Wednesday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin lambasted the widely discussed press conference held by special counsel Robert Mueller earlier that day.

Levin took issue with Mueller's implication that President Trump was apparently somehow responsible for proving his own innocence against politically motivated allegations of collusion and obstruction.

Earlier that day, a visibly nervous Mueller told reporters, "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," which isn't the job of a prosecutor.

"The Fifth Amendment is what provides us with due process in this country; the Sixth Amendment is what provides us with the right to a jury trial; the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments are what provide us with presumption of innocence," Levin explained. "And, of course, none of those applied against the president of the United States, because he is the president of the United States."

Levin also criticized Mueller for going "beyond" his report in Wednesday's press conference "because he wanted to give the Democrats everything they wanted today, because his report didn't go far enough. And the Democrats were very upset with this report. So Mr. Mueller went beyond his report. Now why did Mr. Mueller go beyond his report to give the Democrats what they wanted today? Because Mr. Mueller doesn't want to testify in public before Congress, and the Democrats control these committees in the House of Representatives, specifically the Judiciary Committee. ... Mr. Mueller doesn't want his investigation to be scrutinized; Mr. Mueller doesn't want to be cross-examined by the Republicans; he doesn't want any questions about his hirings, about his decisions, about his conduct, about the leaks, about omitting Hillary Clinton, the dossier, the top levels of the FBI, about his coziness with Comey, about whether or not his office leaked. ... Mr. Mueller doesn't want to answer any of a thousand and one questions that would be posed to him by the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. So he gave the Democrats what they wanted today."

"This man has done more damage to our Constitution by turning our justice system inside out, by violating our Bill of Rights, by undermining this president than Vladimir Putin could ever hope to do," Levin concluded. "And I'm no fan of Vladimir Putin, as you well know."

Listen:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., threatened to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after Barr declined to show up for a scheduled hearing before the panel on Thursday.

In a committee hearing chamber with no witness, where Barr's name card and microphone sat in front of an empty chair, a visibly frustrated Nadler outlined the panel's next steps following Barr's cancellation of his scheduled testimony.

"Yes, we will continue to negotiate for access to the full [Mueller] report for another couple of days, and yes, we will have no choice but to move quickly to hold the attorney general in contempt if he stalls or fails to negotiate in good faith," Nadler said.

Contempt of Congress is a federal offense that carries a maximum sentence of a $100,000 fine and/or one year in prison.

"But the attorney general must make a choice; every one of us must make the same choice," the chairman continued. "That choice is now an obligation of our office. The choice is simple: We can stand up to this president in defense of the country, and the Constitution, and the liberty we love, or we can let the moment pass us by."

Whether or not Barr would ultimately show up to the hearing was a matter of speculation for days before the AG made the call to cancel his scheduled appearance on Wednesday afternoon.

The sticking point for Barr and the Department of Justice were committee demands that the AG open himself up for questioning by committee staff attorneys during the hearing, instead of just elected members of the committee tasked with overseeing the administration of his department.

Barr's cancellation came shortly after a committee vote to allow staff attorneys to question the scheduled witness.

"Chairman Nadler's insistence on having staff question the Attorney General, a Senate-confined Cabinet member, is inappropriate," reads a statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec. "Further, in light of the fact that the majority of the House Judiciary Committee — including Chairman Nadler — are themselves attorneys, and the Chairman has the ability and authority to fashion the hearing in a way that allows for efficient and thorough questioning by the Members themselves, the Chairman’s request is also unnecessary."

Democrat demands also faced criticisms from the other side of the Judiciary Committee.

"Unfortunately, ludicrous demands from the chairman made it impossible for the attorney general to join us here today," ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., said in a statement in the hearing chamber Thursday morning. "Over the 206-year history of this committee, staff have never questioned witnesses in such a hearing. Never. Not once. So, to say Chairman Nadler’s demands are unprecedented would be an understatement."

"They wanted to have a staff member ask questions," Collins further remarked in a fiery speech. "If that staff member wants to ask questions that desperately, run for Congress. Put a pin on. Find a committee."

