Democrats have a new impeachment hero: Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano

[Anti Federalist]

Democrats have a new impeachment hero: Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...s-15001227.php

Allyson Chiu, The Washington Post Published 7:16 am PST, Friday, January 24, 2020

As the Senate reconvened Thursday for President Donald Trump's historic impeachment trial, a name began trending on Twitter among those pushing for the president's removal from office: Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano.

Better known as Judge Napolitano or Judge Nap, the conservative commentator was once a Trump supporter and purveyor of conspiracy theories. But recently, Napolitano has shifted his stance on the president, voicing criticisms of Trump that are often at odds with the views of his fellow Fox News personalities.

Napolitano's deviation from Fox News's normally pro-Trump opinion programming continued this week when the former New Jersey Superior Court judge published an opinion piece pushing back against the president's repeated claims that the impeachment proceeding is a "hoax."

Napolitano described the proceedings as "deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms." He also made a case for why he believes there is "ample and uncontradicted" evidence for the Senate to vote to remove the president, writing that there are "valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously."

The op-ed appeared to have been first published Wednesday by the Washington Examiner, a conservative news outlet, before it showed up on Fox News's site early Thursday.

"What is required for removal of the president?" Napolitano wrote. "A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted."

This is not the first time that Napolitano has pushed for Trump's impeachment in recent months, nor is his stance all that surprising, given that he has been described as a "staunch libertarian" who "places principles over partisanship, and who is outspoken and critical without resorting to ad hominem attacks."

But the op-ed, which comes just days before Trump's defense is expected to present its case Saturday, quickly gained traction on social media Thursday as many, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif,) and Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., shared the piece. By late Thursday, "Judge Napolitano" was a trending term on Twitter with tens of thousands of mentions.

"When Fox News' top legal analyst debunks the rest of Fox News . . ." Swalwell tweeted. Clark, who is vice chair of the House Democratic caucus, wrote that Napolitano "acknowledges what we already know: the President abused his power & should be removed from office."

Fox News' top legal analyst Judge Napolitano: "What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted."https://t.co/2EwHhsiDeN
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 23, 2020

In his piece, Napolitano detailed the two charges against Trump - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress - and laid out the evidence that, he argues, should support impeachment. Napolitano pointed to internal emails showing that the White House withheld military aid to Ukraine after Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and senior officials defying congressional subpoenas to testify.

"The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," he wrote. "However, this use of the word 'crimes' does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes."

Napolitano also went after unnamed Republican senators, accusing them of reassuring Trump that he will be acquitted.

"Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of 'impartial justice' and fidelity to the Constitution and the law," he wrote.

Napolitano's op-ed presents a stark contrast to a majority of Fox News's impeachment coverage, which in recent days has favored disparagement of Democrats and pro-Trump commentary over airing live footage of the proceedings.

"Imagine a movie written and directed by children whose ending you already know, and by the way, it's 20 hours long and Hungarian with misspelled subtitles," Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Wednesday, following the first day of opening arguments for Democrats. "That's what it's like."

Later that night, host Sean Hannity, a close Trump ally, adopted a similar take on the day's events.

"Now, if I was a terrible host, I would force you to endure watching the regurgitation, the repetition . . . the insanity that has gone on all day, America, 24 hours of never-ending babbling, repetitive talking points over what was nothing," he said.

On Thursday, Trump critics cited Napolitano's arguments and praised the Fox News analyst for being "willing to tell the truth" and remaining "true to his principles."

"The Judge is a courageous man and now he must fight the cabal that wants to keep someone this lawless and reckless in our most sacred public servant position," tweeted former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

What @Judgenap knows is that for @realDonaldTrump there is no justifiable defense for his actions. The Judge is a courageous man and now he must fight the cabal that wants to keep someone this lawless and reckless in our most sacred public servant position.
— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) January 24, 2020

Thank you @Judgenap for being a consistent Libertarian voice on the National stage, and for not being afraid to take positions that your colleagues (or your fans) will react negatively to.

