Napolitano: We Already Have Evidence of a Crime

[Winston]

Judge Napolitano says it is a crime for a president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government | On Air Videos | Fox News

Not sure if y'all have seen Napolitano on Fox, doing what judges do, look at Trump's actions, then look at the law, and give a fair and honest assessment of criminality.

This caused many at Fox News to lose it. Tucker had Trump's former attorney on to take shots at Napolitano the next day.

The fact that an honest reading of the law caused such an uproar is a sign of the deep, embedded partisanship of most Trumpers and Fox News watchers.

 

[Mach]

That's right, just what's out there appears to be a crime, a corrupt act as president.
But on top of that, the other supporting evidence looks like intent and consciousness of guilt

- Same crime that Trump was investigated for in the Russia investigation. A pattern of behavior on top of this.

- Evidence of obfuscation:White House blocking the WB complaint, moving the calls to code-secret

- Evidence of obfuscation: using Rudy and DiGenova to go outside of the U.S. government, while claiming to be conducting business in the interest of the United States

- Evidence of obstruction: When brought to the DOJ, the DOJ blocked the WB complaint from congress as is required by law

- Evidence of obstruction: Refusal of Pompeo to provide the requested records to the House in pursuit of this matter

That's before we have heard from anyone other than the AG and DNI, the transcript and the admission of the White House, Trump, etc.

 

[Winston]

embed

 

[Mr Person]

Judge Napolitano says it is a crime for a president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government | On Air Videos | Fox News

Not sure if y'all have seen Napolitano on Fox, doing what judges do, look at Trump's actions, then look at the law, and give a fair and honest assessment of criminality.

This caused many at Fox News to lose it. Tucker had Trump's former attorney on to take shots at Napolitano the next day.

The fact that an honest reading of the law caused such an uproar is a sign of the deep, embedded partisanship of most Trumpers and Fox News watchers.

The issue I take with this is the reference to "look at the law", for the technical but extremely important reason that there is no "the law" in explicit form. There is only a line "high crimes and misdemeanors," the history of what it meant, and the fact that the founders all knew what it meant back then. But people don't know, which gives wiggle room for BS, such as the idea being implied (by defenders) that there needs to be a completed crime in the U.S. Code for impeachment. Relatedly, demands for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in circumstances it doesn't apply (ie, Kavanaugh hearing and perhaps here).

It was the game they played in focusing on "collusion". "Collusion" isn't a crime with elements, it's a word, but they kept insisting "collusion" had to be proven. It didn't. Being a lifelong prosecutor, Mueller naturally looked for crimes. How would it look if he said "here's a list of things I personally say are corrupt" in the report? He looked for crimes and reported, yes, (obstruction and criminal conspiracy), but impeachment doesn't require a crime.

It's focused on corrupt acts in obtaining or exercising office. And corruption is broader. Looking at the law certainly helps, because the argument is even easier if someone committed a bunch of identifiable crimes, like the 10+ instances of obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller report.




But because there is no judicial review of conviction on articles of impeachment, it could be about anything. The founders knew that too. I'm not advocating impeaching just to do it, but it's worth noting in service of the overall point that this isn't actually just about "looking at the law" but is much broader.

 

[Airyaman]

That's right, just what's out there appears to be a crime, a corrupt act as president.
But on top of that, the other supporting evidence looks like intent and consciousness of guilt

- Same crime that Trump was investigated for in the Russia investigation. A pattern of behavior on top of this.

- Evidence of obfuscation:White House blocking the WB complaint, moving the calls to code-secret

- Evidence of obfuscation: using Rudy and DiGenova to go outside of the U.S. government, while claiming to be conducting business in the interest of the United States

- Evidence of obstruction: When brought to the DOJ, the DOJ blocked the WB complaint from congress as is required by law

- Evidence of obstruction: Refusal of Pompeo to provide the requested records to the House in pursuit of this matter

That's before we have heard from anyone other than the AG and DNI, the transcript and the admission of the White House, Trump, etc.

While it may be a clown show to bring in Rudy G., someone really needs to investigate DiGenova and Toensing. If they were assisting Rudy G. on his own witch hunt, what are we to make of them becoming the lawyers for Dmitry Firtash, the former Manafort associate who is fighting extradition to the US on bribery charges?

Lawyers connected to President Donald Trump defending Ukrainian gas mogul Dmitry Firtash in Chicago bribery case | abc7chicago.com

Then who should happen to show up to defend Firtash? Viktor Shokin.

Ex-Prosecutor General Shokin defends oligarch Firtash | KyivPost - Ukraine's Global Voice

 

[Geoist]

Like him or hate him for his politics, Napolitano has always been a straight, honest shooter.

 

[Mycroft]

Napolitano may have been a judge at one time, but now he is just a talking potato head.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I like that a bunch of Trump's supporters are still in denial. The reality is going to be more crushing.

Anyone that votes in this type of person and this type of corruption deserves every bit of anxiety they get.

 

[chuckiechan]

Like him or hate him for his politics, Napolitano has always been a straight, honest shooter.

Maybe until Trump passed him over for the SCOTUS short list.

 

[Irwin Corey]

The issue I take with this is the reference to "look at the law", for the technical but extremely important reason that there is no "the law" in explicit form. There is only a line "high crimes and misdemeanors," ...

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution of the United States

You left out part.

 

[Mach]

I like that a bunch of Trump's supporters are still in denial. The reality is going to be more crushing. Anyone that votes in this type of person and this type of corruption deserves every bit of anxiety they get.

Yes, for the next few months, probably. but what happens when this goes to the Senate for a trial? They could make a clown show out of it, chasing Biden, Hillary, complaining about how it doesn't break some specific law (that's irrelevant), demonizing the witnesses, etc. Glvoe doesn't fit, you must acquit! Sort of B.S. trials that we've seen before. Mitch could let that drag out indefinitely...past the election? No way to tell what games they will play.

 

[Trump]

Judge Napolitano says it is a crime for a president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government | On Air Videos | Fox News

Not sure if y'all have seen Napolitano on Fox, doing what judges do, look at Trump's actions, then look at the law, and give a fair and honest assessment of criminality.

This caused many at Fox News to lose it. Tucker had Trump's former attorney on to take shots at Napolitano the next day.

The fact that an honest reading of the law caused such an uproar is a sign of the deep, embedded partisanship of most Trumpers and Fox News watchers.

Napolitano says...doesn't make it true...that not how any of this works:roll:

 

[Irwin Corey]

Maybe until Trump passed him over for the SCOTUS short list.

Before, during, after … ALWAYS; you're only against Napolitano now because you Can't Handle the TRUTH!

 

[Irwin Corey]

Napolitano says...doesn't make it true...that not how any of this works:roll:

He was citing law, it was "TRUE". How it works is; inquiry, impeachment charges, impeachment and then a Senate trial. His most poignant point is there will be no equivocation the Constitution clearly spells out BRIBERY as an impeachable offense; which, unless tRump has the good grace to resign, could FORCE the Senate to convict.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, for the next few months, probably. but what happens when this goes to the Senate for a trial? They could make a clown show out of it, chasing Biden, Hillary, complaining about how it doesn't break some specific law (that's irrelevant), demonizing the witnesses, etc. Glvoe doesn't fit, you must acquit! Sort of B.S. trials that we've seen before. Mitch could let that drag out indefinitely...past the election? No way to tell what games they will play.

Well, previous presidential impeachments involved a crime at its core-- Johnson & Clinton and the issues involving Nixon.
No such crime (as is conceded) exists here. So it's politics, based upon a dubious and certainly debatable Constitutional theory.
So yes, it will be argued. Actions of previous presidents will be brought up, as will actions of current senators ( I believe there had been a letter cited hereabouts by a few Democrats imploring upon Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election).
It's going to be ugly.

 

[OscarLevant]

Napolitano may have been a judge at one time, but now he is just a talking potato head.

The tired old method of 'Kill the Messenger' is not a merit worthy argument.

 

[Athanasius68]

Judge Napolitano says it is a crime for a president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government | On Air Videos | Fox News

Not sure if y'all have seen Napolitano on Fox, doing what judges do, look at Trump's actions, then look at the law, and give a fair and honest assessment of criminality.

This caused many at Fox News to lose it. Tucker had Trump's former attorney on to take shots at Napolitano the next day.

The fact that an honest reading of the law caused such an uproar is a sign of the deep, embedded partisanship of most Trumpers and Fox News watchers.

How quickly we forget:
Mueller didn't charge Trump Jr for the tower meeting because it's not even clear those actions of a private citizen violated the law.
It's the same issue here involving a president. And a president had the right to negotiate with a foreign country.
You guys are going down the same doomed hole you have already traveled.
It's not going to end any differently.

 

[Mycroft]

The tired old method of 'Kill the Messenger' is not a merit worthy argument.

I'm not killing the messenger. I'm just dismissing the messenger.

He's still alive for you to believe...if you want.