Full video of Nadler's and Collins' remarks is here:

Wednesday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin tore apart the idea that Attorney General William Barr somehow misled the American people with his four-page summary of the Mueller report.

Democrats claimed that Barr misled the American people on the contents of the Mueller report at a Wednesday hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee, which Levin called "absolutely, utterly pointless."

"All the Democrats kept trying to do is tell the attorney general of the United States that they felt he misled the American people with a four-page letter," Levin summarized.

During Tuesday's hearing, Barr faced intense questioning and harsh remarks from committee Democrats. For example, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, even accused him of lying to Congress before she was reprimanded by Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"Not only is it a lie, but it is truly bizarre," Levin said of the idea.

Levin explained that despite all the attacks on Barr's handling of the situation, the final report is public. Barr released it to the American people even though he wasn't statutorily required to do so. And the vast majority of the information it contains was not redacted. Literally anyone can go read it for themselves.

"Who's hiding what from whom?" Levin asked.

Listen:

On Sunday night's episode of Life, Liberty & Levin, LevinTV host Mark Levin picked apart the Mueller report and the actions and investigations that led to its creation in the first place, calling it the "greatest scandal in American history."

Levin explained that the second volume of the prosecutor's report appears to have been written as a road map for House Democrats' impeachment efforts.

"The Mueller team wrote ... for the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This is an impeachment report," Levin said. "This is an abuse of power by a prosecutor."

Levin also said the senior FBI officials behind the collusion narrative should face prosecution.

"There are things that have been done in the last three years to candidate Trump, president-elect Trump, and President Trump that should not occur in the United States of America," the host said.

"Senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: These individuals should be charged," Levin continued. "They're the ones who interfered with our election, even more effectively than the Russians. They are still at it."

Levin also pointed out all the hysterical, false predictions about the Russia investigation that were fed to the American people by the legacy media.

Watch:

Democratic efforts to compel the release of the Mueller report to Congress from the Department of Justice ended as expected on Wednesday, but not without vocal pushback from Republicans.

A meeting of the House Judiciary Committee resulted in a party-line 24-17 vote to authorize a subpoena of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report of his investigation and all the underlying evidence from Attorney General William Barr.

“Why are we here?” asked Judiciary member and Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. “Seems to me we’re here because the Mueller report wasn’t what the Democrats thought it was going to be.”

“In fact, it was just the opposite,” Jordan continued. “What’d the attorney general tell us that the principal findings of Mr. Mueller’s report were? No new indictments, no sealed indictments, no collusion, no obstruction.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also called out Democratic efforts to keep digging into the issue, despite the findings of the Mueller report.

“Enough is enough, for heaven’s sakes, let’s please move on,” Gohmert said, before turning his critiques directly to committee chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

“There was a time when I loved and appreciated the current chairman’s desire to protect privacy rights; I saw that dramatically eroded during the Obama administration,” Gohmert continued. “But I am still hoping and praying that our now-chairman’s once great desire to protect privacy rights and to try to hold back the bounds of what Orwell described as happening now … it’s time to go back and clean up the mess that’s been made over years of abuse.”

The committee’s top Republican took issue with Democrats’ demand for underlying evidence, saying that Barr would have to violate federal law to comply with it.

“The subpoena for the Mueller report and its underlying evidence commands the attorney general to do what the unthinkable is,” said committee ranking member Doug Collins. “We’re going to ask the attorney general to break his regulations, to break the law.”

“The attorney general’s entire mandate is to enforce the law, and he’s expressly forbidden from providing grand jury [material] outside of the department, [with] very limited and narrow exceptions,” Collins added. “Congress is not one of the exceptions and the chairman knows it.”

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously to make as much of the report public as possible, though a small handful of Republicans objected to the resolution by voting “present.”

Barr told congressional leaders last week that he plans to release what he can of the report and that he expects his department “will be in a position to release the report by mid-April, if not sooner.”

In his opening statement, Nadler said that he won’t issue the report right away, but will instead give Barr a chance to “change his mind” about whether to send a redacted or unredacted report to Congress.