Mark Levin: ‘Perhaps Mr. Mueller Is the Tyrant — Not the President of the United States’

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” syndicated conservative talker Mark Levin criticized special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe and explained why Mueller’s effort to indict a sitting president not only potentially violated the Constitution but the Department of Justice policy as well.

Transcript as follows:

HANNITY: Welcome back to Hannity.

So, this morning, President Trump went after the Mueller witch hunt, tweeting quote, “The appointment of the special counsel is totally unconstitutional, despite that we’ll play the games. Because I, unlike the Democrats, have nothing, have done nothing wrong.”

All right. Here with all the legal commentary I called him the great one. He’s the host of CRTV’s Levin TV, the host of “Life, Liberty, Levin,” the number one show on Sunday night, 10 here on Fox News, the great one.

All right. The idea that a president can be indicted, I want you to deal with that. I want you to deal with the idea of pardons. I want you to — because this is your wheelhouse, Mark, and the idea that the president has done anything wrong, I see you got your papers and you are prepared, sir. Go.

LEVIN: All right. Number one, this indictment issue, the president can’t be indicted according to the United States Department of Justice. The two memos that they put together. This has been the position the Department of Justice for almost half a century.

Mr. Mueller is an inferior employee in terms of the Department of Justice. He works for the Department of Justice. And he must comply with the policies of the Department of Justice. So he’s been putting aside the constitutional issue, he can’t defy the Department of Justice and bring in an indictment.

I believe they already understand that because they watch your show. Constitutionally, we know he can’t either because of the arguments laid out by Republican administration and Democrat administration.

In other word, you can’t cripple the president of the United States, he’s the most powerful man in the federal government, and expect him to have his due process constitutional rights properly defended at the same time.

No president has been indicted, and there is a reason for that. No president has ever been brought before a federal grand jury, and there is a reason for that. Perhaps Mr. Mueller is the one who was the tyrant, not the president of the United States.

Now the Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution, President Trump didn’t write that. Last time I checked them the framers wrote it, and it was ratified by all the states.

The defect here is that every special counsel’s appointment is unconstitutional, every special counselor’s appointment is not unconstitutional. This special counsel’s appointment is unconstitutional because the deputy attorney general, Mr. Rosenstein, hasn’t educated himself about the Appointments Clause. He does not have the power to substitute his will for the president and the Senate.

The president nominates principal officers to come to the United States Senate and the Senate must confirm. Assistant attorney general, assistant – – United States attorneys, assistant secretaries are not.

The problem is Mr. Rosenstein conferred so much power onto this special counsel, no specific criminal statutes, no specific individuals, really, and his oversight is so tacit and so limited as he promised, he would keep his hands off of Mr. Mueller that he’s created an unconstitutional special counsel.

And I believe that the president challenges that one day, he will be successful.

Now the pardon power. You know, this memo they keep referring to on Capitol Hill, Mr. Schumer, of all people, it’s two and a half pages long. Page one? Page two? Page three. See my exes? Those of the relevant part of the memo that have nothing to do with what’s going on today.

See the circle? That’s it. And there’s one sentence in this whole thing. Under the fundamental rule that no one maybe a judge in his own case would seem that the question should be answered in that negative. That is whether the president can pardon himself.

This is not a legal document. This is a joke. Do you see all the footnotes here? There aren’t any. Do you see all the case law here? There isn’t any. It’s a novel question because no president has ever been indicted. So why are we even discussing this pardon power? Because the Washington — excuse me — the New York Times, one of their reporters in one of the highlighted sections of their phony article based on the leaked letter puts in there, is the president saying that he can pardon himself?

Of course the president can pardon himself! Here is the language in the Constitution, article two, section two. The president has the power to grant reprieves in part for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment. Do you hear anything there, except in the case of the president?

All of these protections are built into our Constitution to protect our Constitution, to protect the president from the mob, from the media, from the Democrats that are a mob today. They are here to protect them. It’s not the president who is violating the Constitution, it’s the media who want the Constitution violated. It’s the Democrats who want the Constitution violated.

It’s Mueller and his merry brand of Democrat prosecutors who are tipping around a constitutional confrontation.

As I said here, every time I’ve been in your show, Sean, the Constitution is the president’s friend. And I’m speaking rather slowly so even Joe Scarborough can comprehend what I’m saying. Or even Chris Cuomo can copperhead what I’m saying.

The president is in his position because of what is Mr. Rosenstein did, he created an unconstitutional monster who is threatening to bring the president in front of a federal grand jury, which is unconstitutional and has never been done, with this notion of obstruction of justice when he exercises his prerogatives as president because they want to indict him, which has never been done.

The only way to remove the president of the United States is the old- fashioned way, through the Senate. And that’s it. And so it’s not the president who is the thug, it’s Mr. Mueller who is the thug, it’s not the president who is the incompetent, it’s Mr. Rosenstein who is the incompetent.

And they can mock the president and his attorneys all they want. But they show up in the Supreme Court, I’m betting that the president and his attorneys win.

HANNITY: And you are saying the Constitution is on the president’s side and he needs to take it and his attorneys need to take it all the way. Last point.

LEVIN: I am saying whether it’s the Appointments Clause or the pardon power or the issue of indicting the president of United States, he is right on his tweets and he is making the people who are criticizing him look like fools.

I would say and I’ve it before. Where the hell is the United States Congress? The Republicans control it. They need to hold hearings. They need to ask Mr. Rosenstein why he didn’t recuse himself since he recommended that Comey be fired. They need to ask Mr. Mueller about those memos out of the Justice Department.

They need to ask Mr. Mueller what authority he has to drag a president in front of a federal grand jury or subpoena him, what authority does he has to even contemplate indicting a president. And how it it that he hasn’t violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution?

Congress has a role for crying out loud. And there are article one they created first in the Constitution. They don’t have to sit back and watch all this. They need to get involved in it!

HANNITY: All right. That’s why I call you the great one, Mark. So important we get this right. Our constitutional republic depends on it. You can see him Sunday night. Don’t miss it. Watch my — Mark’s show, Life, Liberty, and Levin every Sunday. Number one show on cable right here on Fox.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor