Mark Levin on the release of the Mueller report

This is a rush transcript from "Life, Liberty & Levin," April 21, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARK LEVIN, HOST: Hello America, I'm Mark Levin. This is a special edition of "Life, Liberty & Levin." Why a special edition? Because our republic is at stake. Our very republic is at stake. The separation of powers has broken down. The rule of law has broken down. The media -- the media who we rely on, the media have broken down.

We have a mob mentality now in this country -- at least half the people in the country and the majority in the House of Representatives want to continue with this coup and why do I call it a coup?

Well, now we have the Mueller report. You've been hearing about it for several days. Here is the Mueller report. See the Mueller report? That's the Mueller report.

Now this is Volume 1 of the Mueller report -- Volume 1. You should enjoy this. It cost you $345 million. Now Volume 1 of the Mueller report is 200 pages. Why did they need 200 pages and $35 million to tell us there was no collusion? There was never any collusion.

This collusion issue was pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. There are things that have been done in the last three years to candidate Trump, President-elect Trump and President Trump that should not occur in the United States of America.

Senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- these individuals should be charged. They're the ones who interfered with our election even more effectively than the Russians. They are still at it.

Senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they planted a spy -- that's right, a spy -- in the Trump administration. They lie to Federal courts not once, but four times -- the FISA Court -- in order to get a counterintelligence warrant and they got it. And who are they spying on? Page? It was a backdoor effort to go after the Trump campaign.

You had the Hillary campaign, the Obama administration trying to take out the Republican candidate for President of the United States under their preposterous notion that he was conspiring with Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump has never in his entire life shown a dislike for his country. He loves his country. It is the people who have set this up who despise their country and despise our election system.

We hear all the time from Democrats about suppressing the vote. They not only want to suppress the vote, they want to reverse the course of history. They want to change the outcome of an election. They hate the fact that Donald Trump won in 2016.

Senior level of the FBI, senior intelligence officers, the White House, the Democrats they did everything they could to prevent Donald Trump from being President of the United States, but you decided otherwise. You elected a President of the United States. They wanted their third term of Obama. Well, they got their first term of Trump and they are furious.

This whole idea that there was collusion. You and I knew it from day one that it was phony -- phony. But they used Federal law enforcement, Federal intelligence and then they appoint a Special Counsel. There's no collusion says the Special Counsel that takes one sentence. It doesn't take 200 damn pages, it doesn't take $35 million. One sentence, "No collusion," he says by the President, by the campaign, by his staff, by the White House, by his family, by any American. No collusion.

Then let me ask you a question, how the hell did he get appointed? How did he get appointed? McCabe: The Deputy Director of the FBI does an interview on "60 Minutes." It's all about collusion. That Trump, well maybe he is a spy, that Trump -- well we think, he was working with the Russians. You had the media -- the media in this country. We don't have a free press in this country. We have an unfree press in this country and they're at it as I speak.

All of a sudden, this part of the report -- collusion -- that's out. Now, we go after obstruction. Now, we go after obstruction and I'll get to this in a moment.

This is a disgrace what's being done to this country by the Democratic Party and by the media -- one and the same. It is a disgrace. We don't have news reporters, not on CNN and MSNBC. "New York Times" you can't tell the editorial page from the news page. Mistake after mistake after mistake in reporting. "Washington Post," "New York Times" -- oh they get Pulitzer prizes and they got more Pulitzer prizes.

CNN has to fire three fools for putting out information that was fake and yet the head of CNN, Zucker -- you think -- what do you expect us to do? We have to investigate these things.

This is the greatest scandal in American history, not that the Russians tried to interfere with our election. They did, and they always do, the way Obama interfered with the Israeli election, but the Obama administration also interfered with this election and I've been saying for two years, there is no way in hell the President of the United States and the people in the Oval Office didn't know something about this. Now, how do we know? Because it was in the newspaper.

