castles. i did the best time doing this for fox. it premieres this monday on fox nation. thanks much forh watching i'm jeanine pirro advocating for truth, justice and the american way. don't forget i'm on cameo and will be on local. ♪ mark: hello america, i'm mark levin and this is "life, liberty and levin". warning, anything i say this evening will be used to attack me by the press, the democrat party and that never trump but i don't care. i always try to speak the truth and i want to talk to you tonight. it's a very, very important time

in our history. i don't have any conservative on this network, any who has done anything but condemn what took place on capitol hill the other day. it was outrageous, breaching the walls and the security of the capital building, 14 capital police injured woman shot dead, that is not who we are and those people who did that are not us. there were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who came out to march in support of the president of the united states, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people and now they're all been accused of violence. they are all being attacked and be painted with the broadest of brushes. why can't we focus on the hoodlums? why can we focus on the people who actually did this? we need to find out who they a are. we need to prosecute them and we need to know all about them. why is that so controversial? and went back and listen again to the president's speech, not

once, not once does he incite violence. not once did the president of the unites say charge the capital building, breach the capital building pretty he said the opposites. about peacefully protesting, peacefully protesting. that is what he said. all of that aside for the mome moment, it's time to take a bigger look at this as far as i am concerned. what we've had to deal with as a country over the last five years and it's been extraordinary and it has been awful in many respects. donald trump isn't even elected president yet and spies are planted in his campaign. obama administration whether fbi, intelligence agencies or obviously they are scheming against him and the fisa court process is undermined with lies that are given to the court for warrants and the hillary clinton campaign spends money, washes it through a law firm for this dossier which is used as pretext to investigate the president of

the united states. we hear russia collusion for two, three years, another lie, pretext of which was used to launch a criminal investigation that went on and on and distracted and undermined the presidency and at the same time listening to people on capitol hill who are speaking about impeachment and who are using intelligence committees, judiciary committee day in and day out and we have to listen to adam schiff and jerrold nadler and other people, day in and day out on tv accusing our president of espionage and of all kinds of horrific acts, treason, selling out the dictators and this has an impact on a society. it has an impact on the people in the media, the media played, not just role played a leading role. constantly pouring fuel on the fire and by the way, none of this excuse what happened to the capital. we need to look at the whole horizon of things that have taken place in this country.

we have a newspaper, new york times pushes the 1619 project but what is the purpose of the 6019 project? it's been pushed into our schools and the purpose is to undermine our founding. that's the purpose of the 6019 project. we have vesicle players and for ballplayers taking these all over the place why? for such a set monthly racist society and we watch this and we watch as every day so else has been taking place? all, black lives matter which is a marxist anarchist organization, violent organization has roads named after it and it celebrated by corporate america and it celebrated by the american med media. we have facebook and twitter conducting itself in the most fascist ways imaginable and with 100 days of attacks on the federal courthouse in portman and the speaker of the house analogize is the federal law enforcement that is trying to

protect it to storm troopers during the third reich and she is not the only one. we have violence, the most horrible violence we've seen since the 60s happening during the summer monuments being pulled down, people being beaten, cops being beaten and after the george floyd killing in the media downplayed every bit of it. every bit of it. now, let's talk about an attack on our system of government. my wife and i attended the last night of the republican convention on the south lawn of the white house. beautiful, all important people there, elected officials were there, senators, congressmen, governors, you name it, they were there but that is where the republicans conquered the most powerful, the most influential in the country and that's where they came, south lawn of the white house. in about an hour before it was over we could hear, we could hear the crowd forming outside the gates of the white house and

it got louder and louder and there were banging drums and playing music and chanting and saying all kinds of cuss words and so forth and so on and my wife and i looked at each other and said how the hell will be get out of here when this is done? this is at the end of the republican convention. big formation of police came and had to show us the way out and we had to walk halfway around the town in order to try to find an uber but some were not as lucky. he beat the hell out of some of the delegates who had left and who try to get back to their hotels and they chase down rand paul and his wife, assaulted them and assaulted the police officers who was trying to protect them, they went after dan bongino and his wife and i can't even name all the people who were attacked and that barely got the attention of the media. they did not talk about an assault on our governing system. people left the white house grounds and they were attacked. do remember what took place in lafayette park? to monitor the assault that took

