Fox News analyst says Mueller report proves Trump did obstruct justice

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course it is Fox News ... or who do you think reprogrammed Napolitano?!? :lamo

However, was it Fox News who called Napolitano "a former judge turned media commentator" and "senior judicial analyst" alternatively?!?

Regardless of what labels have been attached to Mr. Napolitano, the FACT remains that FOX News, which was under no obligation to publish the article, DID publish the article.

As shot a time as one year ago, the odds on FOX News publishing an article stating that (even if only in the writer's opinion) Mr. Trump had "obstructed justice" would have been as close to 2[SUP]0[/SUP] as it is possible to get.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If there was, Mueller would have said there was. Since he didn't, that's a wrap.

Unfortunately that doesn't quite line up with

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute ...
​

that is actually in the letter which appointed Mr. Mueller.

Why?

For one thing Mr. Mueller did not believe that it was NECESSARY to prosecute because Congress had a mechanism to deal with the situation absent a prosecution initiated by Mr. Mueller.

For another thing, Mr. Mueller did not believe that it was APPROPRIATE to prosecute because for him to initiate a prosecution would violate DoJ guidelines.

In short, for Mr. Mueller to initiate a prosecution would have violated the terms of his appointment as an investigator (with limited authority to initiate prosecutions).

He punted like he did to cover his ass.

I guess if you want to define "punted" as "acted in accordance with his limited legal authority" and "cover his ass" as "stayed within the limits of the law" you could be right.

On the other hand, if you had wanted to make a rational and informed statement where the terms used were used in their normal meanings you failed.

He knew he had to give the Left-tards something, or they would have come after him with their smear machine. He was probably even worried about his potential suicide.

Congratulations, you have just been promoted to "Conspiracy Theorist 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Class".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

With the Mueller report we know there was no underlying crime by Mr. Trump. Those facts do not fit the scenario as described with Mr. Nixon.

Not quite.

With Mr. Mueller's report we know that ONE OF the actions alleged to have been committed by Mr. Trump and/or his agents did not happen.

Tell me, if someone is accused on TWO crimes and they are exonerated with respect to ONE of them, do you then claim that they never committed EITHER of the crimes?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The USA would seem to have elements of all three in our Constitutional structure. But that would hopefully be true of all free societies-- we wouldn't want the policing authorities to be unaccountable. The last we clearly saw ""A" in the USA was when Mr. Obama directed the federal prosecutors NOT to enforce the immigration laws on the "dreamers." There were no great calls of obstruction of justice at that time.
There was none then. There is none now.

Thank you for your edited version of "American Fables for the Slow Learners".

PS - You do realize that it is NOT possible for a country to be both Type A

... the head of government has the absolute power to prevent any prosecutions of anyone no matter how solid the evidence against that person and even if that person happens to be themselves.
​

and Type B

... the head of government does NOT have the absolute power to prevent any prosecutions of anyone no matter how solid the evidence against that person.
​

at the same time, don't you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Translation, we used to be a nation of law and order. Now we're a notion of law and order. My how far the GOP has fallen. They now actively advocate breaking the law.

Hey, what's the problem with changing an "a" to an "o"?

I mean they are both vowels so there is no substantial change - right?

 

[mrdeltoid]

“Dershowitz: It's not obstruction if the president acted within his authority.”

Hur dee durp. There is no way this guy’s legal certificate isn’t written in crayon.

Sure. Real light weight.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

FOX presents both sides of the argument. This is why FOX is a credible news source, unlike almost all the Mainstream Corporate Media especially CNN and MSNBC.

FOX is just as much a "credible" news source as any other news source if your "credibility quotient" is low enough. FOX is a more "credible" news source than any other news source if your "credibility quotient" is closely approximating "totally gullible".

Any news source that hasn't been checked against a minimum of one other (and that one would be a NON-domestic one) but preferably against more than one (which would include a minimum of one NON-domestic one) is ALWAYS suspect to some extent.

 

[jghiretire]

Lol! You and the people you had listened to had been consistently wrong about the Trump/Russia narrative. Now you are all correct about obstruction? Not likely.

The fact remains that if a president, who has authority OVER the DOJ, cannot exercise that authority WITHOUT being subject to obstruction complaints, then the same peril exists for his subordinates exercising their prosecutorial authority.
The same principle will have to apply on the state and local level as well.

