Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: Judge Napolitano: Enough Evidence 'To Justify About Three or Four Articles of Impeachment'

  1. #1

    Judge Napolitano: Enough Evidence 'To Justify About Three or Four Articles of Impeachment'

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I'm going to need to be told the details before I accept the narrative about this.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Napolitano everyday is proving to be the Judge of the swamp.

  4. #3
    Judge Swamp is just making a fool of himself again.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #4
    Napolitano/Kokesh 2020.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post
    Napolitano/Kokesh 2020.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #6

    Exclamation New World Order - Deep State Donnell of Arabia

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post


    Drain the swamp.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post


    Drain the swamp.
    Judge Swamp will not drain the swamp.
    Trump tried to drain the swamp and that is what the impeachment is about.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #8
    A person would either be totally bought or a fool to be POTUS. WTF? Who in their right mind would want that job? Why stay? Quit! If our hero Ron Paul was offered POTUS and could be guaranteed a victory to the office he would be a fool to accept it. I would bet he would not want it. Saying "oh I would do this or that," is only vibrating decibels and wind. It is one thing to be a Congress person or Senator that always votes no and swims upstream. What do they accomplish? Do they get anything passed? Do they get laws abolished? Does the DNC or RNC rally against you and try to get you replaced with a team player? They can tolerate a couple of kooks in congress or the senate but a POTUS that swims upstream will be met with currents that cannot be overcome.
    Truth is Fallacy, Fallacy is Evil.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Judge Swamp is just making a fool of himself again.
    He never would have signed in ink USMCA at a “ceremony” or that pathetic Omnibus, or strongly suggest raising the age to 21 and “Medicare for All”.

    Oh, and that “Patriot Act” that your patriot in chief just signed.

    But, the comedian that you are (not), I can see why you’d make such funnies.
    Last edited by PAF; 11-23-2019 at 07:20 AM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  12. #10
    @ 4:44 Reason: "But wait. Can't Trump just say...Or I guess what I'm going to ask you is..you know what is the Republican response? Sketch out the president's defense. Can't he say 'What are you talking about? I'm investigating...you know in 2017 Politico and a host of other publications said that Ukraine was trying to influence the American election in 2016. Trump is just saying I'm trying to get to the bottom of this corruption."
    @ 5:12 Judge Nap: "I've actually looked in the camera and said he would be better off acknowledging the facts but arguing that none of this is impeachable."

    Guess what? Rand Paul said the same thing! Rand said he thought it was a "big mistake" for Trump to deny quid pro quo and instead Trump should focus on the arguing that he was looking into Joe Biden corruption and that was a proper thing to do.



    The only difference is that Rand didn't go so far and say Trump could be impeached. But impeached just means 'indicted in the House." It does not mean removed from office. judge Nap was clear that he didn't think there was enough to justify removal.

    Edit:

    Judge Nap: 9:30 If you push impeachment, without a national consensus behind it, you'll suffer at the polls. I mean the remedy for an unjust impeachment is not stonewalling, its getting your opponents driven from office. Which Bill Clinton did with all of his impeachment prosecutors except for one.

    Reason: And who was the one?

    Judge Nap: Then congressman, now senator Lindsey Graham.
    @Swordsmyth, this is what you keep missing in these discussions. Not every defense thrown up on behalf of Donald Trump holds merit. But there are legitimate defenses, as Judge Nap has pointed out, and this will not ultimately play in the democrats favor.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 11-23-2019 at 07:22 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by AngryCanadian View Post
    Napolitano everyday is proving to be the Judge of the swamp.
    He needs to get over the fact that Trump didn't nominate him to the Supreme Court.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    @ 4:44 Reason: "But wait. Can't Trump just say...Or I guess what I'm going to ask you is..you know what is the Republican response? Sketch out the president's defense. Can't he say 'What are you talking about? I'm investigating...you know in 2017 Politico and a host of other publications said that Ukraine was trying to influence the American election in 2016. Trump is just saying I'm trying to get to the bottom of this corruption."
    @ 5:12 Judge Nap: "I've actually looked in the camera and said he would be better off acknowledging the facts but arguing that none of this is impeachable."

    Guess what? Rand Paul said the same thing! Rand said he thought it was a "big mistake" for Trump to deny quid pro quo and instead Trump should focus on the arguing that he was looking into Joe Biden corruption and that was a proper thing to do.



