Search Posts

March 3, 2017, Breitbart News. Mark Levin to Congress investigate Obama's silent coup versus Trump. Now, ladies and gentlemen, over eight years ago, when I was doing my radio show on that Thursday night, as I was preparing, I started to pull news articles together, website reports together, and I started to see a pattern. A pattern that there was an effort by the Obama regime during the Trump campaign in 2016, and subsequently during the Trump transition and during his early presidency, to interfere with the campaign and then to destroy his presidency. I broke it first on radio, then with Pete Hegseth the following Sunday. I guess that's March 5th or 6th, 2017, and it was a big story. The media attacked me, the media denied it all, but I used all their reports, all their reports. And so I want to give you the context of this this evening as we get into it and what Tulsi Gabbard has done, which is very, very important, and you're hearing people say, "Well, we already knew all this. We didn't know all of it." Or they're out there saying, "What's the big deal? There's not a crime. We have immunity. They're not exactly right about that." So stick with us. It's a full program. We're gonna take it from beginning to end. Check it out again. This is March 5th, I believe it is, on Fox & Friends Sunday morning with Pete Hegseth eight and a half years ago. Go. On your Thursday evening radio broadcast, you laid out a devastating case about executive overreach of the Obama administration, which many believe have metamorphosized itself to tweets that President Trump sent out on Saturday morning, accusing potential wiretapping in Trump Tower We want to give you a case here this morning to lay out what you know, what you know about it, and the evidence you have for the potential executive overreach of the Obama administration. Well, pleasure to be here. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not about President Trump's tweeting. This is about the Obama administration's spying. And the question isn't whether it's spied. We know they went to the FISA court twice. The question is, who did they spy on, the extent of the spying? That is, the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, Trump surrogates. And I want to walk you through this, the American people. Exhibit one. Alright, let's stop right there for a moment. Now, America, keep in mind this is the first time anybody ever pooled all this together. I didn't have access to classified information. I can't issue subpoenas. I was doing my radio show prepping and I said, wait a minute, something's going on here. I saw a pattern that went over the course of months. There's a former Chief of Staff to Attorney General. I could tell there had been leaks out of the DOJ and the FBI and the intelligence agencies. This is literally the first time on television, anywhere, that this was pulled together and explained the first time it was exposed. Go. Head Street, two separate sources with links to the counter intelligence community have confirmed that the FBI sought and was granted a foreign intelligence surveillance act court. This is spying in October, giving counterintelligence permission to examine the activity of, quote, U.S. persons in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia. Let me go on. Since it me, they say the first FISA request sources say named Trump was denied back in June, denied by the court. But the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server possibly related to the Trump campaign and its alleged links to two banks. Now, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern U.S. persons. Now I know people are hung up with Trump's word wiretapping. Well, how'd they get access to this server information? Does it really matter if it was wiretapping, electronic surveillance, or whatever it was? Exhibit two, The Guardian, a well-known right wing British paper. Here it is, quote, The Guardian has learned the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. Keep in mind this is during a presidential election. The sitting president, the incumbent party is now investigating the presidential candidate of the Republican Party and his campaign to some extent. The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counterintelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October. Exhibit three, McClatchy, another well-known right wing newspaper. Here they have the agency's headline. FBI, five other agencies, five other Obama administration agencies, pro possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump. The FBI and five other law enforcement intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from Kremlin covertly aided presidential elect Donald Trump. Two people familiar with the matter said the agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of the National Intelligence. Are you telling me Barack Obama didn't know it was going on in the six agencies? As you go on, hold on, hold on. Okay, keep going. I'm not done. I need to make the case because the media seems to be confused about their own reporting. New York Times, another well-known liberal outlet, intercepted Russian communications part of inquiry into Trump Associates January 19. The FBI is leading the investigations aided by the NSA, the CIA, Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no exclusive conclusive evidence or wrong to listen to this. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretap communications have been provided to the White House. This is the New York Times my exhibit for. Another right wing outlet, yeah. Let's continue. New York Times, again, NSA gets more latitude to share intercepted communications in the final days of the Obama administration. The administration has expanded the power of the NSA to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. Now why would they do this on the way out the door? Well, March 1, exhibit 6, Obama administration rushed to preserve intelligence of Russian election hacking. In the Obama administration's last days, listen to this, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election and about possible contacts between associates and President-elect Trump and Russians across the government. I'm not done. Exhibit 7, New York Times, Flynn is said to have talked to Russians about sanctions, Trump took office. Well, where'd they get this information? Well, Mark, you know the FISA court, they're always monitoring the Russian ambassador and so how do we know that? Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but there's an awful lot of other activity. Here we have Washington Post, one more, Washington Post, March 2nd. U.S. investigators have examined contacts Attorney General Sessions had with Russian officials during the time he was advising Donald Trump's campaign. The focus of the U.S. counterintelligence investigation has been on communication between Trump campaign officials in Russia. Listen to this, the inquiry involving Sessions is examining his contacts while serving as Trump's foreign policy adviser in the spring and summer of 2016. This has been going on for a year now. As you do on your radio program, you lay out a devastating case based on public documents, as you point out, and not right-wing sources, but mainstream, left-stream sources. How confident are you that this new, this investigation, which was on Russian, so-called Russian hacking, but now the White House says this morning will be broadened to looking into executive overreach. How confident are you they will find something there? I don't know, but I don't know. They already found something. The issue isn't whether the Obama's administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition or certain of its surrogates. The issue is the extent of it. They went into court a second time. They were so aggressive. They waited four or five months. They go back in October, weeks before the general election. They narrow their request. All of a sudden we have leaks coming out on Flynn. Then we have a horrible meeting that took place between Sessions and so forth. And I'm telling you, as a former chief of staff to an attorney general of the United States in the Reagan administration, these are police state tactics. No, what did Barack Obama know? He knew everything I just read you apart from one or two articles. You know how I know? It's in the newspapers. It's right there. So Barack Obama not only knew this, but he gets a daily intelligence briefing. And let me tell you something about daily intelligence briefings. If your attorney general and your FBI is going to the FISA court to get a warrant to investigate aspects of an opposition party in the middle of a general election campaign, how much you want to bet the President of the United States knew that I don't want to read his opinion. How does this play out in the media? How are they going to continue to cover this story? Let me first say this is the case made by the New York Times, the Washington Post, McClatchy and the rest of them. I just put it together as a former Justice Department official. And Donald Trump here is being attacked for what he tweeted. Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim. These are police state tactics. I am telling you this as a former chief of staff to an attorney general. If this had been done to Barack Obama, all hell would break loose. And it should. And Barack Obama's statement is pathetic. Let me just say this. Where does it go from here? They ought to release both FISA court applications where they sought the warrant. The one in the summer and the one in October. So we know exactly what they were doing. That's number one. Number two, Congress needs to see the daily presidential intelligence briefings over the past year or so. Those are the beginnings of a serious investigation. Number three, for the Republicans in Congress, you control the majority. If the Democrats do not want to assist and they won't because I'm starting to think Chuck Schumer and the others are participating in all this cover up activity, then plow ahead without them. But this is important to the country. We cannot have a sitting presidential administration unleashing six federal agencies, intelligence and law enforcement. I don't mean the president personally sitting there. You know what, Valerie, let's go get him. Obviously, the attorney general and the FBI were involved in this. This is how you get a FISA court application prepared and submitted. Do you think do you think former President Obama was involved in this? And if so, how much was he involved? I'm not Nostradamus here. I just think that we ought to find out. But I will tell you this. He's more involved than he says. I mean, it's his executive branch. It's his Justice Department. Mine's for the IRS. All of a sudden, the IRS is targeting American citizens. I don't know anything about it. We have reporters, including James Rose in the AP where where the Obama administration did more investigations of reporters than any administration in American history. They're quite capable of these things. But it doesn't matter. We want to know what took place. And there ought to be public hearings on