mark levin is up next. see you next monday when the next revolution will be televised. ♪ ♪ w mark: hello, america. welcome to life liberty and levine. of great constitutional scholar tonight. john eastman, how are you? you are the professor of law at chapman university and i've known you a long time and you are a brilliant man and have gone up and down the federal chain and a whole bunch of constitutional issues. i wanted to talk to you about several of them. we had, earlier this week, 375,i 400 whatever -- former federal

prosecutors write a letter it's a contrivance they put together a letter and manufactured it sane if they had been prosecutors still and the president was not the president they would have charged them with obstruction. this is very odd, i think, because if trump was not president this would not be an issue at all to begin with, right? >> right. mark: secondly, people think that a lot of former federal prosecutors and there's about 350 federal prosecutors in the southern district of new york alone and were talking federal former prosecutors there must be thousands and thousands. >> tens of thousands. mark: they put this letter together and everyone's excited about it and i read the letter and there's not a whit of information or substance that makes a difference. robert mueller puts together this report and here we are focused on volume two because volume one that the there's no collusion and there's no

collaboration and no conspiracy that should've been the end of it. robert mueller puts together this 400 some odd page report and he required underregulation to put together a 400 some page report? >> no, what the relations acquire is that he do to report to theagrt attorney general on s conclusion on whether there is an indictable offense are not in the evidence supporting indictable or reasons why he did not decide to bring in seek an indictment is hit and all the relations required. in fact, the normal justice department practice is to not let anything beyond that go out because the justice department speaks against individuals by way of its indicting documents not by leaks to the press and not by innuendo and reports that do not lead to indictments because people's repetitions are at stake as well. mark: very important process in place given a lot of thought and it's a regulation, adopted and

honored by democrats and republicans in and out of the justice department and there's some measure of due process and this is important so innocent people aren't accused of crimes without being charged and having an opportunity to defend themselveses. the support is a bunch of crap, isn't it? >> it is. even the bottom line results draw a conclusion get the presumption of innocence wrong and he said i cannot find enough evidence to exonerate president trump fromrump the obstruction f justice allegations. that's not his job as a a prosecutor the only job is to decide whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment or the likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. we presumed innocent unless we can prove otherwise. his report presumes guilt unless trump can prove otherwise. it's a fundamental altering of a very basic conceptions of justice. mark: let's play along and dig into this obstruction of justice. the media is excited about this, by the way. all of their legal scholars and

have an opinion economy, 2005, by the united states supreme court and this is the key opinion when it comes to obstruction. it's arthur anderson petitioner versus united states.e the district court level arthur anderson lost in the circuit court level in the fifth circuit they lost but what did they lose? they were accused of obstructi obstruction, destroy documents among others andrew wiseman, deputy to mr. mueller, he led the effort. arthur anderson went broke, 80000 people lost their jobs in the supreme court reversed the lower court's in a c nine-zero opinion and six, seven, eight pages long and almost perfunctory. but they say and here is wait a minute, you can't just accuse someone of objection because we don't like what they said or that the try to impede. there are elements to describe the not so easy to prove. knowingly dishonest and a corrupt intent. resident of the united states

says to the white house counsel, if in fact this is true the president denies it, but says to his white house counsel look, i want you to get hold of the justice department and get rid of mueller because he's conflicted and got a whole bunch of people who are conflicted. how is that obstruction of justice if the president is saying not because he wants to kill investigation but clearly every else he did them straight he did not want to kill the investigation but here's my notes and here's my staff is my lawyer and my no attorney-client privilege and talk to whomever guy ist but this conflicted w so let's say he didn't fire that guy and how is that obstruction of justice? >> it's not obstruction under the statute but one of the things that everybody is forgetting as well as the basic separation of powers. personal prosecutor department of justice itself, attorney general has no powers under our constitution that are derived from the president and the notion that the president can't

