Napolitano Goes Full Schiff

[mystery-ak]

November 25, 2019
Napolitano Goes Full Schiff
By Daniel John Sobieski

The descent of Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano into foolishness continues with a series of TV appearances in which the former New York Superior Court judge adopts the Adam Schiff interpretation of the Constitution where you are not allowed to confront your accuser, where being a fact witness does not require you to recuse yourself from running a kangaroo court impeachment inquiry, and where hearsay and presumption determine you are guilty until proven innocent.

In the face of public hearings in which Schiff unloaded his clown car of hearsay witnesses who made every presumption about President Trump except for the presumption of innocence, Napolitano warmly embraced Schiff’s fables, telling Reason’s Nick Gillespie that there is more than enough, and he uses the word very loosely, "evidence" to justify three or four articles of impeachment against President Trump:

    In an interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie on Friday, Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano said there was “overwhelming” evidence of impeachable actions by President Donald Trump.

    Napolitano said, “The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president. We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only Constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors.”

    He continued, “Here’s what I think the Democrats will want, Nick. Here’s what I think they will advance. One is bribery. The technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse [sic] funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed [sic] until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery. That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment. The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors -- election law violation. The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with the witness, and the fifth, maybe, lying under oath.”

    He added, “The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming.”

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/napolitano_goes_full_schiff.html

[Wingnut]

The Judges act has worn thin.  I don't understand why fox keeps that old has-been around. 

[Cyber Liberty]

The Judges act has worn thin.  I don't understand why fox keeps that old has-been around.

To keep from being an echo-chamber, like CNN?

[Wingnut]

To keep from being an echo-chamber, like CNN?

They can always bring back that other dude they fired from the 5.  Bill somebody. 

[Cyber Liberty]

They can always bring back that other dude they fired from the 5.  Bill somebody.

Press is a pr*ck.  I'd rather have the fat guy, Beckel.

[Wingnut]

Press is a bleep.  I'd rather have the fat guy, Beckel.

Yeah.  Bob.  That's who I ment.  He had comedic value.