And then the administration of justice cannot be effective in such a circumstance.

Really amazing the twists and turns taken to justify that even if he did obstruct - in his case it's legal.
:lamo
Wondering what reaction if it had been a democrat. I'm sure you would feel exactly the same way.

 

[GDViking]

I think there is a legislative remedy. This is the perfect time to codify that a president can indeed be prosecuted for federal crimes. According to nothing more and a Justice Dept memo, we can't indict a sitting president. It's not in the Constitution. It's not even a law. Well, make it a law that we can indict a sitting president.

OK, I know what you are going to say: "A president is so busy that having to deal with a defense will hamper his ability to act effectively."
ANSWER: The 25th Amendment handles that.

I agree 100%, the main thing I was disappointed about with Mueller is he did not test that dumb ass rule.

When you have an illegitimate president elected because of the actions on a foreign nation some ancient memo should not be an obstruction to removing him...

 

[Athanasius68]

Not quite.

With Mr. Mueller's report we know that ONE OF the actions alleged to have been committed by Mr. Trump and/or his agents did not happen.

Tell me, if someone is accused on TWO crimes and they are exonerated with respect to ONE of them, do you then claim that they never committed EITHER of the crimes?

Mueller never technically said Trump was exonerated on conspiracy/collusion/coordination; he said he didn't have enough evidence to bring to trial for a conviction. Mueller claim that he did not have enough to exonerate for obstruction amounts to the same.

With respect to the question: As obstruction would be predicated upon his committing a crime to obstruct, that he didn't commit the crime, and was cooperative to the investigators, works against his obstructing justice.

 

[Athanasius68]

Thank you for your edited version of "American Fables for the Slow Learners".

PS - You do realize that it is NOT possible for a country to be both Type A

... the head of government has the absolute power to prevent any prosecutions of anyone no matter how solid the evidence against that person and even if that person happens to be themselves.
​

and Type B

... the head of government does NOT have the absolute power to prevent any prosecutions of anyone no matter how solid the evidence against that person.
​

at the same time, don't you?

I had interpreted "b" as having power, but not absolute, as perhaps limited by politics and tradition and so on.

 

[GDViking]

If there was, Mueller would have said there was. Since he didn't, that's a wrap.

He punted like he did to cover his ass. He knew he had to give the Left-tards something, or they would have come after him with their smear machine. He was probably even worried about his potential suicide.

Wow I've become pretty used to the stupid **** you post, however you really outdid yourself on this one.

 

[Athanasius68]

Really amazing the twists and turns taken to justify that even if he did obstruct - in his case it's legal.
:lamo
Wondering what reaction if it had been a democrat. I'm sure you would feel exactly the same way.

Had the situation been reversed-- Trump the Democrat and Obama the Republican, the Democrats would have long since shut down the investigation on the basis of the dangers to democracy of an incumbent president using the surveillance power of the USA on his political opponent without even sprcifying the crime supposedly committed.

 

[Born Free]

From The Guardian

Fox News analyst says Mueller report proves Trump did obstruct justice
​

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano has argued that Donald Trump did obstruct justice, with “unlawful, defenseless and condemnable” behavior related to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In the opinion column Did President Trump obstruct justice?, the host of the Liberty File on Fox Nation argued that the Mueller report illustrates clear and intentional obstruction of justice, constituting legal grounds for impeachment.

Napolitano, a former superior court judge in New Jersey, thereby contradicted the attorney general, William Barr, who decided there was insufficient evidence to establish that the president had committed obstruction of justice.

Napolitano’s column was accompanied by a video, shot outside Fox News HQ in New York, which spread rapidly on social media. Trump is an avid viewer of the network and user of Twitter. He did not immediately respond.

COMMENT:-

The "news" here, as far as I am concerned, is not the CONTENT of the statement concerning whether or not Mr. Trump "obstructed justice" but rather the SOURCE of that statement.​

Yep.............

Problem is Barr and Rosenstein came to the same conclusion there was no obstruction based on the Mueller's report.

