FULL INTERVIEW: Mark Levin on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper

Mark Levin was on with CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper today and spent much of the interview responding to Obama’s statement on Iran and the Budget before transitioning to his new book and saving the Republic. As always Levin didn’t hold back on calling out the president and Harry Reid for being the real problem at the center of this ‘crisis’ and also pointing out how ludicrous it would be for Obama to deal with Iran diplomatically over their nuclear program. And much more.

Watch the full interview below:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

225 thoughts on “FULL INTERVIEW: Mark Levin on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper

  1. All Mark needs to do now is decide to venture into faith. To embark on a way to get him into political power which will have him face votes. Not an easy transition. He is likely going to plateau where he is unless he finds a venue to bring more formal fear into the rats of liberal Bolshevist politicians and their relentless revisionism and smearing of our traditional American values. AKA Christian heritage that the new Bolsheviks hate so much, and the attached American Exceptionalism that goes with it.

      1. Sally, I don’t detect he is very strict if he is. What matters to me is that, like Jefferson, he is relentlessly “of the truth”.

        There are those “who listen to truth” as Jesus told us when He was before Pilate. Then there are those who “say they see, and incur strong judgment”.

        Faith in God is not rejected by God if one is not a Christian. In fact, the greatest man of faith in the region of Jerusalem at least, no one having greater faith, Jesus told us, was a Roman Centurion.

        However, there comes a time of perfection when knowing or not knowing the Author of faith is a serious barrier. The Holy Spirit initiates just where that becomes a barrier to each person.

        1. Hey Ben – So why should you and I as Christians say someone else needs faith, if indeed they already do have faith? They put the “Judeo” in “Judeo-Christian” for a reason.

          1. Labels to not prove character. Deeds prove character. You should know that.

            “We hold these truths” is taken for granted by the “French Republicans” and is attacked outright and smeared by the new Bolsheviks, the progeny of Bolshey Horkheimer.

            Because, when right is not done by someone who holds the truth, the usual reason is fear, or is a lack of faith to go ahead and do it. If these are not the reasons then they are not “of the truth”.

  2. Mark need to do more tv interviews.
    We need more people like mark: knowledgeable, quick, and most importantly, aggressive.

  3. Funny that Mack would mention the Supreme Court in his response about delegates not being elected. In Hawke v Smith 253 U.S. 221, (1920) the Supreme Court defined conventions as “deliberative assemblages representative of the people…” It has also had an extensive discussion of this issue in an earlier case. What Mack ignores (or doesn’t know) is Article V does not have to answer the question of election of delegates. The answer only need be in the Constitution which it is in the form of the 14th Amendment requiring equal protection under the law. In sum, the doctrine holds that citizens of one part of a legal class must be treated the same as the rest of the class. In the case of a convention, members of Congress and convention delegates being the only citizens who can propose amendments form a legal class of citizens. One part of that class is elected (Congress). Hence the other part (convention delegates) must also be elected.

    As to Levin’s book. I suggest one and all read an article I wrote and then see if you still feel the same way. http://www.foavc.org/reference/file52.pdf .

    1. You should call in his show and go over all this. This wont get much traction here AKA ineffective and unpersuasive, just the way it is. I’d like to hear the exchange.

      It is to the point that academics has failed us and a paper like this is only for academics. Pier review & consensus is worthless anymore as we hurl down the tubes bogged and choked by what Jefferson described as “artificial rules”.

      “The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of a man as his leg or arm. State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules” ~ Thomas Jefferson 71 yrs old, Letter to Miles King, Sept 26, 1814

      1. Mr. Marshall I appreciate your comment. As my article demonstrates I have reached out to Mark Levin through his producer. I have had to date, two emails sent to the producer, a direct phone conversation with the producer, and a message left informing him of my article. To date, no response whatsoever nor do I expect Mr. Levin to respond at all. The only way he can keep people believing what he wants them to believe is to hide the truth from them and that certainly does not involve bringing me on the program.

        I note that you have not mentioned that Mr. Levin has discussed my article on his program. Again no surprise given that he has repeatedly said he will answer all charges against him leveled against his book. The fact is he has answered, perhaps not all, but certainly not mine.

        Those who consider Mr. Levin a “hero” really need to read my article. Your “hero” has a hidden agenda and frankly I don’t think anyone who finds out what that is is going to like it.

        Just so that anyone reading this cannot say I have not tried to contact Mr. Levin. If you do know Mr. Levin and want to let him know, I can be reached at [email protected] .

    2. Congress passes laws which exclude themselves all the time. Sh!t, even the executive, in this case Obama, is creating exclusions for “classes” of individuals for Obamacare. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the delegation process within a STATE convention.

      1. Sorry parithon but you are incorrect. The convention is first of all not a STATE convention as you phrase but a FEDERAL convention created and operated under the FEDERAL constitution not the state constitutions. The Supreme Court has ruled that nearly a 100 years ago. If you think about it for a moment it makes total sense. No state constitution addresses Article V because of the separation demanded by the 10th Amendment. The AVC only exists in the federal constitution.

