Levin: Nancy Pelosi and her politburo have gone rogue and are trying to run roughshod over President Trump

close

Video

Levin: Nancy Pelosi and her politburo have gone rogue and are trying to run roughshod over President Trump

Mark Levin takes an in-depth look at the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry on a special edition of 'Life, Liberty & Liberty.'

This is a rush transcript from "Life, Liberty & Levin," October 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARK LEVIN, HOST: Hello America, I'm Mark Levin. This is "Life, Liberty & Levin" Special Edition: The House Goes Rogue. So I thought I would talk to you and slowly go through this process that we're dealing with as American citizens.

The Constitution. Article I Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment." In past impeachments involving inquiries into Presidents, it was a civil process, a rational process, a process that was actually bipartisan that involved both political parties.

Whether it was Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton.

Both political parties could call witnesses, both political parties could cross examine, both political parties can get depositions, and so forth.

The goal was to get as much of the body politic involved as possible.

This is the first time in American history that we have a rogue Speaker of the House and a small majority Democratic Party in the House of Representatives that's trying to drag our country in a different direction.

They have rejected completely and utterly the background of the impeachment process when it comes to Presidents of the United States.

Remember this report? Remember, this? It wasn't that long ago. Remember this? This is the Mueller Report. After two and a half years of so-called Russia collusion. Remember that? Two volumes. Year-on-year and year-on- year on this, hearing after hearing, news story after news story. It doesn't matter anymore. We've moved on ladies and gentlemen. It didn't cut it. That was their first impeachment report.

Then they bring Mueller in, remember that? They bring Mr. Mueller in.

That was a hell of a hearing, wasn't it? The guy didn't even know what he wrote because he didn't write it. Well, that went belly up. And they had all these subpoenas. What was it? Twenty eight hundred subpoenas, they had 19 lawyers, most of them partisans, 40 F.B.I. agents and analysts.

They went to or spoke to 19 different countries in order to chase down nothing. Nothing. This is the same House of Representatives now that is bringing up Ukraine. All of a sudden Ukraine. We go from Russia to Ukraine. How did that happen?

The Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and six Committee Chairmen, I call them her Politburo, a running roughshod -- or trying to -- over the President of the United States, the Executive Branch and so forth, issuing letters that they call subpoenas. And if the letters aren't replied to in a certain given amount of time, they're claiming that it's obstruction of justice.

Of course, it can't be obstruction of justice. They're not a court. They mean obstruction of the House. And so they're trying to set up the President and set up the administration, and the demands are very onerous, and it's almost impossible to keep up with them.

But the process you see, ladies and gentlemen, is ahistorical and the President's counsel wrote a letter as you know to the Members of the House, and they said, "You've denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present." In other words, due process.

Basic due process.

Even though this isn't a criminal matter. Serial murderers get more due process than the Democrats want to give to the President of the United States. Terrorists get more due process than the Democrats want to give it to the President of the United States.

In the past, the right of the minority to issue subpoenas was upheld, coequal subpoena power and so forth.

So I did a little bit of research, and I found something. Look at this.

What in the world is this? Well, this is from October 7, 1998. It's report together with additional dissenting view. So what kind of report is it? It's a committee of the Judiciary. 1998. What was happening in 1998?

Oh, a House Impeachment Inquiry of Bill Clinton.

And this Judiciary Committee, which was run by the Republicans. The Chairman was Henry Hyde of Illinois, they decided to prepare a resolution.

Now, why were they preparing a resolution for the Full House of Representatives? They said, "It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed by this resolution in the first instance, to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly."

"If either declines to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened properly to consider the question."

In other words, the Chairman and the Ranking Member, Democrat and the Republican will have equal ability to issue subpoenas. They could do it jointly, they can do it separately. If there's a challenge, the full Committee hears it, and it's done in public.

That's not what's happening today. The Democrats are the only ones who can issue subpoenas and call witnesses and cross examine and all the rest of it.

It went on. "October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21 to 16."

"Need for the resolution," they write, "Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming importance. The Committee decided that it must receive authorization from the full House before proceeding on any further course of action."

"Because impeachment --" this is them. "Because impeachment is delegated solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution. The full House of Representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment."

You see how Bill Clinton was treated by a Republican House of Representatives, by a Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Republican by the name of Henry Hyde.

"Also a resolution authorizing an Impeachment Inquiry into the conduct of a President is consistent with past practice," they write. "According to Hind's Precedents, quote, 'the impeachment of President Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general investigation as to the execution of the laws."

