♪ ♪ mark: hello, america, i'm mark levin. we have a tremendous guest, kenneth starr, how are you, sir? >> i'm doing great. thanks, mark. mark:: i must confess we're friends, you're a good man. >> thank you. so are you. mark: well, thank you. former solicitor general, former judge, former independent counsel. and your appearance if couldn't be more important, so let's jump in. we have independent counsel robert mueller, he's got his team. he's actually specialca counsel.

you were independent counsel under a specific statute, and you had obligations under that statute that you had to follow. he has a different statute with fewer obligations. and i wanted to ask you a question, and i've thought about this a lot. as q i watch the coverage of robert mueller, i find out he's the most noble man to ever walk the earth. and so is his staff. i find members of congress trying to pass laws to protect him. froms the what, i don't know. and i remember when you were an independent counsel, we had the paparazzi, mediaen op your front -- media on your front step. we knew whenn you came up in the morning,t when you went to bed t night. kindou of different coverage. you were criticized constantly by the media. he's defended by the media. what do you make of that? >> night and day, apples and oranges. the press knew where i lived,

and they catched out. also they camped outside frequently, not always, camped outside our offices in washington d.c. very different. mark: they don't do that for mueller. why is that? >> it's very nice of them. and honestly, i was curious. i asked someone in washington, hey, does people not know where bob mueller lives? i don'ter wish him that kind of invasion of privacy, but, you know, we lived in a nice suburban area of mclean, mark: i remember your house, it nice.ry >> it was simple -- mark: it wasch all over tv. >> madison court, isn't that a great name? we lived on madison court, and the press was pretty much ubiquitous. mark: but why do you think the difference in coverage? >> there's got to be a treaty of peace that with the networks'

platforms and so forth, they said we're going to leave him alone. mark: they like him. they didn't like you. do you think it's because of who you were investigating? and and who he's investigating? i mean, isn't that a logical conclusion? >> it's a very logical conclusion. someone who's investigating the president is likely to be very unpopular with a whole bunch of people, maybe 50%, 45% of the americanpl people. but the media as a whole, even though there were some great heroes in the media as far as my ownso investigation was concern, but the media as a whole, i think, is pretty sympathetic to those who are investigating a republican. watergate, richard nixon. and then maybe not so of those investigating a democrat and especially a very well-liked, controversial though he was, but bill clinton was likable, empathetic, charming, and he also was very effective at using surrogates to attack the

investigation whereas president trumpro has chosen -- i think unwisely -- to do the attacks himself. mark: you and your investigation were attacked relentlessly. were there any efforts by members of congress to protect your investigation, to protect your appointment? were there any sympathetic voices in most of the media? i know there were a few reporters who were actually reporters, but as a whole it was pretty dastardly, wasn't it? >> i would say no with respect to members of congress, there may have been some speeches on the floor from time to time. then when the going really got rough during the monica lewinsky phase of the investigation and the press criticism became extremely intense, i do remember vividly a call from senator orrin hatch saying, ken, you need to get out there. it wasn't that i was hiding for reasons we've already discussed. you need to get out there, you should do this and you should do that..

my friend ted olson said you need to go on larry king live -- remember those days? he just gives you the microphone, you can say what you want to say. but i felt at that time, and it was wrong, i felt at that time that i needed to be much more discreet, careful. there were times when i would go before the media, there were times that we provided public information out of the investigation without running afoul. here's the key, don't the reveal grand jury information because that's a crime. mark: i have no idea what robert mueller's voice sounds like. he doesn't speak to the public. i don't mean leaking. i'm talking about something else. we don't get many press releases from the special counsel's office. i have my own views of leaks and so forth. but isn't there an obligation, u.s. attorney's office, your office, you at least communicate someic information to the amerin people given the power of the office and given the reach of the office and given the fact it

involves an elected president of the united states and people surrounding him. >> i err on the side of providing public information. i think it is an issue of accountability and responsibility. it's nowhere in the statute, it's juston a judgment call. are you going to try to educate the public as appropriate without besmirching people's reputations. i think that's one of the key things that we're going to be seeing in the mueller investigation. one of the things prosecutors should notil do is go hammer someone in the public domain. you either present an indictment to the grand jury, or you don't -- mark: do you know who agrees with you? >> who? mark: the lake leon jaworski who was involved in the watergate matter. when it came to writing a report, they were somewhat criticized. he said, look, i'm not going to write a report that starts trashing people on insinuating things thatil i couldn't bring o

