Andrew Nepolitano would vote to impeach Trump

floridafan said:
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Wednesday that he would vote to impeach President Donald Trump if he were a member of the House of Representatives.

“You believe the president has committed impeachable offenses?” Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked Napolitano minutes before a House impeachment hearing.

“I believe that the Democrats have credibly argued that he committed impeachable offenses,” Napolitano explained. “The easiest one — it exists in Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — was obstruction of Congress.”

“By directing his subordinates to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas,” he continued, “whether it’s for testimony or for documents, that’s an impeachable offense. We know that from history. Every time the House has looked at that with respect to the president, they have found that to be impeachable.”

“On that, reasonable minds cannot disagree,” Napolitano added, “without rejecting history and without rejecting constitutional norms.”
“If you were in the House, would you vote for impeachment?” Hemmer wondered.

“I certainly would,” Napolitano replied. “I would on that count.”

Watch the video below from Fox News.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. I wonder if this will change the mind of a single FoxTrump worshiper, though?
 
dukkha said:
surely his advisors and aides are covered -don't like it? take it to court.
But you can't not take it to court and then yell obstruction - Trump is making the claim.
it's up to Schiff to get a court order otherwise..then you can yell obstruction
Click to expand...

They are covered only if asked a question that may entail EP. NOT merely to testify at all.
 
dukkha said:
Napolitano Has Been Wrong About Basically Everything
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/11/16/andrew-napolitano-wrong-basically-everything/
......At some point, all of Napolitano’s opinions start to seem more like excuses to bash the President than actual legal analysis.

Napolitano also predicted that Donald Trump Jr. would be indicted.

When asked if he expects anyone in the president’s inner circle to be charged, Napolitano said, “Yes. I don’t know who, but I do know that Donald Jr. has told friends he expects to be indicted.”

“Do you expect he’d be indicted?” Abrams asked.

“Yes,” Napolitano said.

Wrong again, as Napolitano found himself in the company of such great predictive minds as John Brennan and Chris Matthews.

But forget Trump for a second, because his bad takes go back to Hillary Clinton as well. Who can forget his proclamations that indictments were coming in the email scandal?

So we know already the FBI is interacting with the Justice Department, the FBI has already made some recommendations to the Justice Department, the Justice Department has accepted those recommendations seriously, has convened a grand jury, and has begun or will soon begin to present evidence to the grand jury, and they need Mr. Pagliano’s testimony immunized, which means he no longer has the privilege against self-incrimination because they can’t use against him whatever he says. It also means — this is profound — they intend to indict someone. It’s not Bryan Pagliano; he can only be indicted if he commits perjury if he lies under oath. But, they intend to indict someone in this chain north of him.

That’s a big nope. In the end, no one was indicted in the Hillary email case, much less Clinton herself.

Allow me to reiterate what I said earlier. This guy has been wrong about literally everything he’s commented on in regards to high profile, political-legal cases in the last four years. I’m sure if I went back further, I could find more examples outside of Trump and Hillary as well. He continually falls into dramatic proclamations over factual analysis. His hatred of Donald Trump has only driven him further over the edge, where he’s whiffed again and again regarding the President.

The same thing is happening now with his statements on Ukraine. At what point does Fox News stop paying this guy to be wrong? I don’t know, but I do know that no one should be taking him seriously.
Click to expand...

lol

Redstate
Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg
 
Earl said:
Nap is auditioning for a gig on CNN...or MSNBC.
Click to expand...

And you are auditioning to be our most ignorant and misinformed poster.

DUDE! LET ME JUST TELL YOU RIGHT HERE IN BOLD PRINT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE HERE IN THE FORUM.....

...I LOVE IT WHEN YOU GROAN ME! Nothing in this forum pleases me any more!

....SO PLEASE MAKE MY DAY AND CONTINUE TO GROAN MY EVERY POST!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Fascinating. I wonder if this will change the mind of a single FoxTrump worshiper, though?
Click to expand...

I know that it will not. They want this to appear merely as partisan scrum, but here is how we know the difference.

If evidence appeared that totally exonerated Trump, such as, oh, I don't know, Ghouliani cooked up the whole thing, the Trump call was faked and not authentic,
then WE would accept that and dismiss the impeachment. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. But they will not follow the facts NO MATTER WHAT.

It isn't partisan because two parties untethered to reality are in a death spiral, we are in a partisan WAR because we stand for reality and truth and they stand for
win at all costs, truth be damned and country be damned and we won't let them get away with that shit.
 
Jack said:
The Constitution provides Impeachment for 'High Crimes'.

Using 400 million dollars of US Taxpayer money for Military Aid to Ukraine to stop Russian aggression ... can't be used by Trump for 'Personal Gain', namely, to extort Ukraine to 'investigate' a Political Rival.
Click to expand...

Add to the dangling carrot of military aid the promise of a WH meeting with TRE45ON and you got both the quid pro quo and the extortion/bribery. (I used both words here because I'm not sure of the legal definitions.) That's followed by various crimes of obstruction. And WTF do we do about a POTUS using his private attorney to jet around doing State Dept. business but not communicating with State, only answering to POTUS?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Add to the dangling carrot of military aid the promise of a WH meeting with TRE45ON and you got both the quid pro quo and the extortion/bribery. (I used both words here because I'm not sure of the legal definitions.) That's followed by various crimes of obstruction. And WTF do we do about a POTUS using his private attorney to jet around doing State Dept. business but not communicating with State, only answering to POTUS?
Click to expand...

Impeach.
 
Jack said:
YOU are the one calling it 'conjecture'. I know if Rudy went under Oath and told what he knew (a la Michael Cohen) you would change your tune. :)
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. They'd claim that the formerly-loyal Rudy went rogue, or he "had to testify because they have dirt on his family but he's lying", or Rudy's a double agent, or some other rot.

These Reichwingers aren't patriots. They're cultists.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
No they wouldn't. They'd claim that the formerly-loyal Rudy went rogue, or he "had to testify because they have dirt on his family but he's lying", or Rudy's a double agent, or some other rot.

These Reichwingers aren't patriots. They're cultists.
Click to expand...

:) It was directed at Derth Omar, who may have a brain. (?)
 
floridafan said:
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Wednesday that he would vote to impeach President Donald Trump if he were a member of the House of Representatives.

“You believe the president has committed impeachable offenses?” Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked Napolitano minutes before a House impeachment hearing.

“I believe that the Democrats have credibly argued that he committed impeachable offenses,” Napolitano explained. “The easiest one — it exists in Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — was obstruction of Congress.”

“By directing his subordinates to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas,” he continued, “whether it’s for testimony or for documents, that’s an impeachable offense. We know that from history. Every time the House has looked at that with respect to the president, they have found that to be impeachable.”

“On that, reasonable minds cannot disagree,” Napolitano added, “without rejecting history and without rejecting constitutional norms.”
“If you were in the House, would you vote for impeachment?” Hemmer wondered.

“I certainly would,” Napolitano replied. “I would on that count.”

Watch the video below from Fox News.
Click to expand...

Napolitano is another moron who doesn't know the Constitution. :rolleyes:

Executive Privilege trumps morons in the House trying to pull of a HOAX. The Constitution; READ it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top