They go on. "The impeachment investigation of President Nixon was explicitly authorized by the full House during debate of H.Res. 803 in 1974." Chairman Rodino, then Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated, quote, "We've reached the point when it is important that the House explicitly confirm my responsibility under the Constitution. We are asking the House to authorize and direct the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the conduct of the President of the United States."

He further says, "Such a resolution has always been passed by the House.

The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend that the House of Representatives adopt this resolution. It's a necessary step if we are meeting our obligations."

Wow. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton -- all treated completely differently than President Trump. Why is that? We'll get to that in a minute.

President's procedural rights also in this resolution, respecting the Impeachment Inquiry into Bill Clinton. "Prior to the October 5 Committee Meeting, some raised concerns about procedural fairness and encouraged the Committee to adopt rules similar to those adopted by the Committee in 1974 investigating Nixon, which were provide the President with certain procedural rights."

"After voting on the Hyde resolution, the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections for the President." President being Clinton.

"The President and his counsel shall be invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses. The President's counsel may have objections regarding the pertinency of evidence."

"The President's counsel shall be invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the Committee at an appropriate time."

"The provisions will ensure that the Impeachment Inquiry is fair to the President."

October 7, 1998. The Impeachment Inquiry Resolution respecting Bill Clinton went to the Full House of Representatives. This is how the Republican controlled House, the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee treated Bill Clinton, not like Nancy Pelosi.

The President of the United States is denied the right to cross examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel President. Absolute elimination of due process.

This isn't the way America does things. This isn't the way our Constitution is intended to work. The Democratic Party has hijacked the House of Representatives. It doesn't speak for the full House because the full House hasn't spoken.

The Democratic Party is pushing this impeachment. This is a Democratic Party impeachment, as I've been saying a silent coup effort. This is why they dispense with all the traditions involving the last three Presidents who went through this process and you know why else? They don't have anything.

They don't have anything. The Mueller report didn't give them anything.

The Mueller testimony didn't give them anything. There's no Russia collusion. There's no Ukraine collusion, which we'll get to in a minute.

But it's even worse, ladies and gentlemen, it's even worse. "House Democrats eager to protect the whistleblower," what kind of a whistleblower is this kind? What kind of a whistleblowers is in hiding?

We know the names of all these whistleblowers. They come out, they blow a whistle. They get lawyers, and the public can see who they are and they make their case. What kind of a whistleblower is this?

He is a C.I.A. operative. He's a rogue person who decided to use his position over at the White House to essentially spy on the President of the United States. That's what he did. Gathering information on the President of the United States, no firsthand information whatsoever. None.

So what does the House want to do? The Democrats, "House Democrats eager to protect the whistleblower who raised alarms over President Trump pressuring a foreign leader to investigate a political rival," we'll get to that. " ... are considering testimony at a remote location and possibly obscuring the individual's appearance and voice - extraordinary moves to prevent Trump's congressional allies from revealing the identity according to three officials familiar with a discussions."

That's not what they're doing. They want to prevent the President of the United States and his lawyers from doing what lawyers do when somebody accuses you of something. Checking their credibility, questioning them, looking into their backgrounds and so forth.

But it's even bigger than that. We, the people of America, we have a right to know who this person is if this person is going to be used and wants to be used by the Democratic Party in the House to bring down a President of the United States.

"Democratic investigators are concern that without such rare precautions, Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee could learn and then leak the identity of the whistleblower," God forbid, " ... who has agreed to answer questions before the Intelligence Committee in both the House and the Senate."

"Democrats overseeing the logistics of the testimony for the House Impeachment Inquiry are discussing a location away from the Capitol," maybe at the D.N.C., " ... as well as a staff only session that would prevent lawmakers from attending and asking questions."

"Aides have considered having the whistleblower testify from a separate location via a video hookup in which the camera would obscure the whistleblower's image and alter his voice."

What the hell is this? You're going to try to remove a President of the United States without the President, without the American people knowing anything about his accuser, except for the Democrats, the media and his lawyers want to tell us.

It's either that or they are creating a Blasey Ford moment, holding back until the right moment they think, to spring their witness, their noble, patriotic, unbelievably courageous witness as they paint that characterization of this individual who is a coward. A coward.

More when I come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back to the Special Edition of LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN. The House gone rogue.

In addition to knowing this President, the same rights that prior Presidents have had in this procedure, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. More -- more is going on that should raise your eyebrows.

