On Tuesday’s Mark Levin show, Hillary Clinton and her staffers deleted emails and destroyed physical evidence in her private email server scandal but was cleared of all charges by James Comey in 2016. Now, the same FBI wants to tear down Donald Trump and his lawyers with obstruction charges and plotting against the National Archives and the Grand Jury, turning a disgusting political narrative into the trial of the century. Also, Mark speaks with Congressman Jim Jordan about the scope memo and details about the special counsel appointed to Donald Trump, and Democrat interference in the 2024 election. Later, today is the anniversary of D-Day, and Chris Christie disrespected D-Day by choosing today to announce his candidacy for president, all while the media completely ignored the anniversary. People have become rich trashing American history and culture with things like the 1619 project, paying zero respect to the brave soldiers that preserve our freedom.
Washington Post
FBI had reviewed, closed inquiry into claims at center of Hill fight
The Federalist
Jim Jordan Demands Merrick Garland Forfeit Records Over The FBI’s Mar-A-Lago Raid
The Messenger
Former AG Bill Barr Says He’d ‘Bet’ Trump Will Be Indicted
Western Journal
BlackRock CEO Lets Audience In on the Evil Things He’s Been Doing at Company
Daily Signal
Southern Poverty Law Center Adds Parental Rights Groups to ‘Hate Map’
NBC News
7 injured in shooting at Virginia Commonwealth University
Photo by Alex Wong
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin, our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. July five, 2016. James Comey. Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state. After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring to the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutor’s decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things what we did, what we found and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice. There will be an unusual statement in at least a couple of ways. First, I’m going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second. I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I’m about to say. I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work on the case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I’m so grateful and proud of their efforts. So first, what have we done? The investigation began is referral from the intelligence community inspector general in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system. Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored at transmitted on that personal system in violation of a federal statute, making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities. We’ve also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with a personal e-mail server by any foreign power or other hostile actors. I have so far used the singular term email server in describing the referral that began our investigation. Turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, all the servers were taken out of service, stored and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all that back together to gain as full and understanding as possible the ways in which personal email was used for government work. It’s been a painstaking undertaking requiring thousands of hours of effort. For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013. The email software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the email content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused or slack space. We searched through all of it to see what was there and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together. FBI investigators also read all the approximately 30,000 emails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014, where an email was assessed that possibly containing classified information. The FBI referred the email to any U.S. government agency. There was a likely owner of the information in the email so that agency can make a determination as to whether the email contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the email. Now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent. That is a process sometimes referred to as a classifying. In the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails and 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were assigned or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent. 36 chains contained secret information. At the time, eight contained confidential information, the lowest level of classification, several separate from those. About 2000 additional emails were classified to make them confidential. The information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent. There’s more. The FBI also discovered several thousand work related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 and returned by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in 2014. We found those additional emails in a variety of ways. Some have been deleted over the years and we’ve found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private email domain. Others were found by reviewing the archived government email accounts and people being government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high ranking officials and other agencies, people with whom a secretary of state might naturally correspond. This helped us recover work related emails that were not among the 30,000 produced to state. Still, others were recovered from the laborious review of the millions of email fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013. With respect to the thousands of emails we found that were not among those produced, as state agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received one at the secret level, two at the confidential level. There were no additional top secret emails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been unclassified. I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed because she was not using a government account or even a commercial account like Gmail. There is no archiving at all of her emails, so it’s not surprising that we discovered emails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014 when she produced the 30,000 emails to the State Department. So it could also be that some of the additional work related emails were recovered among those deleted as personal by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in 2014. Now, the lawyers during the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all her emails as we did for those available to us. Instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try and find all work related emails about the reported more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It’s highly likely their search teams missed some work related emails and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in slack space of a server. It’s also likely that there are other work related emails they did not produce to