastic event. There's been a lot of lies reported in the media about our president, about the Prime Minister of Israel, a lot of lies. Axios is really ground zero for the lies, for the senior anonymous sources and others who keep leaking to Barak Ravid, sort of a self hating Israeli. This relentless attempt to scuttle the alliance between the United States and Israel by the radical left media, by the Hamas supporting media, by the Neanderthal isolationist Jew hater grifters who are podcasters, is really appalling. President Trump has tried to put this to rest over and over and over again. President Trump is, I'll say for the thousandth time, a historic and iconic figure. Take it all in, digest it, because there will never be another like him in your lifetime. And he approaches life and he approaches events and he approaches problems as a man who's out to solve things and he doesn't like to be told no. And so he makes progress where others could not. Now, I've heard it said that what was really pivotal, some of our friends regurgitating this in really driving this action towards peace, getting it over the finish line, was when the Israelis hit that building, that room in Qatar, trying to take out the leadership of Hamas. And that that infuriated the president. And that's when he decided to force Israel's hand pressure Israel. And when the Arabs saw that, of course they decided Trump could be trusted. That is a lie. Even Trump said he never hollered at. There's nothing, no heated discussions with Netanyahu. But it doesn't matter. People are leaking and people want to project this and regurgitate it. I see it a little differently as a matter of logic, that Qatar got the message that no matter who they hide or how they hide them, they can be reached. Like the leadership of Hezbollah, that doesn't exist anymore. Like the leadership of Iran, three quarters of which was wiped out. Like the leadership of Hamas, almost all of which was wiped out, except those who were given safe haven by Qatar and Turkey. And what we learned from the ambassador to the United States, from Israel, my show on Saturday night, Life Liberty and Levin, Ambassador Lighter. Was that in fact, because he was there, Donald Trump told Qatar and Turkey, you put pressure on Hamas to get this thing done or you remove them from your countries. They're in your country now. Get something out of them. Get it done. Something to that effect. Now, as I've been watching the. The aftermath of these fantastic events that took place, I am so proud of Donald Trump and what he's done. It's just. I mean, it's. It's just. It's hard to articulate. It really is. It's hard to articulate. I've done my best over the course of the last few weeks, months, years. It really is. But Donald Trump himself has said the pivotal moment came. The pivotal moment came. It really started when he took out Iran's nuclear sites. That's what he says. Not leakers, the media. That's what he says. Now, why is this important? Number one, it was important he did what he did. Why else is it important? There were individuals claiming to be maga, some of them in the house, some of them with podcasts, some of them with subscription platforms, some of them who are comics and on and on and on. Grifters are. Who told you that Donald Trump should not hit those Iranian nuclear sites? Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, David Smith, Joe Rogan. Who else? Many others. Friend of mine who I shall not mention right now. It's just. I don't want to. But others. And others. You were told. I was told. We were told that it would start World War Three, that China and Russia would come to the defense of Iran, that it could cause a nuclear war, that Netanyahu and Israel and the Jews and Mark Levin wanted to drag America into a war, that this was anti Maga, even though 92% of Maga supported it. And if they had prevailed, Iran would have nuclear weapons, they'd have 10,000 ballistic missiles, and our country would be in dire straits and there'd be no peace. That much I can tell you. These people will not apologize. They will not, upon circumspection, reverse course because they have no circumspection. They hope you'll forget over my dead body. Some of them are on tv, even cable tv, who spewed the same thing. This isn't America first, they kept telling us. It's not America First. It's dividing maga. It's going to bring down the Trump presidency. We heard it over and over and over again. You haven't heard this from anybody today, have you? And they were liars. They're just pushing their own ideology. They agreed with the Islamists and the Marxists who wanted Iran to stand, who wanted them to get nuclear weapons. They were wrong. You should ignore these people. You shouldn't listen to these people, because this day would never have happened but for the tenacity, the statesmanship, the wisdom, the foresight of President Trump. Who ignored them. He ignored them. He's maga, not them. He's peace. True strength, like Reagan. For me, I don't have to defend myself. I was right. Now, why was I right? Because I'm Nostradamus. No, it's called the ability to reason. To reason. Not to be driven by ideology, to be driven by reason based on sound principles. It's called prudence. That's it. That's what foreign policy, in fact, all policies should be about. Right from wrong. What works. Is there a threat? Is the threat existential? And on and on and on. The president was right. We were right, you and me. Trey Youngst had a short interview with the president after his unbelievable speech in front of the Knesset. Unbelievable. They jumped up so many times with standing ovations, I couldn't keep count. All the parties there. Cut one, Mr. Producer, and you're not hearing this anywhere. You're not hearing this anywhere, even though it was stated in front of billions of people. Cut one. Go. When did you know that Hamas was.
- [10:59]
Harry Enten
Going to release the hostages?
- [11:01]
Donald Trump
Well, I'll tell you, I think it really started when we took out the nuclear capability of Iran. When you look at what they had, you couldn't have made this deal if somebody's sitting over there with a nuclear weapon over your head. And I think when we did that, and there were other obviously very warlike things that we did over the course of four or five years if you, you know, setting the table. But when we did the, the, when we took away that destructive capability from.