For instance, MSNBC, Adam Schiff went on the morning show there and lied through his teeth. He was asked by interviewer Sam Stein, "Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower?"

Quote, "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to." Schiff said. A flat out lie.

We have other things going on with this Committee. For instance, they heard the testimony of the former U.S. Special Envoy for the Ukraine, Kurt Volker and they have cherry picked his text messages, pushed them out to the media. The media have happily reported them, saying this proves there was a quid pro quo.

When the Republicans in the Committee have demanded that Schiff released the entire transcript that in fact, his testimony 10 to 10 and a half hours undermines the narrative that the Democrats and the media had been pushing out with respect to the President of the United States and a quid pro quo.

It's amazing to me. The same Democrats who wanted grand jury information when it comes to the Mueller report won't give us a deposition transcript when it comes to this envoy for the Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and they don't have any excuses. It's not grand jury. There's not classified information. If there is, they can redact it out. Give the American people all the information.

You see how different this is from the Clinton and the Nixon and the Johnson proceedings? It's totally different.

Now look what I have here. The transcript of the phone call. This is it.

This is the transcript of the phone call. This is what apparently the controversy is all about. How did we get the transcript of the phone call?

The President released it. He did what? The President released it. Wow.

Has any President released such a transcript before? No. Well, that's quite a cover up then. And I hear it said, where did they keep this transcript? Well, they kept it on a secured server. Classified server.

Which shows he wanted to cover up.

This is one of their arguments. Folks, do you understand the President of the United States could just say he is covering this by executive privilege, and it would never see the light of day. There's not a court in America that would overturn his decision given that this is a discussion between one President to another President.

It doesn't matter if he had it on a secured server or not. He could have it under his mattress if he wanted to. The fact is, he had the constitutional authority to prevent this from getting out, forget about the server and he didn't.

He released it. Why did he release it? Because it's exonerating.

Remember the reports before? Oh my god, he mentioned Biden eight to nine times. No, he didn't. Oh, there's a quid pro quo. No, there wasn't.

Remember all of that reporting?

We're going to take a little bit of time and go through the two paragraphs that the media are commingling in order to confuse you and confound you and lie to you in order to push impeachment.

First, let's look at this page. I'm reading directly from the transcript.

Okay. The President, "I would like you to do us a favor," and this is where the left and the media and the Democrats -- all the same. "A favor."

The President said, "Do me a favor." The President said, "I would like you to do us a favor." Look into Joe Biden, no he didn't say that. Get dirt on Biden. No, he didn't say that either.

"I would like you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say Crowdstrike, I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people."

"I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people. And I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

"I would like you to do us a favor and look into this issue of Ukraine."

Ukraine's involvement in our election, the Attorney General is already investigating that. We have a U.S. Attorney who is already investigating that.

This is a nothing statement, which is exactly why the media and Adam Schiff, at that hearing had to lie about what the President said. They're trying to link the word favor with Biden.

There is no link of the word favor with Biden. They're trying to link the word favor with military assistance. Did you hear anything about military assistance in that paragraph? No, you did not.

So they're lying -- the media -- as they have throughout the Russia collusion falsehood.

And when we come back, I want to read you another section of the actual transcript of the phone call to prove once again that the President United States did not say, I want you to dig up dirt on Biden or I'm withholding aid from you, Ukraine. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AISHAH HASNIE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I'm Aishah Hasnie in New York. Growing chaos in Syria.

This comes as the White House orders all American troops out of the northern region. Defense Secretary Mark Esper reporting 1,000 troops are leaving right now.

At the same time, Turkey pressing forward with its offensive against Kurdish fighters. Syrian officials tell us one of the Turkey's attacks allowed hundreds of ISIS prisoners to escape. It's not yet known if President Trump intends to pull U.S. troops completely out of Syria.

Meantime Hunter Biden is stepping down from the Board of Directors of a Chinese backed private equity firm. His father, Joe Biden says it was Hunter's decision to do so to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Hunter's business dealings in China and Ukraine has become an issue in the 2020 Presidential race.

I'm Aishah Hasnie, now back to LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN.

LEVIN: Welcome back. Now let's get back to the transcript of the phone call with the President of Ukraine. Let's get to the other section that they're citing.

The President, "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that. The way they shut your very good prosecutor down." By the way, one of the people talking about it was Joe Biden on a video.

"And you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the Mayor of New York City, a great Mayor and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy."