        Since the convention is federal the 14th amendment does apply and besides at about the same time as the court ruled states operated under the federal constitution when amending the federal constitution, which again if you stop and think about it makes perfect sense as the state is not amending its own constitution but one which outside the boundaries of the state, the mandates of the 14th amendment apply as does the rest of the federal constitution. Anyway the court ruled conventions must be elected. The states do not make up their own rules as you suggest. Again the 14th amendment mandates that federal election laws would prevail. Basically you would be electing a member of Congress but in this case it will be a delegate the convention who only holds office as long as the convention lasts. The bottom line is you get to have the say as to who and what is discussed, not the state legislatures and certainly not a small group of special interests within that legislature.

        1. I’ve not read your article nor Levin’s book but plan to do both tomorrow morning. Judging by what you say, the Federal Government sets the guidelines for Article 5 by way of Supreme Court rulings.

          How can that be since our Constitution is what gives them their authority and the people via the States give the Constitution it’s authority? If I must point out, you are getting this backwards sir.

          How can a Federal body rule on their own existence? Unless reading your article and Mark’s book tomorrow reveals something new, your argument is absurd I must say.

          I suggest NOTHING in our Constitution prohibits the people from altering the laws they are governed by… and indeed that is how it is.

          1. Right out of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1–“The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and treaties made..to all cases [and] controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states;…between citizens of different states…”

            You are correct the people may alter the laws. But they have restricted themselves as to how this shall be accomplished. When they consented to the Constitution, they gave certain authority to the government which in this case meant the power of the courts to make decisions.

            That said however, by amendment, that is using the amendment process, the people can alter or abolish such authority. In any event the people by their own decision limited themselves to an amendment process that does not involve direct control by the people. This can be changed and personally I favor this as part of the power of the people. I have always been on record as favoring for example an IRR for the Constitution as well as directed democracy. Both give the people much more control of the day to day operations of government. Both require amendment however to implement.

            Now as to defining Article V. The courts have favored and repeated stated a position that a convention must be held if the state legislatures apply. They have. To date the first attempt to use the courts to cause a convention call failed but not before the government expressed the terms under which a call must be made. These terms CLEARLY favor the people as they have already been satisfied. Now is the time to put the pressure on Congress to obey the Constitution and call the convention.

            I would say this. Other than setting a time and place and establishing minimal operational standards to provide a framework of operation in that call, Congress has no other power and neither do the states. The convention is ultimately simply another means whereby the people can alter or abolish their form of government. Hence, laws, state or federal, which appoint delegates and specify convention agenda and so forth as Levin urges, are unconstitutional (and as I point out in my article) and the courts have said so.

            The states in ratification have their opportunity to reject whatever a convention proposes but again this is the people, a different set of people, ELECTED to do so, making such decision. In all of this the people, acting through ELECTED representatives make the decision. That is the major difference between Levin and me. He wants to cut the people out–I demand they be included.

  4. Mark Levin is an American hero.He has done more for the Constitutional conservatives than any other conservative spokesperson in the nation.

  5. Why doesn’t CNN have more of these interviews? I might actually look at the screen at the airports. Maybe not.

  6. This gentle man does not belong in the ridiculous world of sound bite TV. The fact that he is willingly puts himself through this is a supreme act of patriotism.

  7. Very educating segment. Tapper may not like the way Mark answered some of his pathetic question, but overall, I feel that from Tappers questions, Mark really light up the microphone that I hope many uninformed folks out there can get enlightened up with factual knowledges of what the heo is going on here at home and abroad.
    Thank you Scoop for posting this one, excellent I may say ! :))

  8. Now, there’s a mind…. thoroughly informed and angry, with the will to use it against two increasingly corrupt political parties, and three equally corrupt and disintegrating branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial….. at all (federal, state, and municipal) levels of government.

    NOTE TO PAUL RYAN…. If, Like you and your last campaign fellow( who was first to identify, and then recant the truth of a decaying “47%”,(low) character of Americans” you can’t go for the throat…then please don’t go at all….this is a job for,”Superman Rhetoric” vs. the domestic barbarians.

  9. “not fair or democratic” What the hell do either matter! We are not a Fair Country or a Democrat Country, the United States of American is a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws, not of men, NOT of Obama and Democrat (not Democratic) Party.

  10. Excellent interview and kudos to both Tapper and Levin. I haven’t been a fan of Levin’s since he failed to support Romney with gusto, and he bashes Republicans ad nauseam to no good end, but he presented himself quite well here.

    1. a n d … you don’t see a problem with Republicans?

      Levin doesn’t bash… he scolds, corrects, and identifies false conservatives within the Republican ranks… all to a “good end”… to expose them and out them.

      And even if he did “bash”… there is plenty good reason to bash those putative Republicans unworthy of the name.

    2. He is bashing those that fail to adhere to the Constitution; Republican and democrat. They all swear to uphold and protect it. Sometimes the truth hurts.

