justice denied again in the washington swamp. thanks so much for watching. i'm jeanine pirro advocating for truth justice and the american way and i will see you next ♪ ♪ mark: hello i am mark levin this is "life, liberty and levin," we have two great guests, former federal judge ken starr, senator josh hawley, but first i talk with ken starr with his constitutional knowledge and experience in multiple administrations, i want to ask you a couple questions, start with impeachment. can you try a private citizen

who has been a civil officer of u.s.? if we ever tried a president of the united states after he left office, sir. >> no and no. the answer is no. the text of the constitution to me is clear. that judgment in cases of impeachment runs to what removal and then possible disqualification. a former officer by definition cannot be removed. that is the text. the text is supported by our constitutional history. the only president in history to have resigned is richard nixon, as your viewers know from his history or living through it president nixon upons re--

resignition flew to san clemente, california, that was it. and the third, if i may just say a word about the fact that the impeachment of president trump now the second time occurred when he was the president of the united states one week before he did not resign, before his term came to an end in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the united states but the article of impeachment had not been delivered over to the u.s. senate, when the president of the united states is the subject of impeachment, according to the constitution, the chief justice, shall preside. not invited to preside, shall preside, we know that chief justice roberts at least from reports is not going to be

presiding over the trial of now a private citizen. so everything other than one case, maybe we can talk about, of secretary of war -- bell map in 1876, as if comparable to president of united states, it is not, speak to that. that secretary of war, example, the best example that the proponents of eternal impeachment have was essentially an effort by secretary of war, who was corrupt to essentially skirt the constitutional powers of the house and senate. on the verge of being impeached and likely to be convicted because he was corrupt. there is powerful evidence of his corruption, he steps down literally at 11th hour, an argument can be made he was

seeking to avoid the constitutional powers that house and senate enjoy. but there, he was impeached then a trial, there was a huge battle in the senate over whether the senate has jurisdiction. here is my key point, the senate is utterly without jurisdiction to try donald trump, if they proceed to do so, they believe i believe will be running afoul of the constitutional specific express prohibition against the a bill of attainedder. legislative branch imposing a punishment on a prior citizen, that is what disqualification would be all about. mark: it is unconstitutional. >> it is one of the two big no-nos. congress shall not in same

sentence bill of atainder and pass an ex post facto law. that you can't do that. what was the constitution aimed atlanta. it was mindful of the history of abuses of the crown. but also of parliament. and the proponents of the eternal impeachment process, which i have seen someone say, well let's have an prime impeachmentof secretary of staty clinton, excuse me. she is no longer the secretary of state, i have seen it suggested we have a trial of president obama. excuse me. he is not the president of the united states, ditto for donald trump. when people proponents of eternal impeachment stand up and say, but look at parliamentary history, my response to that is,

that is interesting. but it is not dispositive. you will know, parliament engaged in numerous abuses includes of the impeachment power, it is one of reason that believe that text was so clear that impeachment and judgment impeachment runs only to removal -- comma, then potential disqualification, this has gone off of the rails of our constitution, it should be stopped, my view circumstance i am not the -- my view is, i am not the president's lawyer. is that the whole thing should be stopped by the judiciary. will they? who knows. they should, in my view, it is anticonstitutional effort that senate has no jurisdiction. and mark the house allowed that.

as i said before, the house returned and voted on the article of impeachment. one week before the president left office. and when you read the article of impeachment, right, it says, donald j trump. president of united states, they let the time run out. you don't continue when the time has expired. they should have marched the article of impeachment over and started the immediately they did not. mark: you know judge starr, maybe hard for people to understand, maybe members of congress, sometimes congress does not have power, sometimes the senate does not have power. what the house of representatives did was a rush job on impeachment to try to catch the president before he left office, it was a phony impeachment. there were no hearings, no investigations, no witnesses. no due process, nothing.

we don't do that in our country. even when it come to the prime minister clause. we don't treat individuals when they are president or private citizens the way they do in communist china and iran. in my view that is what took place in the house of representatives, one hour debate on each side, i have the document that supposedly supported when they were doing it is 76 pages long, 26 pages of which are appendix. 50 pages are basically op-eds about why they think that the president -- incited an insurrection. i don't think we would send a kim rag tag guys running into the capitol build, he would send in u.s. marines for something

like that you read the president's speech, there was no incitement language, maybe may not like what he had to say, he objected to the election. but, you need a hell of a lot more to incite an ininsurrection than that speech he gave. there was times said there was a lot of preparation before january 6 by the groups that wanted to storm the capitol building. timeline showed 20 minutes before the president finished his speech, these thugs attacked capitol build, we see members of congress usual kinds of long, and members of media using language, they never insight silence, i would the framers of constitution really empower the senate to chase down private citizens, if they did, why

