Levin: Democrats pushed Mueller to skew the narrative

close

Video

Levin: Democrats pushed Mueller to skew the narrative

'Unfreedom of the Press' author Mark Levin reacts to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's press conference on the Russia investigation.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," May 29, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: All right. The great Tucker Carlson, thank you, sir.

All right. Buckle up, welcome to “Hannity.”

So much breaking news that I promise you won't get anywhere else. I want to start tonight, though, with a thank you, to you, the viewers of the show and this network. You continue to make the show not only possible but number one in all of cable news, now going on our third year, we don't ever take it for granted.

And one of the things we promise you, is unlike the hate Trump media mob, we are working hard every single day with great ensemble cast here to bring you truth, every single night, every single week. We will continue to do so. Thank you for all your support.

But we can report tonight, act one is over, in spite of the noise. Robert Mueller is out. The witch hunt has been dissolve. He said nothing today that hasn't already been in the report.

So, act two, which is surrounding the deep state's unprecedented abuse of power and corruption, that is now only beginning. That means Jim Comey, John Clapper -- James Clapper, John Brennan, and others, they are terrified. They know they are in big trouble and we'll have a lot on this throughout the hour tonight.

But, first, at this hour, what you are hearing from the Democrats, their -- well, pet parrots in the media mob is nothing more, idiotic noise. Only noise, per usual, ongoing hysteria. Not about truth, not about facts.

You've had two years of lies and hoaxes and conspiracy theories peddled every second, every minute, every hour of every day. And it's just one more round of lying tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, Trump-bashing, over a narrative that is totally dead and buried, because tonight, well, the fact remains -- there was no Trump Russia collusion. There was no obstruction, nothing has changed.

Mueller has spent 25 plus months, $25 million plus investigating a hoax and now for the fourth time, we have a conclusion. No collusion. No conspiracy.

Now, today, he officially resigned from the Office of Special Counsel but not before showing the world, of course, what we already know on this program, his partisan hackery true colors, if you will. You have career bureaucrat, nothing more than a Trump-hating partisan, who is now all but cheering for impeachment based on nothing.

And we were right the entire time. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, SPECIAL COUNSEL: If we had had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Number one, Mr. Mueller doesn't know the law. He's basically full of crap, and the special counsel's regulations, they are very clear. According to the law, remember, we got rid of the Independent Counsel Act, oh, because people like Jerrold Nadler didn't want the Ken Starr report with 11 specific felonies listed, even made public. So they change the law.

That means the attorney general of the United States under Nadler and company's new law, he has the final say, and we already know his answer. The Attorney General Barr, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the nonpartisan Office of Legal Counsel, all crystal clear on this matter. They all concluded the president did not obstruct justice, not because of some Justice Department rule or guideline, or some constitutional restriction. They actually were very clear on this point, but because there was no crime, period.

So, make no mistake. This is no cover-up. And according to a statement from the DOJ tonight, despite the special counsel's rhetoric, there is no conflict between Barr and Mueller about this matter.

In America, you know, we live in a country where the burden of proof is always on the state. Now, I know that we live in a world where media will convict a 16-year-old kid and not even make a phone call to get to any of the facts, but the reality is, in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. It is a fundamental basic constitutional right.

As the president just stated on Twitter, quote, nothing changes from the Mueller report. It was insufficient evidence. Therefore, in our country, a person is innocent, this case is closed. Thank you.

He's right. Mueller's continued public smear of a duly elected president who has been charged with no crime is completely unethical and immoral. We will explain all of this in detail.

And Mueller's actions today have nothing to do it justice, everything to do with politics, and his presser today served one purpose and that was to help the Democrats, yet give them another political bone to chew on. That bone has no meat. There is no underlying crime. There's no evidence of guilt. Just more innuendo, more speculation surrounding what we now know as a total conspiracy theory.

Compare that to the Starr report which I mentioned earlier, under the independent counsel statute. Well, independent counsel Ken Starr, he actually outlined 11 -- look right there -- specific crimes committed by then President Bill Clinton. Five counts of lying under oath, four counts of obstruction, one count of witness tampering, one count of abuse of constitutional authority.

President Clinton lost his law license. He was impeached, and he had to pay Paula Jones nearly a million dollars because of the specific crimes uncovered by Starr.

Yet today, we see a much different picture. Mueller is now just cheering for the president's impeachment over phantom obstructive of justice, with no intent, no underlying crime, and the same people screaming all over television today are not the people that would ever say, Hillary violated 18 USC 793, the Espionage Act. And then when she deleted the 33,000 subpoenaed emails, yes, and then she Bleached Bit the hard drive, and then she had an aide bust up her devices and pull out SIM cards, oh, the intention was clear, which was to destroy the evidence of the underlying crime.

