‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ on media, criminal investigation into Trump Organization

close

Video

Mark Levin on district, city attorneys 'using power to advance political agenda'

Mark Levin asks what happens when the government becomes 'a criminal enterprise'

This is a rush transcript from "Life, Liberty & Levin," June 6, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARK LEVIN, FOX NEWS HOST: Hello, America. I'm Mark Levin and this is LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN. This is a very important program and I'm glad you're here.

We pride ourselves in America being a nation of laws. We have this beautiful Constitution of the United States. We have something called due process. We have all kinds of systems in place to protect the individual from government, especially a rogue government.

What happens when that government becomes a criminal enterprise? What do I mean by that?

What happens when a District Attorney in a city or an Attorney General in a state use their power to advance a political agenda? Politicians dressed up as prosecutors. And what happens when one individual, a prominent individual is focused on and targeted by an entire political party, including their prosecutors? Is that what we want in America?

Now we're used to seeing that sort of thing in the old Soviet Union or the modern day Russia under Putin. We're used to seeing that sort of thing happen in Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. But what if I were to tell you what's happening in the United States of America as I speak?

You see, we pride ourselves that after an election, we don't chase down defeated candidates or even victorious candidates. We don't chase them down to punish them, to destroy them, and to make sure that they can never have a political career again, or any kind of career. That is exactly what's happening to former President Donald Trump.

It is receiving virtually no attention nationwide, virtually no outrage. The so-called civil libertarians, which haven't been around for the last five years, still aren't around. The joke and corrupt media that we have in this country don't give this fair coverage, and so I thought we would spend tonight's program doing exactly that.

Every single one of us has a right to competent counsel, every single one of us, that's at the heart of our justice system. And in our justice system, we protect that counsel and we protect the advice that the counsel gives the client. We protect the material that the counsel collects. We protect the notes, we protect it all, otherwise, the individual, you, me, a citizen, even a noncitizen cannot get fair representation in our justice system.

So we have rules like the attorney-client privilege. We have attorney work product. We have confidentiality. And we have case law that surrounds all of it, to do what? To protect this cocoon, to create this cocoon around all this information, so the government can't get it specifically. Investigators and prosecutors.

Otherwise, what are we? We are the old Soviet Union. We are a totalitarian regime.

And yet for one man in this country, Donald Trump, it doesn't seem to matter. Does he have a right to counsel? Doesn't his counsel have a right to attorney-client privilege? Attorney work product confidentiality? All which in the end is protecting the client? In this case, Donald Trump.

Michael Cohen, one of Donald Trump's previous private attorneys is a criminal. He has pled to being a criminal. He has served time in Federal prison. He is a criminal and he had a plea deal and he wants to get even with his former client, Donald Trump.

And under that patina of an argument, Donald Trump's attorney-client privilege or rights, the attorney-work product and confidentiality apparently have gone out the window. Well, that's not how the system is supposed to work, is it, ladies and gentlemen?

Now, President Trump has faced a criminalized political system that never wanted him elected and never want them elected again. He was investigated, as was his family, as were his friends, as were his actions, as were his campaign compatriots and so forth under the Mueller investigation. When it comes to Donald Trump and his family and his organizations, they found nothing.

The Internal Revenue Service has been auditing the President and his organizations endlessly, year after year. No criminal prosecutions.

The vast media in this country, with all its investigative reporters, 99.9 percent have been targeting this President and his circle. They haven't come up with a damn thing. Although, the President's taxes were leaked to "The New York Times," and nobody seemed to have much of a problem with that, there have been endless congressional investigations, really Democratic Party investigations by congressional committees led by Chairman from places like New York City, Massachusetts, and California.

And they've done everything they can -- subpoenas and investigations and hearings -- empty. They came up with nothing.

Two unconstitutional impeachments, endless coup conspiracies, including out of the F.B.I. and the Intelligence Agencies, and I could go on and on, but that's not my point today.

There are two Democrats, elected Democrats with long-time political histories on behalf of the Democratic Party who have enormous power. One is a prosecutor in Manhattan, the other is a State prosecutor in Albany who are trying to destroy Donald Trump and his family and his organization as I speak.

First, is Cy Vance. It is Cy Vance, Jr. actually because his father was the Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter. He resigned because he was unhappy that Carter was too much of a hawk. That tells you about the Vance family, does it?

We have a "Washington Post" article here that says that "Cy Vance has convened a grand jury." A grand jury to do what? To potentially indict the President?

"Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has convened a special grand jury to hear evidence about potential charges in his investigation of the Trump Organization," "The Washington Post" has learned citing to anonymous sources, as they do. The newspaper reported the grand jury has begun to meet recently, didn't specify a start date.

"Vance has been investigating Trump for more than two years. A grand jury issued a subpoena for the former President's tax returns on August 2019." The grand jury is the plaything of the prosecutor, just so you know the facts, " ... which Trump successfully fought off until the 2020 election. During that time, Vance has suggested in public filings that bank, insurance, tax fraud, all may be focus of his probe."

In other words, they are on a witch hunt. "The Washington Post" described Vance's probe as expansive, saying it has been focusing on Trump's business career before he ran for President.

And you notice the leaks from the prosecutor's office.

Then, "The Daily Mail" -- what's really going on here. We have a long list of things that have been leaked to "The Daily Mail" from the prosecution's perspective. Jennifer Weisselberg, the former daughter-in-law of the President's Chief Operating Officer of the Trump Organization, I say former because she divorced, the CFO's son, she's all over the place, talking about how it has got to be corrupt and so forth and so on.

Apparently she is being interviewed by Vance. Her ex-husband Barry Weisselberg managed skating rinks for the Trump Organization and paid for - - and Allen paid for his grandkid's pricey private school -- big deal.

Former Trump Organization executive, Barbara Res believes Trump Lieutenant Allen Weisselberg has flipped on the former President -- so you're getting all the gossip, all the -- all the in the weeds, which we get all the time. We got it with Russia collusion. We got it with the other phony scandals that they tried to create, and now, it is in full bloom because this is what prosecutors do.

Who is Cy Vance?

I want you to know a little bit about Cyrus Vance. I don't particularly think he is this upstanding, independent ethical prosecutor -- just my opinion. He is an elected hack Democrat.

Let me give you some examples. From "The New York Post," "The New York Police Department secretly recorded disgraced movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein, apologizing for groping an Italian model and admitting that he was used to behaving that way according to a bombshell report. The incriminating audio clip posted online by the 'New Yorker' Magazine reveals Weinstein alternating between desperate pleas and angry threats as he tried to get Ambra Battilana Gutierrez (an Italian actress) into a downtown Manhattan hotel room."

So the cops had the goods. They had a recording. "The exchange reportedly took place inside the Tribeca Grand Hotel one day after Weinstein allegedly pawed Gutierrez. (He grabbed her breasts.) A one-time finalist of the Miss Italy contest in his nearby office on March 27, 2015. On the two minute recording that the NYPD had and gave to the prosecutors, Gutierrez, then 22, has heard directly accusing Weinstein of manhandling her saying with a thick accent, 'Why yesterday you touched my breasts?'"

Now, what did Vance do with this tape? He refused to prosecute the case. He refused to prosecute Weinstein and in many reports in New York -- I'm not drawing it, they drew the connection -- Weinstein's lawyers, it is reported, by several of these sources, later donated to Vance's re-election campaign.

So early on, he did nothing about Weinstein even though we had a recording. What else? Here we have a piece from "The Daily Caller." "Manhattan DA, Cy Vance looks inept again with the reemergence of Epstein case." Now what in the world could this be about?

"Billionaire financier, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with running a sex trafficking ring making him another high profile sexual abuse case Manhattan District Attorney, Cy Vance's office may have botched."

"Back in December, 2018, 'The New York Post' reported Vance believed Epstein's lawyers who claimed according to records in 2011 that there are no real victims here. Then Deputy Chief of Cyrus Vance's Sex Crimes Unit, Assistant DA Jennifer Gaffney, requested of a Manhattan judge in January 2011 to change Epstein's status in the New York sex offender registry for the most dangerous level three to the least restrictive level one."

This comes out of Vance's office. "According to 'The Post,' Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ruth Pickholz was flummoxed by the appeal. She said, 'I've never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this. I've done many cases much less troubling than this one where prosecutors would never make a downward argument like this.' When asked by the judge as to why she was asking for the classification downgrade, Gaffney, the Deputy to Vance disclosed she never actually spoke to the Florida U.S. attorney who dealt with the investigation into Epstein. The judge said, 'I don't think you did much of an investigation here. I am shocked.'"

This is Vance's office who can't do enough investigating of Donald Trump.

