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.