Ladies and gentlemen, the following segment of the podcast is presented exclusively by Hillsdale College now and it's one hundred and seventy fifth year. Hillsdale is a truly independent institution where learning is prized and intellectual enthusiasm is valued. Thank you for listening and my sincere appreciation to Hillsdale for their sponsorship is here.

Now, broadcasting from the underground command post, deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mike Love, and. The best thing happened thanks to American Mark Levin, our numbers, eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one 877 three eight one three eight one one.

I have to say what I have to say. Regardless of the consequences. The reporting and commentary on what the Trump campaign team is trying to do is as disgraceful as the reporting and commentary on the Russia hoax. The lawyers involved in these cases on behalf of the Trump campaign are definitely fighting an uphill battle, but they are fighting righteous battles. Enormous instances of fraud. Are being found and being provided to them, they're tracking them down, they're getting affidavits, they have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits in their lawsuits.

The clock is ticking and they're under pressure at the same time. And there's two different types of lawsuits being brought. And I must say, I watched Jonathan Turley and my former buddy, Andy McCarthy, and I think her name is Kristen Fisher.

I don't know what kind of legal background she's had, if she's ever been in a courtroom or ever handled a case.

And the reporting and commentary, in my view, is really it needs to get better.

Let me put it to you that way. And on CNN and MSNBC, they don't care about the truth at all. They are pathological serial liars. You have to be a psycho to get a job on CNN and MSNBC, so I dismiss them all together and I say this. In terms of the commentary and the reporting to by trying to be very positive. And contribute to what I hope will be an improvement. You've got two kinds of cases going on here.

You've got constitutional challenges and then you have challenges based on fraud and in some cases there's an overlap.

The constitutional challenges in Pennsylvania and elsewhere raise questions of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment. In this clause was referenced by the U.S. Supreme Court itself in Bush versus Gore. And that is basically this you can't have disparate treatment. From one voter to another, based on geography, based on political party or anything else for that matter. Based on the manner in which they vote. Because otherwise, you're going to disenfranchise some voters. While promoting the votes of other voters.

It's a very serious issue. The Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment. There's also a challenge on Article two, Section one, clause two on who gets to make election laws again, a very serious matter. The court took it up in Bush versus Gore, took a look at it, but it didn't actually have to rule on that. But the court wants to rule on that, at least some of the members of the court, which is why Associate Justice Samuel Alito not once but twice ordered the secretary of state of Pennsylvania to segregate ballots.

Seems like a pretty important issue, doesn't it? Now we're told that that only amounts to 10000 ballots. And I'm thinking to myself, who are the commentators on television that only amounts to 10000 ballots? Well, that only amounts to 10000 ballots in Pennsylvania. But maybe it announced to more than 10000 ballots in Pennsylvania, if you look at the actual lawsuits, they're bringing the raising the equal protection clause in a variety of circumstances. But if the court rules, as it should, that only the state legislatures can make the election laws and state courts and state governors and state secretaries of state and state election boards can't that can have an effect across the country.

He could have an effect across the country. In states like Georgia. Well, the secretary of state entered into a. A secret decree. With the Democrat Party, which is also being litigated by Lin Wood, you've got to look at this whole thing. If there's a Supreme Court decision in the Supreme Court decision on Article two has an effect across the states, I don't know. I haven't done an analysis of it. But the point is, these are constitutional cases.

You don't need evidence of fraud.

You don't need evidence of further constitutional cases, and so if you have institutionalized instances where governors or state, secretaries of state or the Supreme Court of the state have put their finger on the weight of the Democrat Party against the Republican Party, of course, you should litigate that. If they couldn't get what they want from the state legislature and so go to the state Supreme Court and get what they want, I'm sure, of course you should litigate that. How is that frivolous?

Frivolous neither in this election or any election going forward. And it's an amazing thing to hear the commentators say it only affects 10000 ballots when the judge, one of the judges in the federal district court case, when they were raising this issue of securing ballots, that only dark blue areas were told that they could cure about ballots, meaning you could open the ballots in violation of state law and contact the voter and tell them to fix their ballot. That that advice and guidance was given to only boards of election in blue areas and not red areas.

The judge, an Obama appointee, a federal judge in central Pennsylvania, said, well, you would have me. Throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. So on the one hand, we have the judge saying you would have me throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots under the equal protection clause. On the other hand, we have a commentator on my favorite cable network saying, oh, well, that part of the ruling on Article two only affects 10000 ballots.

But it's more complicated than that and it's broader than that. We're talking about Article two, but we're also talking about the equal protection clause. Now, if the judge at the district court level, the Obama judge, throws it out, we're going to have a reporter with no legal experience whatsoever, then get on TV and say they lost another one. You lose a lot of cases before you win cases. That's the way it works in many parts of the country.

You don't pick the judges, you can't help but sometimes. But that's a serious challenge, isn't it, ladies and gentlemen? Now, another point. There's a lot of confusion here, and unfortunately, it's been given by former prosecutors and law professors. Really absurd. The quantity of the fraud. First, there's no fraud, you can't prove it. Now, there's not enough fraud to matter. And they know it sitting in their studios in Washington, in New York and elsewhere in the country.

They know there's not enough fraud. How do we know? Because Giuliani in the hundreds of volunteers, they haven't shown us enough fraud. Number one, the quantity of fraud is not the test. You have sworn affidavits by American citizens, also election officials under penalty of perjury. You didn't have that in the Russia hoax case. You didn't have that in the Stacey Abrams case in Georgia, you've got it up the wazoo here. So the quantity of the affidavits and the seriousness of the affidavits is unparalleled in American history, in American history.

The fact of fraud. The fact of fraud. Can raise serious, even grave concerns of voter disenfranchisement. That's enough. That's enough to get a positive ruling from a court and the court can fashion a remedy, doesn't have to accept the remedy that's proposed by the judges and court can fashion a remedy, including transparency. That is, protect those ballots, we want to take a look, protect that software, we want to take a look. That should be enough.

Nobody walks into court and says, I have one hundred and fifty thousand ballots here, your honor, all of which. Our problematic. What kind of stupid commentary are we getting? It's not a numerical test. And yet these instances of fraud can lead to evidence. Of widespread fraud, and that's usually how it works. When you're prosecuting the mob. You get you get a ratfink, you get a sauce, you get information and you build from that.

You don't have to go in front of a federal court and say, look, I need all these warrants, I need all these wiretaps because we have evidence that we have 73 members so that this or that family, you don't need that. And yet the report was. The Giuliani team did not credibly explain their path to victory. They have credibly, incredibly, explain their litigation activity. Which could well be a path to victory. And this litigation strategy in these various states where the laws have been changed in many cases illegally, where they're tracking down 30, 40, 50 different types of voting activity, even with the states, there's different activity in different counties is a very difficult and complicated business.

And she said they didn't reveal enough fraud to affect the election. They didn't reveal enough fraud to affect the election. How do we know that? Well, they have presented it now, they're not going to present it, it's not possible to present. They're bringing lawsuits about fraud, they need access to information. They need a court. To assist if it sees fraud. They don't have a grand jury, they don't have subpoena power, they don't have the FBI or the state equivalent behind them, they're litigating.

Cases in civil court are civil cases, not criminal cases. So it's very appalling, the extent. Of the anger. And the attempt. The attempt. To smear.

These lawyers who are doing their jobs and we sat here for three and a half years on the Russia hoax, they didn't have signed affidavits, they even had criminal investigation, say the grand jury. They had congressional hearings. They had the FBI involved. They had the intelligence agencies involved, and there was nothing there. These lawyers who are who are suing and investigating on behalf of the Trump campaign, they don't have any criminal investigative investigatory powers. They don't have any grand juries.

They don't have the FBI or the intelligence agencies or Congress behind them. They're on their own. And they're trying to look at these Democrat machines. And as I've been saying for weeks now, these reporters aren't in the field actually trying to find out what's going on. They're sitting back. Like opinion makers. Well, they didn't present us with this and they didn't present us with that. They laid out a strong legal foundation if it gets to where it needs to go.

Nobody knows. We don't control the judiciary. We don't control the luck or the bad luck of our district court judge has chosen or a panel on the circuit court has chosen whether or not Supreme Court justices will do their jobs or not. Jonathan Turley goes on, This is some magnificent conspiracy theory. Well, maybe not educate himself, and I say it respectfully. I have article after article after I ran out of ink and paper. My pathetic little printer, Huffington Post, over and over again articles.

PBS, NBC. New York Times, USA Today. What are they concerned about? The Dominion voting systems. The PBS article excuse me, story I played for in full I was just a few weeks ago. I guess they fixed everything. And Dominion is linked and is part of a company that was, in fact set up by the Venezuelan regime and Hugo Chavez to steal elections.

