Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:00]
A
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. These judges in the Comey case, the magistrate and then the full fledged district court judge, making it impossible to even continue with this case. In my humble opinion, the access to the grand jury information, which is really rare. 6e. You can read the federal rules online, that's supposed to be secret. Unless the issue is something untoward was done during the course of this indictment, there's no evidence of that whatsoever. And they're trying to kill this thing before it's even really going to trial. Another example, the attack on the U.S. attorney there, that her appointment is problematic. This has nothing to do with, as an example, Jack Smith, the rogue special prosecutor. In the case of this involving the Eastern District of Virginia. What's happened there is the Senate has, at least in the past, has not been taking up these votes. They pushed a whole bunch of them through, but in the meantime, the president had appointed an acting U.S. attorney and then extended the appointment. And so they're attacking that now. This has been done In, I believe, two or three other U.S. attorney districts without judges attacking it because they figure that's a separate issue. But not the judge in this case who was appointed by Obama. And so you can see what's going on right outside of Washington in the Eastern District, just how awful this is. Absolutely awful. And then he keeps. And they keep lecturing the prosecution about the faults that they've made. And, you know, over at National Review, they've got their, their man, Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor, basically contributing to it every step of the way. I just strongly disagree with him on this. He's a good guy, don't get me wrong, but I strongly disagree. He seems very obsessed with this, but that's okay. You know, everybody's obsessed with something, but that's very problematic. What's, what's going on in that courtroom to me and how these judges are ruling. It seems very obvious to me what's taking place then on the Sebstein matter. I've told you folks from the very first moments when it was being pushed by Marjorie Trader Greene, when it was being pushed by little ADA Fuentes, when it's been pushing by Katarlson this summer when people were saying maga's going to implode, even had bloated Bannon saying it, when he's pretty much gone into the Witness protection program because of all his communications with Epstein and the videos he won't release. But all that said, as I've told you over and over again, there hasn't been anything negative about Trump. 00. And so the President today said, well, release it all then, go ahead. He didn't want this as a distraction and so forth. And he also understood that there are some many victims and that many of them may not want their names released. And yes, there's actually victims who are not five and eight years old, Megyn Kelly. And you can have victims who are 15 and 16 and older. And it's still pedophilia and people can still be sold in the sex, labor, in effect. I don't know what the hell's going on here. I really don't. Are these legitimate views, the racism, the bigotry, anti Christianity, anti Semitism, basically trying to kind of take the edge off of pedophilia. And so what is going on here? Is this okay with you folks? It's not okay with me, and it's never going to be okay with me. But in any event, in the Epstein matter, there's nothing here that I'm aware of that I can see. And the President is not acting like somebody who thinks there is. And the Biden regime didn't bring any leaks or anything of the kind. So I just, I've told you from day one, we get caught up in these shiny objects and we just keep chasing them. And a lot of this is due to these podcasters and phony influencers. They just need the hits, hits, hits, hits. The grif, Grif, Griff, Griff. But a lot of it is also the corporate media, you know, fronting for the Democrat Party. You know, people are asking me, what do you think about what the President said about Tucker and Fuentes? You know, here's the thing, ladies and gentlemen, I'll tell you what I posted. Little Adolf, Nick Fuentes, will always be a disgusting, vile piece of s. Nobody can change that. And Kitarlsen will always be a loathsome lowlife giving little Adolf a megaphone for his own repulsive bigotry and anti Semitism. And nobody can change that. Nobody can protect them from themselves, period. More importantly, this is not who the American people are or ever will be. Despite the bots, despite, you know, the planted comments that go on and on and on. Don't read those. Don't even bother with them. We're the American people. We patriots are not going to surrender our country to these poisonous grifters and Hate mongers. Not now, not ever. They are actively trying to destroy our movement, promote themselves. Hand the country over to these Marxist Islamist leftists and the Democrat party, make no mistake about it. But we will collapse if they succeed. And they are not going to succeed. Because I know who you are, Mr. And Mrs. America. You're not racists, you're not bigots, you're not anti Christianity, you're not anti Semites. You root for America during wars including World War II. Our greatest generation. You don't embrace Hitler over Churchill. And I can go on and on and on. That's not us. That's not who