Ladies and gentlemen, the following segment of the podcast as presented exclusively by my favorite college at america: hills stale college, which probably refuses every any of government funding to remain independent? Thank you for listening and my sincere priests in nails, hillsdale for their sponsorship, all quiet in the underground bunker door. first blocks bolted? What the great? Why isn't it Resting on our laurels, he's king sure, you'll weekend is even better by giving you is best. This is the best,

mark Levin. Here's what I wrote the fifth amendment to the united states constitution states in part that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crump unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury unless one a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, not a prosecutor, a grand jury that his citizens is that what happened when special counsel, jack smith, the bind department of justice use a washington dc grand jury to charge former president trump for alleged crimes that occurred in florida. The so called documents case clearly using the wrong venue in violation of specific d o j policy, then hastily move the case to a grand jury in florida. The protection afforded by a fair grand jury proceeding dates back many centuries to the magna carta was prompt.

Really implemented by british and american court, supplying black stones legal doctrines. The notion that any grand jury would indeed a ham sandwich, refers to the usual adoption by grandeurs of evidence presented by a prosecutor. It should not eradicate a right that was deemed important enough to be included in the bill of rights. The public in the courts must realise that these are accusations crafted and made by the individual prosecutors and not the result of deliberations and subsequent decisions by a group of ordinary citizens. Since the florida grandeurs did not hear the testimony presented in the dc grand jury exactly what did they hear or see to charge? The former president and the other defendants was the.

Easy testimony read to them. What were they instructed about the deasey testimony where they asked whether they had any questions for the witnesses who testified were they instructed on the need to find probable cause us to each of the defendants? Were they instructed on the law? The customary procedure in cases of obvious crimes is just too submitted. Indictment drafted by the prosecutor to the grandeurs and ask them a vote up or down when the charges are not about an obvious crime and are instead much more complex, such as in the so called documents case. The constitutional right to be indicted by grand jury must require more than that and either dc grand jury met for many months heard from many scores of witnesses was presumably provided with an enormous amount of so called evidence presented to it by the government. We already know from the subsequent public record in the court proceedings in florida that the government is turned over to the defendants over one million documents and nine months of video type, which will be used in a holler part during the trial from that plus the complexity of the law in this matter. The fact that this is a case of first impression there are numerous legal and constitutional issues associated with the use in the espionage act against a former president. The florida grand jury not having the benefit of seeing and hearing first hand any the witnesses, etc. The government would have been required to ensure that, in fact, the florida grand jury and not the government indicted the former president based on probable cause a requisite for each and every of the nearly forty counts. You understand, MR producer, the government dozen indict the grand jury

as, but, if you just go through the motions in a case like this, and it's really the government, then the indictments are defective because under the bill of rights, the fifth amendment, it's a grand jury that indicts based on probable cause it's not in there for fluff. Although the federal rules of criminal procedure rule six impose a secrecy requirement on federal grand jurors, the judge should that is judge canon in florida. Now that the indictment has been returned, permit defense counsel to interview the grand jurors and release them from any secrecy obligation. Of course, the lawyers down there need to file a motion which I guess they will eventually god willing. That is the only way to discover before the defendants are forced to a trial. Whether the fifth amendments obligation has been satisfied and again, given how smith used the dc venue and a dc grand jury can deduct. A very extensive investigation of matters related almost exclusively to events in florida. This is an especially important issue in all four cases involving the indictment of president trump. The media have repeatedly reported that trump has quote been indicted by a grand jury. Unquote, the real question is whether the grand juries truly deliberated or simply went through the motions at the direction of the prosecution did a majority vote to accuse trump and all his co. Defendants of the complex crimes alleged in the indictments was at window dressing for what happened in the secret proceedings. Another obvious example is the case in georgia. The diamond is ninety eight pages in length and evolves over forty charges and, moreover, in addition to the individual charges, an umbrella charge of grand conspiracy. That is a so called rico. Charges allege the bobbing up the nineteen co conspirators, including the former president. This is an extraordinarily complicated, factual legal indictment. Putting aside the obvious substantive weaknesses of the case, and in this case, like the federal documents case, the prosecution has much to answer for recall that, on the day, the grand jury was to meet the vote on whether to indict the actual diamond was published by the court clerk on the official website before the grand jury had even met, let alone voted before they met. Let alone voted later. That day da fannie willis held a press conference playing up the fact that the nineteen defendants were accused who were accused had been charged by named ordinary citizens of the grand jury. Although under georgia law, she could have filed the charges without a grand jury endorsing them,

