mark levin is up next. see you next monday when the next revolution will be televised. ♪ ♪ ♪ hello america, welcome to life, liberty and levin. we have a great constitutional scholar tonight. how are you doctor john eastman. you are the professor of law at chapman university. i've known you a very long time. your brilliant and you've litigated up and down the federal chain on a whole bunch of constitutional issues. i wanted to talk to about several of those. we had come earlier this week, 375, or 400 prosecutors write

a letter, trial notes they put together a letter and manufactured a new story saying that if they had been prosecutors still in the president was president they would have charged him with obstruction. this is very odd i think because if trump wasn't president this wouldn't be an issue at all to begin with, right. >> right. >> secondly people think that's a lot of formal federal prosecutors. there's about 350 in the southern district of new york alone. you're talking former federal prosecutors, there must be tens of thousands of them. so they put this letter together and everybody's very excited about it and i read this letter, there's not a lick of information or substance in this letter that makes a difference. robert mueller puts together this report and here we are focused on volume two.

they say there's no collusion, there's no collaboration, there's no conspiracy. that should've been the end of it but robert mueller puts together this 400 some page report. was he required by regulations to put together some 400 page report. >> no. in fact what they do require if you report to the attorney general on his conclusion if there is an indictable offense or not and the reasons why he did or did not bring those seeking indictments. that's it. that's all the regulations require. the normal justice department practice is to not let anything beyond their go out. [inaudible] people's reputations are at stake. >> is a very important process in place. it was given thought, it's a regulation that was adopted and honored by democrats and

republicans in-and-out of the justice department. there is some measure of due process. this is important so innocent people are not charged with a crime without being able to defend themselves. this report is really a bunch of crab, isn't. >> well, it is. he said i couldn't find enough evidence to exonerate president trump from the obstruction of justice allegations. that's not his job as a prosecutor. the only job is to decide if there's enough evidence to bring about an indictment. we presumed innocent unless we can presume otherwise. his report assumes guilt and less president trump can prove otherwise. as a violation of our very fundamental of democracy. >> it's very interesting, all these legal scholars have an

opinion. 2005, the united states of the supreme court. it's arthur anderson petitioner versus united states. the district court level, he lost, the fifth circuit, they. [inaudible] among others, andrew weissman, the director of mr. mueller. arthur anderson went broke, 80000 people lost their jobs and the supreme court reversed the law of courts in a 9 - 0 opinion, six, seven, eight pages long. what they say in here is, wait a minute, you can't just accuse someone of obstruction because you don't like what they said. there are elements to this crime and the not so easy approve. knowingly dishonest and a corrupt intent, the president

of the united states said this is white house counsel. if in fact this is true, the president denies it and says to his white house counsel i want you to get hold of the justice department and get rid of mueller because he's conflicted and he's got a whole bunch of people who are conflicted. how is that obstruction of justice if the president is saying, not be because he wants to kill an investigation, clearly everything else he did demonstrates he doesn't want to kill an investigation, here's my notes my staff, no executive privilege, talk to whomever you want, but this guys conflicted so let's say he did fire that gun. how is that obstruction of justice. >> it's not under the statute but one of the things everyone's forgetting is the basic separation of powers. the department of justice, the attorney general have no powers under our constitution that are derived from the

president. the president can't determine the course of an investigation is the most basic violation of separation of state. the entire executive branch is headed by one guy in the only check on that is through impeachment power, not through statutes or regulation. the president has the authority to change those whenever he wants. the notion that he can be charged for directing the conduct of the executive branch, he's the only guy elected to run that range really misunderstands the constitution from a very basic level. >> have never understood, whether as watergate or before this idea that you could have an independent counsel or special counsel independent of the executive branch investigating the head of the executive, never made sense to me. >> to the president cover up

anything? >> no - did he impede anything. >> no. >> did he obstruct anything. >> no he did not try to alter witness testimony like president clinton did during his candle. >> and yet some sounds just like jerry nadler and the other democrats but he wanted to and he tried, the president of the united states if you want to fire robert mueller, pick up your phone, call robert mueller and you say you're fired. president trump has done that thousand times before he became president of united states. he knows how to tell somebody you're fired. so he wasn't obstructing anything, was he. >> no as you pointed out, the

likely result would've been someone placed to conduct the investigation who was free of any conflicts of interest. on a high profile investigation, even if there's not actual conflicts you want caesar's wife to be pure. you don't even want to com appearance of conflict of interest. what we've seen is 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 if not an actual conflict of interest. what were looking for is in investigation, if there was going to be one at all and i don't there should've been that is above reproach so that the country can come back around on what's become a real political divide and threatens our ability to govern ourselves. >> are they judges? >> no. >> are they jurors.

>> know. >> are the advocates. >> yes. >> so when a senator puts out a report why is it assumed that everything is accurate or the end-all and be-all. >> this goes back to the conflict thing and this was absolutely essential and what we didn't get in the mueller report. there's been wonderful diges dissecting of the report to show how biased and skewed certain evidence was and how it was pretrade. it was almost like it was set up to create a media frenzy rather than giving an honest neutral assessment of what went on. >> the reason he didn't subpoena the president among many is because of this, the united states supreme court decision. >> unanimous, but this is 2005. the court was highly divided

partisan ideologically to get a 9 - 0 decision on something as high profile as that case just demonstrates how clearcut the law is and how the prosecutors abused the law. >> the office of legal counsel , they are aware of this case. deputy attorney general are aware of this case, the career prosecutors, senior career prosecutors who work their way up, they look at this, they know the law and the supreme court decision, they know there's no obstruction case here and yet he writes this, he was supposed to write this report. ernie general.

this was written for congress, he knew the democrats took the health he knew bark said he would release most of his report this is what has instigated and triggered all this trouble is a media, prosecutors, the prosecutors perfect. >> no. >> what happened in the ted stevens case. >> you had a bunch of prosecutors who bring a false charge, they hide evidence that would've immediately ended the case in a heartbeat but they play this out during the course of his reelection campaign to the extent that it cost him his reelection and after the fact there caught with the exonerating evidence and many of them are removed from office. by then it's too late, the damage had been done. >> when you interviewed the president white house counsel for 30 hours you report about what he said, somehow that makes me very, very

suspicious. what happened to the other 29 hours and 59 minutes. >> it was all exonerating evidence. even the two hours they included in the summary was distorted in order to try to make it appear that something nefarious had gone on. >> let's back up one step because this whole special prosecutor should've never been appointed in the first place. >> i want to get to that, this is very important, the entire exercise was fundamentally illegal. >> well it was. there's a very specific guideline, we recognize that on occasion prosecutors will be so conflicted because the target of the criminal investigation is their boss or their ultimate boss, the president of the united states others very specific policy. was not the case, when there is credible evidence of a

crime having been committed by someone at the top of the food chain, we will appoint a prosecutor and what was the crime that was alleged that was violated. >> there wasn't one. what we have was an intelligence gathering operation which is not a criminal investigation at all. on two fronts, it was intelligence gathering where there are no limits because you're trying to defend our national security and therefore not a crime and nobody in the administration itself accused with any evidence of it crime. those two components which are essential criteria for the appointment of the special prosecutor did not exist and they knew it didn't exist. >> they knew it didn't exist and they put the special prosecutor under the regulations anyway. they violate the regulations with the report because it's intended to go to the attorney

general to be confidential. they know he will make it public so they write a different kind of report. two regulations are violated. the appointment of the special counsel, conduct of the special counsel with respect to his report. folks don't forget you can join us on levintv almost every week night. go to blaze tv.com/mark to sign up. or give us a call 844 levintv. we would love to have you. woo! [laughing] i'm looking at that truck! wow! that's awesome! this 4th of july, celebrate in a new chevrolet. oh wow! they're all really cool cars. woo, i love it! i can't stop staring at it. spectacular deals are on display now at your local chevy dealer. wow! time to upgrade. get 20% below msrp on all 2019 silverado double cab pickups. that's over $9,750 on this silverado. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.

stop struggling to clean tough messes with sprays. try new clean freak! it has three times the cleaning power to dissolve kitchen grease on contact. it works great on bathtubs. and even stainless steel. try new clean freak from mr. clean.