we are. That'll never be us. It'll never be who we are. Red blooded Yanks. We did not fight these wars at great cost. To surrender this country at home to the enemy within. Whether Marxists, Islamists or neo fascists. And is it not precious that these people say to me the things you are calling us and saying about us is dangerous? When they're out there calling me every Jew, every Christian, every black, every Hispanic and on and on and on. The most horrendous things and the most horrendous names. All they have to do is stop. All they have to do is stop. But they won't. They can't. And all the politicians who get caught up with them. You will be defeated and you will be defeated badly. And those politicians who have moral strength embrace the American people in our founding. You will succeed. You will succeed. But nobody can fix Fuentes. Nobody can fix Carlson or for that matter Kelly or Bannon or that clown Alex Jones who already had his ass kicked in Connecticut by a judge, by families of little kids who were slaughtered in a horrific way in an elementary school. That's his head. That's where his mind is. These people are not difficult to confront. They're not. Because they're very evil. They don't understand you, the American people. I do. I thank God every day that we the American people share the same morals, ethics, principles, beliefs and value systems. I thank God every day for that. 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. Radical 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. Making your weekend Easter better. This is the best of Mark Levin. Well, all the so called Epstein files, whatever that means, will be released as I understand it. I'm sure names will be redacted, those of victims and so forth, but whatever went through the House like crap through a goose and went even faster through the Senate. So these are the weird priorities that we live with today. And despite all the leaks and all the investigations, Donald Trump has not been implicated in anything. Zero. It's like all the talk about his tax returns for years and years and those are leaked. There's nothing in them. Then a committee in the House on the way out the door under the Democrats, they get a copy of several years worth, they release them. Nothing in there either. And Marjorie Trader Greene, been calling her that a long time. Upsets her a lot and that's why I do it. And Thomas Messi, they were with some of the victims today. I don't know. Did they have something to do with the prosecution of Epstein and the in bringing justice? I don't think so. But they're, they're big on the, on the release of the Epistein files. Fine by me. I'm just worried about the future of the country. Miranda Devine has an exclusive. I want to get into that about Thomas Crooks and there's a whole lot going on. We have a couple of great guests. Governor Mike Dunleavy. They have discovered unbelievable rare earth minerals in Alaska that can make a huge change for this country in terms of our reliance on Communist China. And Dr. Mark Segal has a new book out. We'll talk to him in hour three and we'll be ready to roll. So a lot to do and yet I'm going to touch on something. Oh, Saudi Arabia. I feel for you 911 families, I really do. You've never gotten the answers you deserve. You never have. Which cut is it, Mr. Producer? Let's see. It's cut one. It's not cut one. It's cut two. Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince in the Oval Office today, reporter asked about 911 and you know 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Now we know Qatar's role, one of our best friends in the Middle east now with ksm. And now we have the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, one of our, another of our new best friends. And we're going to sell them our most technologically advanced jet fighters, F35s. So it's only a matter of time till this incredible technology that you and I spent hundreds of billions of dollars on will be obviously shared and linked with other countries. Because you can't keep a cap on that stuff forever with a country that really is a new friend. Should I say, oh, yeah, new friend. And he says, yeah, we'll do the Abraham Accords. As long as Israel sets up a Palestinian state. That which. And then I'll continue, which could blow it off the face of the map, that's fine. So now Saudi Arabia is dictating to Israel, but that's okay. This guy's being treated like I've never seen a world leader treated in my life. Have you ever seen any world leader treated like this, Mr. Producer? Some ceremony. We had horses, they were beautiful. F35s flying in. Beautiful, beautifully organized into a V and so forth and so on. Money talks. Who was it that said it? Congressman Smith from South Philly. Years ago in a great Democrat Party scandal in Washington, he said money talks and bull, you know what walks. And God knows the Arabs have a lot of money just by fate. Just a lot that's under the ground. And you know, you know who discovered most of it? The British. All right, here is Mohammed Ben Salman, the crown prince. About Obama bin Laden using Saudis, of course. Obama bin Laden was from a very wealthy, prominent Saudi. What is it? Osama bin Laden. What did I say? Obama bin Laden. Sorry, slip of the tongue. My mouth broke. Osama bin Laden. I can hear my wife yelling at the. It's Osama bin Laden. Like Mr. Producer just did. All right, we know who it was. Cut to go.
