Judge Swamp strikes again

[Swordsmyth]

Amid all the happy hoopla over President Donald Trump's trip to Singapore, where he began the process for what he hopes will be the normalization of relations between the United States and North Korea and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, has come an effort by the House Intelligence Committee to interfere with the criminal investigation of the president.
The committee's chairman, Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, and the Republican majority on the committee have demanded that the Department of Justice turn over documents pertaining to the origins of the investigation of President Trump by special counsel Robert Mueller.
And Nunes has threatened Mueller's superior, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, with censure, contempt and even impeachment if he fails to comply. Can Congress interfere in an ongoing federal criminal investigation? Can it get its eyes on law enforcement's active files? In a word: No.

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/14/judge-andrew-napolitano-more-assaults-on-rule-law.html

[Swordsmyth]

Background:


Fox New’s Judge Andrew Napolitano warned Monday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions (http://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions)'s firing on Friday of former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe (http://thehill.com/people/andrew-mccabe) could be seen as “obstruction of justice.”
Napolitano said on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Monday that he viewed McCabe’s firing as “vindictive” and “reckless.”
“Andrew McCabe is more likely than not to be a witness against the Attorney General’s boss, the president of the United States,” Napolitano said. “I think that firing him in that environment could very well be determined to diminish his effectiveness as a witness. What’s that called, obstruction of justice.”



“I don’t know if Bob Mueller wants to go there, but that’s the argument,” he added.

More at: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...ion-of-justice (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/379160-fox-news-napolitano-mccabe-firing-could-be-seen-as-obstruction-of-justice)


http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/1...-against-trump (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/13/judge-napolitano-claims-robert-muellers-russia-probe-biased-against-trump)

Some Republican lawmakers have seized on a trove of damning text messages as evidence that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation is biased against President Trump.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano doesn't think so.

The text messages were exchanged between two FBI officials who worked on Mueller’s Russia probe, and they reveal the agents expressing a steady stream of anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton sentiments.

"The issue is not: do FBI agents have political opinions and can they express them? The answer to that is yes and yes," Napolitano said on "Outnumbered Overtime." "The issue is: do those political opinions in any way influence the outcome of their investigation?"

He pointed out that the FBI has procedures in place to prevent that from happening.

"FBI agents operate in pairs, whatever the two discover has to be reviewed by five others, whatever the five have reviewed and decided is credible has to be reviewed by Justice Department lawyers," Napolitano explained.

He noted that the only final decisions that have been made in Mueller's investigation are to indict former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his aide Rick Gates and to accept two guilty pleas from former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Napolitano said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein painted a "very credible" picture in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee when he said it's too early to determine if any individual's political opinion affected the outcome of the investigation, because the outcome hasn't been reached yet.

In the meantime, Napolitano said he's not worried about the text messages.

"FBI agents are not choirboys or choirgirls. They are strong-willed people with strong opinions like the rest of us," he said. "None of this surprises me."



http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/0...ustice-charges (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/judge-napolitano-president-trump-possibly-facing-obstruction-justice-charges)

Judge Nap: Feinstein Is 'Correct' on Potential Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump

On "Fox & Friends" this morning, Alan Dershowitz disputed claims from some Democrats that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could build an obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump.

Dershowitz said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she argued that Trump obstructed the FBI investigation into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia by asking former FBI Director James Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn and also by later firing Comey.

Dershowitz said a president cannot be charged with obstruction for merely exercising his constitutional authority.

On "America's Newsroom," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano came down on the side of Feinstein.

"I respect Professor Dershowitz greatly. I do not know Sen. Feinstein, but she, in my view, is correct here," he told Bill Hemmer.

He said that if Trump asked Comey to end the investigation into Flynn for a non-corrupt purpose - such as if he felt sympathy for his former national security adviser or he wanted the bureau to use its resources on more important matters - it's not obstruction.

However, if Trump did it for a corrupt purpose - such as trying to protect himself or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, from what Flynn might say - then it is obstruction and there is no presidential immunity, Napolitano said.

"Obstruction of justice is a crime no matter who commits it, if done for a corrupt purpose. It's also an impeachable offense," he said, adding that the charge is "intentionally not easy to prove" for a prosecutor.

Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on "Meet the Press" that she believes an obstruction of justice case is forming.

"The Judiciary Committee has an investigation going as well and it involves obstruction of justice and I think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice,” she said.

"I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of justice."




Napolitano: Mueller did not wrongly obtain Trump team emails

https://www.yahoo.com/news/napolitano-mueller-did-not-wrongly-143230179.html




Fox News’ Judge Napolitano Says Trump Jr-Russia Meeting Merits Criminal Investigation (Video)

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-ju...202307669.html (https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-judge-napolitano-says-trump-jr-russia-202307669.html)



http://theweek.com/speedreads/704572...been-dishonest (http://theweek.com/speedreads/704572/fox-news-judge-napolitano-argues-comeys-testimony-illustrates-credible-compelling-argument-that-trump-been-dishonest)

Fox News' Judge Napolitano argues Comey's testimony illustrates a 'credible and compelling argument' that Trump has been dishonest (http://theweek.com/speedreads/704572/fox-news-judge-napolitano-argues-comeys-testimony-illustrates-credible-compelling-argument-that-trump-been-dishonest)

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpeCaABoiDg


Notice Judge Swamp playing wingman for hitlery in that clip.


He also says POTUS controls DOJ.:D


When he thought Hitlery would be potus.

[Swordsmyth]

Ex-Navy sailor doesn’t have a case against Obama: Judge Swamp (https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ex-navy-sailor-doesn-t-221415716.html)



...

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us

[Schifference]

The judge is a friend of liberty!

We can only hope Trump has a chance to appoint him as a Supreme Court Justice!

[Swordsmyth]

The judge is a friend of liberty!

We can only hope Trump has a chance to appoint him as a Supreme Court Justice!

He was either a deep sleeper agent or he sold out, we don't want him anywhere near SCOTUS.

[Schifference]

He was either a deep sleeper agent or he sold out, we don't want him anywhere near SCOTUS.

SCOTUS needs to play the flip flop game. They need support and decent. No different than actors or attorneys.

[Swordsmyth]

SCOTUS needs to play the flip flop game. They need support and decent. No different than actors or attorneys.

Judge Swamp has gone too far, this is more than just posturing to get confirmed by the Senate.

[Schifference]

I am in total agreement with you. If I could give you (+) rep I would. Judge is getting demented.

[Schifference]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again.

[timosman]

Judge should come out of the closet. :cool:

[dannno]

Lookin nice n moderate, Judge!! Keep it up, I think you're fooling them!!

Can't wait till he is the next SC Judge..

[dannno]

I am in total agreement with you. If I could give you (+) rep I would. Judge is getting demented.

If the Judge came out defending Trump at every turn and took the hardline conservative stance every time, then when he is nominated for the SC congress would not approve him because he wouldn't look neutral enough.

Trump told the Judge to be more moderate back after he had his first talks with him and The Judge recommended Gorsuch... so that he could be next in line and MORE IMPORTANTLY!!! Get approval from congress...

It's called 5D chess and Trump isn't the only one allowed to play.

[Swordsmyth]

If the Judge came out defending Trump at every turn and took the hardline conservative stance every time, then when he is nominated for the SC congress would not approve him because he wouldn't look neutral enough.

Trump told the Judge to be more moderate back after he had his first talks with him and The Judge recommended Gorsuch... so that he could be next in line and MORE IMPORTANTLY!!! Get approval from congress...

It's called 5D chess and Trump isn't the only one allowed to play.

If Judge Swamp hadn't gone so far I might agree with you.

[milgram]

Why would Trump nominate someone who can't stop bashing him?

[NewRightLibertarian]

He was either a deep sleeper agent or he sold out, we don't want him anywhere near SCOTUS.

My thought is he's playing ball to keep his job. There was a LOT of heat on him when Trump was quoting him directly last year.

[dannno]

If Judge Swamp hadn't gone so far I might agree with you.

He has a lot of years of consistency to make up for.

[dannno]

Why would Trump nominate someone who can't stop bashing him?

Like I said, when Trump became President, he was on the phone with the Judge constantly and the Judge was talking up Trump in the media.. because Trump knew an SC pick was coming up and he wanted the Judge's advice.

So then Trump told the Judge to back off and be more neutral so he could pick him on the next round and he would have a better chance of approved by congress.

[Swordsmyth]

He has a lot of years of consistency to make up for.

I don't believe it, for one thing it started before Trump won.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2wuDAxIOig

[William Tell]

Background:


Fox New’s Judge Andrew Napolitano warned Monday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions (http://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions)'s firing on Friday of former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe (http://thehill.com/people/andrew-mccabe) could be seen as “obstruction of justice.”
Napolitano said on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Monday that he viewed McCabe’s firing as “vindictive” and “reckless.”
“Andrew McCabe is more likely than not to be a witness against the Attorney General’s boss, the president of the United States,” Napolitano said. “I think that firing him in that environment could very well be determined to diminish his effectiveness as a witness. What’s that called, obstruction of justice.”



“I don’t know if Bob Mueller wants to go there, but that’s the argument,” he added. And? I think Russiagate is garbage myself, but if a president fires people who might be investigating him of course some people will see that as obstruction. If roles where reversed and Obama or Hillary was president right now and did the exact same thing, the Republicans would be on the opposite side of Russiagate. We all know that so what's the big deal here, that the Judge has a consistent view on checks and balances?

[Swordsmyth]

And? I think Russiagate is garbage myself, but if a president fires people who might be investigating him of course some people will see that as obstruction. If roles where reversed and Obama or Hillary was president right now and did the exact same thing, the Republicans would be on the opposite side of Russiagate. We all know that so what's the big deal here, that the Judge has a consistent view on checks and balances?

In this video he says Hitlery would control the DOJ and could pardon herself and would be immune from criminal prosecution when elected POTUS:
4:25-the end


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpeCaABoiDg

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us
William Tell

This one doesn't even have to do with Russiagate and he says that the idea of allowing people to not do business with other people based on their beliefs is "DANGEROUS".

[William Tell]

@William Tell (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=57168)

This one doesn't even have to do with Russiagate and he says that the idea of allowing people to not do business with other people based on their beliefs is "DANGEROUS".Um, saw that. I strongly disagree with him on that. That's why I said besides that. And so far you have just given me partisan distractions, where you would demand he take the exact opposite position if team Blue was in right now.

[dannno]

The Judge is trying to appear to be anti-political in case he gets nominated.

See if you can find any Constitutional issues that you part ways with him on.

He is leaps and bounds better than any other Supreme Court Justice we have ever had, probably in the history of the country.

[Ender]

The Judge is trying to appear to be anti-political in case he gets nominated.

See if you can find any Constitutional issues that you part ways with him on.

He is leaps and bounds better than any other Supreme Court Justice we have ever had, probably in the history of the country.

AMEN.

And +rep!

[William Tell]

In this video he says Hitlery would control the DOJ and could pardon herself and would be immune from criminal prosecution when elected POTUS:
4:25-the end In the first part he said she's a liar and that the FBI shouldn't have dropped the investigation when they did. I haven't seen where he's contradicted himself, saying Hillary will get away with something and talking about an investigation that is already underway are apples and oranges if you ask me.

Still not clear on the principle here, you seem to think that if one candidate is in he should be immune from investigation and not the other? The Judge has seemed pretty steady in his principles on this.

[Swordsmyth]

Um, saw that. I strongly disagree with him on that. That's why I said besides that. And so far you have just given me partisan distractions, where you would demand he take the exact opposite position if team Blue was in right now.

Saying that white males can't be the victims of discrimination isn't a partisan distraction.
Saying the President can obstruct justice by expressing a wish that an investigation end quickly because he thinks it has no basis isn't a partisan distraction, the president could order the end of the investigation and it would be up to Congress to run its own investigation if they disagreed.
Saying that Sessions or Trump obstructed justice by firing McCabe who clearly deserved to be fired isn't a partisan distraction
Saying that clearly biased FBI agents weren't biased isn't a partisan distraction.
Saying that Mueller did nothing wrong in subpoenaing the Trump transition communications when he had no just cause is not a partisan distraction.
Saying that Don Jr's Trump Tower meeting merited a criminal investigation when no laws were broken because even the worst allegations aren't against the law isn't a partisan distraction.
Saying that Congress can't exercise oversight on an active FBI case isn't a partisan distraction.
Saying that individuals from foreign countries can challenge Trump's travel ban after SCOTUS just upheld it isn't a partisan distraction.
Saying Hitlery would get to control the DOJ when he thought she would win isn't a partisan distraction.

[Swordsmyth]

In the first part he said she's a liar and that the FBI shouldn't have dropped the investigation when they did. I haven't seen where he's contradicted himself, saying Hillary will get away with something and talking about an investigation that is already underway are apples and oranges if you ask me.

Still not clear on the principle here, you seem to think that if one candidate is in he should be immune from investigation and not the other? The Judge has seemed pretty steady in his principles on this.
No he doesn't, he keeps saying Trump doesn't get to control the DOJ and isn't immune.

[Swordsmyth]

The Judge is trying to appear to be anti-political in case he gets nominated.

See if you can find any Constitutional issues that you part ways with him on.

He is leaps and bounds better than any other Supreme Court Justice we have ever had, probably in the history of the country.

The cake case, he said letting individuals choose who to do business with is "DANGEROUS".

[William Tell]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299), who else can you recommend for our consideration for SCOTUS who will espouse this position? Or would you rather find some TeoCon recommended by Breitbart who rubs you the right way on Russiagate? The SWAMP says taxation is theft? Lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBfqU2jy7s8

[Ender]

The cake case, he said letting individuals choose who to do business with is "DANGEROUS".

Let Ron Paul explain why:

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/supremes-miss-the-point-on-bake-the-cake-ruling

[dannno]

The cake case, he said letting individuals choose who to do business with is "DANGEROUS".

On tv, ya, but I'll bet he takes the same position as Rand on the CRA, which is further right than anybody else in DC since Rand's father.

He is also going to be the best person for the 2nd amendment I could possibly imagine.

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299), who else can you recommend for our consideration for SCOTUS who will espouse this position? Or would you rather find some TeoCon recommended by Breitbart who rubs you the right way on Russiagate? The SWAMP says taxation is theft? Lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBfqU2jy7s8

Rand Paul.

Swamp can't be trusted, he will turn into a liberal once he gets on the court.

[Swordsmyth]

Let Ron Paul explain why:

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/supremes-miss-the-point-on-bake-the-cake-ruling

As I already told you Ron is saying the exact opposite of Swampy's position.

[dannno]

Swamp can't be trusted, he will turn into a liberal once he gets on the court.

Lol, no it's going to be the exact opposite... he will follow the Constitution to a T.

I know you're new here, but we've been following Judge Nap for at least 11 years, some a lot longer.

Any departure has come since Trump told him he was on the list to be nominated for Supreme Court.

[kcchiefs6465]

Rand Paul.

Swamp can't be trusted, he will turn into a liberal once he gets on the court.
So your recommendation for SCOTUS is a sitting Senator? One who, for the record, has not been 'pure' on different issues over the years (that I don't much care to debate about as it has already been done ad nauseam).

Aside from having different outlooks with regards to the 'impure' opinions of both men, and offering a sitting Senator as the person who is better than Andrew Napolitano for SCOTUS, do you have any other reasonable picks who might fare better than Napolitano?

I think Murray Rothbard would be better.... but you see, that is an absurd and rather useless suggestion.

[Swordsmyth]

So your recommendation for SCOTUS is a sitting Senator? One who, for the record, has not been 'pure' on different issues over the years (that I don't much care to debate about as it has already been done ad nauseam).

Aside from having different outlooks with regards to the 'impure' opinions of both men, and offering a sitting Senator as the person who is better than Andrew Napolitano for SCOTUS, do you have any other reasonable picks who might fare better than Napolitano?

I think Murray Rothbard would be better.... but you see, that is an absurd and rather useless suggestion.

I would have to look into many others but there are definitely better choices out there than a man who has exposed himself as controlled opposition in all the ways I have listed in this thread.

[nikcers]

I would have to look into many others but there are definitely better choices out there than a man who has exposed himself as controlled opposition in all the ways I have listed in this thread.

I would say judge nap is worlds better then anyone you can name. He is the only constitutional conservative on Fox.

[Ender]

As I already told you Ron is saying the exact opposite of Swampy's position.

No, they do not.

BOTH of them say that this is a 1st Amendment issue that can help the gov start making rules about what is and what is not a religion.