Why don't anybody -- why doesn't anybody in the media ever point that out? If you were wondering whether or not Mueller is open to the transparency and accountability in this deeply flawed investigation, think again, watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUELLER: I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And for that reason, I will not be taking questions today as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Oh, Bob Mueller does not want to answer questions of Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Matt Gaetz and other Republicans and have to answer for why he hired only Democratic donors, big-time donors.

Why, for example, did Robert Mueller, I'd like to see him answer this question, why an investigation would you have hired Hillary Clinton's former attorney for the Clinton Foundation, Jeannie Rhee?

Why did you have hire a man named Andrew Weissmann, your pit bull according to "The New York Times" who has nothing but a long track record? Oh, "Licensed to Lie", Sidney Powell, withholding exculpatory evidence, of losing tens of thousands of Americans jobs in the Enron case. It being beaten down 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court, putting four Merrill executives in jail for a year and that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit. How did you hire that guy?

And, by the way, he also attended, Andrew Weissmann, Hillary Clinton's victory party on election night 2016. Not one Republican donor.

By the way, a Hillary Clinton super fan investigating her political rival. Why didn't Mueller hire any Republican donors? When did Mueller determine there was no collusion? I'd like that question answered.

And why was he more interested in FARA and taxi medallions and loan applications and taxes than he was about a dirty Russian dossier with Russian disinformation that an opposition party candidate paid for and then was used to spy on the opposition party? That, oh, people you hired said should win 100 million to zero, that Trump was loathsome. And they had an insurance policy just in case Donald Trump wins?

Why did you hire him, Mr. Mueller? Why did you hire Strzok and Page? Why did it take Michael Horowitz to reveal the text? Because you didn't do it and wiped their phones clean?

How many months to the special counsel pursue a perjury trap, obstruction charges after the president was cleared of all underlying crimes? How did you have time to get into a FARA violation and medallions and loan applications?

Yet, at no time did you, Mr. Mueller, they are to investigate the very root of this entire hoax? Hillary Clinton's dirty Russian dossier put together by a foreign spy that's not supposed to influence our elections, who by the way doesn't stand by his own dossier? "The New York Times" is suggesting likely Russian disinformation. Isn't that closer to the original mandate that Rod Rosenstein gave you?

Did you even care that Hillary Clinton paid a foreign spy to interfere in our election, and use Russian lies? Did you even care that your buddy James Comey used Hillary's Russian dossier to spy not only on an American citizen, and they spied in other ways also, but to go before a FISA court and lied by omission and not tell the court that Hillary paid for those lies, and also not verify what was in the dossier we now know that was unverifiable because the guy that wrote the dossier doesn't stand by it and says he doesn't have any idea if any of its true?

We the American people deserve answers to these questions. I want Mueller under oath. I want him held accountable. I want him answering those questions.

It's now more important than ever. Senator Graham summed it up perfectly. Act one is over. The Mueller witch hunt is done, complete, whether they like it or not.

But now, act two, the curtain is rising. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Do you share my concerns about the FISA warrant process?

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes.

GRAHAM: Do you share my concerns about the counterintelligence investigation, how it was opened and why it was opened?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHAM: Do you share my concerns that the professional -- lack of professionalism in the Clinton email of investigation is something we should all look at?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHAM: Do you expect to change her mind about the bottom-line conclusions of the Mueller report?

BARR: No.

GRAHAM: Do you think the president's campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the Russians.

BARR: Yes.

GRAHAM: And the answer is, no, according to Bob Mueller.

BARR: That's right.

GRAHAM: He couldn't decide about obstruction, you did it, is that correct?

BARR: That's right.

GRAHAM: Do you feel good about your conclusion?

BARR: Absolutely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Now, despite what you just heard, Democrats just can't let go of their two years of lying, their two years of a hoax, their two years of conspiracy theories, nor can their best friends in the media mob. And Robert Mueller's speech today was frankly just another spark to reinvigorate one more final time what is an impeachment fantasy.

Now, without a doubt, the radical, extreme Democratic socialist party, they are clamoring for impeachment more than ever before. Here is my message to them tonight. Go for it. Go for it.

I want you to reach for the stars. I want you to stay on your New Green Deal that gets rid of oil, gas, the combustion engine, cows and planes, and everything is free. And whether you're willing or unwilling to work, and I want you to stay on impeachment. You just stay right there and don't solve any problems for the American people, or serve the people that put you in Washington.

