Napolitano Wrong Again: Schiff Inquiry a Kangaroo Court

[rangerrebew]

October 20, 2019
Napolitano Wrong Again: Schiff Inquiry a Kangaroo Court
By Daniel John Sobieski

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, who of late has been the poster child for the increasingly leftward tilt of the network touted as "fair and balanced," and who believes that President Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians to affect the 2016 election and of pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent, insists that the inquiry by Rep. Adam Schiff is perfectly legal because there is no requirement in law that a vote to conduct such an inquiry be taken.  As he states in an article in the Daily Herald:

    The due process Trump seeks — notice, hearing, fairness, counsel, cross-examination, confrontation, neutral judges — is only relevant during a trial.  The House does not conduct trials; the Senate does.  There and only there — if we get there — will the president have his due process rights.


Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/napolitano_wrong_again_schiff_inquiry_a_kangaroo_court.html#ixzz62zPYS16A
 

[goatprairie]

I'm not what you would call a Trumpster, but I can't see what he's done that calls for impeachment.
Phone calls to another world leader asking for help uncovering possible corruption, even if politically motivated, do not qualify as grounds for impeachment.
I think not getting the SC nod from Trump pushed the judge over the edge.

[PeteS in CA]

I'm not what you would call a Trumpster, but I can't see what he's done that calls for impeachment.
Phone calls to another world leader asking for help uncovering possible corruption, even if politically motivated, do not qualify as grounds for impeachment.
I think not getting the SC nod from Trump pushed the judge over the edge.

The Dems have been working on schemes to overturn the 2016 election starting with the November, 2016 efforts to persuade R electors to vote for someone other than Trump. The Trump-Russia Collusion Delusion got underway before the election, the 25th Amendment shtick was already being discussed in Prog circles in December, 2016. There was the Creepy Porn Liar who got greedy, "obstruction" that Mueller testified didn't happen, the "quid pro quo" that focused on corruption in the 2016 election rather than Creepy Joe, the bizarre theory that because Creepy Joe is a candidate for the Presidency that his son should not be investigated for pay-for-play influence peddling.

These are individual things - I probably missed some - but they are all parts of the same whole, the Dem effort to overturn the 2016 election.