Mark Levin, “The Great One,” appeared on “Hannity” last night to weigh in on the whistleblower’s complaint. He was on top of his game. Even President Trump was impressed. He posted Levin’s monologue to his twitter account.

After listening to Levin’s defense of Trump and his attacks on Schiff and all of the rest of them, I think Trump should hire him as his attorney. Levin is smart as a whip, articulate and he’s aggressive.

Levin finds the complaint to be “1000 times worse than the transcript of the phone call” between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. We all noticed a Grand Canyon size disconnect between the two documents.

Levin points out that a Ukrainian policy guy from the CIA doesn’t write like this. It reads like “a legal brief which has been vetted by lawyers.” And he wants to know who wrote it. Who was the whistleblower working with? Adam Schiff, Democratic staffers?

The whistleblower’s attorney said it’s important to retain his client’s anonymity. That request infuriates Levin. “Too bad pal. Too late. You want to impeach the President.”

And he noted something that a lot of us have wondered about. Why aren’t the Republican leaders in the Senate doing more to defend Trump? Why aren’t they sending out subpoenas? Calling for hearings, holding press conferences.

I would have expected a more spirited defense in the House as well. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA) is and has always been a champion. So have Jim Jordan (OH), Matt Gaetz (FL), Doug Collins (GA), Steve Scalise (LA) and several others. But many of them have been a disappointment. Kevin McCarthy spoke to the press on Tuesday and I wondered if he had a pulse.

Anyway, Levin is one of my all time favorites.

Read the transcript or watch the video below.

You know, after I watched this hearing, it’s like waterboarding, by the way. When it comes to Trump, Democrats and the media are like drug addicts looking for their next fix…Their eyes are popping out of their head. The sweatbeads are coming down their face.

They’re really freaking out… I can tell you that a CIA agent can’t write something like this, this is a legal brief,” said Levin.

First of all, as a practicing lawyer, I went through this. And I can tell you that a CIA agent, who is a policy guy for Ukraine can’t write something like this. This is a legal brief. This was vetted through lawyers. I want to know who wrote this. I want to know who this man spoke to…

In the New York Times today which, of course, runs cover for the Democrats and goes after the President of the United States, they say today that this man’s lawyer, who by the way, worked for Schumer and Clinton, doesn’t want the identity of this man known.

Too bad pal. Too late. You want to impeach our President using this BS. We want to know all about your guy. And I love today’s hearing where they wrap this guy in the whistleblower statute…

He knew nothing, he heard that certain people at the White House were upset…Isn’t it funny that not a single person with first-hand knowledge filed a whistleblower complaint?

This guy files one. This guy’s represented by Democrats. I want to know if Adam Schiff, the Democrat staffers or any of the Democrats were involved in orchestrating this. This leak and coupe campaign. Did it in Russia, did it with Kavanaugh, it’s the same damn thing.

This is a rogue CIA agent. People might say, but it’s the CIA. Look what they did to the FBI. Look at this guy Brennan, a complete reprobate.

You know, when the CIA overthrew the Iranian government years ago, the liberal Democrats were upset. When they overthrew Allende in Chile, a socialist marxist, the Democrats were upset. When they tried to overthrow Castro, the Democrats were upset…But when they try to overthrow our President, they’re whistleblowers. They’re heroes. They’re courageous. Mr. Schiff, why don’t release 90 days of your phone calls? 90 days of your texts. 90 days of your emails. Cause I know something pal. You’re a leaker. You’re devious. Same with your staff.

Nancy Pelosi went to the microphone, like a dictator, and announced ‘We’re going to begin an official, formal impeachment inquiry…Why would she do that before she got the transcript? Why, because she had this or she knew about it. (Levin holds up the whistleblower’s complaint.) From the little CIA operative.

This document is a thousand times worse than the actual transcript which isn’t even cited in this document (the whistleblower’s complaint).

Now, they’re trying to rewrite this document to try and get it to work with this document (the transcript of the call). The President of the United States phone call has nothing wrong with it. It’s a long conversation. I notice in the media, they’re kind of moving sentences around, trying to attach things. Why don’t you read the whole thing. But you won’t do that. Why? Well I have a question. Why shouldn’t the President of the United States in a conversation with the President of Ukraine say ‘Hey look. Would you take a look at this? We’ve had news reports, books’ about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden obstructing just in the Ukraine, blackmailing the government.’

The President is supposed to sit there and act stupid? No, he says among a thousand other things. You might want to look into this.

‘Wow, that’s an impeachable offense.’

You now have four U.S. senators who did far worse than that. Three of them, Menendez, Leahy, and Durbin who insisted that the Ukrainian government, insisted, investigate our President. You had another one, Murphy, from Connecticut, who insisted that the Ukrainian government not investigate Biden. How come they’re not facing ethics complaints? How come they’re not facing expulsion acts in the United States Senate?

And finally, where the hell are the Republican chairman in the Senate? Why aren’t they issuing subpoenas? Why don’t they pretend they’re Elijah Cummings or Jerry Nadler? Or Schiff for that matter? I know it’s an ugly thought, but issue 100 subpoenas. Go after their bank accounts, go after their friends, go after their relatives. Go after their accountants. Go after their records. And if they don’t go for it, hold em in contempt.