"If you could speak to him - that would be great. The former Ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news. So I just want to let you know that. The other thing, oh, there's a lot of talk about Biden son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me."

What in the world is wrong with that? Everything the President talks about here is public. Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecutor. The President of the United States raises it. And so the Democrats and the media say, he was trying to interfere with the election. He was trying to draw the Ukraine into interfering with the election. How so?

How so? If Joe Biden didn't do anything. What's the problem? Drawing Ukraine into the election? And what is this idea that if somebody is running for office, they can't be investigated. He doesn't even use the word investigated here. He doesn't even say, look into Joe Biden to see if he is corrupt. He is talking about Joe Biden's son, and what Joe Biden did to cut off the prosecution for the whole world to see. There's no secret information. He is not demanding anything. There is no quid pro quo.

There's absolutely nothing.

And so I have a question, folks. Why isn't the United States Department of Justice, the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division or United States Attorney investigating the Biden's?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I remember going over and convincing our team, others, to convince that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev.

And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't.

So they said they had -- they were walking out to a press conference. I said, no, I said I'm not going to -- or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the President. The President said -- I said, call him.

I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.

Well, son of a b_tch. He got fired.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEVIN: Why aren't they investigating the Biden's? How is it that Hillary Clinton could destroy thousands of e-mails that had been requested, Joe Biden is on tape talking about blackmailing Ukraine withholding money if they don't fire prosecutor? A prosecutor who is investigating a corrupt company that's paying Joe Biden's son $83,000.00 a month for God knows what.

And yet the tables are turned on the President of the United States? This doesn't do a damn thing to advance the cause of impeachment. So what do they do? They go to their second impeachment document. Remember the Mueller report? They go to their second impeachment document.

Wow. A claim by a whistleblower we're told. But then we've learned a few things. The whistleblower has no firsthand information. The whistleblower is a registered Democrat. And the whistleblower has reached out apparently or talked to a 2020 Democrat who is running for President of the United States.

Why do we need the whistleblower's complaint? When we have the record of the telephone discussion? How are you a whistleblower about something you never saw? We, the People have this document, the raw evidence. Why do we need it interpreted by a C.I.A. operative? Who in my view has gone rogue, who is a Democrat, who apparently has some kind of links to a Democrat who is running for President in 2020?

Why do we need this? We don't. But the Democrats do. The Democrats need this. This is a joke. This is the document that was created to get around this document, as I will explain in a moment.

But ladies and gentlemen, don't forget, most week nights, you can watch me on Levin TV, Levin TV. Just give us a call at 844-LEVIN-TV, 844-LEVIN-TV, or go to blazetv.com/mark, blazetv.com/mark. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back. So here's the so-called whistleblowers doc. I've never heard of a whistleblower. You know, there's some debate now over the form that the whistleblower used that the form was changed by the Inspector General, just in the nick of time, so secondhand information could be used.

This really needs to be explored. Because I think this is a complete setup from beginning to end.

As I said, last week on Fox, there's no way this guy or gal wrote this document. It written with a bunch of lawyers, and it turns out, no question about that. And this document has no firsthand information. You know. You know what they do that document like this in court? They do that. That's what they do with it. It has no value whatsoever.

It is the original document that matters when you're in court. And it ought to be the same when it comes to an impeachment. Somebody is not a whistleblower. He's not whistle blowing on anything we don't already know.

He is using newspaper articles. He is making conclusionary statements.

It's really -- it's really a complete farce. That's why the Democrats need this guy.

And yet the whistleblower had a professional tie to a 2020 Democratic candidate. This was in "The Washington Examiner" by Byron York, quote, "The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates."

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person. "What [Atkinson], the Inspector General said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate," said a third person.

What kind of Inspector General is this? A guy comes to you. He has secondhand information, none of it is firsthand. He says, look, I'm a Democrat. I have a connection with one or more of the Democrats running for President in 2020. Honest to God, he says, okay, you're a whistleblower.

I've never seen anything like this before in the form of suspect. I've read that he checked that he had firsthand information when he didn't have firsthand information. But there's even more. No wonder the Democrats want to keep this guy in the Witness Protection Program or whatever basement he is in.

Here we have from Catherine Herridge, Fox News. "IG could not explain 18- day window between Ukraine call and whistleblower complaint, sources say."

This so-called whistleblower waits 18 days until he files his complaint.

It's urgent. You've got to get it to the Congress.