[ gi♪ ling ] let'[ doorbell ]-up. [ slap ] your nails! xfinity home... cameras. xfinity home... disarm the system. door's open. morning... welcome to the neighborhood. do you like my work? secure your home with x1 voice control. and rest easy knowing you have professional monitoring backing you up. awarded "top pick" by cnet. demo at an xfinity store, call or go online today. xfinity home. simple. easy. awesome.

doctor john eastman, your constitutional expert. this is really rejection by the democrat party in the media and the rest of them. rejection of the 2016 election, isn't it. >> i think so. they still can't believe they lost that election. they're trying to rationalize that there must've been something nefarious but let's put it in historical context. i think we confronted the situation like this three times in our nations history. 1800, first time there was a change of power, one party to another, jefferson defeated adams, took him a while but adams finally handed the baton over peacefully. >> that was brutal and there were multiple votes in the house of representatives and finally hamilton throws his support to jefferson who he cannot stand, but he can't stand john adams even more.

>> right. the second time in our history this happened, that was not the result. it led to the bloodiest military conflict in our nations history. by the way, lincoln, did lincoln win a majority of the popular vote. >> no he didn't. he had 38% when he won a majority so we can have electoral college and not have a president of the united states and we would still have slavery in all that. >> him in this election. what were saying here, not just with this investigation but with the broader investigation and the use of subpoenas and federal judges who have been nominated and confirmed, blocking this president, blocking perfectly legitimate actions, others are saying the president has no

delegated authority to build a wall when the statutes are clear and reviving a non- delegation doctrine but the presumption is will we delegated power to a president we didn't mean this president, any other president fine, but not this president. so they think this is really a challenge for the result of the last election which means it's a challenge to the american people in the very notion that we govern ourselves. >> i mentioned this a couple weeks ago. this is not also the biggest effort in american history to disenfranchise voters, 63 million of them who voted for. >> it is, by far the largest, but it's more than just that, it's a challenge to the very legitimacy of the system. we see a national popular vote effort going on to get rid of the electoral college. one of the most crucial structural components of our constitution and it's designed to make sure were not a

democracy that just acts like a mob but channels our instinct into an enlightened popular rul rule. >> why did the framers of the constitution say look, were not going to just vote on stuff all the time. matter of fact witness that this government not kind of complicated. different branches, two bodies within one body, congress, will you have judges that serve for life but they have to be confirmed this way and the will have an executive, they spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to organize this. why didn't they just say you know what, their states, will have votes and it will go to the president. why didn't they do that. >> and if someday they knew down the road there would be a twitter account, but they understood there would be tyranny of one or a few, we can also have tyranny of a majority. a mob democracy is tyranny of

democracy. our constitution is based on two things. people are sovereign but the people have no just authority to deprive others of their individual rights. so all of these structures are here in order to combine the majority they'd be governing but that it not trample the rights of any minority weather or religious or racial minority that every individual has rights of the majority must respective it's going to be a just majority. the structural components of our constitution are designed to confine, drain to make it adjust majority. >> what is the declaration of independence. >> well it says all men are created equal, all human beings are created equal and we are endowed with our creator within daily inalienable rights. >> so the point is, he can have about but i have unalienable rights. >> that's right. if i get 51% i can't take the property of your other 49%.