since she claimed the indictment was in fact the work of the grand jury. The question is whether it was from the moment. The indictment was posted on the clerk's official website that morning willis moved at a frenzied pace. To get an indictment that night exactly what happened in that courtroom? Excuse me in a grand jury room. What kind of deliberations occurred again? The issue is probable cause and whether the defendant's due process rights were abridged in georgia. The grand jurors are free to speak publicly. We saw that earlier when, in a prior investigative grand jury, the form and remember that woman went on tv after it's proceedings concluded and would not stop talking about what occurred among grand jurors and she did so gleefully. It shouldn't be difficult for defense counsel to get to the bottom of what occurred and by the way, not just the president's words, defence counsel, for all all the defendants. In the manhattan case, when da alvin bragg officially filed his indictment, he accompanied with a prosecutor's statement that the media accepted as part of the grand jury indictment. It was certainly presented that way. The question is whether the grand jurors actually voted on it dear compose as a secrecy requirement, grand jurors for their requirement makes sense. While the grandeur is considering criminal charges, should it apply to prevent disclosure of how the prosecutor instructed the grand jury and the law at a discover whether the grand jurors did in fact consider whether there was probable cause to make the criminal allegation and was bragg's accompanied statement, part of the proceedings? Finally, in the second federal case, supposedly involving january six, president trump is not charged with insurrection or sedition. Yet, when the special counsel, jack smith, made his remarks announcing the indictment, nearly half of his statement had no relevance to the charges brought by the grand jury. He said in part, and I quote, the indictment was issued by grand jury of citizens here in the district of columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail

I encourage everyone to read it in full. The attack on our nation's capital on January six was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy, as described in the indictment of is fueled by lies, lies by the defendant, targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the us government, the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election, the men and women of law enforcement who defended the us capitol on January six or euros there. Patriots and they are the very best of us. They did not defend a building or that people sheltering in it. They put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that defined the united states and grow again. This is a wide, ranging public condemnation of the former president in which smith orbit accuses the former president of insurrection and sedition for which he was not charged if the charges are based on the eighteen, seventy one ku klux, klan law, the post enron statute and a financial fraud law that is used mostly in cases where contractors and others swindle the federal government. Exactly what information was presented to the grand jury in washington and what did smith tell the grand jurors when they were urged to charge? The former president did smith, use arguments about insurrection and sedition to persuade the grand jurors to vote for these other charges. This is a critical point. It appears that smith played fast and loose with the law and the facts which does not meet the requirements for bringing charges that meet the probable cause standard. The grand jury process is intended to protect an individual's due process rights. A diamond shall be brought by ordinary citizens sitting as jurors. The governors provide the jury with witnesses, information and an explanation of the relevant law so that the citizen jurors are making their decisions based on a true, accurate and honest presentment, when this process is violated by politically motivated prosecutors, as with brag and willis were prosecuted with a long record of abusing the criminal justice system, as was smith, it is especially important that the fifth amendment not be abused and violated and used not to protect an individual, but as a cudgel by the government intended to imprison his targets. That is their target. It is relevant to note that all three prosecutors had the grand jury's votes smack in the middle of a presidential election and all have demanded trials within months of the indictments, that is, for the maximum political damage that candidate trump and maximum political benefit. The kennedy Biden, the use of these grand juries, where there is obvious evidence of chicanery by these prosecutors, must be scrutinized at the front under these various cases. Thus, the question I have where the heck are the lawyers. Apparently, this statement I make is upsetting some, the lawyers mister petition or get off your ass and do something this juncture. The process is highly significant. In fact, listen. The supreme court has held that the defendant loses any right to challenge the grand jury process, at least at the federal level. Once a trial was held on the indictment once you start the trial, and you haven't raised this issue, you are, as we lawyers called estopped from raising it later. She got a raise before the trial. This is why put it out publicly? I don't advise any of the lawyers for anybody, unless I do it publicly, where you read it on radio, where you hear it on tv, where you see it and hear it friend of mine contacted me today about another idea and it's a great idea, but I'm going to wait for the next day or two to tell you,