Napolitano has been dead wrong in the past, leaving him way behind as the most intelligent judge in the world. Now if you want to read about Napolitano being wrong, here you go

6 Times When Fox’s Judge Napolitano Got Things Very, Very Wrong

Since the recent faux-news debacle, in which Fox Chief Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano announced that according to his “inside sources,” a British intelligence agency wiretapped the Trump campaign, “The Judge” has found himself benched. Apparently, there are limits to Fox’s tolerance for propaganda, even in its workshop of sometimes fact-averse conspiracy theories and partisan hackery. While last week’s incidents seems to have pushed Fox over the edge, it sure wasn’t the first time Napolitano purveyed drivel disguised as “judicial analysis.” Here is a reminder of a few times Nap got it very wrong:

6 Times When Fox's Judge Napolitano Got Things Very, Very Wrong | Law & Crime

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano slams Trump for 'criminal,' 'immoral' obstruction

After reading the Mueller report, Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano came to the conclusion that the behavior of President Donald Trump was “immoral, criminal, defenseless, and condemnable.”

Read the link

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/6-times-when-foxs-judge-napolitano-got-things-very-very-wrong/

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano slams Trump for 'criminal' obstruction

Do you think Napolitano may be just a little bias, which is why he is dead wrong on many of his conclusion.

 

[Cardinal]

Sure. Real light weight.

If I was a pre-eminent physicist and a professor at MIT, and then said one day that the moon was kept from crashing into the earth because of the religious sacrificial rituals of a secret order of koala bears, you'd think that I had either conned my way into the world of science or that I had completely lost my mind at some point and for some reason.

One of these explanations applies to Dershowitz.

 

[MTAtech]

I agree 100%, the main thing I was disappointed about with Mueller is he did not test that dumb ass rule.

When you have an illegitimate president elected because of the actions on a foreign nation some ancient memo should not be an obstruction to removing him...

Mueller was under the thumb of Rosenstein and Barr.

 

[maxparrish]

The question of whether Trump committed the acts of obstruction of justice and whether he can be punished, are two separate issues. According to Mueller's report, there is ample credible evidence that Trump committed O of J. Mueller also said that if the evidence exonerated Mr. Trump we would say so. We are not saying so.

It remains an open question as to whether or not he attempted or did obstruct justice. The question is difficult because unlike Watergate, there was no actual underlying crime that the President was attempting to conceal. And, unlike Nixon, it s uncertain if Trump's motives were actually corrupt. Moreover, he did not act in a manner consistent with such intent given that his administration, he never invoked executive privilege and turned over all documents and other items requested.

Therefore, such a prosecution, if it were jurisdictional, would not likely meet the "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.

Close...but no cigar.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I had interpreted "b" as having power, but not absolute, as perhaps limited by politics and tradition and so on.

That's Type C.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Had the situation been reversed-- Trump the Democrat and Obama the Republican, the Democrats would have long since shut down the investigation on the basis of the dangers to democracy of an incumbent president using the surveillance power of the USA on his political opponent without even sprcifying the crime supposedly committed.

And the Republicans would be howling for the investigations to continue.

 

[Athanasius68]

That's Type C.

Type C speaks of theoretical powers.
In the USA, it isn't theoretical. Law enforcement is an executive responsibility, and the Constitution indicates that all executive power is vested in a single president.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Type C speaks of theoretical powers.
In the USA, it isn't theoretical. Law enforcement is an executive responsibility, and the Constitution indicates that all executive power is vested in a single president.

So, that would mean, if you take your position to its logical extreme, that the President of the United States of America could NOT be prosecuted for raping, murdering, and eating a six year old on live TV if the President of the United States of America didn't feel like being prosecuted for it.

You might want to notice that "raping, murdering, and eating" a six year old is an act that is covered under ordinary statute law so a good case could be made that it does not constitute "HIGH crimes and misdemeanours".

PS - Since "administration" covers "hiring and firing" your position would also imply that the President of the United States of America - under his sole executive power - could simply fire all of the Judges and every single government employee with the stroke of a pen. It also implies that the President can "administratively reallocate" funds wherever they feel that the funds ought to go. (That, of course, would include the power to "administratively reallocate" funds to an off shore "trust account" over which they, in person and not as an adjunct of their position, have sole control.)

 

[j-mac]

From The Guardian

Fox News analyst says Mueller report proves Trump did obstruct justice
​

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano has argued that Donald Trump did obstruct justice, with “unlawful, defenseless and condemnable” behavior related to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In the opinion column Did President Trump obstruct justice?, the host of the Liberty File on Fox Nation argued that the Mueller report illustrates clear and intentional obstruction of justice, constituting legal grounds for impeachment.