    3. He failed to support “Romney with gusto” because Romney was not worth supporting, with gusto or otherwise.

      At some point people have to stand on principle.

      On the other hand, remember that scores of conservatives decided to sit this one out, much like in 2008, mostly, whenever the RNC throws in with a RINO. Levin might have been merely been reflective of the conservative mood.

      This is exactly what I plan to do in 2016. If we’re going to hand over the presidency to Hillary Clinton anyway, why not just do something useful come Election Day.

    4. And the establishment RINO’s deserve every bit of bashing he gives them.Actually he has been to easy on them.

  11. After you listen to this fab interview – where u c Tapper watching his choice of words please go to Drudge, Breitbart and C4Palin to read her post on Failed leadership and her new article on the failure to negotiate from strength.

  12. I guess I am used to really partisan journalists but Tapper did a decent job. He was careful to stress that he was only the messenger….not the creator of the message when he addressed the questions to Mark. This is a start on what journalists should steer for….thanks Jake…for taking the first step that your fellow liberal journalists should take.

    1. No, Tapper did a great job. It was a fair interview. Levin should be challenged with the talking points against his arguments and Tapper made himself clear about he was the messenger of other people’s objections/criticisms. I absolutely loved the screen graphic about Obama being a serial liar. I actually LoL’d!

  13. Mark, misses the ball on one important point. The real deficit is still around $1 Trillion per year. The Fed is (and has been for 4 years) keeping interest rates at least 2 percentage points below market rates. 2 percentage points on $17 Trillion Federal debt is $340 Billion annually. While not all Federal debt has been issued in the last 4 years, at least enough of it has been rolled over for the effect to be around $300 billion annually. For those who don’t understand, the Fed has been doing this by creating money out of thin air to buy predominantly U.S. Treasury debt and some mortgage-backed debt.

    A couple months ago, the Fed hinted that they were going to slow down their Quantitative Easing (Fed-speak for creating money in this way). Mind you… they didn’t actually do it. They just hinted. Interest rates on mortgages jumped by 150 basis points (1.5 percentage points) in one month. Seeing the effects of their hint, the Bernank recently took the QE slowdown off the table for fear that doing so would would depress what little economic activity there is. So, the economy is now addicted to Quantative Easing just as surely as vast portions of our citizens are addicted to entitlements.

    As anyone (Mark Levin and many others) who can do simple arithmetic knows, this can’t last.

  14. Mark can go toe to toe with any of the libs; Other repubs should stay away because they look like the idiots they are. (idiot vs idiot)

        1. Sorry Mack but Cruz had dual citizenship and has renounced his Canadian citizenship and is therefore eligible to run for President!

        2. He is a natural born American citizen and had duel citizenship with Canada.Only an American citizen now.
          Sorry if I disappointed you.

          1. Not disappointed. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, but I just think the Lefties will make this a major issue if Cruz decides to run.

            1. Do you believe he would get at leat 35 percent of the Hispanic vote.If yes then Checkmate game over.

    1. Colliemum… I prefer Vichy Republicans because it better describes the phenomenon of Republicans keeping the gate open for the enemy and allowing the enemy not only into every organ of the American state, but right into the inner circle of the Republican establishment itself. And that’s the very essence of Vichy who cooperated with the Nazis and that’s the very essence of the establishment Republicans cooperating with the Democrats with Boehner being the Republican Philippe Petain.

      1. I think colliemum means ”I love THE TERM French Republicans” as opposed to ”loving French Republicans”. 🙂
        I read it that way at first too!

  15. Thanks Mark for your passion and love of country. We will win this, and the vast majority of American citizens want lasting, dramatic change, and these ruling class crooks need to be prosecuted for violating not only the Constitution, but their oaths as well.
    We Comin’! TEA! ARTICLE 5.
    Bought the book and bought extra to give to family and friends with instructions to buy one and give one…..pay it forward. We all need to do same. Shalom.
    Sha’alu shalom yerushalayim, Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.

    1. I like your idea to “buy one and give one….pay it forward.” I already have a copy of The Liberty Amendments, but will buy another and follow your example. Thanks for the inspiration.

  16. Mark is a re-founding father of our time for a country that has lost its original and magnificent principals.

  17. I would give a year of my life to hear the brilliant Mark Levin debate the so-called ‘constitutional law professor’ Barack Obama. It would be a blood sport.

      1. I agree. The Bunker is turning his skin very pale from lack of sunlight from being underneath the brick and steel of a nondescript building.

  18. Jake is one of the few reporters who ever asks questions that embarass the Administration. It was great seeing him have Mark on his show, because it exposes the CNN audience (still a much larger audience than MSNBC) to the notions of Constitutional issues relating to the problems of today.

    And Levin handled the questions like a man who totally knows his subject matter. That’s refreshing to see on CNN at any time.

          1. Jake Tapper has been a lone voice in the wilderness. He has on many occasions challenged the powers that be. He is, indeed, quite impartial, a trait that is sorely lacking in the media lackies.