"One prosecutor made a mistake, Vance's spokesman, Danny Frost told "The Post" of Gaffney, who claimed that Vance himself was not aware of the hearing until many years later."

That sounds like bull baloney to me.

What else? There is more. "In an interview with CNN, Evelyn Yang, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said that while she was pregnant with her first child in 2012, she was sexually assaulted by her OB GYN at Columbia University. She is one of dozens of patients the doctor allegedly assaulted. Now, she and 31 other women are suing Columbia University, (this is in 2020), its affiliates, and the doctor for allegedly concealing and enabling his misconduct for decades."

"Yang eventually joined an open case the Manhattan District Attorney's Office had against the doctor (that's Cy Vance) and found that at least 17 other patients had made claims against the doctor, and while a grand jury indicted the doctor on multiple felony sex charges. In 2016, the DA's office reached a plea deal with the doctor in which he pleaded guilty to only two of the nine charges against him. One count of forcible touching, another count of a third degree sexual abuse. The doctor lost his medical license, but he did not go to jail."

"The Manhattan DA's Office, CNN notes is headed by Cy Vance, the same attorney who has been criticized for failing to prosecute Harvey Weinstein for misdemeanor sex crime in 2015 and for asking a judge to reduce billionaire pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender status in 2011."

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I've got much, much more here. "Manhattan DA, Cy Vance spent $250,000.00 in asset forfeiture funds on fine dining, first class airfare, and luxurious hotels during his frequent trips across the country. He lived high on the hog."

Also, the city newspaper reports, Vance's spending over a period of that time dwarfs that of any of the other District Attorneys in the other boroughs, would go off to Paris and other parts of the world and so forth.

And notice, of course, nobody investigates him.

This is the District Attorney. I said there's a lot more who has taken off after Trump and his family and his business.

I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back, America. I want to bring in Professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee Law School.

Now, Professor Reynolds, you heard my statement. What do you make of this? What do you make of the focus on Trump in these Democrat strongholds, and what I'm saying is clearly the criminalization of politics here?

GLENN REYNOLDS, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE LAW SCHOOL: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I wrote a book on this quite a few years ago called "The Appearance of Impropriety," which was on the substitution of sort of criminal law and regulation for politics, and it has only gotten worse since then.

And it's -- I mean, it's sort of weird. I mean, you know, the Democrats beat Trump. They say he is a loser. He is unpopular, yet they act like they're deathly afraid of him. They impeached him a second time after the election was over. And now, you see all these prosecutors wanting to wage what we call law-fare, against him, clearly to try to neutralize him and keep him from running again.

And I think probably also to send a signal to any other outsiders who try to come in, as Trump did, and sort of disrupt the system, that they're going to be punished for doing so.

It is a bigger problem than just Trump, but they are absolutely milking it.

We have a weird thing in the American legal system, and I had a piece in "The Columbia Law Review" recently about what I called "ham-sandwich nation." They say a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, because they control the grand jury, as you earlier noted, and that's really right.

When you deal with a police officer who is arresting you, you have all kinds of due process protections the Supreme Court has given you. When you're on trial in a court, you have a lot of due process protection. But the single most important decision in almost every criminal case is when a prosecutor decides whether to bring charges and what charges to bring, and prosecutors are utterly unaccountable for that.

They have absolute immunity to lawsuits even if they act in bad faith or for corrupt reasons. They are not regulated by due process. They are very free, and that's an enormous amount of power for a prosecutor to have.

A grand jury is meant to constrain that, but grand juries have evolved in such a way that they are basically tools of the prosecutor, which is what gave rise to the saying that any competent prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich.

LEVIN: And this prosecutor is clearly highly political, and thinks a great deal of himself. And so we have a Supreme Court ruling that allows him to go through eight years of Donald Trump's or his organization's tax returns. He is putting pressure on -- according to local reports -- on his chief operating officer that is, Vance is, the prosecutor, putting pressure on his family members, trying to exploit the divorce between his son and his former daughter-in-law, looking into gift giving to a private school, gift giving to pay tuition payments.

The Supreme Court really has opened up a can of worms here, hasn't it, because you have local DAs all over this country, you have Attorneys General in states throughout this country, and if it's the position of the Supreme Court that these local elected prosecutors and state elected prosecutors are free to look into a President's tax returns under a pretext of looking for something criminal and so forth, I think we've gone down the horrible road here. What are your thoughts?