determine the course of an investigation is the most basic violation of separation -- we are unitarian executive and the entire executive branch is headed by one guy in the only constitutional check on that is through an impeachment power, not through statutes and regulations and internal to the permit of justice but the president has the authority to change those whenever he wants. the notion the president can be charged therefore for directing the conduct of the executive branch which is he's the only guy elected to run the branch misunderstands the constitution from a very basic level. mark: i have never understood to be honest whether watergate or before this idea that you could have an independent counsel special counsel independent of the executive branch investigating the head of the executive and it never made sense to me but fairly you and i are in the minority. if did the president cover up

anything? >> no. mark: did he compete anything? >> note. mark: the president instructe instructed -- >> he did not try to do tamper with the witnesses like clinton, nothing like that. mark: but the democrats driven by an obsession to take out the president but he wanted to and he tried to. let me ask you this? your president of the united states and if you want to fire robertdwa mueller, you pick up r phone, call robert mueller and you say, you are fired. president trump has done that a thousand times before he became president of the united states and knows how to tell someone you'ref fired. he wasn't obstructing anything, was he? >> directing to fire him is no different than him picking up the phone himself and that would not have been obstruction. as you pointed out the likely result of that would offend

someone replaced to conduct the investigation was free of actual conflicts of interest and on a high-profile investigation like that even if there's not actual conflicts you want caesar's life to be pure and you want them to not even be the appearance of conflict of interest rate will be seen in the media with the e-mail exchanges between people on mueller's team who were bent on getting this particular president no matter what that just stinks of an appearance of conflict of interest if not an actual conflict of interest and what were looking for heree it was an investigation if there was going to be one it all and i don't think there should have been but that is above her porch so that the country can come back around and it's become a real political divide and quiteo frankly, threatening our ability to govern ourselves.

mark: are prosecutors judges? >> no. mark: are they jurors or advocates? >> no, well, they are advocates but. mark: so when a prosecutor puts out a report why is it assumed everything in the report is accurate or everything in the report is the end all, be all and final word? >> this goes back to the conflict thing in my having someone do this was free of conflict was absolutely essential and what we did not get in the mueller report. the people have a partisan political bias that comes out and have been wonderful digests of the dissecting of the report to show how biased and skewed certain evidence was and how it was portrayed in almost like it was set up to create a media frenzy rather than giving an honest neutral assessment of what went on here. mark: the reasont they did not subpoena the president among many was because of this the united states court decision. >> unanimous by chief justice rehnquist but this was 2005 and the court was highly divided

partisan ideologically and to get a nine-zero decision on something as high-profile as the arthur anderson enron case just demonstrates how clearcut the law is and howe the prosecutors abused the law in order to -. mark: attorney general aware this case in the office of legal counsel and the constitutional office is where of this case and the deputy attorney general is aware in the career prosecutors senior prosecutors who worked their way up the civil service not mueller appointees who contributed to obama and hillary or the hillary clinton victory party but they look at this and they know the law and noticeably poor decision and know there's no obstructing he's here and yet mr. mueller writes this and here's the thing. as you point out mr. mueller was supposed to write the support for the attorney general s and o one would write a report like this one to their boss. this was written for congress

and he knew the democrats took the house and you that barr said he would release most of his report and this is what has instigated and triggered all this tomorrow and the media and these 400 former prosecutorsor prosecutors are they perfect? what happened with the ted stevens case, senator stevens? >> had a bunch of prosecutors who brought a false charge against him and hide exonerating evidence that would have immediately ended the case in a heartbeat but they played this out during the course of his reelection campaign to the extent it cost him his reelection and then after the fact they were caught with the exonerating evidence and many of them are removed from office but by then it's too late and the damage has been done and that's what they wanted to accomplish. mark: when you interviewed the president's white house counsel for 30 hours and you have two paragraph in your report about what he said somehow that makes me very suspicious and what

happened to the other 29 hours in 59 minutes? >> was all exonerating evidence. it was perfectly reasonable stuff and even the two hours included but distorted in order to try to make it appear that somethingrd nefarious had gone n but let's back up one step because o this whole special prosecutor should never have been appointed in the first place. mark: i want to get to that and it's important that the entire exercise was fundamentally illegal, wasn't it? >> it was. there is a very specific justice from a guy like that we prosecutors will be so conflicted because the targetsef the criminal investigation is their boss or their ultimate boss, president of the united states and their very specific justice foreign policy when that is the case and when there is credible evidence of a crime having been committed by

