Judge Jeanine: I want the Mueller probe to go on and on

This is a rush transcript from "Justice with Judge Jeanine," August 11, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JEANINE PIRRO, HOST: Hello and welcome to "Justice." I am Jeanine Pirro. Thanks for being with us tonight and thanks to all of you for once again making "Justice" number one last weekend.

We have a big show on deck with Kellyanne Conway, Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin and Mike Huckabee coming up. But first, my open.

You know, I've had a change of heart. Unlike everyone on the right, I don't want the Mueller investigation to end so soon. I wanted to keep going on and on and on, because every day, it gets closer to proving Russia collusion. The collusion however, with Russia and team Obama, not Trump.

Whether it is Hillary's reset button, the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia with $145 million pay back to the Clinton Foundation, or the fact that the Obama administration watched as Russia annexed Crimea and then invaded Ukraine while Barack Obama whispered in that off mic moment quote, "Tell Vlad, I'll have more leeway or flexibility after the election." Or whether you even believe Barack told Putin when he became aware of Russians attempt to meddle to knock it off or when Obama weaponized the intelligence community to unmask Trump people like Michael Flynn, Carter Page ,and others.

The truth is, every day, we get to watch the evidence of the framing of Donald Trump exposed. This week the Hill's John Solomon broke yet another explosive story of anti-Trump conspiracy. Now, we will know Hillary Clinton and the DNC gave millions to an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS that then hired Christopher Steele to create dirt on Donald Trump in order to surveil his campaign.

To this day, we still have not heard why a FISA court judge would even consider signing a surveillance warrant based upon this fraudulent document, but what no one seems to be talking about, is that this same dossier is the basis of the Mueller investigation itself.

Right after his election, mind you, after Donald Trump's win, the head of Fusion GPS meet with a top Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr. Two days later, Ohr, Rod Rosenstein's right hand takes the information from Fusion back to the DOJ and gives it to the FBI setting off the beginning of the Mueller investigation. Now, a Russia collusion criminal investigation.

Christopher Steele of course terminated by the FBI for leaking information to the media, yet, even after the election and his dismissal, he continues to meet and speak with Bruce Ohr, who takes this information from a source he is not allowed to work with. Ohr then launders it, feeds it to Justice and the FBI and then, he amazingly tries to get the discredited Steele back into the FBI as a human source.

So why would Ohr after back channeling information with Steele, a fired FBI human source work so hard to get Steele back into the FBI? Think about the timing. There is only one reason Steele is the one person who supports the inaccurate, unverified dossier. Even Comey said it was unverified, but in order to get the Department of Justice and FBI interested in a new criminal Trump-Russia collusion investigation, it was essential that Steele be back in their good graces.

And by the way, if you think Peter Strzok and Lisa Page hated Donald Trump, folks, meet Christopher Steele -- a discredited FBI source trying desperately to get on Mueller's destroy Trump team. Peter Strzok, another Trump hater, although he admits there was no "there there" also seeks and gets on the Mueller team.

So, team Mueller have on it. The more you investigate, procrastinate and fail to find evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, the more you become hoisted by your own petard. But Bob, my question is to you -- how could you possibly be investigating Donald Trump when there is absolutely no credible basis for your investigation? And what the hell have you and your Trump hating conflicted team of prosecutors come up with in the last 19 months other than a tax evasion case that does not involve Donald Trump, Russia or collusion of any sort and should be prosecuted by a regular US Attorney's office, and not you.

But more important, Bob, is what you are hiding and protecting as you continue with your fraudulent investigation. Permit me. In 2009, a Russian oligarch named Deripaska was asked by the FBI to give millions of his own money to fund an FBI operation. The man running the FBI, Bob, you. The man courting the Russian oligarch for money was Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI, now, since fired.

Now, Bob, in spite of the fact that Deripaska had been banished by the United States three years earlier in 2006, because of his organized crime affiliations, your FBI asks him to fund one of your operations? But more important, after Donald Trump is elected, Deripaska is asked by the FBI to help corroborate the Steele dossier? Deparaska himself stopped at the idea that Trump colluded with Russia, quote, "You're trying to create something out of nothing."

Fast-forward nine years later and you indict Paul Manafort, but one name is left out of that indictment. Bob, your indictment makes no mention of Deripaska even though you had evidence that Manafort wanted to invite him to a Trump campaign briefing. So my question to you, Bob Mueller would be as follows: Are you using the Christopher Steele fake dossier as a basis of your investigation? What crime are you investigating? Did you know Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele communicated directly although surreptitiously after Steele was fired?

Was Bruce Ohr working with you getting information to you? And of course, you know Bruce's wife, Nelly was getting paid for and working for Fusion GPS, have you investigated that conflict?

And speaking of wives making money off of their husbands in DOJ and FBI, have you investigated Andrew McCabe 's wife for the money she took from the Clinton connected McAullife for her campaign? Which money she could keep if she did not spend them? And why did you give a special security clearance to Peter Strzok? Allowing him to declassify information. Why did it take us four months to find out why you fired Peter Strzok? Why would ask for millions of dollars from a Russian oligarch, banned from the United States, to fund and FBI operation? Should you even have asked the oligarch for tens of millions of dollars and for his services? Because that is a crime, isn't it, Bob?

I'm sure you know the Anti-deficiency Act prohibits you as a government agency from accepting voluntary services, and if it came out that you took money, Bob, from a Russian oligarch whose name you intentionally left out of Manafort's indictment, that would be an embarrassment, wouldn't it?

Isn't that why you never put his name in the Manafort indictment? And by the way, isn't this a classic conflict of interest? And when Deripaska laughed at the idea of Trump collusion with Russia, was that exculpatory information conveyed to the FISA court? Aren't you worried that your prior actions with Deripaska are worthy of its own grand jury investigation?

And speaking of the FISA court, isn't your whole investigation premised on a fake dossier paid for by Hillary, created by a man who hates Donald Trump and used two con a FISA court judge? Bob, I really think it is time for you to give up your phony investigation and get yourself your own criminal defense attorney.

And that is my open. If you love my opening statements, you're going to love my new book, number one New York Times bestseller, "Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy." And joining me now with reaction to my open and all the developing news this week, counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway. Kellyanne, good evening, it's nice to have you on set tonight.


PIRRO: Well, you're usually in Washington, it's good to have you in town.

CONWAY: I haven't been here in eight months.

PIRRO: Yes, and we're not even in our new studio anymore, but we are thrilled to have you here. I want to ask a question. The President tweeted today that the big story that the fake news media refuses to report is lowlife, Christopher Steele's many meetings with the Deputy AG Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. And he talks about the Department of Justice and the fact that the Department of Justice is not giving Andrew McCabe text messages to Judicial Watch or the appropriate government agencies.

And the FBI he says won't even give one, I may have to get involved. What are they hiding? McCabe's wife took big campaign dollars. Okay, what the President is saying is, why isn't the FBI giving this information to Congress and to Judicial Watch?

CONWAY: Jeanine, I don't want the public to think that this is normal or necessary -- all of this conduct. Meaning that you have people very high up in President Obama's FBI, even after President Trump is elected unexpectedly and undesirably by those folks in the FBI. We don't want people to think that this is -- that everybody in Washington does this. Everybody in Washington doesn't do this.

In fact, the only dirt as the winning campaign manager, I researched for Hillary Clinton was five foot two, eyes of blue, oh what corruptions she would say and do. It was all right there in Hillary Clinton. Never looked outside of her statements, her lies, the problem that she had with the truth, the problem the public had with her.

PIRRO: But the problem that ...

CONWAY: But I am making the point -- I want to make the point very emphatically that if you're investigating Russia collusion and somehow people playing dirty pool in the Trump campaign to help him get elected, that simply did not happen on my watch. I was out there every day on the TV saying what our strategy was. The President most importantly, our best asset and the Vice President, our second-best asset, out there every single day, connecting with people directly and promising them to do everything they are doing now, which is fantastic.

PIRRO: Okay, but this is my question ...

CONWAY: But the President is frustrated. He wants to know why we're not investigating those ...


PIRRO: ... why isn't the FBI giving the Andrew McCabe text messages to Judicial Watch or the appropriate government authority? Congress is trying to do its oversight. It tells me if he is doing a tweet like that, he doesn't have confidence in Christopher Wray, neither do I to be honest with you. Christopher Wray from day one, and I don't know who made these recommendations. But from day one, he danced with Congress.

CONWAY: But that isn't what he is saying. The President is not saying that. In fact, the president directed the FBI Director last week to go in front of the briefing room and tell the country along with the Secretary of Homeland Security and Ambassadors and others, what this administration is doing with respect to cybersecurity and election security, heck a lot more than the last administration did.