REYNOLDS: Well, yes, and you know, the truth is, if a prosecutor decides to go after you, they're probably going to find something. I mean, Harvey Silverglate wrote a book called "Three Felonies a Day" because he said, that's how many felonies the average American commits without realizing it because the law is so complicated and technical.

And Tim Wu, who is a Law Professor at Columbia, he used to work for the Federal prosecutor in New York at the southern district, and they used to play a game where they would pick some famous person, Mother Teresa, or John Lennon or whoever, and the game was to figure out what you could get on them. And then, you got extra points if you picked obscure statutes, like false pretenses on the high seas, or obstructing the mail.

But the outcome was always the same -- jail time.

They have tremendous resources, the law is complicated and technical. They can make almost anybody look bad if they're just given free rein to do it. It's not like the old days where we would, you know, find Professor Plumb dead in the Conservatory and start looking around to see who had had access to the lead pipe that hit him in the head.

Now instead, we say, well, you know that Colonel Mustard seems like a bad guy. Let's see what we can find on him, and that's certainly what's going on with Trump here.

LEVIN: Well, you talk about eight years of tax returns for a massive far- flung corporation that has billions of dollars in transactions, and everybody knows, including the prosecutors that you're hiring the best accountants and tax lawyers you can to help you work through this massive Internal Revenue Code, which is purposely complex, because there are easy ways to collect revenue without having a complex code like that.

And that in the end of the day, many of these CEOs and others, they sign these tax returns, they hope that they're correct. I mean, it's not like we can all go to school and learn every aspect of the new Tax Code and what is slipped into the Tax Code. So it is particularly pernicious to focus on that, don't you think?

REYNOLDS: Well, I think it's sort of funny because you recounted one example where Cy Vance would say, well, I can't be held responsible for what a junior prosecutor in my office does, I didn't even know about it. And yet, in essence, that's exactly what you're describing as a criminal charge, holding somebody liable for something that happened lower down in their company that they probably didn't know about.

LEVIN: And to pressure the son and to take information from his ex-wife, that is the son of the CEO or the COO of the Trump Organization and to really start pressuring, seeking plea agreements and everything. This is the sleazy underbelly of the prosecutor's office, isn't it?

REYNOLDS: It is, and you know, actually in "The Appearance of Impropriety," which is kind of an old book now, we talk about how when they were going after Henry Cisneros, the prosecutors went so far as to try to trump up a claim of mortgage fraud against his housekeeper as a way of pressuring her into testifying against him.

And while that is deeply unethical, it's also extremely common for prosecutors to try to put pressure on friends and family and employees and acquaintances to get them to talk, and you know, what they say under that kind of pressure may or may not be true, but it's got to be what the prosecutor wants.

LEVIN: You know, it's interesting, Joe Biden and his wife, they made their tax returns public. And I looked at their tax returns and others have, some experts did and they found something very interesting that I'd like you to comment on when we come back.

They found that they set up two S-corporations, made multimillions of dollars, flushed the money through the S-corporations, so they would not be viewed as employees as they gave basically speeches and got money for speeches and writings and so forth, for the sole purpose of evading the Medicare and Obamacare taxes.

Nobody is looking at that. Nobody is investigating that. Nobody is even coming in on that. And there's a serious question whether that is legitimate or not. I would be interested in your input when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JON SCOTT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: President Kamala Harris's visit to two Latin American nations gets off to a rocky start. Her plane had technical issues, forcing her to return to Joint Base Andrews and jump on a second plane.

Harris will try to deepen diplomatic ties with Guatemala and Mexico on this trip. Those two nations are key to the Biden administration's efforts to stem the spike in migration at the U.S. border, but corruption in the region could complicate those efforts.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle welcome their second child, Lilibet "Lili" Diana Mountbatten Windsor. She is named after Queen Elizabeth and Harry's mom, Princess Diana. Lili was born in Los Angeles and weighs in at seven pounds 11 ounces. The Little Princess is eighth in line for the British throne.

I'm Jon Scott, we take you back now to LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN.

LEVIN: Welcome back. You know, Professor Reynolds, I'm not opposed to prosecutors, I am not opposed to criminal laws, I am not opposed to people being prosecuted for violating laws. Like if they're going to riot and burn down homes and beat cops and do stuff like that, I get it, and I'm all for it.

What I do not support is the criminalization of politics and these totalitarian tactics against one individual in this country.