- [15:38]
B
You know, I feel painful about, you know, the families of 9011 in America. But you know, we have to focus on reality. Reality based on CIA documents and based on all the documents that Usama Bilateral, he used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose is to destroy this relation, to destroy the American Saudi relation. That's the purpose of 90 11. So whoever buying that, that means they are helping Osama bin Laden purpose of destroying this relation, he know that strong relation between America and Saudi Arabia, it's bad for extremism, it's bad for terrorism. And we have to approve him.
- [16:18]
A
Wrong.
- [16:19]
B
And to build our relation, continue developing our relations. It's critical in the safety of the world. It's critical against extremism and terrorism. About the terrorists. It's really painful to hear, you know, anyone that been losing his life for, you know, no real purpose or not in a legal way. And it's been painful for us in Saudi Arabia. We've did all the right steps of investigation, etc. In Saudi Arabia and we've improved our system to be sure that nothing happened like that. And it's painful and it's a huge mistake and we are doing our best that this doesn't happen again.
- [16:57]
A
I think in that case he's talking about Khashoggi, the latter part there, where he was grabbed and murdered, cut into pieces, thrown in a vat of acid and so forth. And so horrific. And he says, I didn't know anything about it. He didn't know anything about it. The CIA said he had to know something about it. President today said that he didn't know anything about it. So there you have it, whether he did or not. But all that said, the 911 families are not happy with Saudi Arabia. This answer is bull crap in my view. These terrorists didn't attack us to damage the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. They attacked us because they were homegrown radical Islamists out of Saudi Arabia that attacks the West. That's what they did in a horrendous way. And if you had told me. It's just Mark's opinion, not criticizing. I'm just giving my opinion. If you had told me right after 911 that we'd be selling our most highly advanced jet fighters to the Saudis, I would say you're smoking something now. There are geopolitical reasons for working with the Saudis. No question about it. They hate Qatar. Hate them because Qatar has used terrorism to try to overthrow that, that monarchy in the past. But I think Qatar is our best friend too. No, Mr. Producer. Oh yeah. And they didn't get F35s, but they got a memorandum of understanding or an executive order or something. I think in executive order that we will defend them to the last American soldier if we have to. So we're defending Qatar and we're selling our top jets to Saudi Arabia. And I'm wondering why. Who is, who, who, who is Qatar's military threat? Israel, you might say, but Israel's not. If Israel wanted to take out Qatar, they would have taken him out a long time ago. Who is Saudi Arabia's? Great threat. It's actually Qatar now that the Israelis took out Iran. They're not given enough credit for it. The bombing of the nuclear sites was crucial, absolutely crucial. And the President said he was going to take them out come hell or high water, God bless them. So important. But the Israelis defeated Iran just the way it is. Yes, with our equipment. But a lot of countries get our equipment and they can't fight their way out of a paper bank. That's the truth. We sent a lot of equipment over to Afghanistan. Now the enemy has it. And unfortunately the Afghanis were not very effective in fighting the Taliban, which represents about 14% of the country. The Israelis whipped every surrounding country and terrorist organization in a period of two and a half years, including Iran. So it's not just the equipment, it's certainly important. It's also the nature of the warriors, their leaders. And this is one of the reasons the anti Semites in America hate Netanyahu so much because he's such a tremendous leader. It's also why they hate Trump so much on the left. He's a tremendous leader. I don't necessarily agree with all this activity so quickly in terms of our F35s. And we will fight to the end for Qatar and so forth and so on. This stuff will have to shake out over time, I suppose. Now the Crown Prince says, look, we want to be part of the Abraham Accords, but only if the Israelis create a pathway to a two state solution. There is no two state solution. I want you to look at the map. I want you to look at the size of Saudi Arabia. It's massive. Massive. It's massive like Brazil. It's massive. There it is. They won't take one Palestinian from Gaza or anywhere else. Not one. They have plenty of land to give to the Palestinians. The Palestinians have as much claim to the land and the Holy Land as they do to Saudi Arabia's land. Meaning none. Zero historical claim. Zero. Their real claim is with Jordan. But he wants nothing to do with them. The country is already over 70% Palestinian. They tried to overthrow his father. So he wants nothing to do with that. Egypt wants nothing to do with it. But listen to this. Cut three, go.