 

[HumblePi]

Here's the counter-attack(s)

First counter attack is to attack Adam Schiff. Rudy Giuliani told George Stephanopoulis, "I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff. I think Adam Schiff should be removed. If they remove Adam Schiff, they put a neutral person in that hasn't prejudged the case, if they put a Democrat that hasn't expressed an opinion, I would consider it. I have to be guided by my client. I'm a lawyer and it's his privilege not mine. If he decides that he wants me to testify, of course I'll testify even though I think Adam Schiff is an illegitimate chairman."

Second attack, Go after Hillary Clinton's emails (again). Investigate and question 130 people in the State Dept.

Third attack, demolish the whistleblower by claiming he/she is part of the 'deep state' out to get Trump.

Once the testimonies of witnesses start happening by the House, this is going to go very swiftly. There are rock-solid witnesses that will be interviewed including the former Ambassador to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, several White House attorneys and documents of Mike Pompeo that have been subpoenaed. There's no smoking gun here, this will be more like a smoking Howitzer.

 

[Airyaman]

While it may be a clown show to bring in Rudy G., someone really needs to investigate DiGenova and Toensing. If they were assisting Rudy G. on his own witch hunt, what are we to make of them becoming the lawyers for Dmitry Firtash, the former Manafort associate who is fighting extradition to the US on bribery charges?

Lawyers connected to President Donald Trump defending Ukrainian gas mogul Dmitry Firtash in Chicago bribery case | abc7chicago.com

Then who should happen to show up to defend Firtash? Viktor Shokin.

Ex-Prosecutor General Shokin defends oligarch Firtash | KyivPost - Ukraine's Global Voice

And in case anyone was wondering, Shokin made his statements by request of DiGenova, where he defends Firtash and talks about Biden.

This fish really sticks.

Shokin Statement

 

[HumblePi]

Yes, for the next few months, probably. but what happens when this goes to the Senate for a trial? They could make a clown show out of it, chasing Biden, Hillary, complaining about how it doesn't break some specific law (that's irrelevant), demonizing the witnesses, etc. Glvoe doesn't fit, you must acquit! Sort of B.S. trials that we've seen before. Mitch could let that drag out indefinitely...past the election? No way to tell what games they will play.

I think that the consensus among members of the House already is that Trump won't be impeached in the Senate. Nevertheless, he will be impeached in the House. Jeff Flake made a comment in an interview with NPR , "regarding impeachment in the Senate, he said; "If there was a secret vote, at least 35 GOP Senators would vote to remove Trump." He elaborated “anybody who has sat through two years, as I have, of Republican luncheons realizes that there's not a lot of love for the president. There's a lot of fear of what it means to go against the president, but most Republican senators would not like to be dealing with this for another year or another five years.”

This is why the GOP no longer has any credibility, or dignity. If republicans in the Senate can overlook or excuse 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and not vote to impeach if testimonies and documents bear truth, then this country should cancel itself out and draw up a whole new constitution, one that favors republicans over the other half of this country.

 

[Athanasius68]

Here's the counter-attack(s)

First counter attack is to attack Adam Schiff. Rudy Giuliani told George Stephanopoulis, "I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff. I think Adam Schiff should be removed. If they remove Adam Schiff, they put a neutral person in that hasn't prejudged the case, if they put a Democrat that hasn't expressed an opinion, I would consider it. I have to be guided by my client. I'm a lawyer and it's his privilege not mine. If he decides that he wants me to testify, of course I'll testify even though I think Adam Schiff is an illegitimate chairman."

Second attack, Go after Hillary Clinton's emails (again). Investigate and question 130 people in the State Dept.

Third attack, demolish the whistleblower by claiming he/she is part of the 'deep state' out to get Trump.

Once the testimonies of witnesses start happening by the House, this is going to go very swiftly. There are rock-solid witnesses that will be interviewed including the former Ambassador to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, several White House attorneys and documents of Mike Pompeo that have been subpoenaed. There's no smoking gun here, this will be more like a smoking Howitzer.

It's not even a smoking cap gun.

 

[HumblePi]

It's not even a smoking cap gun.

You haven't even seen any testimony yet, be patient, it will come sooner than you want.

 

[Athanasius68]

You haven't even seen any testimony yet, be patient, it will come sooner than you want.

What is it that you think the testimony will be?
The ambassador was fired? So what-- the president is kind of allowed to do that.
The president requested assistance in an ongoing investigation? Ditto.

 

[Athanasius68]

You haven't even seen any testimony yet, be patient, it will come sooner than you want.

BTW-- we heard that story also with regards to the Mueller report. The skeptics were correct then.
We are correct now.