Because I know most on the left, you are probably not smart enough to realize that the handwriting is on the wall. If you think November 2016 was bad, if you think the Mueller report was bad, and you can't handle that truth, well, your quest for impeachment is political suicide, and I'm going to kind of enjoy watching you dig the hole deeper every day, because if Democrats pursue this sick dream of theirs, the election is going to be for Donald Trump in a landslide, he will win easily a second term. And at the party of FDR, well, people like Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman will forever be marginalized as a radical group of socialist extremists that don't care about the American people, or making us more safe, and more secure and more prosperous.

So, my advice to Speaker Pelosi, who is speaker in name only, give in to the temptation, give in to the Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party, and, frankly, I think you will because otherwise they will kick you out the door. Because, really, we know the real speaker is a radical freshman lawmakers who will stop at nothing to rip this country apart at its core.

But no matter what happens in the Democratic Party, whether they in the media want to face simple, basic fundamental truths, the Russia hoax is dead. Mueller's issues are dead and the truth is in the march. And with declassification last week, I'm going to sit back and enjoy every night saying, as we've been telling you for the last two years, here is the evidence because it's all coming out. The president, all of it, the FISA applications, the 302s, the gang of eight, the exculpatory evidence, it's all coming out. There's no stopping it. It's not if, it's not when.

Here with reaction to the Mueller's big speech is the president's attorney, Jay Sekulow. And, by the way, full disclosure, he sadly had the horrible dishonor of working for me in the past.

Jay, I will just throw it to you.

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: Yes.

HANNITY: Your analysis of the events today?

SEKULOW: Well, what you had today was the investigation is over. Of course, we know when the report was issued. There's nothing that Robert Mueller said today that was any different than what was in that report. There was no conspiracy, no collusion, there is no obstruction.

They made no determination on the issue of obstruction. The department of justice did and said there is no obstructive conduct.

Now, Bob Mueller today closed his case, closed his office. But no one is going to forget what started it. This investigation has been corrupt since it started, from the dossier to the FISA warrant -- you just went through the list.

But we have to be very clear here, is -- this is over. The legal aspect of this is over, politically, OK? I'm with you. If they want to go for it, good luck.

But the truth of the matter is, and I think this is where everybody needs to be focusing. You now had multiple lawyers inside of government say there is no "there" there. Nothing there that would warrant a prosecution. Nothing there that would warrant an impeachment. No crime violated.

And Bob Mueller again conflated the issue, where he talks about, if there was clear and compelling evidence of exoneration, we would do that. But that's not their job. That was never their job.

But you know what that tells you? That this was fixed the moment it started but the end result of it was exactly where it started. No collusion, no obstruction. The matter is legally closed.

HANNITY: You know --

SEKULOW: Now, we're going to find out how this started and who's responsible for it and, I think that's where you're going to see, you talked about, you know, act two, this is phase two and this is going to be serious. And I think the reaction you're seeing from left of center on this is exactly that. They know what's coming, so they're going to try to make something out of a non-statement today from Mueller. It was a non- statement, Sean, because nothing was different than that report.

HANNITY: Jay, knowing the things that I've reported about the buckets as we call them, which include the FISA applications now in the hands of the attorney general. The answer the attorney general gave that he has finalized his decision on Mueller but now, the rigged investigation to Hillary, FISA abuse, committing fraud against the FISA court, then of course, an insurance policy to bludgeon a president based on what is now an unverifiable, pretty much, Russian lies that nobody ever verified but, they still sign the FISA warrants.

When you see and you hear that and you look at the actions of these deep state actors, do you see crimes?

SEKULOW: I think, look multiple. But I think the whole FISA process, you know, we've ignored in this conversation today, although I know you've covered it today, the whole Nellie Ohr and Bruce Ohr, Fusion GPS connection on all this. You mentioned Strzok and Page, and I believe that whatever happened to that evidence together for the two months they were there when this began?

And then you asked another question which is also relevant. If in fact they knew, and they did know, that there was no collusion, no conspiracy with the Russians, why did they continue this conspiracy? And we know the reason why, that was like you said, that was -- that was the insurance policy.

But here, at the end of the day, Sean, I think it's important for the American people to understand that there was no "there" there. Nothing that was concluded violated the law. And I think at the end of the day -- what was done today and what was interesting tonight, the statement between the Department of Justice and the difference between the special counsel -- and they are saying there is no difference into what -- they're saying the same thing.

And I think reality is, Sean, this mess that was hoist upon the American people is closed and done. And that's what we need to remember.

HANNITY: Jay Sekulow, counsel to the president, thank you, sir, for being with us tonight. We appreciate it.

SEKULOW: Thanks.

HANNITY: Now, in the wake of Mueller's political speech earlier today, famed Harvard attorney Alan Dershowitz just ripped apart the special counsel writing this, quote: By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias.

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, also sharply criticism for Mueller today, writing that: Mueller's actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to the president.