state and that we did not find elsewhere and that are now gone because they deleted all emails. They did not return to state. The lawyers clean their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. Why would they do that? We’ve conducted interviews and technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by our lawyers, although we do not have complete visibility because we’re not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting. We believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence. There were no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting. Well, why would they permanently delete stuff anyway? Let me just keep reading. And of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, two staff members with whom she corresponded on email to those involved in the email production estate. And finally, Secretary Clinton herself. By the way, she was interviewed with her lawyers present for less than 5 hours, and she was not under oath. Just so you know. Her lawyers weren’t forced to testify. Under the crime fraud exception. Her lawyers destroyed emails without reading them, despite the fact their communications director had said that they read every email. They clearly had not. And they permanently deleted them. So there were it couldn’t be reviewed. Although we did not find clear evidence. That’s Secretary Clinton. Her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information. There’s evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. They didn’t find evidence of that. Ladies in general, gentlemen. But staff. Staff. Used hammers. To destroy all her previous cell phones. They used hammers to destroy her previous cell phones. Her lawyers didn’t read the emails they deleted. The emails were deleted permanently. So they couldn’t be resurrected. But they didn’t find evidence of any wrongdoing. Intentional wrongdoing. They go on. Let’s see here. While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture, the State Department in general and be back to the use of unclassified e-mail systems are clear was generally lacking of the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government. Really. And former presidents of the United States, former vice presidents of the United States, took classified information home or brought them to their businesses. But that doesn’t seem to matter in the Trump investigation with respect to a potential computer intrusion by hostile actors. We didn’t find direct evidence that Clinton’s personal email domain in its various configuration since oh nine was successfully hacked. But given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess they we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent c making excuses. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors we assess, it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to my recommendation to the Department of Justice and our system, the prosecutors make the decision about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect, although we don’t normally make public recommendations to the prosecutors. We frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate Given the evidence in this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order, although there’s evidence of potential violations of federal statutes regarding the handling of classified information. Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past. Looking back at our back and our investigations of the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involve some combination. Clearly, intentional, willful mishandling of classified information are vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice. We just don’t see these things here. So hammering the devices. Permanently deleting emails and deleting emails that have not been read. They don’t. Anything there. This is not to suggest that a similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security, administrative sanctions. But that’s not what we are deciding now. And it goes on. So they left her alone. Here we have a grand jury with two grand juries with Trump. Here. We have a search warrant. Here we have a SWAT team. SWAT team. So what they’re going to try and do is show will there’s real obstruction in the Trump case, but not in the Hillary case. That is a lie. That is a lie, in my view. The lawyers, the staff, Hillary Clinton, they did everything they could to cover up, to mislead, to deceive, to misdirect. And they were treated vastly differently than Trump and his lawyers. His lawyers have had to testify in front of a federal grand jury. They had to give up all their notes and information that they discussed with their client, Donald Trump. Not in the case of Hillary’s lawyers, despite the fact that their fingerprints were all over the emails and those emails and the disposition of those emails. And same with the staffers who destroyed their mobile devices with their hammers. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Any and all State Department activities, not just communications of the keywords, Benghazi or Libya, but potentially make an email of federal record. Given the high stakes involved, I would have imagined staff could have simply conducted a manual review of every document using keywords as a shortcut. Unfortunately leaves the process open to being second guessed. Does more than that. It’s not a thorough search. Isn’t that what they’re attacking Trump for? And there is another big difference between Trump and Hillary Clinton. He was president. She was not.
Segment 3
You’re very familiar with our friend Jim Jordan. He’s chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Jim, you are seeking a document related to the Mar a Lago investigation. Could you tell us what’s going on? Yeah, we want the sculpt memo. Mar, thanks for having us on. Yeah, in simple terms, there’s an order given when there’s a special counsel form. You know, this the order lays out a sort of a broader scope of what the investigation is. But then there’s a memo, typically, not always, but that. Well, we think always it’s been our experience. There’s a memorandum that actually gives more detail about what, in fact, the special counsel is supposed to focus on what the parameters of that investigation. You remember Mr. Rosenstein issued a memorandum about a scope memorandum about three months after the initial order that gave a lot of context to what they were doing. That was not released until 2020, even though it was issued. That memorandum was sent in August of 2017. So we want to know that plus any other communications surrounding Jack Smith and the special counsel, because it looks like, based on what the press is saying, Mark, that he’s going to indict the former president and maybe more importantly, the guy who’s leading in every single polls, every single poll in the 2024 presidential race. It looks like they’re going to indict him, potential obstruction charges. And we’d like to know kind of