Trump committed obstruction of justice and should be indicted, says Fox News analyst Napolitano in devastating attack
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has broken down allegations Donald Trump obstructed justice in a scathing video published this week.
While the president’s favourite network often features hosts defending him against Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr Napolitano asserted he was guilty of obstructing justice amid the years-long federal probe.
“When the president asks his former adviser and my former colleague KT McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it, that’s obstruction of justice,” he said in the video. “When the president asks Cory Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice.”
Mr Napolitano continued breaking down the special counsel’s report, which noted at least 10 examples of possible obstruction on the part of the president.
“When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice,” he said, before adding, “Why not charge him?”
He also penned a damning Op-Ed this week that refuted Attorney General William Barr’s analysis of the report. Mr Barr has cleared the president of wrongdoing and said he would not be filing any charges against him.
“On obstruction, Barr is wrong,” Mr Napolitano wrote. “The president's job is to enforce federal law.”
“If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defence,” he continued. “But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behaviour is unlawful, defenceless and condemnable.”
The comments arrived nearly a week after the Justice Department released a redacted version of Mr Mueller’s report, which found an extensive, multi-pronged operation conducted by Russian operatives throughout the 2016 election to sway voter attitudes against Hillary Clinton and in favour of Mr Trump.
House Democrats have issued subpoenas for the full report, meanwhile, calling on Mr Barr and Mr Mueller to testify before committees investigating Russian interference and the president’s financial dealings.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
This somehow reminds me of the calm before the storm.
Trump is obviously impeachment worthy.
Will the political class have the nerve?
I think we know now why Trump has been ranting and raving about the Mueller report on twitter though. Someone tipped him off that the main Fox News legal expert was going to call for Trump to be charged with a crime.
This somehow reminds me of the calm before the storm
Keep telling yourself that.
The Democrats aren't going to impeach, and even if the AOC's of the world make them do it, there is no way in hell the mueller report will convince Republican Senators to remove him.
If it were really obvious, everyone would be onboard with the idea. Instead it's all very partisan and there are even several Democrats (like Nancy Pelosi) who oppose impeachment at this time. If it were really obvious, the Mueller report would detail the high crimes or misdemeanors that Trump committed, but it doesn't list any. So it's not as obvious as you think.
Not Trump supporters or the GOP. Doesn't matter how obvious it is, his supporters will NEVER turn on him.
History refutes your statement. Only 6 of the 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary voted to impeach Nixon.
Once again. An irrelevant contribution.
Once again, an unfounded analysis.
I cited an historical fact that refers to the very limited RELEVANT events in relation to impeachment of an American President. You just don't like that that fact refutes your comment.
BTFW Tacos!, all contributions are relevant.
No, it doesn't. Like so many comments you make, you just say "stuff" but never make an argument. you don't connect A-B and you don't respond to the actual comment that you hit reply to. You're just ranting about whoknowswhat. I make a comment about Trump and Pelosi and you want to talk about Nixon. It's junk.
You declaring it to be so, doesn't make it true. Sorry. In my experience, you talk about what you want to talk about and aren't actually responding to what someone else said. And when you are demonstrated to be making a mistake with links and arguments, you ignore them, dismiss them out of hand, or pretend you were really talking about something else. Insulted? I know you probably will be, but that's not my purpose. I'd be happy to have an honest exchange with you, but any shot you had with me at credibility, you have blown at this point. Nothing personal. If your comments ever change, I will be happy to give them the respect they are due.
Actually, you made a comment about impeachment. Here is the exchange.
John:
You:
The I replied with:
Now perhaps you don't get the historic referrence, but I'm pretty sure that most readers would know what it was about.
Contribution:
the part played by a person or thing in bringing about a result or helping something to advance.
Yep, it is true.
I looks to me that when you can't demonstrate anything you immediately devolve making it personal. Well done.
No, I just consider the source.
What IS your purpose?
Your comment makes that clear. /s
That's going to keep me up at night. /s
I could not care less what you give them.
And yet you keep following me around. You keep posting, trying to "prove me wrong" at something, but you never seem to figure out what it is I'm actually talking about. Like I said - and you never hear it - you think you're in a debate and making arguments, but you're not.
Judging from you last comment, you're the one that doesn't seem to know what you're talking about. Instead of addressing the fact that I refuted your statement with, you whine.
Like I said, and you never seem to hear, I could not care less what your opinion of my comments is.
Nah, even if the Dems go for it the GOP is going to make sure congress gives away even more of it authority to the executive.
Will the political class have the nerve?