- [22:16]
B
We want to be part of the Ibrahima code, but we want also to be sure that we secure a clear path of two state solution. And today we have a healthy discussion with Mr. President that we're going to work on that to be sure that we can prepare right situation.
- [22:31]
A
So he's going to work on the President on that. Is that what he's saying, Mr. Medusa, sounds like he says we're going to work with the President on that. And he upped his investment in the United States from 600 billion to a trillion. And what did the president say? Cut three, go. I think we're, you know, I don't want to use the word commitment, but we've had a very good talk on the Abraham Accords. We talked about one state, two state. You know, we talked about a of lot of things in a short period of time. We'll be discussing it further too. But I think you have a very good feeling for the Abraham accords.
- [23:05]
B
Yes, definitely, Mr. President. We want peace for the Israelis, we want peace for the Palestinians. We want them to coexist peacefully.
- [23:10]
A
We're not even going to have peace for the Palestinians because the Palestinians are killing each other. Don't you get it? He gets it. I thought the President's answer there was pretty good. Actually, I did. And I don't want to spend all night on this because we have a lot to do. Mark the vin.
- [23:35]
C
Every leap in American history has needed breakthrough energy.
- [23:39]
A
Ignition. Liftoff.
- [23:42]
C
Now AI is here and Chevron is working to power it. We're aiming to develop multi gigawatt power plants, plants near data centers designed with future pathways to lower carbon intensity. AI gets the power it needs. Communities get the jobs and the grid stays strong. Powering AI today builds America's next superpower.
- [24:08]
A
You're listening to the best of Mark Levin. When you have as we touched on last night, people are touching on today, but I really need to play this for you. Individuals who served in the military, veterans, all of whom were Democrats, put out a video telling the military and intelligence communities to defy the President of the United States. Refuse illegal orders. As I said before, I don't know what illegal orders they're talking about and neither do they. And you know, I've never seen anything like this. To be perfectly honest with you folks, I just have not people who served in the military putting out statements like this because they're Democrats. Well, let's take a listen then we'll discuss this a little bit more. Taught one go. I was a captain in the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army Ranger, former intelligence.
- [25:08]
C
Officer, former Air Force.
- [25:10]
A
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
- [25:16]
C
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
- [25:22]
A
This administration is pitting our Uniformed, military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here. The at. At home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.
- [25:42]
C
You can refuse illegal orders.
- [25:44]
A
You must refuse illegal orders.
- [25:46]
C
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
- [25:51]
A
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
- [25:54]
C
But whether you're serving in the CIA, the army or Navy, the Air Force.
- [25:58]
A
Your vigilance is critical.
- [26:00]
C
And know that we have your back. Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for.
- [26:07]
A
Our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up.
- [26:13]
C
Don't give up.
- [26:14]
A
The ship. That is shocking, is it not? It's absolutely stunning. It appears no issue is without possible exploitation. I suppose. I mean, the inference here is that the President of the United States is violating the law, that he's a dictator, that he's putting out orders of this sort. It's just crazy. Now, God bless Martha McCollum. She had one of these congressmen on her program and she fought back hard, but he was making accusations against her, telling her how she was coming off and not answering her specific question over and over again, which was, what order are you talking about? And we dressed this yesterday somewhat like you're selling the violating orders. Why is in your video don't you mention what you're talking about? Because they don't. I just think there's so many problems going on in the Democrat Party. First of all, it has transformed into a truly radical entity. You have Representative. Excuse me, Senator Slotkin, who ran for the Senate as a moderate, but she's been hard left. Mark Kelly, the former astronaut, also in the military, runs as a moderate. He's hard left. I believe Martha had Chris Deluzio, that congressman, or was Jack. Jason Crow. I'm sorry? Jason Crow was the congressman she had on. He was obnoxious, arrogant, offensive as hell. What he was saying and the way he was saying it and interrupting her and accusing her of various things, which is terrible. But she was tough. She was great. And this is hugely problematic. Every single aspect of this society is under attack, everyone under attack. They pretend to stand for the military, when in fact the military suffered under Biden and the Democrats, slashing their budgets and so forth and so on. Just terrible, just terrible. So I wanted to play that for some of you may not have heard it yet. Now I want to get to the Epstein matter. Look how many people were suckered into another phony scandal, folks, why do you believe Most of you don't. So the generic you. Why do you believe what the media reports? Why