Can Canada Elections Department announces it doesn't use the controversial Dominion voting systems, even though the headquarters is in Canada, they won't use it. Threats to Georgia elections loom despite new paper ballot voting. They have the Dominion voting. So where did this appear? The Atlanta Journal, constipation.

Well, your ballot, be safe, computer experts, sound warnings on America's voting machines. That's USA Today. USA Today, the black box, voting machines, computer vote tampering and vote counting irregularities. That's the Huffington Post. I should send these articles to these genius lawyers and commentators and reporters. I'll be right back.

My globin. As we enter the Christmas season, most of us stop to consider our many blessings. While Hillsdale College wishes to thank you for standing with them as they celebrate over one hundred and seventy five years of blessings since 1844, Hillsdale has held fast to its mission to provide the kind of education essential to preserving free government. And for decades, the college has extended its educational mission on behalf of liberty through a variety of outreach programs. Perhaps you receive an Prima's for free every month, or have taken one of Helstone excellent free online courses or have attended one of Hillsdale three regional events.

Now you know of Hillsdale s refusal to take even one penny of government money. This independence allows the college to focus on promoting its core purposes, learning character, faith and freedom without any government interference. At no time in our nation's history has there been a greater need for the kind of classical liberal arts education that Hillsdale offers on its campus and nationwide. So during this season of Blessings Hillsdale, thank you for your partnership. In extending its mission to the country to learn more about Hillsdale College, visit Lhevinne for Hillsdale Dotcom.

That's Levien for Hillsdale Dotcom. Lhevinne for Hillsdale Dotcom. This is Mark Levin wishing you and your family a happy Thanksgiving. Now back to the best of me, by the way, anyone who disagrees with me on this is free to call and debate me more than happy. It's very difficult to get people on here to debate perfectly honest.

But whether they be professor, former federal prosecutor or reporter, I'm more than happy to do it.

And on a completely different subject, I posted, I believe it was earlier this evening, a link to the Lost Dog and Cat Rescue Foundation.

There are others out there, too, but that's the one I'm associated with. That's where I got Barney. And this is our biggest charity. And we barely we barely tapped the the surface. And we do everything we can. I feel like we can do more, but we do to get as many dogs out of these kill shelters in these ravaged areas as possible and to get them into foster homes. And again, I'm adopted.

And once I retire from behind the microphone or behind the TV camera, that will be my life's focus, just is what it is. I'll be right back. As we enter the Christmas season, most of us stop to consider our many blessings, while Hillsdale College wishes to thank you for standing with them as they celebrate over 175 years of blessings since 1840 for Hillsdale has held fast to its mission to provide the kind of education essential to preserving free government. And for decades, the college has extended its educational mission on behalf of liberty through a variety of outreach programs.

Perhaps you receive an PRIMA'S for free every month, or have taken one of Helstone excellent free online courses or have attended one of Hillsdale free regional events. Now you know of Hillsdale s refusal to take even one penny of government money. This independence allows the college to focus on promoting its core purposes, learning character, faith and freedom without any government interference. At no time in our nation's history has there been a greater need for the kind of classical liberal arts education that Hillsdale offers on its campus and nationwide.

So during this season of Blessings, Hillsdale thanks you for your partnership. In extending its mission to the country. To learn more about Hillsdale College, visit Lhevinne for Hillsdale Dotcom. That's Levien for Hillsdale Dotcom. Lhevinne for Hillsdale Dotcom. You're listening to the best of the Mark Levin Show. Happy Thanksgiving, Mark Levin, tough as hell. That's why I like Mark Levin. And I'm not sure a lot of people like him. He's tough as hell.

But I like him. I love to call it No.

Eight, seven seven three eight one three eight one one.

Conspiracy theories, our friend Turley says who has really no information. All this reporting. Under the Dominion voting systems prior to the election by left wing news outlets, concerns by left wing senators all silenced.

Now it's conspiracy theories.

They learn all the Atlanta Journal Constitution last time I checked there in Georgia, the selection this week of a 107 million dollar electronic voting system that combines familiar touch screen machines with paper ballots was a big step for a state that continues to face criticism and legal challenges over its handling of the 2008 election. Yeah, right. That involves, of course, Stacey Abrams. But critics say the system will be vulnerable to hacking and getting the machines ready in time for the statewide presidential primary.

March won't be easy. It goes on and on. And they're not the only one. The only ones I told just recently and I played it for years. October 26, PBS did a whole seven minute, eight minute segment on it. USA Today, where your ballot be safe, computer experts, some warnings on America's voting machines. Must be cukes over there. Huffington Post, left wing, the black box, voting machines, computer vote tampering and vote counting irregularities.

You know damn well. If Biden were in the position of Trump and Trump is in the position of Biden, they would be accusing Trump and the Republicans of doing all these things. Of doing all these things and the commentators on TV, including my favorite cable network and all the rest, will be sounding quite differently. All the all the instances of fraud, they wouldn't dismiss them. Now we have a congressional Democrats raised security concerns about dominion on the voting machine companies, I told you about this yesterday at Just the News, John Salomon's outstanding site, and they quote them.

They wrote multiple letters. I quoted them to you yesterday.

Huffington Post exclusive on the heels of Diebold premier purchase, Canadian voting firm Dominion also acquire Secoya Lies about Chavez ties in announcement. Wow, that must be a conspiracy. Not a conspiracy, it's fact. And we hear nothing anymore about the intervention in our elections by the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians or the North Koreans. It's silent. It's the most perfect election in American history, despite the fact we have massive mail and voting. Like we've never seen before, which in 2005, the Carter James Baker commission said.

Is the most serious area where fraud occurs, no fraud, ladies and gentlemen, I know because they told me on TV it's OK. It's not a big deal. This isn't news that we're getting. It's commentary dressed up as news. And then during the break, I'm watching this guy, Trey Yingst, I think it's why I angsty who's in the Middle East Fox. I believe I never met the man, but I've been watching his reporting.

And of course, he's very pro Palestinian, like almost all the rest of the media. The New York Times, Washington Post and so forth, you may not know this, but the secretary of state, this is a remarkable man. He's a great man. He's in the Middle East. He's in Israel. And he decided, I'm going to go into Samarra, you know, Judea and Samaria. This is the. The historic center of the Jewish people.

So, of course, Yingst calls it the West Bank, he's never going to call it by its historic name, the West Bank, a name that was given to it by the Jordanian government because it was, quote unquote, the West Bank of Jordan. And they keep calling that.

Then he tells us of these international decisions that these areas are considered Palestinian or these areas are considered in dispute.

They're not in dispute, Israel's not giving them away ever. Palestinians have no claim to them, not in the Bible, not anywhere. It's amazing all over the world, indigenous people, indigenous, even in our own country, we talk about indigenous people. Who have rights and will view them as victims in the case of the Jews. They're viewed as the provocateurs. Now, if these areas. They're considered see you see, Troy, I actually know the Oslo Accords and all the rest, this area that Pompeo visited is not in dispute.

The Palestinians have portions. Today in Samarra. Huge portions. Then there is sort of no go areas where. Sort of both sides.

At least in past, agreements have no claim, and then there's the Jewish areas, and so Pompeo visited the Jewish areas and this guy trading's basically said these areas are in dispute according to the international, you know, law.

International groups. What kind of what kind of nonsense is that? So Pompeo visits a winery there. The Psagot Winery. Which sells wine in our own country. Very controversial, he says no secretary of state has ever done it. That's why he's a great man. Visited a winery in the West Bank, he was said to have done. Did something else extremely controversial. Ladies and gentlemen, what did he do? He said from now on, products shipped.

From Judea and Samaria by Jews will be will be labeled products from the state of Israel, not from. You know, occupied territory, the West Bank, or however they wish to put it. That was said to be very, very controversial as well, not only that, Pompeo announced that, look, we have these BDS movements that these anti-Semitic movements by these so-called non-profit and other organizations. And as far as I'm concerned, Pompeo says we've had it with this anti-Semitism, any organization.

That is involved in this anti-Semitic movement. We're going to make sure that they don't get funding of any kind from the federal government, the United States government. That was said to be controversial to.

By trying. I know nothing about Yingst. Set these highly. Highly partisan in the way that he reports, I was going to say something else, but I'll be restrained. Highly partisan. It was very painful to watch. But watch, I did. I have a question. With the flick of a switch, all the concerns about the Dominion voting system are gone now. Now we have reports by Reporters Axios, which is a left wing site, and others telling us how the Trump team's pathway is nonexistent and how the Trump team is history.

Do you know what this is all aimed at?

Ladies and gentlemen, the judges. The media. Are trying to influence the judges, particularly on the U.S. Supreme Court, with a case that's pending their. That's what they're doing. They're also trying to influence the outcome of the Georgia election for the two Senate seats. They don't want anything really dug into their. And they want to influence the outcome of the 2024 presidential race. There's no evidence of fraud or violations of the Constitution. Why should we change anything?