AND the issue should be what the free market is supposed to be and NOT the gov telling us what a religion is- as that IS a very dangerous precept.

[Swordsmyth]

No, they do not.

BOTH of them say that this is a 1st Amendment issue that can help the gov start making rules about what is and what is not a religion.

AND the issue should be what the free market is supposed to be and NOT the gov telling us what a religion is- as that IS a very dangerous precept.

Ron says that people should be able to not do business with anyone they want, Judge Swamp says that is "DANGEROUS".

[Ender]

Ron says that people should be able to not do business with anyone they want, Judge Swamp says that is "DANGEROUS".

NO.

He says it is "DANGEROUS"for the gov to begin interfering with, and defining what, religion is.

[Swordsmyth]

NO.

He says it is "DANGEROUS"for the gov to begin interfering with, and defining what, religion is.

That is not what he said, he said people using their beliefs to refuse to do business with people they didn't want to do business with was "DANGEROUS".

[dude58677]

If Judge Swamp hadn't gone so far I might agree with you.

Donald Trump forced everyone to show their true colors.

[Swordsmyth]

Donald Trump forced everyone to show their true colors.

They never thought she would lose.

[nikcers]

If Judge Swamp hadn't gone so far I might agree with you.
You can't even name anyone better. Judge Napolitano is one of the greatest constitutional defenders of our lifetimes and we would be gracious to let him be the top defender of the constitution of the land. I can't think of anyone who has exposed the swamps bipartisan attempts to censor the liberty movement more than he has.

I can't believe the admin lets you shit all over lovers of liberty while pretending like Trump isn't electing torture chiefs and hasnt grown a John Bolton mustache. I wish I could cancel out all the damage you have done to the limited government movement by shitting on it's biggest defenders but I don't have enough time in a day.

[Swordsmyth]

You can't even name anyone better. Judge Napolitano is one of the greatest constitutional defenders of our lifetimes and we would be gracious to let him be the top defender of the constitution of the land. I can't think of anyone who has exposed the swamps bipartisan attempts to censor the liberty movement than he has.

I can't believe the admin lets you $#@! all over lovers of liberty while pretending like Trump isn't electing torture chiefs and has grown a John Bolton mustache. I wish I could cancel out all the damage you have done to the limited government movement by $#@!ting on it's biggest defenders but I don't have enough time in a day.

Swordsmyth
Derangement
Syndrome

Nothing you said is true.

[nikcers]

Swordsmyth
Derangement
Syndrome

Nothing you said is true.
You talk like a politician, and that's not a compliment.

[Swordsmyth]

You talk like a politician, and that's not a compliment.

You talk like a gibbering idiot, and that is an insult.(to gibbering idiots)

[nikcers]

You talk like a gibbering idiot, and that is an insult.(to gibbering idiots)

You don't even say anything with your posts, it just a bunch of words. It's always made me wonder if English is your first language or if you were being purposely obtuse, but with this response I am not sure if you are a robot.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't even say anything with your posts, it just a bunch of words. It's always made me wonder if English is your first language or if you were being purposely obtuse, but with this response I am not sure if you are a robot.

Projection.

[phill4paul]

You don't even say anything with your posts, it just a bunch of words. It's always made me wonder if English is your first language or if you were being purposely obtuse, but with this response I am not sure if you are a robot.

I reckon you should start saying something, of substance, with yours before you go accusing.

[nikcers]

Look, if you can give Trump the benefit of the doubt because the message is worth more then the sum of its parts than why is it so strange now? This is the only thing I don't get, I understood that it was a rejection of establishment democrats, it was a rejection of politicians, it was a rejection of an open border that lets people come here and get a free lunch, but why can't you understand that with Judge Napalitano it would be worth it for the same reasons, even if you don't think he is being altruistic, because people aren't angels, just the message it would send would be amazing, I never liked Trumps platform, his policies, his ideas about fixing government, but if he gave this speech I would found a way to vote for him twice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGnBCDfCLM

[phill4paul]

I would say judge nap is worlds better then anyone you can name. He is the only constitutional conservative on Fox.

Thomas Rex Lee. Sitting associate State Supreme Court Justice. There I've said it. Prove he isn't better than ex-judge Nap.

[Swordsmyth]

Look, if you can give Trump the benefit of the doubt because the message is worth more then the sum of its parts than why is it so strange now? This is the only thing I don't get, I understood that it was a rejection of establishment democrats, it was a rejection of politicians, it was a rejection of an open border that lets people come here and get a free lunch, but why can't you understand that with Judge Napalitano it would be worth it for the same reasons, even if you don't think he is being altruistic, because people aren't angels, just the message it would send would be amazing, I never liked Trumps platform, his policies, his ideas about fixing government, but if he gave this speech I would found a way to vote for him twice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGnBCDfCLM

Because once a traitor exposes himself nothing he did to build his cover matters.
Besides there are better people out there like Rand or Lee or Lee's brother.
If nothing else he is too old, we need people who will stay on the court for 40 or 50 years.

[nikcers]

Because once a traitor exposes himself nothing he did to build his cover matters.
Besides there are better people out there like Rand or Lee or Lee's brother.
If nothing else he is too old, we need people who will stay on the court for 40 or 50 years.

I guess the message of limited government isn't worth spreading because of the person spreading the message. I guess...Trump shouldn't talk about ending the middle east wars and getting out of NATO because its not worth it.

[Swordsmyth]

I guess the message of limited government isn't worth spreading because of the person spreading the message. I guess...Trump shouldn't talk about ending the middle east wars and getting out of NATO because its not worth it.

:confused:

What does that have to do with anything I said?
How does wanting someone better and younger for the SCOTUS mean not spreading the message of limited government?

[nikcers]

:confused:

What does that have to do with anything I said?
How does wanting someone better and younger for the SCOTUS mean not spreading the message of limited government?

Nobody would send the exact message that Judge Napolitano would. You can't win politically if your ideas can't win, and they won't if they don't get exposure. I bet you the left would even have to try to spin the narrative that the stuff he is saying in that video are the reasons why he shouldn't be allowed to be in the supreme court.

[Swordsmyth]

Nobody would send the exact message that Judge Napolitano would. You can't win politically if your ideas can't win, and they won't if they don't get exposure. I bet you the left would even have to try to spin the narrative that the stuff he is saying in that video are the reasons why he shouldn't be allowed to be in the supreme court.
He already has a platform to spread his message, even if he wasn't a traitor we want someone younger for SCOTUS.

[nikcers]

He already has a platform to spread his message, even if he wasn't a traitor we want someone younger for SCOTUS.

Yeah but I'm afraid not everyone is reading his books, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom Book by Andrew Napolitano. Trump could take this message from coast to coast if he wanted to by nominating Napolitano. Unfortunately he is getting attacked though because of speaking out against the swamp. This makes his books title almost prophetic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkuwbg_mMpA

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah but I'm afraid not everyone is reading his books, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom Book by Andrew Napolitano. Trump could take this message from coast to coast if he wanted to by nominating Napolitano. Unfortunately he is getting attacked though because of speaking out against the swamp. This makes his books title almost prophetic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkuwbg_mMpA

SCOTUS is not a media platform, there are much more important considerations than who you want to give a bullhorn to when picking justices.

[nikcers]

SCOTUS is not a media platform, there are much more important considerations than who you want to give a bullhorn to when picking justices.

Its not a bullhorn, it would decide what sort of platform people run on in the mid terms. It would set the standard for what political ideas are viable. It could be the spark to a real revolution, it would actually make me think that my president of my country even understands the laws of the land and would make me sleep better at night.

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYcGD1TTqwI

[Champ]

Napolitano has long been one of the greatest supporters of Ron Paul and has a record of impartiality, even when his analysis leads to conclusions you don't want to hear about how our government operates, corruption and loopholes and all. Does that make him infallible/invincible or incapable of not being the person he has been for more than a decade of work tirelessly defending liberty? Of course not.

With that said, assuming the worst hypothetical situation with regards to the Judge, don't we have bigger fish to fry? It just seems like a waste of time devoting much of any attention to him while our country continues trying it's best to destroy itself and the culture we live in. I don't think anyone I know in person outside of this website has ever even heard of the guy and if they have, they are indifferent since he doesn't have a major presence on Fox compared to the other heavyweight presstitutes.

In the unlikely event the day comes that the Judge does become the nominee or some other high cabinet position and we dig into his past or we find other elements and associations that expose that he is some dark traitor, who even managed to fool Ron Paul, then we should pursue the truth to the fullest. We should be willing to do this for anyone though, including the man on the banner of this website or Donald Trump and anybody else. I'm just doubting that day will come, but I've been wrong before.

It just doesn't seem like there is going to be much there since he had very little to gain for being virtually the only mainstream media voice truly trying to stand up for liberty and freedom over the past 15 years, especially when most people that were in the Ron Paul Revolution or are battling as we speak for Trump do not bother much with msm circles of information and have instead created their own.

[The Rebel Poet]

When did you convert to Trumpacostalism? William is right. The judge is just being consistent and fair. If you define"swamp" as "doesn't suck Trump's dick hard enough," you're going to wind up with a really big "swamp." Is Ron Paul Rep. Swamp too?

[Swordsmyth]

When did you convert to Trumpacostalism? William is right. The judge is just being consistent and fair. If you define"swamp" as "doesn't suck Trump's dick hard enough," you're going to wind up with a really big "swamp." Is Ron Paul Rep. Swamp too?

You are nuts, he is being anti-law and anti-Constitution and he is being inconsistent, Ron has not been.

[The Rebel Poet]

You are nuts, he is being anti-law and anti-Constitution and he is being inconsistent, Ron has not been.

Which law or constitutional article would you say The judge is against?

[Swordsmyth]

Which law or constitutional article would you say The judge is against?

He has supported Mueller's violation of the 4th amendment, he has supported a criminal investigation in a case where no law was broken, he has claimed that the DOJ is not subject to Congressional oversight and he has said that citizens exercising their right to voluntary association/disassociation is "Dangerous".

There is more but that should be enough, read the rest of the thread and what he has done and said for yourself.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaKVU9CgiDQ

Cruz isn't natural born.

[The Rebel Poet]

He has supported Mueller's violation of the 4th amendment
When did he do that? I hadn't heard of it and it wasn't in this thread.

he has supported a criminal investigation in a case where no law was broken
By definition, some investigations will be conducted where no law has been broken. Has he called for charges to be filled when no law was violated?

he has claimed that the DOJ is not subject to Congressional oversight
Separation of powers. DOJ is part of the executive branch.

he has said that citizens exercising their right to voluntary association/disassociation is "Dangerous".
I didn't think that was what he was saying was dangerous, but I can see that as a reasonable interpretation, so I can give you that one.

[Weston White]

That is not what he said, he said people using their beliefs to refuse to do business with people they didn't want to do business with was "DANGEROUS".

It is not any more dangerous than it would be to coerce people into doing business with those they wish not to because of their conflicting beliefs. To each their own, so the saying goes.

[timosman]

It is not any more dangerous than it would be to coerce people into doing business with those they wish not to because of their conflicting beliefs. To each their own, so the saying goes.

Why would you want to coerce anybody?:confused:

[timosman]

Separation of powers. DOJ is part of the executive branch.

DOJ, unlike the rest of the executive branch, is exempted from congressional oversight? I don't remember Trump claiming an executive privilege on them. :confused:

[Weston White]

Why would you want to coerce anybody?:confused:

I do not, but government ninnies do.

[timosman]

I do not, but government ninnies do.

Unless you are a big business or sucking on the government tit or usually both, the ninnies should stay the fuck away from you.

[nikcers]

He has supported Mueller's violation of the 4th amendment, he has supported a criminal investigation in a case where no law was broken, he has claimed that the DOJ is not subject to Congressional oversight and he has said that citizens exercising their right to voluntary association/disassociation is "Dangerous".

There is more but that should be enough, read the rest of the thread and what he has done and said for yourself.

Judge Napolitano is probably the best person on the fourth amendment besides maybe Rand Paul he is the only person who I've seen say it is our right to be left alone, it is our right to privacy. If you can't understand Judge Napolitano's views on the fourth amendment then you don't know anything about him. I am not even going to bother reading anything else you post about him because you obviously have an axe to grind because you are twisting facts.

[TheCount]

he has supported a criminal investigation in a case where no law was broken

If we already know if crimes have or have not been committed before an investigation is conducted, why do we have investigations? Why have a DOJ? Let the howling mob decide.

[Swordsmyth]

If we already know if crimes have or have not been committed before an investigation is conducted, why do we have investigations? Why have a DOJ? Let the howling mob decide.
In this case there wasn't a law that might have been broken so we already know that nobody broke the law, it is what is called a fishing expedition and it is illegal.

[timosman]

If we already know if crimes have or have not been committed before an investigation is conducted, why do we have investigations? Why have a DOJ? Let the howling mob decide.

You wouldn't be allowed to post if this was the case. The mods however think it is somehow beneficial to the site goals to let morons post. :eek:

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA_Yl_JCdFg

[TheCount]

In this case there wasn't a law that might have been broken so we already know that nobody broke the law, it is what is called a fishing expedition and it is illegal.

Deliciously circular.


If we already know if crimes have or have not been committed before an investigation is conducted, why do we have investigations? Why have a DOJ? Let the howling mob decide.

[Swordsmyth]

Deliciously circular.

No it isn't, the things that were alleged against Don jr. aren't illegal, you can't investigate someone just because you don't like them and people are capable of committing crimes, you have to have a reasonable allegation against them.

[The Rebel Poet]

DOJ, unlike the rest of the executive branch, is exempted from congressional oversight? I don't remember Trump claiming an executive privilege on them. :confused:

Can you show me in the Constitution where Congress has oversight over the DOJ, or Executive in general?

[Swordsmyth]

Can you show me in the Constitution where Congress has oversight over the DOJ, or Executive in general?

A1S2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


A1S3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


A2S4:

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 Rebel Poet]

A1S2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


A1S3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


A2S4:

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.

That says they have power of impeachment. When did Napolitano say they don't? Because I haven't heard him say that.

[Swordsmyth]

That says they have power of impeachment. When did Napolitano say they don't? Because I haven't heard him say that.
If they have the power to impeach for various crimes they must have the power to investigate, he claimed that they didn't have the power to investigate an ongoing case in spite of the fact that it appears to be a crime in progress.

[The Rebel Poet]

If they have the power to impeach for various crimes they must have the power to investigate, he claimed that they didn't have the power to investigate an ongoing case in spite of the fact that it appears to be a crime in progress.

Where specifically did he say that?

And again, investigation is not a crime.

[Swordsmyth]

Where specifically did he say that?

Amid all the happy hoopla over President Donald Trump's trip to Singapore, where he began the process for what he hopes will be the normalization of relations between the United States and North Korea and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, has come an effort by the House Intelligence Committee to interfere with the criminal investigation of the president.
The committee's chairman, Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, and the Republican majority on the committee have demanded that the Department of Justice turn over documents pertaining to the origins of the investigation of President Trump by special counsel Robert Mueller.
And Nunes has threatened Mueller's superior, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, with censure, contempt and even impeachment if he fails to comply. Can Congress interfere in an ongoing federal criminal investigation? Can it get its eyes on law enforcement's active files? In a word: No.

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-rule-law.html (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/14/judge-andrew-napolitano-more-assaults-on-rule-law.html)




And again, investigation is not a crime.
It is when it is in violation of the Constitution and the law and is part of a framing operation.

[The Rebel Poet]

Amid all the happy hoopla over President Donald Trump's trip to Singapore, where he began the process for what he hopes will be the normalization of relations between the United States and North Korea and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, has come an effort by the House Intelligence Committee to interfere with the criminal investigation of the president.
The committee's chairman, Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, and the Republican majority on the committee have demanded that the Department of Justice turn over documents pertaining to the origins of the investigation of President Trump by special counsel Robert Mueller.
And Nunes has threatened Mueller's superior, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, with censure, contempt and even impeachment if he fails to comply. Can Congress interfere in an ongoing federal criminal investigation? Can it get its eyes on law enforcement's active files? In a word: No.

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-rule-law.html (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/14/judge-andrew-napolitano-more-assaults-on-rule-law.html)




It is when it is in violation of the Constitution and the law and is part of a framing operation.

