On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Monday, host Mark Levin suggested that if Special Counsel Robert Mueller were a garden variety United States attorney, he’d be disbarred for putting out this report, the “Mueller Report,” on Russian interference.
“And as I’ve said over the weekend, if Mr. Mueller wasn’t a Special Counsel, but if he was a garden variety United States attorney, he’d be disbarred,” said Mark Levin. “All of this runs counter to our constitutional system; all of this runs counter to the rule of law; all of this runs counter to justice.”
Mark Levin’s comments came after the 448-page Mueller Report titled “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” was released on April 18, 2019. Levin called the report, a day before its release “bogus,” “outrageous.”
Below is a transcript of Mark Levin’s remarks from his show on Monday:
“Volume one of the report, some 200 hundred pages long, says there was no collusion. That took one sentence.
“Volume two of the report, couple hundred more pages, goes on and on and on, one stink bomb after another, one landmine after another put in there – opinion, notes, back and forth.
“And as I’ve said over the weekend, if Mr. Mueller wasn’t a Special Counsel, but if he was a garden variety United States attorney, he’d be disbarred. All of this runs counter to our constitutional system; all of this runs counter to the rule of law; all of this runs counter to justice.
“Why? Because a prosecutor and his team can write all this stuff up without any of it being effectively challenged, without due process, without assumption of innocence, without cross-examining witnesses, without challenging notes, and evidence and all the rest of it.
“That is the main reason why Mueller, and the rest of them, didn’t subpoena the president of the United States and get into a long battle, litigation over whether or not they have the power to try and force a president to testify in person in front of a federal grand jury.
“First of all, they had no case. There was no criminal predicate. Now how do we know that? Because there was no collusion. They had to come to that conclusion 18 months ago, that there was no collusion.
“So, you don’t get to subpoena the president, force him to testify for the purpose of trying to criminalize or create a new crime in order to take out the president of the United States. The Supreme Court would never have gone for that. Mueller knew that. He didn’t forebear. He’s a coward. He withheld because he knew what would happen there.
“So, what did he do? He and [Andrew] Weissmann, and the rest of them, said, ‘Well, you know what? We’ll smear the president of the United States because we get to write a report. We get to write a report. Unlike all 93United States attorneys, we get to write a report. That’s cool. And we know the Democrats took the House back in November. That’s cool. We know they’ve been talking about impeachment since the day he was elected. So, that’s cool. And we know that the attorney general, when he was nominated by the president of the United States, told the judiciary committee, during his confirmation hearing, said he would make as much of the report available to the American people as possible, redacting, you know, 6E material, grand jury material. Well that’s cool. We’ll dump all this crap into the report, and that’s how we’ll get the president.’”