People don't want to sign their ballots or forget or if they sign and they don't really match with the signature they gave before or they fail to get a postal stamp. So we see that the vote came in on time. What's the problem?

There's no evidence of fraud because they've taken fraud and they've institutionalized it.

They've enshrined it. That's what they've done. No evidence of fraud here. It's also legal, it's it's also Alice in Wonderland. And yet, as is pointed out, a town hall by Guy Benson. Yes, Democrats and media hypocrites on Stacey Abrams and the sanctity of accepting election results. Mary Katharine Ham and what is now a famous. Television clip on CNN handed these fools their lunch. Says her margin of loss to Republican Brian Kemp in Georgia was 54000 723, substantially larger than he says Joe Biden's lead over Donald Trump in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin combined.

If those three states had voted slightly differently with all else equal, the Electoral College would have been deadlocked at 269 and the Democrat Party in the media have continued to promote the lie that Stacey Abrams actually won and the vote was stolen from her. Where's the evidence for that? 54000, 723 votes. They can take the margin in Arizona, Georgia. And Wisconsin combined, that's over 45000 about. Rather than recoiling in horror at her continual refusal to consider race, she lost Abram's party and media cheering section has handsomely rewarded her behavior.

Democrats elevated her stature by selecting her as their official responded to the subsequent State of the Union address. Donors have showered her organization's various initiatives with mounds of cash. She's been given glossy, glowing treatment and endless string of magazine covers, covers and fawning interviews. She's been vetted by celebrities and turned into a Hollywood film producer. She's been empowered, enriched and emboldened.

Losing an election and refusing to concede in her case has made her famous and influential. And her shameless undermining of democracy has paid off in spades.

Her profile has never been higher to the point that she vaulted on to many analysts vice presidential short lists, having only held office as a state representative. But mentioning any of this. Even as Abrams has been glorified by the news media as a heroine for democracy, literally as that same news media is aghast by Trump's lack of concession, is a bridge too far?

For the media. This is why you hate the media. This is why reporters would do well to try and actually report. There are more stories about this Dominican voting system that liberal Democrats. That governments, that others. Experts, news organizations were very, very concerned about, but it just it worked so perfectly, Mr. Producer, there's no need for transparency, no need to get a hold of any of the software, no need to check any of it.

No, no, no. To conspiracy theory, I know I heard it from a professor on television. There's no evidence of anything I know I heard it from a former federal prosecutor. The entire press conference by Giuliani and the others was a complete fraud, no credible explanation of a path, they didn't reveal enough fraud. They didn't talk about the court cases that have been overturned.

I heard this from about a 23 year old reporter.

So just roll it up, no cameras, no recounts, no litigation, no constitutional challenges, and we'll just deal with it in two years and in four years, right, America. Will that make you happy? No, it would infuriate you. For good reason, three and a half years of this Russia hoax bullcrap. And now where's the evidence, where's the evidence where you've got hundreds of affidavits? Involving hundreds and hundreds of examples of fraud, it doesn't add up.

Look how they keep moving the P. In the shell game. No evidence, not enough evidence. Where's the evidence? The same people who push the Russia hoax when there was no evidence day in and day out, day in and day out, day in and day out, legal analysts, former federal prosecutors, former Justice Department officials telling us how serious this is when there was nothing.

We have signed sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury. In civil actions, not criminal actions, civil actions. And this is the crap we get. I'll be right back. Much love in. As we enter the Christmas season, most of us stop to consider our many blessings. While Hillsdale College wishes to thank you for standing with them as they celebrate over one hundred and seventy five years of blessings since 1844, Hillsdale has held fast to its mission to provide the kind of education essential to preserving free government.

And for decades, the college has extended its educational mission on behalf of liberty through a variety of outreach programs. Perhaps you receive an Prima's for free every month, or have taken one of Helstone excellent free online courses or have attended one of Hillsdale free regional events. Now you know of Hillsdale s refusal to take even one penny of government money. This independence allows the college to focus on promoting its core purposes, learning character, faith and freedom without any government interference.

At no time in our nation's history has there been a greater need for the kind of classical liberal arts education that Hillsdale offers on its campus and nationwide. So during this season of Blessings Hillsdale, thank you for your partnership. In extending its mission to the country to learn more about Hillsdale College, visit Lhevinne for Hillsdale Dotcom. That's Levien for Hillsdale Dotcom. Lhevinne for Hillsdale Dotcom and.

This is the best of Mark Levin. Happy Thanksgiving, Breitbart. Republican canvassers rescind their votes to certify Wayne County, Michigan, results. These two.

These two Republican canvassers were viciously attacked as racist. They were threatened, they were intimidated, the woman, her child was threatened and so they buckled and then later they thought about it and they said, no, we're not going to give in to this. So they rescinded it. That should be a headline everywhere in this country.

But they laugh at them, Trump campaign lawyer under protection from threats of harm. This is a single lawyer practitioner who was involved in that case in Pennsylvania. That's why Rudy had to fly in. Among other reasons, she was threatened. She's now protected by the United States Marshals, among others.

Because she represented the Trump campaign in court or was supposed to. I've heard nothing about this from the big media, from big tech, nothing where we have lawyers and law firms now being intimidated and threatened.

This is disgusting. Waiting for John Turley and Andy McCarthy and Kristen Fisher and this guy in the Middle East, Trey Yank's, maybe others.

Maybe they'll comment on that.

Maybe not. This is very perplexing to me.

We had the FBI director, Ray, and the head of the cyber security group, whatever that is, warn us that the Russians were trying to sway the election for Joe Biden and the Chinese were excuse me for Donald Trump and the Chinese were trying to sway it. For Trump, for Chinese are trying to sway it, for Biden, Russians, for Trump. That's what they all said. Now we're told it's a fanciful conspiracy theory to even think they tried.

What are they talking about? What are they talking about? Again, it's like a light switch on and off. So the Russians didn't do anything, the Chinese didn't do anything, the Dominion voting system, which was attacked by at least two dozen different entities, members of Congress. Security experts, some some experts and colleges, as well as as well as media organizations, now, that's a conspiracy theory to. I'm telling you, you got to give credit to these lawyers, they're putting their necks on the line and they're being trashed, stabbed in the back.

At the same time, the media in this country are sickening.

And there's a growing level of sickening media personalities out there.

I'll be right back. From the Westwood One podcast network. He's here, he's here. Now, broadcasting from the underground command post, deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader. This is Mark Levin wishing you and your family a happy Thanksgiving. Now back to the best of me, talking to a friend of mine, and he asked me if I would sign a copy of his book, Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism.

This is a book that I wrote in 2016, came out in 2017.

So I did and I decided to read the back cover. I don't always go back and read my books, maybe I should. And here's what the back cover this book says. And by the way, the great professor Paul Kengor is going to be using this course excuse me, this book in a course that he teaches at Grove City Goodman. And here's part of what I put in the epilogue.

The epilogue three years ago, I confess that I often wonder what America will become in 50 or 100 years, I should have taken a zero off of that. But here you go.

What will the future hold for our children and grandchildren? Will they be free, happy, prosperous, independent and secure? What will be left of our constitutional system? Well, the Bill of Rights have the force of law. What about property rights? Will they matter? How many will remember or care to learn about our founding principles as concisely and brilliantly set forth in the Declaration of Independence? How many remember or care today? And what of the civil society or the social compact, will it have frayed beyond repair?

Well, we have been conquered from within as Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Stalin, Abraham Lincoln feared might be our fate. Well, we have avoided the doom of Athens and Rome. For honest with ourselves, we must agree that the outcome is unclear. The reason a century or so of progressive governance and schemes targeting the uniqueness of America, including its founding principles and Republican system. Future generations will look back on what we have done and know the answers. They will draw their judgments about this generation and record them in their history books.

What lessons will they have learned, what will they say about us? Well, they say that we were a wise and conscientious people who understood and appreciated the blessings of our existence and surroundings and prudentially and conscious and conscientiously cared for them. Well, they say that we were a self-indulgent, inattentive people, easily shepherded in one direction or another. Who stole the future from our own children and generations yet born and squandered an irreplaceable heritage? It's on the back cover.

The rediscovering Americanism. I worry that we'll be able to answer many of those questions. Depending on how recent events turn out. Now. I want to talk a little bit. About evidence. A little bit about as evidence, we keep hearing demands for evidence, we'll hear it from left wing reporters, we hear it from Democrats and Republicans, we hear it from our friend Tucker.

We hear it from everybody. I understand. Where's the evidence? Not just evidence, overwhelming evidence. I want to explain something and I'll do it on the Sunday show as well. To file a civil complaint, that's what we're talking about, civil litigation. And what concerns me is the ignorance of people on TV and radio and obviously the Democrat Party media and the ignorance.

