RADIODecember 13, 2023

Levin: Why the Supreme Court should STAY OUT of the Trump/January 6 debate

The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear an appeal that could have a big effect on the January 6th-related case against former president Donald Trump. But while this case has to do with charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, there's also another case that the Supreme Court could hear. Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the court to rule on Trump's claim of executive immunity. But BlazeTV host Mark Levin has some choice warnings for the Court: "The Supreme Court should NOT take this case up." Mark and Glenn review what a positive and negative ruling in this case would do to the country and Mark explains why he believes one of those rulings would "destroy the office of the presidency."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Mark Levin. How are you my friend?

MARK: Mr. Glenn Beck. I mean, look, good. Thank you.

GLENN: Good. Good. I'm pretty good.

I'm a little concerned about, you know, 2024. I can't come up with a scenario, where it ends well, but maybe you can.

MARK: It's such a mess.

I mean, you can have people talking third party. I think if Nikki Haley -- who I really oppose. I mean, I call her George Bush in a dress.
She pretty much is.

GLENN: With her foreign policy, she is. With her foreign policy, she absolutely is.

MARK: Well, look at her domestic policy. She wanted to invite the Palestinians and Gazans into our country. What, has she lost her mind?

GLENN: Yeah. That's true.

MARK: She gave land to Communist China in South Carolina. And now she pretends she's a hard-liner. She's never been a leader on any of the issues that matter to us, whether it's abortion, whether it's the border, whether it's tax cuts. And I looked at these allegations by DeSantis, and he's right. Go into Google.

Look at them, she refused to sign a bill, that said men use men's room. Ladies use lady's rooms.

Now, when it came to the woke war, she sided with Disney. I'm going, what's going on here? This woman will not be able to fight the Marxist revolution that's swirling around us today.

Which is why Karl Rove and Romney, and this guy at Blackstone or BlackRock, whoever the hell they call themselves. All these people, he put in liberal Democrat billionaires who will vote for Biden are backing her.

So she goes third party. You know, the RINOs are the fifth column. They're the fifth column in our party.

And, frankly, they're the fifth column in this country.

The Democrats, once they get their fighting out of the way, go back Biden.

They would back a kumquat for president. And our guys, they'll splinter. The base is always supposed to march behind whatever the establishment does. But this goes to your point, doesn't it?
Which is: It's concerning.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes, the way you feel about Nikki Haley. Would you fall in line behind her?

MARK: I don't have to. But she will fall before --

GLENN: No. But if she were the candidate?

MARK: No, I've had enough. I'm not falling in line --

GLENN: Me too. However, it's Biden or I think Michelle Obama, I would vote for a kumquat.

MARK: Yeah. I don't think it will be Michelle Obama. You haven't heard a word from her, have you?

GLENN: No, we haven't. But I just -- it's the only scenario that works out.

I mean, let's --

MARK: They have the convention.

GLENN: Yeah. That the -- you know, the superdelegates. They just forget the vote. They just say, you know what, he's too ill or whatever. He's too frail. You know, the Democrats want another choice. Let's just. We nominate Michelle Obama.

MARK: If that happens, I think they will turn to Hillary.

But it doesn't matter what we think.

The problem is, what's happening right now subsidy this grotesque effort to try to put Donald Trump in were an.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

MARK: You read. You read this A-hole who files this, with the Supreme Court. He always wants him to cut the corners.

He doesn't get attorney-client privilege.

All these privileges.

Presidential privilege.

Executive privilege.

All denied Donald Trump.

He doesn't want to go to the normal appellate process.

Because he can't get his trial going, before the election.

You know, it takes years to have a full-baloney criminal trial. Particularly when you're raising. You're creating constitutional issues of depression.

So he brings us to this point. Now he demands that the Supreme Court hear his motion against Trump as soon as possible.

And they do it, they say, okay. We'll consider your argument. Trump's voters will get one week to respond. What?

You have a case in Pennsylvania, during the course of this election. Not about ballots. Not about voting machines.

A pure constitutional question, a legitimate question. About who gets to decide and write election laws in the state.

The governor?

The board of elections? Or the legislature, like the Constitution says in black and white?