But he waits almost three weeks. Why? There's a lot of question that people want to ask. Breitbart.com, Aaron Clien, wonderful piece, 'Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit helping the lawyers for the so called whistleblower at the center of the impeachment movement targeting Donald Trump, is heavily tied to-far left activist organizations and Democratic politics."

Imagine that. I assume that's something that people are going to want to look into as well. What else do we know? Well, we know that this individual did not tell the Inspector General that he had talked to Adam Schiff's staff? Why didn't he tell him that? Because he wanted to be a whistleblower.

Adam Schiff didn't tell the Republicans that this so-called whistleblower had spoken to his staff. Why did he do that? He believes in surprises.

That's all.

There's a lot that needs to be explored with this whistleblower and all the rest. But what are we really talking about here? Let's go to the core of this. We have two Presidents who spoke to each other on the telephone. We have the Secretary of State who was listening in with our President. We have the Foreign Minister of Ukraine, who also vouches for what his President says.

Ukraine Foreign Minister says, "There was no pressure in Trump's call with Ukraine's President." We have the transcript. He says there was no pressure. We have Ukrainian President himself, Zelensky, remember at the U.N.? "I think you read everything. I think you read text," Zelensky said to the gather reporters at the UN. "I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved in democratic, open elections of the USA. No, you heard that we had a good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. I think you read it, that nobody pushed me."

There was no pressure. The Ukrainian President again, what did he say according to Fox News. Ukraine President says no blackmail in phone call with Trump. He told reporters his call with Trump involved no bribe, blackmail, or quid pro quo.

So you have the two main witnesses --two Presidents in United States, who keeps saying there was no pressure. You have the original document that shows there's no pressure. You have both Presidents who say there's no quid pro quo. You have the original document that says there's no quid pro quo.

But you see, we have the whistleblower who knows nothing firsthand and the whistleblower says different. And his lawyers say different, and the Democrats want it to be different.

And then we find this Fox News, John Solomon, recently on the "Hannity" show. "A newly unearthed document shows that Ukraine officials had opened a new probe into their firm linked to Hunter Biden months before President Trump's phone call with the country's leader. Solomon said ... that the U.S. government knew Ukraine was planning to look again in the activities of Burisma Holdings, an energy company that employed then Vice President Joe Biden's son as a member of its Board."

"The U.S. government had open source intelligence and was aware as early as February 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation. This is long before the President ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky, he noted, this is a significant shift in the factual timeline."

"Solomon said the information he obtained including documents was omitted from the U.S. intelligence community whistleblower's complaint lodged against President Trump."

Wow. And one other thing. This is from "The Daily Caller." "The Ukrainian government reportedly did not know that President Donald Trump froze military aid to the country until a month after the phone call that was central to a whistleblower complaint." How can you have a quid pro quo when the quo side doesn't even know you're withholding money? When it doesn't show up in the transcript? When there's no link?

How do have a quo, let alone a quid pro quo. "The detail further complicates allegations that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement with Ukrainian President Zelensky by threatening to withhold the aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden."

"The detail was reported in 'The New York Times' but went relatively unnoticed until after the release of the July 25 call transcript and the whistleblower complaint. 'The Times' originally dropped the news," this piece of information, " ... in the 13th paragraph of a story about the aid freeze."

Much like their coverage of the Holocaust. They were dropping things in the 13th paragraph. When the Jews in Europe were being exterminated, no question about it. Read chapter six of my book, as I spell it out there.

Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, you can join me most weeknights on Levin TV, give us a call at 844-LEVIN-TV, 844-LEVIN-TV or get us on the internet. Go to blazetv.com/mark, blazetv.com/mark. We'd love to have you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back. This is a Special Edition of LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN.

The House gone rogue. I want to remind you a little bit about the ringleader in this whole rogue operation against the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi. Let's take a look. Go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The access to initial public stock offerings, the opportunity to need to buy a new stock at insider prices just as it goes on the market. They can be incredibly lucrative and hard to get.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you were a senator, Steve and I gave you $10,000.00 cash, one or both of us is probably going to go to jail. But if I'm a corporate executive and you're a senator, and I give you IPOs shares in stock, and over the course of one day that stock nets you $100,000.00 that's completely legal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband had participated in at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008 from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies began making its way through the House.

Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest, the Pelosi's purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44.00. Two days later, it was trading at $64.00. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House.

Congresswoman Pelosi also declined our request for an interview, but agreed to call on us if we attended her news conference.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa.