Or the unwitting deception of former federal prosecutors and professors on television. To file a civil complaint, you need a reasonable basis, in fact, in law. Allegations can be made on information and belief. Now, motion to dismiss by the defense test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, so assuming everything in the complaint is true, this is how the judge looks at does it state a claim upon which relief can be granted? So for a motion to dismiss, everything is assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are granted to the plaintiff.

We've had some cases dismissed that were very solid cases out west, among other places that all these commentators really haven't looked at and they haven't read. And so judges need to follow the rules and in some cases they're not. But that's a side point. Expedited discovery. Expedited discovery can be granted by court, and it often is when injunctive relief, a sort of a temporary restraining order and our preliminary injunction, depending on the need for prompt resolution, that discovery can be ordered immediately right in court.

From the judge sitting in his chair, courts have the power to speed discovery along and very fast. So you don't have to go and most people don't go into court file civil complaint with reams and reams of quote unquote evidence.

Do you want to know why? Because there hasn't been discovery yet. They're trying to gather enough information. Where it looks like a reasonable basis exists, in fact, and law to the allegations that are being made now, it's great if you can have sworn affidavits and the Trump campaign has hundreds and hundreds of sworn affidavit.

But you don't have to have sworn affidavits. And you certainly don't have to have a ton of evidence. When you hear people on TV and radio going on and on, where's your evidence, where you're at? Where's your evidence? Discovery hasn't even taken place. And then they say, well, then what's your point? They don't even understand how the civil litigation side of our justice system works.

What do you mean? What's the point? I have enough information here to make an allegation based on a reasonable basis, in fact, and law. And we want the opportunity to pursue our lawsuit and to conduct discovery, written discovery document demands, depositions, whatever it takes, and we'd like to conduct discovery very, very quickly in a very fast schedule. And at that point, you can, in fact, get sappiness. Right now, none of that exists unless a court allows it to exist.

So, again, the next time you hear a 25 year old reporter or a host demand, where's the evidence? Where's the evidence? And there's not enough evidence. You know, in many cases, they're ignoramuses who do not understand the process. I'll give you another example. Let's take this Dominion voters system or any of these voting systems, pick any of them. An unexplained, significant deviation from expected results, mathematical inconsistency supported by experts. Experts who look at the information, true experts.

Who file affidavits and file reports. That should be more than sufficient, more than sufficient. If they're credible individuals filing credible reports, raising questions. To establish a reasonable basis to file a complaint and justify fast discovery. I only point this out because I'm getting so frustrated and worn out by watching so-called legal analysts on TV and then individuals who have neither a law background.

Nor a comprehensive or any understanding. Of how litigation works, pounding their fists on the table, demanding evidence, I must have the evidence. Well, if you have the evidence, you don't need discovery. And yet discovery is what's needed. That's why they're going to court, that's why they're providing. Information, allegations based on information and belief, a reasonable basis, in fact, and law.

To pursue discovery. And judges need to comply with the law to. That the rules of procedure. That's all the campaigns are asking for. And so you have that that deals with. Allegations of fraud. And it also deals with a desire to look at these. Voting systems. To make sure they're accurate and if you have experts coming out of Princeton, experts at the security measures, experts on statistics, mathematical inconsistencies and so forth and so on, that should be enough.

Where's your evidence? Where I went, there I went. Well, then they get to pursue discovery. The wonderful somebody handed them. 150000 ballots and said, look at this. These are all printed in China and never works that way. So that's just stupid. So this is the test that applies. And the fraud cases and this is the test that would apply with Dominion voting systems and the other voting systems. OK. Number two. A constitutional claim.

This is a separate bucket.

The Constitution says in Article two, Section one, clause two in this audience, you've memorized this already, each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.

In other words, the electors to the Electoral College is going to be the Democrat electors or the Republican electors. Now, what does that mean exactly? Why would the framers of the Constitution and the ratifiers in the States want this specific language because it focuses on the legislature? Because, ladies and gentlemen, the fact is that the framers of the Constitution knew that they would have to focus on the legislature because otherwise the state conventions would never have ratified this constitution.

Remember, the states were creating this new federal government. They were not going to abandon or surrender their power over setting election laws, how do I know that? Because I went back and I read.

I read some of the debates and discussions at the ratification conventions. That's why that language is in there. There's nothing about state judges, federal judges that governor, secretary of state boards of elections would say never heard of before.

No, no, no, no.

Not even the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislature has the final say.

And so what you have, and there's a reason for that, among other things, what you have in Pennsylvania and what you have in Georgia with a consent decree are changes in the election laws, the status quo that were set in place by the state legislature, as is required under the federal constitution of changes being made by courts, by governors, by secretaries of state and by bureaucrats.

All of which are unconstitutional. And for John Roberts to take a pass on this three or four weeks ago is appalling. What the Supreme Court should still say is it is a violation of Article two, Section one. Clause two. For anybody but the legislature. To create the state election laws, otherwise we're going to have chaos. For the rest of time, people are not going to trust. The outcome of these elections, and I don't blame you.

Number two is the equal protection clause. It's in the 14th Amendment, it's in the Fifth Amendment, as applies to the states. It's in the 14th Amendment. Bush versus Gore, they even raised it, the five to four majority. Well, what does that mean? That means you said you must treat voters the same, you can't have special privileges and special information for certain voters and not others.

And so in several of these states, they changed the rules again, again in Pennsylvania as an example, one example. You had the radical Democrat secretary of state telling the various election boards in the various counties that are Democrat, mostly counties like in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, to secure the ballots, that is to open them before Election Day, which have already violate state law.

If their problems contact the voter and have them either file a new ballot or correct the ballot that was filed, that was not done in Republican areas. For the most part, that's a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

And there are several other examples of this. Now, shouldn't we pursue these things or should we just stop? George says he's done the recount, they didn't check the signatures, all they did is count the same ballots. Now, they came up short a few thousand, but all they did is count the same ballots. That's not what the Trump administration is seeking.

They want to know if the signatures match, among other things. They've been told to bad. More when I return my love in. Folks, this election is not over until all the legal votes have been counted, no matter what the corporate media incessantly try to shove down your throat, this is why it's never been more important for you to subscribe to Levin TV on the Blaze TV network, just like you. I am sick of the lies. I'm sick of the censorship.

I'm sick of the kowtowing to the power hungry Democrat Party and their left wing Praetorian Guard media.

There's a battle for our republic going on and we're on the front lines every day fighting the good fight for the whole country, including you. So if you're not currently a subscriber, let's make sure you sign up today at Lhevinne TV.com. Subscribe now and receive a special thirty dollars off your annual subscription. That's thirty dollars off with a promo code. Lhevinne 20-20. That's eleven. 20-20 Blaze TV Network is the largest network of free speech, pro-American news and entertainment bar none.

Come join us today and see why. That's Levin TV.com. Levin TV.com.

You're listening to the best of the Mark Levin Show. Happy Thanksgiving.

Try to walk through this in a careful way so people understand there's been a ton of misinformation and disinformation out there about how litigation works.

Some of the reporters on all the stations have been absolutely awful.

Some of the hosts are or are venting and pounding tables and making demands because they don't understand how this works. And you need to take the time to really understand it. You don't just look at this.

Evidence doesn't work that way.

You hope it does, but it does. All right. More when I return. This is the best of Mark Levin. Happy Thanksgiving, The Mark Levin Show live at National at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one.

I think I'm going to dip in and out of philosophy as we go forward in the program, because I think it relates. John Stuart Mill over here, John Stuart Mill. Brilliant man, he wrote on Liberty. And as I write again and rediscovering Americanism, I'm not encouraging anybody not to buy anything, I'm handling this right here.

He was riding in alive around the time that Marx and Engels, where Hagel, Rousseau. Who really believed in the. The abandonment of the individual for the state, even though they would argue that it was for the individual. And well, Mitchell witnessed. In the 1980s, the growing influence and tyrannical threat of the so-called reformers. And what would later include the progressives and he address them like this?

He said some of those modern reformers who have placed themselves in strongest opposition to the religions of the past have been no way behind either churches or sects. And their assertion of the right of spiritual domination, their aims at establishing a despotism of society over the individual.

Surpasses anything contemplated in the political idea of the most rigid disciplinarian among the ancient philosophers. He's saying even the ancient philosophers, the great thinkers of mankind, never imagined. Communism. Or things like communism. He said, in fact. As Mel was writing his books and essays, I said, the ideologies are Rousseau, Hegel and Marx, among others, for taking tangible political form at the urging of intellectuals throughout the world, including in the West, including in the United States.