They wouldn't even take up that case. You have other cases. That people are waiting for in front of the Supreme Court. And not to get too much in the weeds. These Enron cases. They use obstruction for the Enron cases, against these January 6ers, which doesn't apply.

It doesn't even meet the elements. So they appeal to the Supreme Court, and the same day the Supreme Court says, okay. We want to hear these arguments from Jack the Ripper Smith there.

The court says, we're going to pound this for now. Well, maybe we will consider it later in the year or next year. You have people sitting in jail. So this is really amazing.

You have a case -- this Judge Chutkan. I had a great lawyer on my program. Shone is his name. David Shone. And he said, Mark, I think in three years, waiting for a decision from this judge, who wants to have a trial on Trump in a five-month period.

It's all a setup.

And so this guy Jack Smith, the courts are bending over backwards. To accommodate this guy.

He wins every single motion.

Trump loses every single motion, in front of this radical Obama judge. The appellate court is overwhelmingly Democrat. Because when Perry Reid was the Senate leader and Obama was president, they added a seat to the DC circuit and filled it with Democrats.

This recent panel had two Obama appointees. And one Biden appointee.

The judge that he was filling was an Obama appointee. A judge Trump was dealing with, was another Obama appointee.

And now we go to the Supreme Court, and I'll tell you, Glenn. John Roberts is a huge problem. John Roberts is like this guy Michael Lewis. They hate Trump.

The Republicans. But, you know, they're proper Republicans. They don't like the tweeting. You know, they don't like the language.

Oh, my goodness. All the stuff going on here. It's just so unseemly.

It's so improper.

You know, they're just used to losing the country very properly, you know. But what's happening here, in my view, is we have a potential criminal justice system.

We have judges that wear black robes, going to these mahogany-paneled courtrooms. You have a prosecutor standing over there. He gets his desk. They get their desk.

Eventually, the trial. The jury sits over there. It all looks so proper. It all looks so constitutional.

And it's all bullcrap. Because all these movements and actions before this trial. The motion filings. The decisions on the motion filings and everything. They will determine the outcome of this elections. And just finally -- I know I'm rambling a bit, but I tend to do that.

One of the things that has troubled me a lot here is this.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: This guy charges Trump with a Klan act violation. With two Enron violations. And a federal contractor violation. These four statues, so it was bogus.

It is bogus!

But his arguments, which have been allowed by this judge. His paper filings are all about insurrection.

And seditious conspiracy.

In other words, this is a grotesque violation of -- of a prosecutorial ethics.

Grotesque.

He is making the case, without having proved the elements of the crimes that he's basically arguing for. That Donald Trump knew or had to know.

That what he was saying, what he was doing, what he was texting. What he was reading, proved that he wanted a violent event to occur that day. So why didn't you charge him with that? They didn't charge him with violence about anything.

He charged him with the Klan act, and obstruction, and all the rest of these things. And the judge ruled, oh, that's okay.

What's okay? So he's charged with four phony charges. But this guy is arguing something completely different. And other serious litigators or former federal prosecutors whatever, say this is not the way this is supposed to be done.

And it's all happening.

The Supreme Court should not take this case up.

There's no reason why this case has -- if you read this motion, this clown keeps talking about the public interest.

People have a right.

What does he about an the public interest?

He sits holed up. He is in a room with ten other reprobates.

They're making all these decisions, and then they speak for the public. Well, they for sure don't speak for 80 million people.

And so the judiciary, I would argue is doing severe damage to this country.

Allowing incredible interference in this election process.

And when it's all said and done. They will never recover.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you that John Roberts is the kind of guy that thinks, we should rule on this. And let this go forward.

Otherwise, we'll be blamed for it. And they will say, oh, it's the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

So we're protecting the Supreme Court. By letting this small injustice, they would think.

Just let this past.

Let them do it. Then they hash it out, and our hands are clean. It's an act of Pontius Pilate quite honestly.

MARK: One hundred percent.

I call him Hollywood John.

He's very worried about what's said about him and thought about him. And his wife, and Thomas Friedman over there at the New York Times.

They're best friends.

They got caught up in these social circles, which always goes the way of the left.