Joining us now, Fox News is Sara Carter, author of "The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump", Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, and the author of "An Introduction to The Mueller Report," Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Professor, I'm going to start with you. I read your column. I almost read the whole thing on radio today.

You have tried up until today, we have much disagreement on this, to defend Mueller, to respect the process, even if we all know that under Article 2, the president always had the authority to fire him for conflicts, et cetera. We would have just been replaced. Very few people seem to point that out.

What did you see today that changed your mind?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What I saw today was him putting his thumb, his elbow on the scale, when he said, quote, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say. It was worse than anything that Comey said when he exonerated Hillary Clinton and then said, but she engaged in extremely careless conduct. Everybody condemned that.

This is much, much worse. It does show that he had a motive to help the Democrats here. There is no other possible motive. Why he would have gone out of his way to say that? He could have easily said the opposite.

If we had confidence that the president didn't commit a crime, we would have said it. If we had confidence that he committed a crime, we would have said it. But, no, he emphasized only the possibility that the president might have committed a crime. That went well beyond his authority as special counsel.

It also shows we never should have had a special counsel. We should have had an objective, neutral, nonpartisan investigative commission looking into the entire effort of Russia to intrude itself into the ‘16 election and continuing to the ‘20 election, and proposing efforts to ameliorate that in the future.

A special counsel was a terrible, terrible mistake, and I think Mueller's statement proves that beyond any doubt.

HANNITY: Gregg, you wrote a powerful column yourself, the two faces of Robert Mueller. But I will say I was steadfast in my analysis in the beginning, only Democratic donors, Weissmann at the victory party.

GREGG JARRETT, LEGAL ANALYST: Sure.

HANNITY: Weissmann, the pit bull, his atrocious record. Jeannie Rhee, he couldn't find one Republican donor, not one?

JARRETT: No. And what struck me today was, he's peddling two stories. He tells the American people that he couldn't bring an obstruction case against the president because of an Office of Legal Counsel, OLC opinion, which, by the way, is advisory, is not mandatory.

And he told William Barr, the attorney general, not once, not twice, but three times as something completely different.

HANNITY: By the way, there are witnesses to this.

JARRETT: Right, he said -- he said the OLC opinion had nothing whatsoever to do with my non-decision decision.

So who is telling the truth here? His core argument, this man's core argument that you've seen on the screen is, we cannot prove that president did not commit obstruction of justice. Think about what that means. That's a double negative.

He is reversing the burden of proof and inverting the presumption of innocence. Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerating people. He is tainting and smearing the president and forcing him to prove he didn't do something wrong. That has never been for more than 200 years the standard in American justice.

And it's not only a clever maneuver. It's a devious maneuver by a devious man, Bob Mueller.

HANNITY: Let me go to you, Sara Carter, because, you know, why were these -- his statements, Mueller's statements intended to hurt Trump. And we all know that prosecutors, if they don't reach a standard of indictment, they don't leave a cloud.

SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: That's right.

HANNITY: There's a reason for that. You don't have a right to say, I don't have the evidence, but maybe something happened. And that's what he did today.

CARTER: Yes, he did. He's -- it's shameful actually what Robert Mueller did and it's also very devious, as Gregg said. And I agree 100 percent with Alan Dershowitz on this as well.

What he did was he did leave a dark cloud and he intended to do so. I think of what Senator Chuck Schumer said last year in October, when he said to President Trump, when you go after the intelligence community, they have six ways to Sunday to getting back at you.

Think about this, think about Mueller's relationship with Comey, how close they are, how tight they are. What was going on here? What was the intention of Mueller even making this statement?

The only reason Mueller did what he did today was to presumably put that cloud over President Trump. But I've got something else to tell him based on what I'm hearing. The Department of Justice and others are investigating thoroughly, including John Durham, what happened at the very beginning of the investigation into the Russia election in -- into the election in 2016, where they tried to basically create a situation where they would find a somebody within the Trump campaign that they could say colluded with Russia.

There has been no evidence of that, there's been no collusion, there's been no obstruction, and now they are going to the very beginning of the obstruction and they're going to find out what happened, they're going to find out who did what, and the false, lies that were placed in that dossier, and how they utilized those lies to create a disinformation campaign against the president of the United States. And that's what they're afraid.

HANNITY: How overwhelming is the evidence that the president now has declassified and put in the hands of the attorney general of the United States. We've always talked about five buckets, we talked about exculpatory evidence, 302s, Gang of Eight, and the FISA applications themselves, which we know, because the top of the FISA applications, it says verified, was unverifiable. But the bulk of information that was used all four times dealt with Hillary's bought and paid Russian disinformation dossier put together by a foreign national.