- [11:26]
Mark Levin
Iran, he knew the hostages could be released. Now, the fact of the matter is it was Israel on 12 days that defeated Iran. Israel was their troops, it was their pilots, it was their intelligence agencies. It was we who took out their nuclear sites, critical to protecting our country, Israel and the entire region. With the quiet but strong support of the Arab countries. They wanted them gone, too. Taking out the nuclear sites. What do you make of that, America? What do you make of that, Mark the vin. Have you heard of Gold Belly? That's right, Gold Belly. It's this amazing site that celebrates the best of America by shipping our country's most iconic foods from. From legendary restaurants straight to your door anywhere in the usa. I've used Gold Belly a few times now. It's always a hit. Gold Belly will ship you New York's most famous cheesecake from juniors. If you're craving barbecue, they'll ship the legendary Franklin's Barbecue straight from Texas to your door. The food arrives perfectly packed, fresh, ready to enjoy. It's not just a meal, it's an experience. So if you're looking for the perfect gift or want to impress your friends and family with an epic meal, the next time you host, go to goldbelly.com get 20% off your first order with promo code LEVIN. That's goldbelly.com code LEVIN. L E V I N get that 20% off your first order. That's goldbelly.Com get 20% off your first order with promo code Levin. L E V I N.
- [13:28]
Making your weekend even better. This is the best of Mark Levin.
- [13:34]
Those of you who bought on power, and I'm not promoting anymore. I'm just saying you really, you really invested wisely. The value of this book for what you pay is second to none. And I encourage you to go to chapter four, the chapter on language, and you'll understand completely why the Democrats do what they do. And they do it all the time. Now, this is taken directly from Lenin's speech that he gave in 1902. The way you whip up mobs, the way you deceive the public, the way you seize power, the way you retain power and extend power, expand it rather. And this is what the Democrats are doing. They're trying to somehow pigeonhole this sort of Leninist propaganda operation agit prop into the American system. And it has its successes, there's no question about it. But, but it's definitely in place. The Whole purpose is to mislead. The whole purpose is to agitate for action against your opponents. I mean, physical action, to fear monger and to misinform. And in the case of a republic like ours, it is really a dagger at the heart of the civil society. I want to get into that in a little bit, but before I do, and it's important because it's happening and it's going to get worse, I'm going to read something to you from the pages, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. And I don't always agree with those editorial pages, but they often have opinion pieces as well as editorial board pieces that are superb. Again, I don't always agree, but so what? This one I think is very powerful. Very powerful. It was out the other day. The peace deal proves Netanyahu's critics were wrong. They kept insisting the prime minister was prolonging the war for political reasons. We heard this here for the the Democrats on the left. We even heard it from some Republicans. It was the kind of cynicism, writes Elliot Kaufman, that poses as sophistication. He's an editorial writer for the editorial board. The belief that Benjamin Netanyahu was continuing the Gaza war for his own political purposes, that the Israeli prime minister would never end it, that he couldn't end it. The line was promulgated first by other Israelis. For most of these Netanyahu critics and rivals, the argument didn't discredit Israel's cause, whose justice was obvious to them. They merely thought the benefits to Israel of fighting were no longer worth the cost. To foreign observers. This distinction was lost, became the conventional wisdom of the United States liberal establishment that Israelis and Palestinians were dying for no reason other than to keep Bibi in power. Netanyahu has accepted a deal to end the war and on the terms he has always said he would, the release of all hostages and the dismantling of Hamas's military and governing capabilities. The Trump deal promises this and unlike previous proposals, leaves Israeli troops in a position to enforce it should the International Stabilization Force fail to do so. And I'm going to get into that. Where the hell is it? In that case, President Trump says that Israel will have his full backing to act, and given his record, Israelis have reason to believe him. That wasn't the case with President Biden. Now, the story suggesting that Mr. Netanyahu had be strong armed into these favorite terms. Excuse me, into these favorable terms are themselves to Israel's advantage, as the prime Minister has long maintained. Any day after plan for Gaza with his name on it would face strenuous opposition throughout the Arab world. Better for Mr. Netanyahu to maintain his distance and smile on quotes like the one from think tank eminence Aaron David Miller to the New York Times, quote, the ceasefire and hostage release, if it happens, only came to fruition because of Trump's Uncle Trump's willingness to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu. So to hear Mr. Miller tell it, Netanyahu really didn't want to receive all the hostages up front while still troops in half of Gaza, while keeping troops in half of Gaza. Terms that earlier would have been dismissed as an Israeli fantasy. But Mr. Trump simply left Netanyahu no choice. What he's saying is this is what Netanyahu had always wanted. The president himself tried this one on Axios reporter and CNN analyst Barack Ravid. Quote, I said, bibi, this is your chance for victory. He was fine with it. Mr. Trump told Mr. Ravid he's got to be fine with it. He has no choice with me. You got to be fine with. Is true that Mr. Trump didn't ask, but told Israel to cease fire for the last stretch of negotiations. This was after Prime Minister Netanyahu had accepted the deal and and Hamas had given a yes but it was a yes but reply. It is also true that Mr. Ravid is an alumnus of Israel's left wing Haaretz newspaper, it's radical, self hating newspaper. In the lead up to the June strikes on Iran, Mr. Ravid's antagonism toward Netanyahu made him the White House's favorite recipient