what’s going on and how this investigation proceeded. Is it amazing how little they will reveal to the American people through Congress, whatever it is, information related to the Bidens? And how can they justify not appointing a special counsel to investigate Joe Biden and all these shell corporations and the laptop and all the rest that that specifically fingered him? And yet, when it comes to Donald Trump, they appoint a special counsel in a way that you’re not supposed to. That is special counsel for the American people. You appoint a special counsel because of a potential conflict of interest within the government, within the government. So the appointment would be made for Biden. It would not be made for Trump. They’re trying to give the appearance of independence here, aren’t they? Even though the special counsel points to the reports of the attorney general? Yeah. When they announced this, if I remember right, they announced information of the special counsel after they were after, you know, seven months ago when when they when this was happening. And then shortly thereafter, they announced one for Joe Biden. So it’s again, I think it’s for appearances, but it’s very real when you have these news reports saying that the special counsel is going to indict the former president. And here’s the other thing that bothers me. This double standard, this document that the Chairman Kilmer, that we’re trying to get made public for the American people to see, I mean, this is a document the FBI prepared. They created this document based on what a credible source, who they had worked for for ten years, who they paid $100,000 information. That source told the FBI they create this 1023 document that says, our source told us Joe Biden had conversations with a foreign national about money for certain actions that he would take. That’s what that’s what Mr. Coleman, who’s seen the document, has said. That’s what it involves and how much you want to bet this confidential human source, Mark, how much you want to bet he’s a lot more credible than Christopher Steele was who put together the dossier that they used to spy on a presidential campaign. I would bet my house this source is better than Christopher Steele. And the document that 1023 is better than that dossier, which they use two days after they got it. According to the Durham report, they use two days after they got it to put in a draft by the application without substantiating anything. Any of the allegations is that they didn’t they didn’t validate a one ever, and they used it to spy on a presidential campaign. Well, Mr. Chairman, there’s more reason than ever to release it, because we have a Washington Post piece from last night where Jamie Raskin is revealing information spinning where we’re told that Bill. R saw the information and he didn’t care. So we sat on it. Now it creates more questions than answers. And now there’s leaks out of the Department of Justice through the FBI about the document. So now they’re telling us what’s in the document from a radical left perspective. And there’s more reason now why people like me who communicate with 14 and a half million people should have this information so we can discuss what’s in the document rather than just like Russia collusion, where people are leaking information to The Washington Post and not providing public information right now. Exactly right. The American people have a right to see this stuff. That’s what this in the end is about. It’s about we, the people. And, you know, if this was a 1023 from a confidential human source who was credible, who’d been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the American taxpayer to our FBI, and it was about Trump, You know, CNN would already have a copy of it. Everyone knows that. But no, no, no, no. It’s about Biden. So we can’t see it. Only the chairman in the camera can view this document. That’s that’s ridiculous. And oh, by the way, you can’t see this document. The only and the only and only the chairman can see it. We can. Then no one else is allowed to. But we’re going to indict the former president, the guy leading the polls by the by the Justice Department of his opponent. Like, what is what is going? And it looks like, Mr. Chairman, they’re they’re going to attack on process. In other words. Okay, let me let me just lay this out and then get your input on this. Hillary Clinton at over 30,000 emails. Really? 60,000? 30,000 emails. There was classified information on her private server. Her lawyers decided what emails were and were not relevant. Her lawyers permanently deleted thousands and thousands of emails. They did not go through the arduous task of actually reading the emails. They looked at headers. That’s how they made a determination on what would be reviewed and turned over and what would not be. Her staff used hammers to destroy her prior cell phones. And of course, when she was interviewed, she was interviewed for just a few hours with the lawyers who were in question, were representing her at the event. She was not under oath. Then you look at Donald Trump, they take on more and more than one of his lawyers. They go to a an Obama judge on her last day as the chief judge last day. She orders at a crime fraud exception for a his main lawyer to be interviewed by the grand jury. And the prosecutor turning over notes and information that is discussions with his own client. He’s done this with others as well. Then they get, you know, earlier they get a warrant. They raid his home with a SWAT team because they say they’ve had enough hits. They’ve run out of time. And I ask you a question. First of all, are you sick and tired of Bill Barr and people like that going on TV, basically encouraging the Department of Justice to indict the former president? And secondly, how is it that Hillary Clinton wasn’t in an orange jumpsuit, she was secretary of state? We’re talking about a former president of the United States. How do you view all this? No, it’s I’m sick and tired of like the American people are the double standard, the one set of rules for us regular folk and others that if you’re part of the elite connected class here in D.C., I’ll say this, too, about Secretary Clinton. When she was under oath in front of the Benghazi committee and my second round of questions, I remember I asked her, I said, Secretary Clinton, 60,000 emails. We don’t want to see the ones about your kids wedding. We don’t want to see the ones about the personal stuff that is America. We don’t want that. But we don’t necessarily trust that you and your lawyers will decide what’s work related, what’s what’s personal. So how about we do it this way? How about we take a retired federal judge? We can debate and we can figure out who we can work together, who that’s going to be. Let’s take a retired a retired federal judge and let them be the arbiter. Let them decide. This is personal. You should be able to see this committee. This is this is work related. You