Principles over Politics!
— Libertarian-In-Chief (@ToddHagopian) January 24, 2020

A headline on an article from the Palmer Report, a liberal political blog, read, "Judge Napolitano of Fox News just destroyed Donald Trump's impeachment defense."

Not everyone was receptive to the op-ed.

"I change channels when this idiot shows up," one person wrote in the comments section of the piece. "He belongs at CNN or a nut house. Same difference."

Another urged the network to find another legal expert, writing, "Nap has been so wrong, so often that I thought Fox finally let him go to pasture."

Trump has not yet publicly addressed the column. Instead, the president tweeted two clips from Hannity's show Thursday night, during which the host railed against the "Schumer Schiff Sham Show."

[Swordsmyth]

Judge Swamp strikes again.

It would have been a crime if Trump didn't investigate the Bidens in Ukraine.

[Swordsmyth]

This short essay does what the House Judiciary Committee’s panel of “expert witnesses” did not successfully do.
First, it explains the meaning of the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard. Next, it discusses how that standard applies to President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Finally, it details the kind of evidence the House Judiciary Committee should gather to determine whether the president committed an impeachable offense.
Many phrases in the Constitution—such as “necessary and proper,” “Privileges and Immunities,” and “Convention for proposing Amendments”—carry specialized 18th century meanings not obvious to the modern reader. Recall that most of the leading Founders were lawyers and the Constitution is a legal document. Some of these phrases derive from 18th century law.

Therefore, to understand them you have to consult 18th century legal materials in addition to better-known sources such as the 1787 convention debates or the Federalist Papers.
Unfortunately, most of the scholars called by the House Judiciary Committee to address the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” were not able to do so accurately.
According to the authoritative Westlaw database, two of the three Democratically appointed witnesses have published no scholarly work on impeachment: Their specialties are in other areas. None showed any familiarity with 18th century fiduciary standards—which (as explained below) are part of the law of impeachment. All of the witnesses voted against President Trump, and several have been involved in anti-Trump activity.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that, except for professor Jonathan Turley’s heavily footnoted 53-page written statement, the testimony was biased and superficial.

What Is the Standard?

Impeachment law is not for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. Furthermore, impeachment standards evolved over time. To understand the Constitution’s rules we must know what the standards were when the Constitution was adopted. We can do so by consulting 18th century parliamentary records and legal materials.
Here’s some of what they tell us:

• The term “high Crimes” means, approximately, “felonies.”
• The phrase “high … Misdemeanors” refers to what the founding generation called “breach of trust” and what modern lawyers call breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duties are the legal obligations imposed upon those who manage the affairs of other people—bankers, corporate executives, accountants, guardians, and so forth. In broad outline, fiduciary law when the Constitution was adopted was similar to what it is today.
• In the 14th and 15th centuries, an official could be impeached because Parliament disagreed with his policy decisions. However, as several American Founders recognized, by the 18th century this was no longer true. The official must have violated (in the words of several sources) “the known and established law.” This limited impeachment to serious crimes and fiduciary breaches.
• The trial in the upper house of the legislature was a judicial proceeding, not primarily a political one. As the 1782 edition of the popular Jacob’s Law Dictionary noted, “the same evidence is required in an impeachment in Parliament, as in the ordinary courts of justice.” The hearsay and impressionist evidence gathered by the House Intelligence Committee is not admissible.

The core of the case against President Trump is that he used his political position to seek re-election assistance from a foreign government. Although there’s dark talk of crimes committed, the principal charge is fiduciary rather than criminal. In other words, a “high … Misdemeanor.”
House Democrats have struggled to define Trump’s alleged offense. Initially, they described it as “quid pro quo.” Then they employed the term “bribery.” The legally correct designation is “self-dealing.”
Self-dealing is betraying your employer’s interests to enrich yourself. It’s a violation of the fiduciary duty of loyalty.
We can assume the president might benefit from a Ukrainian investigation, but that doesn’t mean asking for an investigation was self-dealing as defined by fiduciary, and therefore by impeachment, law. There’s nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption. As for seeking political advantage: If we punished every politician who did that, they would all be swinging from the yardarm.
This is as true in foreign as in domestic affairs. When President Barack Obama told the Russian president he would have more flexibility after his re-election, he was saying (1) an agreement now would benefit both Russia and the United States, but (2) I’m going to sacrifice our mutual interests for the present because such an agreement might hurt my re-election campaign. Was this impeachable self-dealing? Almost certainly not.
So where is the divide between “normal” conduct and impeachable conduct? To answer this, we need to weigh at least three factors: impeachment precedent, the national interest, and the practice of other presidents.
Impeachable Conduct