somebody at the top of the food chain over here we will appoint a special prosecutored to give some arms length from the chain of command. mark: what was the kind that was alleged that was violated? >> there was not one before we had was intelligence gathering operation which is not a criminal limitation and also on two fronts it was intelligence gathering where there were no limits because you're trying to defend our national securityy ad therefore not a crime and nobody in the ministration itself accused with any evidence of a crime for those two components which are essential criteria for the appointment of a special prosecutor did not exist and they knew it did not exist. mark: they knew it didn't exist in a pointed a special prosecutor under relations anyway. the report violates it because it was intended to go to this attorney general and they knew he would make a public so they write it different kind of report. two regulations are violated in the appointment of the special

counsel in the context of the special counsel with respect to the report. folks, don't forget you can join us on live-in tv almost every weeknight go to blaze tv .com /-slash mark to sign up or give us a call at 84 -- 844-levintv. we love to have you. be right back half-washed. downy helps prevent stretching by conditioning fibers, so clothes look newer, longer. downy and it's done. if you have moderate to little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression

or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. the business of family time... ...and downtime. ...and you time. ...and forgetting what time it is...altogether. modernized comfort inns and suites have been refreshed because when your business is making time, our business is you. get the lowest price guaranteed on all choice hotels when you book direct at choicehotels.com. tell him we're flexible. don't worry. my dutch is ok. just ok? (in dutch) tell him we need this merger.

(in dutch) it's happening..! 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.

mark: doctor john eastman you are a constitutional expert and this is rejection by the democratic party and the rest of the media and the rejection of the election. >> i think so. they still can't believe they lost the election in trying to rationalize the most but something nefarious will put it in historical context. we confronted a situation likehi this three times in our nations history. 1801st time there was a change of power one party to another office and defeated adams and took him a while but adams finally handed the baton over peaceably but that was bootable and multiple votes and i house f representatives finally hamilton through his 42 jefferson who he cannot stand but can't stande john adams even more. >> right.

the second time in our history this happened was not the result. 1860 and it led to what he military conflict and by the wa. mark: lincoln to lincoln with the majority of the popularol vote? >> no, he had 38% but won the majority of the electoral college so if we did not have electoral college we might not have had him as the president of debate. >> and what if still in all likelihood had slavery. and then the selection but were senior not just with this investigation but with the broader investigations and the use of subpoenas and federal judges have been nominated and confirmed by president obama and appointed by president obama blocking this president's actions perfectly legitimate actions and one court actually said it's constitutional if it up and done by other presidents but not by this president in the travel ban case and others are saying the president has no

delegated authority to build a wall when statutes are clear in their writing nondelegation doctrine but the underlying presumption is when we delegated power to the president we did not mean p this president but ay other president find but not this president so this is a challenge to the results of the last election which means it's a challenge to the american people in the very notion that we govern ourselves. mark: i mentioned this a couple weeks go on this program and it's not also the biggest effort in american history to disenfranchise voters 63 million who voted for this president. >> it is. by far the largest and it is more than just that. it's a o challenge to the very legitimacy of the system. you see a national popular vote efforts going on to get rid of the electoral college. one of the most crucial

structural components of our constitution and designed to make sure were not a raw democracy the just acts like a mob but in fact channels our democratic instincts into enlightened popular rule. mark: why did the framers of the constitution say we're not just going to vote on stuff all the time? but will set the government up with different branches and two bodies within one body congress and will have judges that serve for life but they have to be b confirmed this way and then we will have an executive and they spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to organize this so why did they not just a restatement of the votes will vote for the past. >> if we figure it out that will have twitter will subject everything to it twitter wholeoa but they understood you can have tyranny of one or tyranny of a few we call tyranny of one adjustment and we talked to any of a few an oligarchy and we can