So, I am not going to go there, but I will tell you, the president's frustration is one that is shared by many Americans, Judge Jeanine, because people just want to make sure that all sides of this are being investigated and I would note that since the Department of Justice and the FBI started to turnover with more of these e-mails and more of these unredacted documents, I suppose at a swifter pace, look at everything that has come out.

PIRRO: No, no. Judicial Watch is the one who is ...

CONWAY: That's why they saying ...

PIRRO: ... they are suing. That's my point. And the President knows it which is why he tweeted the big story is that why isn't the FBI giving the information? The President is tweeting that. It is not about what's come out.

CONWAY: But the President, who I spoke to this week several times, two short days ago. We discussed some of this. He is very pleased that more information is coming out that you can now connect more dots between these people who were trying all these shenanigans even after he was elected, always trying to nullify the democratically elected President, but I agree with you, too.

As this investigation goes on, let's make sure the losers are investigated also because what people are saying right now is, why are they still talking about 2016? Why can't they get over it? Because you are still talking about 2016. We know he was democratically elected. We know nobody was colluding and it changed a single vote. In fact, the Deputy Attorney General announced last month, Jeanine, 12 indictment against Russians. He made very clear that there is no evidence a single vote was changed and that this affected the election outcome.

PIRRO: We know that, but the point is ...

CONWAY: But why is there information ...

PIRRO: ... if there is corruption. Look, you're a lawyer, I'm a lawyer, DA, judge. When there is corruption, there needs to be consequences. There is no reason to move on. People need to be prosecuted for ...

CONWAY: Right, and look what's going on the Manafort trial. No Russia, no Trump, no collusion.

PIRRO: No kidding. I agree.

CONWAY: Excuse me, the judge said that that doesn't stop everybody on TV and in print saying, "This is who Paul Manafort was. This is who Rick Gates was." No Trump. No Russia. No collusion in that courtroom.

PIRRO: We agree. Kellyanne Conway, thanks so much for being with us tonight. And now, for more insight into this Mueller witch hunt, there is no one better to ask than the host of "Life, Liberty & Levin" right here on Fox News. The one and only, Mark Levin. Take a look.


PIRRO: Mark, thanks so much for being with us tonight. We're delighted to have you on "Justice" for the first time. Let's go right to the quick here. Under the Constitution, you say that the President cannot be indicted. So what is the point of all that's been going on with Mueller and his team?

MARK LEVIN, HOST, "LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN": First of all, it is an honor to be with you. You are a great lawyer.

PIRRO: Thank you.

LEVIN: A couple of things here on the constitutional level. No, Mueller cannot on his own indict a sitting president. I've talked about this for 18 months. So now even the professors who show up on Fox comprehend what I'm talking about. That's the position of the Department of Justice and their two memos. That's always been their position, so the question is now, can they subpoena the president? Well, they can subpoena whomever they want. The issue is how does the President respond to a subpoena and the president should respond to the subpoena depending on what the subpoena says.

If the subpoena seeks information from the President, either in person or otherwise, that raises questions about President's prerogatives, he must not reply. A prosecutor appointed by a Deputy Attorney General is acting Attorney General and is a subordinate of the President. He doesn't get to question the President's prerogatives and the President exercising those prerogatives. And that's why that cannot be obstruction of justice.

Judge, think for a second. If the opposite were the case, then a President can be hit time and time and time and time again with threats of charges against him for obstruction because he fired somebody. So you would have an FBI Director who can theoretically politically blackmail the President of the United States if he even thinks about firing him or a CIA director, anybody of the sort.

PIRRO: Well, I believe that that is already going on because James Comey was the head of the FBI. If there was a problem, he could've started an investigation, he gets fired and then decides he needs to leak and get an investigation, get things out in the public square.

But if Mueller were to subpoena, to what end is the subpoena?

LEVIN: To no end. Mueller has nothing and he wants to get something. He thinks the President is Martha Stewart. He is not Martha Stewart, he's President of the United States and I want to make this clear, Mr. Mueller is nothing but a single prosecutor. We have thousands of prosecutors in this country. We have one president of the United States. He ran against 16 or 17 other Republicans in primaries. People came out in various states and voted for him. He participated in debates. He participated in the electoral process. He went through the general election. He won the general election. The American people knew who they were voting for. He won fair and square through our Constitution.

You cannot have a single prosecutor accountable to no one, elected by nobody, having the power to take down a sitting president of the United States.

