© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
WATCH: 2 former U.S. attorneys general join Levin to give the Mueller sham a legal reality check

WATCH: 2 former U.S. attorneys general join Levin to give the Mueller sham a legal reality check

There's been a great deal of discussion following former special counsel Robert Mueller's stumbling, struggling testimony before Congress last week. On Sunday night's episode of Life, Liberty & Levin, two former attorneys general — Ed Meese and Michael Mukasey — joined LevinTV host Mark Levin to talk about the hearings, the investigation, and their perspective on efforts to take down Trump.

Meese said that he was "concerned" by Mueller's lack of awareness about what was actually in his report.

"I was concerned by the fact that so much of the report seemed to be foreign to him, or at least he was not familiar with it," Meese said, "and I've since reflected the views of a lot of people who were watching, and that was that he was not familiar with the report because it looked like someone else had written it."

Meese served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan from 1985-1988, while Mukasey served under George W. Bush.

During the discussion, Meese also pointed out why there was no need for a special counsel to be appointed in the first place.

"There was no need," Meese explained, saying that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions' potential conflicts of interest didn't make a conflict within the entire department. "Once there was an allegation, if there was one, then that should have gone through the normal processes of the department."

Mukasey agreed, also pointing out that the appointment was "fundamentally flawed" because it lacked the predicate of a criminal investigation, per the regulation surrounding special counsels.

Later in the interview, Mukasey also explained what Mueller's team got wrong with the report's speculation about obstruction of justice.

"When you talk about an obstruction case as a prosecutor, you think about whether you can put this in front of a jury and present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt," Mukasey explained. "There's a world of difference between taking isolated statements out of context and saying, 'Well, you could construe this as an act of obstruction or as an attempted act of obstruction or as an incipient act of obstruction' and evaluating an entire situation."


Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up for your FREE 30-day trial now!


Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?