do you believe what the New York Times has to say or. Or the other entities or even some of the neo fascists who were June and July and August jumping up and down, attacking Trump. He's withholding the Epstein files. What's in there? He's destroying Maga. You remember this went on and on Mr. Medusa, all summer long. All summer long. Here's Chuck Schumer on the floor of the Senate today. Listen to this. Cut 10 go. Once the president signs the bill, he must apply and execute it faithfully. There must be no funny business from Donald Trump. He must not use the excuse of frivolous investigations to release some Epstein documents while intentionally hiding others that deserve to be seen by the American public. This is not in invitation for Donald Trump to pick and choose just to show you how diabolical this man is and how they are. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. There have to be redactions of certain people's names. Not offenders or would be offenders, but completely innocent people who contributed to the investigation or were interviewed because people had questions and investigators found them to have no role whatsoever. Those are the people that need to be protected. Certainly we always do that. But what, what Schumer is anticipating is there may be some of that sort of redaction. And so no funny business. So now it's funny business and now they're all pulling the same thing. Here is some guy. Robert Garcia, Democratic California cut 11 go.
- [31:22]
C
Do you have concerns that the files may have been in any way messed with, tampered with?
- [31:30]
A
Of course I have those concerns and obviously I don't trust the Trump Department of Justice. But let me lay something else out which is important to that point. We know that right now the President has a choice to make. He could be honest. He could come clean and release the files of the American public. And with justice to the survivors. What we expect he's probably doing is by launching this kind of new sham investigation where he's only going after. So there's already he claiming a sham investigation. See, it's never going to be enough because it was never intended to be enough. They will exploit this as much as they possibly can. They will try and create impressions and pseudo news. They already have done that. But they're going to continue until they find another thing to latch onto. And it's important that all of us be mindful of this and not fall for this trap as so many neo fascist so called influencers have and did. It's crucially important that when accusations are made, the fact that accusations are made, that's not enough. Especially from the press, especially when they're anonymous. Mark the VIN.
- [32:52]
B
Introducing Meta Ray Ban Display the world's most advanced AI glasses with a full color display built into.
- [32:59]
A
The lens of the glasses.
- [33:00]
B
It's there when you need it and gone when you don't. Send and receive messages, translate or caption live conversations, collaborate with Meta AI and more. Be one of the first to try Meta Ray ban display. Visit meta.com metaraybanddisplay to book a demo.
- [33:18]
A
And find your pair. The great one makes your weekend even better. This is the best of Mark Levin Stephen A. Smith slams Michelle Obama's claim that America isn't ready for a female president in the New York Post. You know, Stephen A. And I don't always agree, but the guy is typically very thoughtful about what he has to say. Every now and then we trip. I do. Not a lot, but now and then he does. Everybody does. That's okay. But we're talking about in the main the rule, not the exception. And very, very thoughtful, I think. And he says something that a lot of people would refuse to say, or be afraid to say or not say, who are in his position. Stephen A. Smith slams Michelle Obama's claim that America isn't ready for a female president. As I did the other day, he's pushing back on former first leader Michelle Obama's suggestion, writes the New York Post, that Americans are not ready to elect a woman to the White House. On Monday's episode of Straight Shooter, host Smith pointed to newly elected Democratic governors Mikey Sherrill of New Jersey, Abigail Spanberger of Virginia as proof Americans are willing to vote for female leaders, noting that Kathy Hochul of New York won her election and that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 presidential election. Yeah, she just didn't win the Electoral College vote. She loaded up the votes in California. But I get his point, pointing to Clinton's 2.9 million vote margin. Weren't there white women who voted for Donald Trump, not just white men? Didn't the blacks show up for Hillary Clinton? Didn't Hispanics show up for Hillary Clinton? Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who spent the last few days neglecting to campaign in places like Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or places like that. Trump was everywhere. You all remember that? Yeah, I do. I do. Moving on to a more recent example, Smith noted that while former Vice President Kamala Harris didn't win her bid for the White House in 2024, her boss was more likely. Excuse me, lost due to Democrats running former President Joe Biden till the very last moment. Not Americans being unwilling to vote for a female candidate. He's got that great podcast, Straight Shooter. He said Harris had received more votes than any other Democratic candidate in history and argued that former vice president's hesitation to sit for interviews and separate herself from some of the Biden administration's decisions contributed to her losing the election. And they said, well, actually, she got the second most votes. But his point is well taken. First. Second doesn't matter. Tens of millions of votes. Tens of millions of votes. He also referenced his early remarks about Michelle Obama, praising the former first lady, saying that if she had run against Trump in 2024, she would have won. A belief he still holds. I don't think so, but why does it matter? It's not going to happen. Didn't happen. On Friday, Michelle Obama said Americans are not ready to elect a woman to the White House. And we played that. And you know what she said? You know what she said? She put all you down. I don't care what your race is, your faith. I don't care who you are. She put all of you down. That's what she did. And he has the courage to speak out about it, as I did, but I didn't need a lot of courage to speak out about it. He needed more courage than I. But that's what he does. The great podcast. He's a good man. I think so, for sure. A lot going on. People are saying, we want the president to focus on domestic policy, not foreign policy. You know what's interesting about that? He's been focusing on both domestic policy. Got the big beautiful bill through. He was fighting the Democrats on the government shutdown. He's fighting the Democrats on. On deportation of illegal immigrants, particularly criminals. He's having to fight them there. He's fighting in the courts to advance his agenda. I mean, what is it that he hasn't done? I mean, there are other things you can do, of course, but what is it that he hasn't done? I mean, why are people saying he's focused too much on foreign policy? He's focused a lot on foreign policy and a lot on domestic policy. You know, tariffs involve both domestic and foreign policy. Whether you agree with it or not. He's done price controls. I'm not a price control guy, but it doesn't matter. He did what he did with pharmaceutical companies. He did what he did in order to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump by opening up our frontier to more drilling. We had the governor of Alaska on here who made the point that if it wasn't for Trump, almost none of this would be getting done. I mean, he did that for domestic reasons. Right? And when you cut taxes for people on their tips, when you cut taxes for certain people on Social Security, when you cut taxes for people working overtime, when you give credits to people who are having to take off from their job or can't find a job because they're helping a loved one who's particularly ill, that's all domestic. When you're taking illegal aliens off of Medicaid, that's domestic. I think he's getting a bum rap here, quite frankly. I think he's spending a tremendous amount of time on domestic issues and has spent a tremendous amount of time on domestic issues, as a matter of fact. And he's also spending a lot of time on foreign policy issues. But for him, unlike a usual president, for him, he sees foreign policy intertwined with domestic policy. That is, he's trying to bring in trillions of dollars from very wealthy countries. Again, argue as you will, but that's what he's doing. Trillions of dollars from very wealthy countries into the United States to help build up our industries, to help build up our employment. It's actually quite brilliant. But that's what he's doing. Seems to be a lot of focus on domestic policies, as far as I'm concerned. And so again, what happens, it's like this Epstein stuff. People start to repeat what other people say, what other analysts say, what the media say. He needs to focus more on domestic policy. He needs to focus more on domestic policy. Now, maybe there are other things that can be done, but he certainly has been focusing on domestic policy and foreign policy both as far as I'm concerned. I mean, the vast majority of his executive orders, of which there are a couple hundred or more, have been focused on domestic policy. He's fighting DEI throughout our society more than any president that I can remember. He's fighting anti Semitism. He's trying to hold colleges and universities to account. This is all domestic right now, all of it. He's trying to bring these international games and sports into the country. That's foreign and domestic. But the impact is domestic. So it's not so black and white when you're working with other countries to try and get them to invest in our country, create jobs in our country, build things in our country. Clearly that's involving foreign policy, but it's impacting heavily domestic policy and you hope the economy down the road. Right. So again, I think he's getting a bum rap on this, that he is focusing on domestic policy and all policy, as a matter of fact. And I think the foreign policy gets a lot more of the attention from the media and others and a lot of times it's worthy of it. You know, war is a hell of a thing that requires a country's attention. And of course the reporting is different. They keep looping and looping and looping and looping stuff. But the government was shut down, at least 17% of it, but parts of it that upset many people and inconvenienced many people and even worse. I mean, he fought that as much as he could and he won and so did the Republicans. He fought it and they won. Not all, but most of the issues in front of the Supreme Court. I said not all, but most involving the president and his administration involve domestic matters. Domestic matters. Mark Levin Havlas Espanol Spriest du Dzoits.