didn't they say so, why is this the first time in american history, talk presidents, first time in american history, that it would ever be done. i am concerned about this because when we come back in the next segment, judge starr, i see that kind of retribution that is taking place, where democrats think they can prevent an individual from running for president again by twisting the constitution, they don't get to do that, i see violations of separation powers with joe biden signing executive order like he is king, today i am doing this and doing that and not taking questions by the way. ands which were to be final stage of a deliberative process to try to get around the republicans, they have a 50/50 senate there i see them talking

about packing the supreme court. breaking the constitution on district of columbia by making it a state. i want to try to address all of these issues with you. in next couple segments, we will be right back. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ i'm not hungry! you're having one more bite! no! one more bite! ♪ kraft. for the win win. i'd call my grandfather as a result of the research that 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

mark: welcome back, ken starr, to the other issues. but quickly, talk about censure. what is your view. >> at least, not provided for in the constitution. only impeachment. and then -- >> again? i did not hear that? you mean it is not in the document. >> concept of censure is not up included, mentioned or implied in the constitution, it has been used once historically, that is in presidency of andrew jackson, he promptty wrote a very impressive letter to the effect that you do not have the authority to censure me, you can impeach or seek to impeach me or remove me from office.

, the resolution was repealed. mark: like calling the president's -- they have left, what is troubling to me. the lack of respect for the constitution. they are so busy trying to chase downtown at mar-a-lago, this is what the framers were against. our country does not do, thaty you have a new regime. the other one left, govern. that is what i want to uk ta about now -- that is what i want to talk about now, i mentioned this on radio the other day, i said where the hell is everyone, now people are picking up on it. right now joe biden has signed 25 executive orders and 40 exec executive actions, he sits

there, reads off a note card, and great. next. and i am shutting down keystone pipeline, next, racial equity. okay this is monarchy. i understandic on executive order, no president in american history issued this many substantive legislative type executive orders not in first 10 days in office, there comparisons don, obama had 5, trump had 4, he is called on it yesterday, and said he is just reversing when trump did, he is not, i had 150 page document they put out, i call the biden-sanders manifesto, doing down that radical document, one issue after the other, imposing one man's rule, nothing is

submitted to congress. there is no deliberative process. i would like your input. >> absolutely, we have a system of separated powers of checks and balances, and the idea that founders lifted up was balanced government. if a president, he better be careful, he may be exciting his lawful powers under the constitution, that is what the courts are there for, we know a u.s. district court judge, has. the deportation order in violation of a specific law that congress passed, you of correct in saying is not his prerogative to ignore the law, his job is to execute the law under the

constitution. >> this goes to core the our system. back in 1500s, famous writings about separation of power, the mention in federalist paper, several times it was key to get ratification of the constitution, they did not want a parliament or a monarchy, yet i feel we're getting both. whatever biden doesn 't get done by executive order, his house is promising to get done by over the barriers in place. or we'll pass a statute, and change the supreme court? and all kinds of activity outside of the boundaries of the constitution. are you concerned that in one respect we see, centralization

of power and decision making in first few weeks of the biden administration, then a movement toward of, but parliamentary system away from our republican system. >> i don't like the signs of this first week plus, has been troubling for those of us who believe in the constitutional constitutionorder to begin with. and secondly, what constitution had in mind, which is limited government. exertion of extraordinary powers over the economy. fdr did not just issue a bunch of executive orders, he went to congress. and he had a congress to go along with that, because the country was in very dire straits at the time of the depression. we want an energetic executive but power can be abused.

this absolute sense,. mark: you cannot take control of the energy industry in the country. simply by issuing -- executive fiats, i think what in the world would the framers think of a president shuts down industries, in no damn way in hell they would have ratified a constitution to do what joe biden is doing today, do you disagree. >> i don't disagree. balanced government, the framers concern was congress exceeding its powers, there have been times including during president truman's administration, famously, he went too far, it

will be frustrating to see what happened in court, the court ofs of the united states, but i pg i --we have be encouraged a fedl district judge in texas said mr. president you have gone too far, the law is clear. the judges are doing what the judges are supposed to do, the great chief justice john marshall said, the province of the judicial department to say what the law is, not the president. as quickly as they uso or they don't remember things as vividly as they once did. i've been taking prevagen for about three years now. people say to me periodically, "man, you've got a memory like an elephant." it's really, really helped me tremendously.

prevagen. healthier brain. better life. - [female narrator] around the world, 5 billion people lack access to safe surgery. children are suffering from treatable causes.. ..living with conditions many have never seen. for more than 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals with volunteer doctors who give their time to provide the free surgeries these children desperately need. - i feel like my reason for being here is driven bylove .

i think it is the love that changes the patients first. - [female narrator] join us by calling or going to mercyships.org now. $19 a month will give children and families the hope and healing they never thought possible. and turn lives of pain... into futures full of potential. it's a mission powered... by love . made possible... byyou . call the number on your screen. or donate now at mercyships.org.

