Mark Levin: 'The Second Half of the Mueller Report Was Written for Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, CNN and MSNBC'

The Mueller Report was deliberately designed to provide a plausible rationale for the left to continue their persecution of President Trump.

The authors of the report, knowing they did not have a case against him, deliberately and painstakingly left a clear path for the House Democrats and the mainstream media to perpetuate the charade which has mired the Trump administration since day one. Their carefully chosen language and well thought out choices on what to include and what to leave out offered salvation to the left. Thanks to the Mueller team’s determination to leave the impression that Trump really did obstruct justice, the left doubled down yesterday in their vilification of the President.

Bullseye, Mr. Mueller.

It was amazing to watch the reaction from Democratic politicians and pundits following the release of the report.

Former Director of National Intelligence, serial liar and leaker James Clapper told CNN’s Anderson Cooper:

I think, if there wasn’t active collusion proven, then I think what we have here is a case of passive collusion, where, in some cases, unwittingly — to include candidate Trump himself, who retweeted messages that had been planted by the Russians in social media, and so, that’s a small, but important example of how members of the campaign were used and manipulated by the Russians.

Later, Clapper spoke to CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “I think the Attorney General is clearly trying to paint as favorable a light on the Mueller report as possible and when you read it, it’s pretty devastating.”

When Cuomo asked him “what would be a righteous move by Congress” Clapper replied, “It really is a conundrum as others have commented earlier, particularly for the Democrats, the Democrats in the House, whether to pursue this in terms of impeachment. Clearly, at least my read of the Mueller report is that there is a road map laid out there if the Congress chooses to follow it.”

So, here we are. Mueller handed the House Dems what they are calling a “road map for impeachment.”

MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace said of Attorney General William Barr, “He becomes the first cabinet secretary to plunge into the deep end of Trump’s conspiracy pool.”

CNN’s chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto said, the Mueller report “debunked all of Trump’s unfair attacks on the media.”

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump tweeted, “This report makes clear that the vast amount of reporting by mainstream outlets about Trump and Russia was correct.”

Do they actually believe this rubbish?

Other pundits took Trump’s remarks to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions upon learning that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed a special counsel, to be further evidence of his guilt. According to the Mueller Report, Trump said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m f**ked. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

He was right to be upset. The appointment of the special counsel did tremendous damage to his presidency. It undermined his legitimacy and impacted his ability to govern. It immediately “sabotaged” his presidency and ended “critical momentum from his victory.”

But it certainly did not establish guilt.

Fox News contributor Mark Levin spoke to Sean Hannity last night and, in his inimitable way, he powerfully laid out the truth about the obstruction portion of the Mueller Report. The segment begins at 37:30 in the video below.

The second part is really a political report. It’s an impeachment report. What happened here is Bill Barr rightly testified during his confirmation, he said “Look, I’m going to release as much of this report as I can.”

And the Democrats take over the House before that and Mueller and his people say “Okay. Perfect. We don’t have enough on obstruction. If we had enough on obstruction, we’d bring obstruction. We’re a bunch of rabid Democrats dressed up as prosecutors.”

Look how they treated Manafort at his home, look how they treated Stone and suddenly, they’re gonna be forbearing. No, they’re not going to be forbearing.

I want to read you something. It’s been read all day on the airwaves. “Ultimately why we believed we had the authority and the legal jurisdiction to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the President’s testimony, we chose not to do so.” You didn’t choose not to do so. You would have had your asses kicked from one court to the other. You had no criminal predicate for a subpoena – none.

And they basically confess. They say, “Hey look, we decided near the end of our investigation – a couple of years of litigation over this – it’s not worth it. We basically had everything we needed.” You basically had everything you needed? Yet you had wanted to get the President under oath in front of a grand jury to trick him the way you tricked General Flynn and others. You wanted to take out the President of the United States who had enough smarts to say, “No, un uh, I’m not playing that game.”

Here’s my question Sean Hannity. When did Mr. Mueller know there was no collusion? Now, all of us knew from right out of the gate. He didn’t write this in three weeks. (Levin holds up report.) This is 200 pages. No collusion. For Jake Tapper, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion. Okay, when did you know that? Well, he had to know it some people think maybe 18 months ago, maybe 15 months ago. You had an obligation to go to the microphone to tell the American people that your President did not collude, that his campaign did not collude, that his White House did not collude.

And Mueller did not do it. Why? Because they wanted to get the President on a phony obstruction charge. Look at this, the second half of the report, it’s all politics. It’s all about impeachment. It’s written for Jerry Nadler, it’s written for Nancy Pelosi, it’s written for CNN and MSNBC. It reads like some junior editorial writer at the New York Times put this together. There’s barely any legal stuff in here and you can hear them say it now, “Well, we have to move beyond the law, it’s a political decision.” Oh, so now you confess that it’s a political decision.