Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice, right-wing TV commentator says

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is not going easy on Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

In a scathing op-ed and accompanying video published Thursday, Napolitano said that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election and Trump’s efforts to cover it up showed a clear pattern of criminal behavior.

“When the president asks his former adviser and my former colleague K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it, that’s obstruction of justice,” Napolitano said in his video. “When the president asks Cory Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asks his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and then change his testimony, that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice. Why not charge him?”

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-judge-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-trump-obstructed-justice-001202876.html

I don't really know what else to say. Napolitano has sided with Trump many times, he's spread lies about Obama, he's not left wing in any way. If you can't trust the judgement of a former judge and attorney who normally sides with Trump but can't find a way to justify the acts he listed, then I think you must have your tongue buried really deep up Trump's asshole.

Won’t make any difference and you know why I think that.

When they’re done with him he will be gone.

eddie wrote:Won’t make any difference and you know why I think that.

When they’re done with him he will be gone.

Yes, that's what I fear, too.  He will never last a trial.  He's 73 now.

The other possibility is he may raise a defense of incapacity, or even insanity.  Some of the things he's done are pretty bizarre. Remember his "oranges"?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Won’t make any difference and you know why I think that.

When they’re done with him he will be gone.

Yes, that's what I fear, too.  He will never last a trial.  He's 73 now.

The other possibility is he may raise a defense of incapacity, or even insanity.  Some of the things he's done are pretty bizarre.  Remember his "oranges"?

That’s not what I meant. I meant he’s there because he’s allowed to be there. When they’re done with him, he will be gone.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, that's what I fear, too. He will never last a trial. He's 73 now.

The other possibility is he may raise a defense of incapacity, or even insanity. Some of the things he's done are pretty bizarre. Remember his "oranges"?

That’s not what I meant. I meant he’s there because he’s allowed to be there. When they’re done with him, he will be gone.

I don't know what you mean by that, but my fear is that he will never face reprisal. Reprisal is many things...yes, it's retribution to the individual, but more it's vindication for the many institutions he has either impaired or destroyed. He has left us a racist nation, that we are not a democracy, and that we are not a nation of laws.

We mend those institutions by declaring the man who did this an outlaw. It's called criminal justice...the 4 reasons for punishment.

Every successor to an office will use what a predecessor left to him. It's called PRECEDENT. If the criminal justice system, or the electoral system, is used and manipulated, the nation needs the opportunity to declare it wrong. If the perp walks away or dies, there’s no restitution. Without negative consequences the malevolence is confirmed, and awaits the next perp. We gain the reputation of becoming lawless, and a banana republic.

With Trump, methinks he will walk off and never see justice. If so, we will be left with impaired institutions.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is not going easy on Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

In a scathing op-ed and accompanying video published Thursday, Napolitano said that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election and Trump’s efforts to cover it up showed a clear pattern of criminal behavior.

“When the president asks his former adviser and my former colleague K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it, that’s obstruction of justice,” Napolitano said in his video. “When the president asks Cory Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asks his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and then change his testimony, that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice. Why not charge him?”

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-judge-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-trump-obstructed-justice-001202876.html

I don't really know what else to say. Napolitano has sided with Trump many times, he's spread lies about Obama, he's not left wing in any way. If you can't trust the judgement of a former judge and attorney who normally sides with Trump but can't find a way to justify the acts he listed, then I think you must have your tongue buried really deep up Trump's asshole.

Napolitano is a libertarian, not right wing. He sides with his principles. If they align with Trumps, so be it. When they don't he's not afraid to say so either.

"With respect to both Presidents Bush and Obama and their handling of civil liberties in the War on Terror, Napolitano is a strong critic. In both his scholarly work, appearing in the New York University Law School Journal of Law and Liberty, and in his book Suicide Pact, Napolitano criticized the actions of both Presidents and their parties with respect to torture, domestic spying, unilateral executive action, and encroachments on political power."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano


Don't call libertarians right wing Ben. It makes you sound like Quill.

Maddog wrote:"With respect to both Presidents Bush and Obama and their handling of civil liberties in the War on Terror, Napolitano is a strong critic. In both his scholarly work, appearing in the New York University Law School Journal of Law and Liberty, and in his book Suicide Pact, Napolitano criticized the actions of both Presidents and their parties with respect to torture, domestic spying, unilateral executive action, and encroachments on political power."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano


Don't call libertarians right wing Ben. It makes you sound like Quill.  

From your same link

Napolitano has made numerous claims about the American Civil War, which are rejected by historians. These claims include those that the Civil War was President Abraham Lincoln's war by choice, that slavery was dying anyway, that Lincoln could have freed the slaves by paying the slaveholders, and that Lincoln armed the slaves.[35][36] More specifically, in a Daily Show segment, Napolitano said that Lincoln started the war "because he wanted to preserve the union, because he needed the tariffs from the southern states," a claim rejected by a panel of three distinguished historians of the Civil War: James Oakes, Eric Foner, and Manisha Sinha.[36] Napolitano argued that Lincoln could have solved the slavery question by paying slaveholders to release their slaves, a method known as compensated emancipation, thereby avoiding war.[35] However, Lincoln did offer to pay to free the slaves in Delaware, but the Delaware legislature rejected him.[35] Napolitano also asserted that Lincoln attempted to arm slaves, but two prominent historians of the Civil War said they had never heard of such an effort and PolitiFact rated the claim "pants-on-fire".[35][37] Napolitano has asserted that slavery was dying a natural death at the time of the Civil War, a claim that one of the historians on the Daily Show panel rejected. The historian said, "Slavery was not only viable, it was growing ... This idea that it was dying out or was going to die out is ridiculous."[36]

Napolitano has also said that Lincoln enforced the Fugitive Slave Act by sending escaped slaves back to their owners during the war; PolitiFact notes that "while there were cases when Lincoln enforced the law during the Civil War, he did so selectively when he thought it would help keep border states in the Union fold. When it came to slaves from Confederate states, the weight of the government actions fell heavily on the side of refusing to return escaped slaves."