PIRRO: Okay ...

LEVIN: That is the bottom line.

PIRRO: But it is even worse than that. With all due respect, what they are looking at are the actions that President Trump took while he was in office. Given you cannot indict a president and given that they are looking at things he did as president, that means that every time the opposing party feels like it, if they can get somebody in the Justice Department to say we need to investigate the President for doing this, I mean it is nonsense. There is no end. You subpoena, what for? So that they can create an impeachment document? This is lunacy. Should the President fire Mueller?

LEVIN: I would not fire him right now. I mean, I think he has Mueller on the ropes, believe it or not.


LEVIN: The President wraps himself in his constitutional prerogatives and he dukes it out. And the fact is that Mr. Mueller shouldn't be met issuing any subpoenas. If he really want questions answered by the President to fill gaps in his massive investigation of nothing, then that is one thing, but he doesn't have that.

So what we have here, which is different than every other case that the president has been involved in as far as I know, we have this broad effort to ask broad questions to try and catch a president that may disagree with one of the 450,000 witnesses that Mr. Mueller has already interviewed. That's not how this works. That's not how it has ever worked in the past. They are supposed to be very, very narrow related to some conduct of the President of the United States. There has been no conduct of the President of the United States that merits any criminal investigation.

Do you want to know how I know that, Judge? Because when Mr. Mueller was appointed, there was no criminal statute that was cited by Mr. Rosenstein in his appointment in the first place.

PIRRO: Well, you know, Rosenstein is another one that apparently, there were some members of Congress who wanted to impeach. Paul Ryan leadership would not let them go forward with it. I mean, it's almost as though the establishment is in line with the Democrats based on a false dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton. She is at the genesis of all of this.

But let me ask you this, you and I both know the President and we know he does want to talk and it's every lawyer around him who was saying, this should not be done, not just because we want you to or we don't, but constitutionally it should not be done. What do you think the President's base wants here ?

LEVIN: I think his political base wants the President of the United States to fire everybody, but he better not do that.


LEVIN: Because every Democrat in the House and a third of the Republicans in the Senate will vote to impeach him. What's the point of that? When I think he can win it duking it out through the system. Now, if it comes to the point where he needs to fire people, then by god, he has the right to fire people.

PIRRO: Of course.

LEVIN: But we are talking about the political outcome. So, I do not think it is wise for the president of the United States to start firing all of these people. There may be a time for that by the way.


PIRRO: Outrage tonight after a chilling threat against ICE agents was discovered. A 33-year-old Massachusetts man was arrested this week in connection with tweeting a murder for hire solicitation to kill ICE agents for $500.00. Here with reaction to this and more, CRTV host Michelle Malkin. All right, good evening, Michelle.

You know, a few weeks ago, we talked about on the show Michelle Wolf and her parody on Netflix. It's popular nowadays to say ICE is bad, but there is no better representation of American values right now than ICE and as an equal opportunity employer, we accept all levels of experience from low to very low and those diagnosed with other anger issues. So it was funny then, but now we've got people actually trying to get individuals to kill ICE agents -- murder for hire.

MICHELLE MALKIN, HOST, CRTV: Yes, there's a climate of hate in this country and it stems from the radical left and the anti-Trump resistance, Judge. And you know, we've had for a long time now, decades a war on cops. We had a war on the Border Patrol and now we have a war on rank and file ICE agents -- all of these law enforcement and immigration enforcement officials have dedicated their lives to defending this country and we have an out of control, run amok Democratic Party that now wants to win the midterms by calling on abolishing ICE and that is as we can see, in incitement to violence.

When you marry this domestic call now that is going out across the country, with the official calls by MS-13, which have happened over the last several months and years now for green lighting, and everybody in law enforcement knows exactly what I'm talking about. These are assassination hit orders that are being issued by MS-13 East Coast gang leaders and what we know, Judge and something I have been warning about for years is that this is not just a border problem, it is a national problem from coast to coast.

PIRRO: It is a national problem. But Michelle, here's the problem. When you have a United States senator like Kirsten Gillibrand, the woman who is running for governor in New York out there saying abolishing ICE should be a top security when the Dems flip the House and Senate, how do we deal with that? Isn't that like -- that's anarchy by people that we are electing.