♪ if i could be you and you could be me ♪ ♪ for just one hour ♪ ♪ if we could find a way to get inside each other's mind ♪ ♪ if you could see you through my eyes instead of your ego ♪ ♪ i believe you'd be surprised to see that you've been blind ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ yeah before you abuse, criticize and accuse ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ well before you abuse, criticize and accuse ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪

>> a massive winter storm is to slam to northeast, potentially burying everyone from philadelphia to boston in several feet of snow, storm to last until tuesday, state officials warn residents to take precautions. >>. >> rebuke of putin, tens of thousands took to streets demanding release of opposition leader navalny, a second week in a row of demonstrations. they cracked down hard on the protesters. >> and back to "life, liberty and levin."

mark: welcome back, judge ken starr. i guess you are always a judge, even when you are retired, a good title. there are these efforts to skirt the constitution. you know progressivism and constitutionalism don't get along well, like oil and water. and progressivism, is an ideology that seeks to find ways to get around the constitution. we constitutionalists are trying to find ways to uphold the constitution, one of most important things discussed at constitution. convention is who is in charge of the votes system, state insist we're in charge of how people vote.

within very general parameters. they created a federal government, they had been in charge of everything before. we have article. state legislator decide how elections are to be held, and electors chosen, nancy pelosi announces began a few weeks ago, one of her top priorities, hr 1, house resolution one, a massive federal government takeover of state voting system, not civil rights and that. but we're talking about what time people show up, how they vote. where they vote. whether they can to mail in voting, singtures and so forth. what she has done, taken all worst ideas out of california, poured them to this legislation and said in beginning of the bill, federal governmental ways

had a supervisory role when comes to election, it has not, it has its job, and state has their job, this is another area under attack. >> this is easy for congress to go too far in exercise of its power, you are right. to the states that our federal system and our architecture, as we talk period separation of power, now we talk about federalism and division of power between washington d.c., and the several states. congress can go too far, it has gone too far in a variety of times in our history, intruding to authority of states, not simply a federal structure embodied in the constitution, we're talking about a specific part of our bill of rights,

10amendment that reserves powers to the state, i suggest that lawyers of speaker pelosi say let's take a closer look at this the idea of no identification, you can go too far, and u.s. supreme court has been willing to spank congress, and say you can go too far. >> you make a great point, jefferson and others they wrote about and talked about tyranny, they talked about tyranny of the legislator. you can have people who are militants who do very violent things. and people dressed up in suits

with nice dresses in the chol cl building that usurp our constitutional order, that is tyranny too, i am concerned when you look at what is taking place, now, war against independence of supreme court court and judiciar, and legislative process. eliminating a deliberative process, you look at executive branch signing executive orders, and handing them out like lolly pops without any involvement of any other branch in the government it is fine if the courts come in later and sort them out, but the mind set. the mentality that concerns me that people are not willing to play the game within the rules of the game that is very troubling. >> we're seeing is the spirit of 1789 but not of the constitutional convention and

ratification. we're seeing signs of french revolution of 1789, throw away the established order, do what we think is right to create, let's call it a new world order here in united states. happily our constitutional view, -- issound. make voices heard, to their individual member of the house of representatives and senate. >> ken starr always a pleasure, god bless you my friend. >> thank you, god bless you, mark. mark: we'll be right back. i'm not hungry! you're having one more bite! no! one more bite! ♪

kraft. for the win win. if your girl loves to shop for clothes, get her the elite box at adoreme.com. a stylist sends her a bunch of outfits to try on at home. bras, lingerie, pjs. you only pay for what she keeps with free returns. order before february 14th and get a surprise gift. at adoreme.com.

because of the research that i've started to do on ancestry, with documents, with photographs, i get to define myself through the scores of people who lead to me. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

mark: welcome back. senator josh hawley, i never met senator hawley, i am a big fan of the senator, people who attack him attend to attack me too, senator hawley. thank you for coming on.