You are right, that we should not call Libertarians right wing. What we should do is rightfully call them liars, as is the case here. With their warped conspiracies and poor revisionist history crap

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Won’t make any difference and you know why I think that.

When they’re done with him he will be gone.

Yes, that's what I fear, too.  He will never last a trial.  He's 73 now.

The other possibility is he may raise a defense of incapacity, or even insanity.  Some of the things he's done are pretty bizarre.  Remember his "oranges"?

It would be so demeaning for him to stand next to his attorney listening to him say "Your honour my client only committed those crimes because he is genuinely crazy".   

Complete humiliation on the world stage.

And it would be even more humiliating if the supreme court accepts mental illness as a valid plea.  


If he is ever prosecuted he should not agree to sacrifice his pride in this way. Better to plead incapacity instead. 

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:"With respect to both Presidents Bush and Obama and their handling of civil liberties in the War on Terror, Napolitano is a strong critic. In both his scholarly work, appearing in the New York University Law School Journal of Law and Liberty, and in his book Suicide Pact, Napolitano criticized the actions of both Presidents and their parties with respect to torture, domestic spying, unilateral executive action, and encroachments on political power."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano


Don't call libertarians right wing Ben. It makes you sound like Quill.  

From your same link

Napolitano has made numerous claims about the American Civil War, which are rejected by historians. These claims include those that the Civil War was President Abraham Lincoln's war by choice, that slavery was dying anyway, that Lincoln could have freed the slaves by paying the slaveholders, and that Lincoln armed the slaves.[35][36] More specifically, in a Daily Show segment, Napolitano said that Lincoln started the war "because he wanted to preserve the union, because he needed the tariffs from the southern states," a claim rejected by a panel of three distinguished historians of the Civil War: James Oakes, Eric Foner, and Manisha Sinha.[36] Napolitano argued that Lincoln could have solved the slavery question by paying slaveholders to release their slaves, a method known as compensated emancipation, thereby avoiding war.[35] However, Lincoln did offer to pay to free the slaves in Delaware, but the Delaware legislature rejected him.[35] Napolitano also asserted that Lincoln attempted to arm slaves, but two prominent historians of the Civil War said they had never heard of such an effort and PolitiFact rated the claim "pants-on-fire".[35][37] Napolitano has asserted that slavery was dying a natural death at the time of the Civil War, a claim that one of the historians on the Daily Show panel rejected. The historian said, "Slavery was not only viable, it was growing ... This idea that it was dying out or was going to die out is ridiculous."[36]

Napolitano has also said that Lincoln enforced the Fugitive Slave Act by sending escaped slaves back to their owners during the war; PolitiFact notes that "while there were cases when Lincoln enforced the law during the Civil War, he did so selectively when he thought it would help keep border states in the Union fold. When it came to slaves from Confederate states, the weight of the government actions fell heavily on the side of refusing to return escaped slaves."

You are right, that we should not call Libertarians right wing. What we should do is rightfully call them liars, as is the case here. With their warped conspiracies and poor revisionist history crap

Of course I'm right.

Of course you're right, Maddog...

Just how far right is the big question..

I would place you to the right of 'centre right'.

Though, "left right out" of the picture would often seem to be the case, looking at some of the nonsense you like to post on here..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Of course you're right,  Maddog...

Just how far right is the big question..

I would place you to  the right of 'centre right'.

Though, "left right out" of the picture would often seem to be the case, looking at some of the nonsense you like to post on here..

Well, I don't really believe in the left right paradigm so you can place me wherever you like on it.

Maddog wrote:"With respect to both Presidents Bush and Obama and their handling of civil liberties in the War on Terror, Napolitano is a strong critic. In both his scholarly work, appearing in the New York University Law School Journal of Law and Liberty, and in his book Suicide Pact, Napolitano criticized the actions of both Presidents and their parties with respect to torture, domestic spying, unilateral executive action, and encroachments on political power."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano


Don't call libertarians right wing Ben. It makes you sound like Quill.  

Don't be silly.  That's like the argument that Nazis weren't right wing, because of their name.  Superficial argument.

Putting aside authoritarianism, which anyway is the the ultimate result of a lack of governance, all right wingers champion minimal government and less state control at the start, because it leaves the individual the latitude to cheat others, and ultimately develop monopolistic control.  Government exists in order to promote 'public protections' and police the participants.  The right, wanting to make that concept sound evil, has renamed 'public protections' as 'regulations'.  But don't be fooled, we either let a mutually led government make minimal limitations, or the default will be authoritarianism--anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

Never forget the basic formula of social existence: man, left alone, will try to dominate and take away the rights of his fellow man.  The most common example is economics: all laissez-faire systems tend toward monopoly.  Who could forget the late-19th century?  In a phrase, the successful will inevitably try to take away the rights of others to do what they did, in order to maintain and grow their success, while and by stunting the success of anyone else.

Wiser men than us have long ago determined that it is better to prevent laissez-faire chaos, than introduce minor controls in the form of public protections.