MALKIN: It absolutely is, and that's why I'm telling everybody, well listen, that they have the power at the ballot box to make a difference. These midterms and the 2020 elections stem -- are revolving on a fundamental question, do you support immigration anarchy or do you oppose it? And will you get to the ballot box and not only oppose the radical progressives who believe in the open borders agenda and undermining our public safety, our national sovereignty and economic self-determination, but will you also oppose those big business Chamber of Commerce forces that are every bit as opposed to Donald Trump as the radical left?

PIRRO: Well, Michelle, it's going to be an interesting midterm. Michelle Malkin, thanks so much for being with us tonight.

MALKIN: You bet.

PIRRO: All right, coming up, the second part of my interview with Mark Levin and he takes on the liberals. But first, Chris Hahn, David Avella are ready to square off in tonight's all-star panel, next.

MARIANNE RAFFERTY, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I am Marianne Rafferty. Agri giant, Monsanto ordered to pay a massive $298 million payout to a groundskeeper who says their products caused his cancer. California jurors deciding the company's popular Roundup pesticide is responsible for contributing to the man's non- Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto denies the link between glyphosate, the product's active ingredient and cancer saying hundreds of studies have established its safety. A spokesperson says the company will appeal the decision.

And Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk sued by investors accusing them of defrauding shareholders in an attempt to manipulate the company's stock price. The complaint says, Musk's recent tweet about taking the company private were misleading and artificially inflated Tesla's stock price. I am Marianne Rafferty, now back to "Justice with Judge Jeanine."

PIRRO: Welcome back to "Justice." Let's get to it with my panel tonight. GOPAC Chairman, David Avella; former aide to Chuck Schumer, radio show host, Chris Hahn. All right, guys, we were just talking about ICE and the abolition of ICE and how it pursues in joke with Michelle Wolf and then now, there's people who are actually offering money to have ICE agents killed.

During the break, I just did a quick count. There are about 35 Democrats in Congress who support the abolition of ICE; 133 Democrats would not take a position on a resolution. So, Chris Hahn, do you think that's a winning position for the Democrats in the midterms?

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The Democrats don't want to eliminate border security, they might want to change ICE, they might want to redo the priorities of ICE from ...

PIRRO: No, they want to abolish ICE.

HAHN: No, no. They might want to change ICE and they might want to change the way work at our borders so that we are not separating children from their mothers as they cry when they are seeking asylum here.

PIRRO: ICE does not do that. ICE is not Border Patrol.

HAHN: But they do not want to eliminate -- they don't want to get rid of border security in this country. Obviously, immigration laws need to be enforced. Democrats believe in that, but they have a different way -- they have different ideas on how it should be done. And I think that that's what -- sometimes, it is easier to say to eliminate ICE, but I think that's not a winning strategy.

PIRRO: Wow, eliminate the Federal law enforcement is easier to say than give me an idea of what they want. David, hit it.

DAVID AVELLA, CHAIRMAN, GOPAC: Judge, this is why it doesn't matter whether Nancy Pelosi is a Democratic leader or not, as a growing number of Democrats say they will not vote for her for Speaker. You take her out and put somebody else in, you've still got a Democrat who wants a socialistic healthcare system will look to get rid of the President Trump's tax cuts, will look to put regulations back on the economy and make workers and job creators have to work under a "Mother, may I" system -- of an economic system.

It is why does it matter who the Democrats put in as leader. They're all for the same march to socialism that Nancy Pelosi preaches.

PIRRO: Yes, but David, I'm talking about abolishing ICE. I've got 35 people in Congress who voted to abolish ICE, all right? They want ICE gone. A 133 voted present on a resolution to support it and they just did not vote. Is this winning for the Dems?

AVELLA: No, it is not winning for the Democrats, you know that, Judge.

PIRRO: I do, but I'm asking your opinion that's why he gave his opinion, now you have to give yours.

HAHN: You know, Judge, if David thinks that he can win on the issues, maybe he should abandon the lazy strategy that they've used for 15 years. He's already got the ads in the can about Nancy Pelosi. Maybe abandon that lazy strategy ...

PIRRO: No, no, no.

HAHN: Talk about the issues, David.

PIRRO: The president came out and she said ...

AVELLA: Hey, Chris, but here's the deal, it's worked. It's worked. Every time Americans have the choice between Nancy Pelosi being Speaker or not being Speaker, they vote for a Republican. You see as much as much polling as I do and there is not a congressional district, a competitive congressional district in the country where Nancy Pelosi has a positive approval rating.

