The Espionage Act Has No Applicability

The Espionage Act Has No Applicability

Mark Levin

In American Marxism, Levin explains how the core elements of Marxist ideology are now pervasive in American society and culture – from our schools, the press, and corporations, to Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the Biden presidency – and how it is often cloaked in deceptive labels like “progressivism”, “democratic socialism”, “social activism”, and more. Order it Today!

video
play-sharp-fill

I have a prosecutor that used the wrong law, and I don’t care how many former federal
prosecutors and phony experts go on TV because they have a law degree and they think they
know something when they know nothing.
Most of them have spent their lives as ambulance chases.
Now I know why the people hate lawyers.
I don’t blame them, except for my wife and me, of course.
Here’s the bottom line.
The Espionage Act has no applicability to this.
Tell me, how many people have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act since 1917 who were
president or vice president up until today?
Zero.
Lyndon Johnson took classified information with him.
He had one of his aides keep it.
They put it in an envelope.
Johnson said, not till I die, give it to my library.
And then the library got it, and they were sitting on it for 50 years.
They were told to, involving top-secret information about Vietnam and tapping the phone of
Richard Nixon.
Nobody remembers that.
Isn’t that weird?
And, of course, you have the Hillary Clinton example.
You know Hillary Clinton was never investigated for obstruction, Sean?
It’s not even that they—they didn’t even investigate her.
They didn’t investigate her for perjury.
And there was plenty of false statements.
They didn’t even investigate her for that.
And the evidence is beyond anything that we’ve ever seen with a former secretary
of state.
She wasn’t even a former president.
The Presidential Records Act doesn’t even apply to her.
And so the Espionage Act, I would argue, doesn’t apply to any former president or any former
vice president under the Presidential Act.
Why?
It’s called the Presidential Records Act.
People come on the TV and they say, well, he needs to have the law applied to him
as it would anybody else.
No, it’s called the Presidential Records Act, because he is the executive branch.
He’s the executive branch.
So, he doesn’t have to rely on some subordinate—here are the regulations.
This is the way you do it, Mr. President.
His power comes from the Constitution.
He is a third branch of government, him, he alone.
Everything else flows from him.
The framers created a president.
They didn’t create a CIA.
They didn’t create a special counsel.
They didn’t create an attorney general.
They created a president.
And this precedent that people are talking about, people need to pay attention to this.
This was an Obama judge trying to help Clinton in 2012, and the Department of Justice should
know all about it.
And so should the National Archives.
It was the case involving the socks, the sock drawer and judicial watch.
Now, what happened?
Bill Clinton keeps these tapes, which have highly classified information on them, in
his sock drawer, which is a little different than Sandy Berger, who kept them in his
pants.
But nonetheless, he kept them in his sock drawer.
Then he retires.
He’s a former president.
So Judicial Watch brings a lawsuit and says, hey, National Archives, go get those.
We want to see some of those.
So it gets in front of this Clinton judge, Jackson, in Washington.
And what does she say?
She reads the law, the Presidential Records Act.
Not the espionage act, or Clinton would be doing 50 years with his wife by now.
No.
She reads the Presidential Records Act.
And you know what she concludes?
I’ll tell you what she concludes.
She says the responding agency, the National Archives, the tapes were Mr. Clinton’s personal
records, therefore not subject to the Presidential Records Act or the Freedom of Information
Act.
The government’s position was that Congress had decided the president, and the president
alone decides what is presidential record and what isn’t.
This is why they want to keep talking about the Espionage Act and not the Presidential
Records Act.
We had a legal analyst come on this network a few hours back, and he says the Presidential
Records Act doesn’t apply, it’s the Federal Records Act, because these documents weren’t
created by the Oval Office.
I said, how much dumber is this going to get before this is over?
It’s what’s in the possession of the president, not whether he created it or not,
not whether the vice president created it, not whether the staff created it.
The president gets CIA information, the president gets DIA information, the president gets all
kinds of information that comes into the Oval Office, some of which he might create, most
of which he doesn’t.
One other thing.
I have a question.
For Bill Barr in particular, who’s been very poisonous, Bill Barr, why wouldn’t
the prosecutor seek a civil remedy if he wants to seek any remedy at all?
Why wouldn’t he go to the court and say, I need an order, Your Honor, order them
turn all this stuff over under the Espionage Act.
Well, if the judge is smart, the judge will say, get the hell out of my courtroom.
What does this have to do with the Espionage Act?
But maybe they’re not so smart.
Maybe they’re as dumb as the guy that signed the warrant.
And so what happens?
You need three elements.
You need an order.
And what are the elements?
For contempt.
A judge can say, OK, I ordered you to turn them over and you didn’t.
OK, they go back to government and say, hold them in contempt.
Civil contempt.
A valid order exists, clearly defining an obligation.
The accused party has the ability to comply with the order.
The accused party has willfully refused to comply with the order.
Then they’re held in civil contempt.
Judge can decide if one of the lawyers goes to jail or something.
You don’t say, you know what, we’re going to move this, as Barr did, stupidly
actually, we’re going to move this from the Presidential Records Act to the Espionage
Act.
Well, how did they do that?
They decided to criminalize the case.
This entire prosecution comes from the criminalization of the case, the wrong statute.
The wrong statute.
So, you know what they’re doing now, Sean and America?
They’re beating up on the potential judge.
Oh, she better be careful.
Oh, she’s a Trump appointee.
So they know what they’re doing.
These people are fascistic and Marxist.
That’s what they are.
They used the wrong law.
Donald Trump did not commit any crimes.
He didn’t obstruct justice.
He didn’t commit perjury.
He didn’t make false statements.
It is the prosecutor.
It is the attorney general who did this.
And one other question for Merrick Garland.
What the hell is it going to take you, pal, to appoint a special counsel against Biden?
Allegations of bribery, 17 potential tapes.
And yet, you know what, Sean?
The attorney general knows all this.
The FBI didn’t turn this stuff over without briefing the attorney general.
They have a very big table.
I think it’s on the fifth floor, and he sits there, and they tell him what he’s
going to do.
Same with this prosecutor.
The Attorney General is the Svengali behind it all, and the Deputy Attorney General is
the Svengali behind the Attorney General.
It’s the wrong law.
No presidents ever been charged for violating the Espionage Act.
Not Lyndon Johnson.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t charged.
She wasn’t even investigated for obstruction of justice.
And one last thing.
I do have to give Joe Biden some credit.
1917, Woodrow Wilson was president.
He got this law passed, and he imprisoned 2,000 people,
including Eugene Debs, who was the socialist running
for president.
And he ran for president from prison and got 6% of the vote.
Wilson was a segregationist and a racist.
Joe Biden was a segregationist and racist.
So there you have it, a former segregationist and racist,
and a past segregationist and racist,
using the Espionage Act to try and destroy our country.
And by the way, you legal analysts
are coming on TV, try to educate yourselves, try to look a little bit at history, obviously
read the Constitution, read the case law, be a little bit informed before you go on
TV and make an ass out of yourself.
I’m done!

Disclaimer:
This “Patriots” blog may not own some content presented.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

All posts on this video blog are my personal opinion, and they don’t in any way reflect the opinions of my employer. All materials, posts, and advice from this site are informational, researching, and for testing purposes only. You can use them at your own responsibility. I’m not in any way responsible for any damage done by following posts, advice, tutorials, and articles from this video blog.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.