So I've mentioned briefly Joe Biden and his tax returns. Do you think the local prosecutors in Wilmington, Delaware are going to take a good look at the Biden tax returns?

REYNOLDS: I'm certainly not qualified to offer a tax opinion. But it was surprising what -- how small a splash that made. But you know, the press pretty much drives the narrative in this country and the press isn't interested in driving a bad narrative about Joe Biden, at least not right now.

LEVIN: You made a point earlier, which is correct, which is the gap between the investigation and the actual prosecution that these prosecutors have a free run of the field, from the one yard line all the way to the to the goal line of the opposing team. And is there anything a citizen can do or try to do to defend themselves?

I mean, you look at New York, it's a one-party state. You've got one-party judges, you've got a one-party elected prosecutors, you've got an elected one-party Attorney General. You have the New York Bar, which is extremely liberal, I don't think a single one of those entities would be sympathetic to former President Donald Trump. So what does one do?

REYNOLDS: At the risk of sounding sad and cynical, move somewhere else. Obviously, that's something that former President Trump can do. I mean, he has already moved to Florida. But they are after him anyway.

For an ordinary citizen, I'm sorry to say, your resources are a lot less of Donald Trump's, and if a local prosecutor goes after you, you know, you're at some risk, and you're probably better off living in a place where the local prosecutor is more likely to be sympathetic, or at least not antagonistic.

And you know, what they want you to do, and this is certainly what Cyrus Vance wants for Trump to do is to keep your head down. They want you not to draw their attention. They want you not to become a public controversial figure. They want you not to draw that kind of assault.

And to some degree, even if they don't ever convict you of anything, we have a saying in the law, the process is the punishment. Being investigated, being subjected to possible criminal liability is very stressful, it is very expensive.

You know, I'd be happy to have a loser pay system in the criminal law, where if you are investigated or charged with a crime and you win, they have to pay your legal fees out of their budget. That would encourage a much more humble approach, but that's not going to happen.

I think that as a citizen in general, what you have to do is call them out when they do it and criticize them and make them feel bad because they are political actors. They're elected. But more importantly, like all politicians, and certainly most prosecutors, they are full of ego.

They want to be liked, they want to be admired, or at least feared; and honestly, being mocked and called crooks and being called political thugs and being told that what they're doing is wrong, and un-American is painful to them and they should hear it as much as possible when they do things that are wrong and un-American.

Prosecutors have a tough job. Everybody understands that they have to make judgment calls, but on the other hand, sometimes it is obvious that what's going on is not just a questionable judgment call and when you go out, first, you say, we don't know what crime somebody may have committed, but we're going to investigate it because we don't like them. You've admitted what's going on. And that's what's happened here.

LEVIN: And as I listen to you, Professor, something does come to mind. You know, there's a great debate on immunity for police officers -- not in my mind, but in the mind of others, apparently, and they have limited immunity, not total immunity. What about a debate about immunity for prosecutors and prosecutorial abuse?

You and I sit here, we're relatively intelligent. We've been around a block 4,000 or 5,000 times. We look at this case and we are struggling to figure out what an innocent citizen can do. And we're all innocent. What an innocent citizen can do when confronted with a rogue prosecutor, and the answer is, not a hell of a lot.

This is not a Federal case where we have a Supreme Court decision, but even that's quite limited. These are local and state prosecutors and it appears to me that if you have a rogue prosecutor and they are elected, and if they want to take you down or take you out, or mire you and years and years of expensive litigation and as you say, try and push you off to the corner so you're not a public face for anything anymore, there is damn little you can do about it.

So maybe we ought to start having a debate in this country when you want to talk about immunity, you want to talk about abuse, well, let's talk about immunity and abuse when it comes to Cy Vance's operation or the Attorney General in New York's operation and they are just two. There are many others.

Glenn Reynolds, I want to thank you for coming on the program. I want to thank you for all you've been doing over the years. Your wonderful site, Instapundit, which is really the original, it is the original site on the internet that I used to go to, and I go to every day now. And so I want to thank you. Take care of yourself.

REYNOLDS: Thank you.

LEVIN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back, America. Letitia James is the Attorney General in New York. She has quite an interesting path, always in radical ultra-left politics, both at the state and local level.

But I wanted to inform you, America, about who she actually is.