Marxism, Hagel ism, Rousseau ism. Ladies and gentlemen, gave birth to the modern Democrat Party to the so-called progressives. It runs completely contrary to our founding principles in our Constitution. M. wrote, Apart from the peculiar tenants of individual thinkers, there is also in the world at large an increasing inclination. To stretch unduly the power of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation, and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society and diminish the power of the individual.

This encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable.

This disposition of mankind, whether its rulers or as fellow citizens to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature.

That it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want to power and as the power is not declining but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against this mischief, we must expect in the present circumstances of the world. To see it increase. I'd say he was prescient, wouldn't you, Mr. Producer? It's about 170 years ago, give or take. He saw it as much as the framers thought that tyranny not just of the monarchy, but the tyranny of the mob.

When you have The Washington Post writing a really. Barely literate tome in its editorial page to get rid of the Electoral College, that tells you everything you need to know.

This is not a democracy. It must never be a democracy or we won't have a bill of rights, people don't get the vote up or down. On the structure of the Constitution, on whether you have unalienable rights in that this is where we're headed, when they're talking about effectively burning down the Supreme Court, burning down the United States Senate, burning down this, that and the other institution in order to advance the neo Marxists and Marxist ideology today called progressivism.

But it's not. You must eliminate the barriers that are set up in a republic and in our republic, it's set up in the Constitution, you must destroy them. This is why I get angry, more than frustrated, angry when I hear Republicans. Oh, come on, let's get over that with a vote.

There are legitimate challenges taking place. They're ready to surrender at every turn. We're fighting for our republic. And as I said at the beginning of the show, one of our children and grandchildren are going to say, what are future generations going to say? What are they going to write about us? As I say, during the course of this Friday program, I'll be. Touching on philosophy here and then rather than straight through. It was a great honor to interview the president of the United States on September 20th, seems like yesterday.

And I do seriously consider him one of the great presidents for reasons that will be written about when we live in more sober times. We now know a vaccine is going to be available literally in days, maybe weeks, but likely days for distribution. As a result of operation warp speed. The administration working with the private sector, the administration clearing out the red tape and all the clutter. That exists at the FDA and the NIH and the infectious disease office and all the rest of it.

President and his people did this despite the fact that they were under endless attack. They were mocked. They are people who know nothing. And he already has. Produced tens of millions of vials and syringes. And units for the vaccine even before they knew if it was effective. Just assuming it might be and multiple vaccines, I might add. Very difficult in terms of transportation, the Pfizer vaccines have to be 70 degrees below zero. Well, then you don't just throw them in the back of a pickup truck and deliver them to you.

The Moderna vaccine has to be at Fresen again, it requires special transport. And so all this has been worked out already. And unfortunately, was all announced after the election, and I believe that was intentional. And so the man who was responsible for leading this effort. Is now fighting in the courts. To uphold the Constitution. This whole vaccine issue at the time, the way the Democrats were treating it, was really appalling. It was unconscionable with a president is literally trying to save lives beyond masks and social distancing and all the rest.

He understood the president that it's going to take a vaccine and it's going to take therapeutics to address this viral enemy. So here, I want you to listen to this in my interview with the president on September 20th, cut to go.

I want to start with the vaccine. I'm watching the news coverage. And for some reason, the media and the Democrats are very hostile to vaccine. They're very hostile to the vaccine coming out quickly. They're trying to politicize this. The nine CEOs of these pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, said we're not cutting corners. We're following the science. What do you think? There's such hostility from the Democrat Party, from my perspective and the media about getting a vaccine in record time.

They want to denigrated. This started about three weeks ago because they started hearing rumors that we were going to have this vaccine and super record time. So instead of saying, wow, that's great, it's going to save a lot of lives and people are going to be protected and this whole thing will end faster. It's going to end anyway, but it's going to end faster. They started denigrate I noticed it about three weeks. They started denigrating. And the reason they're doing that is because they think I'll get credit if we have a vaccine anywhere near the election, but certainly before the election.

But essentially, we're there now anyway and we're ready to distribute very rapidly. So what they're doing is trying to make it like that's not such a big deal when actually it's one of the greatest things that anyone has done. And I'm not saying me, I'm saying anyone. It's so incredible. It's so important. And they've done it in record time. If this were a typical administration, this vaccine wouldn't be ready for two or three years because of the FDA process.

I have totally changed the FDA process, same safety, but the speed is from a different world and we should have the vaccine approved very soon up and approved. Plus, we have many companies doing it. Great companies, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Moderna. We have many companies doing it and almost all of them are having this so far, seemingly very good results there in phase three trial. That means to a right of the end of the process, really looking good and could be really early.

And so all of a sudden, instead of saying, wow, this is great news, we're going to have the vaccine early, they're saying, oh, the vaccines coming out too soon, it's going to be unsafe. It's going to be all of these things has nothing to do with the safety. These are great companies. They're not going to put themselves on the line. They would have tremendous liability.

He was so right. And what was being done to him in this effort was so unconscionable. It's the only word I can think of.

And the president today at the White House. Again, absolutely right, cut three go. This is not an easy thing to do. Big Pharma ran millions of dollars of negative advertisements against me during the campaign, which I won, by the way. But, you know, we'll find that out, almost 74 million votes. We had big pharma against us. We had the media against us. We had big tech against us. We had a lot of dishonesty against us.

But Big Pharma alone ran millions and millions of dollars in ads. In fact, I looked at it. I said, who is it? They have never seen anything quite like it because I told them, I'm going to have to do this. You know, I was put here to do a job and Pfizer and others were way ahead on vaccines. You wouldn't have a vaccine if it weren't for me for another four years because the FDA would have never been able to do what they did, what I forced them to do.

And Pfizer and others even decided to not assess the results of their vaccine. In other words, not come out with a vaccine until just after the election. Now, let's stop right there.

This is what's so. Disgusting. This is what's so outrageous, and rather than Mitt Romney, who is another media whore out there throwing bricks at the president of the United States, demanding that he concede Mitt Romney, who really has always been kind of a stupid guy, to be perfectly honest with, he was always in his father's shadow.

And most of what he has accomplished was a result of his father, both in business and politics. But that aside. Be nice, Mitt Romney. Had used his position. They also talk about the vaccines that were coming, but he wouldn't be nice. Ben Sasse, Mr. Phony Constitutionalist. Rather than attacking the president. Would have been supportive of this effort and we'll be speaking out about it now. I despise these people. And. Each day that goes by, despise them even more.

They contribute nothing to this society. Just a bunch of big mouths, they contribute nothing to the health and well-being of this country. There are self-righteous blowhards, that's exactly what they are. There is no way a Mitt Romney would have been able to run an operation warp speed, he would have been devoured by the bureaucracy in two seconds. There's no way of Ben Sasse would have been able to do it either. He'd still be looking for the men's room.

I don't know of any. President, Republican or Democrat, who would have been able to achieve this not. And here I'm interviewing him about what is it, seven weeks, give or take before the election, he's telling the American people, we're very close, we're very close. And he was accused by the Democrats of politicizing the vaccine. That he was doing it too fast, that he was avoiding health and safety concerns and he was doing it because of his election and as it turns out, he was doing it to save lives and it was the companies.

Who sat on the results until after the election? Moderna and Fizer. Moderna and Fizer. And I don't know the amount from Edirne off the top of my head because I got one point nine dollars billion in your dollars. And the reason why they're going to be distributing this vaccine in a matter of days, if not weeks, is because it's been produced. The government under Donald Trump already paid for millions and millions. Of units of this vaccine and the delivery technologies.

It was in the works this summer. There is no way Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or any of the Marxists and neo Marxists or the front people for the Marxist or the neo Marxists would have done any of this. They'd be busy nationalizing these companies. They be busy locking down the economy, demanding you wear masks, telling you not to go to Thanksgiving, telling you not to travel.

Because they don't know what the hell to do other than use the iron fist and God forbid, if they take over the presidency and the Senate. Because we the people will pay a price, almost 74 million of us are going to pay the price of the ignoramuses. Who voted for tyranny? Let's hope not. I'll be right back. Much love in. This is Mark Levin wishing you and your family a happy Thanksgiving. Now back to the best of me.

You know, when you read as much as I'd like, for instance, this weekend, what am I going to do? Read. Research. Study. This is what I do. When you do as much of that as I do and you do it your entire life. And you see the horizon of mankind. You see almost the beginning of Mantan. Even predictions then the ancients and you move into. Towards our period here, the Renaissance and.

The Enlightenment, which isn't that long ago, and then you look at the United States and you say, my God. This is this is the hope diamond of civilization. For thousands of years. And then you realize you're one election away. From destroying it. It's hard to sleep at night. I can tell you that right now it's hard to sleep at night and to know that we might be outnumbered. It's just it's just a shocking wake up call, what from here on, we're one election away, one election, and we can't win every single election for the Senate or the presidency and so forth.