When I came to you two years ago, March and I laid the case out with exhibit after exhibit after exhibit. The system isn't working. The checks and balances aren't working. Where are these Federal judges that were appointed as FISA Court judges? Where are they? They see what has taken place. They see they were lied to. They see that was opposition research and dishonest -- lying opposition research -- that was put in a dossier used by the FBI to get a warrant. Where is the evidentiary hearings? Where is the contempt hearings? Where are these Federal judges? They ought to abolish the FISA Courts because they don't work. Because the only people in that courtroom -- in that secret courtroom -- is the FISA judge and the government -- and the government. The targets, they have no say whatsoever.

Which brings me back to this pathetic joke of a report. Four hundred -- four hundred pages of what? BS. We already knew there was no collusion. No evidence whatsoever and yet they conduct a Federal investigation.

When Mr. Mueller came up to other violations, he says, tax fraud, this fraud -- those are U.S. Attorney investigations. You don't have a Special Counsel for that.

So basically, there was no reason to appoint Mueller and Mueller found nothing. That's the headline. No collusion. Despite what the FBI did. Despite what the Department of Justice did. Despite what these FISA judges did. Despite what the Obama administration did. Despite the Hillary campaign and the DNC. No collusion. That's the headline and instead obstruction of justice.

There was obstruction of justice. Was the President charged? No. Well, why wasn't he charged? Well, you can't indict a sitting President. Really? Who came up with that idea?

I was the one who explained you can't indict a sitting President, so if you can't indict a sitting President, why do you appoint a Special Counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of a President? If we all agree you can't indict a sitting President, well, they appoint one anyway. Why did they appoint one?

Because Chuck Schumer demanded it. The Democrats demanded it. James Comey, Mr. Leaker, he demanded it. So they demand it and you get a Special Counsel? And who do they pick? Mueller. And who is Mueller? He is best friends with Comey. Oh that makes sense.

With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, if the President was under investigation, you should have been, too, because you're one of the ones who recommended that he fire Comey and let's be honest, Comey should have been fired. His conduct was outrageous, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The whole senior level of the FBI is gone. Almost all of them are under criminal or independent counsel investigation.

Trump didn't do that. They're under investigation. The senior level of the FBI -- I've never seen anything like it. We were told, the President of the United States was going to fire Mueller. We've even had some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee join with Democrats and said we need to pass legislation to protect Mueller. Did the President fire Mueller? No.

We were told that there would be a Saturday Night Massacre like there was in Watergate. That once the President fired Comey, he'd go right down the list and fire the rest of them. Did he? No, he didn't. We were told the President would assert this privilege and that privilege to prevent his staff and others -- others -- from assisting in this all-important investigation. Did he?

Let me tell you something, he is the only President in modern history who did not once assert any Presidential privilege including executive privilege to prevent documents or of people around him, including his own White House lawyer from talking to Mueller as much as they wanted to talk to Mueller and as much as Mueller wanted to talk to them. He was an open book. They could see everything they want.

You even have reporters going through, "Oh, Volume 2, look how embarrassing. Look at this. Look at that." They wouldn't even know about any of that if the President of the United States didn't waive every single privilege and then the report is sent to the Attorney General. The President still didn't assert privilege.

Let us not forget, the President is the Executive Branch, not Mr. Mueller and not the Attorney General. He is there to protect the Executive Branch and the office of the President. You know what this President said? No recent President in history has said this, he said, "The way for me to protect the office of the presidency, the way for me to protect the Executive Branch against all these allegations is to make sure everything is available. Everything is out there." Everything is out there.

Now, this Volume 2 of obstruction of justice, there's not a lot of redaction. You know why? Because it's not really legal investigation. It's pablum. It's gossip. This staffer said this. This one saw this. We have this one's notes who said this. This one said that. The only reason you know that is because the President of the United States did not assert privilege.

Now, Mr. Mueller didn't write this report all by himself. I doubt he's read this report all by himself. He had help. Probably from Weisberg or Weissmann and probably some of the other Democrats on his staff. No question about this. Who was this report written for? Who was it written for? He didn't even try to charge the President with anything. He knew what would happen to this report.

Bill Bar, when he was nominated to be Attorney General of the United States. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate, he said, "I'm going to release as much of this report as I possibly can." Wow. Cover up. Redactions. Very little is redacted. So they're wrong again.