added. As you can see here, these trouser natalie piling up at these judges are willingly being used as pawns in the Biden. Justice department scheme, that is, these judges, don't have to hear these cases now. In fact, I cannot think of a single, legitimate, legal or constitutional reason that these judges have to hear these cases in six months or eight months and can't wait till after the election. I can think of a dozen political reasons, but not one single, legitimate, legal or constitutional reason. In one hundred Biden case, they allow statutes of limitations to run that's not even possible, with the allegations made against donald trump, because those statute of limitations run through the election period mark the eye friends

twenty twenty two as history, but have you thought about what you do and twenty twenty three Will you make it better than last year? That's why I've a challenge for you resolve to become a better educate, it american look. Every new year is a new opportunity, so I have a great way for you to make the most of this one. The good folks had hills, dot, com, You have made their amazing online courses free for all wish to learn my challenge to take just one of these fantastic courses you can discuss but the beauty of the bible in the genesis story study the writer. So cs Lewis or explore the true meaning of america in constitution, one oh one. There are many more to choose from and all these self paced free courses feature hillsdale faculty and scholars. So visit la in four hills, doubt icon and pick one of more than thirty three hills del courses. I hope you will accept my challenge: pickwick Javert course. You lie and resolved to be a more educated, american and twenty twenty three girl event from helstone outcome alleviation, fray hills, delta com and start your free course today,

the making your weekend even better. This is the best of mark Levin wrote. Content is a Democrat from California and he had this to say on the morning. Schmo cut six go. What we should be doing in the house is worrying about economic costs or cost. Instead. This is not obvious on the issues that era. I didn't want him at all last night on hunter Biden, Joe Biden, that's the american people know that Joe Biden isn't a single shred of evidence that a single payment, when the president minded stop it's very funny how they do this when they're in power, they don't really care what the people think they just press him, but I want to say something to you row: there's no evidence that Joe Biden took a dollar. Every allegation against donald trump has nothing to do with Donald trump taking a dollar. There is overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden was a co conspirator in violation of fara, that his son did not register. As a foreign agent- and we have on the record testimony taken under oath by his former partner and others,

Their Joe Biden was it at least twenty phone calls with the speaker on when he knew his son was talking to a foreign, individual or foreign asian or foreign government official about business. That's enough to violate the fire, and you don't actually have to have a men's rare. That is a specific intend to violate it. You vial

didn't you violate it, you don't register you don't register, that's how it works. Rona. You went to temple university. I understand same as I did. Did you pay attention to what you were being taught? What were you doing exactly so this you don't even have to take a one dollar payment, as I've told the republicans on the hill when they come on this program, Joe Biden is a co conspirator in one hundred binds violations of the foreign. That's good enough is good enough to take down Paul manafort and others. It's good enough to take down hunter Biden and his daddy. As for what true people want to hear, you don't tell them the truth, you don't tell them that you voted for massive spending bills that have caused inflation. You don't tell them that you're responsible for the gas prices going through the roof, because you're a climate change fanatic, you don't tell them that you're responsible for fruit prices going through the roof and gasoline prices going through the roof and the destruction of energy independence. You don't tell him a damn thing at that town hall meeting. Certainly don't tell him the truth. You pose as a moderate, but you march, in line

What's your brother. Meanwhile, anybody who questions the Biden, crime, family, the evidence is overwhelming that they had interactions with foreign governments and foreign governments paid them millions row: where did the money go? You have any interest in an hour over thirty million dollars, when no, you don't mug. You're an answering to the best of mark club, then the fifth. and to your united states, constitution, states and relevant part. This ready quote: nope, And shall be held the answer, free capital or otherwise infamous crime. Here's the kicker on a presentment or indictment of the grand jury. In other words, to be indicted by grand jury of citizens, not by the prosecutor, not by the government,

haven't you heard the reporter say the grand jury brought back an indictment with twenty eight hundred charges. You say what happened when special council jack smith and bind department of justice violated, depart injustice rules used a democrat, grand jury in Washington dc with a democrat motions, judge last name how first name barrel used to work for patrick lay. He pointed Obama is, I wanna happened in the documents case. hey grandeur in washington, dc boats to it on matters, involving events in florida in west palm beach, can you imagine if that is permitted by? U s attorney.

Office, all ninety three to them, and the thousands of assistant yours attorneys at her out there that their freedom pick a venue where they think they can get an indictment and then shipping, Indictment off to their to their jurisdiction where the events occurred and basically asked that grand jury. Rubber stamp, it isn't the rule at the department of justice. Not an opinion is that the directive The department of justice intended to avoid oliver answered yes, yes and yes,. don't ever listen to MSNBC or cnn for legal advice or legal information. on a nightly basis. There committing malpractice, they just star. They have the lowest of low lives. There he'll give commentary stupider than hell.