first of all give the american people a little bit of your background. >> thank you, i grew up in rural missouri. small town. i mean small. about 4800 people. where i grew up. and then i went to catholic high school. and then on to college and law school, i am a lawyer, don't hole that against the me, met my wife in law school, we worked together at united states supreme court, got married, my back ground is constitutional law, i was focused on religious liberty and first amendment, then attorney general of state of missouri, and elected to u.s. senate just two short years ago, a fast ride, to me, most important thing in my life beside my wife, in-- erin, we

have 3 kids at home. mark: wonderful. senator, aoc and tlaib and presley and others on democrat side in the house, it appears they can say just about anything that i want to say to about anyone. they can make the outrageous allegations about the country. outrageous allegations about their colleagues, honestly about the state of israel, for which there is no push back. for which their colleagues don't see recrimination. you, sir have taken on a lot of powerful interests in washington d.c. '' you are what i would call a populous conservative. you saw the election results, you saw what was happening in the election, i don't want to spend a ton of time, but you bring up pennsylvania. in pennsylvania, you had a rogue

state supreme court. and a governor and a secretary of state, my state, i am well familiar with this, who change the election law in the state. in violation of article ii second one. that matter was taken to u.s. supreme court. taken up twice by associate justice sam alito. that case is still sits in u.s. supreme court. that is one of the issues you wanted to raise, on january 6. it is a legitimate issue, unlike rush collusion. and for this and some other issues you raise you are accused of inciting an insurrection against your own country, of supporting a violent uprising against the capitol building, i want to give you a few minutes to respond without interrupting. >> thank you. >> you know, first, i will say those people out there who say that what i did, and senator

cruz and 140,000 republicans who objected to have a debate boo election integrity, to make sure we get legislation that is passed, i think we need election reforms, to ban ballot harvesting and look at how mail in balloting was administered in many states, that included pennsylvania, which did not follow their own law. and with liberals say, because you did that, you incited violent, that say lie, they know it is. they said you want to over turn the election, that is a lie. they know it a lie. they said that you know it is equivalent to a violent insurrection. that say lie, democrats, after republicans won the white house, democrats every time, raised objection to various states and electoral college in 2001, 2005,

2017, and they are permitted to do so, constitutional laws and congress allowed. it is legitimate when republicans do the same thing for legitimate reasons, we're seeing now is an an attempt by the left to lie about our motivations and our acts to grab power, they want to silence me, i am not backing down before a liberal mob. >> are right. you see the repression that taking place now. simon and schuster my publisher was your publisher, they within out of their way to cut your arrangement with them. and you went with my prior publisher, good for them, they will publish your book, a

rational book about the constitution, there is nothing insightful. you watch msnbc and cnn, and you use language used by the guests and hosts, comparing president trump to hitler. the thing that are said by the left are so contemptible. and yet, they never up -- you see a poison spreading, publishers, newspapers, big. it is big tech. big tech is really exercising enormous power, on behalf of the left and democrat party and against people who disagree with it twitter, facebook, google, and all of rest. what can we to about that? and if the democrat party does not want to do anything about it, since it benefits from this, really, where do we go next?

because you can see thal -- done the best they can destroy. i give you time to answer when we come back, we'll be right back. with new rewards from chase freedom unlimited, i now earn even more cash back? oh i got to tell everyone. hey, rita! you now earn 3% on dining, including takeout! bon appetit. hey kim, you now earn 5% on travel purchased through chase! way ahead of you! hey, neal! you can earn 3% at drugstores. buddy, i'm right here. why are you yelling? because that's what i do! you're always earning with 5% cash back on travel purchased through chase, 3% at drugstores, 3% on dining including takeout, and 1.5% on everything else you buy. chase. make more of what's yours.

mark: welcome back. senator josh hawley. what do you make of the attacks on freedom of speech, and communications in this country now? >> you had it right, you said oligopoly, we have an an unpress constitution of power by -- unprecedented concentration of power. they are only interested in capitollism as long as they can control it our founders, may were against monopolies, they were wary of monopolies. and rightfully so, you concentrate power in a few hands, bad things happen, that is what is happening now, big tech company control more and more speech in america, we have seen how that i want to suess use it, they want to shout down conservatives and libertarians and take out -- the competitors

like parler, saying what you can and cannot say, they have gone after other small business people, we'll boycott you if you support conservatives or support senator hawley and people like, that have unprecedented monopoly power, we have to break up the monopolies, that is why we have antitrust law it is a very which conservative populous principle, very in tune with our founding, we have to return the power to the people. mark: you talk about antitrust laws, over a hundred years ago, first one and others, they broke up standard oil, and or companies. that don't have the power of these big tech companies, we