There's a great piece in "The Washington Times" by Rowan Scarborough and he says "The New York Attorney General Letitia James ran for office in 2018 on a campaign promise to charge then President Trump with crimes. She said, 'I believe that the President of these United States can be indicted for criminal offenses.' She said in a campaign clip she announced last week, (which was a few weeks ago) that she has moved her inquiry into the Trump Organization that he founded from a civil matter to a criminal matter."

"Her campaign record shows that she pronounced the former President guilty of crimes such as money laundering and vowed to use the power of her office to vanquish him. Once elected, she immediately opened an investigation of how the Fifth Avenue headquartered Trump Organization and its real estate empire borrows money and values land. And she's relying on testimony from Michael Cohen, (as you know, who is a confessed criminal). Once the President's loyal attorney pleaded guilty in 2018, and went to prison for tax fraud and a side taxicab business and for lying to banks to obtain mortgages."

"Furthermore, before the 2018 New York Democratic primary, at a time when special counsel Robert Mueller was in his second year trying to find a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy, Miss James put herself in the same camp as Mr. Mueller and elevated Mr. Cohen as her star witness, quote, 'The President of the United States has to worry about three things,' she said. 'Mueller, Cohen and Tish James,' she told Yahoo News. 'We're all closing in on him,' as James won the hard fought September 13 primary with a campaign video in which he said, she was running because, quote, 'I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate President.'"

"Her video stands has her anti-Trump manifesto being carried out today."

Well, what are they looking at? Well, it's already been leaked to the media. Well, we're looking at tax issues, and we're looking at laundering issues and we're looking at this and we're looking at that.

Brett Tolman was a United States Attorney in Utah. He is fantastic prosecutor, former Federal prosecutor. He is the founder of the Tolman Group.

And I wanted to ask you, Brett, when you have a person like this who is running for office, who is hard left, who makes it abundantly clear, in my view, that she is a political hack, and that one of her targets and focuses if she is elected will be the former President now of the United States. Is that ethical? I mean, shouldn't she even recuse herself? And yet nobody even raises a voice? What do you say?

BRETT TOLMAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, you know, Mark, you're right. I think about what Justice Burger said in the Supreme Court case, a very famous case about a prosecutor. He said that, while a prosecutor could be aggressive, what a prosecutor was, was the servant of the law and could not strike foul blows.

This is the very essence of striking a foul blow that is to target someone before you have facts in front of you to push for a prosecution.

I mean, a prosecutor wields the most powerful authority that we give to any member of the government, the ability to take away someone's freedom. And, you know, I never thought -- I wrote an article, Mark, about abuses in prosecutors, and there are many and accountability is an issue, but I never thought I would see the day when, when you could do -- you could write an article about a prosecutor who basically got into office on the notion that they would bring a case before they've looked at any facts or had any referral from any investigative body.

I mean, that's scary to me, and it should be scary to the American people.

LEVIN: And I don't know, Brett, if I were a judge handling this case, and the Attorney General's Office came into my courtroom, I would raise the question because I'm an officer of the court, but I also have an obligation under the Code of Ethics of New York. And I would raise the question as a Judge, it doesn't have to be presented to me, I see it in the newspapers, I hear what she has said.

Why is your office even in this courtroom? How can you even prosecute this case? How can this be fair? How can there be due process in this matter? Get the hell out of my courtroom.

If I were a judge, that's what I would say, what do you think?

TOLMAN: Well, you'd be a terrific Judge. Hopefully, you don't draw a Judge like Judge Sullivan, who, you know, we start to see also the judiciary politics starting to play, but there are still really good judges, I think, and notwithstanding the politics, the first level of analysis on this is why is your office involved when you've indicated that you can't be impartial?

And a prosecutor is supposed to be just as willing to decline a case as they are to bring a case. That's not the case in this instance, because they built up such hatred for a single individual in the White House and such political animosity towards him that they'd be willing to compromise their own ethical standards, and hopefully a court would see that and say exactly as you did; and even more so, sanctions should be leveled against any office that tried to bring a case that they indicated before they had any evidence before them that they were intent on bringing.

LEVIN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Former U.S. Attorney, former Federal prosecutor Brett Tolman, founder of the Tolman Group. Brett, I had asked, didn't the Supreme Court throw the doors wide open now to this kind of abuse of prosecutorial power? I mean, there are tens of thousands of local prosecutors and thousands of state prosecutors, I think they made a grave mistake here. What do you think?

TOLMAN: Yes, the dirty secret in the criminal justice arena is the protection that the prosecutor has from real accountability and the Supreme Court has expanded immunity to such a degree that it's very, very difficult to bring any case against a prosecutor even when there is considerable abuse.