Mueller wasn't fired. Minimal redactions. But he says, "I'm going to release as much as I can," so what does Mueller think? And what do all his prosecutors think? Including the ones who supported Hillary Clinton and Obama including Weissman who was at the Hillary Clinton victory party. Sorry, pal, you lost. Who was that written for?

When this thing was finished, they also knew that Democrats took over the House of Representatives. They also knew that under Article 2 Section 4, the Democrats were hungry for impeachment. How do we know? The day after the President was elected, Donald Trump, they were talking about impeachment. He sees it. We all see it. The Mueller team saw it and so the Mueller team wrote particularly, Volume 2 for the Democrats in the House of Representative.

This is an impeachment report. This is an abuse of power by a prosecutor. This is the only prosecutor in the entire country who writes a report. Under Justice Department regulations, a report that is only supposed to go to the Attorney General who then makes decisions about whether to release any of it or all of it, the Attorney General decides because there's no requirement that this report be released at all.

But Mueller knew the Attorney General was going to release most of it because the Attorney General said so, so they wrote the report. They wrote it for CNN. They wrote it for MSNBC. They wrote it for Nadler and Schiff and all the other reprobates. They wrote the report for them.

Now, is that what a prosecutor supposed to do? Is that an abuse of power? Is that the proper use of our tax dollars? Let's get back to fundamentals here. When you accuse somebody of an offense or you suggest that you can exonerate them -- now we have a prosecutor who claims to be able to exonerate people -- another first. That's not his job. How do they defend themselves?

This runs completely contrary to a civilized society, to our constitutional system -- completely contrary to it. Is there a single Democrat member of the House of Representatives who gives a damn? No. Is there a single host or guest on CNN or MSNBC, a single so-called news person at the "New York Times" or "Washington Post" or any of these outlets who cares about the constitutional system? Who cares about the justice system? Not one. All of a sudden, they like those police state tactics.

Don't forget ladies and gentlemen, almost every weeknight, you can watch me on Levin TV. Give us a call at 844-LEVIN-TV, 844-LEVIN-TV to sign up or go to blazetv.com/mark, blazetv.com/mark. We'd love to have you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back to our special edition of "Life, Liberty & Levin." I should call it liberty and tyranny. Ladies and gentlemen, this monstrosity of a report where reporters have been trying to find stuff in it, cherry- pick. I've got a breaking news story. News alert. No collusion. That's the beginning and the end of it. No collusion. But apparently not.

And there's a paragraph they keep citing in this report, barely literate, but here it is, "We also sought a voluntary interview with the President. After more than a year of discussion, the President declined to be interviewed [Redacted: Grand Jury]. Ultimately, while we believed that we had the authority and legal justification to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the President's testimony, we chose not to do so. We made the decision in view of the substantial delay that such an investigative step would likely produce at a late stage in our investigation. We also assessed that based on the significant body of evidence we had already obtained, the President's actions and his public and private statements describing or explaining those actions, we had sufficient evidence to understand relevant events and to make certain assessments without the President's testimony."

You're a liar Mr. Mueller. I'll tell you why you didn't subpoena him because you were lost, because you had no predicate whatsoever. You had concluded months, months, months before the closing of your investigation that there was no collusion. You don't get to just subpoena a President to appear before a grand jury and you know that any court, but especially the Supreme Court would put you to the test. What exactly is it that you're looking for, Mr. Mueller? What exactly is it that you're doing?

And just to show how deceitful and dishonest you are, you even say in your own words, "Hey, look, we had pretty much the information that we needed. We didn't really need to go through this long process and all the rest. We could get the information elsewhere." Then why did you make a big deal of trying to interview the President of the United States? It is a big deal. Why did you try to do that? And why did you insist on it?

So he would have lost his subpoena battle, ladies and gentlemen, so he's not telling the truth and he would have lost it and that would have been that. But that's not why he backed off. You know why backed off? Because he and his little cabal over there in the Special Counsel's Office, in their little cloistered conference room, they no doubt got together and said, "We don't need the President's testimony. We can smear him without it. We can smear him without it."

And you know what ladies and gentlemen, that's what this is. This is the smear job -- Volume 2 of the President of the United States. Oh, and there was the "Washington Post." You know I have their app. I can't figure out how to get it off my iPhone, I'm not very good at that stuff.