I reread the article looking for what you said. Your original claim was that judge Napolitano said DOJ was not subject to any congressional oversight. Not only did he not say that, he said exactly the opposite:
"the FBI and the DOJ...answered not only to the president but also to the House and Senate Judiciary committees...But the FBI's spying mission also subjected it to the scrutiny of two additional congressional committees, one in the House and one in the Senate." So then, what is his specific claim? He said "But it is not the role of Congress to do this in the midst of a criminal investigation, and it is not the role of a congressional intelligence committee to scrutinize law enforcement." So, because Napolitano believes that Congressional should wait until the investigation is not in process, and because he believes that the intelligence community isn't the one in charge of impeachment, you believe he's a swamp creature, a deep state plant, working for Clinton, and a traitor who can't be trusted? Do you realize how crazy you sound? It would seem as though you are anti-Nap merely because he doesn't sufficiently defend Trump, and because he doesn't sufficiently attack Hillary.

[Swordsmyth]

I reread the article looking for what you said. Your original claim was that judge Napolitano said DOJ was not subject to any congressional oversight. Not only did he not say that, he said exactly the opposite:
"the FBI and the DOJ...answered not only to the president but also to the House and Senate Judiciary committees...But the FBI's spying mission also subjected it to the scrutiny of two additional congressional committees, one in the House and one in the Senate." So then, what is his specific claim? He said "But it is not the role of Congress to do this in the midst of a criminal investigation, and it is not the role of a congressional intelligence committee to scrutinize law enforcement." So, because Napolitano believes that Congressional should wait until the investigation is not in process, and because he believes that the intelligence community isn't the one in charge of impeachment, you believe he's a swamp creature, a deep state plant, working for Clinton, and a traitor who can't be trusted? Do you realize how crazy you sound? It would seem as though you are anti-Nap merely because he doesn't sufficiently defend Trump, and because he doesn't sufficiently attack Hillary.

He is trying to protect the coup attempt from Congressional oversight and it is part of a larger pattern that I have pointed out.
You try to only discuss one item at time so that the pattern can be ignored and you dismiss blatantly lawless and unconstitutional things he says because of your prior loyalty to him and your dislike of Trump.
You are the one who sounds crazy.

[The Rebel Poet]

He is trying to protect the coup attempt from Congressional oversight and it is part of a larger pattern that I have pointed out.
You try to only discuss one item at time so that the pattern can be ignored and you dismiss blatantly lawless and unconstitutional things he says because of your prior loyalty to him and your dislike of Trump.
You are the one who sounds crazy.

Except patterns are made of parts. You make a series of claims, I discredit those claims, and you say it doesn't matter if those specific claims are true because there is a pattern. The problem with that is you made the pattern up from the now-discredited claims.

[Swordsmyth]

Except patterns are made of parts. You make a series of claims, I discredit those claims, and you say it doesn't matter if those specific claims are true because there is a pattern. The problem with that is you made the pattern up from the now-discredited claims.
You discredited nothing.
You ignored some of the parts and you dismissed the rest.

[The Rebel Poet]

You discredited nothing.
You ignored some of the parts and you dismissed the rest.

I quoted the article you posted to demonstrate that you have either lied about or accidentally misconstrued Napolitano. That is neither ignoring nor dismissing. I responded to your initial lies in detail, but you ignored me. The truth is, you consider Trump being a good guy as axiomatic, and anyone who isn't sufficiently in his favor is against him in your partisan mind. Actually, you are not a partisan. Your beliefs are even more simplistic than that. You believe the entire political landscape can be defined by not two whole parties, but two individuals: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Seriously take a step back and read your posts like someone else wrote them. Your just attacking anyone who doesn't sufficiently defend Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

I quoted the article you posted to demonstrate that you have either lied about or accidentally misconstrued Napolitano.
No I didn't, Congress has the right to exercise oversight on the Russiagate coup whether it is still in progress or not, if you didn't let your dislike of Trump get in the way you would admit that.



That is neither ignoring nor dismissing. I responded to your initial lies in detail, but you ignored me.
You have ignored many of my issues with Swampy entirely and dismissed the rest, you haven't shown one thing Swampy did to be correct.


The truth is, you consider Trump being a good guy as axiomatic, and anyone who isn't sufficiently in his favor is against him in your partisan mind. Actually, you are not a partisan. Your beliefs are even more simplistic than that. You believe the entire political landscape can be defined by not two whole parties, but two individuals: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Seriously take a step back and read your posts like someone else wrote them. Your just attacking anyone who doesn't sufficiently defend Trump.
Nope, I have attacked Trump when he is wrong and I let others attack him without argument when it is unclear whether he is wrong.

I am the one who is being objective while you reflexively refuse to see anything wrong with Napolitano no matter how blatant because of a blind loyalty to him and a dislike for Trump.

[nikcers]

I quoted the article you posted to demonstrate that you have either lied about or accidentally misconstrued Napolitano. That is neither ignoring nor dismissing. I responded to your initial lies in detail, but you ignored me. The truth is, you consider Trump being a good guy as axiomatic, and anyone who isn't sufficiently in his favor is against him in your partisan mind. Actually, you are not a partisan. Your beliefs are even more simplistic than that. You believe the entire political landscape can be defined by not two whole parties, but two individuals: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Seriously take a step back and read your posts like someone else wrote them. Your just attacking anyone who doesn't sufficiently defend Trump.
The truth is probably stranger than fiction. Companies like Cambridge Analytica are most likely doing the bidding of the deep state. I think if this is true then they are about to drop a huge figurative bombshell because they seem to be propping up Trump to Obama popularity levels using all the same ole tricks.

[Ender]

I quoted the article you posted to demonstrate that you have either lied about or accidentally misconstrued Napolitano. That is neither ignoring nor dismissing. I responded to your initial lies in detail, but you ignored me. The truth is, you consider Trump being a good guy as axiomatic, and anyone who isn't sufficiently in his favor is against him in your partisan mind. Actually, you are not a partisan. Your beliefs are even more simplistic than that. You believe the entire political landscape can be defined by not two whole parties, but two individuals: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Seriously take a step back and read your posts like someone else wrote them. Your just attacking anyone who doesn't sufficiently defend Trump.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Rebel Poet again

[acptulsa]

I am the one who is being objective while you reflexively refuse to see anything wrong with Napolitano no matter how blatant because of a blind loyalty to him and a dislike for Trump.

That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. But maybe if you say it over and over like a good little propagandist, somebody somewhere will believe it.

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: John McCain and me

About four years ago, I was browsing through one of Manhattan’s last remaining independent bookstores, when my cellphone rang. I didn’t recognize the incoming telephone number, with its 202 area code, but I assumed it was a Fox News colleague from our Washington bureau.

When I answered the phone, a somewhat familiar but somber voice said: "Judge Napolitano, your reward for what you did today will not come from your colleagues or viewers or even on earth but in heaven."

What had I done to deserve this?

Earlier that day, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California who was then the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had defied her own committee members, congressional leadership from both houses of Congress and from both political parties, officials of the CIA, and even the Obama White House when she released on the floor of the Senate a 6,000-plus-page report detailing the use of torture by CIA officials in the George W. Bush administration -- all of it unlawful.

She actually made the report public while physically standing on the floor of the Senate, where her speech is absolutely protected from government retaliation by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

That clause recognizes and protects for members of Congress their complete freedom of speech while on the floor of the House or Senate, while doing congressional work and while traveling to Capitol Hill. Thus, even though she revealed top-secret materials in the report -- which, if you or I had revealed them or if she had revealed them in Los Angeles rather than in Washington, would have constituted the crime of espionage -- she was immune from all prosecution.

In response to the Feinstein revelations, my Fox News colleague and friend Shepard Smith and I spent about 30 minutes on-air that afternoon on his Fox News Channel show discussing the criminal behavior Feinstein had revealed, the constitutional protections she, as a member of the Senate, enjoyed, and the political firestorm she had courageously ignited.

As a believer in the rule of law and the bodily integrity of all people, I was full of praise for what Feinstein had just done. When the government breaks the laws it has sworn to uphold, Shep Smith and I argued, the people have a right to know about it.

But many of Sen. Feinstein’s colleagues did not see it that way. Many of those who never endured torture and those believing that the end justifies the means accepted the myth that torture works -- that the victim tells the truth; and in their view, obtaining the truth is worth the cost in lawbreaking and body-breaking.

Only one Republican senator publicly supported what Feinstein had just done. He was my caller that afternoon in the bookstore, John McCain.

I thought of his call and our many ensuing conversations when I learned of his death this past weekend, a few days shy of his 82nd birthday.

McCain and I had hundreds of conversations. He knew that I knew that he was a bellicose warmonger and an uncritical supporter of unlimited military spending; and he was often indifferent to the consequences of those views.

But he was also the victim of prolonged and horrific torture during the Vietnam War, which he could have avoided. He told me many times that torture so distorts the mind that the victim’s consequent speech is utterly unworthy of belief.

He had become the leading congressional critic of torture, the prime congressional mover of making it all unlawful -- the Bush Department of Justice notwithstanding, it already was unlawful at the time Bush ordered it -- and one of the few Americans anywhere who could speak on this detestable subject from the personal experiences of a victim.

Platitudes aside, the essence of the telephone conversation we had that day was that Bush had committed war crimes; that torture is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution, several treaties to which the United States is a party and numerous federal statutes; and that Sen. Feinstein had performed a positive public good by revealing it.

It was Sen. McCain’s view that even if he was powerless to prevent government lawbreaking, it is better for the American people to know painful truths than to remain in the dark.

Shortly after our phone conversation, McCain went to the floor of the Senate and delivered one of his classic tirades against torture. In it, he attacked President Bush, who ordered and authorized it, and President Barack Obama, who covered it up.

This week, those two former presidents. firmly in McCain’s crosshairs four years ago, are each delivering a eulogy at McCain’s funeral -- willingly, dutifully and at his request.

The John McCain I knew discussed only torture, the right to life, and immigration with me -- perhaps because he knew we disagreed on nearly all other matters. But this tough old Arizona bird, this lifelong warrior, this unorthodox maverick who really was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, knew how to keep friends and monitor enemies.

He was a multidimensional man in a secular era, and he was not happy about America at the end of his days.

Yet in this age of few heroes, and on topics that intimately touch the human heart and soul, he was the genuine article.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/30/judge-andrew-napolitano-john-mccain-and-me.html

[dannno]

^I don't mind that article too much, in fact, McCain was absolutely right about torture. Unfortunately he was wrong about literally everything else. He was also a war monger who was responsible for a lot of violence, and in no way does his stance on torture make up for that.. but it is worth mentioning from time to time because it is an important issue.

[Grandmastersexsay]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: John McCain and me

About four years ago, I was browsing through one of Manhattan’s last remaining independent bookstores, when my cellphone rang. I didn’t recognize the incoming telephone number, with its 202 area code, but I assumed it was a Fox News colleague from our Washington bureau.

When I answered the phone, a somewhat familiar but somber voice said: "Judge Napolitano, your reward for what you did today will not come from your colleagues or viewers or even on earth but in heaven."

What had I done to deserve this?

Earlier that day, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California who was then the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had defied her own committee members, congressional leadership from both houses of Congress and from both political parties, officials of the CIA, and even the Obama White House when she released on the floor of the Senate a 6,000-plus-page report detailing the use of torture by CIA officials in the George W. Bush administration -- all of it unlawful.

She actually made the report public while physically standing on the floor of the Senate, where her speech is absolutely protected from government retaliation by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

That clause recognizes and protects for members of Congress their complete freedom of speech while on the floor of the House or Senate, while doing congressional work and while traveling to Capitol Hill. Thus, even though she revealed top-secret materials in the report -- which, if you or I had revealed them or if she had revealed them in Los Angeles rather than in Washington, would have constituted the crime of espionage -- she was immune from all prosecution.

In response to the Feinstein revelations, my Fox News colleague and friend Shepard Smith and I spent about 30 minutes on-air that afternoon on his Fox News Channel show discussing the criminal behavior Feinstein had revealed, the constitutional protections she, as a member of the Senate, enjoyed, and the political firestorm she had courageously ignited.

As a believer in the rule of law and the bodily integrity of all people, I was full of praise for what Feinstein had just done. When the government breaks the laws it has sworn to uphold, Shep Smith and I argued, the people have a right to know about it.

But many of Sen. Feinstein’s colleagues did not see it that way. Many of those who never endured torture and those believing that the end justifies the means accepted the myth that torture works -- that the victim tells the truth; and in their view, obtaining the truth is worth the cost in lawbreaking and body-breaking.

Only one Republican senator publicly supported what Feinstein had just done. He was my caller that afternoon in the bookstore, John McCain.

I thought of his call and our many ensuing conversations when I learned of his death this past weekend, a few days shy of his 82nd birthday.

McCain and I had hundreds of conversations. He knew that I knew that he was a bellicose warmonger and an uncritical supporter of unlimited military spending; and he was often indifferent to the consequences of those views.

But he was also the victim of prolonged and horrific torture during the Vietnam War, which he could have avoided. He told me many times that torture so distorts the mind that the victim’s consequent speech is utterly unworthy of belief.

He had become the leading congressional critic of torture, the prime congressional mover of making it all unlawful -- the Bush Department of Justice notwithstanding, it already was unlawful at the time Bush ordered it -- and one of the few Americans anywhere who could speak on this detestable subject from the personal experiences of a victim.

Platitudes aside, the essence of the telephone conversation we had that day was that Bush had committed war crimes; that torture is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution, several treaties to which the United States is a party and numerous federal statutes; and that Sen. Feinstein had performed a positive public good by revealing it.

It was Sen. McCain’s view that even if he was powerless to prevent government lawbreaking, it is better for the American people to know painful truths than to remain in the dark.

Shortly after our phone conversation, McCain went to the floor of the Senate and delivered one of his classic tirades against torture. In it, he attacked President Bush, who ordered and authorized it, and President Barack Obama, who covered it up.

This week, those two former presidents. firmly in McCain’s crosshairs four years ago, are each delivering a eulogy at McCain’s funeral -- willingly, dutifully and at his request.

The John McCain I knew discussed only torture, the right to life, and immigration with me -- perhaps because he knew we disagreed on nearly all other matters. But this tough old Arizona bird, this lifelong warrior, this unorthodox maverick who really was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, knew how to keep friends and monitor enemies.

He was a multidimensional man in a secular era, and he was not happy about America at the end of his days.

Yet in this age of few heroes, and on topics that intimately touch the human heart and soul, he was the genuine article.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/30/judge-andrew-napolitano-john-mccain-and-me.html

Is there a problem with this? I don't see it. Judge nap was only referring to McCain's opposition to torture when no other Republican senator would. Ron Paul is the only other Republican at the time to share the same criticism.

Was he too nice for your taste? He even called McCain a war monger.

[Swordsmyth]

^I don't mind that article too much, in fact, McCain was absolutely right about torture. Unfortunately he was wrong about literally everything else. He was also a war monger who was responsible for a lot of violence, and in no way does his stance on torture make up for that.. but it is worth mentioning from time to time because it is an important issue.

Yes, but there is no need to pander to his memory or to Feinstein, if he had just said "I have been taught not to speak ill of the dead so I will discuss the only thing about him that can be praised" I wouldn't have added it to this thread.

McCain has too many people singing his praises already.

[Swordsmyth]

Is there a problem with this? I don't see it. Judge nap was only referring to McCain's opposition to torture when no other Republican senator would. Ron Paul is the only other Republican at the time to share the same criticism.

Was he too nice for your taste? He even called McCain a war monger.
He was too complimentary:


But this tough old Arizona bird, this lifelong warrior, this unorthodox maverick who really was neither a Republican nor a Democrat


He was a multidimensional man


Yet in this age of few heroes, and on topics that intimately touch the human heart and soul, he was the genuine article.

Those are lies, McCain was no hero.

[kcchiefs6465]

^I don't mind that article too much, in fact, McCain was absolutely right about torture. Unfortunately he was wrong about literally everything else. He was also a war monger who was responsible for a lot of violence, and in no way does his stance on torture make up for that.. but it is worth mentioning from time to time because it is an important issue.
Did McCain's foreign policy make torture less likely or more likely to occur?

Did his policies of war and destruction creating a refugee crisis make people more or less likely to accept free movement of people?

[dannno]

Did McCain's foreign policy make torture less likely or more likely to occur?

Did his policies of war and destruction creating a refugee crisis make people more or less likely to accept free movement of people?

Did you read my third sentence?

[Schifference]

Did McCain's foreign policy make torture less likely or more likely to occur?

Did his policies of war and destruction creating a refugee crisis make people more or less likely to accept free movement of people?

McCain was a piece advocate.

[dannno]

Yes, but there is no need to pander to his memory or to Feinstein, if he had just said "I have been taught not to speak ill of the dead so I will discuss the only thing about him that can be praised" I wouldn't have added it to this thread.