for leaks about a break between the President and the Prime Minister. And as part of the deception campaign, it worked fabulously. In other words, the guy is not only a leftist who hates Netanyahu and is a self hating Israeli, but he's a clown. He's a clown. They leaked stuff to him that worked in their favor when they were getting ready to attack Iran. Meanwhile, between those strikes on Iran, the deal, the Abraham Accords, Mr. Netanyahu has helped deliver Mr. Trump's greatest success abroad in each of his terms. Now, the Sarah Grapes argument today is that Israel could have had this deal at any time, but it isn't true. Hamas had always demanded Israeli withdraw from all of Gaza in exchange for the hostages. That way Israel would forfeit much of its leverage before any Hamas disarmament took place. None would be likely to follow and Hamas might well have secured the postwar future it desired. Intent is difficult to determine. It could be that after the failure of October 7, Netanyahu believed he needed a total Israeli victory to redeem his personal legacy for the history books, or at least for the next election. He doubtless also believed that his government's survival was in the national interest and made compromises to keep it afloat. Such intermingling of motives is normal in politics. But what if Mr. Netanyahu was just right? Given the benefit of hindsight, the given that benefit, and look at the previous junctures at which he was condemned for not bringing the war to a conclusion. In other words, if he had done what his critics had said brought this war to a premature conclusion, none of this would have been happening. Political survival had to be the explanation its critics charged. But isn't it good for Israel that the Prime Ministry didn't buckle under the pressure before Israel had taken Rafah, killed Hamas leader Sinwar there, cut off Hamas's arms smuggling route from Egypt? That he didn't settle for peace and quiet while Hezbollah's Nasrallah and missile arsenal still loomed over Israel like a sword of Damocles, while the Iranian nuclear Promare was still intact and advancing toward a bomb? He's saying none of this would have been stopped. And he typically agreed, as most prime ministers would have and as Biden was pressuring and Europe was pressuring for a premature ceasefire. By holding three quarters of Gaza and closing on Hamas's capital beginning in August, Israel pressured the terrorists into agreeing to terms they had long resisted for a partial hostage deal. But when Netanyahu then rejected that, insisting on a deal to return all the hostages at once and disarm Hamas, that was dismissed even in August as a pipe dream, including by the Israeli defense establishment. Finally, Netanyahu's critics seem to have had their proof that the prime minister was deliberately prolonging the war. And his September 9 strike on the Hamas negotiators in Qatar only confirmed it to them. But a month later, the pipe dream had been christened the Trump deal, and Hamas has agreed to it. The strike in Doha is believed to have sent the Qatari spinning after Mr. Trump's placations, they leaned on Hamas to take the deal. See his point, everybody's saying, and there was a whole leak in the New York Times, and of course they regurgitate from the left, from the anti Israel perspective, the anti Bibi perspective, they go on and on about how that really infuriated our president, and so he leaned on Israel to make a deal. And the point here is Bibi was already for these things. It was Qatar that was the problem, it was Hamas that was the problem. Disarm release all the hostages in one move, he says. You don't have to believe that Netanyahu planned it all out. I don't. And the costs of the long war were all too real. But by continuing to fight, the prime minister kept Israel's options open to achieve its war aims and smash the Iranian proxy assets and nuclear program. When the opportunities came around, ultimately, he secured better terms for the hostages release and the war's end. Mr. Kaufman is a member of the Journal's editorial board. I thought this was a brilliant editorial. I think he got it right in a big way. But now we have Hamas. So the Arabs and the Muslims are supposed to be disarming Hamas. Hamas is not disarming right now. Hamas says it will not disarm, it will not disband, it will not leave. There are mass executions going on, mass executions going on by Hamas going after these clan families and militia groups that have challenged them over time, slaughtering people who they claim were Israeli, you know, spies, in other words, just slaughtering anybody who disagrees with them, even people who are. Who are troubled by the way the feeding is taking place under Hamas's thumb. It looks like Hamas has moved into these areas that Israel has pulled back on. And so now there's a vacuum and Hamas is filling it, and it's all over the media in the Middle East. And so the question is, what happens now? Where are the. Were the Muslim countries and the Arab countries who thought this, this phase two would be great and that they would take some control over this? I mean, this can't go on for many days, because if it goes on for many days, what is it? Israel has to go back in there, lose its soldiers, fight the same fight when they had this enemy surrounded in the city of Gaza. What exactly is going to happen now? Now I'm the only one who's been asking about phase two here behind the microphone on Fox, on Blaze. You got to have the courage of your principles, the courage of your convictions to speak about these things. All I ever see around here. I'm being honest with you, Mr. Producer. Conservative talk radio was supposed to be sort of the point of the spear for principled conservatives who would think for themselves and speak out and have the courage to do so. Same with other platforms and so forth. But I'm not seeing it and I'm not hearing it. I'm not seeing it and I'm not hearing it. President was asked about this today. I thought I saw something in here that you put on the list here about Hamas. Here it is, and he was asked about it and he says, you know, I'm not going to put up with this. Cut three, go. How long will it take Hamas to disarm and can you guarantee that is going to happen?
- [26:05]
Donald Trump
Well, they're going to disarm and because they said they were going to disarm and if they don't disarm, we will disarm them.
