FOX AND FRIENDS: Mark Levin rips ‘volume 2’ of Mueller report, says it should never have been written

Mark Levin was on fire this morning in his appearance on Fox and Friends.

He argued that the portion on obstruction in the Mueller report never should have been written, calling it an “op-ed”.

Watch:



Levin argues that ‘volume 2’ doesn’t have a syllable of legal significance whatsoever and it doesn’t even have a syllable of law in it.

He says it doesn’t matter what Trump or McGahn said it it because it hasn’t been tested in court, noting that there’s been no cross-examination or challenge to it.

Levin calls the 200 page document an “op-ed”, a “political document” that never should have been written.

He challenged on this by Ed Henry, who suggested to Levin that it quotes the White House attorney Don McGahn. He asked Levin “doesn’t whether the president told the truth or not matter to you?”

Levin said emphatically that it does matter to him, but asks Henry how he knows these statements are true. He says the president denies some of it and that it hasn’t been challenged in a court of law. He says we have no idea whether this is true or not. He says prosecutors are not supposed to write essays like this unless they want to be disbarred.

Indeed Trump denied some of it was true this morning.

That’s just the first half of Levin’s segment so watch the video fore more…

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.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

57 thoughts on “FOX AND FRIENDS: Mark Levin rips ‘volume 2’ of Mueller report, says it should never have been written

  1. The way Mark hammered home the point that the left’s attempts propagandize volume as being a legal document was a sobering lesson. His telling us that section two is literally a two hundred page op ed that had no business being written by any reputable prosecutor was enlightening for the public to hear. I say that because the vast majority of the public did not and will not read the report. I admit that I did not read the whole report.

    I know that Ed Henry did not expect for Mark to respond to his dumb question the way he did. I’ll bet Ed hasn’t been brow beaten like that since he was a kid.

  2. The way Mark hammered home the point that the left’s attempts propagandize volume as being a legal document was a sobering lesson. His telling us that section two is literally a two hundred page op ed that had no business being written by any reputable prosecutor was enlightening for the public to hear. I say that because the vast majority of the public did not and will not read the report. I admit that I did not read the whole report.

    I know that Ed Henry did not expect for Mark to respond to his dumb question the way he did. I’ll bet Ed hasn’t been brow beaten like that since he was a kid.

  3. Marks re”marks” to Ed was the Op or Operation-Ed. And old Op-Ed asked for it. What a dumb question to ask Mark if wether or not the President told the truth matters to him or not. Op-Ed got schooled because he, IMO, was condescending to Mark and Professor Denali educated him.

  4. Marks re”marks” to Ed was the Op or Operation-Ed. And old Op-Ed asked for it. What a dumb question to ask Mark if wether or not the President told the truth matters to him or not. Op-Ed got schooled because he, IMO, was condescending to Mark and Professor Denali educated him.

  5. Hahaha. slip n’ fall lawyer. Thank you, Mark, for explaining this to me actually. I’ve been reading (or not) these stories for months and never really understood what the heck any of it was all about. And, well, much ado about nothing.

  6. Levin has been pointing out since 2017 that there is not supposed to be a “report” as a work product from the Special Counsel. “Prosecutors do their work in the courtroom.” They aren’t supposed to be writing up memoir-like wrap ups discussing their personal views on the matter.

    That’s not how our legal system works.

    Andy McCarthy tore into Mueller yesterday, as well…

    Andrew C. McCarthy (NYPost): Mueller completely dropped the ball with obstruction punt

    Andy starts right in by charging that Mueller blithely, “Reversed the burden of proof on the issue of obstruction. Then he points out:

    the president’s frustration wasn’t over fear of guilt — the typical motivation for obstruction — but that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern the country. The existence of such a motive is a strong counter to evidence of a corrupt intent, critical because corrupt intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in an obstruction case.

    On the fact that Mueller brought up obstruction, but then left it to others (the AG, specifically) to decide whether to charge on it…

    This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

    That’s pretty harsh language, coming from Andy, who concludes…

    Since [Mueller] wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

    Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.

  7. Why didn’t Mueller consult with one of the Attorneys on his staff.He probably did and got a rejection on his flimsy obstruction of justice charges

    1. AT, I wish you had that much concern for Our Law Enforcement oOficers,when they need your support.Do not get upset,just a suggestion..

  8. At the AG briefing I wish he had not given Rosenstein so much praise..Let us not forget Rosenstein was Mueller’s Boss throughout this corrupted Investigation and probably helped compose the second part of the report.

    1. For the few minutes that I was able to watch it, Rosenstein had this look on his face like this wasn’t going far enough, and that he wanted more.

      I think that using Trump’s quote about his Presidency being over, etc. was supposed to be a major thumb in Trump’s eye. Sounds like something a bitter underling would do to get back.

      1. Thanks tyman,nice response Too me he appeared to be a little scared.Maybe and hopefully it was meant only as a little pat on the back and possibly he will be a suspect in one of AG Barr’s investigation.Hopefully I am not just dreaming.

  9. Once again, Mark Levin shows why people tune in to what he has to say. While the media, the Democrats and the nevertrumpers are running off some cliff together – and even some conservative media is following along – Levin has the intelligence, the legal knowledge, and the ability to express why they’re so misguided.

    Bravo.

  10. Levin’s about the only guest the Fox hosts won’t/can’t interrupt with inane questions to ‘try and keep the Interview on track’. Even Hannity lets Levin go without interruption.