Mueller -- ten cases of where the President may have obstructed justice. Well, maybe he did; maybe he didn't. You know, one of those deals. We know every one of those ten matters, every one of them. They're not a surprise and they're all BS.

You know how I know they're all BS? Because he didn't try to charge the President of the United States. No secret sealed indictments. I remember some legal analyst saying that they could do that and pull the statute of limitations. Didn't do that. No subpoena. Didn't do that. Just easier to make allegations and smears. There's not another prosecutor in this country who can get away with this and if Mr. Mueller wasn't hiding behind this pathetic Department of Justice regulation, he would be disbarred. He would be disbarred and the people behind the scenes who are contributing to this report, writing this report for the House of Representatives, writing this impeachment report for the House of Representatives, they would be disbarred, too.

That's the reason that he didn't seek a subpoena, not only would he lose, because ladies and gentlemen, they can smear the President of the United States without it and that's exactly what's been done here. But they're not done.

The media is leading the charge. Have you seen these legal analysts? How are they legal analysts? Do you have to be a slip-and-fall lawyer to be a legal analyst? Do you have to be so pathetically foolish and hyper political to be a legal analyst?

I look over at CNN. You see that legal analyst? I look over at MSNBC. You see that legal analyst? These are legal analysts? What the hell have they ever done? Well one of them used to work for an Independent Counsel, Lawrence Walsh. That didn't end very well, did it Toobin? The other one, Abrams -- Dan Abrams -- not particularly sharp either, but they've been wrong the whole time. All of a sudden, no talk about collusion.

How many of these legal analysts? How many of these anchormen? How many of these so-called reporters? How many of these so-called former Federal prosecutors and academia and all the rest? How many of them are going to apologize to the American people? No collusion. How many of them said, "Well, he could be indicted for this and indicted for that."

Adam Schiff, "I've got hard evidence." Mark Warner, he has got hard evidence. No evidence. Nothing on collisions. So what do they get? We've got to fall back on obstruction. We've got to fall back on obstruction.

Now, here's my question to you -- how in the world can a President of the United States be accused of obstruction by any objective person when he doesn't trigger any privilege at any time for anything while his administration is being investigated? While he allows every single member of his staff including his own White House counsel to spend time with the prosecutors? When in fact he fired nobody other than Comey who deserved it plus some? How can you accuse him of obstruction?

Well, it's the intent. Did he have a corrupt intent? Well, clearly he had no corrupt intent or he would have done a hell of a lot more than he did. Well, you know, it doesn't mean there has to be an underlying crime. So here we are. On the one hand, legally, he's in the clear. Always was, by the way. I announced that like a year and a half ago. He is in the clear.

On the other hand, we have politics. We have politics. So now we're told that this half of the report, Volume 2, obstruction, raises political questions, impeachment questions. So we're beyond the legal issues.

The President didn't do anything wrong. Now, we're going to leave it to the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Jerrold Nadler -- everybody knows he is objective. He is so smart. Now, we're going to leave it to him and his fellow Democrats the political jury to take a look at this and to pursue other information and to decide if the President of the United States should be removed from office. The same President of the United States they sought to prevent from getting in office in the first place under this collusion nonsense, now they want to remove him from being President of the United States on this obstruction nonsense. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AISHAH HASNIE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I'm Aishah Hasnie. Sri Lanka blocking most social media services following this morning's deadly suicide attacks in and around the capital, Colombo. The attacks at churches and hotels killed at least 200 people and injured 450 others. Several Americans are among those victims. Officials in Sri Lanka say they are temporarily blocking social media to prevent the spread of false information; however, critics say it can instead create an information vacuum that is easily exploited.

Well, the U.S. is expected to announce tomorrow that it is ending a waiver program allowing some countries to keep importing Iranian oil despite sanctions. In November, the U.S. gave such waivers to eight countries. Three countries stopped the imports by themselves, but Turkey, China, South Korea, India and Japan are still buying that oil. I'm Aishah Hasnie, now back to "Life, Liberty & Levin."