McCain has too many people singing his praises already.

Ya the last sentence was a little creepy. Did he call him a hero? Or just a "genuine article". Dunno.. hopefully he is just sucking up to the deep state so they will let him be a Supreme Court judge. But I'm glad he called McCain a war monger as well.

[kcchiefs6465]

Did you read my third sentence?
Your third sentence did not mention that all of the things Napolitano mentioned, McCain's foreign policy effectively worked to accomplish the opposite.

Which Napolitano did not mention either.

[dannno]

Your third sentence did not mention that all of the things Napolitano mentioned, McCain's foreign policy effectively worked to accomplish the opposite.

Which Napolitano did not mention either.

Wrong.

My third sentence did precisely that.


He was also a war monger who was responsible for a lot of violence, and in no way does his stance on torture make up for that..

So his stance on torture does not make up for being a neocon warhawk - but by itself, he had a correct position that very few other warhawks hold and it was better that he held that position and promoted it than not.

Napolitano was less specific, but I think he has been doing some sucking up to the deep state lately so they will let him be a SC Justice.

[kcchiefs6465]

Wrong.

My third sentence did precisely that.
Yeah. Okay.

Those with an inkling of reading comprehension can see that for all of the issues Napolitano slob knobbed McCain over, his foreign policy position actively worked to the opposite of them.

Such as torture becoming more likely and a refugee crisis effectively sealing the anti-immigration crowd's resolve in their position.

Saying that violence was more likely to occur because of McCain's foreign policy does not equal what I responded.

You want someone to know what you meant? How about saying it.

[dannno]

Yeah. Okay.

Those with an inkling of reading comprehension can see that for all of the issues Napolitano slob knobbed McCain over, his foreign policy position actively worked to the opposite of them.

Such as torture becoming more likely and a refugee crisis effectively sealing the anti-immigration crowd's resolve in their position.

Saying that violence was more likely to occur because of McCain's foreign policy does not equal what I responded.

You want someone to know what you meant? How about saying it.

I did, I said that his position on torture didn't overcome his position on wars by a long stretch.. just that his position on torture by itself was correct. I didn't explain that the reason his position on torture didn't overcome his position on wars was because the wars lead to more torture, but that was the reasoning behind the statement.

[kcchiefs6465]

I did, I said that his position on torture didn't overcome his position on wars by a long stretch.. just that his position on torture by itself was correct. I didn't explain that the reason his position on torture didn't overcome his position on wars was because the wars lead to more torture, but that was the reasoning behind the statement.
Lol.

So it was said but wasn't said and as well, did not equal to what I responded in the first place, however you meant for it to somewhat touch on an irony of praising the piece of shit that is John McCain?

Cool.

[dannno]

Lol.

So it was said but wasn't said and as well, did not equal to what I responded in the first place, however you meant for it to somewhat touch on an irony of praising the piece of shit that is John McCain?

Cool.

I didn't praise the piece, I just said I don't have a huge problem with it. He called McCain a war monger, said he disagreed with him on just about everything, but that there was one issue that they agreed on that is important and highlighted that - likely so that he can suck up to the deep state in case he is nominated for Ginsburg's spot.

[kcchiefs6465]

Now if we can just get Napolitano to see the irony of praising a war monger for paying lip service to anti-torture policy, we can come close to having a journalist be honest about who John McCain really was.

[Swordsmyth]

@5:30 Judge Swamp: I know how thorough they are(FBI). I couldn't believe the stuff they've found out about me. :confused:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaaeBVOYuCk

[Swordsmyth]

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/1042017893989269504

1042017893989269504

[timosman]

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/1042017893989269504

They got him by the balls. :D

[Swordsmyth]

They got him by the balls. :D

I will now give myself a round of applause for having identified him as compromised or complicit before many others.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:
:trophy:

[timosman]

I will now give myself a round of applause for having identified him as compromised or complicit before many others.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:
:trophy:

I hope you never look into Ron Paul. :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

I hope you never look into Ron Paul. :cool:
I already know enough about Dr. Ron to be open minded about his potential "controlled opposition" status but I don't care because if he is controlled opposition he is a very bad mistake on his handlers part, he does far more good than any of his imperfect positions do harm.

I don't think he is controlled opposition because I could point to many connections in my own life that would make a conspiracy theory researcher have doubts about me and I know they would be wrong.

[timosman]

Judge Nap: Too Early to Say Mueller Probe Is Biased Against Trump - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517774-Judge-Nap-Too-Early-to-Say-Mueller-Probe-Is-Biased-Against-Trump

[dannno]

Judge Nap: Too Early to Say Mueller Probe Is Biased Against Trump - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517774-Judge-Nap-Too-Early-to-Say-Mueller-Probe-Is-Biased-Against-Trump

What if the Judge is Q?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqb97gtsyYc

[shakey1]

What if the Judge is Q?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqb97gtsyYc

good question.

[Swordsmyth]

What if the Judge is Q?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqb97gtsyYc


good question.
Not likely.

[dannno]

Not likely.

Did you watch the youtube?

[Swordsmyth]

Did you watch the youtube?
Not yet, but he isn't part of Trump's staff.

[William Tell]

I already know enough about Dr. Ron to be open minded about his potential "controlled opposition" status but I don't care because if he is controlled opposition he is a very bad mistake on his handlers part, he does far more good than any of his imperfect positions do harm.There is exactly zero potential.

[Swordsmyth]

There is exactly zero potential.
I give no man so much trust and certainly not any politician but he is the very last one I would suspect.

[William Tell]

I give no man so much trust and certainly not any politician but he is the very last one I would suspect.

It's not trust to recognize someone's fruits. Ron Paul's are the best in his arena.

[timosman]

It's not trust to recognize someone's fruits. Ron Paul's are the best in his arena.

I'd be curious to know Jesse Benton's opinion. :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

It's not trust to recognize someone's fruits. Ron Paul's are the best in his arena.
But his fruits only minimize the possibility that he is controlled opposition, they do not eliminate it.

I do not believe he is but I can't certify that he isn't.

[William Tell]

But his fruits only minimize the possibility that he is controlled opposition, they do not eliminate it.

I do not believe he is but I can't certify that he isn't. RP created most of the opposition.

[Swordsmyth]

RP created most of the opposition.

I agree, I don't believe he is controlled opposition but being the one to create most of the opposition is the perfect ideal for controlled opposition tactics.

[nikcers]

I like judges that are for the bill of rights.

[Swordsmyth]

Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News, blasted President Donald Trump (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/donald-trump) on Tuesday for calling the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/brett-kavanaugh) “a hoax.”
Trump on Monday told reporters on the White House lawn that Kavanaugh had been “caught up in a hoax” (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-calls-kavanaugh-allegations-hoax_us_5bbb7306e4b028e1fe3fca89) orchestrated by the Democrats. Hours later, while addressing a convention of police chiefs, Trump called the controversy (https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1049358372330524673) a “disgraceful situation, brought about by people that are evil.”
But Napolitano, during an appearance Tuesday on the president’s favorite TV network, condemned Trump’s aggressive, partisan rhetoric.
“I do not think the best thing that was said was ‘evil’ or ‘hoax,’ and I honestly wish that the president and his people would get past that,” Napolitano said Tuesday on “Fox & Friends.”
He continued: “The Supreme Court does not have an army to enforce its rulings. Its rulings depend upon the intellectual legitimacy of the manner in which the rulings are given, from whom they are given. They really have some work to do to patch up the divisions that exist in the public mind. These divisions don’t exist in reality in the court.”

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-apos-andrew-napolitano-131510722.html

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouu9EsIJ9O8

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouu9EsIJ9O8
Judge Swamp has gone full open borders, illegals are not covered by the 14thA and the Constitution does give Congress power over immigration.

[axiomata]

FOX NEWS ALERT: libertarian takes libertarian position on immigration.

Everything Judge said is correct. The Constitution only gives congress the power over naturalization, not immigration. The plain text and historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. There has been academic debate about the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment that might make for a good supreme court case in terms of an original intent interpretation of the 14th. (I would support amending the amendment to remove birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.) But as Trump now acknowledges, an Executive Order is not the right way to have that debate.

[Swordsmyth]

FOX NEWS ALERT: libertarian takes libertarian position on immigration.

Everything Judge said is correct. The Constitution only gives congress the power over naturalization, not immigration. The plain text and historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. There has been academic debate about the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment that might make for a good supreme court case in terms of an original intent interpretation of the 14th. (I would support amending the amendment to remove birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.) But as Trump now acknowledges, an Executive Order is not the right way to have that debate.
Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/ (https://i2i.org/where-congresss-power-to-regulate-immigration-comes-from/)


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.


Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight


In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.) http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/)



Illegal aliens and even possibly legal visitors and dual citizens don't qualify under the 14thA and Trump is fully within his Constitutional powers to direct the executive branch to follow the law correctly.

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Nap: Whitaker Not 'Legally Qualified' to Be Acting Attorney General (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/11/08/judge-napolitano-matthew-whitaker-does-not-qualify-under-law-be-acting-attorney-general)

Trump chose Whitaker to replace Sessions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imwrx3MsUY8

Whitaker, according to sources, is now overseeing everything at the Justice Department, including the Russia investigation -- despite calls from Democrats to recuse himself. Trump said a permanent replacement will be nominated at a later date.
Napolitano said Whitaker, however, is not legally qualified for the role of acting attorney general because of "very precise laws" written by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal.


He said there are only three ways someone can become acting attorney general: if they are the deputy attorney general and the president signs an executive order to make them acting attorney general, if they are already at the Justice Department in a job that both required and received Senate confirmation or if the Senate in in recess, they can be a recess appointment.


He said none of those apply in this case, as Whitaker is not deputy attorney general, he did not receive Senate confirmation for his current role at the DOJ and the Senate is not in recess.


"So with deference and respect to what the president's trying to do -- he has every right to want whoever he wants to run the Justice Department -- he has chosen someone who does not qualify under the law to be the acting attorney general of the United States," Napolitano said.


Are the "very precise" laws involved Constitutional?

I doubt it and I would guess Trump is ready, willing and able to make that case to SCOTUS.
...

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJotHYqgJTY

[Swordsmyth]

For some reason Youtube has been killing the videos in this thread.

[Swordsmyth]

Now judge swamp ignores the law that allows Trump to deny entry/asylum to any class of immigrants he wants and sides with Roberts claim that the judge that blocked Trump's order wasn't biased:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/napolitano-chief-justice-takes-trump-195907409.html

[Swordsmyth]

Napolitano: We learned today that prosecutors have evidence Trump committed a felony (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529236-Napolitano-We-learned-today-that-prosecutors-have-evidence-Trump-committed-a-felony)

[Swordsmyth]

Appearing with Shepard Smith on Wednesday, Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano continued his winning streak of being the worst and most dishonest legal analyst on television not named Jeffrey Toobin. Spewing all kinds of mindless gloom and doom (you can watch the full segment here (https://news.grabien.com/story-judge-nap-trump-committed-felony-paying-michael-cohen-commit)), while ignoring the all-important mitigating context that proves just how stupid his gloom and doom is, Napolitano painted a dire picture of President Trump as a felon.
After Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, Smith teed up Napolitano with this: “Prosecutors have told us through these filings that they have evidence that the President committed a felony.”
Naturally, Napolitano heartily agreed:

The felony is paying Michael Cohen to commit a felony. It’s pretty basic. Somebody hires you — A hires B to shoot someone. A is as liable as if he had pulled the trigger. You pay someone to commit a crime, they commit the crime, you are liable, criminally liable for their commission of that crime, as well as they being liable. That’s what the prosecutors told the federal judge.
Keep in mind that this is coming from the same Judge FakeNews who called proven liar Christine Blasey Ford “exceptionally credible” after hearing only a few minutes (https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/09/30/nolte-fox-news-cowards-spread-fake-news-christine-blasey-ford-credible/) of her testimony.
But here is the important information the Judge FakeNews is deliberately hiding from Fox viewers…
At worst, at the very worst, this is a campaign finance violation, and even that is a stretch when you are talking about paying off a couple of scheming blackmailers who threatened to ruin your reputation and cause trouble in your family and marriage.
There is nothing illegal about committing adultery, about paying hush money, about caving to blackmail, about hiding all of this from the public and voters. Nothing.
The only way this is illegal is if an overbearing government decides this particular expenditure was a campaign expenditure — in other words, something you would not have paid for were you not running for office — which is absurd in the case of Trump, who has a decades-long history of aggressively working to kill stories that might damage his reputation — not all of them sex related.
And let me again point out that Trump used his own money — his own money — to pay off his blackmailers. He did not use campaign funds.
But rather than explain the important context of the government’s ludicrous attempt to “gotcha” Trump with a felony, rather than explain to viewers that these prosecutors are almost certainly politically motivated, Napolitano chooses to mislead viewers with inane analysis about Trump “directing a felony.”


There is nothing illegal about hiding your sex life, bad teeth, or bald head from voters, and to criminalize such things with vague campaign finance laws will not fly. Even the jury in a case involving former presidential candidate John Edwards, who funneled other people’s money through his campaign to hide payments to his mistress, came out deadlocked.
And what about the 264 active members of Congress (https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/12/10/congress-has-a-slush-fund-to-pay-off-sexual-harassment-claims-and-nobody-calls-it-a-crime/) who created a $17 million slush fund using taxpayer dollars to make sexual harassment and other employer-related conduct lawsuits go away?
These are active members of Congress using our money to make their sins go away, to pay off women to sign non-disclosure agreements, and that is perfectly a-okay with prosecutors (and a media that has lost total interest in the story), but Private Citizen Trump doing what he has done for decades — making a bad story go away — has committed a felony?

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/13/fox-news-judge-napolitano-continues-to-trash-trump-with-inaccurate-analysis/

[Stratovarious]

It's no secret to anyone that Mueller's investigation of
Trump was initiated as a partisan Hillary Shield , a preemptive,
baseless, but effective strike that drew fire away from
Hillary's espionage, malfeasance and slush fund foundation.
Judge Napolitano was not obligated ethically to go out of
his way to cast dispersions on Pres Trump.
I strongly disagree with some of Trump's policies and actions
though he is still the best we've seen
since Jack Kennedy, bar none;
TPP
Paris Accord
North Korea
Syria
Low Unemployment
Inspiration for Nationalism and preservation of regional culture
around the Globe
...
My biggest problems with Trump are a few failed concrete
and de facto Promises;
Hillary Prison
GUT IRS , Reduce Code to several pages
Kill Obama Care
Hillary Comey Lynch Holder Mueller etc all belong in prison , yet we all
understand that Equal Justice under the law means;
The wealthy and connected, the ones that can and do inflict the greatest
pain on our Country get a free pass, always, the prosecution of a low level
lackey here and there gives the impression that justice is served, sincere justice
is never served in the US, to those in power.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump can't declare national emergency over border wall funding, Judge Napolitano says (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/video/trump-cant-declare-national-emergency-133828837.html)

Congress has authorized money for the president to spend in a national emergency:


Trump’s reference to a presidential declaration of a national emergency in response to the reporter’s query is to authority that Congress has given presidents — a lump sum of money that Congress had left to the president’s discretion by a 1950 law for use in times of “national emergency.” The law specifically mentioned civil defense situations in a war situation, but also for response to natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. According to the statute, the president can declare a national emergency, or disaster, and gain access to funds Congress has appropriated for that purpose.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ional-approval (https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/31112-does-the-constitution-allow-trump-to-build-the-wall-without-congressional-approval)


Judge Swamp is also claiming that the immigration laws can be fixed without twisting the Demoncrats' arms with a shutdown, that is an out and out lie and he isn't that stupid, he just wants Trump to surrender to the communists.

[axiomata]

Thanks to the Judge for speaking out against tyranny.

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks to the Judge for speaking out against tyranny.
LOL

Whether or not the wall is a good idea he is siding with the party of tyranny again, they want open borders so they can create a single party communist dictatorship.

If he wants to speak out against the wall then he should but lying about the law is not a good thing.

[r3volution 3.0]

2009: "Obama's gon' declare a national emergency to bring in the NWO!"


2019: "Trump's gon' declare a national emergency to fight the NWO Deep State!"


LOL


https://media1.tenor.com/images/e4a504b1d752580e9bf92f6943411fb1/tenor.gif?itemid=3690710

[Swordsmyth]

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the evidence appears to increasingly show that the Donald Trump presidential campaign did collude with Russia during the height of the 2016 race and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller can prove it.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-legal-analyst-says-150653763.html

[juleswin]

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the evidence appears to increasingly show that the Donald Trump presidential campaign did collude with Russia during the height of the 2016 race and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller can prove it.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-legal-analyst-says-150653763.html

“Yes,” Napolitano agreed. “Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime … Whether or not the thing of value arrives. The agreement is what is the crime.”