>> and yet were doing that. >> they keep pushing us in this direction. >> so they've set up the system to protect individual, to protect life and liberty in the pursuit of happyness which in many ways meant you could live your life as an individual, as you wish to live your life as long as it's moral and you're not committing crimes or damaging someone else's property, this is really unique in human history to set up a government this way. this is our founding document, the constitution is the governing document designed to basically implement those principles to try to figure out how to set up the government. i often put it this way. my neighbors don't get to vote on my property rights, i've heard joe biden say the other day the greatest rate you have is to vote. the greatest right you have is your life. >> and madison define property as property and rights and

this is key, this was understood by everybody at the time. the purpose of government is to secure those rights against any tyranny that we take them away. again of one or many or what have you. we now have a significant portion of our population that thanks the purpose of government is otherwise to redistribute rights and take from some and give to others. they understood that to be the very definition of injustice or an unjust law to do that. >> it seems that the same clinical forces that wish to oust this president with the same clinical forces, i want to explore that with you

[♪] aishah: live from "america's news headquarters." i'm aishah hasnie. a size mowl just at caltech says the two epicenters from the earthquakes in southern california hit in less densely populated areas. but warning that a quake 6.0 or larger is likely to hit southern california every few years. and she says it will be worse if the quakes hit faults under

large metro areas. admiral moran will retire. he. r. >> i see basic threads here. look at the democrats and the house judiciary committee and oversight committee and those who think the constitution. [inaudible] there is a disregard of the constitutional order. the same people who are attacking this president sam hughes violated the constitution, for the life of me i can't figure out how, that he wants to be a dictator, i can't figure out how, you look at this and use

it myself but look at the elements. there would be no country but for the compromise on the electoral college. the bill of rights, there would probably be no bill of rights because it protects the individual rights but if we can vote, they don't have the bill of rights in the uk or most of these parliamentary systems, we have a constitutional system. why do you think the progressive left are able to get away, were waving around the constitution while trying to destroy. >> part of it turned into the notion of what the constitution is produced in a sustained effort over the health last half-century, awfully going lockable, the constitution is the supreme law of the land but one of the justices once said but it is only what the justices say it is. they like that because it's kind of a progressive move in

the courts to redefine the constitution. that then becomes the constitution in their view. the reason it was important for this progressive movement was the constitutions constraints on government serve to limit the good they thought they could do with government, and therefore you had to get rid of the constraints which meant you had to get rid of the constitution structure, the enumerated powers that the government can only exercise, all of these structured stood in the way of the best and the brightest experts doing the right thing, political science was gonna solve all problems and create utopias we just get these constraints on government out of the way. there has been a sustained century long effort to remove the impediment of the constitution imposes on government. >> to create the centralized government, the administrative state where no matter the

election it's largely unaffecte unaffected, although this president has affected it like few others, to his credit and this is part of the progressive where they attacked the constitutional structures to confine separation of powers and yet they use it when they can against this president, but they also attacked the declaration of independence. >> they do. >> there was a supreme court decision on the kansas just last week. kansas has a very explicit protection of life in their state constitution. others more broadly in the court say well that says life but the life of the unborn, were not going to cover that. were going to impute to the constitution that they really meant privacy and that prevailed over life. the actual language of the constitution was discarded in order to take a progressive

issue. that's what we've had courts doing for way too long. president trump did something very bold in his campaign. he announced the kind of people he would be picking for supreme court vacancies or the lower courts. i think that issue, more than any other is what one the reelection because people are tired of their lives in basic policy decisions being made by unelected judges. it goes back to lincoln. in his very first inaugural address, they never said you can't do anything, they've already ruled. >> is this not another reason why they hate trump because he's trying to put people on all the courts who have fidelity to the original intention of the framers of

the constitution. >> it is. i want to emphasize this, he's not trying to put people on the court who are the counterbalance that have been put on the court, he's trying to put people on the court that will follow the law wherever it leads, and that's what you want, that's what you must have been judges for the judiciary to have any sustained respect from the people max were not talking about putting conservatives on the court, originalist we call it, people who look at the constitution and when it was intended and adopted and try to discern that and come up with different results. glia and thomas would from time to time come up with different results but it's the process, the integrity of the process that you're supposed to use. >> and it's also the thing that gives the court legitimacy. if what were not interpreting is a higher law, then why would we have given the decision to nine unelected judges.