place? scores of secret service agents were injured and the president of the united states had to be carried off to the bunker, the nuclear bunker because they are afraid that the fence would be breached. the next day the attorney general and others cleared out lafayette park and they were attacked for clearing out lafayette park. that wasn't called an attack on our government at the time but here is my point, we should oppose all violence, all violence whether capitol hill which is an outrage or whether the white house where it is an outrage, whether it's a federal courthouse in portland which is an outrage, whether it is people leaving the last light of the republican convention that is an outrage. all forms of violence, all of it should be condemned and i condemn it all and i have always condemned it all but everybody hasn't. we have media organizations who talk about mostly peaceful protesters while building our

bernie bynum and throwing molotov cocktails and wild cop cars are burned and while cops are being hit over the head with skateboards and hit with baseball bats and you see these areas taken over in these various cities and so forth and joe biden give a speech the other day after the capital was breached, a speech about unity and he said the president needs to step up. all through the summer people were begging joe biden to speak out against black lives matter and he would not do it. finally when he did it in a one or two sentence passing comment people said see, he spoke out against it. we need people to speak out against violence. this is a big problem in a country in no question about it. we have lockdowns going on in our country and governors who are abusing their power and ask the jews in brooklyn with a think about the mayor of new york who is targeting them. ask the senior citizens of new

york what they think of the governor of new york who has targeted them. ask the people of this country what they think wendy's governors are putting the most constraining lockdowns in place while they are going on vacation and while their wives go on the occasion, while they eat at five-star restaurants, they are all caught doing all kinds of things, breaking their own lockdowns. imagine what that makes people feel like? then imagine having an election and put the fraud aside and let's talk about the constitution. democrat officials in pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan and even republican officials in georgia violate article two of the constitution with the executives and the courts change the election laws in violation of the federal constitution and people see this. they are upset about it. imagine turning on the joe scarborough or show on msnbc where a guesser. he refers to trump supporters as neo- maxis and imagine turning on cnn or don lemon and has a

few guests mocking the mental intelligence of trump supporters and the media has played a huge, huge role in what is going on in his country and they are exploiting out what took place on capitol hill. they are trying to silence conservatives, silence republicans and unfortunately a lot of republicans are buckling. we need to speak out against violence but we need to speak out against what happened on capitol hill or at the white house or at the portland courthouse. we need to reject all this violence but what about the media? here is that headlined the next day after the breach of capitol hill in "the new york times". trump insights mob. trumpet never incited the mob. this is projection. this is projection for he never did that or the washington post? trump mob storms the capital. there were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people there and trump mob storms a capital? that's an awfully broad brush or the daily news, seeds, resident

insights insurrection. president did not incite insurrection or the usa today pro- trauma mobs storm the u.s. capital? how about thugs storm u.s. capital, how about lawbreakers storm u.s. capital? this is the way it could reported and here is the new york post, capital invasion. okay, fair enough. here is the washington times, assault on democracy. okay, fair enough. we should not downplay what happened on capitol hill the other day, we should be furious about what happened on capitol hill the other day but either you are against violence or you are not. and now the media and people like adam kissing her and chuck schumer and their ilk and they're like, what are they doing? they are exploiting the situation. it's about impeaching the president of the united states

of the 20th by the minute 90s before he leaves office, do they even know was involved in the 25th amendment? so, they double down and travel down and quadruple down and they are not going to change. out of one side them out to talk about unity but on the other side of the mouth they spit on people, 74 million people and more and they're not going away. they are concerns that still exist and then i see the democrat leader in the senate schumer still talking about attacking the supreme court and isn't anyone concerned about that? no one wants a supreme court attacked. certainly not by the united states senate, attacking the voting system and the electoral college and attacking the senate with four more democrats and eliminating the filibuster so they can get through whatever legislation they want and nancy pelosi the other day put aside a

hundred years of tradition making it impossible for republicans to amend or propose legislation even though she only has a ten or 11 person majority in the house, it's 50/50 in the senate and have a very slight majority in the house and their goal is to choke, choke, choke the system even further and the media are trying to intimidate conservatives and constitutionalists by projecting onto them violence that occurred by reprobates and others who need to be tracked down and punished so it seems that the lessons have not been learned. they certainly have not been learned by the left and they certainly have not been learned by the media and they certainly have not been learned by the never trump. i we'll be right back. ♪ the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

yeah? who's peter? well sweetie, he's your great-great grandfather. here, does he look like me? yeah. your family's story is waiting to be shared. at ancestry.com

save without eventory is waileaving your house. just keep your phone and switch to xfinity mobile. you can get it by ordering a free sim card online. once you activate, you'll only have to pay for the data you need starting at just $15 a month. there are no term contracts, no activation fees, and no credit check on the first two lines. get a $50 prepaid card when you switch. nationwide 5g is now included. switch and save hundreds. xfinity mobile.