Now in this case was moved from Washington dc to florida, grand jury who we are. It was the fatah grand jury voted to approve the grand jury charges. The indictment in washington to combat a week. The grand jury in washington heard testimony for over two years. They saw an endless congo line of witnesses. They looked at an enormous amount of documents. They looked at videotape. What exactly did the grandeur in florida see or hear? What exactly was a grand jury told.

Despite what some of the legal aimless may have said to you, it's not good enough to movie an indictment to another jurisdiction and give it sort of a surface level, polish Then there s the grand jury there to vote for it. That's not what the fifth amendment means. Dna. Those grandeurs have any questions Did any of them ask about any the witness testimony that occurred in washington again? This is why you're supposed to use the proper venue were there any documents. There are highlighted any documents they asked to read: any video, they asked the sea I'm guessing now, because it happened too fast.

I'm guessing they went through the motions. There wasn't a lot of substance. The protection afforded by a fair grand jury proceeding dates back to the magna carta was adopted by british and american courts, black applying black stones, legal doctrines, blackstone being a brilliant lawyer, laura. What's he like or blackstone's dictionary on the law and so many other treatises. So the notion that any grand jury would indict a ham sandwich involves cases that are more garden. Variety, unfortunately, but nonetheless, with the laws not complex with violations are fairly routine and so forth, and so on. That's not this case.

This is a case of first impression. The espionage act has never been used. This wagons to former president. He former presidents never been indicted before. And on and on and on this is a one off: it's not a garden. Variety criminal case is a judge shrunken. Obviously this is in her case, but the question What happened in the grand jury room in florida? Now

of secrecy rules rule six on federal federal grandeurs, but that that's only applicable while the grand jury is actually doing its business. In this case, the guarantors businesses over. So there's no harm done. If a motion is far by defence council again and judge cannons court, raising the exact questions and on raising. Based in part, at least but significant part on how the government, the d o j, garland smith, you know the mob how they took all they took all the witness testimony all the documentary information

all of it down in the wrong venue intentionally the florida grand jury didn't have the benefit of any other, their picking up the crumbs, but that's not good enough. Under the fifth amendment. We know that from past litigation, court rulings, particularly the supreme court, so there's emotion, their prosecutor abuse to the grin

process. That's the motion and jack smith. Sadly enough has made it relatively easy to make their case in the supreme court has ruled that you gotta make their case before the trial begins, because, after that you can't make the case who has stopped. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense to raise it after the trial began yet erase the fact that you were unconstitutionally indicted before with the trial based on those charges, takes place and so we're at a juncture now where that needs to be done relatively quickly. That's not the only place where there was prosecutorial abuse of the grand jury process.

in Georgia. You don't have to use a grand jury to bring an indictment prosecutor, can do it him or herself under georgia, constitutional law. But if you choose to use the grand jury, it cannot just be window dressing for prosecutors, actually bringing the case. You have to make a choice now, fanny. Well as the daughter of a black panther, she made a choice was going to be the grand jury, but something happened. The clerk of the court on the official website published the indictment with all the charges against trump and the eighteen other co defendants early in the morning before the grand jurors even entered the courthouse, let alone voted. Why? How did that happen?

While the clerk of the court didn't sit there and right to charges, she was handed the charges from the prosecutor's office and she downloaded it into the system. She accidently push the button that put the charges on the website. Now, having done that, the question is raised in the room. Just came the smartest lawyer. I know how she's leaving the question is: what happened in the grand jury,

did they go through the process that kind of process I'd just discuss with you? That's an awfully long indictment, ninety eight pages and forty one charges, or so I doubted he would have taken an hour or two just to read the text of what was given to the clerk to the grand jurors, but wasn't it weird at night they brought the he announced the vote brought the formal charges against president trump and the other defendants wasn't a weird how desperate she was to get this thing done that day after the publication of the indictments. So why did she do it that way cause she knew she blew it. The jig was up.