should be able to see this. How about we do it that way? Q And of course, they said, no, no, they couldn’t do it. Not only that, that’s what we now think about. That was the way they treated Trump compared to that. I offer to that from the committee. I said, you know, why don’t you? Why don’t you take that deal? No, no, no. Will decide. We the our lawyers will decide. We’ll do just what you describe, Mark. That’s that’s that’s Republicans being reasonable and being fair. They wouldn’t even take that deal. But with President Trump, I think how they’ve treated him, that’s what people are so sick of. And it’s and now that they’re going to indict the guy leading in every single poll after what they’ve done to him for eight years, spied on his campaign, spied on four people. Manafort, Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and I’m forgetting the fourth, all the poor people in the campaign, Mike Flynn, four people. They spied on his campaign then, then more does the investigation. Mueller comes the day Mueller testifies in front of our committee says no collusion, no conspiracy. What do they do? The very next day they pick up on a phone call, the very next day, July 24th, I think it was 2019. The very next day they say, oh, we’re going to get him on this phone call he had with the Lewinsky and some anonymous source with no firsthand knowledge who worked for Joe Biden is the basis of an impeachment. And it just keeps going. And rate is home, as you talk about. And now they’re going to like it never ends. It never ends. And that’s what that’s what drives everyone crazy. Well, it’s a huge problem in this country. It’s a very big, big problem. And I would just say to the Republicans who are running against Trump, you know, I get this question, will this help or hurt Trump? It’s going to help Trump because people do not like the fact that somebody who’s an innocent man is turned into the all time criminal, the United States. We know they’ve gone after his taxes. They’ve gone after his companies. We know they’ve gone after his kids. We know they bring charges of sexual abuse. It’s very strange he wasn’t found guilty of rape. That was the allegation. And one lawyer said to me, gee, you should have handled this case. How are you found guilty of a lesser offense? It’s a civil case. It’s not a lesser included offense. It’s a criminal case. And that’s very criminal. And then you go on, you go on with the phony impeachments, and then you go on with this criminal investigation and January six criminal investigation. And then you see how the Department of Justice the same. Department of Youth pointed out many, many times abuses now whistleblowers. The FBI, what they’ve done to those people. And you see what the parents and the pro-lifers and all the rest. And here’s problem you don’t have. A justice system. Mr. Chairman, we don’t have one anymore. No, we got to fix that. And the way you fix it, you do legislation and look at the appropriation process. You use all the tools that we have to try to fix it. But in the end, ultimately, you got to have an attorney general who’s going to follow the rule of law and the rule of law and equal Fairfax. Americans instinctively get fairness. That’s why the country you’re right. If this happens to President Trump, I think his numbers go up even more because Americans fundamentally understand fairness from the time you were a kid. If your brother gets two cookies and you get one, you know, it’s not fair like it’s built in us. It’s the way God made us. And Americans get it. So they just get it and they know what’s going on here is not fair. And the examples just look at Durham Durham’s report. There was intelligence, credible intelligence that comes into our government in the summer of 2016 that says the whole Trump-Russia stuff, the whole dossier, it was all the coming from the Clinton campaign. They put that in a memo. They sent that memo to Comey, instruct, Comey, instruct. Do not share that with the guys doing the CROSSFIRE hurricane, the agents on the case. And when Durham interviewed one of these agents, he showed in the memo, the guy read the memo after he read the number. This is in Durham’s report, page 80 of the report. He read the memo. He becomes visibly upset, emotional, has to get up, walk out of the room, comes back in and basically says it is B.S. that they didn’t share that information with us. This could have changed how we handle this whole case. That’s what’s going on. And Americans understand that that is wrong. That is not fair. And they appointed this special counsel because he’s known to be a reckless rogue. He was with the former governor of Virginia where the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the verdict. He was with even John Edwards, where the jury wouldn’t give him what he wanted. He’s he was the former head of the public integrity section when the IRS was going after the Tea Party. And I was told he was pushing that agenda, too. He was very bad people. Yes. Holy cow. All right, my friend. Thank you for the good work. We want to bless your brother. Thanks for all you do. All right. Bye bye. There you have it. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Chris Christie has announced that he’s running for president. And most of the time we’re looking at his back. You know what I said? Mr.. And in addition, he talked about he couldn’t hear most of it. John Kennedy writing Profiles in Courage. Actually, John Kennedy didn’t write Profiles in Courage, even though that was the the effort to create that impression guy by the name of Theodore Sorensen actually wrote Profiles in Courage, speechwriter, and among his closest advisers. Excuse me. You heard Jim Jordan. You’ve heard from me. You see what’s likely coming. And basically Chris Christie, much like Bill Barr, made it clear that there. Their goal in life, at least in the short run. Is to take out Donald Trump. And I think if they were really sober in their thinking. And had a historical context for what they were saying they would understand. Even though they don’t personally like Donald Trump anymore, even though both worked for them one directly, one indirectly. I never worked for Donald Trump. Nonetheless. When you see what’s going on, this kind of Soviet style. So-called justice system. You need to stand up against it. Regardless, choose me, regardless of who the target is. But these are not big enough men in stature. To do that. These are not big enough men in stature to do that. And the more they talk about this, the more history one day will remember them. They’ll be remembered, but not as they expect to be remembered. Does anybody know what today is? You know, Mr. Producer, I’ve watched a lot of news today to see if this would be even mentioned. Does anybody know what today is? It’s the anniversary. Of D-Day. When our men. Canadians. British. Aussies. New Zealanders were mostly. Started the first steps towards saving your D-Day. More on that in a moment.