♪ mark: welcome back america. we have a great guest, professor charles cussler, brand-new book coming out and very, very timely, very relevant to what is taking place. crisis of two constitutions. what do you mean by that, charles? how do you apply it to the events that have been taking place over the last several years?

>> the two constitutions represent really two different visions of america and of what justice is and what kind of justice america ought to be standing for and therefore what government we ought to have. the original constitution, which is the constitution that conservatives broadly speaking, have been trying to revive in our politics is the constitution of individual rights, natural rights and the limits of government, popular sovereignty and an attempt to secure the safety and happiness of the american people first. the liberals constitution is quite different. it's the progressive constitution, living constitution sometimes called and what that means is their idea of justice is really not focused on the individual but focused on the group to which individuals belong. going back to woodrow wilson is

a philosophy of group rights and the leading groups have changed in that hundred years since the progressive era and now marginalized and minority groups are, in a way, in the vanguard of the liberal coalition and the liberal view of american politics and not the anglo-saxons that woodrow wilson used to talk about. but still, you have a non- individualist, anti- individualist in a way foundation for all rights and therefore you need a constitution that can continually be adjusted to meet the emerging rights of a continually changing people and that means separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances are negative things, they hold back the evolution of american politics and they hold back the

progress in our politics and they have to be overcome. you can see that even now let's say in the last fight over this election. in a way liberals look, i think, progressives look at elections in a slightly different manner for conservatives the voter is an individual and the best kind of vote is one in which the individual is present and accounted for in the voting booth and he gives that vote individually and signs it and attests to it and it is counted. for increasingly i think it's very visible in the academy and it's also beginning to be visible in the legal filings of the left for the liberals the voter is a presumptive voter and representative of a group and so you don't need to have the individual present to vote or even siding, and a well tested

way, an absentee ballot. you can presume how black voters will vote or how poor voters will vote and if you can harvest those ballots rather anonymously and process them, it doesn't really matter because they are standing for their class and they have a class interest and you know how they should vote and how they ought to vote and i think increasingly there are shortcuts on the left and moving from how they ought to vote to how they did vote or will a vote. and so, you are getting, in a way, to electoral systems that are beginning to diverge but they really represent the two constitutions and the two larger views of justice and the purpose of politics in our country. for liberalism, you know, equality -- the abolition of diverse outcomes is front and

center on their agenda. from the conservative point of view it as conserving diversity in the sense of individual achievement, individual excellence and individual freedom. mark: i suppose this explains why then the leader of the democrats in the senate, chuck schumer, even though it's 50/50 there is a tie and you have kamala harris as the tiebreaker why they want to pursue an agenda that is really anti- constitutionalist and they talk about the supreme court and packing the supreme court and they are doing that today. they are talking about additional seats to the senate which would clearly be democrat seats and they talked about the evisceration of the electoral college and you talk about eliminating the filibuster rules so they can pretty much push through whatever legislation they want and nancy pelosi, as i have said at the opening, has recently changed the rules of the house making it almost

impossible for the other 49.5% of the house members to have any impact in legislation that comes to the house of representatives. so is it fair to say and if you disagree, by all means, do. progressivism is anti- constitutionalist because, as you said, crowley and dewey and woodrow wilson and the rest they weren't much impressed with the constitution but they were more impressed with the conformity and more impressed with, as you said, with groupthink in group analysis and group control. and so, when chuck schumer makes a recommendation like this conservatives and constitutionalists should be concerned, shouldn't they? >> yes. i must say i had never heard liberal democrats so if use of in their praise of the electoral college as in the last week session in which they were in

their own minds protecting the electoral college and practically they were in a sense protecting the electoral college even though almost all of them are pledged to abolish it as an undemocratic holdover from the past but this week we discovered that that undemocratic holdover was a jewel in the crown of american democracy. of course, i think it is evident most conservatives think we need to very much protect, defend the electoral college because it is essential to federalism and to self-government in the united states. mark: when we come back i want to ask you, you've been in academia your whole life invented the constitution your whole life and looked at all of this for decades and studied it but what about the role in the media informing and educating the people? has it been positive or negative? we'll be right back.