The grand jury, in my estimation, didn't liberate like a grand jury supposed to she announced not only that The grand jury met, they took a photo, she put out their names, at ordinary citizens brought this indictment. Did they. Now. What you also have in georgia is a wonderful opportunity for any the defence lords of any the nineteen to finance they don't grand jury, secrecy, rules kind of weird, but they know

with that idiot. There was going around who'd been the foreman of the investigative grand jury and she was all over tv and one party went to court and said judge you got to shut her up. He said no under under georgia law. She can do whatever she wants pretty much. So defense counsel have a golden opportunity to ask the court for the right to question a number of these grand jurors to find out what took place to see. If that grand jury, indictment quote unquote was, in fact a grand jury statement by the weather, was window dressing. You see, ladies and gentlemen, to me. This is legal hand to hand combat now.

we need to hear from legal, analyse who think that discharge is a good one and we d hear from blunder. Busts like dunbar, who s just teaches. You announced, grow at a government and a jump off that bridge. When I get it, I don't want to hear that crap what's taking place here is outrageous despite their hate for trump. These are battles for the times, meaning for all the years this republic has left not just for today mark. The great one makes your weekend even better. This is the best of Well, then, how many out there a capitalists that is, you believe in private property rights you believe

entrepreneurship, he believe in innovation and productivity. We believe that, because, where capitalists. That our country has been the most prosperous on the face of the earth. How many of you believe that, thanks to capitalism, as opposed to big government and socialism, and so forth,. We have things that no human beings have ever had on the face of the earth in the past or today food. You know automobiles homes, drugs. How many of you think the government is competent? How many think government creates shortages like baby formula and so forth?

Energy, how many you do you think these smartest minds in industry work and the bureaucracy? While we know hundreds of billions of dollars every year are lost by the federal government through waste fraud and abuse not particularly efficient as it will, then how come so many of you one government to effectively through the back door take over the pharmaceutical company. You think they'll do better with there. Then they would we gasoline for food. Would you want to turn over our food production system to the department of agriculture will starve to death.

They already run immigration house. I work in our education, housing work now. You know we have the radical left, the democratic party, the marxists. You don't understand economics, but they understand voting and elections, and so they do things not because they're smart that because they're right now, because their work, because the democrat party wants permanent power to anything go. But how do you explain these so called populace? Conservatives, which is oxymoronic by the way had he explained that, in other words, both of them go after pharmaceutical companies? Who do they think invests in pharmaceutical companies? Your pension plans, who do they think works for pharmaceutical companies. Your neighbors

How do they think we get these cutting edge drugs with the investment of billions and billions of dollars? They ve been trying to find as an example, treatment for a cure for alzheimer's they might be. both, but this has been going on twenty years, where they ve been spending hundreds of billions of dollars, usually to no avail Now, there's a reason: I'm telling you this. I want to read your piece by giovanni Caffari or giovanni. Can fire you or I believe is italian and he writes his own opinion piece. In the wall street journal they'd, alright, it he right talks about the high cost of price controls, now requests and other drugs eloquence. You need to listen to this

Says for years I visited my father in ITALY, but asked me about a drug that my company, bristol myers squib, was developing. It was an anti clotting medication. May father's interest was personally, even though he was a physician. He was at risk of a stroke because he had a trough regulation, a kind of irregular harpy to contain that risky took orphan to prevent the blood clots leads stroke, orphan, which was developed more than a half us.

We go, isn't a perfect medicine too little in the way work too much the risk of bleeding complications becomes untenable. Weekly blood work and frequent physician monitoring are required with war from four decades researchers soda, better solution. Then, after many decades. Ninety nine you five brought a breakthrough. Research at Bristol Myerst whip developed a new type of blood. Thinner which targets in protein involved in blood conning called factor exceed the new approach didn't require orphans, monitoring and dose. Adjustments early on my father cause me about the clinical trials for our compound later named eloquence after the FDA prove the medicine and twenty twemlow it takes years, typically to get after prove once and I like,

These vaccines, they push out the door, it can take ten years so after the fda approved the medicine and twenty twelve years when it would be available in italy where, because of strict price controls, it wasn't reimbursed as quickly in the united states, as in the united states, became available for reimbursement in italy for a trial for release.