used phrases like robber "barron's," they are stealing our speech. and the problem is senator, i am concerned we have one party or one ideology that does not much sign it, because it serves their purpose like joe biden signing one executive order after the other like he is some kind of a monarch. and the democrat leader in senate, trying to figure out ways to get around the other 50 republican senators, to figure out ways to corrupt the supreme court. and i can go on and on. we're dealing with a different animal now, in the democrat party and the ideology they push? >> we are, we're dealing with a party that loves idea of concentrated power, that loves of power gathered into a few hands, they are the party of the powerful, no doubt, they are

party of biggest monopoly corporations, party of big tech. they are party of hollywood, and have been for years, but this is the party that -- democrat they love what tech is doing, tech destroyed parler, a come pet or, competitor,you talk about antitt violation, they were cheering them othey thought that was wonderful, they want them to do more, they want to do use the corporations, as hand of government. they to all regulations, but have none of the acunbility, this is something we have not seen in america before. we have most powerful corporations in history of world, in the tech companies, democrats are standing with them shoulder to shoulder, and solution is time honors solution in this country which isry don'e don't like concentrated power, we give power to the people, that is what the countstution is based on. that is what we need to get back

to. mark: you know, senator, past week see we saw something, that i was excited about ed reddit evolution. you have big companies to wall street, they go after gamestop, and the young people are saying wait. they are buying short -- let's buy the stock and drive it up, we can do this too and make money too, it starts on reddit, it spreads. and i am thinking to myself, you know what, it is about damn time. what do you think? >> well, i think that it is wonderful to see wall street, big hedge funds, then platforms leak robin hood platform that colluded with them exposed, you see attempted control, the day traders, they have a big affect

on market, what do platforms do, they say, no you can't trade, we're going to shut you down. these day traders, retail investors they have been subjected to more criticism and more scrutiny by wall street types than people who single handlely crash the financial system in 2008 then got bailed out by government, it is an incredible double standard, they have exposed it. we need to did after it and let every day folks have their share, the constitution says we the people. mark: is washington what you thought it would be? is senate what you thought it would be? >> you know, i have to say, that i think that senate as a body is it is an institution that these days really is not interested in fulfilling its constitutional

responsibilities. look at joe biden, he is running with the executive orders. and they are happy with it. this is we're not governed by elected representatives any more, we're governed by bureaucrats, by orders from top down. and this say huge constitutional problem. and i think it is time that elected representatives did their job, and said, i am actually going to be part of the governing of the country, and stand up for my constituent. mark: senator hawley thank you very much. >> god bless you sir. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back.

like you, my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today.

as someone with hearing loss i know what a confusing and frustrating experience getting hearing aids can be. that's why i founded lively. affordable, high-quality hearing aids with all of the features you need, and none of the hassle. i use lively hearing aids

and it's been wonderful. it's so light and so small but it's a fraction of the cost of the other devices. they cost thousands less. it's insanely user friendly. you take the hearing test online, the doctor programs in the settings. you don't even need to go into an office. they're delivered to your door in a few days and you're up and running in no time. it connects via bluetooth to my phone. you can stream music and you can answer phone calls. the audiologist was so incredible she's full of all kinds of little helpful hints i love it. they're a game changer for me. i feel like i can take on anything. it feels great to be in control of my hearing. better hearing has never been this easy. try lively risk-free for 100 days. visit listenlively.com

>> man: what's my safelite story? my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ >> welcome back. you know back in 1840s, marks

was never more powerful, an en influence, including in united states so-called progressive movement was born out of marxism, it had wind at its back. early 19 hundreds. pushes very hard the progressive agenda. pro-- is limited one thing, the united states constitution, the constitution breaks up power. the states are sovereign, the 10 amendment, whatever powers not in the constitution, belong to the states, article i the congress. and then within each there are specific powers that are outlined as is rest of the

constitution constructed that way, the bill of rights that protects of individual from government. the first amendment, so key, second, and fourth, and 9. they are aimed to protect you. but progressivism does not look as you as an individual, it looks as you as a group, identity politics, and marxism is a thesis that cuts through all their believe systems, this is why we're confronting a democrat party, it is not a democrat party of old, a president signing fiats one after the other. the democrat party trying to enshrine its power forever more. all of these actions are anti, or unconstitutional actions, the

framers would be repulsed. and media they protected, it was to protect us from what is takes place today, instead they are the mouth pieces. see you next time on "life, liberty and levin." ♪ ♪ steve: welcome to next revolution, i am steve hilton. the home of popular you -- pour investigation continues, more evidence about true origins of coronavirus pandemic. as we stated last week we're not accusing anyone of intentionally creating and unleashing the virus on the world, but we have two million dead over 400,000 here in america, economic and social catastrophe not seen for hundreds of years, is there a possibility it started in a lab from