LEVIN: Welcome back to this special edition of "Life, Liberty & Levin." Liberty and tyranny. I have a question for you, America. No collusion in any way, any form by anybody. No collusion. And they looked for it and they tried to create it. They tried to create it, they failed.

When did Mr. Mueller realize there was no collusion? All of us realized it from day one. How long did it take him to figure that out? Some people believe a year and a half ago, by then he knew. Some people have looked in the indictments that they brought, plea deals that they got, the convictions that they got. No word of collusion or conspiracy or collaboration if you will, nothing. Nothing. They had to know there was no collusion early on.

So my question to you, ladies and gentlemen, why did Mueller wait? I asked this question on my radio show several weeks ago. Why did Mueller wait? Wait to this report. To tell the Attorney General of the United States there was no collusion. All the tumult going on in the nation, the dark cloud hanging over the presidency, the propagandists and the demagogues dressed up as news reporters and analysts all over television, the phony reporters for the "New York Times" and the "Washington Post" pushing collusion , collusion, collusion when Mueller knew there was no collusion. Why did he allow that to happen to this country? Why did he wait?

You know why he waited? The second half of the report. Volume 2. One of the other reasons you see Mr. Mueller didn't decide to take his subpoena and go all the way through the court system to try and force the President of the United States to testify in front of a grand jury was because not only did Mr. Mueller know he had nothing. He wanted to trap the President of the United States and that wouldn't go over very well with Supreme Court justices, but that would become transparently obvious to those smart men and women on the court who would question him, who would read the briefs. Not just his brief, but the brief of the President's attorneys.

Now what am I talking about? Remember, I read that piece to you from the report where Mueller says, "Well, look we were near the end of our investigation. We pretty much had everything we wanted. I mean, so we weren't going to duke it out for a couple of years, you know, in the courts over a subpoena to force the President to testify before our grand jury. We had pretty much what we wanted. Why would you question the President at all? In front of a grand jury? Written questions? Video? Anything? If you already know there was no collusion. Why would you try and trick the President of the United States with conflicting public statements maybe or whatever? Why would you try to take out a President of the United States? I don't care who the President is.

Why would you try and take out a sitting President of the United States when you already knew that candidate Trump, campaign Trump, President-elect Trump, President Trump had nothing to do with colluding with the Russians. That all that crap on news programs was false. Why would you Mr. Prosecutor wait? Why would you do that? Because you wanted to damage him. That's why. And you didn't want to undermine your impeachment case you thought, that's why.

You knew the Democrats might win. You knew they might come in. You kind of liked the media attention. That is the attacks on the President of the United States. I can't think of another reason. I mean you loaded up your staff with Obama and Clinton supporters and donors, he didn't much care about that, I can't think of another reason why you would sit on such crucial information -- collusion, collusion, collusion -- why you would sit on it for maybe a year, maybe a year and a half, maybe longer.

And then demand and threaten the President of the United States that you want to interview him in person and then leak information -- somebody did to the media about questions you might ask about obstruction. You were trying to trick the President of the United States, weren't you? You were trying to get him removed from office, weren't you?

That's exactly what you were doing, and he didn't bite the hook. He said no. You have questions, put them in writing and I'll answer it and by the way, this should be a lesson to all of you, America. This is why we have a judicial system, folks. This is why prosecutors don't get to decide if somebody is exonerated or not. This isn't the Soviet Union. This isn't some Starr chamber, although, it sure looks like it.

The fact of the matter is, we have a whole checks and balance system in our court system. We have a Bill of Rights. We have due process. We have presumption of innocence. And just because a prosecutor makes allegations means nothing. A prosecutor always, except, here as to make their case in a courtroom. They get challenged. Their witnesses get challenged. Their information gets challenged. Their witnesses get cross examined. There's a jury that observes. There's a judge that oversees it. There's rules of evidence. There's all kinds of standards that are required to protect the defendant -- to protect the defendant -- so how is the President going to be protected? Even though there's no collusion. How is he going to be protected from Mueller? He is not. He is not.

You have a rogue system with a rogue prosecutor who makes these allegations, who writes essentially this long op-ed for the "New York Times" puts it in a report. I can remember when the Independent Counsel statute existed. I represented former Attorney General Meese in the Iran Contra matter after I left the Justice Department.

