On Hannity, Mark Levin explained the separation of powers bars the president of the United States from being charged with obstruction of justice. Watch Levin deliver a fiery explanation that Donald Trump not only didn't obstruct justice, but why as president of the United States he can't obstruct justice.



Levin said the following is Department of Justice precedent: 'Examining whether criminal proceedings against a sitting president should be barred by the doctrine of separation of powers.'



"Now, you and I know and anybody with any competence knows that the president of the United States not only didn't obstruct justice, he can't obstruct justice. That aside, this has been a debate for weeks, obstructing justice, well, will Mueller investigate him? Mueller has been investigating him, that's not the question, that's media insanity," Levin said.



"I want to be clear, we ought to get off obstruction and the issue should be Mr. Mueller, what is your authority for investigating the president of the United States as a criminal matter?" Levin asked. "We'd like to know what is because right now if that's your intention, I'm not saying he's doing it, we don't know."



"You are violating Department of Justice policy that is 44 years in place," Levin told Mueller.



Levin said the investigation helmed by Mueller is violating the separation of powers and preventing President Trump from executing his duties as head of the executive branch and commander in chief.



"You cannot have a prosecutor who is responsible to nobody digging into the background, charging a president of the United States, debilitating his presidency, making it impossible for him to focus on his constitutional responsibilities, domestic and foreign," Levin told viewers.



From Tuesday's broadcast of Hannity on the FOX News Channel:





SEAN HANNITY: Let's talk about what you found here, this is profound to me.



MARK LEVIN: Let's talk about this, because we've had a debate the last several weeks as a result of the Jim Comey illegal leak through his law professor buddy to The New York Times that the suggestion is that Donald Trump obstructed justice. Now, you and I know and anybody with any competence knows that the president of the United States not only didn't obstruct justice, he can't obstruct justice. That aside, this has been a debate for weeks, obstructing justice, well, will Mueller investigate him? Mueller has been investigating him, that's not the question, that's media insanity.



The issue is why would Mueller investigate a sitting president at all as a criminal matter? Because it's been the position of the United States Department of Justice under Republicans and Democrats and in a 1973 memorandum and in October memorandum under the Clinton administration that you must not, cannot indict a sitting president, not that this president would be, that's not that my point.



As a matter of constitutional interpretation, for 44 years that's been the position of the Department of Justice. We've had law professors, homeless people, would-be law professors all over TV and radio talking about obstruction of justice. We've had media types talking about it. We've had members of Congress talking about it. It doesn't matter, the official position of the Justice Department is we don't charge a sitting president with a crime.



Now, you don't have to trust me, here's part of the memo, this memo was written October 16th, 2000. And it incorporates writings from the 1973 memorandum. The OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel which advises the president and the Attorney General on constitutional issues. At one time it was headed by William Rehnquist, who had been Chief Justice and at one time Antonin Scalia. That's how important this office is. The OLC memorandum in 1973 proceeded to this issue: 'Examining whether criminal proceedings against a sitting president should be barred by the doctrine of separation of powers.'



What they concluded is it is barred by the doctrine of separation of powers. And here's the reason. there's only one person who runs the executive branch, who is the commander-in-chief: the President of the United States. It's not like Congress, we have 435 members of the House, we have 100 members of the Senate, or the courts where there's a thousand federal judges and so forth, the president is it.



One national election, one president. Specific duties under Article One of the Constitution of the United States.



What they explained in the two memoranda is this. You cannot have a prosecutor who is responsible to nobody digging into the background, charging a president of the United States, debilitating his presidency, making it impossible for him to focus on his constitutional responsibilities, domestic and foreign.



You cannot have a judge and a jury determining whether an election is going to be reversed. You cannot have average citizens, yes I said average citizens, 12 citizens sitting as they typically would in an average case involving an average other citizen defendant, that's not this case. It's the president of the United States and the framers of the constitution set up a completely separate system for him or her called the impeachment process, we're not get into that now.



Now, what they said is that it's quite clear that if a president of the United States has to spend time defending himself, if a president has to spend time going to trial, being deposed, if the president has to spend time protecting himself then it damages, it handicaps one of the branches of the federal government and thereby destroys separation of powers.



This is the position of the Department of Justice. Now, why does that matter? Because Mr. Mueller is not an independent agent, they can call them independent, special prosecutor, they can call him a kumquat, it doesn't much matter. The fact of the matter is the rules and regulations that apply at the Department of Justice to all prosecutors apply to Mr. Mueller.



The fact that Jim Comey leaked his memo, tried to push and obstruction of justice scenario and pressed for a special counsel, which he got. His dear, long time good friend Robert Mueller, doesn't change the fact...



MARK LEVIN: I want to be clear, we ought to get off obstruction and the issue should be Mr. Mueller, what is your authority for investigating the president of the United States as a criminal matter? We'd like to know what is because right now if that's your intention, I'm not saying he's doing it, we don't know. You are violating Department of Justice policy that is 44 years in place. And for the liberal lawyers and media types who are going to debate the memo, they can debate it all they want, that's the Department of Justice policy whether they like it or not.