    The only difference is that Rand didn't go so far and say Trump could be impeached. But impeached just means 'indicted in the House." It does not mean removed from office. judge Nap was clear that he didn't think there was enough to justify removal.

    Edit:

    Judge Nap: 9:30 If you push impeachment, without a national consensus behind it, you'll suffer at the polls. I mean the remedy for an unjust impeachment is not stonewalling, its getting your opponents driven from office. Which Bill Clinton did with all of his impeachment prosecutors except for one.

    Reason: And who was the one?

    Judge Nap: Then congressman, now senator Lindsey Graham.
    @Swordsmyth, this is what you keep missing in these discussions. Not every defense thrown up on behalf of Donald Trump holds merit. But there are legitimate defenses, as Judge Nap has pointed out, and this will not ultimately play in the democrats favor.
    Pretending that Rand wasn't defending President Trump in that interview takes a radical level of TDS.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    A person would either be totally bought or a fool to be POTUS. WTF? Who in their right mind would want that job? Why stay?
    A narcissist who is also a chronic and habitual liar would.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Pretending that Rand wasn't defending President Trump in that interview takes a radical level of TDS.
    Thinking that jmdrake was saying Rand Paul wasn't defending Trump takes a radical level of RWTDS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    My tax dollars paid to fund ISIS and make fake beheading videos. Are you saying we shouldn't get our monies worth??

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Thinking that jmdrake was saying Rand Paul wasn't defending Trump takes a radical level of RWTDS.
    Funny. No one can match the sophistry of left-wing "libertarians". I dream of a world where you people can be intellectually honest for just one day.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Funny. No one can match the sophistry of left-wing "libertarians". I dream of a world where you people can be intellectually honest for just one day.
    jmdrake did not say that Rand Paul was not defending Donald Trump.

    Call me a liar to my face. I dare you.

    Did you detect any sophistry in that?

    Do you know what sophistry is? It's lying--including lying about what other people said. jmdrake engaged in no sophistry, and neither did I. But if this means what it sounds like it means...

    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Pretending that Rand wasn't defending President Trump in that interview takes a radical level of TDS.
    ...then that is sophistry.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-23-2019 at 10:05 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    My tax dollars paid to fund ISIS and make fake beheading videos. Are you saying we shouldn't get our monies worth??



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    jmdrake did not say that Rand Paul was not defending Donald Trump.

    Call me a liar to my face. I dare you.

    Did you detect any sophistry in that?

    Do you know what sophistry is? It's lying--including lying about what other people said. jmdrake engaged in no sophistry, and neither did I. But if this means what it sounds like it means...



    ...then that is sophistry.
    Well if you genuinely believe that jmdrake didn't try to give the impression that Rand Paul believes President Trump is guilty of impeachable crimes, when in fact that's not at all what Rand said or meant, then there's another "s" word for you.

  21. #18
    Read this, then listen to Napolitano again, and maybe you'll see how wrong your knee jerk reaction was:

    Quid pro quo means something for something. It's a fancy way of describing a simple trade. It is not automatically illegal. If it were, some 90% of diplomacy would be illegal.

    Yes there's a law against the president using his powers to curry favors that are useful to him in an election. And Biden did announce his candidacy before this diplomatic negotiation happened. However, there are a number of law enforcement agencies in the Executive Branch. This means the president has a duty to see to it that crime is investigated. And corruption is criminal.

    Did Biden insulate his whole family from investigation into their corruption by filing as a presidential candidate? Does the law against using the office for political gain supercede the president's duty to facilitate law enforcement? Is all a lawbreaker, or the father of a lawbreaker, has to do to insulate himself and his family from every federal investigation is stand for election? These are the thorny questions this impeachment brings up. This is no doubt why Pelosi tried to avoid it.

    The only thing illegal about Trump negotiating quid pro quo for an investigation of this corruption is Biden's status as a candidate. Three months earlier, before Biden filed, it was Trump's duty to do what he did. And 99% of the population would agree that it was still Trump's duty to do what he did when he did it, if they set their partisan derangement aside and thought about it.

    That's what Napolitano said. That's what Paul said. That's what jmdrake said. What are you saying?

    Now. Listen to Napolitano again, and we'll see if you still want to trade "S" words with me. Because if you still don't get it, then I do have an "S" word for you.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-23-2019 at 10:47 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    My tax dollars paid to fund ISIS and make fake beheading videos. Are you saying we shouldn't get our monies worth??