  19. Mark Levin’s statement is wrong, it is a convention of delegates elected in states that would propose amendments, not state legislatures. That is a big difference that should be noted.

    1. Article V, verbatim:
      “…or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states…”

      I don’t see one single word in the entire Article V that mentions “electing delegates”. ANYWHERE…

      Don’t make stuff up. That is reserved for Obama and the Supreme Court.

      1. The states will send delegates. That’s how it will happen. You don’t thing the entire legislature of each state will meet in one massive convention, do you?

        1. This would be organized by the states. In the beginning some states may refuse to even participate. Each state casts one single vote. It could take months and years of deliberations and several drafts. As was the original convention delegates would come and go. Indeed some states may not even participate. If you haven’t already you may want to read the book and its corresponding notes to better understand. In my opinion it makes perfect since and gives a logical and legal alternative to an authoritative out of control government (left and right).

        2. Not really sure what he thinks, K. But this will get done, Mark, for the people will insist. TEA! ARTICLE 5. This trains movin’.

        3. No, I don’t. The states will appoint delegates to send to an Article V Convention. Some states may opt to hold an election to determine the delegates, while others will simply decide to use their legislative body to appoint their delegates.

          1. OK, I see you were replying to the notion of his that delegates are somehow “elected.” You’re correct. It’s all up to each state’s legislature how they want to proceed.

            It’s up to us to pressure them to stick with the concepts Levin introduced (not his exact words, per se, but the concepts, especially his determination to stick to broad powers and not focus on drafting some list of grievances).

      2. You really think they have a convention without delegates? If they didn’t elect delegates to it, it would be the first constitutional Convention in any state or nation throughout history that didn’t elect delegates. Of course you would not find anything in the Constitution about how to elect delegates. The states control the elections even though there is still federal election law.

        “(2) the term “election” means—
        (E) the election of delegates to a constitutional convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States or of any State; and”
        This process is covered under election law. Ta Da!

        1. “…it would be the first constitutional Convention in any state or nation throughout history that didn’t elect delegates…”

          From the article:
          “The original states, except Rhode Island, collectively
          APPOINTED 70 individuals to the Constitutional Convention…”


          Did that source just say “appointed”, not elected? So obviously, it would NOT be the first time.

          Of course I don’t believe we can call an Article V convention (the proper name– it is actually NOT a “Constitutional Convention” because the Constitution has already been drafted) without sending delegates. That would be a silly notion.

          They just aren’t required to be elected. They were appointed by the several states’ legislatures the first time around, and they can be this time around, too. Of course, the several states have an option to hold elections for the delegates, but it is not a requirement.

          Mark has talked about an Article V convention at length on his radio show, numerous times, and it is the main subject in his new book: “The Liberty Amendments”, of which I have an autographed copy.

    2. The delegation each state’s legislature sends will not have free hands to propose whatever they want. They will act on behalf of the legislature. That’s their job. So the state’s legislature will tell them what amendments are acceptable, and provide other means to communicate and approve or disapprove of any proposals.

      1. The state legislatures may yank the delegate out of convention subjectively. With all due respect and appreciation to Mark, Former Mich. Chief Justice Thomas Brennan has been working in the Article V effort longer than anyone alive. Here is how he puts it:

        Judge Thomas Brennan’s Major Points Regarding Article V

        1) An Article V convention is an assembly of representatives of the states. It must be called when two thirds of the state legislatures request it.
        2) An Article V convention is called for the purpose of proposing amendments (plural) to the US Constitution.
        3) An Article V convention is a parliamentary assembly has all of the authority over its own deliberations as any other parliamentary assembly.
        4) An Article V convention is called by a majority vote of both houses of Congress, and its proposals are sent out to be ratified by the states as determined by a majority of both Houses.
        5) An Article V Convention:
        a) sets its own agenda.
        b) makes its own rules.
        c) makes its own schedule

        In short, neither Congress or the state legislatures can limit the agenda of an Article V convention. Therefore, a petition for a convention limited to one or more specified subjects or amendments, is NOT a petition for an Article V convention.


        Certainly. Congress can call a convention for any purpose, just as it can appoint a committee to study and make recommendations on any subject.

        Congress doesn’t need state petitions in order to call a convention to draft or suggest an amendment or a number of amendments to the constitution.

        But such a convention is not an Article V convention. It is merely an advisory convention. Congress can limit its agenda, dictate who shall be delegates, how it shall vote, etc.

        Congress may decline to approve its proposals. If it does approve them and decides to send them out to the states to be ratified, it must do so by a two thirds vote in both Houses.

        I believe that the advisory, or non-Article V convention would be inadequate to task that lies before us. America needs true reform. That means amendments which change the power structure. They will never be achieved with consent of the Congress.