- [26:11]
Mark Levin
How will you do that?
- [26:12]
Donald Trump
I don't have to explain that to you. But if they don't disarm, we will disarm them. They, they know I'm not playing games, okay? Now we did something monumental. We got the hostages back. That was the first thing we had to do above all else, get the hostages back. Now they misrepresented because we were told they had 26, 24 of dead hostages, if we can use those terms. And it seems as though they don't have that because we're talking about a much lesser number. But that's a very tough subject. I want them back. That's what they said. I want them back. Also they said they were going to disarm and initially speaking they needed, you know, they did take out a couple of gangs that were very bad, very, very bad gangs. And they did take them out and they killed a number of gang members and that didn't bother me much, to be honest with you. That's okay. Okay. It's a couple of very bad gangs. You know, it's no different than other countries like Venezuela sent their gangs into us and we took care of those gangs. We have. Washington D.C. is one of the safest cities in the country. It was one of the worst cities in the country. If you go back just a little while ago, right now it's safe, you can walk to work. Isn't it nice? But we have told them we want disarm and they will disarm. And if they don't disarm, we will disarm them. And it'll happen quickly and perhaps violently, but they will disarm. Do you understand me?
- [27:44]
Mark Levin
Yes.
- [27:44]
Donald Trump
You say because you always, everyone says, oh well, they won't disarm, they will disarm.
- [27:49]
Mark Levin
Mark Levin Israel is at war with Iran, a nation whose leaders have vowed to wipe Israel and even the United States off the map. In a necessary act of self defense, Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities, military targets and top leadership. Right now, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food, first aid and emergency kits, especially to Israel's most vulnerable people, the sick. The elderly, children and families in great need. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is also making sure that hospitals, emergency rooms and shelters are fully stocked with critical and life saving medical supplies. But the fellowship needs your most generous gift today to make this work possible. Now is the time, ladies and gentlemen, to stand with Israel's most vulnerable to rush your gift. Call 888-585-IFCJ and donate today. That's 888-585-IFCj or online at levin for the fellowship.org that's levin for the fellowship.org.
- [28:58]
You'Re listening to the best of Mark Levin.
- [29:02]
There's a piece in Politico which we all know has been on the government payroll under the Democrats with usaid. Usaid, literally. And it's, it's rather left wing and it has a story in there about these young Republicans over an eight to nine month period who were communicating, they thought privately with each other and they have apparently received, had leaked to them an enormous number of these texts. And these texts reveal some very hideous and horrific language and characterizations used by these young Republicans. Now, they're not all 14 years old. In fact, none of them are a young Republican, quote, unquote, is pretty much anybody from the age of 18 to 40. And certain of these individuals were office holders within the young Republican establishment. One was a state senator and things of that sort. And things they said about black people, one said, or who said, comparing them to monkeys, Jewish people and Hitler and gas chambers and all the rest, pretty loathsome stuff, pretty awful stuff, in fact, very awful stuff. And it's been made public, obviously by leaks and so forth, somebody gathering the information over a period of time. But that doesn't really change anything, you know, and there's been some controversy that there's not been enough criticism or there's been too much criticism. And, and, well, what about the guy who's running for attorney general of Virginia and in his case, he wants to be a law enforcement official and he's talking about killing a Republican former speaker of the assembly in Virginia with two bullets to the head and watching his children die in the arms of his mother. All kinds of hideous stuff. And we've seen a lot of this, folks, particularly as applies to Jews. Of course, we've seen a lot of this. We've seen it come out of the mouth of elected Democrats. We've seen it come out of the mouth of guests and hosts who are platformed by various organizations, by even media, by podcasters. We've seen it at colleges and universities this kind of language used by professors, that is faculty as well as students and student groups. We've seen student groups that have alliances and associations with Hamas, a terror organization, a horrendous terror organization. And I've also found it interesting since I've taken on the the grifters, fake maga, isolationists, Jew haters, Holocaust deniers. I've also found it quite disturbing that you have media outlets, some of which claim to be independent, and websites, but more than that, that try to draw as much, you know, activity to their websites as many eyes and clicks and so forth to their websites. That's how they make money these hits as possible through their headlines, by promoting controversy and by attacking people who are attacking these other people who are making these horrendous statements. And then they sit back and they say isn't this horrible? Isn't this horrible when they're participants in it? Politico, by the way, being one of them, Mediaite being another one, but not just them. The Drudge Report, the New York Times, the Washington Post, scores of media outlets. Look how they're promoting Marjorie Taylor Greene now. They love her. But look how they've promoted Tucker Carlson and Bennett and Owens. So here's what I posted today. I had to post it two or three times because my iPhone, as I tapped it out with my right forefinger, kept changing words. We finally got it right. Right, Mr. Producer, all antisemitic, racist and bigoted messaging and other forms of communication should be aggressively condemned. I don't care if it's young Republicans or young Democrats, members of Congress, too many to count media that platform and promote such poison, which is often organizations that invite bigots as speakers and debaters, podcasters, comedians, and on and on. I also find it disgusting. Yet some of those condemning the young Republicans in Politico who most certainly should be condemned and removed are as guilty as they are with their headlines and storylines and promotion of a long list of bigots. It's sinister. Even worse, those who routinely and publicly promote this garbage for their own ratings or clicks, etc. So called media are not even ashamed of it and seek to monetize it. Or worse. I stated and I am deeply concerned that the likes of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Steve Bannon and their ilk as well as their apologists who are not