court or i couldn't prove. that would be a bigger abuse of power than some of these people that i'm investigating. you concur with that? >> i completely concur. he wrote the so-called road map, but it didn't fill in a whole lot of details because by definition, it's going to be a one-sided report, right? it's not going to reflect -- on the other hand, there's another way of looking at this set of facts or this particular testimony. so i think it is a matter of fundamental fairness that prosecutors who do have this great power should not prosecute by press release or by innuendo and public comments. mark: why is that? >> it's because of our sense of fairness and justice. life and liberty. we have in this country the baseline of liberty, and your liberty is to a certain extent -- the liberty of your reputation. you know, reputation, the late vince foster said who took his own life, and that was part of

our investigation, and just two months before he took his own life he said to the graduates at the university of oregon and i think this makes the point, in our profession -- he was a lawyer -- in our profession, if you lose your reputation, you lose everything. reputation's just important period. that's why the law protects reputations from defamation, from libel and slander and the like. it's an important part of our decency as a human being that we don't go besmirching another human being or, if we do, then we might have to face a civil action.. mark: f particularly, it would seem to me, in the criminal context. you're a prosecutor. up enormous power. particularly a special counsel i would say has more power than your typical u.s. attorney. and we have a t bill of rights r a reason. due process, presumption of innocence, you have a right to cross-examine witnesses, you have a right to see the charges that are going to be brought against you and so forth. in this case with robert

mueller, the report that they say is going to be released relatively soon, the president's lawyers haven't seen it. they haven't had an opportunity to respond to anything, to prepare a response to it. it's not vetted through your typical courtroom. you don't have a pre-- you don't have pre-discovery, you know, depositions and questions, none of that. you're the prosecutor writing a report, whatever that report says, without any checks and balances whatsoever. he's not a judge and he's not a jury. what -- and yet this statute tried to limit the power of a report, unlike your statute that you worked under, the independent counsel statute. explain. >> well, the independent counseling statute, which has gone away -- it existed for 21 years -- was really putting a pretty heavy thumb on the scales toward impeachment. remember, it was passed in the wake of watergate.

so the country had been through an impeachment process. the president resigned. so whatd do we want the special prosecutor, whatever we call them, independent counsel, speciall counsel, what do we wat that person to do. well, we want that person not justha to make prosecutorial decisions, we want the person to write a report, and we want the person to send that report to the house of representatives. it's one of the reasons, mark, that justice antonin scalia in hisma magnificent dissent in the case that upheld the unconstitutionality said -- he these great terms -- acrid he with the smell of impeachment. that's been improved. under the regulations which bob mueller was appointed, there is a reporting requirement, but it is a confidential report under these regulations to go to the attorney general. then the attorney general is to give a report not to say, oh, here's the bob mueller report. so the attorney general of the

united states, bill barr, is going to have to make a judgment, what am i as attorney general going to report up to congress. mark: so it's really a completely different reporting requirement. >> completely. mark: and yet people talk about this as the impeachment report. is it because of things that nancy pelosi and jerrold nadler have said, that we want to see this report before we make decisions about impeachment, which they know they don't even have a right to see this report. >> i think there's a failure to understand, to drill into the regulations under which mueller was appointed. now,un the regulations could be jettisoned, right? okay, we're not going to use those regulations anymore. but those regulations have been in effect in both republican and democrat administrations. they came into being in the clinton administration. so they sort of stood the test of time -- mark: 20 years, you said they've been there. >> they have been around for a while. i don't know how many special counsels have been appointed. but the point is those

regulations have been there on the books for congress to look at, and if congress had come to the judgment that it liked the old system of a full report to the congress of the united states, it should have stepped in long before now. i think there's an assumption that may, that isn't grounded in the text of the regulations. mark: when we come back, i want to discuss with you these recent revelations by andrew mccabe and others, what's been going on at the fbi. you worked at the justice department, i worked at the justice department. you were solicitor general, i was chief of staff at the justice department. this fbi situation is very, very troubling, and i want to pursue that in a moment. ladies and gentlemen, don't forget, you can join us on levin tv, that's levin tv, by going to blaze tv.com/mark to sign up. we'd love to have you. blaze tv.com/mark or give us a call at 844-levin-tv. that's 844-levin-tv. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪

cosentyx can help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. how sexy are these elbows? ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. with the most lobster dishes lobsterfesof the yearred lobster like lobster lover's dream and new ultimate lobsterfest surf and turf. so come lobsterfest today! and now for a limited time, get ten percent off red lobster to go.