And they've even fixed that system. I don't mean reformed. I mean fixed it toward a certain outcome. From the Westwood One podcast network. Ladies and gentlemen, this final hour of the podcast is sponsored exclusively by Aimé, the Association of Mature American Citizens, now over two million conservative members, Strong EMAC believes in and stands up for the values that we care about faith, family and freedom. Thank you for listening and please support Amen. And you can become a member at Amax U.S. Join me here.

Now, broadcasting from the underground command post, deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader. You're listening to The Best with the Mark Levin Show. Happy Thanksgiving. Hello, America. Mark Levin here, our number eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one. A petition circulating Fox Business reports at Harvard to stop former Trump administration officials from attending, teaching or speaking at the university.

Petitions circulating in the Harvard University student body. Seeks to ban Trump administration officials from teaching, speaking or attending the institution because of their association with the president, tell me, America, do you want to pay off their student loans? How about you, Mr. Producer? Bunch of snobby asses like this, I don't want anything to do with them, let alone pay off their student loans. The petition discovered by Fox Business, Lydia Moynahan, represented the latest attempt to punish Trump Associates.

Students are demanding that if the university does associate with a Trump alumnus, they'll, quote, create and share with students transparent guidelines for why guidelines.

Guidelines. What are they teaching at Harvard? Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism. Even worse. Harvard, like other colleges, has been accused of censoring conservative viewpoints. No, no, no, no. Shortly, not last year, the university came under fire for requiring a neutral so-called moderator to be present for controversial speakers, you know, kind of like Facebook and Twitter. Did we get whacked by Facebook and Twitter again or just Facebook, Mr. Producer? I posted a link.

To Doug Ross, great guy, statistician, really it guy who went through a number of charts, a number of models and went through the the kind of voting that was taking place in certain areas, questioning it. And they just said it was flat out false, didn't they?

I restricted what does that mean? So nobody's and for how long will nobody see me unless they go to my page? We'll be leaving Facebook very soon. Ladies and gentlemen, please join us over Parler. At Mark Levin Show at Parlo, we're going to be I'm not kidding. I'm just trying to milk them for everything they're worth, the stupid bastards, they let us go on their site to tell you to get off their site and come up with a parlor.

And by the end of the year, that's what we're doing, maybe sooner. How does that guy with his weird haircut and he looks like he's about 14 years old, Zuckerberg and his hair, and he acts like we're not doing anything wrong and we just want to make sure this side or the other.

You're restricted, you're censored. You're labeled. They've picked up a lot from the genocidal communist regime in China, they've picked up a lot of bad habits over there back to Harvard, where liberty isn't what it used to be either. The policy reportedly allowed the moderator to impose a two strike rule on interruptions and had to be registered with a dean of students. A month in advance, an editorial for the Harvard Crimson, a student run newspaper, blasted the policy.

You know what? The Harvard Crimson believes more in freedom of the press than most of the media in this country. And its other aspects as paternalistic, ineffective and contrary to the college's stated goals of free speech, let alone the Constitution, of course. Representative Alexander and others have already encouraged the creation of an apparent blacklist of people who helped President Trump during his time in office.

Does anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity? She said never. We're keeping a list of your stupid remarks because you truly are low IQ. Two Democratic operatives responded by touting the Trump Accountability Project, which seeks to prevent Trump associates from profiting off of their time helping him. Look at what's going on, ladies and gentlemen. The fascists are on the move. Marxism, fascism, really. They have the same core, even though they apply it differently.

Just look at the look at them. I mean, Antifa should be knocking at the door of Harvard University. The Antifa should be knocking at the door of a. If they're serious about being antifascist, but of course, they are the fascist. And so this is part and parcel of what's going on. Now, another issue I wanted to raise, this is from our friends at Breitbart Report, Republican Senators Cornyn and Grassley. Grassley apparently has the coronavirus right now hints at immigration deal with Joe Biden.

This is how it works. Even before Biden is certified, his electors, even before he's inaugurated, even before the fat lady sings. They want to deal. They don't know how to deal. Trump knows how to deal. They don't know how to deal. I hate to say Pelosi knows how to fight these guys, I don't know how to fight, so already they're buckling. They want a deal, which means they're going to get their asses kicked all over Capitol Hill.

That's the nature of the beast, so Cornyn already and others have buckled. They want to deal. The Hill reports, quote, I think that would be a good thing to do, John Cornyn said about the potential to do immigration next year. The challenges, you've got to get the votes. But that to me, is one of my biggest disappointments in my time in the Senate, our inability to get that done. Adding that he would try to be part of the effort.

The topic comes back up. Grassley said such a deal would need to be somewhere in between the vocal open borders wing of the Democrat Party and the immigration reformers of the Republican Party.

They don't have to worry, do they, Mr. Producer, didn't Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the rest said. Basically, it's open season if people want to come in here legally. So I don't know what they plan to negotiate, not only that at the time they're done, they'll have free college. Free health care and they'll be treated as the United States citizens will eventually get citizenship. So why would the Democrats negotiate with. A couple long in the tooth, Republicans certainly not in goodwill and certainly not in any serious way.

It's really amazing. They're ready to negotiate already when the Democrats have already said. You know, there's going to be mass immigration in this country, including illegal immigration. In fact, Biden also said no deportations in the first 100 days.

So when you're telling people all over the world seven billion people, six billion of whom live in poverty, when you're telling them if you get here, we're not going to remove you if you get here. Free education, if you get here, free health care. If you get here, you'll be treated pretty much as a citizen. Well, then why would we have any negotiations on immigration? Biden also says he wants the people who are already here illegally.

To be addressed specifically and eventually to have citizenship, so we're talking about tens of millions of people. Now, why did the Democrat Party do this 12 years ago, 15 years ago, 13, whatever it was? They strongly opposed giving citizenship to illegal aliens. They strongly supported border security because they were protecting their big friends and big labor big labor back then didn't want all these illegal immigrants here because that undermined the wages and the benefits of their members.

Now, because public excuse me, private sector unionism is waning. Biden has two plans. One force major corporations and then smaller corporations to unionize their workforce, whether their workforce wants it or not, eliminate right to work laws where the employees actually get to choose whether they want to be union or not, and the vast majority choose not. And number two. The unions want illegal aliens to be able to work so they can be unionized and pay dues, so you always have to look into context this people say follow the money, that's fine, follow the money.

But the end game is power. What can empower the Democrat Party, what can empower the potentates of the Democrat Party, whether they use race or climate change or immigration, whether they use health care or whatever it is, it all has the same purpose. I'll be right back.

Much love in. AMEC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, is one of the fastest growing organizations in America now, over two million conservative members strong, and I'm one of them, a man who believes in and stands up for the values that we constitutional conservatives care about more than talk. AMOC fights a full time presence in Washington. AMOC pushes back against reckless spending disasters like Medicare for all and the expanding reach of the federal government and beyond. Advocacy.

Joining a map gives you access to a wealth of benefits and discounts, including special member only, rates on car insurance, travel discounts, cell phone plans and a hell of a lot more. And if that's not enough, you'll get Amax bi monthly magazine full of insightful articles on issues that matter to most of us. We conservatives, as I said, I'm an EMAC member and you should be to join today at Amoco's. That's A.M. Dot us stop supporting the liberal agenda that the other 50 plus organization has been pushing for.

Join AMOC instead a c US.

You're listening to the best of the Mark Levin Show. Happy Thanksgiving. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. How are you, sir? I'm great. Thanks for having me on, Mark.

It's a pleasure. I'm a little perplexed, though. And when the first paragraph of your column. The conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin has tweet in all caps, call for state legislatures, quote, Get ready to do your constitutional duty. Levin believes they have, quote, the final say, unquote, on which slate of presidential electors gets to vote in the Electoral College. Under this theory, even more people in a state, even if more people in the state voted for the Democrat, Joe Biden, their legislature would still have the power to pick a slate of Donald Trump electors.

Why did they say that? Well, I thought that's what people understood your tweet to be saying, people have been lying about my tweet for two weeks and I've come on this program and I've explained. That under my view, the state legislature passed election laws and the state legislature has the right to enforce its election laws. That a Supreme Court in the state that a a secretary of state, that a governor that couldn't get what he wanted through the legislature had no right to change the laws that the legislature put in place.

And from my perspective and maybe some of the members of the Supreme Court, the votes cast under the existing election laws, not those changed by the Supreme Court and the others, is the manner in which you count and thereby choose the electors. You disagree with that?

I agree with that completely. Well, that was my point. Well, what's interesting is your points been fundamentally misunderstood, not just by me. I mean, just today, the president's lawyer. Forget about the president. Hey, hey, hey.

