Subscribe Us

header ads

Judge Nap makes Schiff seem logical

Fox News suspended Andrew Napolitano in 2017 for saying the British foreign surveillance service spied on Donald John Trump for Obama. Since his return, Napolitano has gone after President Trump.

The impeachment inquiry has brought out the worst in Judge Nap.

Reason magazine reported, "The allegations are not 'enough to convict [the president] of bribery' in a court of law, Napolitano says, 'but it's enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment' since impeachment is 'not legal [but] political.' The former New Jersey Superior Court judge adds that while he thinks impeachment is 'absolutely constitutional,' it is also 'probably morally unjust."'


If President Trump committed a crime, how is it "morally unjust" to prosecute?

You can say prosecuting is likely to fail.

You can say prosecuting is picayune.

You can say prosecuting is not politically viable.

But you cannot say in this case that prosecuting is immoral because the law calls for pursuing crimes.

The judge confuses political disputes with morality. This confusion is widespread among liberals and commentators, which is dangerous because by injecting morality into the debate, one makes compromise impossible.

Why would anyone vote Democrat after Democrats called them deplorable?

Likewise, why would Democrats seek the votes of deplorable people? And Democrats are not. They believe President Trump's support is stuck at 46% and they can win with Hillary's support.

Which was 48%.

Meanwhile, President Trump is seeking to expand his base. His outreach to black voters is encouraging.

But Democrats have picked up Judge Nap's vote, haven't they?

Reason reported, "Besides bribery, he lays out four more likely articles that he thinks House Democrats will bring against Trump.

"'The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors, election law violation,' says Napolitano. 'The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with a witness and the fifth may be lying under oath.

"'The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming,' he adds."

Obstruction of justice? How? The story did not say. If he means the Mueller investigation, the judge is plainly wrong. President Trump could have fired Mueller at any point in the investigation. He did not.

Tweeting mean things is not obstruction.

And of course, President Trump had no role whatsoever in Adam Schiff witch hunt.

Interference with a witness likely refers to tweeting mean things again.

As for bribery, where is the bribe? Who received it? Why?  No such evidence was presented because no such crime took place.

Reading his comments make me glad that he is no longer a judge, and has not been one since 1995. I feel this way because as a judge he could have ruined lives with his impaired logic.

Post a Comment