HAHN: You know what's going to be hilarious, Dave, you know what's going to be hilarious, if like sometime in October, Nancy Pelosi, after you've made all of these ads with her face merging with the candidate that you are running the ads against. And sometime in October, Nancy Pelosi decides, "You know what? This is my last term in Congress," and then you've got to go back to your donors and try to get money for new ads on issues but you don't have any answers on the issues, which is why you run those attack ads.

PIRRO: You know what, Chris, you're not even answering the question.

HAHN: I can't wait.

PIRRO: Here it is. The President tweeted, "Democrats, don't distance yourself from Nancy. She is wonderful. Her ideas and policies may be bad, but you should definitely give the woman a fourth chance. She is trying very hard and has every right to take you Democrats down if she veers too far left."

HANH: Well, you know what Mr. President? She did beat you in the budget negotiation last year and that's probably why David and others are so mad at her, but that's what happened.

AVELLA: Chris is talking so wacky, he sounds like he is trying to be Michael Avante's press person for his presidential campaign.

HAHN: Hey, hey, hey. Just because we look alike doesn't mean I support him for President.

PIRRO: Well, listen, guys, I really think that the abolish ICE is really going to work. For us. All right, David Avella and Chris Hahn, thanks so much for being with us tonight.

HAHN: Thanks, Judge.

AVELLA: Thank you.

PIRRO: And all right, and coming up, Mark Levin takes us on the state of liberalism in America and the mainstream media. Stay close.

Now for the second part of my interview with radio and TV host, Mark Levin, I asked his thoughts on the mainstream media versus Trump and his take on liberalism these days. Take a look.


LEVIN: The press claims to represent freedom of the press. The press does not represent freedom of the press. Nobody is attacking freedom of the press. They have a First Amendment right. Unlike Obama, the President hasn't stick the FBI on individual reporter or news operations or anything of the kind. So the press is free to be bombastic and they have many drama queens in the press who really are not reporters. They are big mouths, they are trying to promote themselves. And you know what they are doing? They're making it more and more difficult for the people to get the news, to get information and they're making it more and more difficult for this administration and this Republic to function.

They're not contributing to society in a positive way. I'm not saying they have to agree with the President, but day in and day out, to try and sabotage the president and make it impossible for him at times to govern, that is unacceptable. That is not a free press. These are radicals dressed up as reporters who have as their purpose to undermine the president.

As for liberalism, well, it is not liberalism anymore. It is state-ism and progressivism. These are radicals, just listen to their leadership and so forth. You want to impeach a president of the United States? The day he is elected? The day he is inaugurated? That is not what the impeachment clause says. We know what that's about.

The framers discussed it at the constitutional convention. You don't just get to impeach a president because you disagree with him or you put a bunch of phony arguments together. The left wants to reverse the outcome of the last election. They do not like the outcome of the last election ...

PIRRO: And they are disenfranchising everybody who voted to put Donald Trump in the Oval Office, but how does this all end, Mark?

LEVIN: Well, I'm not sure, but I do know this, if they succeed in impeaching the President and they won't remove him because they'll never have the votes in the Senate, but just impeaching the President, you're going to have over 60 million Americans who voted for this President who are going to be furious.

You cannot have what I've been calling the silent coup take place where the left has tried to criminalize the election with Mueller, tried to politicize and reverse election with the phony impeachment issue, you cannot reverse the votes, disenfranchise over 60 million Americans and act like it's no big deal and pretend there was a basis for it.

So, this divide that we have in the nation and we often have divides in this nation, I do not think it is something that can be fixed very quickly because you're disenfranchising the American people. You are now attempting to remove a President of the United States simply because you disagree with him, that is not America, that is some banana third world republic south of the border.

PIRRO: And finally, when you talk about a revolution, have you ever seen it this bad?

LEVIN: The Civil War was bad. I mean, we've had -- with the riots in the 1960s, it was bad. What's different here to me is the institutionalization of the status progressive agenda, which means, you cannot -- you're not allowed to elect a president from the outside who wants to change what's going on in this country even if the American people want to change it.

The left felt that they were going to have the third term of Barack Obama. They were a hundred percent sure that Trump could not win. He wins and now they have spent 24/7 trying to destroy him, undermine him. And by the way, destroy and undermine his supporters. The media in the country and Democratic Party in this country are attacking a big faction of the American people, day in and day out, calling us Nazis, cultists, racists. It is almost not even aimed at Trump. It is aimed at tens of millions of Americans out there who finally have stood up and done something to their government, with their government that we think is very effective and the left cannot tolerate it.

PIRRO: Mark Levin, so great to have you on "Justice." Thank you so much.

LEVIN: God bless you, Judge.

PIRRO: Thank you. And you can catch Mark Levin's show, "Life, Liberty & Levin" Sunday nights at 10:00 p.m. right here on the Fox News channel. And coming up, my picks for the most outrageous comments of the week. Governor Huckabee is fired up and standing by.


So many outrageous comments this week. I almost couldn't choose. Take a look at this clip from Michael Moore's new film.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did the [bleep] did this happen?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The American dream is dead. Stop resisting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President's powers here are beyond question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies and gentlemen, the last President of the United States.


PIRRO: Wow, here with reaction to that and more, Fox News contributor, former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. All right governor, when I saw that, it caught me and it took my breath away. And you?

MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: You know, the only thing about that entire little clip that was worth watching was the Jimi Hendrix national anthem. Everything else was typical Michael Moore nonsense. The guy has become a joke and he is so melodramatic, so full of himself and he cannot see the fact that our economy is doing fantastically well.

We've earned the respect of nations, if not their respect, their fear. America is back on track, thanks to the President. And Michael Moore is missing it. He is missing a great show out there because he is trying to put his little show together and it has less credibility and is less entertaining than an old "Three Stooges" clip.

PIRRO: I guess you didn't like it. Well, to me, it was a very, very sad commentary. It was upsetting to me, it really was. But let's move on. So, Rosie O'Donnell, she is always good for our outrageous segment. She claims now that the Trump rallies are filled with paid supporters. Take a listen.


ROSIE O'DONNELL, AMERICAN ACTRESS: First of all people are paid, Chris, you know that. People were paid since he went down on the escalator. He pays people to show up at those rallies.

CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR, CNN: But I don't know that that's.


PIRRO: What do you think, governor?

HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, I did not know she was back from Canada. Remember she was going to move there if Donald Trump got elected. So I guess she is back. Because I assumed she kept her promise.

Here is the deal. If the people in the Trump rallies are being paid to be there, I've been to a lot of those rallies and I'm telling, they are better actors than she ever was in her entire movie career. She really ought to stand up and applaud them. That is nonsense, she knows it but she has a bad, bad almost terminal case of Trump derangement syndrome.

PIRRO: Oh be careful when you say that. People freak out. They throw you off television shows and out of buildings. I know. Anyway, all right governor, let's move on. Omarosa. Omarosa has a new book out. Earlier today, the President called Omarosa in a tweet he says -- I think he called her a low life. We have -- all right, let's take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, do you feel betrayed by Omarosa?

Trump: Lowlife, she is a lowlife.


PIRRO: What do you think?

HUCKABEE: Well, I guess their relationship shall we say, is on the chilly side of the street right now. The fact is, she has zero credibility on this. Now, had she resigned and had a press conference in which she said, I just cannot stand it anymore. You know, this is not a White House I can work, that would have been different. She got fired.

PIRRO: Right.

HUCKABEE: Now, before she got fired, she thought the President was fantastic. After she got fired and then she got a book contract, not until, but after she got a book contract, she decided he wasn't so cool after all. Why haven't we heard similar things from other people who have left the White House like Reince Priebus, H.R. McMaster, Sean Spicer? Many people have left and others have left the Cabinet, you don't hear that from them because they're not out there to sell a book. They're not out there trying to do something to harm the President. She betrayed his trust, she was either lying before, she was lying now or she is lying both times. But she has zero credibility.

I cannot imagine why anybody would buy this book. It makes no sense and when the title is called "Unhinged," I have to think it is an autobiography.

PIRRO: Governor Mike Huckabee, always good to have you on. Thanks so much.

HUCKABEE: Thank you, Judge.

PIRRO: All right, we will be right back.

Finally tonight, President Trump has his copy, do you have yours? My new book "Liars, Leakers & Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy" is the number one "New York Times" bestseller and you can get your copy on Amazon and Barnes & Noble and it answers your questions and everything I've been talking about is in the book.

Keep up with me throughout the week: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram to find out how to score yourself a signed copy of my book and you never have to miss "Justice." If you can watch, just set your DVR.

Thanks for watching. I'm Jeanine Pirro advocating for truth, justice and the American way. Greg Gutfeld is coming up. And I will see you next Saturday night. Thanks for watching.


Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.