♪ they were able to give me a personal loan so i could pay off all of my credit cards. i got my mortgage through sofi and the whole process was so easy. ♪ express yourself ♪ ♪ express yourself ♪

♪ >> live from america's news headquarters. i'm jon scott. a day of remembrance for the heroes of the capitol hill after a long and unexplained delay president trump ordered the white house flag to fly at half staff today in honor of those who lost their lives. this includes the officer who was sent to the head with a fire extinguisher as the mob laid

siege to the capital building wednesday. he later died of his injuries and was a proud member of the capital force since 2008. this viral video from wednesday is receiving renewed attention. the officer in question identified as eugene goodwin and was not fully understood at the time but he was leading the mob away from the nearby senate which were still full of staffers and senators and thankfully all indications are that he survived the riots. i'm jon scott and now back to "life, liberty and levin". mark: welcome back, professor kesler. focusing on the future of this country from today forward and given what has taken place in terms of proposals coming out of the senate on the democrat side and incredibly influential at least for the certain part of

the population are the media. do you find that the media generally is informed about the constitution, supportive of the constitution, is concerned when the constitution will be tampered with? >> i would say they are opportunistically constitutionalists. when it involves the first amendment and libel laws, of course they take a very principled position, let's say. they are in favor of press freedom however, when it involves their own newsrooms and the power of the young woke reporters and editorialists of "the new york times" and other major mainstream papers they are absolutely subservient to the latest liberal line and press

freedom is not quite the same thing. it's not part of a process of ascertaining the truth. one needs freedom for jon stuart a million reasons to find out what is really true and to test hypotheses against evidence. rather it is increasingly the application of a politically correct or mila, not exactly an algorithm but, anyway, way, a kind of political equivalents of that. freedom matters only according to its results and therefore freedom, for me but not for the is increasingly the attitude, i think, of the media. now, in some ways this is not unprecedented. we used to have in this country in the 19th century and 18th century and a very partisan press, openly partisan, newspapers were often owned by political parties in those days

but the difference was that there were many more newspapers and every city, even a small city would have a republican paper in a democratic paper and maybe two or three other small parties would have papers as well so there was a market and there was diversity of editorial viewpoint in those papers. the lincoln douglas debates recovered by papers that were friendly on the one hand to douglas and on the other hand to lincoln but they agreed and published the same transcript of what was said in the lincoln douglas debate and they did not monkey with that and did not interpret that but that the readers read it and interpret it for themselves and of course there would be their own papers own editorial line for the reader to chew on and evaluate. we are moving, it seems to be rapidly, away from that model and increasingly the academy and the newspapers are really and in

a certain sense even the bureaucracy in the federal government represents one party be and this is perilous for good government and for free government as well but i don't know what the solution to it is. one can see the problem on steroids of course with the social media, with twitter and facebook and so forth and there you may have some antitrust resort that would be helpful and i don't know about the newspapers and the television stations and so forth but it would be good if change of mind could open their mind to the real function of the press in a free society and they could abandon the enforcements actions

that they have been carrying out increasingly. mark: i thank you are right and i also do agree that is perilous because if we don't have a truly free press we will lose this republic and that is why it's in the first amendment and why a free press is protected. >> remember, and the democratic platform in 2016 when hillary clinton was the candidate and amendment to the first amendment was one of the platforms planks. they were thinking especially of you know, the campaign contributions and trying to rollback that supreme court that infamous supreme court opinion on campaign contributions which has not proven to operate in any particular infamous way at all but nonetheless, to have the democratic party and to have any major political party, for reducing the scope of the first amendment, amending the first amendment is truly remarkable.

we are at a very different place for both liberalism and for the country then we've ever been. mark: it is the same party that doesn't much like the second moment or parts of the fourth and fifth amendment believes the ninth amendment does not exist and of course, the time the moment when it chooses to use the tenth amendment, not to mention article to when it comes to state legislators and elections. professor kesler, i want to thank you very, very much for your insight and have a good new year? thank you very much. mark: we'll be right back. ♪ i've started to do on ancestry. having ancestry to fill in the gaps with documents, with photographs, connecting in real time means that we're having conversations that are richer. i have now a closer relationship with my grandfather. i can't think of a better gift to give to my daughter and the generations that come after her. bring your family history to life like never before.

get started for free at ancestry.com bring your family history to life like never before. since you're heading off to dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do.