So, lets assume the agreement was to remove the sanctions on Russia, is that a crime? Judge Nap has been acting very funny lately.

[Swordsmyth]

“Yes,” Napolitano agreed. “Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime … Whether or not the thing of value arrives. The agreement is what is the crime.”

So, lets assume the agreement was to remove the sanctions on Russia, is that a crime? Judge Nap has been acting very funny lately.
He has gone full TDS Russiaphobe.

[juleswin]

He has gone full TDS Russiaphobe.

But why? he has previously said he is close friends with Trump and in his past, he has been very rational, very accurate, unemotional, without hyperbole with his assessment of other presidents and hot button political topics. Why change his tune now?

I think if they ever get Trump for this Russia issue, it would be for lying about the non crime as opposed to committing any real crime of collusion.

[Swordsmyth]

But why? he has previously said he is close friends with Trump and in his past, he has been very rational, very accurate, unemotional, without hyperbole with his assessment of other presidents and hot button political topics. Why change his tune now?

I think if they ever get Trump for this Russia issue, it would be for lying about the non crime as opposed to committing any real crime of collusion.
I don't know if it is one of the videos Youtube took down but when talking about Kavanaugh he said he was surprised what the FBI dug up on him.(Napolitano)
If he wasn't a sleeper who has been activated because Trump won then he is being blackmailed.

[Stratovarious]

Andrew Napolitano is getting more confusing or confused by the hour.
I used to be super careful to say Judge Napolitano for years due to the name sake of
the hideous character know as Janet Napolitano, now I'm not so sure how
far apart the two are.

[Stratovarious]

At one time Napolitano said that he believes the Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise,
but the media is still stuffed with the fantasy of 'Russia Gate' , while Hillary , admittedly guilty
of espionage , as well as unwittingly being stated by idiot Comey himself (claiming intent wasn't there lol)
is ignored along with the uranium for cash deal, the foundation coffers,.///// right I know , this
is just a rhetorical quest/comment.
We have a very dangerous woman who may become our next president running free while everyone knows
that her rightful place is Prison, along with Comey, Mueller , Holder, Lynch , and probably Obama.....
well lets not forget the Bush cabal......grrrrr.......ok thanks, I feel a little bit better now. eor.

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Nap: Trump's Brazen Unconstitutional Overreach (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531760-Judge-Nap-Trump-s-Brazen-Unconstitutional-Overreach)

[unknown]

The Judge is trying to appear to be anti-political in case he gets nominated.

See if you can find any Constitutional issues that you part ways with him on.

He is leaps and bounds better than any other Supreme Court Justice we have ever had, probably in the history of the country.

Was he nominated?

[unknown]

I don't know if it is one of the videos Youtube took down but when talking about Kavanaugh he said he was surprised what the FBI dug up on him.(Napolitano)
If he wasn't a sleeper who has been activated because Trump won then he is being blackmailed.

What did the Judge say that wasnt based on constitutional law?

He doesnt GAF about the individual, whether its Chump or Hitlery, his stances are based on the Constitution...

[Swordsmyth]

What did the Judge say that wasnt based on constitutional law?

He doesnt GAF about the individual, whether its Chump or Hitlery, his stances are based on the Constitution...
I have listed and discussed many examples here in this thread.

If you want to discuss one pick a comment and reply to it.

[dannno]

Was he nominated?

Ask me again in 6 years.

[Swordsmyth]

Ask me again in 6 years.
I'll believe it when he gets nominated, he didn't get either SCOTUS seat so far and he didn't get AG when Sessions left.

Trump wants young Justices to protect liberty for a long time plus Nap is an AnCap and Trump isn't.

[unknown]

I'll believe it when he gets nominated, he didn't get either SCOTUS seat so far and he didn't get AG when Sessions left.

Trump wants young Justices to protect liberty for a long time plus Nap is an AnCap and Trump isn't.

"Protect liberty"???

WTF are you talking about?

Dafuq does Trump know about liberty let alone "protecting it", LOL.

Holy fucking shit thats funny.

Early entry for most insane statement RPFs 2019.

[Swordsmyth]

"Protect liberty"???

WTF are you talking about?

Dafuq does Trump know about liberty let alone "protecting it", LOL.

Holy $#@!ing $#@! thats funny.

Early entry for most insane statement RPFs 2019.
Gorsuch is the best Justice on the court and while Kavanaugh is not nearly so good he is an improvement over Kennedy who probably only agreed to retire in return for getting to help pick his replacement.

[Swordsmyth]

While Napolitano begins with saying what he thinks Adam Schiff is thinking, he makes his own statement:


Napolitano went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.

Video at link: Fox’s Judge Napolitano: ‘There Is Something There’ on Conspiracy in Mueller Report


So, in those 700 pages or two million pages, there must be some allegation in there that makes Trump guilty of something which cannot be proven. Therefore, anyone accused is guilty unless they can prove otherwise.

F*** this guy. Did Fox send him to a re-education camp or something?
...

[Swordsmyth]

...


Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law

by Judge Andrew Napolitano


Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.


The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a "sanctuary city," and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.


Who is correct?


The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term "sanctuary city" is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.


Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.


During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.


The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.


Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. In the post-World War II era, Congress began purchasing state compliance with its wishes in areas that the Constitution did not permit it to regulate. Stated differently, since Congress can spend money on any matter it wishes, as long as it is arguably for the general welfare, but it cannot regulate for the general welfare, it has used its power of the purse as a way around the constitutional limitations on its regulatory powers.


This is legalized bribery of the states.


In the Reagan administration, Congress offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to repave federal highways if the states lowered their maximum speed limits to 55 miles per hour. South Dakota objected. Its government wanted the federal cash for the highway repaving but did not want to lower its speed limits.


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the feds. It held that South Dakota is free to reject federal dollars, but if it accepts them, it must accept the strings that accompany them, as long as those strings are clearly spelled out before the cash flows and rationally related to the expenditure of the federal funds. Because repaving highways and the maximum speeds that vehicles would travel on them were rationally related, South Dakota had to choose between its cherished liberal speed limits and federal cash. No surprise, it chose the cash.


Now back to sanctuary cities. When the Obama administration offered Chicago and other cities cash to purchase new police communication equipment, it attached strings to those offers -- but compliance with federal immigration authorities was not among them. Chicago's complaints about DOJ threats are constitutionally sound because federal strings can be imposed only by Congress and they cannot be imposed retroactively.


Thus, federal funds awarded in the Obama administration without the string of cooperation with immigration authorities attached may not be interfered with by the Trump administration. If the feds do withhold committed funds that lack a cooperation condition attached, a court will invalidate that withholding.


Is the refusal to cooperate with the feds a form of nullification? In a word, yes. Federal law is superior to local law in areas that are primarily or exclusively federal, and immigration is unambiguously federal. Yet having pockets throughout the country without local cooperation with the feds fosters what the courts have called "laboratories of democracy."


Stated differently, if the local government in Manhattan or Chicago or Seattle aggressively protects undocumented immigrants who live there in return for the purchasing power and cultural diversity that immigrants bring, that may relieve social and legal pressure on governments elsewhere and will be a social experiment -- a laboratory of democracy -- worthy of cultural and political scrutiny and perhaps even indifference when it comes to the feds.


Many Trump supporters see in the president a champion who will rid the country of those they see as unlawfully here, and they also see in liberal big-city mayors politicians pandering to interest groups. But there is a rich history to federalism, and there are two sides to its coin. The rich history is that of state and local resistance to the tyranny of the majority in Washington -- a resistance as old as the country itself. The refusal of Massachusetts authorities to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act comes to mind.


The other side of the coin is unthinkable to my conservative brethren. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president along with a Democratic Congress and it had offered state and local governments federal funds with strings attached requiring cities to make abortions available on demand, they all would be whistling a very different and very federalism-based tune.



https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2017/08/10/sanctuary-cities-and-the-rule-of-law-n2366474




Judge swamp strikes again.


O'Bummer is no longer President and Trump may undo what O'Bummer did.

[timosman]

Does the Judge post on RPF as Superfluous Man? :confused:

[Swordsmyth]

Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano Says Mueller Report ‘Might Be Enough to Prosecute’ Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-andrew-napolitano-says-132825361.html)

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Ask me again in 6 years.


Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano Says Mueller Report ‘Might Be Enough to Prosecute’ Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-andrew-napolitano-says-132825361.html)



Six or sixty, it ain't happening now. Never was, really, let's be real.

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYItygwh9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYItygwh9I

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYItygwh9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYItygwh9I
:rolleyes:

[timosman]

The Judge linked to McCain and Mittens? :D

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/backstabbers_cartoon.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

The Judge linked to McCain and Mittens? :D

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/backstabbers_cartoon.jpg
Qweers stick together.

[Cap]

Qweers stick together.May I suggest you two get a room.

[Swordsmyth]

Fox News Legal Analyst Unloads On Trump: ‘Unlawful, Defenseless And Condemnable’ (https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-napolitano-criminal-trump-033022943.html)


In a column on the Fox News website and in an accompanying video, Napolitano lit into Trump’s claim that he was exonerated by the Mueller report.
“Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump,” Napolitano wrote, and listed them:






Andrew Napolitano seems to off his relies again by attacking Trump and claiming that were at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump even though in the report doesn't show that.

Andrew Napolitano used to be the voice of sane, but now his behaving like a sellout....

[Swordsmyth]

The attorney general’s testimony was clearly accurate...

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/barr_3.jpg
I originally thought this was too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague inside the Beltway — one person catches it and next thing you know there’s an outbreak at MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic chickens around Capitol Hill.
So I give you: the Bill Barr perjury allegation.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. But are we entitled to our own facts? Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s bon mot says no, but Washington makes you wonder. Like when spleen-venting about the supposedly outrageous, unbelievable, disgraceful invocation of the word “spy” to describe episodes of government spying is instantly followed by a New York Times story (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html) about how the spying — er, I mean, court-authorized electronic surveillance — coupled with the tasking of spies — er, undercover agents — green-lighted by a foreign spy — er, intelligence service — was more widespread than previously known.
If I were a cynic, I’d think people were trying to get out in front of some embarrassing revelations on the horizon. I might even be tempted to speculate that progressives were trotting out their “Destroy Ken Starr” template for Barr deployment (which, I suppose, means that 20 years from now we’ll be reading about what a straight-arrow Barr was compared to whomever Democrats are savaging at that point).
The claim that Barr gave false testimony is frivolous. That is why, at least initially, Democrats and their media echo chamber soft-pedaled it — with such dishonorable exceptions as Mazie Horono, the Hawaii Democrat who, somehow, is a United States senator. It’s tough to make the perjury argument without any false or even inaccurate statements — though my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano did give it the old college try. As recounted by The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/441654-fox-news-legal-analyst-says-barr-probably-misled-the-house-in-prior-testimony), he twisted himself into a pretzel, observing — try to follow this — that the attorney general “probably misled” Congress and thus “he’s got a problem” . . . although this purported dissembling didn’t really seem to be, you know, an actual “lie” so . . . maybe it’s not a problem after all. Or something.
I assume that in his black-robe days, Judge Nap would have known better. When meritless perjury cases are thrown out of court, judges are often at pains to explain that the questioner who elicited the purportedly false testimony bears the burden of clarity; the terms of the question dictate the evaluation of the answer. In this instance, Barr’s April 9 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee was true and accurate; if a misimpression set in after, it is because the relevant questioning by Representative Charlie Crist (D., Fla.) has been ignored or distorted.
Moreover, because perjury is a serious felony allegation, judges and legal analysts never rely on a general, selectively couched description of the testimony — much less on the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s because-I-said-so refrain (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/nancy-pelosi-william-barr-lied-to-congress-1298314) that Barr “lied to Congress” and “that’s a crime.” The testimony must be examined, with emphasis on the words that were used (the questions as well as the responses), and anything we can glean about the witness’s demeanor (stingy? dodgy? forthcoming?).
The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way Barr’s March 24 letter (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5779688/AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate.pdf) described Mueller’s report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why Mueller was upset because he had received the latter’s March 27 letter (https://int.********/data/documenthelper/796-mueller-letter-to-barr/02499959cbfa313c36d4/optimized/full.pdf) complaining about Barr’s missive.
Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics highlighting key portions:

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.
When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.
Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about.
Barr has known Mueller for nearly 30 years; when Mueller was the Criminal Division chief in the Bush 41 Justice Department, he reported to Barr, who was attorney general. It should come as no surprise, then, that Barr was not getting his information from Mueller’s staff; he was getting it from Mueller directly. Nor should it come as any surprise that, before releasing his March 24 letter to the public, Barr gave Mueller an opportunity to review it; nor that Mueller declined that opportunity — given that he knows Barr well, and knew Barr would not misrepresent the report (especially given that the report would soon be public).
Three days after Barr announced the report’s conclusions, Mueller sent his letter, undoubtedly written by his staff. Mueller could simply have called Barr on the phone, as he has done a million times; but the staff’s partisan Democrats wanted a letter, which makes for much better leak material. (The letter was, in fact, strategically leaked to the Washington Post Tuesday night, right before Barr’s Wednesday morning Senate testimony.) The day after receiving Mueller’s March 27 letter, Barr called Mueller and pointedly asked whether he was claiming that Barr’s March 24 letter articulating Mueller’s findings was inaccurate. Mueller responded that he was making no such claim — he was, instead, irritated by the press coverage of Barr’s letter. Mueller suggested the publication of additional information from the report, including the report’s own executive summaries, to explain more about why he decided not to resolve the obstruction issue. But he did not claim Barr had misrepresented his findings. (See Barr’s Senate testimony (https://www.c-span.org/video/?459922-1/william-barr-testifies-mueller-report-senate-judiciary-committee&playEvent&start=1586), starting at 39-minute mark.)
Again, Barr’s contact was with Mueller, not Mueller’s team. His exchanges with Mueller gave Barr no basis to know about any objection to his description of the report’s findings — from Mueller or anyone else. The fact that Mueller’s staff was leaking like a sieve (https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18294547/mueller-barr-leaks-new-york-times) to the Times, the Washington Post, and NBC News does not mean they were sharing with the attorney general what the Times described as “their simmering frustrations.”
That is what Barr said in answer to Crist’s question about the report’s findings. But to avoid the misimpression that he was parsing words deceptively, Barr volunteered his perception that Mueller’s staff wanted more information from the report to be publicized. That was consistent with what can be inferred from Barr’s phone call with Mueller on March 28. And it was not news: Crist’s questions were based on the aforementioned press accounts of leaks from Mueller’s staffers. They were irked at the bad press they were receiving over Mueller’s abdication on the question whether there was a prosecutable obstruction case, and they had groused that there was much more to their report than Barr’s letter conveyed. Of course, Barr never disputed this; as he repeatedly explained, he undertook to render the conclusions, not summarize the entire 448-page report.
Barr decided that his way of making disclosure — the findings followed three weeks later by the full report — was superior to the proposal of Mueller’s staff that their own summaries be released. You can disagree with Barr on that, but that’s not grounds for a perjury claim. And it raises a point Barr made in his Senate testimony: The regulations do not require any disclosure of the special counsel’s report (which is supposed to be a confidential Justice Department document, as is typical of Justice Department deliberations over whether to charge or decline to charge). The decision of what, if anything, to disclose, and how that should be done, is exclusively the attorney general’s, not the special counsel’s. Mueller’s job was to make a prosecutorial judgment — to charge or decline to charge obstruction. Mueller failed to do that. Since Mueller didn’t do his own job, isn’t it a bit presumptuous of his staff (through press leaks) to tell Barr how to do his?
Could what happened here be more obvious?
Mueller received fawning press for two years on the expectation that he would slay Trump. Then, on March 24, Democrats and the media learned not only that there was no collusion case (which was no surprise) but that Mueller had been derelict, failing to render a judgment on the only question he was arguably needed to resolve: Was there enough evidence to charge obstruction? Journalists proceeded to turn on their erstwhile hero. This sent him reeling, and it brought to full boil the anger of Mueller staffers, who wanted to charge Trump with obstruction based on the creative (i.e., wayward) theory they had been pursuing — namely, that a president can be indicted for obstruction based on the exercise of his constitutional prerogatives if prosecutors (including prosecutors who are active supporters of the president’s political opposition) decide he had corrupt intent. The staffers put their pique in a letter that could be leaked, and Mueller was sufficiently irked by the bad press that he signed it. And now Democrats are using the letter as the launch-pad for The Big Lie that Barr lied, calculating that if they say it enough times, and their media collaborators uncritically broadcast these declarations, no one will notice that they never actually refer to the transcript of what they claim is the false testimony.