♪ mark: ken starr, the federal bureau of investigation. now, when you were at the justice department, there were different directors. bill with webster. -- bill webster. who else was a directer? t louie free when i was independent counsel. bill sessions was a federal

judge. mark: all three. there was really no controversy, at least with respect to the firstt two. do you ever recall the director of the fbi, the deputy director of the fbi, the general counsel of the fbi leaking? were you aware of when you were at the justice department that they would have been leaking? >> no, and it would have been really out of character for both judge bill webster and judge louis freeh. those were straight shooters. they were honest as the day is long. they really embodied the values and goals of the fbi. the v fbi, fidelity, bravery and integrity, and we've got to believe in the honesty of law enforcement. the fbi has an enormous amount of power, so the person at the top sets the tone, and they set a great tone. high moral tone. mark: well, we have the former deputy director of the fbi,

andrew mccabe, or he's made a lot of news with "60 minutes" interview, andnd he's on a celebrity tour hawking his book on nighttime shows which is a remarkable thing for me because ona "60 minutes," from my perspective, he confessed to a cabal over there at the justice department that was trying to trigger the 25th amendment to the constitution of the united states. clearly, they never read it, because it's a complicated amendment. and there's no role whatsoever for the fbi. and he says in part that the reason that he was concerned about this is because the president fired comey. the president fired comey and among thoseid recommending husbd firing was the deputy -- his firing was the deputy attorney general of the unitedng states, mr. rosenstein. he says, well, the president asked me, you're the deputy attorney general of the united states, you can do it or not do it. and then they talk about the deputy attorney general of the united states talking about he disagrees with this, wiring himself to talk to the president

of the united states about firing comey, which he recommended? i must say i see this as a cabal, i see this as an effort to overthrow a sitting president. i have never seen anything like this. i don't think anything like this has happened in modern american history. i'm curious toer know what your take is on it. >> i was deeply disappointed and, frankly, i was both saddened and angered to read about it and to hear about it now with the recent reports from the former acting director of the fbi. i mean, who do they think they are? they are part of the executive branch. and the idea of the fbi with all of its authority, all of its power -- and it has an enormous amount of power -- turning that power in a direction against a duly elected president of the united states is appalling unless there was some reasonable ground to believe that the president was engaged in criminal conduct. or that the president had become an agent of a foreign

government. there's, to me, zero evidence that president trump -- whether one loves him or does not love him -- was in any way an agent of any foreign power. he had relationships, obviously, but who doesn't who's coming into w the presidency? but i just think it was an enormously poor judgment on the part of the leadership at the fbi. and it's really kind of a who do you think you are? you're part of the executive branch, and this is really above your pay grade. at a minimum, that's the kind of decision --t if there was something that seriously wrong in the view of the fbi, they knock on the attorney general's office, and the attorney general goes and knocks on the counsel of the president's office, and you do this through regular order as opposed to, essentially, runaway cops. mark: i'm trying to figure out what exactly did he do that would merit this kind of rogue hysteria? he fires the fbi director. it's the fbi director. he's allowed to fire the fbi

director. he's allowed to fire pretty much whomever he wishes. it had no effect on the russia investigation. the russia investigation has expanded into all kinds of areas. the president hasn't interfered with their funding. as a matter of fact, mr. mccabe testified under oath before congress that everything's going along swimmingly, that they've gotten the funds that they need. there's no evidence of obstruction per se. the president has the inherent power to hire and fire pretty much as he wishes. this seemed to me to be a pretext. what do you think? >> i don't know if it was a pretext or or just an abysmal misunderstanding of our constitutional order and the power of the president. we>> do not have an imperial presidency. there are many checks and there are many balances. especially the united states congress, especially the house of representatives. if something has gone a awry, the founding generation said we want that judgment as to whether to put the impeachment process

in place in the people's house. not in the senate, but in the people's house. themp senate will eventually hae its -- that is the role of, in our constitutional structure, of checking the president. now, there is this 25th amendment process in light of the assassination of john kennedy and so forth, but that's at a level that involves the cabinet. it does not involve the federal bureau of investigation with folks involved in the decision were appoint by the president and confirmed by the senate. that's a huge check and a huge balance we have in our system, the idea of a pas, presidential appointment but senate approval. we had, essentially, anpproval. unaccountable branch -- or the leadership, i should say -- an unaccountable branch of the executive that t i think was jut taking very strange steps. and you're right, i think, mark, i think it was unprecedented. it sounds in the nature of a