mark: welcome back. my next guest, other friend, professor tell professor kengor, science professor has written the devil and karl marx and author of other great books as

well. i want to read something to you, professor. it comes right out of our constitution, article two, section one, clause two. each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislator thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of states of senators and reps into devs for which the state may be entitled in congress. they said legislator and here is madison's notes, on and on the go for three and half months out of the five and half months of the constitutional convention and they eventually rejected the vote, reject judicial involvement and rejected executive involvement in the said the state legislator, those that want determine that how we have the lecture and select electors but what happened? the democrats go into pennsylvania and they go into georgia and they go into michigan and they go into wisconsin and they change the election laws and bypass the state legislators. what are we going to do about that going forward? i don't hear discussion about it

and i did not hear discussion about it when the senate and the house were counting electors and i hear rand paul who is a very earnest man saying we need to get the legislators and they need to change the laws but if they change the laws of the executive will change and judiciary will change it so how do we fix this? >> yeah, that's the key question and you and i are both native to pennsylvania, made from western pennsylvania, you from eastern and the pittsburgh area, you the philadelphia area and we weren't surprised by this. you had five partisan judges, democrat judges out of seven judges altogether on the pennsylvania state supreme court which we wrote the election laws and really in the pennsylvania legislator had found a way to stand up to this to begin with and stop this from happening and i don't know how exactly stop it from happening but one way you begin with a certain a

legislative authority in the pennsylvania governor is a democrat and secretary of state's democrat, penciling to governor tom wolfe of course in georgia the governor is a republican, secretary of state is a republican. it's a practical how do you stop something like this? i honestly don't know mark. you literally might need to have the rnc hold training seminars the next four years where they invite and republicans from state legislators to washington or wherever to try to make sure that this kind of stuff doesn't happen to teach them how to stop this legally and how to, good question. mark: let me suggest this and i hope some of these justices on the u.s. open court are listening the case was brought by it the republican party of pennsylvania and went to the united states up in court associate justice alito looked at it twice and told the secretary of state to segregate votes and you have commentators saying those votes in the number

of votes would not have mattered but were not talking about the number of votes but following the constitution of the united states. the supreme court let it sit there which means they couldn't gather for justices to take up the case and that is the problem. the united states supreme court should have been forced the united states constitution article two, section one, clause two in the case was brought in october and it shall have made abundantly clear to all states that governors, secretaries of states and those in those states as well as other federal courts, the legislator sets the law and we are going to uphold that throughout the country and we do not wish to get involved in one-party politics or other party politics but it is our j job, it is our job to uphold the constitution of the united states. i think they helped contribute to the plight we now face. what you think? >> hear you mean the u.s. supreme court, rather the state supreme court. a lot of this, i think justin john roberts bears response

ability for this. based on deciding when to act and when not to act and is afraid of appearing political and afraid of appearing partisan and obvious that he is very worried about how the roberts courts will be perceived not just in washington but also in history and really if he would have maybe done what he should have done in the first place then maybe all of this would not have happened. again, it seems unfair to blame roberts and i'm not for this i'll be up for all the states and every state but certainly in the case of pennsylvania i think so. mark: i'm concerned it will only get worse. i think there was a lot of pressure placed on the spring court when chuck schumer announced that he intends to pack the court and i feel there was a direct threat against the united states supreme court that has an impact on their decisions not to take up at least two or three very, very significant cases that could help the country. >> i think the courts now being with the addition of amy coney barrett as well that the court

packing issue became a threat and the justices saw that as a threat. of course, this gets back to the constitutional issue and as you talked about with doctor kesler previous segments about how progressives view the constitution and how conservatives view the constitution and you will now have what the biden presidency and a biting congress or at least with kamala harris is a tie-breaking vote in the senate you very well could see an attempt here to court pack and i think that that alone should have prompted people to think about how they will vote in 2020 because you back could be a very, very significant change in the biden administration over the next four years and progressives, i think, will do it. mark: we'll be right back.

