Tag: Andrew Napolitano

Fox News judge comes out swinging against Senators who vote to block evidence in Trump’s trial

AlterNet logoJudge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor and frequent critic of President Donald Trump, wrote an editorial Thursday, which asked Republican senators who refuse to call witnesses for Trump’s impeachment trial the following: “How can the Senate be faithful to the Constitution if it suppresses the truth?”

After reviewing the history of the separation of powers established in the U.S. Constitution, Napolitano wrote that “in the case of impeachment of the president, the Constitution gives ‘sole power’ to the House of Representatives. In the case of an impeachment trial, the Constitution gives exclusivity to the Senate. There is no place for presidential resistance or judicial interference, so long as the House and Senate arguably follow the Constitution.”

The president was impeached by the House of Representatives for valid reasons, in the view of the Fox News judge. Continue reading.

Fox Judge Urges Reopening Of Impeachment Probe To Review New Evidence

The party line among many of President Donald Trump’s defenders at Fox News is that the recent impeachment inquiry by House Democrats was flawed from start to finish, but Judge Andrew Napolitano hasn’t been shy about offering critical analysis of Trump during the Ukraine scandal — and according to Napolitano, “newly acquired evidence” is reason enough for Democrats to “reopen the impeachment” inquiry.

Appearing on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom on Monday, Napolitano asserted, “If I were a Democrat in the House, I would be moving to reopen the impeachment on the basis of newly acquired evidence — which are these new e-mails of people getting instructions directly from the president to hold up on the sending of the (military) funds  (to Ukraine). That would justify holding on to the articles of impeachment, because there’s new evidence, perhaps new articles.”

Napolitano added, “If I were a Republican in the Senate, I would go about my business as if there had been no articles of impeachment — because until those articles of impeachment come over to the Senate, there is nothing for the Senate to do.” Continue reading.

Fox News judge explains why he would ‘certainly’ impeach Pres. Trump

AlterNet logoFox News Judge Andrew Napolitano declared Wednesday that he would “certainly” vote to impeach President Donald Trump if he was a member of Congress.

During an appearance on “America’s Newsroom,” Napolitano asserted his belief that “the Democrats have credibly argued that [Trump] committed impeachable offenses” in the Ukraine scandal.

“The easiest one — because this existed in Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — is obstruction of Congress,” he said. “So — by directing his subordinates to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas, whether it’s for testimony or for documents — that’s an impeachable offense.”

Continue reading

Constitutional law experts refute GOP witness’ claim Trump associates can refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas: ‘That is the act of obstruction’

AlterNet logoWhen public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump moved to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Republicans brought on constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley to make a case against impeaching the president. Turley, unlike the three legal scholars featured by House Democrats, was highly critical of the way Democrats have handled the impeachment inquiry — and one of Turley’s criticisms had to do with subpoenas. House Democrats, Turley argued during his testimony, should go through the courts to subpoena potential witnesses. But some legal experts vehemently disagree.

Turley testified that if House Democrats “actually subpoena witnesses and go to court, then you have an obstruction case — because a court issues an order. And unless they stay that order, by a higher court, then you have obstruction.”

Much of the criticism of Turley’s testimony has come from Democrats, but some of it came from Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano — a right-wing libertarian who isn’t shy about criticizing Trump at times. And according to Napolitano, Turley’s testimony underestimated the amount of subpoena powers the U.S. House of Representatives has.

Continue reading

Fox News legal analyst accuses ‘shameless’ Trump of unleashing ‘a torrent of hatred’ not seen since the 1960s

AlterNet logoFox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano this week published a scathing editorial in which he called out President Donald Trump for promoting hatred and division in the United States.

In the editorial, Napolitano recalls the divisions created by the Vietnam War, and he says that the hatred being stoked by Trump rivals the turbulent late 1960s. Napolitano argues that Trump’s decision to tell four Democratic lawmakers to “go back” to their home countries despite being American citizens was a particularly divisive and racist comment.

“‘Go back’ is a rejection of the nation as a melting pot; a condemnation of one of America’s founding values – E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one),” he writes. “It implicates a racial or nativist superiority: We were here before you; this is our land, not yours; get out. Nativist hatred is an implication of moral or even legal superiority that has no constitutional justification in American government.”

View the complete July 25 article by Brad Reed from Raw Story on the AlterNet website here.

Fox Business host stunned as Judge Napolitano explains Mueller has evidence Trump committed a crime: ‘Is it that bad?’

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller had indicated that he found evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime — but was unable to indict him because Trump is a sitting president.

Napolitano reacted to Mueller’s press conference during an appearance on the Fox Business Network.

“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”

“Is it that bad?” host Stuart Varney remarked.

View the complete May 29 article from Raw Story on the AlterNet website here.

Fox News legal analyst: Mueller basically said Trump would have been indicted if not president

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday said special counsel Robert Mueller “basically” said in a public statement that his office would have indicted President Trump had he not been president.

“This is even stronger than the language in his report,” Napolitano said on Fox Business Network after Mueller delivered his first public comments on the 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump obstructed justice.

Napolitano added Mueller’s comments also seemed like a “parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss,” Attorney General William Barr.

View the complete May 29 article by Justin Wise on The Hill website here.

Fox News Judge: Yes, Trump’s Misconduct Is Impeachable

The revelation last weekend by Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash that he believes the Mueller Report accuses President Donald Trump of impeachable offenses has ignited firestorms in both major political parties on Capitol Hill. Amash’s argument is simple and essentially unassailable, though his fellow congressional Republicans don’t want to hear it and Democrats don’t know what to do with it.

Here is the backstory.

When special counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report to Attorney General William Barr, it was a 448-page tome that effectively summarized nearly two years of work and nearly two million pages of documents in an effort to establish whether elements of the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election, and, if so, whether the Russians had any American collaborators in the Trump campaign.

View the complete May 26 article by Andrew Napolitano on the National Memo website here.

Fox News Judge Condemns Trump For Obstructions Of Justice

When the Department of Justice designated Robert Mueller as special counsel to take over the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign in May 2017, Mueller’s initial task was to determine if there had been a conspiracy — an illegal agreement — between the campaign and any Russians to receive anything of value.

When former FBI Director James Comey informed Mueller that he believed Trump fired him because he had declined Trump’s order to shut down the investigation of Trump’s campaign and of his former national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Mueller began to investigate whether the president had unlawfully attempted to obstruct those investigations.

We now know why Trump was so anxious for the FBI to leave Flynn alone.

View the complete April 26 article by Andrew Napolitano on the National Memo website here.