movement toward a coup d'etat. mark mark which is shocking. ken starr, when we come back, you've had a lot of experience with the clintons, and the fbi's had a lot of experience with the clintons, and i want to pursue that briefly with you. we'll with right back -- we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ and he has subscriptions to a music service he doesn't listen to and five streaming video services he doesn't watch. this is jerry learning that he's still paying for this stuff he's not using. he's seeing his recurring payments in control tower in the wells fargo mobile app. this is jerry canceling a few things. booyah. this is jerry appreciating the people who made this possible. oh look, there they are. (team member) this is wells fargo. coaching means making tough choices. jim! you're in! but when you have high blood pressure and need cold medicine that works fast, the choice is simple. coricidin hbp is the #1 brand that gives powerful cold symptom relief

without raising your blood pressure. coricidin hbp. our grandparents checked zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today. hey, how ya doing? uh, phil. are you guys good with brakes? we're ok. just ok? we got a saying here. if the brakes don't stop it, something will. that's not a real saying. it is around here. i wrote it. just ok is not ok. especially when it comes to your network. at&t is america's best wireless network, according to america's biggest test. now with 5g evolution. the first step to 5g. more for your thing. that's our thing.

the sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999, intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts... so you wake up rested and ready for anything. save $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. only for a limited time. i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique. hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique.

♪ ♪ jon: live from america's news headquarters, i'm jon scott. the sacramento district attorney

announcing today two sacramento police officers who with shot ask killed an unarmed black man last year will not face criminal charges. the d.a. saying the use of lethal force in the death of 22-year-old stephon clark was lawful. the officers have said they believed clark, a vandalism suspect, had a gun. but investigators only found a cell phone. president trump taking the stage at the conservative political action conference before an enthusiastic crowd, delivering a lengthy speech lasting more than two hours. the president touching on a number of topics including the special courage's russia -- special counsel's russia probe, the green new deal and others. the president also predicts he'll win re-election in 2020 and by a bigger margin than in 2016. i'm jon scott, now back to "life, liberty and levin." ♪ ♪ mark: ken starr, you're like an expert on the clintons. i don't know if that's a

compliment or not. but you've written this outstanding book, "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation." so i want to ask you about the clintons. it's said that the comments the president makes about this investigation are up precedented. are they? >> no. i wish the president and the excise of his discretion would leave the nasty job of attacking the prosecutor to others. but he does it himself. he is follower of his own instinct. mark: he's transparent. >> that, he is. bill and hillary were more clever, if i may say so. i think it's more clever because they were -- mark: or more devious. >> definitely more devious, because they would attack the investigation, and the investigators -- the prosecutor and the prosecutors -- indirectly through surrogates, especially james carville,

sidney blumenthal and other members of the clinton caste. mark: so louis freeh, the fbi director during much of this, he would be attacked. was he persona non grata at the white house? >> as far as i understand it, yes. judge freeh was an absolute straight the shooter, just rock-ribbed integrity, and that didn't play well in the clinton white house. recall even janet reno was frowned upon, and they started taking shots at her through the media too through surrogates. is that correct?po >> yeah. throughout the first term, mark, the first clinton term, she was appointing a number of independent counsel. i had lots of company. andnu just by way of example, henry cisneros. and there really was some culpability there. a guilty plea by linda medlar, these names from the medlar, past. she was calling them as she saw them. think she was being honest and

straightforward. but then things changed when the calls came after the '96 election for the appointment of an independent counsel to look into campaign finance and perhaps possibility of foreign -- mark: donny chung, i remember alll these. >> yeah. and louie appreciation as i -- louis freeh, as i recall, recommended the appointment, she brought in a special counsel, and he recommended the appointment of independent counsel. she refused to do that. now, throughout the investigation until the monica lewinsky phase, she was cooperative. she didn't get in the way. in fact, she gave us, as you may recall, additional assignments to look into the travel office firings -- mark: she kept plopping them on top of you. >> yeah. mark: and i also remember a discussion about removing her, replacing her with a new attorney general. that kind of discussion took place too. so it's important that the