In late twenty thirteen. Over the past eleven years, eloquence has benefited an estimate, forty million patients worldwide. Why eloquence is now in the music does among the first ten medicine subject, to quote negotiations of the inflation reduction act, to determine what many care will pay for. You see what they stuff that law with climate change, price controls now, listen to me, contrary to how it's been framed, the inflation reduction acts. Drug pricing programme doesn't involve negotiated negotiation in any ordinary sense of the word of a drug developer disagrees with the dictate price are only options are to pay, and possibly I penalties. I would draw our medicines for medical medicate altogether. That's not a choice. We'd! Never do that to our patients, so that essentially lets the governments at any price it chooses and making matters worse. The inflation would dutch neck will force drug makers to agree koran quote that the dictator price is the quote: maximum fair price, unquote, no matter how unfair pricing

Big again, when you read the democrat party, hates america focus on the chapter, the talks about how they use language and phrases in ways had advanced their cause, destroy the actual language and phrases. So they talk about agree when, in fact, there is no agreement, they took on a maximum fair price when, in fact it's not a fair price, says the law. While

stop discouraging the development of oral drugs that help millions of elderly patients in the? U s now. Why would that happen? Why would that happen? Because, ladies and gentlemen, the price controls in Venezuela, the price controls and huber their price controls and every totalitarian regime, which is why people are starving which why they don't get access to medicines, which is why there is no develop new medicines, new technologies and new products? We don't have price controls on fuel if we did you'd freeze to death, he'd freeze to death in the winter and sweat to death in the summer price controls, the inflation reduction act arbitrarily offers less protection to quote unquote: small molecule medicines, including those taken in a pill or capsule than two large molecule injected or infused medicines, thereby penalizing the development of treatments that are more convenient for patients. Let's take a pill for this, there's going to be less of that now it also targets treatments and how many older americans send you a signal that industry should walk away from medicines for the elderly. We think that's wrong now. He may think that wrong, but that's going to be the consequence. Why? Let me tell you the truth: medicare and medicaid: they need to slash their costs because they're going bankrupt rather than adjust and reform the programs, they need to slash the costs, so they can drive up. That is discourage the production of medicines, particularly for the elderly,.

Where they become cost prohibitive, because you put these profit caps on top of your parents and grandparents are the ones who are going to suffer the modeling not going to be able to get new drugs. They're not going to be able to get the drugs are on right now, eliquid says at the top of the government's list, not because it's prices, high or rather because so many americans are medicare more than three million rely on it to reduce the risk of stroke and other conditions, though frequently prescribed eliquid rank for five hundred and fortieth am on medicare part d, drugs and medicare spending per patient in two thousand twenty one. So it's a relatively inexpensive inexpensive drug, but it helps millions.

Belburg me in particular, seeing is our medicare pay on average fifty five dollars a month for the drug half of all, I look. What patients pay forty five dollars or less their target because of its broad use by seniors number one the obama was putting in a bomb care. Remember what that crackpot brother was chief of staff, said about the death of seniors and so forth. I've told you a running. The democrat party doesn't care about people when you watch what they do. You just keep in mind. They don't care about people, they care about power. So here you have an inexpensive drug that saved the lives of people, particularly seniors, who need the thin out their blood in order.

Frankly, so their heart functions, the way needs to function makes no sense. He writes to take a medicine already price based on the values, delivers and demand, even greater concessions, especially given that there is no requirement that the insurance companies of their medical that administer medicare or pass any new savings to the patients.

I share the concerns that our current system as seniors to pay more for medicines than for other healthcare expense that industry were open to reforms that address these change challenges, but the incentives in the inflation reduction act or backward. We should want more effective and safer medicines more medicines for america's seniors, more easy to take options. Instead, this sort of rot washington regulation will force innovative biopharmaceutical companies to make gut wrenching choices about research and investment priorities, in other words, they're not going invest in the areas that the government's controlling, because they don't want to go broke. It's like these utility companies that are not able to maintain their their their infrastructure because they're being forced to invest in climate change similar in part what happened in hawaii least that part of what contributed to it and what they're saying is we'll go broke. We can't go

Oh if we lose money on every pill because of that government is a really negotiating their dictating where we can charge. This is a burning sanders initiative. This won't crush innovation entirely in a couple months. I will retires ceo and I know that people working our lives will never give up our farmers. Suitable researchers are achieving medical breakthroughs. That would have seemed like miracles a generation ago, but these steps forward aren't miracles there, the inevitable result of a deep understanding of biology and a commitment to improving pay. Since lives, the question, then, is whether the engines of innovative innovation america is known for throughout the world will continue said. The question is whether bad policy

Wind end up steering that innovation in ways that harm patients rather than help them. Many people are very short sighted. Yes, cheaper drugs, cheap gp. This is a fairly cheap drug. Considering the benefit there are drugs out there, There are two three five ten thousand dollars a pop: why some of them are relatively new, some of them It was very rare diseases. You want to see where this administration is taking us look at britain. They will not develop medicines or treatments for rare diseases. They make a cost benefit analysis based on what the bureaucrats determine is important in how the bureaucrats determined to keep the national health service.