real MAGA or conservatives or Republicans, but a Kapala, grifters, psychos and exploiters are being mainstreamed and do have an impact on the minds of too many young people and too many would be one. But it's clearly more than that. Where are the top Republicans denouncing them? Where are other broadcast hosts, columnists and public officials? Those of us who speak out are few in number and often disparaged by the same media outlets that claim offense at the awful things reported in the Politico. Peace. I'm more than happy to have a bigger discussion about this, but as I observe and engage I see too few with the guts to do so, including people in the left wing media. And where are the top Democrats denouncing Mondami, Omar Talib, Sanders et al? And by the way, I don't mean a handful and a small handful not endorsing him. Where are they denouncing him? These are vile demagogues. They are routinely platformed by the corporate media. The fusion of the media with the Democrat Party makes it less possible to have a real a real and regular condemnation of these people or conversation about them. In fact, one wire service I believe it was AP recently ran a story suggesting legitimate criticism of Mandami and others is Islamophobia. Islamophobia? Well, what about CARE and scores of other like organizations with ties to Hamas spreading their hate and propaganda, especially in the media? None identifies with the gop. None of those groups do. Many work within the Democrat Party orbit or they use Hamas propaganda, that is the media from casualty figures and accusations of starvation and genocide in Gaza allegedly perpetrated by the Israelis. They spread that throughout the media, accompanied at times with phony photographs regurgitated not only by independent media grifters of the type I just spoke of, but Democrat Party officials and surrogates, which is obviously intended to promote Jew hatred. The corporate Western media, which is overwhelmingly Democrat and left wing, has played a huge role in spreading this hate. I'm not talking about criticizing Israel. I'm talking about spreading blatant lies and hate. The rot within the Democrat Party and their media, not to mention their allied academic institutions, promotes the soft if not outright embrace of terrorists and Marxist ideology. Language and Front Groups what about the language used by the Democrats on any given Sunday on one of the networker cable shows against President Trump when he enforces the immigration laws, cuts programs and spendings, gives a speech and so forth. And I could go on and on. I wrote extensively about this and unfreedom of the press. Now obviously there are times when such analogies against certain individuals or movements actually fit, but not against this president and his millions of supporters. Last time I checked, he's the best friend Israel ever had and he's the most openly and aggressive fighter against anti Semitism in this country ever. This is nothing but agit prop, as Lennon called it. And part of the problem. The corporate media, numerous media websites and desperate podcasters, among others, are a huge part of all of this. This cancer, this cancer is in fact spreading. So Politico does the story on young Republicans. It's even worse. It's far worse. And Politico is a participant. In the meantime, I look forward to reading that text. Politico will undoubtedly secure from elements within the Democrat party to prove how ubiquitous this problem is. Right, Politico? Now for the morons out there who keep yelling free speech in the First Amendment, who don't know the Constitution from toilet paper because they're ignoramuses. This isn't about free speech. I'm not talking about the First Amendment and government action. I'm talking about we the people, defending our civil society and our way of life from an evil and dark and dark evil and darkness that threatens them and those individuals and institutions that are spreading them. You see, we're allowed to use free speech too. We're allowed to use freedom of association too. Well, I had to turn people off. We're around to defund them. It's all in private, free activity. We must stop promoting these people. They're destroying our country. They're destroying our youth. They're destroying our party. They've destroyed the other party. And the left uses them. They attack them and they use them and promote them. If we had a real press in this country, a press that really cared about this country, press that really cared about American principles, this would be a different place. A different place. Mark. Folks, we're living in a time when America's most cherished values are being challenged. Values like faith, family and freedom. And that's why I support amac, the association of Mature American Citizens. AMAC is the choice for Americans who care deeply about preserving the principles that have guided this nation for generations. Whether you're concerned about your future, your children's future, or just want to stay informed and connected, AMAC is for you. As a member of the association of Mature American Citizens, you'll receive access to fantastic benefits and discounts on travel, insurance, prescription services, as well as exclusive member only tools and resources that make a difference in everyday life. And one of my personal favorites, the AMAC magazine. Packed with meaningful content, insightful interviews and updates you won't find anywhere else. Right now you can join for as little as a $20 a month. Hello. With a five year membership, that's an incredible value. So don't wait. Go to AMAC US Mark, and become a member today. Stand with amac, help keep the values we hold dear going strong for future generations. That's AMAC US Mark. Foreign.
- [41:47]
The great one makes your weekend even better. This is the best of Mark Levin.
- [41:55]
So what are the odds of the Democrats taking back the House? Now? I worry a little about rope a dope. I worry a little bit about these polls. These data guys were on CNN and elsewhere. I like this guy Harry Anthony is very entertaining, but still trust but verify, right? The old Reagan line. We better fight like hell or we're going to lose the House. That's Mark's view. That is my view. We better fight like hell. We're going to lose the House. We lose the House, we lose the presidency, we lose the agenda and we might lose the next presidential election. We cannot lose the House, folks. Now, we don't want to lose the Senate either. So what I'm saying is the House and the Senate, but we need to fight like hell. Like our country's on the line because it is on the line. Because it is on the line. Now here's Harry Enton. He's the CNN chief data analyst. He's got some good news. But I am not playing this to cause you to sort of be lulled to sleep here. These midterm elections are important. Me tell you this. These elections in New Jersey and Virginia, they're crucial. Mr. Baduza, let's see if our Republican friend, our friends in both those states want to come back. One more shot, but let's listen to this. Cut 13. Go.