I'm arguing in the alternative, the president's lawyer, what Accio said. I have spent two weeks trying to straighten this out. You should have called me on the phone and contacted me and said, here's here's what the Constitution says. And Professor, you know, but I want the audience to know. The the Article two Section one clause to each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature, there may direct a number of electors. What I said was a reminder to the Republican state legislature.

Do you have the final say over the choosing of electors? I didn't say they should select electors. They should enforce the law. They had the final say, OK, go ahead. OK, so we agree, we agree they should not they don't have the ability to select electors then after the election, I can debate that with you, but it's not relevant to my point.

Go ahead, what? OK, but, you know, when you say that the state legislatures have quote the final say, that's not true. Yes, it has. The final say is the law under which the electors are selected, but the law is being followed.

But, Professor. Let's deal in reality, the law they passed isn't being followed, that's one of the reasons are running it up to the Supreme Court and Alito issued his order twice. The laws not being followed, so somebody needs to step in and I would even go further with you and say this, even the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have the final say. The state legislature has the final say. They have the right to enforce. They have the right to say the decision by the state Supreme Court is null and void.

The effort by the governor is lawless, even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against us. This is what the Constitution says. Yes.

You know, I don't think that's a role of a legislature. I think the legislature gets to say what the rules are and they have and the Constitution says they have to have selected electors on a particular day.

I going to get to that in a minute. That wasn't my question, Professor. I'm talking about we'll get to the to the electors de. My question to you, and that's not even relevant, but I'm happy to discuss it with you. My question to you is, who has the final say? Who has the final say, the final say is the law, and so the question is how the law is applied and the law has determined the method by which electors.

OK, there's a dispute over who has the say, who has the final say. You don't have legislatures reviewing the application of the law. That's a fundamental violation of separation of powers. No, it's not.

In this case, the framers fundamentally stated the legislature shall they didn't they didn't have any concept of what the Supreme Court would be like it is today or even state courts if they didn't function that way. I went through I went through, Professor, the various ratification debates. I study this. I know you're the expert. I study it. And I went through Madison's notes. There's nothing here, nothing that gives judicial review to Article two and this Section zero.

And they specifically name the state legislature. Why did they do that? Right, but they they said this, the state legislature that gave the state legislature the power to, quote, select the manner that the electors shall be appointed so the court changes, which is it then?

But the selecting, the manner is different from reviewing the application of the law. There is no precedent that the legislature gets to review the law.

What do you mean there's no precedent? There was no precedent at the time this was written. What you're saying is I'm looking at it through the lens of today and I don't mind you're saying judicial activism. If I get the result I want. Isn't that really what you're saying?

No, I'm saying that there is never been a case in the history of America where the legislature has asserted the power to interpret its law and change or direct how electors are selected. Never.

What I'm saying to you, Professor, is we now have reached a point like we've never had in the history of America, where we have litigation in 40 states trying to overturn what legislatures have done over the course of the last several years. Can you name another time in American history when that's taken place? Well, there's been huge yeah, of course I can you can you can lead to the point around the Lochner period, there was endless litigation to over time about how electors are chosen.

There was not endless litigation over Article two, Section one, clause two. There's certainly that's brand new. That's brand new.

That's that's a creation of this election cycle. All right, now, let let me talk about this election date, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been talking about, you say, well, look, there's another part of the Constitution. You're quite right that says, look, we got to pick a date when we have these elections. Right. Fair enough, when the electors are appointed, yes, we have a diversity of elections, right, elections, election, the election.

No, no, no. Congress determines the time of the choosing of electors. The electors can be chosen by the legislature. That's possible. Or they can be chosen by an election. That's a choice for the legislature to make. And every legislature has chosen to select and buy an election.

So that's the change that. So can a court change that? No, of course, the count, but a court can change the way that electors are selected. No comment. OK, so you agree with me, that depends. Hold on. Now that you agree with me, then that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's action was unconstitutional?

No, because the question is whether it was a change or not. This is the whole quality that Bush v. Gore created.

Forget about Bush v. Gore. And I happen to agree with you. I never liked Bush v. Gore because I thought in the end Congress would make the decision. Quite frankly, I do.

I know you know much better. You know what's interesting about you and me? You're a leftist and I'm an originalist. And we agree on a lot of stuff like convention of states. I've been kind of bumping into you, but I never really have talked to you. I don't think I want to talk about that.

That's a great idea. And we'll do that another day, which we're trying to do. We'll do that another day.

But next time, when you write something like this where my name's in it, I can't even count how many times. Why don't you check in with me rather than reading these crap media reports that complete one guy wrote it at Vox and I can't stop it. The next guy writes it in, the next guy writes it and I'm going, who are they talking about? They're not talking about me. Yeah, I just sort of caution that this is really important, Mark, because if it's if we agree on this, then that's an important point to make clear to everyone that when people are pointing to you and your authority for the suggestion that the president's team can get state legislatures to pick a new slate of elected, not what I'm saying is the law that existed before the courts got involved is the law that should apply.

Hold on. We'll be right back. AMEC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, is one of the fastest growing organizations in America now, over two million conservative members strong, and I'm one of them, a man who believes in and stands up for the values that we constitutional conservatives care about more than talk. AMOC fights a full time presence in Washington. AMOC pushes back against reckless spending disasters like Medicare for all and the expanding reach of the federal government and beyond.

Advocacy. Joining a map gives you access to a wealth of benefits and discounts, including special member only, rates on car insurance, travel discounts, cell phone plans and a hell of a lot more. And if that's not enough, you'll get Amax bi monthly magazine full of insightful articles on issues that matter to most of us. We conservatives, as I said, I'm an EMAC member and you should be to join today at Amoco's. That's a m a c dot us stop supporting the liberal agenda that the other 50 plus organization has been pushing for.

Join amoc instead a a us.

This is Mark Levin wishing you and your family a happy Thanksgiving.

Now back to the best of me, Mark Levin.

America's Tyranny Hotter call No. Eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one.

Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig. Actually, you could tell he's a very nice man. And the people I know who know him and I don't know a lot, it's not in that in that respect, sir. He's a very good man. I think he is, too. And I'd like to bring them on in a couple of minutes, that minutes, a couple of months to discuss some other issues too, I think it could be actually quite enjoyable, like Convention of States and so forth.

XM Satellite, Eric in Dayton, Ohio, go right ahead, please. You didn't, sir. All right, my friend, go right ahead. I was looking today at American Thinker. It's in the code Trump won Michigan and Wisconsin. I have a question about what's in the code.

I'm sorry. What are you talking about? Well, there are two timestamps. Where in five minutes time.

All right. Thanks for your call.

Look, I can't have callers who are out there just throwing stuff against the wall. There are serious issues in both those states. I don't know nothing about two time stamps. I don't want everybody calling with every idea that they're reading on the Internet. I mean, as a trained lawyer and stuff like that, I've got to have more than that. That's why I've brought serious people on this program. Sydney Power's been on the program. Lin Wood has been on the program, we invited Rudy, but he had to get it quickly take a jet because the hearing went later than than typical.

Nobody's arguing that in a single case.

So this stuff's hard enough and one of the things the lawyers on the ground have to do, which makes it extremely time consuming. Is to vet people, to analyze what they're saying, to make sure they're on the up and up, and then persuade them to sign an affidavit, preferably not anonymously, under penalty of perjury.

So you can present it to a judge. This is why I get so frustrated with these commentators. Well, that's a one off. What do you mean it's a one off? They're saying they saw a pattern. They say they saw a broad case of this and so forth.

And any decent judge, particularly a trial judge, federal or state. Would give them the opportunity to conduct some discovery or even from the bench. What are some discovery? But that's becoming difficult to get in so that you have people on the sidelines shooting spitballs at them, unless you come up with 200000 ballots and that's say it's over. Show us the evidence. That's OK. These are people who don't litigator never have in any significant way or you have people who have.

But they've turned Hollywood. I'm just being honest. All right, Mr. Producer, who's next? Wait a minute, I think. Hold on, hold on, America. Hold on. You were able to watch this with me. Let's see here. Enter there. My God, it showed up. Let us go to Dave. Los Angeles, California, on XM Satellite. Go. No time out. You're a hero and a patriot. Thank you, Mark.

I've litigated for 35 years and I agree with you about discovery. And the one thing I wanted to put out there is, in my view, the key to proving fraud in these five cities. It was five cities in which the Democrats claim they turned this election. And the discovery that we need now is to see the mail ballot envelopes and do the signature checks that were required in the law by the law of every one of these states. Do it now and there is a remedy for that.

If we find fraudulent envelopes, then first of all, you're quite right.

I think I think you're sniffing down the right trail. Except there's one problem. They many of them throw away the envelopes.

