Mark Levin: “The Political Machinations the Democrats Used Prior to the 2020 Election” (Video, Transcript)

Yesterday, Mark Levin took viewers on a deep dive on the political machinations the Democrats used prior to the 2020 election. While explaining the Constitution and the law, Levin pushed back at the claims of obstruction, conspiracy, and fake electors Democrat prosecutors are using to target and criminalize what Republicans did in the 2020 election. Mark Levin’s opening statement on his Sunday TV show ‘Life, Liberty and Levin’ (Sept. 18, 2022): Via Mark Levin Show on Rumble.com or TruthSocial.com: ELECTORAL DEEP DIVE

HIGHLIGHTS/ SUMMARIZED TRANSCRIPT – We have a U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, DC. that issues subpoenas like lollipops and only on Republicans – Republican office holders, Republican attorneys – just crushing the Constitution and shredding attorney-client privilege everywhere. – And what for? They’re throwing a very broad net trying to get Trump, Republicans, Republican state legislatures caught up in a massive criminal conspiracy. – I want to break this down with you. It’s very, very necessary because this is your republic. – This is the most outrageous intimidation effort in history. Fake electors: – The Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” – That’s the opening sentence. It doesn’t say the governor. It doesn’t say the Supreme Court of the state or any court. It doesn’t say any board of elections, or secretary of state. It says the legislature because they felt the legislature represented the people best of any representative body in existence: The state legislature. – People have called this ‘Independent Legislature Theory.’ Which people? On the left who want their courts run by Democrats to make decisions about elections in the states. – But this could not be clear and you would not have a Constitution today if the state legislatures were not involved in making the decisions about the appointment of electors to choose presidents and vice presidents of the United States. Example: Pennsylvania – In Pennsylvania, they have an election law like every other state but they have a very difficult and complicated method for amending their Constitution. It’s one of the oldest Constitutions in America given that Pennsylvania is one of the oldest colonies. – In order to get an amendment passed in Pennsylvania, you have to go through multiple, multiple steps. And in order to change the election laws in Pennsylvania, you can’t do them by statute, you have to do it by Amendment to the Constitution. – Prior to the 2020 election, Marc Elias and other lawyers working for the DNC, working for the Joe Biden campaign, brought scores and scores of lawsuits and administrative actions particularly in battleground states to try and change the elections laws to benefit their party and Joe Biden. And they largely succeeded. The Republicans were often caught flat-footed. But they form shopped to pick states where they felt the courts would go their way and they felt the governor would, because we’re talking about in many cases Democrat governors. – In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court has seven members – five of whom are Democrats – radical left-wing Democrats elected mostly by the teachers unions. Again, the Republicans were caught flat-footed during those elections. It’s very partisan, very political, and in that sense – in my view – it’s very corrupt. (Much like the Supreme Court in Florida in 2000.) – The problem was – by 2020 – the election: the governor and the court and their surrogates were changing the election laws in Pennsylvania from what existed. They weren’t using the Pennsylvania Constitution – that would take too much time, they wouldn’t get what they want. – So you had lawyers coming in – Democrats – trying to change the rules, change the laws. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did it for them. – [Similar] to the Supreme Court of Florida in 2000: Lawsuits were brought, including a suit that was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. Back in 2000, William Rehnquist was the Chief Justice and they told the Florida Supreme Court enough is enough. And in Florida, you might recall, the state legislature was convening to overturn effectively the decisions of their state Supreme Court and to set and – to send an alternate list of electors to the National Archives which the governor would first have to certify. The governor being Jeb Bush, the election of his brother, George Bush. – In Pennsylvania: When the case was brought to the Supreme Court out of Pennsylvania – not for identical but similar reasons – the court wouldn’t take it. Sam Alito obviously wanted to take it. We believe Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to take it based on what I read in the paper. But that’s all they could get it and it takes 4 Justices to take it up. – So the election in Pennsylvania was conducted under processes that had been changed by the Democrats on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the behest of the governor and these Democrat litigators. – So many people in Pennsylvania were furious about this including Republicans in the state legislature, including – I guess – President Trump and lawyers working for President Trump. And so they decided, you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to send an alternate group of electors to the National Archives. They couldn’t get the Republican legislature to vote for this alternate list of electors so it was always going to fail. – The Republican legislature can send an alternate group of electors but members of the legislature and others really don’t have much of a constitutional leg to stand on. But they gave it a shot and they also added when they sent their list of electors – they added in addendums to the electors votes documents saying that they were sending this in case legal challenges were successful. So, they wanted to have this second group of electors there in case the challenge on the Supreme Court or other courts would be successful – which they were not. – Those that sound like obstruction of justice to you? Those that sound like obstruction of congress and the Electoral College to you? – So, what are the federal prosecutors looking at? I assume they are looking at 18 U.S. code section 1505: “”Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. – Those alternate lists of electors – whether out of Pennsylvania or these other states – never got to the floor of Congress. They were never considered. They couldn’t pass the archivists of the U.S., because they have rules in the Archivist’s office – passed by statute and by their own practices that would prevent them from getting to the floor of Congress. So, they were never considered. – This criminal statute (18 U.S. Code, Section 1505) says: “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.” – What does that mean? Prosecutors are hoping that they can try and figure out how to put a round peg in a square hole or a square peg and a round hole by using this obstruction statute that has nothing to do with the proceedings that I’m talking about. They see that there’s an electoral college vote proceeding corruptly that is a specific intent crime. They are saying that these “fake electors” were sent to Washington to overthrow the election that was won by Joe Biden. Now you have little more context, right? To overthrow it? It doesn’t sound like what the Pennsylvania folks did. The archivist blocked it at the door. – The problem was the state supreme court in Pennsylvania slammed the door and would not really accept any challenges to its own changes. The U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door. It wouldn’t accept an appeal to fix this and enforce the Federal Constitution when it comes to the appointment of electors. So they took this step, which was never going to work ,and now a U.S. attorney’s office for the Biden administration is investigating this under obstruction. This is as I said is “a specific intent crime” and as far as I’m concerned this is preposterous, absolutely preposterous. – Even the words “fake electors” are intended to create a criminal notion around all of this activity. – Then they are looking at, I assume: 18 U.S. code 371: ‘Conspiracy to Commit an offense to defraud the United States.’ So they are looking at the president’s lawyers, maybe the president himself if they could snag him and others. So they put out 40 subpoenas the other week, they’re grabbing people’s phone, and so forth. -18 U.S. Code, Section 371: “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title.” – Conspiracy? – When you are bringing an open, what you believe to be legal, what you believe to be constitutional challenge in case some of the lawsuits succeed. -Seditious conspiracy? 18 U.S. Code, Section 2384: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” – Well, that clearly did not occur. – The roles and responsibilities for the Electoral College are right here on the National Archives website. And among other things, it says: Roles of States in the Electoral College Process Appoint Electors “The Constitution and Federal law do not prescribe the method of appointment other than requiring that electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day).” Roles of States in the Electoral College Process Prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment “After the general election, the Governor of each State prepares at least seven** original Certificates of Ascertainment listing the persons appointed as electors. Since Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Ascertainment, the format can vary from State to State.” – But the law requires: Roles of States in the Electoral College Process Prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment “- List the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received – List the names of all other candidates for elector and the number of votes received – Be signed by the Governor and carry the seal of the State – In Pennsylvania, the governor is a Democrat, so that wasn’t going to happen. Roles of States in the Electoral College Process Distribute the Certificate of Ascertainment ‘Each State must send at least one Certificate of Ascertainment to the Archivist of the United States at OFR as soon as possible after the general election results are finalized. …Federal does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Votes so the format can very from state to state…” – So it’s very particular. There is no crime here. – Fake electors, obstruction, conspiracy to defraud?! – This was a failed attempt to send alternate electors to the National Archivist, to Congress to be considered in some states should the litigation be successful. – But there is no specific intent to commit a crime. None whatsoever. Real offenses were done by Democrats – The real offenses occurred here early on before the general election in 2020: In Pennsylvania where the Supreme Court changed the election laws in violation of the Federal Constitution. They did similar things in Wisconsin, in Georgia, in other states. And that was by design, the Democrat Party, the Biden campaign and their lawyers. – People were trying to figure out constitutional, lawful ways to respond to this. We are not even talking about what happened on the steps of the Capitol on January 6. – I’m talking about the Constitution and the law. – So for prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. to myopically be looking at statutes that never were intended to apply to the Electoral College process which is supposed to be a vibrant process, a lot of give and take, a lot of fighting and battling and so forth under the Constitution. – We cannot have prosecutors who cherry-pick and decide that this individual or this group of individuals, or this alternate or “fake” list of electors and so forth have the specific intent to obstruct justice and overturn an election. – I think it could be argued that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had the intention of overturning an election or Democratic operatives or Democrat lawyers or Democrat officials throughout the country by changing the election laws before the election in violation of the Federal Constitution. Well, it’s certainly worth thinking about ladies and gentlemen. – – – – – – – END OF HIGHLIGHTS – – – – – – –

RELATED – CNN in 2020: OK with Alternate Electors in 1960 Election between Nixon and JFK – Democrat in 2000: OK with Hawaii’s Alternate Electors for the 1960 Election between Nixon and JFK – Mark Levin: “State Legislatures Determine if They’re Fake Electors” – Mark Levin: Jan. 6 Committee is Unconstitutional (Video, Transcript)