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/mrz050519-color-1-5-mb_1_orig.jpg

Democrats are unnerved. Attorney General Barr is pursuing an inquiry into the Obama administration’s decision to conduct a foreign counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. The time is now, they figure, to reprise the Ken Starr treatment: the ad hominem withering of an accomplished, highly capable official — in this instance, one who is daring to press questions that would have been answered two years ago if an incumbent Republican administration had spied on — er, monitored — a Democratic presidential campaign.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-05/big-lie-barr-lied

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump is a neocon puppet now, and the neocons are levying their death blow to the left, and to opposition in general.
It is the only way they get the world war III they want so bad. Destroy the opposition.
As I said before, if Bernie wins, they'll false flag, and blame him for not keeping the country safe.
Now, how in the hell the left, with all the real, wikileaks level evidence, survive a neocon attack, with neocon judges?
And whats left of the left, will be able to raise how much of a cry, when America gets dragged into WW III? WTF, I love the Russians now?

On one side is the murderous warmongering elite, and on the other side the sexually depraved and blackmailed elite.



I don't know if it is one of the videos Youtube took down but when talking about Kavanaugh he said he was surprised what the FBI dug up on him.(Napolitano)
If he wasn't a sleeper who has been activated because Trump won then he is being blackmailed.


EM.

B-word allegations, theories and claims have been getting bit out of hand lately, perhaps Congress needs to take notice and completely ban its use as a political tactic or make punishment for it as harsh as things like hate crimes to deter its use.

It was recently reported that some on Far Right even subscribed to theories that MAGA himself was being blackmailed, without providing any proof:

PA Synagogue shooter Bowers shared anti-semitic meme suggesting President Trump was being blackmailed by Jewish interests (https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/repost.png)




Related

“Morning Joe” co-hosts claim that Jared Kushner attempted to blackmail them
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?524380-Leaked-Netanyahu-Tape-((WE))-Made-Trump-Cancel-the-Iran-Deal&p=6676416&viewfull=1#post6676416)“Kushner told Scarborough that he would need to personally apologize to Trump in exchange for getting Enquirerowner David Pecker to stop the story,” Sherman wrote. “Scarborough says he refused, and the Enquirer published the story (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-affair/)in print on June 5, headlined ‘Morning Joe Sleazy Cheating Scandal!'”
Jared Kushner Told ‘Morning Joe': Apologize to Trump to Kill National Enquirer Story (Report) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?524380-Leaked-Netanyahu-Tape-((WE))-Made-Trump-Cancel-the-Iran-Deal&p=6676416&viewfull=1#post6676416)

Jared Kushner's dad tried to blackmail his brother-in-law and set up a honey trap in a motel room—fully equipped with video cameras—and paid a prostitute $10,000 (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/207559/jared-kushner-shanda)
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/207559/jared-kushner-shanda

Jeff Bezos Claims the National Enquirer Tried to Blackmail Him With Nude Selfie (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531268-Jeff-Bezos-Claims-the-National-Enquirer-Tried-to-Blackmail-Him-With-Nude-Selfie&)

Terry Crews sex assault claim: Did Enquirer use blackmail to protect pro-Israel figure? (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/terry-crews-claims-national-enquirer-owner-tried-to-silence-him-with-false-prostitutes-stories)
Terry Crews claims National Enquirer owner tried to ‘silence’ him with false prostitutes stories

RONAN FARROW CLAIMS NATIONAL ENQUIRER ATTEMPTED TO BLACKMAIL HIM (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/ronan-farrow-claims-national-enquierer-attempted-to-blackmail-him)
The Enquirer last month accused Bezos of having an extra-marital affair with former TV anchor Lauren Sanchez. Bezos claims AMI leveled the blackmail threat if he didn’t end an investigation into the company and its alleged political ties.
Journalist Ronan Farrow said Friday he and another journalist have been threatened by the National Enquirer for breaking stories about the tabloid’s ties to President Trump. Pecker’s friendship with Trump goes back decades.

Harvey Weinstein used ex Mossad Israeli agents to spy on actresses and journalists (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5056745/Weinstein-used-army-spies-dirt-accusers.html)


19 Mar 2018
Trump's election consultants filmed saying they use bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians (https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation)
Channel 4 News
An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News reveals how Cambridge Analytica secretly campaigns in elections across the world. Bosses were filmed talking about using bribes, ex-spies, fake IDs and sex workers.
The company is at the centre of a scandal over its role in the harvesting of more than 50 million Facebook profiles.
https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531268-Jeff-Bezos-Claims-the-National-Enquirer-Tried-to-Blackmail-Him-With-Nude-Selfie&)Mueller refers sex misconduct scheme targeting him to FBI for investigation (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-refers-sex-assault-scheme-targeting-him-fbi-investigation-n926301)
Oct. 30, 2018By Brandy Zadrozny, Ben Collins and Tom Winter
Special counsel Robert Mueller last week asked the FBI to investigate a possible scam in which a woman would make false claims that he was guilty of sexual misconduct and harassment, after several political reporters were contacted about doing a story on the alleged misconduct.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-refers-sex-assault-scheme-targeting-him-fbi-investigation-n926301

Firm Linked to Israeli Intelligence Ran Pro-Trump Propaganda
Oct 10, 2018 - According to the NYT, Special Counsel Robert Mueller who ... had been revealed that Trump's team hired another Israeli spy firm – Black Cube.

Israeli spies tried to get dirt on Obama aides tied to the Iran deal (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/7/17327278/ben-rhodes-black-cube-iran-deal)
May 7, 2018 - Black Cube, a secretive Israeli intelligence firm enlisted by disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein to undermine women who made ...

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did Attorney General William Barr deceive Congress? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534707-Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-Did-Attorney-General-William-Barr-deceive-Congress)

[johnwk]

The judge is a friend of liberty!

We can only hope Trump has a chance to appoint him as a Supreme Court Justice!



Does "Liberty", in your opinion, allow ignoring the law and constitutional limitations?

JWK

[Swordsmyth]

"To Impeach or Not to Impeach" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534849-quot-To-Impeach-or-Not-to-Impeach-quot)

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhme-U-lcVI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbswCOpAUa8
...

[Swordsmyth]

Napolitano: The Feds Violate their Own Laws (and the Constitution) with Border Separations (https://mises.org/wire/napolitano-feds-violate-their-own-laws-and-constitution-border-separations)

https://mises.org/wire/napolitano-feds-violate-their-own-laws-and-constitution-border-separations

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The tone of the debate over the nation’s immigration laws has taken an ugly turn as some office-seekers offer solutions to problems that don’t exist.

The natural rights of all persons consist of areas of human behavior for which we do not need and will not accept the need for a government permission slip.

We all expect that the government will leave us alone when we think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, enter our homes, choose our mates or travel. The list of natural rights is endless.

We expect this not because we are Americans, but because we are persons and these rights are integral to our nature. We expect this in America because the Constitution was written to restrain the government from interfering with natural rights.

When these first principles are violated to advance a political cause or to quell public fear, those whose rights are violated because of an immutable characteristic of birth, not because of personal culpability, become the victims of ugly public indifference or official government repression. The American history of government treatment of Africans and their offspring and the European history of government treatment of the Jewish people are poignant and terrible examples of this.

Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism — we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first — is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution underscore the truism that all persons have the same natural rights, irrespective of where their mothers were when they delivered them.


The right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The court protects natural rights
by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them, absent due process.

The high bar is called strict scrutiny. It requires that the government demonstrate an articulated area of jurisdiction and a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive alternative before it can treat a person differently or uniquely because of his or her place of birth. A compelling state interest is one that is necessary to preserve life or the state’s existence, and it must be addressed using the least force and causing the least interference with personal liberty possible.

This test was written so as to give the government wiggle room in a crisis and to make it intentionally difficult — nearly impossible — to write laws that apply only to discrete groups when membership in them is determined by birth.

But the Constitution itself — from which all federal powers derive — does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.

Thus, when the government’s motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, the laws will be upheld. But when the government’s motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will operate to defeat those laws.

Shortly after the first federal immigration statute was enacted in the 1880s — the Chinese Exclusion Act — the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are persons, and the Constitution protects all persons from governmental deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process.

In the same era, the court held that all babies born here of alien mothers are citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…” Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.

Some well-intended folks have argued that the language “all persons” doesn’t really mean “all” because it is modified by “and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States).” But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government — like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not — and cannot — impose an intent requirement upon infants.

My guess is that nearly “all persons” reading this are beneficiaries of this clause because they — you — were born here.

When the history of our times is written, it might relate that the majority repressed the rights of minorities by demonizing them using appeals to group prejudice — by blaming entire ethnic groups for the criminal behavior of some few members of those groups.

That history might reflect that this was done for short-term political gain.

If that happens, it will have changed America far more radically and dangerously than any wave of undocumented immigrants did.

And that would be profoundly and perhaps irreparably un-American.


By Andrew P. Napolitano

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-give-governm/ (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/andrew-napolitano-constitution-doesnt-give-governm/)


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.

[Sonny Tufts]

"But the Constitution itself — from which all federal powers derive — does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization."

Maybe it does:

1. Commerce Clause -- was this the source of Congress' authority to prohibit the slave trade after 1807?

2. Law of Nations Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10). See https://i2i.org/where-congresss-power-to-regulate-immigration-comes-from/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/21/congress-power-to-define-and-punish-violations-of-the-law-of-nations-does-not-give-it-authority-over-immigration/ for opposing views

[Swordsmyth]

Then he condemned hate. Do you believe his condemnations? He has, after all, praised the white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as "good people," even though one of them pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a young black woman, and even though, as a candidate and later as president, he argued that the southwest United States was being "invaded" and "infested" by Hispanics.


That white supremacy ideology — "let's repel the Hispanic invaders because the feds won't do so" — resonates in the El Paso killer's manifesto, which he published about 20 minutes before he began killing. That ideology is far more widespread than most Americans realize. The FBI recently demonstrated as much. This form of hatred of people because of their immutable characteristics breeds violence.


More at: http://www.judgenap.com/post/a-few-w...rsonal-liberty (http://www.judgenap.com/post/a-few-words-about-guns-and-personal-liberty)

[Stratovarious]

Then he condemned hate. Do you believe his condemnations? He has, after all, praised the white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as "good people," even though one of them pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a young black woman, and even though, as a candidate and later as president, he argued that the southwest United States was being "invaded" and "infested" by Hispanics.


That white supremacy ideology — "let's repel the Hispanic invaders because the feds won't do so" — resonates in the El Paso killer's manifesto, which he published about 20 minutes before he began killing. That ideology is far more widespread than most Americans realize. The FBI recently demonstrated as much. This form of hatred of people because of their immutable characteristics breeds violence.


More at: http://www.judgenap.com/post/a-few-w...rsonal-liberty (http://www.judgenap.com/post/a-few-words-about-guns-and-personal-liberty)

Clearly appears that the Judge whom I respected for years, is on a mission, a personal
vendetta of some kind, he is morphing into Judge Andrew CNN.

And as you know, I'm pretty much done with Trump , but Nap is off the cliff, to the point he will take
anything out of context that he can grab and mold it into his own creation, to fit his agenda.

[Swordsmyth]

Clearly appears that the Judge whom I respected for years, is on a mission, a personal
vendetta of some kind, he is morphing into Judge Andrew CNN.

And as you know, I'm pretty much done with Trump , but Nap is off the cliff, to the point he will take
anything out of context that he can grab and mold it into his own creation, to fit his agenda.
I would be disgusted with Judge Swamp if I hated Trump's guts.

He has thrown all principle out the window.

[Stratovarious]

I would be disgusted with Judge Swamp if I hated Trump's guts.

He has thrown all principle out the window.

I believe that , I realize you still support Trump and I get that , the good thing imv is that both
of us are honest enough to call blsht where we see it, regardless of our 'loyalty' , pure,blind loyalty
is a dangerous thing.

[Swordsmyth]

I believe that , I realize you still support Trump and I get that , the good thing imv is that both
of us are honest enough to call blsht where we see it, regardless of our 'loyalty' , pure,blind loyalty
is a dangerous thing.
Trump is hanging by a thread over gun control.
Oddly enough Rand is too.
:frog:

[Stratovarious]

Trump is hanging by a thread over gun control.
Oddly enough Rand is too.
:frog:
These are interesting times aren't they, Rand , who would have guessed, of course ,
oddly enough this may justify or support the dozens of times I've stated that Rand is no Ron.

Ron in his day was 1000% Rand , not quite there, this reminds also of what a pos imv, Trey Gowdy
turned out to be, I raved about him until I found out that the only thing in his tool kit was a lot of wit and a big bark, NO ACTION.

[Swordsmyth]

These are interesting times aren't they, Rand , who would have guessed, of course ,
oddly enough this may justify or support the dozens of times I've stated that Rand is no Ron.

Ron in his day was 1000% Rand , not quite there, this reminds also of what a pos imv, Trey Gowdy
turned out to be, I raved about him until I found out that the only thing in his tool kit was a lot of wit and a big bark, NO ACTION.
You don't ever know who's got impurities until the heat melts them.

[Stratovarious]

You don't ever know who's got impurities until the heat melts them.

:up: :clap: :clap: Love it, of course I'm a tad less poetic,; the fkrs are sellouts!!
They've been bought out, sold out, or scared out.....


:frog:

[specsaregood]

Trump is hanging by a thread over gun control.
Oddly enough Rand is too.
:frog:

Randal isn't going to vote for any Red Flag laws, this is just his long held tactic of sounding reasonable in order to make the opposition sound crazy.

[Swordsmyth]

Randal isn't going to vote for any Red Flag laws, this is just his long held tactic of sounding reasonable in order to make the opposition sound crazy.
I hope so, just like I hope that Trump is doing the same thing but I vehemently disagree with the tactic because it is moving the overton window towards the enemy.

[susano]

March 21, 2017

Trump's support -- calling Napolitano a "very talented lawyer" -- came after Napolitano went on Fox and repeatedly relayed information from anonymous sources about former President Obama using the British to spy on Trump.

Napolitano's TV segments were used by the White House to give the president a boost, but the explosive claims were strongly denied by American and British authorities. And Fox's own news anchors disavowed Napolitano's claims.

He has occasionally been a subject of the news himself. Shortly before inauguration day, Napolitano had a one-on-one meeting with Trump about Supreme Court nomination possibilities.

https://money.cnnpc.com/2017/03/20/media/andrew-napolitano-fox-news/index.html

From flat out stating that a foreign agent was used to spy on Trump to a 180, calling for Trump's impeachment and a steady stream of "that's racist" venom. Is this sour grapes over not getting a SCOTUS position? Threatened (or blackmailed) by intel agencies? His about face after the suspension from Fox has been nothing short of Orwellian. Something is seriously wrong with this guy.

[susano]

I hope so, just like I hope that Trump is doing the same thing but I vehemently disagree with the tactic because it is moving the overton window towards the enemy.

Rush Limbaugh has been the only one to call this "white supremacist" BS for what it is - FICTION. In my entire life, I have never met one and I've know my fair share of rednecks. Funny the liberty judge has fvck all to say about the very serious threat of Antifa, a communist army of violent radicals.

[Swordsmyth]

March 21, 2017

Trump's support -- calling Napolitano a "very talented lawyer" -- came after Napolitano went on Fox and repeatedly relayed information from anonymous sources about former President Obama using the British to spy on Trump.

Napolitano's TV segments were used by the White House to give the president a boost, but the explosive claims were strongly denied by American and British authorities. And Fox's own news anchors disavowed Napolitano's claims.

He has occasionally been a subject of the news himself. Shortly before inauguration day, Napolitano had a one-on-one meeting with Trump about Supreme Court nomination possibilities.

https://money.cnnpc.com/2017/03/20/media/andrew-napolitano-fox-news/index.html

From flat out stating that a foreign agent was used to spy on Trump to a 180, calling for Trump's impeachment and a steady stream of "that's racist" venom. Is this sour grapes over not getting a SCOTUS position? Threatened (or blackmailed) by intel agencies? His about face after the suspension from Fox has been nothing short of Orwellian. Something is seriously wrong with this guy.
He said he was amazed about what the FBI dug up about him when they did a background check, I think he has some dirt (probably sexual since he's a qweer) and is succumbing to blackmail.