♪ piano playing ♪ "what the world needs now" ♪ the only thing a disaster can't destroy is hope help now at redcross.org

♪ mark: welcome back. i'm very concerned professor, there are different ways to attack the constitution. you know, people can attack it violently which we reject, out of hand. then people can attack it during the course of business and they have enough votes in the senate and have enough votes in the house and if they have the presidency and the outcome is

the same in the constitution is our governing document and to try to destroy a separation of powers and to try to turn the supreme court into some kind of polar bureau, to try to stuff the number of senators so you are always going to win the vote and so forth that's too radical, is it not? >> well, the judiciary in the supreme court is not supposed to be another legislator. it is supposed to interpret the law and here we get a fundamental difference between how progressives and conservatives view the constitution. progressives believe in progressing. evolving, changing and conservatism is russell kirk described it, conservatism's believe in an enduring moral order and an enduring moral order and progressives is more like an evolving moral order. if you could put the world word moral in there, evolving world moral. to them they believe in change

and see the constitution as a living, breathing document that they don't view it the way a conservative does, a textual list does but the rules can be changed in order to advance yet, the revolution in the case of progressives. mark: what is troubling is that this mindset exists throughout academia with some exceptions like grove city, hillsdale and throughout our newsrooms and throughout our boardrooms and this is a huge problem. when you look at the media what i've been talking about during the course of this program i can think of a single person in a single newsroom in this country, maybe there are a few who understand what you just said. that is who actually and fundamentally understand that declaration of independence who fundamentally understand the difference between the so-called progressive status, neo- marxist, democratic socialist, whatever you call them and the constitutionalists and the originalists. it is fundamentally the huge

battle. i don't see as having too many people who are literate in the constitution and literate in the founding in our newsrooms, do you? >> no, and they don't know the radical ideologies either. marx called for the ruthless criticism of everything that exists. the favorite quote from spouse, everything that exists deserves to perish. criticism, abolition and here we are after a crazy 2020 campaign season and only now what irony you finally have leftists that are condemning protests and disorder. finally, at the end of 2020 after we watched a leftist engage in protests and disorder all along. conservatives are about all in order and the left over the past year has been about d from the police. of all things i think your mark, this is a key point. this is a good chance i think to teach people the differences between conservatism,

progressivism and some of these radical ideologies on the left. socialism, marxism, democratic socialism because what conservatives believe as ronald ragan said and russell kirk said, we believe and what humans have learned from all the combined experience of mankind, not just the past generation or dozens of generations but progressives are always about changing and inventing a new, redefining everything from life to gender to marriage and to the constitution so i think these next four years, people like me and you and you do this so well but this is a time where to teach people about conservatism kind of the way ronald reagan did for eight years while in the presidency. i think for us this is an opportunity the next four years to teach people about it while conservatives are out of the presidency and don't hold congress. mark: professor paul kengor have a wonderful new year. >> same to you, thanks, mark.

mark: we'll be right back. ♪ where did it come from?

you know i'm not sure. who's peter samuel? daddy? yeah? who's peter? well sweetie, he's your great-great grandfather. does he look like me? yeah. yeah? yeah. turn questions you've always had into stories you can't wait to share; with ancestry.

♪ mark: you know, i hope this program has been edifying for those who want to be edified. you know, i look back on the last four years and i think to myself what have could have be been, what could have been in the truck presidency and a tremendous amount was accomplished. that can never be taken away. a tremendous amount was accomplished, tens of million of people who thought they were never represented before were represented by this president. he has had a tremendous presidency as a matter of fact but what i mean is this, imagine if he had had a democrat party that wanted to work with him, rather than destroy him. imagine if we had a press that would actually report the news rather than try to destroy him? imagine if we had a bureaucracy

that supported his agenda rather than trying to undermine it at every step? imagine how much of this nation with this president could have accomplished? now we are being lectured to many of the same people who helped poison the well and they want to point the finger at this president and point the finger at trump supporters and want to point the finger at anybody who dares to speak out against what they stand for and i will not accept moral preen from the very people who try to undermine this administration and who attacked the people who supported the president and attack conservatives every day. i will not accept moral preen from politicians who still seek to circumvent our constitution and impose their will on us. no, i don't accept don't accept moral preen primitive visuals who have no respect for us, for me or the constitution and capitalism and yes, the rule of

law. we've got a tough few years ahead of us but we will figure it out. we are americans but we shall overcome. see you next time on "life, liberty and levin". ♪ steve: breaking tonight, it's official, nancy pelosi called on mike pence in the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to remove president from from office and threatens to bring an article of impeachment to the house floor if they don't. good evening, more on that in a moment but let's get straight to the point. wednesday was horrific enough but unbelievably since then the democrats and their silicon valley allies somehow have managed to make it worse. it started with the mob that totally appointment, unequivocally condemned and now it some of the most powerful people in the world laying siege to you. pelosi with her spitefu