- [43:24]
Harry Enten
So you know, if you go back six months ago, you go back to April K. Ball when what were we looking at? Well, we were looking at the Democrats with a very clear shot of taking control of the US House of Representatives. According to the Cauchy Prediction Market odds, we saw them in an 83% chance, but those odds have gone plummeting down. Now, we're talking about just a 63%.
- [43:44]
Mark Levin
Chance while the go see that 63%, that's still a landslide by any measure. 63%. Okay, 63%. Now again, a poll is a poll is a poll. You know, I'm not big on polls, but I want you to listen to this because people are playing it on TV and radio. I'm playing it, but for a different, a different lesson. How many times have we heard about us winning massively midterm elections? I remember one of my friends who's very well known, he was on Fox talking about picking up 60 House seats and getting close to 60 Republicans in the Senate. What? What? It's a smart guy, too. People get carried away with this stuff. I missed a reality. It's true.
- [44:39]
Harry Enten
Go ahead, rocket up like gold. Up from 17% to now a 37% chance. So we'll look like a pretty clear.
- [44:47]
Mark Levin
So Republicans have a 30, 37% chance of retaining the House. Does that sound like a lot to you, Mr. Producer? It sounds like a pittance to me. Gone from 17 to 37%. Now, I don't know if any of this is true. And by the way, we have a long way to the election, the midterm election, but I do know this. We need to keep registering, we need to keep active, we need to keep pushing the agenda. I know the speaker of the House knows that. How do I know? Because I watch him. He's doing a hell of a job. But I'm not talking about elected members of the House and Senate. I'm talking about we, the people here in our communities in these congressional districts. Can't sit back on this, folks. This is as crucial as a presidential election. And I'll bet you if Donald Trump were here, he'd tell you the same exact thing. Go ahead.
- [45:42]
Harry Enten
In the House come next year. Has become much closer to a toss up at this point, Although still slightly leaning Democrats.
- [45:48]
Mark Levin
Excuse me, 63. Excuse me, 63 to 37 is not close to a toss up. Now, I usually like this guy. What the hell is he talking about? Look, I'm not into wishful thinking. I'm into thinking there's a difference. 63 to 37%. Close to a toss up. Seriously, America, if these polls are even right, and I don't know that they are, they could be deadly wrong. What I'm trying to say is don't allow stuff like this to cause you to be lax or would definitely lose. Go ahead, please.
- [46:28]
Harry Enten
Okay, what has changed? Well, why don't we just take a look at the national picture first, Take a look at voters and how they're feeling about things. And we can take a look at the generic congressional ballot. And I want to take a look and compare it to 2017, 2018. Right. Because that's sort of the baseline. That was, of course, the first Trump term. That was where Democrats are sort of keeping pace. You go back to April, look at the generic congressional ballot. What you see, you see plus three Democrats in 2025. In April, you see plus three Democrats back in April of 2017. Now jump over to this side of the screen. What happens? Well, the Democrats are no longer keeping pace with the pace that they were setting back in 2017, 2018. You look back in 2017, you saw that the Democrats had leaped up to an eight point advantage. I remember covering this. I remember a lot of folks, including myself, saying, you know what, Republicans look pretty decent right now in terms of the fact that they had the House, they had the Senate, they had the presidency, but things were likely going to flip. And I was looking for the same signs this year. The bottom line is it hasn't happened. Kate Ball, when it hasn't happened, Democrats have stayed basically steady. They have fallen or off the pace. Democrats were way out ahead.
- [47:31]
Mark Levin
Back in 2017, way out ahead was 8%. Now they're at 3%. Do I understand that, Rich? Is that what he's saying? I mean, maybe, you know, majorities are won and lost by 1 or 2 or 3%. But I'm not, I'm not taking a victory lap yet, folks. I'm not. And I'm wondering why he is. For us, you have to have a healthy skepticism, say reality. And remember all those hosts, including on our favorite network and in conservative radio, going on and on about how sweeping our victory was going to be during that midterm election and the Democrats took the House and the whole time was spent on investigating Trump subpoenas and impeachment. Folks, this is serious. This is serious. Listen to the numbers. Do they sound like overwhelming numbers to you? They went from 8% to 3%. That doesn't sound like it's that awful. Now, if we went to 3%, that would sound pretty good. I still wouldn't necessarily trust the numbers. They've dropped from 83% likelihood to 63% likelihood that they'll take the House. And the Republicans have rocketed up the 37%. Even the, even the verbs that he uses to describe this. Does that sound right to you? It doesn't sound right to me. When's the last time a presidential candidate got 63% of the vote? When's the last time? I think it was George Washington and we don't even know what the percentage of the vote was. Go ahead, please.