CARTER: That's absolutely true. And when we look at it, it's Christopher Steele, who's a foreign national, who basically got his information from the Russians. He was paid for by an opposition political party, which was Hillary Clinton's campaign, and the Democratic National Committee.

And now we see that the Democrats are trying to gear up for impeachment, for what? There's absolutely no evidence, first of all, that the president or anybody in his campaign or any American for that matter, and that's' coming from Mueller's report, committed any crime. And you can't obstruct if there was no crime to commit.

HANNITY: Isn't it the reverse professor? You are a great defense attorney. But if you have the evidence to indict, isn't that the reverse of what should happen in terms of creating a cloud of suspicion in spite of lack of evidence?

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely. First of all, no prosecutor could ever say that a person is guilty because prosecutors only hear one side of the case. They don't have their evidence cross-examined. There's no defense lawyer. There's no opportunity to challenge, there's no due process.

So, all the prosecutors can ever say is there is sufficient evidence to indict. Let's move it to the next step, which is a trial, with all the adversarial defenses.

HANNITY: Did Robert Mueller --

DERSHOWITZ: And then we can determine whether a crime was committed. And so, Mueller could never have said there was a crime.

HANNITY: Remember, people like Nadler wanted out of the independent counsel statute. They got it. The person in charge under the special counsel statute would be the attorney general. The attorney general, deputy attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, they were giving the pass by Mueller to make the decision, they made it, despite whatever department procedures and rules might have been in place, or constitutional issues, regarding whether or whether or not you can indict a sitting president. It did not factor in and they were very clear.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, one point that's clear is if you cannot indict a sitting president, why do you have a special counsel to investigate a sitting president? Special counsels are not supposed to just make history, write for the future. They're supposed to decide one issue. Is there sufficient evidence to indict or isn't there?

HANNITY: OK.

DERSHOWITZ: And if Mueller says that that's a moot issue, what was he doing? He should have ended this investigation the day they determined that there was no evidence of collusion and he continued it on and on and on, and that was a serious mistake.

HANNITY: Quick, I'm almost out of time.

JARRETT: This was such a canard that he peddled today, Bob Mueller. He tried to blame it on the Office of Legal Counsel. Remember what that opinion says, he says you can't indict or prosecute a sitting president.

Mueller could have simply said, if he had the evidence, and he didn't, he could have said there was sufficient evidence to bring an obstruction charge, that is not a prosecution, it's not an indictment, he would leave it to the attorney general. He didn't do that because he doesn't have the evidence and the professor is right, that's exactly what Ken Starr did.

So, you know, to put it in blunt terms -- Mueller was just lying to the American people both in his report and today.

HANNITY: All right. Thank you all; for your insight, your observations, great analysis that you cannot get anywhere else because everyone else is insane. Just one of those moments in life. Thank you all.

Also, breaking tonight, according to investigative reporter at The Hill, John Solomon, witnesses told Congress that just a week before President Trump's inauguration, that the British issued a dire warning to Michael Flynn about Christopher Steele's credibility. Here with more on that investigative report, John Solomon. John, this is huge. If they were warned, and they were, and I understand there might be a note in a safe, little birdies are telling me things.

JOHN SOLOMON, VICE PRESIDENT OF DIGITAL VIDEO AND AN OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, THE HILL: Well that's what they are looking for, a grand hunt is underway tonight to find this memo that came from the British National Security Advisor to the incoming National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and the Trump administration, the date is believed to be January 12, 8 days before the inauguration, actually the same day that the FISA - the first FISA renewal occurred on Carter Page.

And here the Brits comments and say according to the witnesses who held this on their hand saw it two years ago, that the British said they didn't have confidence in the reliability or credibility of Christopher Steele's evidence in the Russia case. That is huge.

This is their former man. He was an MI6 man before he was a Hillary Clinton hitman. And I think in this case, if the Brits did communicate this and this note can be found, there are several big questions. One is, when did the FBI get that warning from the British authorities? When did the Obama administration get that warning?

There's no chance that the Brits told this to Mike Flynn and didn't also tell the Obama administration. That's not how outgoing and incoming governments work. And third, who held this document in a safe and kept it from the Congressional Oversight Committee that did two years of investigations on Russia.

Those are the questions that will be asked. And the President is going to Great Britain this weekend. He will have a chance if he wants to raise the question himself with British leaders.

HANNITY: Quick reaction, 30 seconds, to Mueller today?

SOLOMON: I thought I was watching a scenario where a star baseball pitcher signed to a team, big contract. Pitches all year, the star game comes up in the World Series, pulls lame with a Charley horse and doesn't pitch the big game. And then two months later, calls a press conference and said, if I had pitched the game, this is what would've happened.