this stuff, too. So this was the first that this was ever presented on broadcast media and television on that Sunday morning in March. The next night I was on Hannity and further elaborated on it. But before that, that Thursday before, on March 3rd, I went on radio, as I mentioned, and I was pulling it together. And Breitbart did an excellent job. Joel Pollack, radio host Mark Levin, used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Obama's administration in the last months to undermine Donald Trump's presidential campaign and later his administration. Levin called Obama's effort "police state tactics," suggested that Obama's actions rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump should be the target of congressional investigation. Drawing on sources, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin didn't mention specifically, and it goes on some length. Now, let's bring it up to date, like today. They interfered with the Trump campaign in 2016, they tried to take him out. They interfered with the Trump presidency early on, they tried to take him out. There was never any evidence of any kind from anywhere of collusion between Russia and Trump or Russia and the Trump campaign. July 2016 CIA Director Brennan briefs Obama and Biden that the CIA uncovered evidence that Hillary Clinton approved in her campaign to try and tie Trump to Putin and to the Russians to distract from her email scandal. Others briefed also knew who were they. It included Attorney General Lynch, DNI Director Clapper, FBI Director Comey. Hillary Clinton in carrying out this this horrendous event, her campaign paid for the still dossier that was a complete 100% fabrication. The dossier was used as the key basis for the FBI opening a criminal investigation. They launched it in record time. Typically it might take six months or a year, they launched it within a month. And who launched it? Deputy Director of the FBI McCabe and FBI Assistant Director Stroke. And it was Comey who seized authority around the same time to drop the case against Hillary Clinton, even though they had her dead to rights. It was a slam-dung case, but they dropped it. They were working to help Hillary, they knew that she was responsible.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

statement is somebody who spent at least half a century in the conservative constitutionalist movement. The three great conservative constitutionalist presidents in the last century, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. And Donald Trump has the potential to be the greatest of the three. And I want to give you a little bit of my background for those of you who don't know, I don't just come on here because I have a TV show. I come on here because I have decades of experience in the conservative movement, in the constitutionalist movement, in the liberty movement. And I want you to know that with my background, that when I say that Donald Trump has the potential of being the greatest conservative president in the last century, I mean it. 1976 and '80, I worked in the Reagan primaries. 1980, I worked in the Reagan general campaign. I spent eight years in top executive positions in the Reagan administration, including Chief of Staff of the Department of Justice and Deputy Solicitor of the Department of Interior, as well as a stint at the White House. And from the Reagan Revolution to the Tea Party movement in 2010, I was involved in the Tea Party movement, one of the outspoken leaders of the Tea Party movement. I wrote the most widely read conservative book since Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, Milton Friedman's Free to Choose. This one here, Liberty and Tyranny. Millions and millions of you read this book, a primer on conservatism and liberalism. I've been involved as one of the leaders in the Convention of States movement with our friend Mark Meckler, over 5 million members. I have one of the largest syndicated radio shows that I've had for nearly 25 years on the planet, with millions and millions of listeners on AM and FM terrestrial radio, through podcasts, through YouTube, through Sirius satellite and so forth and so on. That's thanks to you. And of course on Fox, when we're not dealing with football like tonight, and this will be the end of it. We have the number one prime time evening weekend program. We're very proud of it. We're very proud to be here. And I was president of Landmark Legal Foundation. It's the most consequential constitutional conservative legal foundation in half a century and thanks to our litigation and the help of others, school choice is now a possibility and you're thinking, well, Mark, aren't you lovely? Good man, pat yourself in the head. That's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to provide you with some of my credentials. So when I tell you that Donald Trump is one of the most conservative and is the potential to be the most conservative president this entire century, I know what I'm talking about. He's consequential. He's historic. He's iconic, the things he did in his first term and the things he's doing now right out of the shoot. We've never seen anything like this. Now, some of you might be saying, well, what about all these tariffs? I'm a free market conservative. Well, I'm as free market as you can get, but I went back and I looked, I looked at president Reagan, you see Lighthouser, who is the head basically of trade and tariffs for president Trump was the deputy under Ronald Reagan. And so as our friends at Cato in 1988 pointed out, and they were very angry about it, Reagan was more into