Thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin applauded Attorney General William Barr for saying earlier Thursday, "The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crime as an adjunct to Congress."

"If Mueller thought that the president of the United States had obstructed justice, why didn't he say 'He's guilty of obstructing justice, and if we could've indicted him, we would've, and here's the probable cause evidence that we would have used'?" Levin asked. "He could've written that. I mean he shouldn't have written a report the way he did, but if you're going to write a report the way you do, with this massive Volume II, why didn't he say that? Because they didn't have probable cause, ladies and gentlemen. It's easy to do what they did, and leave a cloud over the president's head for the media and the Democrats. That's exactly what he did. Moreover, you heard Barr just say: The Department of Justice isn't an arm of Congress. It's not the Department of Justice's job to conduct criminal investigations in order to provide information to the House of Representatives for or against impeachment. It's a law enforcement department. And I have pointed that out repeatedly. And yet, that's exactly what Mr. Mueller did."

Listen:

Levin also reminded listeners of a point he has made multiple times, in conjunction with the scholarship of Steven G. Calabresi, a Northwestern University law professor: that Mueller's appointment is unconstitutional, under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.

"The fact of the matter is, if we weren't in a post-Constitutional republic in so many respects, Mr. Mueller should've been fired. Should never have been appointed. And everything he investigated should be fruit of the poisonous tree."

On Sunday night's episode of "Life, Liberty & Levin," constitutional scholar and Chapman University law professor John Eastman told LevinTV host Mark Levin how special counsel Robert Mueller's report turns the idea of justice upside down. Eastman was the author of legal analysis that challenged the idea of automatic birthright citizenship under the Constitution that became a point of controversy during the Trump presidential campaign.

Eastman agreed with Levin that the second part of the Mueller report dealing with obstruction of justice issues is a "bunch of crap." He went on to explain how the report even got the presumption of innocence wrong in dealing with the president.

"[Mueller] said 'I couldn't find enough evidence to exonerate President Trump from the obstruction of justice allegations,'" Eastman pointed out. "That's not his job as a prosecutor. The only job is to decide whether there's enough evidence to bring an indictment with a likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."

"We presume innocence unless we can prove otherwise," Eastman continued. "His report presumes guilt unless Trump can prove otherwise, and it is a fundamental altering of our very basic conceptions of justice."

Levin and Eastman discussed the various elements that must be present to meet the minimum standard for a federal obstruction of justice charge and how that standard wasn't remotely met by Mueller's team. Later in the interview, Eastman also explained how Democrats' rhetoric is undermining the principles behind the American Founding.

A video of the interview can be viewed here:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says that the United States is in a "crisis" because the administration is violating the Constitution in its standoff with House Democrats over the Mueller report.

The facts, however, tell a different story.

"If your question is will the administration violate the Constitution of the United States and not abide by the request of Congress in its legitimate oversight responsibilities, that remains to be seen," the speaker told reporters at her weekly press conference on Thursday. "Every day they are advertising their obstruction of justice by ignoring subpoenas" and other objections to House Democrats' demands.

Pelosi went on to say that she agrees with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., in his assertion that the United States is supposedly now in the middle of a "constitutional crisis" because "the administration has decided that they are not going to honor their oath of office."

So, are the Trump administration's actions really a violation of the Constitution? Let's do a quick fact-check here. What does the Constitution say about this particular situation? Not that much.

Here are the facts:

• Attorney General Barr released a redacted version of a confidential report on the Mueller report, which he was under no statutory obligation to do.
• Nadler subpoenaed the full, unredacted Mueller report and its underlying evidence from the Department of Justice.
• The Department has objected to this, saying that the requested materials contain grand jury information that is protected by section 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• That section of the rules says that grand jury information cannot be made public without a court order, which has not been issued.
• Despite all this, the DOJ has allowed a dozen members of Congress to come and view a less-redacted version in a secure location at the Department.
• None of the six permitted Democrats have come forward so far to take advantage of that offer.
• The Department of Justice has reiterated its invitation for Nadler to come view the less-redacted report and work out a compromise in compliance with federal rules.
• House/DOJ talks fell apart, and House Democrats scheduled contempt proceedings against Barr.
• In response to the contempt proceedings, the White House invoked executive privilege over the contested portions of the Mueller report.

The House of Representatives' own website acknowledges that the "Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight," but says that Congress' oversight powers were rather implied by historical understanding of the Founders, who got their understanding of it from Congress' forerunners in the British parliament.

There's no specific language in the document that gives Congress the ability to issue subpoenas, nor is there anything that outlines how the executive branch is supposed to respond to congressional subpoenas that demand information that can't be released without a court order.

And given the nature of the situation, the argument could very easily be made that the executive branch has already more than upheld its constitutional obligations to Congress' implied oversight powers by its repeated offers to allow leaders from both parties from both chambers to come and view the document, minus the secret grand jury information.

At most, we appear to be looking at a constitutional question — not a crisis.

Full video of Pelosi's press conference can be found here:

On Sunday night's episode of Fox News' "Life, Liberty & Levin," former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli explained why special counsel Robert Mueller's team didn't have a prosecutable case against Donald Trump on obstruction of justice.

Virginia's former top prosecutor explained that Mueller's team clearly "knew they didn't have a prosecution to go forward with."

Cuccinelli went onto explain that Volume II of the report, the portion dealing with obstruction of justice, "goes beyond a legal analysis" to delve into the political instead.

"You could say he's writing for Congress, baiting Congress into, maybe, impeachment proceedings," Cuccinelli said.

"But with so many facts laid out ... we know a lot now. And there just isn't anything there that comes anywhere close to a criminal standard," the former AG continued. "So if Congress wants to proceed, they're going to have to do it on the political basis that Mueller put in the second part of the report. And it is political."

Watch:

During his Thursday morning press conference once again summarizing the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, when asked by a reporter why Mueller himself was not present, Attorney General William Barr explained that he wasn't there because the report was written for the AG.

“It’s not [his report], it’s a report he did for me as the attorney general; he is required by the regulation to provide me with a confidential report," Barr said. "I’m here to discuss my response to the report and my decision, entirely discretionary, to make it public.”

That response appeared to ruffle a few feathers:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz claimed that the report was really put together "for the American people."

"So much for the idea of an independent Special Counsel," lamented an MSNBC contributor.

Podcast host Fernand Amandi called it "ASTONISHING. UNAPOLOGETIC. AUTHORITARIANISM."

Okay, let's talk about the facts here.

Under the federal regulations that allow for Robert Mueller's job as a special prosecutor to even exist, Barr made a clear statement of fact when he said that the report was done for him as the attorney general.

"At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel," the regulation states.

Furthermore, the regulations also state that the AG will notify Congress after the investigation's conclusion, but not that he has to release any portion whatsoever of that confidential report to the public or even to Congress.

Sure, anti-Trump America may have bet the organic, Green New Deal-compliant farm on the outcome of this investigation and the content of the report, but rules are rules, folks.

Also, it's critical to understand that we have a special counsel, not an independent counsel. We used to have an independent counsel, and the statute that created that job led to one of the more controversial Supreme Court opinions of the last couple of decades (and one of Justice Scalia's finest dissents).

In fact, the consensus that the old structure of the independent counsel's job was so much of an unconstitutional chimera, that it was allowed to quietly lapse in 1999 and was replaced with the regulatory investigation structure.

And under that mechanism, the special counsel reports to the attorney general who is picked by a president and confirmed on advice and consent of the Senate.

To borrow a quote from the Attorney General's statement, "That's the bottom line."