- [42:38]
C
If you used Babbel, you would. Babbel's conversation based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at Babbel.com Spotify spelled B A B-B-E-L.com Spotify rules and restrictions may apply.
- [43:08]
A
We're giving you nothing but the best, the best of Mark Levin. I decided, ladies and gentlemen, gentlemen, to look at what is a crucially consequential decision if it's not reversed in Texas involving those 10 seats that Governor Abbott and the legislature created and the attack by this three judge panel, the appellate panel, two judges voting that it was unconstitutional. One judge, in an incredible dissent over a hundred pages long, absolutely rejected it. And I want to read you what our friends Hans von Spakovsky had to say about it. He's a great guy at the Heritage Foundation, a longtime friend and years ago he worked in the civil rights division handling voting rights cases. Said on Tuesday the media was filled with stories that a three judge panel had voted 2 to 1 to issue a 160 page order blocking the Texas legislature's new congressional redistricting plan. The order claimed the redistricting was unlawfully based on race as opposed to partisanship, a claim at odds with what we saw happen in the partisan political fight within the state legislature, which included a walkout by Democratic legislators. What wasn't attached to the order was the dissenting opinion by fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith. Now, this man is a 37 year veteran of the federal judiciary, greatly respected for his legal acumen. In other words, he's a towering scholar, incredibly smart, he's an originalist, he sticks to the constitution. He had 104 page dissent. It came out a day later. It marks the most scathing denunciation, writes Hans, that I've ever read of another judge. Now, why would a dissent come out a day later? You're about to find out. In this case, the judge being denounced is Judge Jeffrey Vinson Brown. Brown, who wrote the majority decision along with Judge David Guadarrama, who joined the opinion. In his dissent, Smith accused Brown and Guatemala of, quote, pernicious judicial misbehavior, unquote, and deliberately not providing Judge Smith with, quote, any reasonable opportunity to review Brown's opinion and respond before it was issued. I've never heard of this before. So these two collaborated, collaborated to circumvent the third judge because they didn't want that judge to have the time to reply to their majority opinion. They were going to just ram it through. I have never, ever in all the years I've been practicing law, ever seen anything like this. Judge Smith calls it the most outrageous conduct by a judge. And he's talking about this Judge Jeffrey Vinson Brown, the most outrageous behavior by a judge that I've ever encountered in a case in which I've been involved. Now, he's been on there 40 years almost. He spends four pages going through the timing involved and says that any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith or trust by these two judges is gone. Smith then starts off the substance of his dissenting opinion by acknowledging an undeniable the main winners from Judge Brown's opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the people of Texas and the rule of law. Wow. And remember who this man is. He's not just a federal judge, he's a towering figure. Judge Jerry Smith proceeds to totally dismantle the majority's decision in its unsubstantiated claim that race, not politics, was the driving factor in the redistricting. Throughout, he repeats the phrase I dissent more than a dozen times. Smith even includes two pages of a non exhaustive list of misleading, deceptive or false statements. Judge Brown put forward a very serious charge against a sitting judge. Smith says the list would be considerably longer but for the press of time. Remember, he had to issue his opinion the next day. He said there's no lack of fodder, meaning there's no lack of evidence that this guy is a complete rogue judge. It is the judge he's condemning Judge Brown. Judge Smith apologizes for his dissent being disjointed, but says refining it was not possible because Brown and Gudaramma quote, have not allowed it, unquote. Again, remember what they did. They issued their opinion without telling this judge and so he had to quickly write his dissent the next day. Thus his dissent far from a literary masterpiece. But if it were a Nobel Prize for fiction, Judge Brown's opinion would be a prime candidate. He writes. Now Judge Smith says Brown's opinion is so deceptive and so lacking in facts or law that Brown could have saved himself and the readers a lot of time and effort by merely stating the I just don't like what the legislature did here. It was unnecessary and it seems unfair to disadvantaged voters. I need to step in and make sure wiser heads prevail over the nakedly partisan and racially questionable actions of these zealous lawmakers. He's mocking the judge. I'm using my considerable clout as a federal district judge to put a stop to bad policy judgments. After all, I get paid to do