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The only thing illegal about Trump negotiating quid pro quo for an investigation of this corruption is Biden's status as a candidate. Three months earlier, before Biden filed, it was Trump's duty to do what he did. And 99% of the population would agree that it was still Trump's duty to do what he did when he did it, if they set their partisan derangement aside and thought about it.
    That's not quite true. If Trump did it for corrupt reasons, then it's corrupt regardless of Biden's status as a candidate. Yes, there is a law regarding elections, but there is also the matter of bribery. There is a reason why Nap separates the two issues into two different articles of impeachment in this video.

    18 U.S. Code § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

    (b) Whoever—
    (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
    (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

    (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

    (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
    Was an investigation of Biden a "thing of value" to Trump?


    Why did Trump demand that Ukraine "do him a favor" by investigating Burisma / Bidens and offer to give taxpayer money to Ukraine as payment?

    A) It was in the best interests of the country
    or
    B) It was in the best interests of Trump
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I'm going to need to be told the details before I accept the narrative about this.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  23. #20
    If you want to claim there is enough to impeach Trump then by that standard any president in history could have been impeached. To state that is just doing the left's dirty work, in other words, being a useful idiot. That's something libertarians are good at these days.

  24. #21
    It's funny watching an argument between people who have a similar outlook, but don't want to acknowledge it.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    If you want to claim there is enough to impeach Trump then by that standard any president in history could have been impeached.
    And here's how we know that you didn't watch the video.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I'm going to need to be told the details before I accept the narrative about this.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    If you want to claim there is enough to impeach Trump then by that standard any president in history could have been impeached.
    Welcome to the real world, where the law is a mess and everyone's a felon waiting to get caught. A law which cannot be obeyed without violating another, older law is not a valid law. Yes, violating it is technically grounds for impeachment, and even indictment. Technically, that's the truth, and Napolitano is having a technical discussion, and an honest one. Morally, overturning an election because the president had to violate a newer law to obey an older one is a travesty.

    An impeachment can result in only a poorly written law being removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    It's funny watching an argument between people who have a similar outlook, but don't want to acknowledge it.
    More fun to watch than to get stuck in. "The man's on your side! For the love of God, stop shooting at him!"
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-23-2019 at 11:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    My tax dollars paid to fund ISIS and make fake beheading videos. Are you saying we shouldn't get our monies worth??

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    More fun to watch than to get stuck .
    Yep. That's why I lurk more, the older I get



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Pretending that Rand wasn't defending President Trump in that interview takes a radical level of TDS.
    Pretending that I was pretending that Rand wasn't defending Trump shows that you have Trumo delusion syndrome. Judge Nap said that Trump should simply say that nothing he has been accused of is reason for removal.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    If you want to claim there is enough to impeach Trump then by that standard any president in history could have been impeached. To state that is just doing the left's dirty work, in other words, being a useful idiot. That's something libertarians are good at these days.
    Are you familiar with the reason Andrew Johnson was impeached? It seems that you are not.

  32. #28
    Judge makes good points. Nothing swampy about it.

    He starts by underscoring that impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. It doesn't become a legal process until it gets to the Senate.

    Do the Dems have 4 or 5 politically motivated articles of impeachment? Of course, that's all we've heard about this week.

    Will the Senate indict him for it? About a snowball's chance.......

    And like Judge says, the Dems chance paying a huge price at the ballot box.
    Last edited by SimmerDown; 11-23-2019 at 12:31 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Well if you genuinely believe that jmdrake didn't try to give the impression that Rand Paul believes President Trump is guilty of impeachable crimes, when in fact that's not at all what Rand said or meant, then there's another "s" word for you.
    Neither Rand nor judge Nap said Trump is guilty of impeachable crimes. Both said Trump shouldn't argue against the facts of whether there was a quid pro quo but rather whether that constitutes an impeachable offense in this instance.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 11-23-2019 at 12:48 PM.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by SimmerDown View Post
    Judge makes good points. Nothing swampy about it.

    He starts by underscoring that impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. It doesn't become a legal process until it gets to the Senate.
    Yes. Some Trumpkins have reflexively reacted to the soundbite - headline without bothering to watch the video.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. One Hundred Articles Of Impeachment Against Obama
    By libertyjam in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-11-2019, 12:07 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-01-2017, 10:08 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 03:41 PM
  4. Suggestions for Revisions: Articles of Impeachment
    By Weston White in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-10-2013, 03:25 AM
  5. Kucinich delivering articles of impeachment NOW!!!
    By rossl in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 05:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •