Fox News Judge Shuts down Republicans' Impeachment Complaint

[Go Braves]

He explained that the "inquiry is consistent with the Constitution and House rules."

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano debunked Republican talking points regarding the fast-moving impeachment inquiry engulfing President Donald Trump's administration, explaining that the process has been "consistent with the Constitution and House rules."

Trump and some Republican lawmakers have repeatedly called the impeachment inquiry unfair. "Republicans are totally deprived of their rights in this Impeachment Witch Hunt. No lawyers, no questions, no transparency!" the president tweeted on Wednesday.

But Napolitano emphasized that these complaints are unfounded. "Republicans are complaining: Why are these interrogations taking place in secret and why isn't a transcript being revealed?" the former judge said during a segment of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends on Thursday.

"We have a mindset that this is a trial, and a trial is public, and the defendant is there, and the defendant has his or her lawyers and they are challenging what the government is doing. This is not a trial," asserted Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge. "This is the prosecutors interviewing their witnesses, and that procedure never takes place in public because you want privacy and you want candor."

The judge also wrote an op-ed published by Fox News.

Concluding his op-ed, Napolitano reiterated the allegations against Trump.

"The president refused to deliver congressionally authorized and ordered military and financial aid to an ally threatened with Russian invasion until the ally's government performed a presidentially requested favor for his re-election campaign—a favor that is unlawful to ask for," he wrote. "Is it an impeachable offense?"

"Under the Constitution, it is if the House says it is," the judicial expert wrote.

 

[Albion]

All because Napolitano, who is not a Republican, did not get appointed to a position by President Trump which the judge coveted.

 

[Tom 1]

He explained that the "inquiry is consistent with the Constitution and House rules."



The judge also wrote an op-ed published by Fox News.

Attempts to push Fox towards objectivity will inevitably be met with slander and various other personal attacks.

 

[Hammster]

All because Napolitano, who is not a Republican, did not get appointed to a position by President Trump which the judge coveted.

Does that make him wrong?

 

[Albion]

It suggests a reason for his stance, which other people have observed is in contrast to where he seemed to stand until there was a recent reversal on his part.

 

[SummerMadness]

It suggests a reason for his stance, which other people have observed is in contrast to where he seemed to stand until there was a recent reversal on his part.

Always falsehoods and innuendos directed at those who do not bow down before the leader.

 

[Hammster]

It suggests a reason for his stance, which other people have observed is in contrast to where he seemed to stand until there was a recent reversal on his part.

Does that make him wrong?

 

[Go Braves]

All because Napolitano, who is not a Republican, did not get appointed to a position by President Trump which the judge coveted.

Did you make that claim in the other threads around here made by folks firmly in the Donald can do no wrong camp when Judge Napolitano defended his actions?

What is it that Napolitano said in this thread OP's article that is wrong on the laws of the land?

 

[Michael]

Attempts to push Fox towards objectivity will inevitably be met with slander and various other personal attacks.

Hence the departure of Shepard Smith.

 

[Michael]

Does that make him wrong?

Nope.

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

And don't even get me started about holding the next G-7 meeting at a Trump owned property! Wow.

 

[Nithavela]

I wish him good luck for his future endeavours.

 

[JLB777]

Does that make him wrong?

Yes.

 

[Hammster]

Yes.

Why?

 

[JLB777]

Why?

His motive is wrong.

 

[Hammster]

His motive is wrong.

How does that make his info incorrect?

 

[Bobber]

Judge Napolitano

Did you make that claim in the other threads around here made by folks firmly in the Donald can do no wrong camp when Judge Napolitano defended his actions?

You asked this of another poster but for the reason the judge periodically defends Trump's actions still isn't a sign that he's slanted against him. Your question reminds me of another when a Trump supporter says they don't trust the polls they're asked by others, "You don't trust them when they show things in his favor?" As for me the answer is still NO. IMO it's just a part of the game. When the manipulator knows it's not possible to be considered reasonable there wouldn't be an upswing I think they give him a few points (or whoever they don't like) but never the true amount and always with the knowing they'll drop them down later. By doing so it gives it an appearance of being credible.

What is it that Napolitano said in this thread OP's article that is wrong on the laws of the land?

The PEOPLE don't needs the so called "expert" to tell us what the law of the land says in this matter. The Constitution has been quoted over and over again when it comes to the exact text of what it says. The House or Representatives have the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments.

Napolitano has bypassed the the reality of precedent which defines the legal context of how it should be expected the Constitution be considered. Opposition parties during the Nixon and Clinton affairs were given various rights that are now being denied by the Dems. History is clear on this. So I hardly think the opinion of a judge speaking the contrary will really resonate well with the American people.

One more thing it seems the Framers went out of their way to ensure impeachment (genuine impeachment meaning the removal from office) would NEVER be an easy thing to do. It requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate which is far from just a simple majority BUT an overwhelming one. Thus we see the actions of the House in the Nixon times and Clinton allowed an open and transparent process. Now there are certain other thing that could be said about Nixon but the fact is the process was open and transparent. Not so now therefore I'd suggest the Judge is wrong.

 

[JLB777]

How does that make his info incorrect?

Wrong. I didn’t say incorrect.

Because his motive is wrong, which distorts his assessment of the facts, his opinion is wrong, being distorted.




JLB

 

[A Realist]

Napolitano's "motive" isn't the issue here. The U.S. Constitution is. Read it and become knowledgeable. Then come back and intelligently discuss what Napolitano said.

 

[JLB777]

Napolitano's "motive" isn't the issue here. The U.S. Constitution is. Read it and become knowledgeable. Then come back and intelligently discuss what Napolitano said.

Please go ahead and quote the US Constitution that pertains to impeaching a sitting President over a phone call.



JLB

 

[JLB777]

One more thing it seems the Framers went out of their way to ensure impeachment (genuine impeachment meaning the removal from office) would NEVER be an easy thing to do. It requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate which is far from just a simple majority BUT an overwhelming one. Thus we see the actions of the House in the Nixon times and Clinton allowed an open and transparent process. Now there are certain other thing that could be said about Nixon but the fact is the process was open and transparent. Not so now therefore I'd suggest the Judge is wrong.

Yes, it’s very simple to those who actually care about the truth, rather than having a distorted perspective based on political biased and corruption.




JLB