american people understand context, understand precedent. we're told these things going on today a have never happened before. the things going on today that have never happened before as far as i'm concerned involves a lot of what's taken place at the fbi. john solomon of "the hill" just reported just a few days ago that testimony provided to congress behind closed doors by the general counsel of the fbi, who's now under investigation himself, he said right up to the last moment he believed hundt should be charged -- hillary clinton should be charged with felony violations of the espionage act and that it wasn't until the last moment he was convinced that they didn't have enoughgh proof to demonstrate se had intent, specific intent. now,tr that's an interesting point, because the statute doesn't talk about specific intent. this espionage statute has been around over a hundred years. itro talks about gross negligen,

which does not require specific intent. what do you make of this? i mean, it's really, it's really confound anything many ways. first comey clears hillary clinton in a bizarre press conference. he doesn't even talk to the attorney general. one of the things the inspector general complained about was that he undermined her authority. that's the attorney general's decision, whether somebody's charged or prosecuted, not the director e of the fbi. then a few days before the election, or or oh, we have more e-mails, and then quickly over the weekend, but don't worry, everything's fine.e. and then we have this general counsel now saying -- or he said i g thought she should have been charged all along, but i was convinced at the end. what do you make of what took place at the fbi? >> the fbi should have been in full consultation with the justice department. you used the term, mark, undermining the authority of the attorney general by the way jim comey conducted himself. i would say he usurped authority, and that's what the rod rosenstein memo said in may

leading up to the firing of james comey by the president of the united states. i wish the president had taken this action much earlier. i think we would have avoided an enormous amount of grief had he, because jim comey -- and you and i are both alums of the justice department, and we know the hierarchy, and he knew the hierarchy. he had served in the justice department. so this was not inadvertent. he took the authority of the attorney general and assumed that foror himself. and then there may have been a very weak legal analysis going into the usurpation of authority; that is, a misreading of the statute. because mr. baker, the former general counsel, was, after all, the general counsel. he's the lawyer to the fbi. and so you would think that his view would carry a special weight in terms of the meaning of the statute, and he thought, according to these, thethought, testimony that we're now seeing, that she had, in fact, committed crimes. one of the reasons that i chose to write this book about the

clinton investigation is we felt that hillary clinton was guilty of crimes in the arkansas phase of the investigation. we couldn't prove it. prosecutors will frequently say there's a difference between what i know and what i can prove, and because of missing witnesses -- susan mcdougal, for example, would not agree to testify, she went into contempt of court. the name of the book, "contempt," the president was held in contempt. the point is the independent counsel statute contend plaits working -- contemplates working with if fbi, but it wasn't the fbi making the decisions to prosecute. it was the responsibility of the justice department or the independent counsel. ing. mark: so in this fbi you had at least some of them pushing for the 25th amendment. you had them making decisions they had no power to make. i would say that under jim comey, mccabe, we had a rogue fbi. we'll be right back.

♪ ♪ well, you should definitely see how geico could help you save on homeowners insurance. nice tip. i'll give you two bucks for the chair. two?! that's a victorian antique! all right, how much for the recliner, then? wait wait... how did that get out here? that is definitely not for sale! is this a yard sale? if it's in the yard then it's... for sale. oh, here we go. geico. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance.

is our command. your steak & lobster wish steak & lobster is back by popular demand, starting at only $15.99. hurry in to outback! steak & lobster is only here for a limited time. ito take care of anyct messy situations.. and put irritation in its place. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it.

mark: ken starr, i want to ask you abt congressional oversight. the democrats have multiple committees, starting multiple investigations on anything you can think of related to trump and trump world. [laughter] now, you know, i look at the constitution, i look at the history of hearings, the history of what congress does and maybe what it should do. it has legitimate oversight function. there's no question about that. its job is to legislate, so so it kind of needs to know what's going on. but that's not what's going on. if you want ten years of the president's past tax returns or you want access to the deutsche bank information from the past and they say we need to look at these things also because of potential impeachment, it talks about high crimes and misdemeanors among other things while he's president of the united states. the american people elected this man despite the fact he wouldn't

release his tax returns. by the way, members of congress aren't required to release their tax returns either, including nancy pelosi. if i'm the president of the united states and i've got good lawyers, i say, you know what? i'm not giving you that information. you have no legitimate legislative basis for it whatsoever other than to try and harass me, to try and ruin my businesses and my family, so i'll see you in court, ultimately, i'll see you in the supreme court. what's your take on this? >> i think you're on to something. the legislative oversight power is in furtherance of the responsibilities given to congress under article i. conducting a tax investigation is nowhere near the powers of congress under article i, section eight.t. and it's almost sounding in the nature of a bill of attainder. it's violating the idea of we don't pass laws or investigate individuals unless it's relating, again, to our legislative function. what is it that we're elected to