I thought it was a real let down, it was a violation of the Attorney General guidelines. Prosecutors are not supposed to do in the court of public opinion what they can't do in the court of law. I think Bob Mueller let us down today.

HANNITY: John Solomon, great report. I tweeted it out--

SOLOMON: Thank you.

HANNITY: --@SeanHannity on Twitter. Joining us now with more reaction on those breaking news, Republican Congressman Jim Jordan. Jim, you watched the events unfold today. You just heard John's report. Your reaction?

REP.  JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Well, the first thing is Bob Mueller - Bob Mueller's report. If the report speaks for itself, why do you have to do a press conference? And what did we learn in the 9 minutes and 39 seconds of Mr. Mueller's press conference?

We learned that there was no collusion, no obstruction, after what, 22 months, $30 million, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 500 witnesses, 2800 subpoenas. It was the same darn conclusion. So that to me was the big take away. If the report speaks for itself, why did you have to do a 9 minute 39 seconds press conference where you took no questions from the press?

HANNITY: May be Jim Jordan, I've read too many of the closed-door testimonies to see what people like yourself and Mark Meadows were doing behind the scenes. Now the Congressman Doug Collins released the closed- door testimony. The question you and others would ask - Mark Meadows would ask were poignant, they were relevant, and they got to the facts.

I don't think Bob Mueller would want to go before you. I have a lot of questions about - for Bob Mueller, when did he know that there was no collusion? I'd like to know how he was interested in FARA and loan applications but he didn't seem too interested in a Russian dossier put together by a foreign national that was full of lies, that was disseminated to the public by leaks to the press, and also used to spy on opposition party campaign based on Russian lies. I'd like those answers.

JORDAN: You're right. I think there were three takeaways from today; no new information, no collusion, no obstruction after all the investigation that Bob Mueller did. The second thing was he resigned, he told us that he stepping down. And then the third, I think he doesn't want to testify.

So if it comes out, that would be up to Jerry Nadler, but there are lots of questions to ask and the key ones I think are what you were just asked Sean. This dossier, because before they went to the FISA Court in October 2016, they knew all kinds of things about the author of that dossier, Christopher Steele.

They knew he was desperate. This was communicated by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. He was desperate to stop Trump and they didn't tell the court that information. Didn't tell the court who paid for the document, namely the Clinton campaign. Those are key questions that we need answers too. The good news is Bill Barr is doing an investigation and I think he's going to get the answers.

HANNITY: We'd know that between the Inspector General, between now Mr. Durham, now the Attorney General and others, the avalanche is coming. You know it more than I do. I wish you would sneak the information to me but you kind of - you know, like Mark, you don't give me what I want to know. Thank you so much Jim Jordan.

When we come back, The Great One Mark Levin, he's chomping at the bit about what happened today and the Democrats and what they're planning. He'll join us next on this busy breaking news night. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right, Democrats they reached new heights of hysteria of breathless reporting again today after Mueller's 9 minute statement, and the push for impeachment is on. Like I said earlier today, go right ahead.

Joining us now with reaction, get this book, it is now for two weeks and running the number one book on all of Amazon.com. And a special congratulations to The Great One, Mark Levin, because his book debuts number one on "The New York Times" bestseller list, yes, beating out Howard Stern and other known authors.

The number one host 10 o'clock at night - Sunday nights here on the Fox News Channel, Life, Liberty & Levin, syndicate radio host. You know Mark, this is in your wheelhouse, you were the first person to tell me about Justice Department guidelines, as it relates to a sitting President. But it wasn't relevant in this case at all as the Attorney General Barr told us at the time.

MARK LEVIN, HOST, THE MARK LEVIN SHOW AND LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN ON FOX NEWS: I watched Mueller today. You know what crossed my mind, Sean? He sounds quite feeble, and I'm quite serious about this. And I'll explain why that matters.

So the question is, why did Mueller speak today? Why did Mueller speak today? I'm going to tell you why I think he spoke today, because the Democrats were unhappy with the report. And so they wanted Mueller to push the edge of the envelope on collusion, which today he tried to do. They wanted him to be more emphatic about the issue of obstruction, where he contradicts the Attorney General - the Deputy Attorney General which he did today.

They have the narrative that they want, and that is why now Nadler really doesn't want to call him to testify. They have their narrative. But let me ask you a question. Why doesn't Mueller want to testify? The reason is simple, there is a thousand and one questions to ask this man, from who he hired, why he hired them, why he ignored Hillary Clinton, the dossier, the real Russians?

Here is the man today who said he's not going to pass judgment, I wrote this down, on the Russians who are indicted, their guilt or innocence. But he passes judgment on the President of the United States and his guilt, and in a sense it is such a huge abomination.