say quotas. He was more into limitations on what other countries can ship into our country. Let me give you some examples. As Cato pointed out, he forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement said total Japanese auto exports of 1.68 million vehicles in 1981, 1982, 8% below 1980 exports, he tightened up considerably the quotas on imported sugar imports fell from an annual average of 4.85 million tons in 79 to 81 to an annual average of 2.86 million tons from 82 to 86. That's a massive drop. He negotiated did Reagan to increase restrictions of the multifiber arrangement and extended restrictions to previously unrestricted textiles. The administration unilaterally changed the rule of origin in order to restrict textile and apparel imports further and imposed a special ceiling of textiles from communist China. And finally, it pressured Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea, the largest exporters of textiles and apparel to the United States into highly restricted bilateral agreements. Reagan required 18 countries, including Brazil, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, and Australia, as well as the European community to accept what he called voluntary restraint agreements, which weren't voluntary, to reduce steel imports, guaranteeing domestic producers a share of the American market. When three countries not included in the 18, Canada, Sweden, and Taiwan increased steel exports to the U.S., the administration demanded talks to check the increase. The administration then slapped tariffs and quotas on so-called specialty steel. Reagan imposed a five-year duty beginning at 45% on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson. He raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles. He forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of computer memory chip exports and increase Japanese purchases of American made chips. When the agreement was allegedly broken, the administration slapped a 100% tariff on $300 million worth of Japanese electronics and goods. Reagan pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American made parts. He demanded that Taiwan, West Germany at the time, Japan and Switzerland, restrain their exports and machine tools, with some market shares rolled back to 1981 levels. Other countries were warned you better not increase their shares in our American market. He accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings because the price did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen. The U.S. Customs Service was ordered to collect duties equal to the so-called dumping margins. He accused the Japanese of dumping forklift trucks and colored picture tombs in the United States. He redefined dumping in order to make it easier to bring charges of unfair trade practices against certain competitors. I had not known all this until I started to really dig in. Coolidge was a big tariff guy. Reagan, more quotas than tariffs. And of course, Trump is a big tariff guy. Everybody knows McKinley was a tariff guy. You know who else was? Hamilton, Jefferson, Lincoln. I'm not saying you should support them or oppose them. I'm saying that this is actually rather typical until really after World War II of the positions of many Republicans and many of our founders took and really more Reagan than we may have realized. Japan agreed to suspend its 28% tariff on cigarette imports. Taiwan agreed to open its markets to beer, wine and cigarettes. The president threatened retaliation. Japan agreed to buy American semiconductors. The European community agreed to give US citrus producers easier access. Japan eliminated tariffs on 137 leather items and reduced tariffs on aluminum products. South Korea reduced its barriers to US motion pictures and television programs and so on and so on and so on. Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan. What else has Donald Trump done? Look at this. He's taken the most extensive steps right out of the box to deal with the border, as he did in his first term, the establishment of a physical wall and other barriers at the US borders. He's going to complete it, deterring and preventing the entry of undocumented individuals into the United States. This is what he's announced and implementing within literally 24 hours of taking the oath, detaining aliens apprehended on suspension of violating federal or state law, that is undocumented migrants and removing them promptly, pursuing criminal charges against undocumented migrants of those who facilitated their unlawful presence in the US, notably ending the practice of catch and release, enacting federal state partnerships to enforce these immigration policies, obtaining complete operational control of the borders of the United States. This is what he's directed the United States government to do. That includes deploying sufficient personnel to the borders. He's just ordered active duty military to the border, terminating parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Why? Well, communist and terrorists and revolutions. That's why utilizing advanced vetting techniques to determine familiar relationships and biometric scanning for all individuals encountered or apprehended by the US Department of Homeland Security, he's declared a national emergency at the southern border of the United States in order to put military personnel there. Now, what else has he done? He's involved in the biggest deportation of illegal aliens since Dwight Eisenhower, Dwight Eisenhower. Oh yes, the great Dwight Eisenhower, who everybody praises. They praise him as sort of a