also have thierry of the majority. raw democracy is tyranny of majority. a mob. our constitution is based on two things. one ultimately that the people are sovereign but the people have no just authoritye to deprive others of their individual rights. all of these structures are here in order to confine the majority so they will be governing but not triple the rights of the minority the religious minority or racial minority or just an electoral minority that every individual human being has rights that the majority must respect if it will be a just majority. the structural component of our constitution are designed to confine and to constrain to direct the majority so it would be adjustment nor rather than aa mob. mark: what is the declaration of independence? >> that all men are created equal and we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights and those exist government. mark: so, the point iss. you can have a vote but i have unalienable rights. >> that's right. if i get 51%pr i can't take the

property of the other 49%. that's what it means. mark: and yet progresses keep pushing this. >> exactly. mark: they set up the system to protect the individual and protect life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness which, in many ways meant, you can live your life as an individual as you wish to live your life as long as it's moral and not committing crimes or damaging other property and this is unique in human history to set up a government this way. it's a document, the constitution, it's a governing document basically to implement those principles and tried to figure out how to set up a government so i often put it this way. my neighbors don't get to vote on my property rights. i heard joe biden say the other day the greatest right to have is the votes his right is your life and liberty, right? >> life, liberty and property. madison defined property as property in our rights.

this is key. this was understood by everybody at the time. the purposeht of government is o secure those rights against any tyranny that would take them away whether one or many or what have you but we've now got a significant portion of her publishing the things the purpose of government is a of t, to redistribute rights and to take from some and give to others and they understood that to be the very definition of injustice or unjust law and yet that is what the body politic is leading toward. mark: it seems the same political forces that wish to oust this president, deny 63 people million people there vote to around the constitution are the same political forces that sustain the constitution. i want to explore with that with you when we come back. we'll be right back. ♪ [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing.

they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

toujeo provides significant a1c reduction, and stable blood sugar control, around the clock. find your groove with toujeo. ♪ let's groove tonight. toujeo is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash, or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles, or share insulin pens. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life-threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur.

don't change your dose without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medicines and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins may cause heart failure that can lead to death. ♪ let's groove tonight. ask your doctor about toujeo. >> life of "america's news headquarters". u.s. women's national soccer team will be honored with a parade in new york city's canyon of heroes on wednesday. it celebrates the two-zero win over the netherlands in the world cup championship game today. with captain megan scored the first goal and she led all goals scored and was picked as the best player in the 2019 tournaments. rose scored the second and clinching u.s. goal. people's protest in hong kong shows no signs of abating with more than 200,000 demonstrators

marching today. the protest movement started one month ago sparked by a bill proposing changes to extradition laws that would seize hong kong residents facing trial in mainland china. the bill has been suspended but protesters wanted formally withdrawn. i'm i.c.e. not husky now back to "life, liberty and levin". mark: doctor eastman, i see a basic thread here look at the democrats on the house judiciary committee and oversight committee and i look at the media in the country and they believe the constitution believes of one phrase and protect them. there is a disregard if not repudiation of our constitution and the same people who are attacking this president think he is violating the constitution although for the life of me i can't figure out how he wants to be a c dictator for the life ofe i can't figure out how is not fdr after all and i look at this

and then i say to myself but look at how they attack the elements and let's take the electoral college. there would be no country but for the compromise on the electoral college and there'd be no united state senate if we just had a popular vote like a parliament or something of that sort and in the bill of rights s are probably be no bill of rights because the bill of rights protect the individual but if we can vote they don't have a bill of rights in the uk for most of these parliamentarye systems will be have a constitutional system so how do you think and why you think the progressive left other media or democrat party are able to get away with waiting around the constitution all trying to destroy? >> part of it is the notion that what the constitution is. there's been a sustained effort over the last half-century where they're going back a full tuntury when the constitution is the supreme law of bland but one of the judges or justices one said but it is what the justices

say it is. they like that because it'so an elite progressive move in the court to redefine the constitution that becomes the constitution in their view and the reason it was important for this progressive movement this anti- american progressive movement was the constitution constraints on government to limit the good that they thought they could do with government. therefore he had to get rid of the constraints which means you have to get rid of the constitutional structure and the notion of enumerated powers and the federal government can only exercise those powers to get into it and all the structural constraints stood in the way of the best and brightest experts doing the right thing in political science would solve all problems create utopias for us if we could just get these constraints of government out of the way and so there's been a sustained century long effort to remove the impediments that the constitution imposes on government. mark: to create this centralized government, this massive army of