        1. You and your stated inference to what Mich. Chief Justice Thomas Brennan states about Article 5 of the US Constitution, are only speaking of what Congress can and cannot do, will and will not do, approve and not approve, etc, etc.. Article 5’s 2nd part option in the US Constitution is about the People of the Nation and Individual States, via their elected State Representatives, bypassing Congress and the Executive branch of the President, by Convention to propose adding certain specified Amendments to the US Constitution, however they are drafted, thus Article 5’s part 2 phase gives equal, if not over-ruling power by and to the People of the Nation, thus allows the people and States to exercise their Right of power, cancelling out, nullifying any political and or legal efforts by Congress and the President to obstruct the will of the people. What this means is that the People and the States can override, overrule the Federal govt, whether they like it or not. Thus is the whole point of the recourse to a oppressive tryannical out of control Federal govt.

        2. You have to go beyond the opinion from someone; you need to see how they arrived at the conclusion. To see how you determine exactly what the Convention process is, you should read the work by Rob Natelson, who shows how the process actually worked.

          It’s clear, especially if you follow events from prior conventions, particularly the Constitutional Convention, that delegates may not work against the wishes of their respective states. Therefore the states absolutely have a limit on what can and cannot be produced by such a convention. What they cannot do is determine the precise detail of the Amendments produced, because that is the actual work done by the delegates.

          1. I could not agree more, therefore I insist that you explore the official US position on the matter, or at least as official as it gets. Mr. Neale discusses the conflicts with Mr. Natelson’s views as well.

            Now that you folks are discovering this method, ask yourselves, have the states ever applied for this in the past?

            The Article V Convention for Proposing
            Constitutional Amendments: Historical
            Perspectives for Congress
            Thomas H. Neale
            Specialist in American National Government
            Congressional Research Service

    3. WHAT??….First of all you are wrong about Mark Levin being wrong. But here’s the beauty part. You have managed to advance to the second level of being wrong. Your answer you proclaimed was right with regard to the one that was wrong was, is and always will be…..in and of itself….you guessed it….wrong. However; i have of late dedicated myself to maintaining as open of a mind as possible. So…I believe what we have heeere is a failure to communicate. I believe the phrase structure of relative terms in this case to be less than absolute in their quest to form a specific interpretation. Most states dont “elect” delegates per se since the avenues one can take in becoming such a body be more than a few. Even then, I cant recall a time a convention of delegates “proposed” much more than a collective opinion of the most popular party candidate for looming elections. And since im becoming bored all of a sudden with this subject I submit to you that the JOB of the Legislature is to create and/or “amend” laws. They literally ARE lawmakers, makers of law, law makin sons a bitches as it were.
      Moral of the story big dan would be….i’d think long and hard before you proclaim Mark Levin wrong regarding “basic” Political Science. Those of us that were stupid enough to actually MAJOR in the subject just love to debate the easy stuff. hopefully we’ve heard the last o0f big dan.

      1. You clearly need medication and I assure you that you have not heard that last of me.

        In one of Thomas Jefferson’s letters in 1816 he wrote:

        “This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves.”

        Delegates will be elected:
        “(2) the term “election” means—
        (E) the election of delegates to a constitutional convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States or of any State; and”
        This process is covered under election law.

        US position regarding how to evaluate the applications :
        States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. page 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated:
        “The United States asserts
        that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and
        calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that
        this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may
        propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of
        the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose

        “[w]e agree with the suggestion that it should not be
        necessary that each application be identical or propose similar changes in the same subject matter.”
        The American Bar Association’s Constitutional
        Convention Study Committee,


        2012 Judiciary Sub-committee hearing

        Dr. Lawrence Lessig:
        Single Issue Citizen’s Conventions and Article V Conventions to propose amendments. Dr. Lessig has a new twist on the Convention method described in Article V of the Constitution which is open to nearly all amendments which include the Supreme Court of the United States. Dr. Lessig is suggesting that Congress might consider a single issue convention with no legal effect to work
        on solutions to Citizens United alone.

        1. I’m ptetty sure YOUR ‘RE wrong.

          “…or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, which shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

          That seems to be pretty clear in stating it IS legislators from the states’ legislatures that are involved, not some shadowy, unknown body of ‘elected delegates’. What you’re claiming is nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, we’d all like to know how many years you’ve studied and practiced Constitutional Law. Maybe you should be calling Mark Levin, and informing him about how badly he’s misinterpretedConstitutional law, and correct him on the air.

          1. Yeah, I think that if Levin was wrong on who was to hold the freaking conventions, his editor would correct him, his colleagues or the freaking left would be all over TV destroying Levin for being wrong on his entire book! Geez. Pull your head out, Dan Marks.

            1. So why aren’t you correcting Mark Levin? He occasionally uses Twitter, and has open line phone calls, every night. And you still haven’t answered my question about your qualifications.

  20. I have an idea to curve the lobbyists. All Fund raising for any office goes into a fund and split between all candidates. So that anyone who want to run can. That way you do not have big business giving millions to one candidate.

    1. Ummmm…no. Business is not some entity from outer space interfering in the governance of the country. Business is owned and operated by real people that have real rights and are regulated by these elected bodies therefore they get a say. The problem isn’t big business and giving millions to a candidate. The problem is a lack of morality in our society that created the market for big business to give millions to a candidate. Don’t get me started on the candidates themselves.