I think this whole thing was orchestrated. I think he didn't want to testify. I think Nadler said, give us information we want in terms of propaganda. He gives them the propaganda. Turns out he says I'm not going to answer the press and I'm not going to talk to Congress. Is this the same guy who demanded that the President of the United States sit down for an interview on obstruction?

I want to get into a few questions I have, Sean. I want to challenge some of Mueller's premises today which is one of the reasons he didn't want to be questioned. Did Mueller say he had evidence of a crime that met the probable cause standard but could not indict? He never says that. He doesn't say it today, it's not in his report. He doesn't say he has probable cause, ever.

Number two, did he say we had to question the President about obstruction and therefore found others who had actually obstructed and charged them? No. Who are these other people? There aren't any other people, because the President didn't obstruct. So no, nobody else who was not immune was charged with obstruction for trying to cover up this investigation.

And then, there is this, why did Mueller leave it to the Attorney General to decide obstruction rather than wait a couple of years and see if the President wins reelection, and if he doesn't, then indict him in 2020? Notice he didn't do that. The answer is there were no crimes, he had no case, there was no probable cause, and yet, by Mueller writing Volume II and giving his little spiel today - and he was very feeble. And I'm serious about this.

This is not a man who would do well under seven, eight, nine and ten hours of questioning, with Republicans honing in on so many issues. So the question is why did he do this today? Why did he do this today, listen to the Democrats today. They are thrilled with this man. They were not thrilled with him yesterday, they are thrilled with him today because they think, and they are wrong, that he delivered new information.

The problem with the media is this. I just went through some basic lawyering, does he mention that he could have charged because he had probable cause? No, he didn't. Who are these other people who obstructed justice that there were interested in with the President? There weren't any, there wasn't any.

Why didn't he wait a couple of years? What's he in a hurry for now, nobody bothers him. He's noble, he's better than everybody else. Rather than toss it to the Attorney General, why didn't he wait a few years? Well, because he didn't have anything.

I want to remind Mr. Mueller of something that a first year law student knows. The Fifth Amendment, it's called due process. The Sixth Amendment, it's called a right to a jury trial. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, presumption of innocence. You burned every one of those amendments, Mr. Mueller, just because you can't indict a sitting President.

I heard somebody say, sure he can indict a sitting President, it's just that the Attorney General can reverse course. That's not what the memos say. It says you cannot indict a sitting President. I was explaining this from day one. That's why I never understood this obstruction investigation, I never understood the appointment of a Special Counsel, where you don't have any predicate crime. This whole damn thing has been a setup against this President and it is still.

Republicans, you drag this man in front of the House Judiciary Committee if you can, you demand it every time, and you question him. Lindsey Graham, you are Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you get him in front of your Committee and you question him.

And you ask him the questions, who is behind this report, why did he write this report, has he been communicating with the Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have they leaked to? If they've leaked to anybody else, you ask for documents, you asked for emails, you give Mueller the Trump treatment, and let's see how that ends.

HANNITY: Well said. Great One, debuting that book "Unfreedom of The Press" number one "The New York Times" two weeks, number one Amazon.com so on Hannity.com. And the reason your books do so well is the research and substance. It is exhaustive research. Well done, Mark, thank you.

LEVIN: The true shall set you free.

HANNITY: Amen. Life, Liberty & Levin Sunday nights, the number one show, 10 p.m. on cable right here on Fox.

Coming up, the Hate Trump Media Mob that couldn't contain their excitement after Mueller read his statement today. We will show you all the despicable yet predictable coverage. We get reaction from Mike Huckabee and Joe Concha, straight ahead.

(COMMERCILA BREAK)

HANNITY: All right, it would be reasonable to say the Mueller presser today was nothing more than a media spectacle. And of course, the Hate Trump Medium Mob predictably made sure to get their last bit of mileage out of their conspiracy theories, their lies and their hoax for two years. Take a look at the meltdown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We seem to be moving toward a place where impeachment may be inevitable. The dam really seems to be breaking wide open.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This obstruction point is also impossible to look away from, because I think what he has really saying is Congress has a job to do.

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: They now have the green light if they want it, from Mueller's statement, that the ball is in their court and now they have got to pick it up and run with it and do the right thing.

UIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every single day that the President sits in that office, he's obstructing justice, right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because if he had spoken plain language, what he would have said today was, anyone who read my report and said no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration is a big fat liar. That's what he would have said. In English no lawyer used--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If he had - on my potty mouth, or yours.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The unrestrainted--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: This is like two of the dumbest people on TV. I mean, it's funny. After two years of lies, hoaxes, conspiracy theories, they just can't let it go. Wait till the avalanche comes, because of declassification. It's going to be entertaining.