what I think is right. Judge Brown's actions are, Judge Smith wrote in his dissent, the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that he has ever witnessed during his lengthy judicial career of nearly 40 years. Brown's actions are, Smith wrote, the most blatant exercise. According to Smith, the main question before the three judge panel was whether the Texas Legislature did its mid decade congressional districting to gain political advantage or instead, because the main goal of the Texas Republican legislators is to slash the voting rights of persons of color. Smith lightened the approach of the lawyers and witnesses in this case to that of the Department of Justice lawyers from the Civil Rights Division to the prior Texas redistricting cases. He said it was obvious from the start the DOJ attorneys viewed state officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynching. And the DOJ lawyers saw themselves as an expeditionary landing party arriving here just in time to rescue the state from oppression. He's talking about decades ago and he's saying this case is no different. What's taking place here is an abomination. And Hans writes, having worked in the Civil Rights Division, I can assure you that this observation is absolutely 100% correct. While acknowledging that the Justice Department was not present in the case, Smith said that the same attitudes about Texas Republican legislators have been reflected in the testimony of multiple experts and witnesses presented by these plaintiffs and occasionally by their talented counsel in the statements of the parties. But the obvious reason for the Texas redistricting, Smith wrote, was partisan gain, not racism. The majority, he wrote, commits grave error in concluding that the Texas legislature is more bigoted than political. And Judge Smith methodically points out all the grave errors Brown and Guadarrama made in evaluating the evidence in the case over what the legislators did and how and why the new districts were drawn and the way they were. Those errors are too numerous to list. Now remember, this poor judge had to do this in a 24 hour period. Judge Smith's conclusion the majority committed grave errors, the key legal standard for overturning a preliminary order. Texas has already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States. Smith says the evidence in the case, as well as outside events like the, quote, victory lap in Houston to celebrate by California governor Gavin Newsom tell you all you need to know. This is about partisan politics, plain and simple. Regardless of one's political slant, he wrote, it's obvious what Texas is trying to do in 2025. Obvious to everyone, that is, except the two judges who joined the majority opinion. The Republicans national margin in the House of Representatives is so slim that squeezing out a majority might even depend day to day on whether some seats are vacant because of deaths or resignations. The new plan in Texas was to make more seats winnable for Republicans by moving some Democrat incumbents from their districts and rendering their districts unwinnable by Democrats. Smith described the plaintiff's theory, the one ultimately adopted by this rogue Judge Brown, as both perverse and bizarre. They claimed that if politics was the reason for redistricting, then the Republicans would not have drawn five new seats, but instead would have drawn six, seven or eight additional seats, and that the reason they didn't is that the real reason for the redistricting was racial animus. The absurdity of that notion, he said, speaks for itself. Smith concludes his dissent by citing the unfairness the majority is imposing on Texas voters, he says, who are having a map implemented by their duly elected legislature overturned by a self aggrandizing, results oriented court. Man, he's ripping the skin off these two bastards. He tells the Supreme Court that Brown's order, replete with legal and factual error, accompanied by naked procedural abuse, demands reversal by the Supreme Court. And with this decision, Smith writes, darkness descends on the rule of law. These two judges, led by this guy Brown, they basically camouflage their opinions in the law. And yes, Brown was appointed by Trump. There's a lot of judges appointed by a lot of Republican presidents who flip once they're on the court. And this guy obviously has flipped, absolutely has flipped. Doesn't matter who appointed him, it doesn't tell you anything about him. But what a disgrace, absolute disgrace. Now let's see if the California system is upheld or not, which is a true outrage of the worst kind. Texas, you might say, did the same thing. No, they didn't. They didn't even come close to doing what California did. Or Massachusetts, where there's not a single Republican district. How does that work? How is that constitutional? And we could go on and on by. Why would she? Why would we? The courts destroy themselves when they conduct themselves this way and forever remember who this guy is. Judge Jeffrey Brown. A fake, a phony, a fraud, a kook lawyer dressed up as a judge.