      1. Ummmm…no. Business is not some entity from outer space interfering in the governance of the country.

        Yes it is.

        Business is owned and operated by real people that have real rights and are regulated by these elected bodies therefore they get a say.

        Yes they get a say. BUT! When they buy off politicians to do their bidding. That is not right.

        The problem isn’t big business and giving millions to a candidate. The problem is a lack of morality in our society that created the market for big business to give millions to a candidate.

        Really!! I agree there is a lack of Morality. So you don’t believe in the free market society.

        Well! Let me get you started.

        I never said big business did not have a say. I said split contributions between candidates. SO! Where are you going with this.

        1. So you think by twisting and turning that makes you smart? You are not Solomon. You cannot force someone to give ‘half’ as you put it to something they don’t believe in and out of the other side of your mouth talk about ‘rights’.

          I ignored the stupidity of your first comment. Your second comment about buying off politicians goes to morality, hence my morality comment. Free market is not a free market without morality as in the people operating that free market need to have morality. And last you know exactly where I am going with this and if you really don’t then I pity you. Removing the choice in who gets to give their money and to whom removes a persons 1st Amendment rights…..oh and that goes to morality too.

          This whole statement is ignorant at best: “I have an idea to curve the lobbyists. All Fund raising for any office
          goes into a fund and split between all candidates. So that anyone who
          want to run can. That way you do not have big business giving millions
          to one candidate.”

          Lobbyists aren’t the only ones that give to candidates by a long shot. People fund raise and give to candidates for particular reasons and sometimes those reasons are numerous. Anyone who wants to run can run…you just have to do the leg work to do so and that includes fundraising.

  21. It was amazing to watch just how much Marl Levin intimidated Jake Tapper! I don’t even think that Mark Levin was trying to intimidate Jake Tapper, but one can just see that Mr. Levin doesn’t suffer Fools lightly, he’s a highly intelligent man, an Attorney no less, I wouldn’t want to be on the opposite side of Mark Levin on most issues!

  22. I may not agree with tapper on a lot of issues, but the man is a true reporter. He’s very respectful and handles himself with class unlike most host these days including that smuck bill oreilly.

    1. not even close. he was manhandled and had no intelligent response. you could see the deer in the headlights look in his eyes. he had no comeback. time for some coffee…

  23. I like Jake Tapper the more I watch him. He was fair and asked very good questions of Mark, no spin and no bull. It was a great interview, especially for CNN, which I rarely watch any more. But I’ll watch Jake.

      1. I’ve heard a lot about him and his quotes, but I’ve never read deTocqueville. I must rectify that sad condition.

    1. I ageed. Jake is liberal but he’s a real journalist. His book the Outpost was a good read which I picked up after Levin interviewed him last year. it was an account of the bravery of US soliders. ABC should have given him the Sunday This week show.

      1. jake is pathetic. he is like a deer in headlights whenever he comes across anyone with the IQ of room temperature. he sucks.

        1. That could be true, but he still didn’t dick around with Levin and let him answer questions. Therefore, Tapper is better than most of the libturd journalists.

  24. A civil interview from CNN, could you imagine the food fight and spitballs thrown at Levin had that been coducted by any of the pyshcopath hosts at MSLSD.

    1. OMGOODNESS! Un-freakingbelievable! It’s stunning and mind boggling and infuriating what this administration gets away with.

        1. I know and it seems the “get worse” has been put on fast forward since the comrade was put back in the WH. I believe they have a shock and awe strategy, it’s impossible to even keep up with the manic doings of this administration.

  25. So, that’s a “reporter.” He’s interviewing an author, but hasn’t read the book. And he asks the author various ad hoc, unrelated and disjointed questions that entail repeating what Obama says. And he asks a question that incudes the statement that not going deeper into debt is bad for the economy.

    So, that’s what I am missing for the last 12 years of not seeing CNN?

    1. Mark Levin was the proverbial oxygen bottle belatedly strapped to the wheel chair of a wheezing and hacking terminal patient known as CNN.

      As for Jake Tapper… he could only save face by having in front of him canned and prepared questions with no real comeback questions. My dachshund produces thicker turds of substance than the questions asked by Jake. Jake always gets a pass by conservatives. Having seen this, my questions is: why?

      1. I agree with your comments but also feel that Tapper has never piled on with the sleazy, lying turds in media. And he’s even shown some courage to face them down on a couple of occasions.
        He sure isn’t conservative, but he isn’t a crazy totalitarian like most of his colleagues, either. I liked the fact that he gave Levin the room to spread his knowledge to an audience that has probably never had such a treat. I hope he invites him back on a regular basis.

      2. I hate CNN, but on occasion Jake Tapper is OK. He didn’t spin Mark and let him get his point across. And there was no usual bashing of conservatives. I love Mark! He was his usual straightforward self and said what he had to say. I appreciate that Jake let him say it without interruption. That in itself is rare on CNN. Yes, he should have read the book!