do? we're here to oversee the executive branch and to pass laws and so forth. so i think there is a serious question under separation of powers, and i'm so glad that you mentioned that, because too many times as we march on in our third century as a constitutional republic, we don't return to these fundamental constitutional principles of, wait a second, what's your job, congress? mr. president, are you exceeding your powers? courts, are you exceeding your powers? these are e questions that we should continually ask, and i think it's a very important question in terms of seeking the president's tax returns. mark: and you and i discuss these things. very fewe other people do. the debate over the report is when will it be released, what will it contain. the debate over congressional investigations isn't a debate over, well, what are they allowed to investigate under our constitution, what are limits as

opposed to, well, they get ten years of tax returns or what will be in the tax returns. >> it needs to relate to the legislative authority -- mark: exactly. and yet our media really do the drum beat for this sort of thing. they're not particularly informed or literate in these areas, and they don't particularly care to be. your dealings with the media were very difficult, and yet from time to time you found reporters, i think, who were real reporters. tell me about that. >> there's no question. i m divided the media during the investigation resulting now in this book into truth seekers and even else. and everybody else. and the good news is during that time there were some serious truth seekers. jeff gertz of "the new york times," sue schmidt of "the washington post," lisa meyers of nbc news who broke the washington -- juanita broaddrick

story. these were real truth-seeking people, and then there were those who were in the other camp, non-truth seekers. mark: they were heavily outnumbered, weren't they? >> i seemed to see -- i wanted to see more truth seekers than we had. and so a lot of the material that went out into the public domain was, essentially, an echo chamber from what white house spokespeople were saying, criticisms of the investigation, let's change the subject, let's attack the investigator. and one of the things that hillary, of course, was extremely effective at doing as a student of saul alinsky, go after and destroy the other side. mark: personalize it, target the person. they did it to you. do you think that's being done to the president of the unite right now? can you turn on a cable show without him being called a racist or a nazi or a stalinist

or a dictator or the person who's triggered this kind of action or that kind of action? i mean, i can't. >> i wish there were a restoration of civility. recently, the american charter of conscience was released, and that american charter, i wish, were in every journalist's must-read package. because one of the other things it says, look, we have to disagree with one another and, hopefully, we don't have to, but we should choose to disagree with one another in a much more civil way and to be respectful of one another. but this constant calling into question motives and the name-calling and so forth has just resulted, i think, in the american people saying, you know, i really don't like this. i don't like the tone, don't like the attitude and so forth. or and i think everybody needs to just stop yelling at one another and to have a more reasoned discourse. mark mac don't forget, folks, almost every weeknight you can watch me on levin tv. love you to't join us. call 844-levin-tv, 844-levin-tv

or bo go to blazetv.com/mark. that's blazetv.com/mark. join our big, wonderful conservative organization right there. we'll be right back. ♪ ( ♪ ) dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness. the psoriasis. tina: i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms

develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx.

mark: you know, ken starr, over two ys now we've been told the president of the united states has been colludingma with the russians. i've never if understood what that means, by the way. [laughter] does that mean have a drink with a russian? i have russian heritage, if i talk to thes president -- it's ambiguous for a reason, because you can pour whatever mental image you have into that. and yet the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, richard burr, he's not a showboat. he's a pretty quiet guy. >> yes. mark: seems to be trying to do a studious job. i don't know him. he's cornered by cbs, nbc or both, and he says we haven't found any direct evidence of any collusion. now, other than a quick hit in the media, i don't see that being pounded as breaking news, you know? you always -- breaking news. [laughter] alert, alert, breaking news, no collusion found. and then you have 14 shows talk

about it. where's the russia collusion? you have thousands of journalists looking, you have hundreds of members of congress looking, you have federal prosecutors looking. there's leaks all over the place, people writing books all over the place. you would think if there's ed of collusion -- whatever that is -- we'd seeee it by now. am i wrong? >> i don't think you're wrong at all. there apparently is no evidence of collusion. certainlyy not in the public domain. and i think we have more than that, mark. we have contra-indications. and those are the two indictmentss returned under bob mueller's aegis against the 13 russian individuals and the two the russian organizations. and when you read those two indictments, what you see is the russians were up to no good. and it's a speaking indictment. it tells the story. and the story that's told is, or essentially, a non-collusion story. there didn't need tool be any collusion because why? the russian organizations were