So as a as a as a practicing litigator, you know what that means, that means they did that intentionally. That's. Well, that's spoliation of evidence, Mark, as you well know, and that was scandal, and if that and that is is that is true, then we need to know this.

But the claims that there's no remedy for failure to verify mail ballots as required by law is false.

Well, there is no remedy unless a court agrees and allows the the lawyers for the campaign to pursue it. This is the problem they're having.

Well, at least they should be making this record so that there is a record for the Supreme Court ultimately to rule on, while the record for the Supreme Court is they've brought whatever affidavits they have, they're working their way up.

Rudy Giuliani said, look, we're trying to get on a trail to the United States Supreme Court. So these are practice litigators. These are serious people who've spent their entire life litigating. So I agree with you.

Yeah, I'm not criticizing them. In fact, I've worked with them. I'm not criticizing them at all. But I want the American people to know, yes, there is a way to discover this right now through the normal civil discovery process. This record should be created. We should know how many fraudulent envelopes are out there, how many lacked signatures, how many were signed by the same person on laid down.

Now, in some states, you only require signature. And Dave and Dave, this is what I call the institutional engagement or the enshrinement of fraud. That is, they've they've taken what you're talking about, what you would typically chase, right? Where you would typically chase and they've made it legal.

My career, I know in these states, the statutes require signature checks, and so as you look at Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled.

That signatures are not required, signature matching is not required, and postal stamp dating is not required.

But but the legislature's statute says the opposite. I know that we've been talking about this for two weeks. That's why the matter needs to get to the Supreme Court. And then when you say, OK, they'll segregate those and we people that that's only 10000 votes, then you have equal protection arguments that are very, very important. Right, Dave? That is, if they're counting in dark blue areas, they're given an opportunity to secure their ballots. But in red areas, they're not even telling them they secure their ballots again in violation of state law.

That doesn't allow any hearing whatsoever. That's an equal protection issue. And so I say to people say, well, where are the 100000 ballots? I say, well, if the Supreme Court rules that that's unconstitutional at the Supreme Court rules. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did is unconstitutional. For all I know, it applies to several states.

I don't know what every state stands. So I'm just saying.

Yeah, well, I will tell you that in Nevada, the statute that these corrupt legislatures enacted in August to completely rewrite their statute requiring all mail out ballots in a transient, corrupt state like Nevada, even that statute specifically required signature checks by the registrar or an employee in the registrar's office. That's the exact statutory language. There is no provision for machine checking and they check those signatures into the machine, a machine.

And that, by the way, and that machine is calibrated to a 40 percent level. Adam Laxalt tells me the former attorney general, 40 percent.

Exactly. Wait a minute. I think I know who you are. I'm not going to say is more. Is Mort your friend? My buddy.

More, more, more. My buddy. Our mutual buddy. More. Here you go. This is our friend.

Well, let me just say this on the air. He loves you. He speaks highly of you. And I hope you're feeling OK. May I say that to you, Dave?

God bless you. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Wonderful to hear from you. It really is. You're very sharp. Well, good luck. Likewise. Thank you so much. And God bless. Folks, you don't know who that is, I know who he is, he's a very, very great lawyer. He's very good. And you can tell he knows what the hell he's talking about.

Let's continue, shall we? Joe Totowa, that's Totowa, New Jersey, where the hell is that? I thought I knew everything. Totowa, New Jersey.

Where is that, Joe? Close to when I was 23. So you kind of stuck there, you're telling me? Stuck. Yeah. Is that what you want to be in Totowa, New Jersey? I like totally New Jersey. Sorry. I'm sorry. People are real. Wait a minute. Taxes are low. Taxes aren't low anywhere in New Jersey.

All right. Anyway, go ahead. And and everybody voted for Trump.

Listen, until Trump came along, maybe ultimately nobody in Washington cared about the jobs for the people. And even though I'm a Republican, I think these student loans should go away. There are fraud on the on the kids. Now, come on.

Most of them aren't even kids anymore. Excuse me. What do you mean? They're a fraud on the kids now. You make them a fraud on the American people. I had nothing to do with those student loans. Why the hell should I and tens of millions of others pay for them? I'm sure you're not you are, you're not. That's the proposal, Mark. The reason was because 10 years, 10 years ago, it was a trillion dollars.

Now it's a trillion, 700 billion. What does that have to do with being another three years? My point is it's getting worse. It's not getting better.

Yeah, it's getting worse. And so your answer is everybody should pay for that. Tell me, should everybody pay for it? No, they're not. OK. No, they're not. I'll tell you what needs to be done, if you're serious about this, somebody needs to examine these colleges and universities. These tuitions are a joke. They need to stop expanding these colleges and universities. They're endlessly building all kinds of facilities. There's no oversight. Billions and billions of dollars from federal and state taxpayers are being poured into these institutions.

You have tenured leftist professors, some of whom teach one course a semester to make a quarter of a million dollars a year or 150000 dollars a year. You got layer and layer of administration and your answer is Joe Schmoe should just pay the loans.

No, I don't think so. And what if Joe Schmoe now is a doctor or a lawyer, you want an electrician or plumber to pay off that loan? All right, Totowa, I knew there was a problem, Totowa, whatever. Thanks for your call, Matt. I'll be right back.

Much love in. AMEC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, is one of the fastest growing organizations in America now, over two million conservative members strong, and I'm one of them man who believes in and stands up for the values that we constitutional conservatives care about more than talk. AMOC fights a full time presence in Washington. AMOC pushes back against reckless spending disasters like Medicare for all and the expanding reach of the federal government and beyond. Advocacy. Joining a map gives you access to a wealth of benefits and discounts, including special member only, rates on car insurance, travel discounts, cell phone plans and a hell of a lot more.

And if that's not enough, you'll get Amax bi monthly magazine full of insightful articles on issues that matter to most of us. We conservatives, as I said, I'm an EMAC member and you should be to join today at Amoco's. That's A.M. Dot U.S. stop supporting the liberal agenda that the other 50 plus organization has been pushing for. Join AMOC instead a m a c U.S..

And you're listening to the best of the Mark Levin Show.

Happy Thanksgiving, Nicole. Call Tampa, Florida, XM Satellite. How are you, Nicole? No, Mark, I just want to tell you that you are an inspiration to me every time I listen to you why and I, I just I'm a patriot. I'm, you know, obviously really upset with with what has happened. So our election system and you give me hope every time I listen to you on my XM Patriot. And of course, I'm still watching you on Fox, but thank you.

You might be one of the only ones that I'm watching on there.

Unfortunately, there's some good people out there, including one of my best buddies, you know, Sean Hannity. Yeah, well, listen, the call I want to thank you very, very much.

Very kind of you. You take care of yourself. Let's continue, Caleb St. Charles, Missouri, XM Satellite. Caleb, how are you? I'm wonderful, Mark, how are you this evening? I'm great, thank you. And the Show-Me State, just don't show me. You got it, so I picked up one of your books off the shelf over the weekend, and I think it's something that's gone on the back burner that millions of your listeners need to to revisit.

It was the Liberty Amendments. And I think that's what we're going through right now, more than ever demonstrates to the to the nation that we do need to revisit this convention of states idea to repeal the 17th Amendment and giving power back to the state legislature to elect senators and to require photo IDs for voting and try to limit that, you know, early voting. But I was very much inspired to go to the bookshelf every time I see a good Mark Levine.

But there are Ground Truth and Liberty amendments, really. It really stood out to me. And I do feel like that's something that we have got to begin to revive if we're going to take our country back.

You know, some of the things I do in your very kind club is I'll watch things, I'll discuss things on radio and TV. And then I say, you know what? I have to explain this in more detail and try and figure out if there's any any solutions to these things. And I have one life to live. So you want to do whatever you can.

And I'm not going to get into I'm working on a book now trying to deal with what I'm seeing all around us here, because I feel like there's millions of us, there's millions of us that need to know exactly what's taking place, why it's taking place, and to try and join together in a mass and try and effect some change. And so, you know, I don't I don't have any outside view of myself.

I just feel like from my little part, my little platform, I've got to do what I can. Caleb, thank you, my friend. Take care of yourself. Quickly, quickly. Let's go to Ryan McAllen, Texas, on XM Satellite.

Go ahead, Ryan. Mr. Levine, thank you for taking my call, sir. Thank you. I had two legal questions real. We have time for one. Is Michigan OK? The Michigan state officials are changing their decision to certify the vote after receiving calls are being slandered as racist. And what I'd imagine doxing and harassment shouldn't amount to coercion. We didn't get to the question.

I can't help it. So I apologize. Trius tomorrow. I really mean it. I can't hear the music. We salute our armed forces, police officers, firefighters and emergency personnel. Again, I want to thank the people who are still fighting, the lawyers and others. We're really working hard, all these volunteers. One day I'll explain to you what they're doing out there.

From the Westwood One podcast network.