float it's a bureaucratic nightmare. So if you have a rare disease and a drug cause like ten fifteen twenty thousand dollars, Britain doesn't bother also what they don't talk about their never going to. and many of you, are probably not inclined to hear this- every single major drug, I'm not If the drug company's payroll I'm not run and drug company ads on this program, I'd just make it a point because I'm a capitalist, which means, I believe in humanity. The drug companies collectively spend twenty billion dollars in helping patients. They can demonstrate that they truly cannot afford the drugs that their income level is. Such a lot of people play the system. they lie about their income, not talk about you, but a lot of people play the system. They lie about their income of their move assets. You know to IRAN.

To have a kid or whatever, but the drug companies don't even really work that hard to vet there. You fill out a form you send it in the drug company signed by a darker. It's really quite easy. I haven't done this, but I've gone through this understanding this process. In these prior debate, we had on our balmy care when I've talked to these companies have talked to these doctors and you get the drug for free For as long as you can demonstrate that you needed so that cost is built into their overhead too, so what drugs they talking about. Eloquence, you heard.

Jardines from Eli lily. I diabetes treatment, berringer angle haim in geneva from merk. They made the list also known as engines, auto immune disease treatment and brow entrecasteaux from nor virus which issues to treat heartfelt other drugs on the list asked rosanna goes diabetes and hard further treatment for zika the blood thinner. I can't pronounced them all. Thereafter. The blood cancer treatment improve occur and its biggest seller still lara an ivy treatment for psoriasis and other inflammatory does.

it is, and the list goes on. So what you're going to see now is a tremendous shortage of these drugs. That's what you're going to say and now a a tremendous shortage of new drugs merge for the We are giving you nothing, but the best the best of mark levin. or outrageous rule and others cabal karbala radical left wing, Democrat jason, washington d c. As you know, when I wrote the book the many amendments. I came up with a number of amendments that I thought through the convention of states. we should try to adopt in order to get our constitutional republican back. Because they ve been eviscerated, they ve been obliterated. But I want to suggest something that the report,

the goods and the house of representatives could do right now. It may not be accepted by the senate. It may. A big sector by buying yet. But there are two ways to deal with that key coming at the door until something that seems impossible one day becomes reality and number to attack The every major piece of legislation wording that I'm going to discuss with you right now. Mark what're you talking about, Ladies and gentlemen, the the courts in the district one via a runaway courts.

If not almost to the judges- that is radical democrat left wing and some case marxist lawyers, put on that black robe. I called your honor and are given the kind of respect they do not deserve. Because they disrespect you, they disrespect defendants, they disrespect the rule of law. They are interfering. Presidential election: they are interfering in the in the justice process They know what they're doing they talk to each other. It is a cabal. It isn't cabal at that.

record level a k, a trial level. It is like a pop excuse me at the circuit court level. That is the power level. I wonder our constitution under our constitution, article three. Section one funny how I refer to the constitutional: the time is it. The judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts, as the congress may from time to time. Ordain and establish the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good. Behavior and shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

They put that last part in there, so judges wouldn't be threatened or intimidated. By having their salaries, reduced or removed, that is quite irrelevant here. In other words, congress has created and does create every federal court below the supreme court. The constitution actually creates the supreme court congress creates those courts. Congress also has the power to

determine if those courts do or do not have judicial authority over certain subject matter. Did you know that, since the ratification of the constitution excuse me, congress has created these verse courts these districts? There are twelve circuit districts. There are ninety four Trial districts congress created everyone.

If congress wanted to deny authority in certain subject, matters certain subject matter jurisdiction: it has the power to do that. Constitution, gibson that poets, a direct grant. I know why I'm not a former federal prosecutor am a constitutional lawyer, so we have a court in washington d c, the circuit court. then we have lower courts in washington DC twelve active district judges, as well as judges on what they call senior status.