We had the right to provide a reply to the prosecutor's report before it could be released. You aware of that? Because that's even a modicum of justice. People who are accused of stuff have to be able to defend themselves, even if it's not in a courtroom, you've got a bogus report system. They don't even allow that. The President's lawyers putting out a report, but it's not part of the official report, so there's no way to defend it.

And when word got out and it wasn't leaked, it was just routine that the President's lawyers at the White House that some information was shared with them from the Justice Department about the soon-to-be-released redacted report, you hear Chuck Todd on his endless "Meet the Press" program that I think runs five times a day every day, he was shocked. "You want collusion," he said. "That's collusion." This is the problem with having lightweights on TV who think they know what they're talking about. That is the minimum you do to allow an American citizen who is also President of the United States. Some information about what's going to be said about him. They don't have to wait for Jerrold Nadler or the Democratic Party or the Democratic Party media to get the information. The person whose name and reputation and in this case, administration is on the line has every right to have some information about what is about to be said about them by a prosecutor who doesn't have any of his allegations tested in a court of law. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Well, the Democrats in Congress aren't done. You see, they believe they have legislative oversight. Legislative oversight of what? Well, they want oversight of the President's taxes in his bank accounts and his accounting firm. Now, wait a minute.

I read Article 2 of the Constitution that sets up our Congress. They don't get to delve into an individual citizen's tax returns or their bank accounts even if that citizen happens to be President, even more so. There are issues like separation of powers. Congress doesn't get to dig into a President's private investments, financial activities, businesses, tax returns unless they have something more than say collusion. Unless they have something that really is serious. They have nothing. Nothing.

These police state tactics never end, but we should expect this of our Democratic friends. Why? Well, Franklin Roosevelt used to use the IRS against his political opponents. He used the IRS against Andrew Mellon, the former Secretary of the Treasury under Coolidge and they tried to destroy Mellon. The problem was Mellon was a very wealthy man who actually paid his taxes.

FDR wanted to put him in prison. He ordered his Treasury Secretary to do exactly that. Andrew Mellon was hounded by the IRS for years, an innocent man and they knew he was innocent. Or how about Huey Long. FDR didn't much like Huey Long because he thought Huey Long was outflanking him on the left. Huey Long, senator from Louisiana, former Governor, wildly popular and he was concerned that he might have a challenger next go-round by Huey Long in the Democratic primary.

So he directed his Treasury Secretary, Morgenthau who again directed the IRS find dirt on Huey Long. Well, they found dirt on the circle around Huey Long and they were focusing it on Huey Long, but he got assassinated. But that's not all. FDR unleashed the IRS against newspaper publishers he didn't like. Oh, it's true. I'm sure the media today might be shocked that their great progressive hero did exactly that. He did exactly that. But it wasn't just FDR.

John Kennedy, may I mention that? John Kennedy used the IRS against his political opponents and the "Newsweek" magazine knew about it because Ben Bradlee knew about it, because among those who received leaked FBI information was Ben Bradlee, later of the "Washington Post." And he also sic the IRS on his political opponents and he also bugged people that he was concerned about, as did Robert Kennedy. One of them, you may have heard of, Martin Luther King.

Johnson picked up where Kennedy left off and took it even further. Johnson used the IRS against his political opponents and used the FBI against his political opponents. Again, Martin Luther King, but Johnson actually had Hubert Humphreys phones tapped when Hubert Humphrey his Vice President was running for President of the United States because he was concerned about what Hubert Humphrey would say about the Vietnam War.

Johnson had the Goldwater campaign tapped because he wanted to know what the Goldwater campaign was up to. Johnson had the FBI in Atlantic City at the Democratic convention monitoring his opponents and getting regular feedback from J. Edgar Hoover.

And so I'm not surprised, although I'm disgusted that the Democrats in the House of Representatives have learned a lot from FDR and John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson among others because they want to see Donald Trump's tax returns. Of course, they don't control the Executive Branch, but they control the House of Representatives.