bureaucrats, fourth branch of government the administrative state where no matter the election largely unaffected although this president has been affected like fewew others to hs credit and you are right, as part of the progressive movement but they tax the constitutional structures, separation of powers and yet they use it as a cudgel when they can like they do against his present but they also attacked the declaration of independence, don't they? because that undergirds the ideas that are in the constitution. >> there was a supreme court decision out of kansas just last week in kansas has a very explicit protection of life in their state constitution. others, more broadly, and the court say that says life of the life of the unborn will not cover that but will impute to the constitution that they really meant privacy and that prevailed over life. the actual language of the constitution is discarded in o order to advance a progressive agenda, progressive idea on a

particular issue. that's what we've had courts doing for way too long. president trump did something very bold in his campaign and he announced the kind of people he would be picking for his appeal court vacancies or lower courts and i think that, issue more than any other, won him the election because people, quite rightly, are tired of their lives in basic policy decisions being handled and made by unelected judges. it goes back to lincoln. in his very first inaugural address the way he was confronted with dred scott said he can't do anything about the slavery question, supreme court has ruled and he said if were to let that ruling on a particular case settle this contested policy issue forevermore we will have ceased to that extentis toe governing ourselves. mark: is this not know the t reason why they hate him because he trying to put people on the court who have fidelity to the original intention of the

framers of the constitution? >> it is. i want to emphasize this. he is not trying to put people on the court who are the counterbalance of the leftist ideologues that have input on the court but he's trying to put people on the court that will follow the law wherever it leads and that is what you want and what you must have in judges for the judiciary to have any sustained respect from the people. mark: were not talking putting conservatives on the court from the political point ofti view. or originalist, people we call them, people who look at the constitution and what was attended when it was adopted and try to discern that and maybe pome up with different results. scalia and thomas time to time to come up with different results but it's the process and integrity ofoc the process in te thinking process you were supposed to use. >> and also the thing that gives the court legitimacy. if what we are not interpreting as a higher law that is finding and why would we have given the decision to nine unelected judges rather than have a plebiscite?

the entire legitimacy of theac judicial enterprise turned on the fact that we have a higher law that they are supposed to enforce. mark: in important footnote to this plebiscite stuff in thisar popular [inaudible] the left only supports the popular vote when they went. when they lose they turn to the courts and the bureaucracy. ladies and gentlemen don't forget mark levin tv and you can see almost every weeknight at blaze tv .com /-slash mark. or give us a call at 844-levin 844-levintv, 844-levintv. we'll be right back. but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands.

-you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that. that fits your business. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up

with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. and is the fastest growing place to buy a car in the nation. carvana is six years old this year it's because we have thousands of people working hard to make our customers' experiences the best. it's because we have tens of thousands of cars ready to be delivered to your doorstep. and it's why hundreds of thousands of happy customers have ditched the dealership and bought their car online, earning us an average 4.7 stars in the process.

so if you didn't know about us before, you do now. we're carvana, and we want to give you the car buying experience you deserve.

mark: professor, i see the democrats would like to throw the attorney general in prison for following the law and that is he says i can give you all the support and first of all, i

don't have to give you any but i can't give it all because there's another federal statute is called in our code 6e, secret grand jury information and i cannot give it to you if i wanted to. he said you give it to us.ou otherwise, your people telling you about the need the sergeant of arms to get him and i would recommend it to the house they reconsider that because the justice department is better armed than house of representatives but that said, let's take a look at the constitution one seconds. these committees with all these subpoenas through and around for the presidents of personal bank records and personal financial records for hisk private income taxes and this sort of thing is enormously outrageous. it is harassment. it's an attack at a personal level in what's wrong with that? >> a couple of things. one, they're trying to undermine the results of the last election