And I don't trust this guy. I don't even trust Kavanaugh. And Barrett is a complete disappointment because she's right under Roberts' wing. Really, three tremendous constitutionalists. Then you have a couple of RINOs. Then you have a couple of Democrats. I'm worried about this.

GLENN: So Alan Dershowitz said, just based on the speed of this trial.

He said, there's no way Donald Trump could even prepare for a -- a defense.

And he said, we are at a banana republic if that doesn't stop. He said, there's no way that this trial shouldn't go forward next year, only because of the amount and volume of documents, that have to be processed.

He said, it's -- it's criminal, if they speed this trial up. Or they let it go, at this rate. Do you agree with that?

MARK: I mean, you denied him a time privilege. You did it in a secret proceeding. That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The phony claim of a crime, fraud exception. So his lead lawyer, the January 6th case, had to testify in front of the grand jury. And he had to provide his notes that he had taken with Donald Trump. And we've never seen anything like this.

We don't know what they're talking about. It's all done in secret. That happens. I'm told other things happened in front of that grand jury that were absolutely unacceptable by some of the lawyers working on this case.

So what he's talking about, there's a violation of due process. Fifth Amendment.

And the Sixth Amendment. Which is the right to effective counsel. You can't have effective counsel when they're drowning in documents and witnesses and everything else.

And for no reason. No --

GLENN: He said, there's no way that he said, if that lawyer stands in front of that judge and he says, no. You have to proceed.

And they aren't ready because they -- there's no way possible. He said, he should quit immediately.

And say, I'm sorry. I'm not going to abide.

And if that means you're going to hold me in contempt.

Hold me in contempt.

But this is a travesty of justice.

MARK: Well, I think that's right.

Every lawyer has to make that decision on how to proceed.

So I don't know if I would do that or not. I really haven't thought go.

That said, he's right on the substance of the issue. 100 percent right.

The problem is that this lower court judge and this prosecutor. Oh, no, that they're setting Donald Trump up for conviction. So when he runs for office, as president in the general election. Beating everyone else. They'll keep calling him a convicted felon, a convicted felon.

So the people who are kind of on the edge, kind of leaning toward Trump, because they can't stand Biden. We know who these people are. We have lived with people like this right in our communities, in our neighborhoods. We meet them. He might lose them, and that's the goal.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: And you can see there are hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funding, that's going to be spent by the Democrats. The Biden campaign, or in your case, the Michelle Obama campaign. Talking about how Trump is a convicted felon. And then -- so we won't be talking about inflation.

And the border.

GLENN: All right.

So can we gain this -- I don't know how much time you have allotted in your schedule. I know you're so busy. All right. All right.

MARK: For you, the whole week.

GLENN: I want to war game this out with you a little bit. Because I have no idea, it's my understanding the Constitution will allow him to run and to be president. And run a campaign from jail.

But I don't know.

So can you go through this?

What happens if the court comes back, and the jury comes back, and says, he's guilty.

And he's a convicted felon.

What happens then?

We'll get into that in 60 seconds.

First, let me tell you about MyPillow.

If you've slept on a MyPillow, you know they're great. Now they have the MyTowels out. And, yeah, we have in the bathroom, in case, Mr. Levin, a guest in our home today needs to use the restroom.
He has the special towels. You know, he has the -- he has the towels for our guest. Our visitors.

You know, mom, we never use those towels.

Because we don't ever have guests.

They're guest towels.

Okay. Well, they're out for Mark Levin today.

And you get 50 percent savings. Whether you get the regular one, for I guess the poor schlubs in our family.

Which are great towels. Or the designer premium line. A/k/a guest towels for just $20 more. But no matter what, 50 percent savings.

You can also get free shipping. No minimum spent required.

But today is the last day to find this offer.

Free shipping. No minimum spent required.

If you haven't gotten your husband or somebody you love the my slippers, you are missing out.

You are missing -- I help -- I already have like three pair. I'm ordering them. Some day, they will stop making them.

And I want these slippers for the rest of my life. They're fantastic. Fifty percent in savings right now in the six-piece towel set and other savings. You can find them all at MyPillow.com. That's MyPillow.com to get the savings. Enter the promo code Beck, or you can call them right now at 800-966-3117. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So all of the best legal minds, that I know, all say, that no matter what the evidence, in Washington, DC, he's going to be convicted.