- [49:18]
Harry Enten
And now we're basically looking at Democrats ahead, but again, they are so far in back of the pace that they set back there. And so I think what a lot of folks are seeing, folks like myself are saying, wait a minute, given what we might be seeing in redistricting, is this plus three.
- [49:33]
Mark Levin
Stop there. That's a different point, isn't it? Redistricting. This is where the president and some of these Republican state governors have done a very good job and an important job. For too long, the Republicans have sat back as the Democrats have gerrymandered their states to the point of absurdity. In Illinois, in California, in Massachusetts, where they don't even have a Republican seat. No, not because of all the voters, but because of the gerrymandering. And the Republicans didn't counter, but now they have. Abbott is a great governor. In Missouri, they've countered, they've picked up a seat. They're going to do the same thing. I don't know if they'll do it in time though, in Florida because certain state laws are different than other states. But now wisely, Republicans under Trump and under some of the great governors are looking at states and they're trying to figure out how to, how to counter the Democrats who invented this whole thing. I've told you before, I think I must have been the first because people were so scared of being called names and so forth that the whole point of the open borders was to create these new Democrat congressional districts and to improve their position in the electoral college. That's it. And then eventually through birthright citizenship, to have what they hope will be millions and millions of more Democrat voters. That's right. We discussed this. We've discussed this for years. I actually wrote about this, aspects of this anyway in Liberty and Tyranny. Not about gerrymandering per se, but the change in the immigration laws in order to accommodate the Democrats. Mark, the vin.
- [51:30]
We'Re giving you nothing but the best, the best of Mark Levin.
- [51:35]
Man, oh man, Achevitz, lots of cooking out there. Elise Stefanik is so fantastic. Representative from New York. She needs to run for governor. She needs to run for governor. And I see her one day, maybe even as president, United States. What do you think of that? I really do. And so she receives a, apparently a text or something in her inbox from a New York Times reporter who's doing, trying to do a hit on her on behalf of the Imam Dhami campaign, you know, trying to turn criticism of him as a jihadist Islamist into Islamophobia. And that of course is part of the game. And so she writes, and I just posted this to the New York Times so called reporter regarding your question that popped into our inbox. Quote, I'm a reporter for the Times. That was the person who sent it. And I'm writing about Stefanik's comments in response to Mandani's Fox News interview. Mandani's campaign said that her comments calling him a jihadist were Islamophobic. Please let me know if you want to respond. Why, yes, Emma, I do want to respond, says Elise Stefanik. Please print in full. I call Zoran Mamdani a jihadist because he is. Zora Mandani is a raging anti Semite. Mandami is the definition of a jihadist as he supports Hamas terrorists, which he did as recently as yesterday when he refused to call for Hamas terrorists to put down their arms. The same Hamas terrorist group that slaughtered civilians, including New Yorkers, on October 7, 2023. He's Kathy Hochul's endorsed jihadist communist who she has empowered to destroy New York City. It's why the New York State Democrat Party. Excuse me. It's why the New York State Democrat Party chair refuses to support him. It's why multiple Democrat members of Congress refuse to support him. It's why Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have still not endorsed him. Because Zoran is a jihadist who will destroy New York. Thank you. And that's how you respond, by the way, to the press when they're trying to create a narrative. She's not Islamophobic. He's an Islamist jihadist and a Marxist and a Jew hater. That's the problem. That's the problem. I'm calling him out. You see the stereotype and the bigotry, the racism of this reporter, Emma for the New York Times. The implication is all Muslims then are jihadists Islamists. Right. And they're not. They're absolutely not. But that. That is the. The COVID that the New York Slimes wishes to give him, just as the New York Slimes gave cover to Castro. I find it interesting, Mr. Producer, I believe I'm the only one that said. The only one who said that. This guy reminds me of Fidel Castro. And the New York Times reporting reminds me of how they treated Castro. So some guy on Fox today working some beat says exactly the same thing. Folks, this is a very influential program. The plagiarists love it. They love it. They love it. And they love it because that's what they do. They plagiarize verbally and in writing. All right, let's get to this. What happened here? I lost all of them. Okay, bear with me, folks. Yeah, I guess I did all right. We will continue. Anyway. John Bolton was indicted on 18 counts. Now, what happened here must be retribution. No, it's not retribution. I worked for four. Three Cabinet secretaries and one assistant to the President of the United States who was Head of presidential personnel and became Secretary of the Navy. All fantastic people. I never wrote a book about any of them. I never wrote a book about my times with them. I certainly never would have written a book that included classified information. In at least two of my positions, I had access to all kinds of classified information. And one as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, I had access to all of it. And you've never heard me talk about classified information, ever. I've written 11 books, all New York Times bestsellers, nine of them. Number one, none of them are quote, unquote, tell all books. None of them contain classified information or any government documents I had access to. And the reason is very simple. I was raised properly. An issue of what we call ethics. Lawyers have codes of conduct as well. I'm a lawyer, Bolton's a lawyer. But even more, you know, when I'm invited to serve as a Chief of Staff to Attorney General or to work for a President of the United States at the White House or somebody else, they're putting their trust and faith in me. It is my duty to uphold that trust and faith, to be loyal to that person and to have the class and the character to do so. If there comes a time when I or others feel they can't, then they quietly move along. I never felt that all the people I worked for from President Reagan on down were fantastic, ethical, exceptional. Bolton decided he would write a book. He wrote a book that contained classified information, and he didn't wait for the process for all the intelligence entities within the government