and that is first and foremost. second, what they're doing amounts to something that our own declaration of independence had accused thinking of doing which is issuing general warrants. when you suspect a crime has occurred occurred we go to the judge and ask for a warrant to inspect certain things we think will help us prove the crime but what the king of england was doing to the colonists was issuing general warrants that meant the king tariff officers could go not where they suspected a crime but where they had an individual that they wanted to investigate to see if any crimeom had been committed n one of the reasons we have a fourth amendment is to prevent the notion of general warrant that we target an individual we don't like and turn his life upside down until we can find some evidence of a crime. what we see happening here with the investigation with the

subpoenas let's go to the financial records of for ten years and if that does not produce anything but go back 20 years and that does not lose anything, we know this guy must have done some time otherwise he could not have gotten elected so let's just scour the earth until we find it. that is like a general warrant have constitutional prohibition against that. mark: in addition to being president he is a citizen so the bill of rights applies to citizen trump, to. >> as does the tax code that they are private tax return is confidential. the congress has in the statute the authority for the ways and means committee in the house with a similar committee in the senate to request tax returns but generally on a broad basis to make sure that there is not any monkey business going on and how the irs likes people for audits. if any individual tax return information is disclosed to those committees in the process it absolutely has to be kept confidential.

mark: let meti emphasize this. that was intended to protect taxpayers from the irs. in other words, so the irs is not targeted citizen groups based on their religion, certain groups based on their race, surgeon -- it was not intended to violate separation of powers or to use it as a tool against an american citizen and so t foh and if congress, in the end, has the power to do this to the president i suppose has the power to do it to the chief justice. >> they do. they should be careful because the same statute to give them the power to ask the irs for an individual tax returns to look at whether the irs is abusing his power also allows the president to ask for individual tax returns. he could ask for german others tax returns. mark: nadler with a that[i was impeachable wear while -- nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, she has a lot of power over what legislation comes to the floor, appropriation and nothing gappens without her say-so even before it gets to the president. >> that's right five what about

her tax returns? >> her tax returns and the business of her family and let's look at diane feinstein tax returns in particular her husband's business relationship with chinapa and her vote on particular things let's look at the clinton foundation tax returns and specific actions secretary hillary clinton took when she was secretary of state that can be directly tied to financial contributions to her clinton family foundation. mark: isn't this what congress is supposed to be -- you know, only when irs is visiting their congress should look into the irs. mark: democrats want to look into the those looking -- >> you may recall i testified in congress over that issue and the abuse of the irs over the ideological abuse slow walking conservative organizations from getting the normal pre- clearance for nonprofit status that everybody else gets. mark: that's the purpose of the statute so congress can look into abuse by the irs and that's

what congress -- not that congress can abuse of president or individual citizen. oversight responsibly of congress was supposed to relate to what? >> to make sure the permit of justice and the executive branch agencies are doing their job to stand within the lines that the constitution is out for their authority. mark: and perhaps pass legislation but they are not a shadow criminal investigative operation, are they? >> no, they are not. by the way, and they can't be. they're not structurally set up to be that way. it becomes a circus or show trial as we have seen in severa. mark: what about the states like california and others who think they're very clever and trying to pass taxes to say you don't qualify to run for a primary in the general election in our state unless you reveal your tah

returns. is that constitutional? >> no, patently unconstitutional. this report decided this long time ago back in the early 1800s on a member of progress when the state try to impose additional restrictions on its members and said the constitution that out requirements for federal office in the states can't add to those requirements while saying someone has to dispose disclose her tax returns is adding a requirement to running for federal office in the states had no power to do that. mark: the states want to better better -- we'll be right back. of savings and service. whoa. travis in it made it.

it's amazing. oh is that travis's app? it's pretty cool, isn't it? there's two of them. they're multiplying. no, guys, its me. see, i'm real. i'm real! he thinks he's real. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

b5 professor eastman, i want to tackle what unfortunately is one of the most boring issues of america but the left keep bringing it up. i have to tell you you and i thave been around the constitution for many decades but nevery heard it brought up n the way been brought up today as they scoured the constitution looking for things to destroy but it basically says your president for senior official in the ministration and the government is not allowed to have foreign titles or appointments in okay great not allowed to receive emoluments, payments and so forth from foreign governments and so they say here we have a president who has real estate but his hotel in washington dc in particular people hotel i recommend it to

