Levin: ‘Stalinist’ J6 Committee Is ‘Second Biggest Farce’ After Russia Hoax
Article by Elise McCue in The Federalist
Levin: ‘Stalinist’ J6 Committee Is ‘Second Biggest Farce’ After Russia Hoax
Mark Levin, lawyer and radio host, weighed in on the Jan. 6 Committee’s show-trial hearings on Tuesday night’s episode of “Hannity” after former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that the Trump administration had prior knowledge of and supported the violence on Jan. 6, 2021.
“I guess tonight I’ll try and help Joe Scarborough tonight. Joe, I’m going to talk slowly. You listen slowly and see if I can educate you and all the rest of them. This committee is filled with these bastards on this committee and these phony former federal prosecutors behind the scenes,” Levin said.
“You know why this woman testified today the way she testified today, in my opinion? This was her fifth interview. They had her behind the scenes for four interviews. They wore her down, in my view. She changed lawyers. They said she had to testify today because of death threats. She couldn’t testify last week or the week after that?”
“This committee is a farce. It is a Stalinist committee,” he continued.
“I want to tell Kevin McCarthy and the Republican leadership: You need to put out the equivalent of a protective order right now and let Nancy Pelosi know, and this Bennie Hill Thompson who runs the committee, and Dizzy Lizzy, and you need to tell them right now they are to preserve all the records that this committee and the staff has pulled together, whether it’s text, emails, documents, phone records. And while we’re at it, they need to preserve their own texts, emails, documents, and phone records, and they need to tell Nancy Pelosi to preserve hers, and Steny Hoyer too, and their staffs because this is the greatest — well Russia collusion was the greatest — this is the second biggest farce against the American people.”
“They bring this woman up to testify. She’s about 25 years old. Among other things, what did she say?” Levin asked. “That the president knew that there were going to be threats. The president knew that people might be armed. The president knew there might be violence. Yeah! Which is exactly why the president offered the National Guard on Jan. 4, according to five eyewitnesses, of which she wasn’t one.”
“And it was turned down by Nancy Pelosi. It was turned down by Chuck Schumer. We have 1,000 witnesses. How about 1,001, Nancy Pelosi? But no, this committee is filled with stooges for Nancy Pelosi, no questions for her if they knew there might be violence. She knew. So why did she do what she did? Because she called them ‘stormtroopers’ a month before or two months before,” he continued.
“Here’s another piece of information that this committee has that they haven’t reported. How do I know? Because of Kash Patel, your same guest. He said in November, right after the election, Donald Trump authorized the transition to the Biden administration from the Trump administration in the Department of Justice. And Kash was in charge of debriefing scores and scores of Biden people who they assumed would come in. Now, if you’re plotting an insurrection with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, you not only do not offer 20,000 armed military to protect the Capitol, you also do not participate in a transition period and order the Department of Defense to work with the Biden people.”
“They have no evidence for any of this. This committee has come up with nothing, despite the fact it’s all one way,” Levin added. “And I would encourage networks all over the country, who I’m sure will listen to me: Fire your legal analysts. Fire them. There’s too d-mn many former federal prosecutors. This isn’t about a federal prosecution. These legal guides, they keep coming on, they know nothing about the Constitution. A president, a candidate has the right to lobby and lobby the state legislature if he or she believes that the electors should be for them. It’s a political process protected by the Constitution. They have a right to litigate. Ask Al Gore. They have a right to make allegations.”
“They haven’t called a single Democrat official before this committee who violated article two of the federal Constitution and changed the election laws because of hundreds of lawsuits brought by the Democrat party before the election. We can even put aside ballot boxes and all the rest. They changed the laws. Now, you know, the Supreme Court under William Rehnquist put an end to that with the Florida Supreme Court. But under Roberts, they didn’t stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They’re trying to criminalize a political process.”
“Meanwhile, we have this hack U.S. attorney in Washington. What are you going to do? Take my iPhone next, Mr. Graves? Go after Eastman? Go after another guy?” Levin queried. “You have attorney-client privileged information there. This committee has violated due process. This committee is withholding evidence. This committee is withholding exculpatory witnesses. You have a U.S. attorney who’s violating attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. And then you have a U.S. attorney who, what?”
“I want to read you something before I go. Here is Saul Weisenheimer, or whatever his name is, quoted by The New York Times’ Peter Baker. ‘“Did Trump commit a crime? This is the smoking gun testimony today,” says Saul Weisenheimer, former deputy to Ken Starr. “There isn’t any question this establishes a prima facie case for his criminal culpability on seditious conspiracy charges.”’”
“Isn’t the guy a schmuck? Doesn’t establish any culpability for anything,” Levin concluded. “The two Secret Service agents in the car said the testimony the young lady gave was false. False. I’m done. That’s enough.”
Post a Comment