But even more than that, Mark, I think about the fact that prosecutors are largely able to avoid even in their states being monitored and supervised by the State Bar. You look at the Department of Justice prosecutors and the only way that you can bring an ethics claim against them would be for them to institute it themselves internally.

And so the public at large, and especially an individual who is targeted has very little ability to ever bring accountability to a prosecutor who is willing to compromise their ethics in order to get some success and that is what we see happening, it is a win-at-all cost mentality and now politics drives their investigations and their prosecutions.

LEVIN: And you know, Brett, it seems to me these elected left-wing hack Democrats who are dressed up as prosecutors, that there really needs to be a way and this is something I think the nation needs to now begin to seriously focus on, to hold them to account, for them to be deposed to determine on what basis they made certain decisions. For them, to have their personal finances and their careers on the line when they make decisions about who to take on or not.

This is abundantly clear to any objective person -- any objective person that they are targeting this former President to try and silence him and to try and ruin him and his businesses. That's what's going on.

The Internal Revenue Service of the United States is constantly auditing his taxes. So there's no big issue there. I'm sure the state authorities are constantly auditing his taxes. And what they're doing now is they're pressuring the family members of the Chief Financial Officer or the COO of the Trump Organization, threatening him, threatening his son, exploiting his ex-wife, dragging in tuition payments that were made for their children to a private school.

In other words, this is penny ante stuff, when you're talking about a former President of the United States, and this smells like Joseph Stalin to me. This smells like tyranny to me, and these so-called civil libertarians in this country are all sitting on their mouths. How do you see this?

TOLMAN: Yes, I see the left has been willing to pick and choose what they want to follow, especially when it comes to the Constitution and our rights under the Constitution. The First Amendment, for example, they care nothing about, you know, circumventing the First Amendment. They want to control the media. They want to control the voices that that we listen to.

And now they are willing to even attack the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the due process clauses which have been perhaps the most important amendments to the Constitution to protect us from abuse by government when they wield the power to deprive us of our freedom.

And I look at this, and I think, we can no longer have the faith and the confidence that prosecutors feel that they have a sacred obligation under the law to do justice, and that justice does not always mean bringing a case against an individual because you like or dislike them.

Justice recalls -- if we recall what the mandate for the Department of Justice is, it is that you are supposed to have fairness in the administration of justice, it requires consistency.

Well, we do not see consistency, we see one political side being attacked and prosecuted, while the left escapes accountability. And that's how we know that we need to adjust the criminal justice system, especially if we want to have confidence that going forward that those rights under the Constitution means something.

LEVIN: Well said, and you know what, those judges, those members of the New York Bar, the New York Bar itself, they don't need complaints to be filed against these prosecutors to take steps and to take action.

The integrity of the judicial system in the City of New York and the State of New York is a disgrace right now when you take a high profile case like this, and you hear and see what this Democrat hack Manhattan District Attorney is doing, and this left-wing, unhinged Democrat prosecutor Attorney General is doing and the fact that so far, they've been able to get away with it shows me a breakdown in the judicial system in the city and state of New York.

Brett Tolman, I want to thank you very much for your great work as a U.S. attorney and for coming on the program as well.

God bless you my friend.

TOLMAN: Thank you, Mark.

LEVIN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back, America. This is the pocket version of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, which are under absolute assault from a thousand different directions.

This is my new book, "American Marxism," which is intended to protect this and your individual liberty and your due process rights and your free speech and your freedom of association, and what goes on in your kids' classrooms and what goes on in our economic system, all of which are under attack.

I want to encourage you to preorder a copy of "American Marxism" because this is the most important book I've ever written and I've written many.

Why? Because of our times. This system is under assault by radical leftists. It's true, whether it's in the classroom where racism is being taught; whether it's phony climate change, which is an attack on capitalism, I try to explain each and every one of these progenies of Marxism.

"American Marxism" where they come from, who is responsible for them, how they are pushing what their strategies are, so we know how to confront them.

I believe a movement is building in this country that is every bit as big as a Reagan Revolution, every bit as big as the Tea Party revolution and we need to have a push back against the counter revolution that we are confronting today, which seeks to destroy the American Revolution.

This is a fantastic country. We don't judge each other by race, we are red blooded Yanks -- Americans. Hope you'll get your copy of "American Marxism."

See you next time on LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.