Do you believe that?

MARK: I share that.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Go ahead.

MARK: And I'll tell you why.

Because you're not really able to present your case.

If you're not really able to study the evidence.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: And in addition to that, for counter evidence. Exculpatory evidence.

Because you can't get your head around it, because of the time frame.

If you're in a city that goes 94 percent of from Biden.

Out of that population. If you have an Obama judge that's ruling in every single instance, for the government.

When you have a prosecutor who is ultra and completely unethical.

Who is using tactics, that in most courtrooms would be rejected.

You're setting up a scenario, where nobody, nobody could survive.

Because you're targeting this defendant.

The charges are preposterous.

And by the time you can actually get to an appellate court, it's over.

And so that makes what Jack Smith is doing.

Is so horrific.

Because he's trying to jump the appellate court on a constitutional issue, to get to the Supreme Court.

And the court is at least entertaining the idea. Whereas, the defendant, Donald Trump, can't get his constitutional issues up there.

That fast. Because the Supreme Court has decided over and over and over again.

No. You go through the trial. You go through the appellate court.

You need to fine-tune the constitutional issues. Then we might take a look at it.

So the whole system. And really, as you well know. And your listeners well know.

You can have the best Constitution on the face of the earth.

The best judicial system on paper. But if you don't have people of virtue.

Particularly judges, none of it works. It doesn't matter what's on paper. There's no due process. There is no right to counsel. Effectively that's what's going on here. So the likelihood is very high.

Now, here's the problem: If the court does take up this case, and rules against Jack Smith, that is that Donald Trump does have immunity from actions he took while president, after he leaves the presidency, then the government really doesn't have a case.

They're in huge trouble.

And this case will go on.

GLENN: No way. No way that John Roberts allows that to happen.

No way.

MARK: That's my fear. But I want your audience to understand why this is important.

It's important because if you don't retain the protection when you leave the presidents, any opposing administration of the Department of Justice will wait for a president to do whatever he does.

And then when he leaves, indict that president.

You will destroy the office of the presidency. That's the problem. So when this judge says, he thinks he's a king. He can have immunity.

That's not what he thinks. He is saying, look, all these bogus allegations you're making against me occurred when I was president.

As president, you certainly couldn't indict me for these, so you can't indict me now. Oh, no, no. That protection doesn't go beyond the time that you're in the office of the Presidency.

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado on Overcoming Grief in Dark Times | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 266

Disclaimer: This episode was filmed prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But Glenn believes Max's message is needed now more than ever.
The political world is divided, constantly at war with itself. In many ways, our own lives are not much different. Why do we constantly focus on the negative? Why are we in pain? Where is God amid our anxiety and fear? Why can’t we ever seem to change? Pastor Max Lucado has found the solution: Stop thinking like that! It may seem easier said than done, but Max joins Glenn Beck to unpack the three tools he describes in his new book, “Tame Your Thoughts,” that make it easy for us to reset the way we think back to God’s factory settings. In this much-needed conversation, Max and Glenn tackle everything from feeling doubt as a parent to facing unfair hardships to ... UFOs?! Plus, Max shares what he recently got tattooed on his arm.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Demonic Forces to Blame for Charlie Kirk, Minnesota & Charlotte Killings?

This week has seen some of the most heinous actions in recent memory. Glenn has been discussing the growth of evil in our society, and with the assassination of civil rights leader Charlie Kirk, the recent transgender shooter who took the lives of two children at a Catholic school, and the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, how can we make sense of all this evil? On today's Friday Exclusive, Glenn speaks with BlazeTV host of "Strange Encounters" Rick Burgess to discuss the demon-possessed transgender shooter and the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. Rick breaks down the reality of demon possession and how individuals wind up possessed. Rick and Glenn also discuss the dangers of the grotesque things we see online and in movies, TV shows, and video games on a daily basis. Rick warns that when we allow our minds to be altered by substances like drugs or alcohol, it opens a door for the enemy to take control. A supernatural war is waging in our society, and it’s a Christian’s job to fight this war. Glenn and Rick remind Christians of what their first citizenship is.