      3. Maybe they were canned. If so, they were canned crap. Whether the interview is supposed to be supportive, hostile or neutral – those questions were crap.

        And the reason there was no comeback or follow up, is that Jakey might have had to agree to a fact – and be drawn out of the nebulous world of Obama said and Republicans said.

        Did you ever notice, they can run these dog and pony (elephant and donkey) shows were one says the numbers are up and the other says the numbers are down – instead of putting up charts and graphs and leaving the dog and pony in the barnyard.

  26. Excellent as always from Mark Levin.He should be the AG for the united states,and KICK holders AZZ to the curb

    1. I think i remember reading that Holder is leaving next year. If so I wonder who the new AG will be. Some say Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D)

    1. My favorite part of the interview. It tells me that Levin is holding back, but I suspect he won’t hold back forever.

  27. Mark, you are so right on target. I am so frustrated with this congress and administration you made me cry like baby. Now, how are we going to turn this thing around. I am ready.

  28. Do you like the text during the whole interview that had nothing to do with the interview? Trying to portray Mark like an extremist.

  29. “The Great One” explains all the issues like they should be taught in the school system. It will never happen. He is a true, dedicated Leader who is fighting the fight to take back Our Country.

  30. …the FRENCH REPUBLICANS and all DEMOCRATS are all TRAITORS to LIBERTY .” (period)

    PS this is why Levin is the GREAT ONE.

    1. He was fair, but I got the impression that he was constrained, either by his bosses or by his M.O. from working with those other networks. Got to say that he did give the Great One time to answer the questions and qualify the answers. I believe any other host would have been interrupting him time after time. It must be part of the Saul Alinsky school of journalism that they use that tactic.

    2. Mark Levin is great … but the hilarious thing about him is he considers EVERYONE to be challenging him! He’s always so edgy and cagey, but 99% of the time he hits the nail right on the head.

    3. Agreed. He’s been mostly fair everytime i’ve seen him. I think CNN is trying this approach lately. Fair and balanced.

    4. I wouldn’t know a Tapper from a Crapper. Fact is that interview sucked. You could tell the guy hadn’t read the book. That makes D his highest possible grade. Then he said failing to raise the debt ceiling was bad for the economy. That put him in F territory.

      Every other interview of Levin I saw was fine.

      1. If you heard in the beginning this interview was already planned so they can talk about the book but he had about 2-3 minutes to ask Levin about the book and about Levin’s ideas in the book because they were sidestepped by Obama speaking to the Iranian President and the potential govt shutdown. So what I saw was Tapper trying to fit what was supposed to be a 12 minute book interview into a 2-3 minute book interview.

  31. Very impressive showing from Levin here. Don’t like his style always. But here he was Coherent; Cogent; and Dignfied. At least he’s trying to solve the nation’s problems, unlike Weiner who just rants and brags all night long on his show.

  32. Glad Tapper had the great one on his show. Tapper is by far the best on CNN, which is probably why they keep him stuck away at 4:00 PM.

  33. Awesome job Great one.. Mark Levin ventured in to satans lair and used FACTS to back his arguments, his points. Kudos to Jake Tapper who was respectful and did a fair and balanced interview with Mark.

      1. You’re picking at a gnat…if you’re a true conservative, you have freedom cause a conservative, believes in the full force of the Constitution and that’s what the Constitution is for…it maintains and protects our freedoms…our RIGHTS!! It also is the checks and balances of government, and both are the reason this pile of pigshit wants the Constituion disappear…a true libertarian is but a demomcrat or leftist in conservative’s clothing and heading towards Obuttholeville…

        1. I am just stating there is libertarianism and there is conservatism. Levin has spoken to this, he doesn’t really consider full libertarians to be conservative.

            1. and then there are the lunatic Progressives who represent and fight for the Darkside — hence the name of the petulant Know it all Dark Knight

              1. —– Original Message —–
                From: Disqus
                To: [email protected]
                Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 6:51 PM
                Subject: Re: New comment posted on FULL INTERVIEW: Mark Levin on CNN’ s The Lead with Jake Tapper


                A new comment was posted on trscoop


                and then there are the lunatic Progressives who represent and fight for the Darkside — hence the name of the petulant Know it all Dark Knight
                6:51 p.m., Friday Sept. 27

                Reply to terpsez108

                terpsez108’s comment is in reply to PJ Thompson:

                And he’s right…

                Read more


                You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to disqus_0NKlaZjP3h.
                You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to disqus_0NKlaZjP3h by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings.

        2. That’s pretty inaccurate. A true conservative is 8/10ths libertarian. You can’t be a conservative unless you are heavily influenced by libertarians. Milton Friedman and Hayek certainly were not conservatives.

    1. Of course, I think Tapper in center-right. He talks to a lot of conservatives on his show, his reporting isn’t really defending of democrats and he even defended Fox News from the left when a bunch of leftists claimed Fox not to be a news organization.