  11. @therightscoop Wanted to tell you I was in the car last night between 7:00 and 7:30 PM and heard Mark give you a shout out. Kudos

      1. Thought you might be in church and that’s why I’m saying something. I didn’t go……went to the chiropractor instead. 🙂

        Years ago I was in the choir and sung Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil and Sunday.

      2. I sang last night at our mass. It was beautiful. For meditation, we sang this beautiful piece called, Behold the Savior. Here’s the You Tube recording. It’s so emotional for me. Especially around stanza 29-39. I haven’t been able to make it through without breaking down. Thank goodness the entire choir doesn’t.

        Enjoy the Triduum and this beautiful piece. :praying:

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mAkme8xuB40

  12. Wow, Levin was exactly right that Mueller should have come out 6-12 months ago and said “Great news Trump didn’t collude with Russia, investigation over”

  13. Now ^ THAT ^ was good.

    Mark Levin was poignant as always.

    Totally agree with him on his assessment of “Volume 2.” It’s not only garbage but nothing but speculation, hearsay and fiction.

  14. Hahaha. slip n’ fall lawyer. Thank you, Mark, for explaining this to me actually. I’ve been reading (or not) these stories for months and never really understood what the heck any of it was all about. And, well, much ado about nothing.

  15. Never been a fan of Fox & Friends but having Levin on this morning, they certainly got an ear full. Good job laying it out there Mark !
    Did they go to a segment on top recipes for Easter Sunday next ?

      1. What was Ed attempting to do,take Mark off topic. In Marks own aggressive way he was not allowing it and shut Ed up quickly.

  16. Mueller didn’t have an obstruction case so he produced an inflammatory novel to destroy Trump in the press. I’m thinking Barr should have told the Democrat Congress to pound sand because it’s not relevant to any criminal charges. Nadler insists that it’s not Barr’s job to determine guilt or innocence concerning obstruction, but from everything I’ve heard he is dead wrong.

  17. Levin and Napolitano are laser focused when discussing legal matters like these. Conservative media should keep interviewing them in all platforms.

  18. All excellent points made by Mark Levin. It’s just an op-ed opinion piece and was never tried in a court of law. A he-said she-said never prosecuted in a court of law. I agree with him that this should never been written because an attorney could be disbarred by putting out what is essentially hearsay. No proof, but enables attacks by the hate media on President Trump. 😡

    1. Most of the what’s in there are things that witnesses say Trump told them. All of those would be admissible in a case against Trump. As would everything that would be introduced for the fact that it was said, as opposed to the fact that the statement itself is true, as this is not hearsay.

    2. @joyfulgiver Anything’s admissible in the court of public opinion, which is clearly why he wrote it. Couldn’t catch him with the law so he wrote an op-ed with hearsay to find him guilty in the court of liberal public opinion.

  19. I watched this on Fox this morning & Mark was his usual fantastic self! I LOVED that he called nadler a slip & fall lawyer first thing LOL!! :clapping: :clapping:

  20. Levin has been pointing out since 2017 that there is not supposed to be a “report” as a work product from the Special Counsel. “Prosecutors do their work in the courtroom.” They aren’t supposed to be writing up memoir-like wrap ups discussing their personal views on the matter.

    That’s not how our legal system works.

    Andy McCarthy tore into Mueller yesterday, as well…

    Andrew C. McCarthy (NYPost): Mueller completely dropped the ball with obstruction punt

    Andy starts right in by charging that Mueller blithely, “Reversed the burden of proof on the issue of obstruction. Then he points out:

    the president’s frustration wasn’t over fear of guilt — the typical motivation for obstruction — but that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern the country. The existence of such a motive is a strong counter to evidence of a corrupt intent, critical because corrupt intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in an obstruction case.

    On the fact that Mueller brought up obstruction, but then left it to others (the AG, specifically) to decide whether to charge on it…

    This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

    That’s pretty harsh language, coming from Andy, who concludes…

    Since [Mueller] wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

    Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.

  21. Why didn’t Mueller consult with one of the Attorneys on his staff.He probably did and got a rejection on his flimsy obstruction of justice charges

    1. AT, I wish you had that much concern for Our Law Enforcement oOficers,when they need your support.Do not get upset,just a suggestion..

  22. At the AG briefing I wish he had not given Rosenstein so much praise..Let us not forget Rosenstein was Mueller’s Boss throughout this corrupted Investigation and probably helped compose the second part of the report.

    1. For the few minutes that I was able to watch it, Rosenstein had this look on his face like this wasn’t going far enough, and that he wanted more.

      I think that using Trump’s quote about his Presidency being over, etc. was supposed to be a major thumb in Trump’s eye. Sounds like something a bitter underling would do to get back.

  23. Once again, Mark Levin shows why people tune in to what he has to say. While the media, the Democrats and the nevertrumpers are running off some cliff together – and even some conservative media is following along – Levin has the intelligence, the legal knowledge, and the ability to express why they’re so misguided.

    Bravo.

  24. Levin’s about the only guest the Fox hosts won’t/can’t interrupt with inane questions to ‘try and keep the Interview on track’. Even Hannity lets Levin go without interruption.

  25. @therightscoop Wanted to tell you I was in the car last night between 7:00 and 7:30 PM and heard Mark give you a shout out. Kudos

  26. Wow, Levin was exactly right that Mueller should have come out 6-12 months ago and said “Great news Trump didn’t collude with Russia, investigation over”

Comments are closed.