moderate centrist Republican president. The left points to him all the time. Can't we have an Eisenhower type such a, you know, a uniter? Okay. Not so much in the 1950s, as many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond rates, the Christian Science Monitor. Well, Ike was obsessed with removing them. He said the rise in illegal border crossings by Mexican, his word, wetbacks, not my word, to a current rate of more than 1 million cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation and ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the federal government. Years later, the late Herbert Bernal Jr., who was Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer, the writer of this piece that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigrants when he took office, America quote, was faced with a breakdown of law enforcement on very large scale, said the former attorney general, when I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico every year without restraint. The orders came straight from the top from Eisenhower, the new president. He had put a former West Point classmate, General Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement, General Swings, fast moving campaign, soon secured America's borders and accomplishment. No other president has equaled illegal migration had dropped 95% by the light 1950s. So what Trump is proposing is not radical. It's common sense, as he puts it. And when he says common sense, for many of us, it means conservative because conservative is common sense. What about the federal bureaucracy? Trump is doing things now. No president has ever done right out of the box. This is the Hill. The president signed orders mostly aimed at the federal government workforce, targeting some of former President Biden's executive orders in an effort to undo them. He signed an order to implement a regulatory freeze that aims to prevent bureaucrats from issuing any more regulations until the Trump administration has full control of the government. He then signed a federal government hiring freeze with an exception for military hiring until full control of the government is achieved. Trump signed a separate order directing federal workers to get back into their damn offices and leave their basements. He also signed an order withdrawing immediately from the Paris agreement, you know, where the communist Chinese can build 100 coal power plants every week or every month, which stymies us. In other words, he's not going to export sovereignty and our governmental decision making to some international bunch of leftists and Marxists. Additionally, he signed orders to address the cost of living, prevent government censorship of free speech. He's actually one of the great civil libertarians. He signed an order to prevent government censorship of speech, which has been on the rise in a very aggressive way, not just since Woodrow Wilson, but in modern times since Barack Obama and certainly Joe Biden. He said enough of that. He's a free speech Bill of Rights president. This is very, very important to understand. What else makes him one of the great conservative presidents right now? Taxes. President Trump in the past, he tax cuts his tax cuts, the biggest gross tax cuts in American history, over $5.5 trillion over 10 years. He cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21%, the largest percentage point reduction of the top marginal rate in history. And now he wants to cut 21 to 15% for companies in America and locating in America. Why? To massively increase economic growth, prosperity, jobs, jobs. The child tax credit was increased by 573.4 billion over 10 years, larger than any previous change to credit specifically targeting families. Trump's tax cuts included some of the most substantial reforms to the tax code in American history. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nearly doubles the standard deduction to simplify state filing. And now, of course, in a new Trump presidency, he's got several policies, including extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Job Cuts Act changes. He needs Democrats to do this. If he doesn't get them, you're going to have a 45% tax increase. Bring back the deduction for state and local taxes. Salt. He wants to increase that. Reducing the corporate tax rate for domestic production, as I explained. Exempting various types of income from income tax, like overtime, tips, other things that he had mentioned. Repealing the green energy tax credits, which, of course, are a big sum of money given to left wing groups primarily. Look at energy. Have we ever had a president like this? Ronald Reagan came into the presidency. The first two things he did is he eliminated the regulations on the production of natural gas and then oil. So what did Trump do? Ending Biden's policies of climate extremism, streamlizing permitting, reviewing for rescission all regulations that impose undue burns on any production in use, including mining and processing of nonfuel materials, energy actions and power consumer choice in vehicles. He pointed out shower heads, toilets, washing machines, light bulbs and dish washers, no more of the government meddling in your bathroom, your bedroom, your home and your cars. He declared an emergency, use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure, whether it's the electrical grid, whether it's pipelines, whatever it is, and leasing to massive wind farms that degrade our national landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers. These are

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.