anyone like to go there the trump hotel when he foreign heads of state and other diplomats stay at that hotel take it to their hotel rooms pay for the meals that is an unconstitutional benefit to the president of the united states. is that right? >> so far there is a single court that that it's right and it's laughable. look. if that were the case then president obama accepting the nobel peace prize would have an unconstitutional emoluments in any president that owns stock in corporations that have ties to a foreign government when that stock price goes up because of some action at the foreign government that would be an unconstitutional emoluments that's not for what we've looked at it in 200 years of history. mark: and yet we have a judge i believe he's in maryland or dc who's ruled that maryland and washington dc have a standing to bring the suit and how the helpful they extended because

they get tax proceeds from the hotel so they will get benefitst so they consume under the clause that they should not get a benefit from the hotel, is this not the problem when you have a judiciary that has become many despite what the chief justice said thoroughly activist and partisan. >> well, you know, i don't want to segue back the travel ban cases because something similar happened there and the judges that blocked present executive order on the travel ban which was not a fan but temporary suspension not even cite the statute that clearly gave him the authority to do what he had have been used as every president from jimmy carter forward and only this president that somehow ran afoul of it. these judges have become part of a resistance movement to undo the results of the 2016 election and it was a travesty. the greater threat to our constitutional system than the

role of loss in any of the particular incidences that the embracing of the judiciary of this resistance. mark: didn't we also have a judge that said when obama put in place certain environmental regulations through executive order that this president can't reverse them through executive order and haven't they also said some of these judges that daca was put in place basically or written out of the white house and a piece of legislation and adopted through executive order that is president can't reverse that so president can't reverse the executive decisions but thet president who preceded him? >> decisions that were themselves unconstitutional. the immigration and the production case. president obama after 22 different i'm saying here no legal authority to do it when ahead and did it anyway or rather his secretary of homeland security did it with a memo, not even an executive order it was

held to be unconstitutional because it did not go through the regular requirements from adding a new regulation in the same janet napolitano who did that illegal act then sued trump for reversing it without going through the motives process she gone through. it was y laughable and yet you t a judge that says napolitano suits when and they have to stop the illegal action. unbelievable. mark: when we come back, impeachment. we'll be right back. i switched to liberty mutual, because they let me customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

alice loves the smell of gain so much, she wished it came in a fabric softener too.

[throat clears] say hello to your fairy godmother, alice. oh and look they got gain scent beads and dryer sheets too! the business of road trips... ...adventure... ...and reconnecting. modernized comfort inn's and suites have been refreshed because our business is you. get the lowest price guaranteed on all choice hotels when you book direct at choicehotels.com.

paralyzed veterans of america has taught veterans like myself that they can be unstoppable. it proves to me that there's nothing that can't be overcome. we are unstoppable. ♪ mark: professor, the framers spent time on this issue of impeachment went to parliament elected english common law and definitions and rejected some like considered too large a bar, treason and bribery, misdemeanors and keep hearing it said that is a political act and

it's whatever the house of representatives say is that waits for us to work? >> no, in practice whatever the house of representatives want will play out no get the vote. mark: how are they supposed to conducted? >> treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors hav a very specific understanding in high crimes and misdemeanors but not the ordinary crime but high crimes and misdemeanors was a term of art of the fundamental abuse of the office that would undermine the legitimacy of government itself. those were the things they were want a king who is above the law can do t whatever he wanted. mark: has that happened here? >> no, i've been done and how scrupulous trump and his team have been staying within the legal lines that they had. they could have done it otherwise. his immediate predecessor blew through the lines on executive power and constitutional authority on numerous occasions and they could've said will take what obama did as president and do the same thing in the other direction but they have not done that. mark: here is the problem with the president doesn't serve at the pleasure of the house of

representatives. >> spirit on a elementary syst system. that will be done. john eastman, it's been a great honor. >> thank you for having me. mark: join us next time on "life, liberty and levin". >> your heart and where your spirit is what taking over there to do the job you need to do not because you like it. ♪ >> that's what i love about this country. depreciates its war warriors. >> you're still a soldier and never come off the line but you'll always be one. >> i know how it affected change in the country and with my wife and my kids and how important it is