But it goes through again for you what we ve talked about before here and on fox and on live in tv, but the majority of the judges at the trial level, the district court level are o bomber Clinton, appointees. And of those most of them are, obama point is, and he selected the most radical bomb throwers he possibly could, and there now judges. Now these your flesh and blood people. These are lawyers who are pick from obscurity and they become federal judges for life. You know people talk about term, limiting this term, limiting that I don't necessarily disagree with them by the way, but nobody talks about turn limiting specifically the federal judges, and

Washington d c so number one. I want to put that on the table. That is something we should add to a list of constitutional amendments we want. I know it's difficult, but we must turn limit those judges, because it is extraordinarily powerful, part of our judiciary, way out of line with what the framers ever had in mind. That's number one number: two. We have a cabal whenever you have a cabal, you have tyranny.

And we recognise that threat american history, the constitution is concerned about come off. That's why we have separation of powers. That's why we of checks and balances. That's why we have federalist. That's why we have the ninth amendment, where you have individual rights as as declared in the declaration of the independent. That's what the ninth amendments on a bill, we're not sure what the ninth member means. That's what it means. It's the connection to the declaration. Now, if we have economic monopolies with any trust loss. The repast at the beginning of the last century. I don't necessarily agree with them, but there they are and what are they? Therefore, they prevent monopolies now, there's no more.

dangerous monopoly than a monopoly of one party controlling a judicial district in this country, which is washington, d c. washington d c is the most partisan dynamic. At city in the united states. You're talking about the ruling class or whether we are talking about the population, ninety four percent of the population that voted voted for Biden. You only see those numbers with Hamas. You only see those numbers in in russia and china in north korea. In dictatorships, throughout our own hemisphere, you don't see those

and a functioning republic. Ninety four percent: what would happen if washington d c was filled with a population republicans who ninety four percent for donald trump and Joe Biden is indicted?. I too grand juries in Washington DC and we have a majority of ragged and trump appointed judges. and some of them let's say, are in your face: radicals for the right. You think they're be squeals and howard and all the rest from the democratic party from the media. Of course, there were

now, since the beginning of congress, we ve had judiciary acts without a judiciary act. We wouldn't have any these lower courts. and the judiciary. Act also directs the department of justice and prosecutors throughout the country. Sometimes it provides for sentencing, guidelines and so forth, and so on the criminal code, Is adopted by statute congress has a lot to say in this purposely congress. Is supposed to be made up of our representatives. When you have what our lifetime appointed democrats lifetime appointed bomb? Throwing radical marxist and left wing judges. Were abusing their authority who, using their

fishing through using no these courtrooms in their lifetime appointment to destroy this country to destroy our legal system. Our constitution, system to destroy the bill of rights to destroy the rights of defendants that due process probable, cause a joy of their peers reappears. Then you have nothing. We have this idea of judicial review where judicial review in the constitution nowhere find it. He find the term judicial review in the constitutional. Give you five thousand dollars.

Go ahead: look judicial review is an implied powers. Somebody has to make a decision. We have these courts, they ve been big bucks written about them. Trying to convince you and me that it's really a solid pernod. It's an implied power. Read the constitutional court

text you can see the judiciary is to be and was to be, very weak. The federalist papers tell us the judiciary is and was to be, very weak. These men didn't fight a revolution for judicial review in a judiciary, they fought a revolution for representative government, that's what they did not lifetime appointed district and circuit court judges, it's time to reform the judiciary, it's time to reform the judiciary in washington d c, it's time to break up this cabal of marxist ideologues, who don't give a damn about due process and the rights of defendants. If the republicans are, if his name is donald trump,

And I sit here really appalled, appalled, disgusted that not a single republican in the house of representatives. Despite all the talk, not one has been talking about this, not one has presented a judiciary act now, one that would break up the cabal and washington DC and move some of these subject matters into other jurisdictions, which would have much more balanced and fair grand jurors, much more balanced and fair trial, juries closer to fifty fifty or even seventy thirty, but ninety five to five, and they should break up the judicial cabal in Washington d c at the circuit court level, which was expanded and packed by obama and reid, and the dc court level congress shouldn't sit on its hands, certainly not the republicans and pretend there's nothing. They can do about that at least start pushing the agenda, the agenda being a just and fair and balanced judiciary. That's not what we have in Washington d c. You

Can I cannot get a fair trial? It is impossible when you have judges like barrel how judkins Jackson, along less the reprobates and that proposed legislation, be it should be attached to everything. Spending bills, get limit bills every damn bill and fight for it, because you're fighting for the country break up that court. In washington d c, the district court at the circuit court take authority away from them

I give it the other parts of the country, other jurisdictions, other judges who know what they're real role is and other citizens in a more balanced A few minutes.