Napolitano, a former superior court judge in New Jersey, thereby contradicted the attorney general, William Barr, who decided there was insufficient evidence to establish that the president had committed obstruction of justice.

Napolitano’s column was accompanied by a video, shot outside Fox News HQ in New York, which spread rapidly on social media. Trump is an avid viewer of the network and user of Twitter. He did not immediately respond.

COMMENT:-

The "news" here, as far as I am concerned, is not the CONTENT of the statement concerning whether or not Mr. Trump "obstructed justice" but rather the SOURCE of that statement.​

Why? Napolitano has been a critic of President Trump since before he was elected....Or maybe it shocks you that FNC employs people who don't necessarily agree with the lock step the political agenda of the network like CNN, or MSNBC does?

Napolitano is entitled to his opinion, I think he is wrong, but none the less.

 

[j-mac]

So, that would mean, if you take your position to its logical extreme, that the President of the United States of America could NOT be prosecuted for raping, murdering, and eating a six year old on live TV if the President of the United States of America didn't feel like being prosecuted for it.

You might want to notice that "raping, murdering, and eating" a six year old is an act that is covered under ordinary statute law so a good case could be made that it does not constitute "HIGH crimes and misdemeanours".

PS - Since "administration" covers "hiring and firing" your position would also imply that the President of the United States of America - under his sole executive power - could simply fire all of the Judges and every single government employee with the stroke of a pen. It also implies that the President can "administratively reallocate" funds wherever they feel that the funds ought to go. (That, of course, would include the power to "administratively reallocate" funds to an off shore "trust account" over which they, in person and not as an adjunct of their position, have sole control.)

What a bunch of crap....As for firing people, do you mean like when President Bill Clinton fired all but one of the federal prosecutors during the investigation into him in order to limit the avenues of prosecution of himself? I'm sure that was ok with you....

Your feeling that Trump should carry the title only, but have to go through some mythical over seeing group to enact his duties is laughable, and just shows why a Canadian should be polite and stay out of our internal politics.

 

[cabse5]

From The Guardian

Fox News analyst says Mueller report proves Trump did obstruct justice
​

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano has argued that Donald Trump did obstruct justice, with “unlawful, defenseless and condemnable” behavior related to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In the opinion column Did President Trump obstruct justice?, the host of the Liberty File on Fox Nation argued that the Mueller report illustrates clear and intentional obstruction of justice, constituting legal grounds for impeachment.

Napolitano, a former superior court judge in New Jersey, thereby contradicted the attorney general, William Barr, who decided there was insufficient evidence to establish that the president had committed obstruction of justice.

Napolitano’s column was accompanied by a video, shot outside Fox News HQ in New York, which spread rapidly on social media. Trump is an avid viewer of the network and user of Twitter. He did not immediately respond.

COMMENT:-

The "news" here, as far as I am concerned, is not the CONTENT of the statement concerning whether or not Mr. Trump "obstructed justice" but rather the SOURCE of that statement.​

So, Trump obstructed justice with the firing of Comey? What does Mueller say about that? I mean, using Judge N's definition of obstruction, the firing of Comey by Trump was a clear case of obstruction. Mebe the judge's definition of obstruction is wrong?

 

[Conservative]

Trump may have obstructed justice, I think it’s pretty clear he did.

It is of no consequence, the political reality you have to accept is that he won’t be held accountable, so forget about it.

Unless voters decide next year they don’t want a President that tries to obstruct justice, guess what?

They’ll have decided they don’t care and the political reality is, he’ll never be held accountable.

Ah... the “nation of laws”.

Nation of laws? Mueller spent 22 months investigating Trump on Obstruction and collusion, indicted NO ONE on obstruction and collusion including Don, Jr. who if laws were broken he could have indicted as it was Trump, Jr. that initially met with the Russians. Trump not once stopped the investigation and cooperated fully. In this country one is innocent until proven guilty and no matter how many negative posts you make that guilt has not been established and your argument that a President cannot be indicted falls flat as the evidence doesn't support your claims. You want badly to get rid of Trump to continue that effort for a liberal utopia that doesn't exist.