Nope, the House Democrats have neither the brains nor the balls to impeach Trump.
Of they would have already.
Comey being gone did not impede the witch hunt in any way.
Judge Napolitano has been THE legal expert at Fox News for at least a decade. What a blow to have this man say that the president* is a criminal.
MAGA
the Judge is completely wrong in this instance and will be proven out as never happening. President Trump will serve 8 years and go down as one of our best presidents.
Trump will rank in the very bottom 10% if not the very last as the worst President.
Napolitano took a personal view of Trump's actions. What is a judge supposed to do, weigh all the evidence and take the interpretation that any non-criminal reason for an action is the correct reason, unless that reason can be proven to be false. Mueller's report gives multiple reasons for all of Trump's supposed actions that are related to Obstruction of Justice. Napolitano ignored the non-criminal reasons and went only with the acts as being Obstruction without taking into consideration all the potential reasons listed in the report. In other words, Napolitano is putting together a NARROW view of Obstruction and not a real legal view of Obstruction.
Napolitano GAVE his LEGAL analysis based on actually READING the Mueller report.
Total bullshit. Your scenario would give a 'non-criminal reason' greater weight no matter how incredulous.
Suppose you cite those reasons for the actions cited by Napolitano that aren't inherently corrupt.
Again, cite the 'potential reasons' cited in the report. I must have missed all of the speculation you speak of.
The LEGAL view of Obstruction is already NARROW. The prerequisites for a violation of the statute are detailed.
The report cites court opinions that flesh out those details.
Secondly, it would behoove you READ Napolitano's Op/Ed, conveniently linked in the seed. He will explain to you why Barr's characterization of the evidence of obstruction is bullshit based on the LAW.
Ironically, Napolitano calls Barr's reading of the law 'narrow'.
You dont get it Dennis, but you never do so it's ok.
Read 5.1.8, Dulay.
First Smith and now Judge Napolitano? Fux has TWO renegades now? Uh-oh, Fux is getting real. But they'll always have reliable Hannity.
LOL
Well, a lot of the Fox-flock considered Fux and the Judge's words as gospel and now they're dismissing HIM because he's not saying what they want to hear so I guess hypocrisy works both ways.
Thanks for the laugh tom. I'll reply to it in that thread.
[deleted]
Oh why, because I called Trump supporters retards? They are.
I thought FOX news was full of shit.
All of sudden FOX news and Kim Jong-Un, a dictator who starves and tortures the country's people, opinions matter to you.
Democrats need to impeach Trump or shut up about it.
I'm waiting for LFOD to tell us that Napolitano is a communist.
Yet Trump fell in love with him. Rather curious, dont you think?
good gawd...turn off MSNBC
What does MSNBC have to do with this?
It must burn when conservative stalwarts like Napolitano turn over on trump...
It must burn when liberals use FOX news as a source.
The source for the seed is Yahoo. Napolitano is the subject.
I guess he'll never be invited up on stage with Trump like Hannity and Judge Jeanine Pirro were.
Thinking about committing a crime - even discussing it - is not a crime. Do you know how many people (from kids to old folks) talk about robbing a bank every day? It doesn't make them bank robbers. How many people say "I'd like to kill that guy or knock him out?" They don't do it, so they aren't murderers.
And plenty of people set out to do a thing they think is reasonable and legal only to be brought up short by someone who educates them that the thing they want to do is actually illegal. So they don't do it.
If Trump said to his people, "I want [insert action]" and then he got pushback and maybe some advice that such action would be illegal, and so it didn't happen, then there has been no obstruction of justice or any other crime. Spitballing, brainstorming, ranting - whatever you want to call it - is neither intent nor an attempt to commit a crime.
It's not as if Trump had no power here. It's not as if these people could actually prevent him from obstructing justice if he wanted to. Even if he needed someone else to do a thing, he could simply fire the person who refused to cooperate and hire someone who would. But there's no evidence that he ever did that.
Um, Sally Yates and Jeff Sessions?
I think there's a few dozen more...
Are . . . names of people! Yes, they are. Nothing more. Try to follow along with the context. You need names of people that Trump 1) tried to get to do something illegal, 2) they refused or advised him against it, 3) he fired them because of it, 4) he hired a replacement who 5) did the illegal thing Trump wanted done.
Let me save you some time. There are zero people who qualify for all the elements I listed.
I strongly doubt it.
Fired and resigned mean the same thing at this level and especially in this administration.
But
I never expect to change minds in this forum.
it is the absolute waste of energy and keystrokes.
I'm sorry, this administration takes the cake,
sets the record,
breaks the record
for appointees who quit or were fired.
The Wikipedia link is unique for an Administration barely 2 years and 3 months old.
and my apologies, even I could not scroll through all of it,
and it isn't even updated to include that Kristen Neilsen resigned from DHS or that the #2 person at DHS resigned after being passed over for a political appointee with no experience.
The best one can hope for in this corrupt passion play
is to be one of the lucky people who promise to honor their NDA and get a severance package of $17K a month indefinitely
( probably until the missing Inaugaration 60 million dollars runs out )/s
Again, have a great weekend, Tacos.
Doesn't make any difference. You still don't have any actual obstruction.
Sorry, I missed these 3 links.
Shortest tenures in history of any Administration and nominations withdrawn (which may or may not be typical )
lots of memories on this one, lol.
That remains to be argued.
Read my comment at 2.1.3. Barr is acting more like how a judge is supposed to act than what Napolitano is.
Really Tom?
Now your a lawyer who can criticize a Judges legal opinions?
Mueller, like Barr, believes that you cannot, by DOJ policy, indict a sitting POTUS. I'm sure Sessions, Giuliani and possibly Dershowitz agree.
OK, it's policy, but not the law.
Other very learned lawyers like Ken Starr and Judge Napolitano disagree. i'm guessing Clinton Bush & Obama agree with Ken Star.
Bottom line, it still remains to be argued and probably won't be.
Not because of what anyone believes about Trump, but because it will divide the country further if it's pursued.
Better to focus on the next election first.
Reread the Bill of Rights and the definition of the phrase "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt". You will find that if there is any reason besides the charge being levied present, that reason precludes the charge being levied. It is the basic foundation of our system. On top of that, for Obstruction of Justice, you have to prove there was an action taken to stop the investigation and the only way that the investigation concluded was through the efforts of the investigators to go around that action. Trump committed no actions that were stopped by investigators nor did he actually do anything except talk about what he had the power to do. That is not obstruction, asking or ordering someone to do something well within the power of the Presidency is not obstruction; which is why I say Napolitano is using a PERSONAL argument rather than a Legal argument.
I find it hilarious that you encourage members to read the definition of, 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' and then ignore that very definition.
Your claim that 'any reason', no matter how incredible, precludes a charge being levied, DEFIES the concept of REASONABLE.
The obstruction statute states "endeavors to influence" tom.
That means, all Trump had to do was TRY.
There is NO requirement that the attempt has any effect.
The obstruction statue isn't limited to investigators tom. It states ANY 'administration of the law'. You should actually read it before commenting on it.
The Mueller report cites multiple actions taken by Trump that violate that statute.
nor did he actually do anything except talk about what he had the power to do.
Multiple officials have stated that they took Trump's 'talk' for directives.
That statement proves that either you didn't read the report or you didn't understand it.
Trump CANNOT use his power corruptly tom, he is NOT above the law.
"Donald Trump obstructed justice"
A Crime.....when there was no Crime in the first place ?
Doesnt have to be an underlying crime. Obstructing an investigation into a possible crime is obstruction of justice.
Remember, the Mueller investigation was a function of the JUSTICE Dept.
How was "Mueller" and his team ……. "Influenced, Obstructed or Impeded" again ?
Did "Mueller" say he was "Influenced, Obstructed or Impeded" ?
Bet I know the REAL answer.
Typical attempt at bamboozling.
Mueller noted that Trump ordered underlings to fire Mueller. That doesn't strike you as an attempt at influencing the investigation?
The obstruction doesnt have to have been successful, it has to have been attempted.
Why dont you say something useful?
The only "Influencing" and "Impediment" I saw for the rule of law, was on the "Lefty" News shows and from the likes of Schiff and his Dense Cohorts in congress, with their "INNUENDOS, CONCPIRACIES and CONJECTURES"…. 24 hrs a day.
Definition of influence
1: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways : sway
2a : the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command
b : corrupt interference with authority for personal gain
By the way....who has Shifty SCHIFF'S irrefutable evidence anyway ?
Why do you keep posting definitions that you then don't logically and properly connect to Trump's words and actions?
What is your point? Can you express it with precision?
Why do you insist that Trump is the Problem.
Ya' haven't been watching the "Liberal Peoples News", or the "Liberal Congress" and their claims for over 2 years ?
Better to ignore ?
I dont know why people respond to your constant attempts to bamboozle, including myself.
Is that the New and Improved Liberal ..... "Word of the day" ?
I have used it on forums for many years. Spike Lee made a movie with that title in 2000.
Sorry....Just another New and Improved Liberal wording from you, for me anyway !