Joining us with reaction, The Hill's Joe Concha, Fox News Contributor and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Governor, you watched this now for two years. We know there was nothing, the same media that ignored Hillary's Espionage Act violations, 18 U.S.C. 793, and the intent what she did the subpoenaed emails, 33,000. Notice they never look at that just like they care about Kavanaugh in high school, but they don't care about the Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and they don't care about Russia, especially with Hillary's phony bought and paid for dossier?

MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Let's be real clear. The Democrats and the media which is the same thing, they are like little kids who are still hunting Easter eggs on the Fourth of July.

This thing is over and they just can't quit running around with their basket looking for the eggs that aren't there. And today, was a great indication. You're going to toss it to Jerrold Nadler? This is a guy who can't find his own rear end with both hands and a flashlight, because he's been looking and looking and he can't find anything. So it's over, Sean. It's just flat over.

HANNITY: Listen, politically this is suicide for them. They want to dig the hole deeper, keep going. Joe, from the media perspective, this is what you do, this is what you analyze. I have yet to see an apology about false reporting, lying, anonymous sources, conspiracy theories. I guess I better not hold my breath.

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER/COLUMNIST FOR THE HILL: Don't hold your breath. And today, by the way, was recycled news, because Robert Mueller didn't tell us anything that wasn't already in the report. The problem is most members of the media and most lawmakers even on the Democratic side have not read this report.

And by the way, Robert Mueller who is an unelected official, with unlimited power and unlimited time, these two years, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 witnesses interviewed, 40 FBI agents, and after all that time, two and half years, he doesn't take one question after what was called a press conference today. Press conferences mean the press is there, they actually ask questions - there's plenty of questions to ask at this point.

HANNITY: You know what was funny today? Please, Jerry Nadler, don't bring me before Congress, I don't want to face that Jim Jordan guy, I don't want to face Mark Meadows.

HUCKABEE: That would be very interesting.

HANNITY: And Governor, Mark Levin raised all the important questions. When did he know there was no conspiracy, why did he hire this abusively biased team, and why did he ignore the dirty dossier, Russian Dossier?

HUCKABEE: Well, yes, he did all of that because there was an agenda and the agenda was not to find the truth, the agenda was to go after Donald Trump. And that is why Attorney General Barr has got to take this to ground for the sake of the country. This is no longer about Donald Trump, this is about America and its future.

CONCHA: Wall Street Journal, NBC News poll just from two weeks ago, 19% of independents want to see impeachment proceedings commenced. That's not how you win elections in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

HANNITY: Thank you all. Alright, when we come back, Laura Ingraham will give her reaction to today's events, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right, before we go, we bring in our friend, our colleague for reaction to all the breaking news today, Laura Ingraham. I know your legal background. I think that factors into today, but I'm fascinated in your take?

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Yes, Sean, I've got to say the appearance by Mueller was - it was battling on the one hand and utterly predictable on the other. I mean, he didn't need to come out in front of the cameras - I'm going to get into this in my show later in the next hour - he didn't need to come out in front of the camera. So why did he? Why did he feel it was necessary when they were like--

HANNITY: Okay, answer your own question, I think it's because he was sending a message don't call me before Congress, I don't want to meet Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows.

INGRAHAM: I don't think -- he obviously is petrified about going before Congress. He wants this to be his last word. But Sean, with the very strange way this report was compiled, I think the idea that the American people don't get to see more from him and the thought process behind his compilation of this report is a bit arrogant for someone who has had this storied legal career and someone who was sold to us as the consummate professional, so it was a bizarre. It was kind of a bizarre almost defeated you know performance today. I mean he looked like a man that was kind of out of steam frankly.

HANNITY: I agree with that too. But you know Professor Dershowitz was so dead on accurate. Remember that's only one side of the story. They don't go to the other side. We both have been reporting extensively now that this is really over and the same people that denied the results of the election denied what the truth of the Mueller Report. The avalanche of misconduct, abuse of power, corruption that's coming.

INGRAHAM: But Hannity, remember when these people, these vaunted liberals from the civil rights establishment and they're all for transparency and government surveillance are always warning us about that. You know how they're silent now. I mean John Brennan can just cook up these--

HANNITY: There is scarce.

INGRAHAM: Sources that provided this dossier and we can all think that these sources are reliable, and we're supposed to all just look the other way. Imagine if this were happening to an Obama era official, the same facts pointed the other way, they would be freaking out right now. But it's Trump, so you can do anything.

HANNITY: Well, the double standard is clear. I know you're going to have a great show. Thanks for joining us for a little extra time.

INGRAHAM: Oh! Absolutely. Any time.

HANNITY: I'll be watching.

INGRAHAM: All right, anytime, Sean.

HANNITY: Have a great show.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.