the entire legitimacy of the judicial enterprise turns on the fact that we have a higher law. >> it's an important footnote to this popular vote stuff. the left only supports the popular vote when they win. >> that's right. >> when they lose they turn to the courts of the bureaucracy. ladies and gentlemen, don't forget, you can see this almost every weeknight, join us at least tb.com to sign up blaze tv.com or give us a call at 844 levintv.....

professor, i see the democrats would like to throw the attorney general in prison. following the law. that is, he said i can't give you this report but i can't

give it all to you because there's another federal statute that's called 60, secret grand jury information and i couldn't give it to you if i wanted to give it to. see you give it to us otherwise you have people talking about. [inaudible] i would recommend in the house that you consider that because i think the justice department is better armed than the house of representatives. with that said, let's take a look at the constitution. these committees with all the subpoenas throwing around for the president's personal bank records, his personal financial records. his private income tax, this sort of thing, it's enormously outrageous. it's harassment. what's wrong with that. >> a couple things. they are trying to undermine the result of the last election. that's first and foremost.

what they're doing amounts to something that her own declaration of independence had accused the cake of king of doing which is issuing general wants. when you suspect that a crime has occurred we go to the judge and we asked for a warrant to inspect certain things that we think will help prove the crime. what the king of england was doing was issuing general warrants that meant the king's 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 crime had been committed. one of the reasons we have a fourth amendment is to prevent the notion of general warrant. if we target an individual we don't like and then turn his world upside down to find some evidence of the crime, what we see happening here with the investigation and the subpoenas, let's go through the financial records, if that doesn't produce anything let's go back 20 years, we know this

guy must've done some crime otherwise he couldn't of gotten elected so let's just scour the earth until we find it. that's like a general warrant. there's good reason why we have a constitutional prohibition. >> in addition to being president he's a citizen. the bill of rights applies to citizen trump as well. >> it does. there's tax code that says your private tax return is confidential. now congress has, in the statute, the authority for the ways and means to request tax returns generally on a broad basis to make sure there's not any monkey business going on and how the irs flex people for audit. if any individual tax return information is disclosed to those committees in that process it absolutely has to be kept confidential. >> that was intended to protect taxpayers from the irs. >> in other words so the irs

isn't targeting certain groups based on the religion or their race so it wasn't intended to violate separation of powers, to use it as a tool against an american citizen and so forth, and if congress, in the end, has the power to do this to the president, i suppose they have the power to do this to the chief justice. >> they do but they should be very careful because the same statute that gives them the power to ask the irs for individual tax returns to look at whether the irs is abusing the power also allows the president to ask for individual tax returns so he could ask for chairman nadler's tax return. >> yes, but he would say. [inaudible] and nancy pelosi, speaker of the house has a lot of power on what kind of legislation comes to the floor. nothing happens without her say fill so what about her tax

return. >> the business interest of her family, all those things would be fair game. let's look at dianne feinstein returns. particularly her husband's relationships with china and her both some particular things, let's look at the clinton foundation tax returns and specific actions, for secretary clinton made when she was secretary of state that could be directly tied to financial contributions to her clinton family foundation. >> when the irs is abusing things, congress is supposed to be looking into the irs. >> other democrats that want to look into this. >> no, i was one of those. you may recall recall i actually testified over that issue in the abuse of the irs, of the ideological abuse, slow walking conservative organizations getting the normal preclearance for nonprofit status that everyone else gets. >> that's the purpose of the statute so congress can look into abuse, not so they can

abuse the irs to abuse a president or individual citizens. >> the oversight responsibility congress is supposed to do what. >> make sure the department of justice and the executive branch agencies are doing their job and staying within the line that the constitution sets out for their authority. >> and perhaps pass legislation, but they're not a shadow criminal investigative agency are they. >> no. >> by the way, they can't be, they're not structurally set up to be that way. becomes a circus, a show trial as we've seen in several cases. >> what about the states like california and others who think they're very clever and are 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 tax returns. is that constitutional. >> no, it's blatantly unconstitutional. the supreme court decided this issue back in the early 1800s when the state tried to impose

an additional restriction on its members and they set the constitution sets out the requirements for federal office in the state can't add to those requirements. saying someone has to disclose her tax return is adding a requirement to running for federal office in the states federal office in the states have no power to dooooo that i won the "best of" i casweepstakes it. and i get to be in this geico commercial? let's do the eyebrows first, just tease it a little. slather it all over, don't hold back. well, the squirrels followed me all the way out to california! and there's a very strange badger staring at me... no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. uh-huh, where's the camel? "mr. big shot's" got his own trailer. ♪ wheeeeeee! believe it! geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! cascade platinum.

professor, i want to tackle what is one of the most boring issues in america, but the left keep bringing it up. i can tell you and i have been around the constitution for many decades and i've never heard it really brought up in the way it's being brought up today as they scour the constitution looking for things to destroy. the monuments clause basically says look, your president or a senior official, you're not allowed to have foreign titles or porno appointment and you're not allowed to receive payments from foreign governments. so they say you own a lot of real estate at this hotel in washington d.c., a beautiful

hotel, i recommend it for anybody who would like to go here, when these foreign heads of state and other diplomats stay at the hotel and pay for the hotel rooms and pay for their meals - [inaudible] any president that owns stock in any foreign that's never the way we've looked at it through 200 years her history. >> there's a standing to bring the suit.

[inaudible] they get a benefit from the hotel so they consume but they shouldn't get a benefit? >> yes. >> i want to segue back to the travel ban cases. credit was a temporary suspension and that had been used by every president from jimmy carter forward and it was only this president that somehow run a foul with it. these judges have become part of a resistance movement, any

of these prison incidents, the bracing of this resistance. >> we also have a judge who said when obama put in place certain environmental regulation that through executive order that this president can't reverse them through executive order, haven't they also said daca was written out of the white house, a piece of legislation adopted through executive order that this president can't reverse that so they can't reverse the executive decisions of the president who preceded him - the decisions themselves were unconstitutional. the immigration, deferred action, president obama, after 22 different times saying he had no legal authority to do it when i had 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 didn't go through regular

requirements for adding a new regulation. they then sued trump for reversing it without going through the process that he hadn't gone through. it was laughable yet you get a job. they have to stop the fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost.

unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? with moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans... crohn's, can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today. if your current treatment isn't working... ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract,

to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.

the sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed, now $1299. plus, free premium delivery when you add a base. ends sunday.

they've looked at treason, bribery, high crimes, misdemeanors, i keep hearing is a political act, is that the way it's supposed to

work. >> no, in practice, whatever the house of representatives want, it's gonna play out and they're gonna get the vote. >> treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors have a very specific term of art, a fundamental abuse of the office that would undermine the legitimacy of government itself. those were the kind of things we're talking about. they did not want a king who is above the law who could do whatever they wanted. >> i've been stunned at how scrupulous trump and his team have been in staying within the legal line. his immediate predecessor lou through the lines on executive power and constitutional authority on numerous authorities and they could've said were going to take what obama did as president and do the same thing in the other direction, but they haven't done that. >> here's the problem. the president doesn't serve at the pleasure of the house of

representatives. it's not a parliamentary system. if they get their way, going to happen. john eastman, it's been a great honor. >> thanksananananananananananan something an issue that does upset a lot of americans all over the political spectrum. we will see where it goes. spoon dana perino has that and more on "fox news sunday" next. have a great rest of the weekend. >> and janet perino for chris wallace. president trump doubles down on a citizenship question for the 2020 census and says i.c.e. grades are coming. >> they will start fairly soon but i don't call them raids. >> the stated border facilities. >> have seem of some of the places and they ran beautifully. >> is tensions over immigration reach a flashpoint. >> these women were being told by cbp officers or drink out of a toilet. >> so that the system is still broken. he was human rights are still being abused. dana: we will discuss the conditions of the board and a showdown over the cens