[Swordsmyth]

Rush Limbaugh has been the only one to call this "white supremacist" BS for what it is - FICTION. In my entire life, I have never met one and I've know my fair share of rednecks. Funny the liberty judge has fvck all to say about the very serious threat of Antifa, a communist army of violent radicals.
Tucker said it was a hoax too.

Not attacking AntiFa is a huge red flag.

[susano]

Tucker said it was a hoax too.

Not attacking AntiFa is a huge red flag.

Yes, and thanks for that correction. Tucker, too. It infuriates me that someone advised Trump (probably that idiot daughter) to get out there and condemn something that doesn't exist. The non existence of white supremacy is what Trump should have addressed. As you point out, Overton Window and Trump allowed another false narrative to get some legs by giving it oxygen.

I agree that Nap must have been blackmailed. He makes me sick.

[kahless]

I hope so, just like I hope that Trump is doing the same thing but I vehemently disagree with the tactic because it is moving the overton window towards the enemy.

^Exactly this

[susano]

Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano walked back statements he made earlier this week that former FBI director James Comey broke the law when he shared memos he wrote about meetings with the president. "I jumped the gun here the other day," he told the hosts of Fox & Friends.

"This may not be too popular here, but I thought Comey was pretty compelling last night with Anderson Cooper," Napolitano said.

"Not all leaks are criminal," Napolitano continued. "If it’s not classified it’s not criminal."

"At the time this occurred — by this I mean, Professor Richman reading to selected members of the media, selected nonclassified portions of one of the memos — Jim Comey was a private citizen," Napolitano said.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/26/judge_andrew_napolitano_i_jumped_the_gun_saying_co mey_broke_the_law.html


What a weasel. I'm pretty sure that notes from an official and private security briefing with the president, at the time that Comey was the director of the FBI, which he admits he leaked to predicate the appointment of a special counsel, constitutes government business, not "private citizen" whatever. Nap is a liar.

[Stratovarious]

Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano walked back statements he made earlier this week that former FBI director James Comey broke the law when he shared memos he wrote about meetings with the president. "I jumped the gun here the other day," he told the hosts of Fox & Friends.

"This may not be too popular here, but I thought Comey was pretty compelling last night with Anderson Cooper," Napolitano said.

"Not all leaks are criminal," Napolitano continued. "If it’s not classified it’s not criminal."

"At the time this occurred — by this I mean, Professor Richman reading to selected members of the media, selected nonclassified portions of one of the memos — Jim Comey was a private citizen," Napolitano said.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/26/judge_andrew_napolitano_i_jumped_the_gun_saying_co mey_broke_the_law.html


What a weasel. I'm pretty sure that notes from an official and private security briefing with the president, at the time that Comey was the director of the FBI, which he admits he leaked to predicate the appointment of a special counsel, constitutes government business, not "private citizen" whatever. Nap is a liar.

I voiced my opposition to anything Nap says, several months ago , none stop, I idolized Nap, I don't trust him
now as far as you could throw him.

I also jumped off the Trump train when he started putting Israel first ahead of America, ignoring their war crimes,
cutting off poor south American countries while continuing to allow Billions to Israel.
I was a huge supporter of Trump, when he failed to see Hillary to Prison , I started to watch him, Hilary never
goes to Prison under anyone's authority, we are all lied to and cheated constantly.

[Stratovarious]

Rush Limbaugh has been the only one to call this "white supremacist" BS for what it is - FICTION. In my entire life, I have never met one and I've know my fair share of rednecks. Funny the liberty judge has fvck all to say about the very serious threat of Antifa, a communist army of violent radicals.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to susano again.

[susano]

I voiced my opposition to anything Nap says, several months ago , none stop, I idolized Nap, I don't trust him
now as far as you could throw him.

I also jumped off the Trump train when he started putting Israel first ahead of America, ignoring their war crimes,
cutting off poor south American countries while continuing to allow Billions to Israel.
I was a huge supporter of Trump, when he failed to see Hillary to Prison , I started to watch him, Hilary never
goes to Prison under anyone's authority, we are all lied to and cheated constantly.

My Trump support began with his attack on political correctness. That has had a big effect and it matters because PC is cultural Marxism. He's done some other good things but has lots to dislike (Israel, Saudi scum - Tulsi is right on Al Qaeda) but, as it stands it's Trump or Satan. It's not like we're gonna have Thomas Massey for president so what then? It will be a full blown neocon/neolib commie POS or Trump.

[Stratovarious]

My Trump support began with his attack on political correctness. That has had a big effect and it matters because PC is cultural Marxism. He's done some other good things but has lots to dislike (Israel, Saudi scum - Tulsi is right on Al Qaeda) but, as it stands it's Trump or Satan. It's not like we're gonna have Thomas Massey for president so what then? It will be a full blown neocon/neolib commie POS or Trump.


Indeed , PC is a horrible disease.

I could right a lengthy book on why I supported Trump for 2 plus years, I was one of the most
vocal youtube supporters, till I was life banned.
I'm sure we shared mostly the same reasons for supporting Trump, I just had no idea that he would;


Lie about his intentions to see Hillary in Prison ( ''she's a nice person'')
Russia gate would have never happened had Trump done what we expected him to do
regarding Hillary , R G was a preemptive strike that had to work and it did, it was
purely a Hillary Shield. Still I don't believe Trump was honest about Hillary , I think
he had an agreement with her camp during or ahead of the election. RG just made
sure the agreement would stick.

Continue to allow the Patriot Act

Talk up DHS and TSA

Bootlick Israel, ignore their War Crimes , and thievery, cut off poor Nations
while continuing to send Israel, a very rich Nation billions , it
could easily be argued that the real capital of the US is Israel.

Promise but fail to see to it that the IRS Code be simplified

Chip away at the 2nd amendment, and support the deletion of Due Process


End Obamacare


/

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Napolitano Says Trump Ukraine Debacle Most Serious Charge He's Faced In Office (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?539470-Judge-Napolitano-Says-Trump-Ukraine-Debacle-Most-Serious-Charge-He-s-Faced-In-Office)

[kahless]

dupe

[timosman]

Judge Napolitano Says Trump Ukraine Debacle Most Serious Charge He's Faced In Office (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?539470-Judge-Napolitano-Says-Trump-Ukraine-Debacle-Most-Serious-Charge-He-s-Faced-In-Office)

Judge the Clairvoyant. :tears:

[timosman]

https://twitter.com/vanniekeeling/status/1178825246230614017

1178825246230614017

[Swordsmyth]

https://twitter.com/vanniekeeling/status/1178825246230614017

1178825246230614017
"Fool" is being charitable.

[Swordsmyth]

Democrats have a new impeachment hero: Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?543251-Democrats-have-a-new-impeachment-hero-Fox-News-analyst-Andrew-Napolitano)

[Swordsmyth]

In an op-ed for Fox News published this Thursday, Judge Andrew Napolitano writes that he was appalled at the revelations inside a report from The Atlantic that said President Trump disparaged U.S. service members and war dead. At the same time, he wasn't surprised since he's been a friend of Trump's since 1987.
"To be Trump's friend does not immunize one from Trump's wrath," Napolitano writes. "On the contrary, he expects total loyalty, particularly from those in the media, and he will not hesitate to attack his friends publicly should he hear anything from them that displeases him."
Napolitano says that while he's loyal to his friends, he's first and foremost loyal to the truth. According to him, it "appears more likely than not" that Trump did indeed slander American military service members.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-judge-andrew-napolitano-180321744.html

[Swordsmyth]

Now we know what the FBI dug up on him:

Judge Nap sued for sexual assault (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?549176-Judge-Nap-sued-for-sexual-assault)

[Swordsmyth]

Bump for those with short memories.

[Swordsmyth]

Bump for those with short memories.

[vita3]

Bump cause Trump still sucks

[devil21]

Now we know what the FBI dug up on him:

Judge Nap sued for sexual assault (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?549176-Judge-Nap-sued-for-sexual-assault)

Are you going to update this or just leave it open-ended and hope no one looks for the result of the suit?

[acptulsa]

Are you going to update this or just leave it open-ended and hope no one looks for the result of the suit?

It'll be interesting to see, won't it?

[CCTelander]

It'll be interesting to see, won't it?


Interesting? Maybe to some. For myself, completely predictable outcomes coming to pass exactly as predicted is not usually all that interesting. Kind of boring, in fact. YWWV

[Swordsmyth]

Are you going to update this or just leave it open-ended and hope no one looks for the result of the suit?

I never saw an outcome.
Feel free to post a link.

But we all know that such things can be fixed for assets.
Unless you think Kevin Spacey is truly innocent.

Judge Swamp's lies and distortions to serve the impeachment agenda etc. speak for themselves along with his statement about the FBI digging things up, it doesn't really matter what the outcome of that case was, he is clearly a blackmail asset over something in his closet.

[Voluntarist]

Are you going to update this or just leave it open-ended and hope no one looks for the result of the suit?

I never saw an outcome.
Feel free to post a link.

From back in January (seems to be the same accusers)
Accusers Drop Suits Against Ex-Judge, Former Fox News Commentator Andrew Napolitano (https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2022/01/14/accusers-drop-suits-against-ex-judge-former-fox-news-commentator-andrew-napolitano/?slreturn=20220909092031)


Two men accusing former Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano of sexual assault have dropped their lawsuits against him, and his libel suit against one of his accusers has been withdrawn as well.

Neither side in the litigation is saying whether any cash changed hands as part of the withdrawal of their cases.

[acptulsa]

I never saw an outcome.

God forbid you let yourself be confused with facts.

[Swordsmyth]

From back in January (seems to be the same accusers)
Accusers Drop Suits Against Ex-Judge, Former Fox News Commentator Andrew Napolitano (https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2022/01/14/accusers-drop-suits-against-ex-judge-former-fox-news-commentator-andrew-napolitano/?slreturn=20220909092031)

Thanks.
That's not exactly telling us much in regards to what the FBI has on him.

[acptulsa]

Thanks.
That's not exactly telling us much in regards to what the FBI has on him.

It's not exactly giving us the tiniest mote of evidence whatsoever that the FBI has anything at all on him.

[Occam's Banana]

It's not exactly giving us the tiniest mote of evidence whatsoever that the FBI has anything at all on him.

Oh, they probably have quite a thick file on him - just as I am sure they do for any other notable persons who are as pro-liberty and critical of the feds as he is. I'm just not seeing why that should be held as a terrible strike against him, rather than as a glorious badge of honor.

[acptulsa]

Oh, they probably have quite a thick file on him - just as I am sure they do for any other notable persons who are as pro-liberty and critical of the feds as he is. I'm just not seeing why that should be held as a terrible strike against him, rather than as a glorious badge of honor.

It's a mystery to me.

I should have added, "...of substance..." Not that anyone who is still in "Trump lovers good, TDS bad" mode has any interest in substance.

[Occam's Banana]

I should have added, "...of substance..."

Even something "of substance" might only serve to enhance the glory, depending on what it is.


Not that anyone who is still in "Trump lovers good, TDS bad" mode has any interest in substance.

I don't even recall whether Napolitano was personally of the opinion that Trump ought to have been impeached, or whether he merely defended the position that Trump was impeachable under the circumstances as a matter of principle. Frankly, I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned - and this is not hyperbole - every POTUS since at least after Coolidge ought to have been impeached for some reason or another. Every. Single. One. Including Trump. (My sole complaint about Trump's impeachments is that, with the exception of Clinton, none of those others got the same treatment.)

But whatever one thinks of the issue, the idea that Napolitano should be regarded as some kind of compromised "controlled opposition" asset of the FBI merely because he offered disagreeable opinions or commentary on the issue of Trump's impeachment(s) is an absurd non sequitur. One of the best ways to get me to sympathize with someone is to assert (or even just suggest) that the FBI "has something" on them. After all, this is the FBI we're talking about - a gang of lying, grasping, opportunistic, and politically motivated latter-day Praetorians. I might disagree with, dislike, and/or oppose such a someone for other reasons, but merely having said things that are not in Trump's favor won't be among them. TDS is a real (and hugely - or yuuuugely - entertaining) thing, but a correct diagnosis of the condition requires a hell of a lot more than that.

[acptulsa]

As far as I'm concerned - and this is not hyperbole - every POTUS since at least after Coolidge ought to have been impeached for some reason or another. Every. Single. One. Including Trump. (My sole complaint about Trump's impeachments is that, with the exception of Clinton, none of those others got the same treatment.)

I know it isn't hyperbole, and I agree completely. And yes, indeed, he should have been impeached, but not for the garbage they impeached him for. Which is a recurring theme. Take Hunter Biden, for example--please. Tax evasion? Dude buys influence and diddles children, and the best you money grubbing thieves can do is tax evasion?

They're sending a message loud and clear. Justice is dead, but politics is alive and well.

[Occam's Banana]

[Trump] should have been impeached, but not for the garbage they impeached him for.

Same goes for Clinton.

Even on those extremely rare occasions when they do the right thing, they still manage to screw it up by doing it for the wrong reasons.


Take Hunter Biden, for example--please. Tax evasion? Dude buys influence and diddles children, and the best you money grubbing thieves can do is tax evasion?

And something about a gun. Don't forget that gun thing, too! That's very important.

[acptulsa]

Same goes for Clinton.

Even on those extremely rare occasions when they do the right thing, they still manage to screw it up by doing it for the wrong reasons.

Him, too. They came closer with Nixon, but I'd have had him shot for Bretton Woods II.


And something about a gun. Don't forget that gun thing, too! That's very important.

They're prosecuting him for pissing off Democrats. And it's one hell of an indictment of modern Democrats--to the extent that they really are okay with bribery and influence peddling with regard to fossil fuels, sex trafficking, doing the exact same drug your father proscribed life sentences for, and pedophilia.

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/FD855727-0D31-4BEF-B057-0EB29A7141D1.png?w=603&ssl=1

I guess it's more accurate to say he is being punished for not falling in lockstep with The Narrative, just like the Trump Brigade is trying to punish us for not conforming to That Other Narrative. Whatever. Ken Starr's Dog and Pony Show on steroids.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, they probably have quite a thick file on him - just as I am sure they do for any other notable persons who are as pro-liberty and critical of the feds as he is. I'm just not seeing why that should be held as a terrible strike against him, rather than as a glorious badge of honor.

The rest of this thread is a testament to their control of him.

[Swordsmyth]

Even something "of substance" might only serve to enhance the glory, depending on what it is.



I don't even recall whether Napolitano was personally of the opinion that Trump ought to have been impeached, or whether he merely defended the position that Trump was impeachable under the circumstances as a matter of principle. Frankly, I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned - and this is not hyperbole - every POTUS since at least after Coolidge ought to have been impeached for some reason or another. Every. Single. One. Including Trump. (My sole complaint about Trump's impeachments is that, with the exception of Clinton, none of those others got the same treatment.)

But whatever one thinks of the issue, the idea that Napolitano should be regarded as some kind of compromised "controlled opposition" asset of the FBI merely because he offered disagreeable opinions or commentary on the issue of Trump's impeachment(s) is an absurd non sequitur. One of the best ways to get me to sympathize with someone is to assert (or even just suggest) that the FBI "has something" on them. After all, this is the FBI we're talking about - a gang of lying, grasping, opportunistic, and politically motivated latter-day Praetorians. I might disagree with, dislike, and/or oppose such a someone for other reasons, but merely having said things that are not in Trump's favor won't be among them. TDS is a real (and hugely - or yuuuugely - entertaining) thing, but a correct diagnosis of the condition requires a hell of a lot more than that.

It was far worse than just saying he could be impeached.
He defended blatantly illegal actions by Congress and the DoJ after having said Hitlery would be immune to investigation when he thought she would win.

[acptulsa]

It was far worse than just saying he could be impeached.
He defended blatantly illegal actions by Congress and the DoJ...

Are you ever specific?


...after having said Hitlery would be immune to investigation when he thought she would win.

She lost, and still she was immune to investigation. So? That's Nap's fault? You just mad he was right?

[Occam's Banana]

The rest of this thread is a testament to their control of him.

The rest of this thread is just a litany of things you disagree with him about or dislike him for.

But your disdain does not serve as any kind of evidence that he is a compromised "controlled opposition" asset of the FBI.


It was far worse than just saying he could be impeached.
He defended blatantly illegal actions by Congress and the DoJ after having said Hitlery would be immune to investigation [...]

Those are merely legal opinions you don't like.

