Levin on Amash: But Obama

ML: But first, I wanna talk about Justin Amash. What Justin Amash did was a disgrace. He’s a Benedict Arnold. He’s a Benedict Arnold against the Constitution, and I’m gonna tell you why. While he poses to be for the Constitution, while he poses as a purist of the Constitution, he’s no damn such thing. What we’ve seen here, what we’ve seen here by the Obama administration, by the Special Counsel’s office and the report, by the media, by the Democrats in the House of Representatives, we’ve seen a war against the Constitution. And this man stands up and pretends that he’s defending the Constitution by calling Bill Barr a liar, by saying the President of the United States has demonstrated he ought to be impeached.

Let’s start from the beginning. Who was it that put spies in the Trump campaign? Who was it that abused federal courts, the FISA courts? Who was it that colluded with the Russians and tried to cover their tracks by laundering their money through FusionGPS? Who was it that used the senior levels of the FBI during the course of the campaign, the Presidential transition and thereafter, to try and blackmail the President of the United States on January 6? Who was it that abused the Department of Justice and used a law nobody uses, the Logan Act? Who was it that abused the intelligence agencies and departments of this government by unmasking over 200 American citizens and leaking names to the media? And Justin Amash believes that the victim of this should be removed from office, ‘cause if you favor impeachment, you favor his removal.

Justin Amash believes that 63 million Americans should be disenfranchised. Justin Amash, playing along with the police state, playing along with the anti-free press. That’s who he is. But he’s getting a lotta support, ladies and gentlemen, from the media and the left. From the media and the left. A self-promoter, always kind of a creepy guy, but a self-promoter. And so I will ask Justin Amash this question. I’ll ask him this question: where in the Constitution does it provide for the appointment of a Special Counsel? Where in the Constitution does it provide for the appointment of a Special Counsel? Nowhere. Because the whole idea is bizarre, quite frankly. You have a special counsel investigating the head of the executive branch. Let’s go on, Mr. Purist. Whatever happened to separation of powers? These subpoenas against the President of the United States – they’re not de facto legitimate just because they’re issued. There’s a legitimate challenge going on, and I’ll get to that in a minute. A legitimate challenge going on. The idea that subpoenas against the President’s private life, private financial activities, accountants and lawyers, are within the purview of Article I of the Constitution, I don’t give a damn what some Obama judge has to say. It’s outrageous. Outrageous. Separation of powers. Trying to take down a President of the United States. More on that. And what about this Special Counsel? And the issuance of his report? Tell me, Mr. Amash, when a prosecutor issues a report, a report that he knows is going to be made public, and it contains secret grand jury information, who’s abusing power then, Mr. Amash? Tell me, Mr. Amash, when a prosecutor issues a 450 page report, when he’s supposed to provide essential, concise information to the Attorney General of the United States about why he charged somebody and why he didn’t, rather than speculate about the guilt and innocence of another man. Tell me, Mr. Amash, does that violate due process of the Constitution? I think it does. You’re a disgrace. We’ll have a gentleman on on hour three. His name is Lower, L-O-W-E-R. I don’t know anything about him. I’m not endorsing him, but he’s decided to run in the Republican primary against Mr. Amash, and as I learn more, I’ll make a decision down the road. But I do know this: Mr. Amash must be defeated. Not because he’s anti-Trump. Because he’s anti-Constitution.