At a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the House. Would you consider that to be a conflict of interest?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I don't know what your point is of your question, is there some point that you want to make with that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a Speaker to accept a very preferential and favorable of stock deal?

PELOSI: Well, we did --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that you participated in the IPO?

PELOSI: Well, I have many investments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And at the time, you were Speaker of House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or have the appearance of conflict of interest?

PELOSI: No. It only has appearance if you decide that you're going to elaborate on a false premise, but it is not true. And that's that,.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't understand what part is not true?

PELOSI: Yes, sir, that I would act upon an investment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out that the tough credit card legislation eventually passed, but it was two years later, and was initiated in the Senate.

PELOSI: I have to hold my record in terms of fighting the credit card companies, as a Speaker of the House or as a Member of Congress up against anyone's.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Corporate executives, Members of the Executive Branch and all Federal judges are subject to strict conflict of interest rules, but not the people who write the laws.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEVIN: Well, there are laws now. There are rules now that limit this sort of thing. But I wanted to remind you, about the ringleader and these Members of Congress. I wanted to remind you that they are flesh and blood and they're very imperfect people.

It wasn't that long ago, remember? The #MeToo Movement, when we found out Members of Congress had cut deals with taxpayer dollars to silence individuals who accused them of sexual harassment?

Oh, yes. So we hold up this House of Representatives and the Democrats who control it, like they are noble, like they're really judges, like they're great jurors, when in fact, they're politicians. And what they're doing is very, very problematic. And they keep attacking the President of the United States.

You know, this President, if we look at the subpoenas that have been issued, his taxes have been subpoenaed. His accounting firm's records have been subpoenaed. His accountant has been subpoenaed. His bank records have been subpoenaed.

What hasn't been subpoenaed? All their financial records have been subpoenaed. Those of his children have been subpoenaed. We've never seen anything like this in American history. The constant attempt to tear down this President.

And then I see some people saying, well, Congress has an oversight responsibility.

Ladies and gentlemen, Congress has to have a legitimate oversight responsibility that applies to its Article 1 duty: Legislation. Its oversight responsibility isn't to try and destroy a presidency and burden a presidency and undermine a presidency. And this has been going on since day one with the Democrats in the House and the Democrats and the media.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back. Isn't it interesting that not a single Committee of Congress has investigated Hunter Biden or Joe Biden with respect to Ukraine or China? Why Hunter Biden was paid? Why Joe Biden interceded on his behalf and told the Ukrainian government the prosecutor needs to be fired?

Or his little plane ride on Air Force 2 with his father to China? And the financial relationship that resulted from that?

They're investigating Donald Trump. It's like the Russia matter. The only one who colluded with Russia was Hillary Clinton and the D.N.C., not to mention the Obama administration at the highest levels of the F.B.I.

The only ones who really colluded with Ukraine again, the Obama administration, Ukraine, and Biden on behalf of his son.

Trump didn't collude with the Ukraine. And again, as I said, where's the congressional oversight that everybody talks about? And they talk about interference by foreign governments, and here we have three United States senators, May 4, 2018, Robert Menendez, Patrick Leahy and Richard Durbin, writing the General Prosecutor to the Ukraine and threatening him.

And among other things, they say, "We respectfully request that you reply to this letter answering the following questions." This is how they talk to a foreign government. "Has your office taken any steps to restrict cooperation with the investigation by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller? If so, why?" They are juicing the Ukraine to assist Mueller to take out Trump. That's what they're doing.

"Did any individual from the Trump administration or anyone acting on its behalf encourage Ukraine government or law enforcement officials not to cooperate with the investigation? Was the Mueller probe raised in any way during discussions between your government and U.S. officials, including around the meeting of President Trump and the President of Ukraine in New York in 2017?"

Three Democratic senators. Nobody even sneezes over it.

Here's another Democrat Senator, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, all over TV attacking the President of the United States. He took the reverse position. He basically threatened Ukraine, if you dare to open investigation on Joe Biden, you know, the support you get is bipartisan.

Well, you know what? That's kind of a threat, too, isn't it? The support you get is bipartisan. You dare to investigate Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden should be investigated. His son should be investigated. He called for the impeachment of the President of the United States the other day. Now he wants in essence, the Democratic Party in the House to use the impeachment clause in the House of Representatives to advance his campaign by trying to take out the President of the United States.

You want to talk about interference. There's an interference.

All right, folks. Thank you for joining me tonight on "Life, Liberty & Levin," and I'll see you next time.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.