lavishly financing these operatives who were using false identification and so forth, committing crimes. it's not just skunk works in the political sense, they were doing all kinds of things, using false pretensions and so forth. and here was one of the keys that i think shows no collusion. on the very same day these russianon operatives financed in new york city a pro-trump rally and an anti-trump rally. on the very same day. they were just trying to sow seeds of discord. so to my knowledge, you're exactly right. there's no evidence of collusion. mark: this indictment, these indictments of these russians, they'll never see the inside of a u.s. courtroom, of course. they're indicted for activities that occurred when who was president of the united states? >> president obama. mark: president obama. these activities in the fbi took place when who was president of the united states? the department of justice, who was president of the united

states? i am flabbergasted that there isn't the media, paparazzi chasing barack obama and asking him, wittingly or unwittingly, did he know about this, and if he didn't, what kind of an administration was he running? this was his department of justice.on clapper worked for him. brennan worked for him. susan rice worked for him. we saw the unmasking, record number of unmasking of individuals, citizens in the last year of the obama administration. wenm hear nothing about barack obama, the obama administration. harry truman used to say the buck stops here but, apparently, that's not the case in the obama administration. what accounts for this? >> well, the book needs to be written and it hasn't been so there isit hasn't been something that needs to be done in terms of investigative reporting to find out, well, what was the obama administration doing in light of what they knew was going on which was this russian interference with our campaigns. but we have to note that the

obama administration itself interfered in the israeli campaign and chose their approved winner -- mark: tried to take out netanyahu -- >> and so forth. mark: anybody been indicted for that? >> to my knowledge, no. i'm not even sure there was an investigation of that. it may not be a violation of federal law -- mark: that's true. >> but it clearly is a violation of federal law for the russians to be doing what they were doing, so i'm glad these indictments were returned. but there was strange silence out of the white house while lathis was underway in a way tht who knows what the eventual result would be. you have to -- what you do know is you've got a foreign power trying to interfere with a presidential election. the president should do something about it. mark: he knew about it for months, they did. nothing effective was done about it, and nobody seems to care. except us. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ because my body can still make its own insulin.

and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it starts acting in my body from the first dose and continues to work when i need it, 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within.

if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. .. with the most lobster dishes lobsterfesof the yearred lobster like lobster lover's dream and new ultimate lobsterfest surf and turf. so come lobsterfest today! and now for a limited time, get ten percent off red lobster to go.

mark: should start, let me ask you this question. to think we have two systems of justice in this country one for republican presidents, one for democrat presidents, do you thank you make people feel we have two systems of justice in this country? >> i feared the american people are inclined in that especially those who have are supporters of the president and say why was not hillary call to justice but the server? what about the clinton foundation and so forth? what i say is, be patient. there are other cops on the beat who are truth seekers and honest and michael horwitz, inspector general of the justice department, is respected for everything i know, i don't know him but he calls it the way i see it. if the facts and so forth. there is still information and perhaps even actions yet to be

taken. but there is right now the appearance, i think, there are two systems of justice. we cannot afford that. there's a job for bill barr the new deputy attorney general and frankly, it's a job for christopher ray, head of the fbi who needs to be much more publ public, i think, in the restoration of public confidence. mark: only a few seconds but you think the senior leadership that have resigned or been fired now did a grave injustice for those honorable people of the justice department connects. >> i think so. i love the men and women of the fbi and have the greatest respect for them. i've worked with so many of them in my two tours of duty in the justice department as well as independent counsel. they deserve better leadership than they have had. mark: do you think that he is coming? mac i hope so. i think the jury is out but i hope so. as i have said before, i said publicly, i want the new directors integrity to be more public insane it's a new day at

the fbi. mark: great pleasure. thank you very much and i think it. mark: that is it, ladies and gentlemen. we'll see you next time on life liberty and the fed. [♪] jesse: welcome to "watters world." while jesse watters. trump's old lawyer michael cohen, convicted liar and tax cheat about to head to prison for three years. before leaving he became the star witness for the democrats in their impeachment proceedings. >> i have lied. but i'm not a liar. i have done bad things. but i am not a bad man. jesse: i'm sure you are not. cohen systematically