Unless you can identify some specific and particular contradiction(s) between the reasoning he gave for his position on impeachment of Trump vis-à-vis the reasoning he gave for his position on investigation of Hillary, then piling on the Hillary stuff is not "far worse" - it's just more of the same thing (namely, it's just another of his legal opinions you disagree with or don't like).

It is entirely possible to be critical of politically-motivated endeavors (such as impeachments and investigations) without necessarily opposing or supporting the targets of such endeavors. In fact, if one is more interested in consistently applying principle than in playing favorites, then it is quite likely - probably even inevitable - that sooner or later one will end up defending someone one otherwise opposes or criticizing someone one otherwise supports. IOW: It is entirely possible to have and to express legal opinions that partisans will find disagreeable without also being an FBI "asset". IOOW: There is no reason to think Napolitano expressed the opinions he did (however wrong you may think they are) because the FBI "has something" on him.


[...] when he thought she would win.

Did he reverse or significantly alter his opinion on any of those things after she lost?

If not, then he is merely being consistent, and there is no point in making such a distinction. It certainly isn't any kind of evidence that he is some sort of FBI-controlled "asset". There is no reason to think his assessments are anything other than his genuine opinions (however much you might disagree with or dislike them), and the qualifier you use here is nothing but sly, question-begging innuendo.

[Ender]

The rest of this thread is just a litany of things you disagree with him about or dislike him for.

But your disdain does not serve as any kind of evidence that he is a compromised "controlled opposition" asset of the FBI.



Those are merely legal opinions you don't like.

Unless you can identify some specific and particular contradiction(s) between the reasoning he gave for his position on impeachment of Trump vis-à-vis the reasoning he gave for his position on investigation of Hillary, then piling on the Hillary stuff is not "far worse" - it's just more of the same thing (namely, it's just another of his legal opinions you disagree with or don't like).

It is entirely possible to be critical of politically-motivated endeavors (such as impeachments and investigations) without necessarily opposing or supporting the targets of such endeavors. In fact, if one is more interested in consistently applying principle than in playing favorites, then it is quite likely - probably even inevitable - that sooner or later one will end up defending someone one otherwise opposes or criticizing someone one otherwise supports. IOW: It is entirely possible to have and to express disagreeable legal opinions without being an FBI "asset". IOOW: There is no reason to think Napolitano expressed the opinions he did (however wrong you may think they are) because the FBI "has something" on him.



Did he reverse or significantly alter his opinion on any of those things after she lost?

If not, then he is merely being consistent, and there is no point in making such a distinction. It certainly isn't any kind of evidence that he is some sort of FBI-controlled "asset". There is no reason to think his assessments are anything other than his genuine opinions (however much you might disagree with or dislike them), and the qualifier you use here is nothing but sly, question-begging innuendo.


THIS!

[Brian4Liberty]

Oh, they probably have quite a thick file on him - just as I am sure they do for any other notable persons who are as pro-liberty and critical of the feds as he is. I'm just not seeing why that should be held as a terrible strike against him, rather than as a glorious badge of honor.

No doubt. They have files on everyone of any significance. Three felonies a day, and if they don't have that, they can manufacture a violation of some sort. We have seen it in action for a long time.


The rest of this thread is just a litany of things you disagree with him about or dislike him for.

But your disdain does not serve as any kind of evidence that he is a compromised "controlled opposition" asset of the FBI.
...

Now that’s the hard part. We can safely assume they have dirt on everyone, the real question is have they changed their behavior or positions at all?

We do know that if someone does fight them head on (or refuse to play ball), they end up getting SWATed and perp walked. Like them or not, many Trump associates have gone through the grinder for all to see. Roger Stone comes to mind.


Unless you can identify some specific and particular contradiction(s) between the reasoning he gave for his position on impeachment of Trump vis-à-vis the reasoning he gave for his position on investigation of Hillary, then piling on the Hillary stuff is not "far worse" - it's just more of the same thing (namely, it's just another of his legal opinions you disagree with or don't like).

It is entirely possible to be critical of politically-motivated endeavors (such as impeachments and investigations) without necessarily opposing or supporting the targets of such endeavors. In fact, if one is more interested in consistently applying principle than in playing favorites, then it is quite likely - probably even inevitable - that sooner or later one will end up defending someone one otherwise opposes or criticizing someone one otherwise supports. IOW: It is entirely possible to have and to express legal opinions that partisans will find disagreeable without also being an FBI "asset". IOOW: There is no reason to think Napolitano expressed the opinions he did (however wrong you may think they are) because the FBI "has something" on him.

Did he reverse or significantly alter his opinion on any of those things after she lost?

If not, then he is merely being consistent, and there is no point in making such a distinction. It certainly isn't any kind of evidence that he is some sort of FBI-controlled "asset". There is no reason to think his assessments are anything other than his genuine opinions (however much you might disagree with or dislike them), and the qualifier you use here is nothing but sly, question-begging innuendo.

I wish I could remember details off the top of my head, but it did seem like Napolitano became a bit inconsistent around the same time, or right before he abruptly disappeared from FOX and public view. Is that evidence of being compromised? Who knows. Many things are unknowable.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
I wish I could remember details off the top of my head, but it did seem like Napolitano became a bit inconsistent around the same time, or right before he abruptly disappeared from FOX and public view. Is that evidence of being compromised? Who knows. Many things are unknowable.

The best I can reconstruct is that Judge Nap was temporarily disappeared (fired?) after supporting Trump claims that Obama had spied on the Trump campaign, which was later proven to be 100% accurate. Nap had also been hard on Hillary and associates.


Larry Johnson outlined a complicated series of events on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday that he says led Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' top judicial analyst, to make his explosive claim. Napolitano had tried to back up President Trump's baseless accusation that President Obama had his "wires tapped" during the 2016 campaign.

Napolitano initially cited "intelligence community members" who believed British intelligence spied on Trump. During a later segment, he said his sources told him President Obama asked Britain to spy.

When Nap reappeared, he had dropped all talk about Obama, Hillary and Democrats, and was starting to play along with the Mueller investigation and impeachment charges against Trump. At some point he offhandedly talked about how it’s surprising how much information the FBI and Deep State can dig up on someone.

Once again, no way to know for sure, but it does give the appearance of the DNC Deep State giving Judge Nap an attitude adjustment during that timeframe.

Some relevant threads:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508836-Judge-Nap-Did-Obama-Spy-on-Trump/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508826-CNN-Consultant-says-he-wasn-t-quot-knowingly-quot-source-for-Napolitano-report
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533924-Trump-tweets-about-Judge-Napolitano/

[Occam's Banana]

I wish I could remember details off the top of my head, but it did seem like Napolitano became a bit inconsistent around the same time, or right before he abruptly disappeared from FOX and public view.

I never followed the nitty-gritty of the Trump impeachment or Hillary investigation sagas, so I don't really know what his arguments for or against them were. It's entirely possible I would disagree with or dislike things he said on one or both of those issues - but that doesn't make him an FBI cat's-paw.

And just to be clear, when I said this ...


Unless you can identify some specific and particular contradiction(s) between the reasoning he gave for his position on impeachment of Trump vis-à-vis the reasoning he gave for his position on investigation of Hillary, then piling on the Hillary stuff is not "far worse" - it's just more of the same thing (namely, it's just another of his legal opinions you disagree with or don't like).

.... what I meant by "contradiction(s)" is some specific, particular thing(s) he said in defense of impeachment of Trump that cannot be rationally reconciled with some specific, particular thing(s) he said in criticism of investigation of Hillary. Anything that can ultimately be reduced to something like "Trump should not have been impeached, and Hillary should have been investigated, so supporting the latter and opposing the former [because legal opinions I disagree with] is wrong" does not count as a contradiction or inconsistency.


Is that evidence of being compromised? Who knows. Many things are unknowable.

Yes. That's the fundamental and inescapable problem will all "controlled opposition" accusations/narratives.

It's not that they can't be true. (I'm sure some of them are.) It's that they are always unfalsifiable.

They can (at least potentially) be proven true, but they can never be proven false.

That's because any countervailing consideration or evidence can always be dismissed as some kind of diversionary "cover" or camouflage.

"Controlled opposition" is a flamethrower that can be used to scorch anything and everything it's pointed at, whether deserving or not. That's why it ends up being so often and easily invoked against its targets (such as Napolitano, in this case).

[Swordsmyth]

The rest of this thread is just a litany of things you disagree with him about or dislike him for.

But your disdain does not serve as any kind of evidence that he is a compromised "controlled opposition" asset of the FBI.



Those are merely legal opinions you don't like.

Unless you can identify some specific and particular contradiction(s) between the reasoning he gave for his position on impeachment of Trump vis-à-vis the reasoning he gave for his position on investigation of Hillary, then piling on the Hillary stuff is not "far worse" - it's just more of the same thing (namely, it's just another of his legal opinions you disagree with or don't like).

It is entirely possible to be critical of politically-motivated endeavors (such as impeachments and investigations) without necessarily opposing or supporting the targets of such endeavors. In fact, if one is more interested in consistently applying principle than in playing favorites, then it is quite likely - probably even inevitable - that sooner or later one will end up defending someone one otherwise opposes or criticizing someone one otherwise supports. IOW: It is entirely possible to have and to express legal opinions that partisans will find disagreeable without also being an FBI "asset". IOOW: There is no reason to think Napolitano expressed the opinions he did (however wrong you may think they are) because the FBI "has something" on him.



Did he reverse or significantly alter his opinion on any of those things after she lost?

If not, then he is merely being consistent, and there is no point in making such a distinction. It certainly isn't any kind of evidence that he is some sort of FBI-controlled "asset". There is no reason to think his assessments are anything other than his genuine opinions (however much you might disagree with or dislike them), and the qualifier you use here is nothing but sly, question-begging innuendo.
He did reverse.
After Trump won he no longer said POTUS was master and commander of the DoJ and could tell it to do or not do whatever he wanted.
All of a sudden he was treating DoJ as an independent branch of government that could do whatever it wanted. (Totally unconstitutional)
Quite a few of the things in this thread are not simple disagreements, they are matters of basic Constitutionality/legality that he blatantly on the wrong side of and on the deepstate side of.

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Swamp sides with the swamp and the invaders:

The Right to Travel (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?560505-The-Right-to-Travel)

[Brian4Liberty]

I never followed the nitty-gritty of the Trump impeachment or Hillary investigation sagas, so I don't really know what his arguments for or against them were. It's entirely possible I would disagree with or dislike things he said on one or both of those issues - but that doesn't make him an FBI cat's-paw.

And just to be clear, when I said this ...

.... what I meant by "contradiction(s)" is some specific, particular thing(s) he said in defense of impeachment of Trump that cannot be rationally reconciled with some specific, particular thing(s) he said in criticism of investigation of Hillary. Anything that can ultimately be reduced to something like "Trump should not have been impeached, and Hillary should have been investigated, so supporting the latter and opposing the former [because legal opinions I disagree with] is wrong" does not count as a contradiction or inconsistency.
...

I haven't followed Judge Nap enough to remember any specifics. What I remember I already posted.


Yes. That's the fundamental and inescapable problem will all "controlled opposition" accusations/narratives.

It's not that they can't be true. (I'm sure some of them are.) It's that they are always unfalsifiable.

They can (at least potentially) be proven true, but they can never be proven false.

That's because any countervailing consideration or evidence can always be dismissed as some kind of diversionary "cover" or camouflage.

"Controlled opposition" is a flamethrower that can be used to scorch anything and everything it's pointed at, whether deserving or not. That's why it ends up being so often and easily invoked against its targets (such as Napolitano, in this case).

Yeah, the “controlled opposition” term gets thrown around a lot, without any evidence. And it’s a slightly different concept than the “attitude adjustment” I mentioned.

Controlled opposition to me is an entity that is active and malicious in their actions. They may take directions, but they do it willingly, probably with some form of compensation or quid pro quo.

On the other hand, someone who has been warned not to do something, potentially threatened, has been effectively silenced, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are “controlled”. We have seen plenty of this already, and it doesn't have to be the FBI doing the threatening. It can be the deep state partners in the business world. “Do a report on Ivermectin, and you will be banned from Youtube, Google and Facebook”. “Question whether the 2019 elections were fair, you will be banned, you may even go to the gulag.”

Either way, it’s extremely difficult to know for sure what is really going on behind the scenes. Accusations are not evidence, and do not make anything true. And the very nature of this is usually secrecy. Whether someone is paid, controlled opposition, or simply threatened, keeping it secret it usually part of the deal, especially if is government making the threats.

[Swordsmyth]

I haven't followed Judge Nap enough to remember any specifics. What I remember I already posted.



Yeah, the “controlled opposition” term gets thrown around a lot, without any evidence. And it’s a slightly different concept than the “attitude adjustment” I mentioned.

Controlled opposition to me is an entity that is active and malicious in their actions. They may take directions, but they do it willingly, probably with some form of compensation or quid pro quo.

On the other hand, someone who has been warned not to do something, potentially threatened, has been effectively silenced, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are “controlled”. We have seen plenty of this already, and it doesn't have to be the FBI doing the threatening. It can be the deep state partners in the business world. “Do a report on Ivermectin, and you will be banned from Youtube, Google and Facebook”. “Question whether the 2019 elections were fair, you will be banned, you may even go to the gulag.”

Either way, it’s extremely difficult to know for sure what is really going on behind the scenes. Accusations are not evidence, and do not make anything true. And the very nature of this is usually secrecy. Whether someone is paid, controlled opposition, or simply threatened, keeping it secret it usually part of the deal, especially if is government making the threats.
The problem with Judge Swamp goes far beyond what he doesn't do and includes a whole lot of what he does do.
He is controlled opposition however willing he is in the arrangement.

[devil21]

Judge Nap's parting words after bieing shit canned by Faux Snooze from 2012:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQJHTJlW0bM

What he's talking about is the commercialization of society by convincing everyone to surrender natural riights in exchange for benefitless obligations to follow arbitrary rules.



(also worth noting is that Costco's stock was $80 on the ticker in that video. It's $454 now. How huge of a monetary bubble has the Fed blown in the last 10 years, which it is now being taken back?? Compare ticker prices of stocks in the video to today's valuations in barely 10 years!)

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

What good is it when a constitutional scholar has a cemented interpretation of the law and another has an opposing interpretation? The only one that matters is the person making the ruling. Especially if you are at the SCOTUS.

[devil21]

Judge Swamp sides with the swamp and the invaders:

The Right to Travel (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?560505-The-Right-to-Travel)

You have a problem with the natural right to travel and freedom of movement. No surprise, of course.

The other day I was stopped by a city cop because of the legal notice on my private automobile instead of a state-owned public license plate. What if I told you I didn't say a word to him, didn't put down the window, didn't even turn off the engine and headlights -and- was back on my way less than 5 minutes later? And, as a bonus, maybe even educated a random cop on constitutional rights without ever even speaking to him.

Either learn the system the City of London legal class has implemented and continue to exercise your natural rights or they will be lost forever through your own voluntary actions (usually by voluntarily agreeing to benefit-less contracts that only carry liabilities) because of ignorance. I'm not giving up my rights because some hispanics live here now but nice try, I guess.

[Swordsmyth]

You have a problem with the natural right to travel and freedom of movement. No surprise, of course.

The other day I was stopped by a city cop because of the legal notice on my private automobile instead of a state-owned public license plate. What if I told you I didn't say a word to him, didn't put down the window, didn't even turn off the engine and headlights -and- was back on my way less than 5 minutes later? And, as a bonus, maybe even educated a random cop on constitutional rights without ever even speaking to him.

Either learn the system the City of London legal class has implemented and continue to exercise your natural rights or they will be lost forever through your own voluntary actions (usually by voluntarily agreeing to benefit-less contracts that only carry liabilities) because of ignorance. I'm not giving up my rights because some hispanics live here now but nice try, I guess.

There is no natural right to cross borders into the territory of another nation.
The invaders and all who support them will be expelled.

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Nap - The Camp of the Saints (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527753-Judge-Nap-The-Camp-of-the-Saints)

[Swordsmyth]

You have a problem with the natural right to travel and freedom of movement. No surprise, of course.


Tell it to the French suffering from the invasion, tell them the animals have a right to enter France, take over, and destroy it.
At least then you would be honest about your goal.

[unknown]

Trump: the WEF has done a fantastic job.

https://twitter.com/SubconRising/status/1552984559712616448

1552984559712616448

[Swordsmyth]

Trump: the WEF has done a fantastic job.

https://twitter.com/SubconRising/status/1552984559712616448

1552984559712616448

His actions opposing the speak louder.