  34. Install ML as interim “”Executor King””!!!…. to clean and modify the Feds back to what they were intended, boot out the rats. Then reinstate him as president. Or we can let the new Bolsheviks AKA liberals, ruin our country to the point it is obvious to the lowest forms of life that vote here, then we will have to spend a long time recreating our nation in the original and intended way by the founders.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think a dictator, regardless of whether he’s on our side ro not is a good idea at all…

      1. Or course I understand that. But our founders demanded arms to regain control and throw down a tyrannical gvmnt. The “unmoored” Feds are now a Bolshevik royalty unto themselves, just like they did in Russia. Again, a limited counter royalty is what will be required, AKA military coupe, and will be realized if they continue their treachery upon our nation. There is no other choice. If civil procedure cannot forge the overhaul, we must give the Bolsheviks the rope to hang themselves in the coming crash they alone have engineered.

  35. Mark Levin… You are a Constitutional Hero. I wish more visible Conservatives, e.g. true Conservatives such as yourself, had even half the courage that you display. You and your historical accuracy are our only hope to RESTORE the Constitutional Republic of the United States.

  36. Most, if not all, of Mr. Levin’s answers and comments went right over Jake Tapper’s head.

    Tapper was more like a deer in the headlights, I would say.

    Mr. Levin was brilliant, as usual.

      1. In my dreams perhaps. Tapper is so clueless about the Constitution, he had no idea what Mr. Levin was talking about.

        1. Too bad Mark didn’t have time to recite the Federalist Paper 57, on live TV, to send the Message to Barry and his boys/girls and the entire Nation….

          Federalist No. 57 is an essay by James Madison, the fifty-seventh of the Federalist Papers. It was published on February 19, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. It is titled, “The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many.”

          Madison advocates the election of “men who possess most wisdom to discern, and … pursue, the common good of the society.”
          According to the essay, the representatives will be true to their constituents for the following reasons: 1) the people chose these distinguished men to uphold their engagements, so the representatives have an obligation to stand by their words. 2) The representatives sense a mark of honor and gratitude feel at least the tiniest affection to these constituents. 3) Selfish motives of the human nature bind the representative to his constituents because the delegates hope to seek advancement from his followers rather than the government. 4) Also, frequent elections remind the representatives that they are dependent on the constituents for their loyalty and support. Therefore, the representatives are compelled to remain faithful to their constituents. 5.) The laws created by the legislators will apply to all members of society, including the legislators themselves.

    1. First we don’t watch any of them, none.
      We listen to Mark.
      Ratings are where for CNN, and the other Alphabet Soupheaders gods…
      Tapper not taking sides.
      Intimidated by intelligence.
      Remember he left ABC and is at CNN.
      Is JT a Constitutionalist???
      Is he getting in on much needed attention, as Bill Clinton was out yesterday, claiming CNN is much better.
      What happened to plain spoken truth from these talking heads. If it means work and diving in to the fray, they aren’t doin’ it.

      1. Perhaps he is. but, not having listened to the Collectivist’s Network News, I wouldn’t know. That’s just what I concluded when I saw in this particular segment.

        My intent was not to disparage Mr. Tapper but just to make the observation that he was in the presence of genius and he didn’t make himself look competent or knowledgeable at all, at least in this particular instance.

        My apologies if I did come across as disparaging Mr. Tapper.

        1. Gary – Perhaps you’ve heard him when talk radio plays clips of actual journalism for once – same for that Lara at CBS who told it like it is and got yelled at by the WH. It happens, but of course way to rare!

    2. I don’t watch CNN at all, but I do see Jake Tapper reporting on Benghazi and back when he was the WH correspondent was the only one to ask questions instead of praise dear leader. Some Dem’s (former Dem in my case) actually do care about the country.

  37. I hope Levin and more conservatives start hitting all the airwaves. That would be the only way to knockdown the Bush stooges that are on 24/7 trashing and lying about conservatives.

    1. If the interviewer is a sane Democrat or Liberal (if there are any) then good. But there are some shows our side should never go on because they wouldn’t get a word in edgewise and would be screamed at the whole time.

    1. ? Tapper is lost in this interview. Cannot answer a single Constitution related question. Not one about government shutdown results. He should have just passed on interviewing Levin.

        1. yes, some were rhetorical, but the question about what happens when a government shutdown occurs had Tapper tap dancing. Which wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t live in a country populated by media worshipers. That goes for both parties, all networks.

        2. Whenever a person repeats the question, that person is scrambling to find an answer. Tapper is a CNN lap dog.

      1. I didn’t see that – I mean he was the interviewer not the interviewee. I don’t watch CNN, so it’s not like I’m defendng them.

    1. Hopefully by going on CNN he will expose his brilliance to the low information voters rather than speaking to the choir on Fox. This interview is great and I’m surprised CNN would even allow a positive viewpoint of people on the “right” aka normal critical thinking adults. Tapper is actually one of the few good journalists left that isn’t working at Fox. I wonder how long it will be before he leaves and gets a show on Fox.

Comments are closed.