to approve it. He knew better. I worked at the Justice Department with him under Reagan. He was the national security advisor under Trump. He knew better than to do that. A federal judge, Royce Lamberth, when the Trump administration went in for an injunction, he didn't grant it because he said, it's too late. All the information is out. They're publishing it. And he said he looked at the materials and camera that is in his own chambers, and there was no question that this information was significant to the nation's national security. And there's no question that Bolton took it upon himself to short circuit the process. He took the risk. He also created a risk for the nation. And whatever happens from there will be up to the Department of Justice. So what happened? Biden comes in and drops the case, drops the investigation, the grand jury investigation, drops it. But this case involves even more than those documents. This case involves additional documents. Eight years in the Reagan administration, I never took home classified information. Eight years when I left the Reagan administration, I never Took home classified information. I knew I wasn't supposed to. It was all around me. I had to deal with it throughout the Department of Justice. But the rules are the rules. And so what do we have here, Fox News? Ex national security advisor John Bolton, indicted with improper handling of classified information. Indicted on 18 counts by a federal grand jury in Maryland. According to the indictment, Bolton was indicted on eight counts of transmission of national defense information, 10 counts of retention of national defense information. Quote from on or about April 9, 2018 through at least on or about August 22, 2025, Bolton abused his position as national security advisor by sharing more than a thousand pages of information about his day to day activities as the national security adviser, including information relating to the national defense which was classified up to top secret SCI level with two unauthorized individuals, namely individuals 1 and 2. The indictment reads Bolton also unlawfully retained documents, writings and notes relating to the national defense, including information classified up to top secret SEI at his home in Montgomery County, Maryland. Now, these documents were transmitted by him to two individuals unauthorized to view classified documents. It may have been family members, I don't know who they were, but it doesn't matter. These documents, according to the indictment, revealed intelligence about future attacks by an adversarial group in another country. A liaison partner sharing sensitive information with the U.S. intel community. Intelligence that a foreign adversary was planning a missile launch in the future, a covert action in a foreign country that was related to sensitive intergovernmental actions. Sensitive sources and methods used to collect human intelligence. Intelligence about an adversary's knowledge of planned US Actions. Intelligence about an adversary's plans for attacks conducted against U.S. forces in another country. Human intel, it goes on and on and on. The documents were classified top secret. Now when they're classified that way, they also have a special cover that make it clear what it is. Red and white cover. As for the document he allegedly retained, one document revealed intelligence about a future attack by adversarial group in another country. Other documents revealed. And I just read a lot of it to you, but they're significant documents. The documents range from secret to top secret. The FBI's investigation revealed that John Bolton allegedly transmitted top secret information using personal online accounts. Retained said documents in his house in direct violation of federal law. Said Kash Patel case was based on meticulous work from dedicated career professionals at the FBI who followed the facts without fear of favor. Weaponization of justice won't be tolerated. This FBI will stop at nothing to bring justice. Anyone who threatens our national security. Bolton's Maryland home had been Raided by FBI agents in August. This search was focused on classified documents believed that Bolton possessed beyond the book. The list of more than a dozen items seized from the Bethesda, Maryland, home of President Donald Trump's former National Security advisor was included in a search warrant document filed with the U.S. district Court for the District of Maryland. Now, among the technology seized from bolton's home were two iPhones, a red one with two camera lenses, and a black one in a black case, and three computers, including, okay, it explains what they were. We don't really care. They also seized a hard drive, two SanDisk 64 gigabyte USB drives. Also, the list shows the FBI also took a white binder labeled Statements and Reflections to Allied Strikes, quote, unquote, and typed documents in folders labeled TRUMP115.4 boxes containing what federal officials called printed daily activities also were hauled from Bolton's home. According to the documents, the August 22nd FBI raid was linked to a probe of mishandling classified documents. Why the hell did he do this? We're just wondering why. Why did he take all this with him? I can't give you any more details than that, but let's just say that John Bolton really had some nerve to attack Trump over his handling classified information, A source told Fox News Digital. Source familiar with early stages of the investigation told Fox News Digital that CIA Director John Rackley provided Patel with limited access to US intel that served as the basis for the search warrant. The source told Fox News Digital that the evidence justified the raid on Bolton's home. The probe into Bolton's alleged retention of classified documents was first launched years ago, later shut down by the Biden regime for political reasons, according to a senior U.S. official. I don't doubt that. And it goes on. Well, the reason I'm reading you this, and there's much more I could read you. I've read you about 20% of this article is you're going to hear that this was retribution and so forth. No, this has nothing to do with retribution. This is not a small matter. It is a massive matter for a former national Security advisor to do this. And even more than that, we're talking about a huge amount of secret and top secret information brazenly retrieved or taken and brazenly mishandled by somebody who's read into these programs and who was trained and taught, and he has been over the, over the decades on how to use these documents. So you're not talking about one document, maybe that was mishandled, stuck in a briefcase or a small file? No, you're talking about scores of documents here. Lots of information. I don't wish this on anybody. I really don't. I'm not giddy about this. I'm not happy about this. It's too bad. I've known John Bolton. Bolton for decades, but what he did here is inexcusable.