Now, we have a Chairman of a Committee in the house, Elijah Cummings and Elijah Cummings has sent a letter to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the accounting firm of the President who handles his businesses among other things and here's what he wants, "To assist our review of these issues." These issues, you know that Trump may not be paying his taxes. By the way, we have an Internal Revenue Service for that. That's not the job of Democrats in the House.

"With respect to Donald J. Trump, Donald J Trump Revocable Trust, the Trump Organization, the Trump Organization LLC, the Trump Corporation, DJT Holdings LLC, the Trump Old Post Office, the Trump Foundation, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, joint venture, predecessor and successor the foregoing." What does he want?

"One, all statements of financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports and independent auditors reports prepared, compiled, reviewed or audited by your CPA firm or its predecessors. Two, without regard to time, all engagement agreements or contracts related to the preparation, compilation, review or auditing of the items described in number one. Three, all underlying supporting our source documents and records used in the preparation, compilation, review or auditing of items described in request one; any summaries of such documents, records relied upon any request for such documents and records. Four, all memoranda, notes and communications related to the preparation, compilation, review or auditing of the items described in request one including, but not limited to ..." to listen to this, " ... all communications between Donald Bender and Donald J. Trump or any employer representative of the Trump Organization.." So his communications with his own accountant.

"B. All communications related to potential concerns that records, documents, explanations or other information including significant judgments provided by Donald J. Trump or other individuals from the Trump Organization were incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise unsatisfactory."

It goes on. These are Stalinist tactics. These are tactics -- the worst tactics, the worst tyrannical tactics picked up by past Presidents who went after their political opponents. You and I, we should be rising up. We have no choice but to pay our Federal income taxes.

Look what they're trying to do to Donald Trump. Why? Because he got elected President of the United States. Why? Because they lost. Why? Because they want to take the White House back in 2020. Why? Because they want to use power under Article 2 Section 4 of the Impeachment Clause and we the American people, we're paying for all of this. We're paying for every damn piece of this.

They're using the House of Representatives as opposition research for 2020 or is it after they try and impeach the President of the United States. You should be furious about this.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, most times during the week I have a program called Levin TV and we run it on blazetv.com/mark. I hope you'll join us. I hope you'll join us. Give us a call at 844-LEVIN-TV, 844-LEVIN-TV or go to blazetv.com/ mark. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back, America. We're not done. There's Maxine Waters, the new head of the Financial Services Committee. She chairs that committee. Now, what has she done? House Democrats subpoenaed nine large banks this week in connection with an investigation into President Trump's financial ties. Financial ties to what?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, he said the subpoenas were related to potential foreign influence in the U.S. political process including whether Russians laundered money through the Trump Organization. Are you allowed to just say whatever you want as a basis for subpoenaing records? Apparently so.

The banks include JPMorgan Chase & Company, Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo & Company, Bank of America, Capital One Financial Corp., Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, "The Wall Street Journal" reported.

The House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee have already been in a productive dialogue with Deutsche Bank which has loaned the President and his companies more than $2 billion over the years, the number of and specific banks subpoenaed has not been previously reported.

What the hell is this about? Well, you know we're Congress, we have to make sure our financial institutions -- even financial institutions overseas our functioning. I have an idea. Nancy and Paul Pelosi, the Pelosi couple, the lovely Speaker and her husband -- why don't you turn over all your bank records so we can see if you're playing hanky-panky with legislation in the House of Representatives.

I have another idea. Why don't you turn over ten years of your Federal income tax returns? I have another idea. Why don't you have your accountant turn over all the records that he or she has involving including questions that you may have asked, any notes and any memoranda?

My idea, ladies and gentlemen, is this. Co-equal branches, whatever they demand of the President of the United States, they should demand of every single member of the House of Representatives and the Senate starting with the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: I don't know how our President handles this day in and day out, but I do want him to know something. There are tens of millions of us who support him. There are tens of millions of us who support what he is trying to do for this country. There are tens of millions of us who reject what's taking place inside the beltway and inside most newsrooms in this country.

The regular people of this country who pay taxes, who work every day, the regular people of this country who love this country, who love the Constitution and love the flag, we know that you represent us. Stay strong. We've got your back.

And we'll see you next time on "Life, Liberty & Levin."

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.