For defining the Constitution’s phase “high … Misdemeanors,” the most important precedents (although not the only ones) lie in 18th century impeachment and fiduciary law.
An 18th century impeachment treatise outlines the specific facts by which several officials were impeached for what we now call self-dealing.
They include the following:

(1) the official enriched himself at the expense of the Crown by arranging for royal pardons,
(2) he stole funds from the Royal Navy,
(3) he confiscated ships and cargos without due process and appropriated the proceeds,
(4) he obtained “exorbitant grants of lands and money, to the great detriment of the revenue,”
(5) he seized forfeited land that should have gone to the Crown, and
(6) acting through a strawman, he took the proceeds from timber sales in the king’s forests.

All these cases boil down to stealing public property. They don’t look like the Trump–Zelensky dealings at all.
Another part of the answer lies in whether President Trump violated the national interest. As a general rule, self-dealing generally is not just enriching yourself. It’s enriching yourself at the expense of your employer. If Trump’s interests were aligned with those of the country, there was no fiduciary breach.
Despite Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaint that Trump violated “the consensus of the interagency,” the question of whether Trump acted contrary to the national interest is a difficult one to answer.
Perhaps we had a national interest in not asking President Zelensky to investigate. But we also had a national interest in asking, because it would be useful to know if Ukrainian officials were trying to meddle in our presidential elections. And it would be useful to know whether the family of a leading presidential candidate is engaged in corruption. Remember: the president asked only for an investigation, not for a pre-determined result.


Thus, you can argue the “national interest” issue both ways. It looks more a policy question than a clear case like theft of public funds.
Still another part of the answer lies in how similar officials act in similar circumstances. In absence of a crime, if you want to determine whether a banker handled funds properly, you should investigate how bankers usually handle funds. If you wish to determine whether an investment adviser gave reasonable advice, you should consult what other reputable advisers recommend in the same circumstances.
Similarly, to decide whether President Trump engaged in impermissible self-dealing, we need testimony about how other officials conduct themselves. We know, for example, that then-Vice President Biden explicitly made aid to Ukraine conditional on firing a Ukrainian prosecutor. If that conduct wasn’t impeachable (and I don’t believe it was) then Trump’s more tepid conduct certainly isn’t impeachable.
Thus, the Judiciary Committee should ask for testimony from officials of prior presidential administrations, and preferably from the former presidents themselves. Did they ever make foreign aid conditional? What were the conditions? Why? And so forth.
Another Panel

It was a good idea to empanel academic experts to provide guidance on the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be done again, and this time correctly.
The next panel should include presidential historians, parliamentary historians, and experts on fiduciary law. It should not consist primarily of law professors, who are notorious for engaging more in advocacy than in true scholarship.
Every panelist should have published research on impeachment, fiduciary law, or related areas. No panelist should be enmeshed in pro-Trump or anti-Trump political activity. They should be limited to discussing constitutional impeachment standards without expostulating on evidentiary testimony. Weighing the evidence is the job of the committee members, not of academics with little judicial or “real life” experience.
Once the scholarly panel has testified, the committee should explore whether the president’s Ukrainian actions clearly violated the national interest and it should gather testimony on the conduct of former administrations in comparable situations.
And only if all those investigations support a “self-dealing” conclusion should the committee recommend articles of impeachment.


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...eachment-didnt

[Zippyjuan]

Didn't Napster used to be a hero here?

[Anti Globalist]

Clearly Judge Nap is hating on Trump so he can eventually nominate him for Supreme Court Justice once Ginsburg kicks the bucket.

[Swordsmyth]

Didn't Napster used to be a hero here?

Benedict Arnold was a hero to the Revolution, until he wasn't.

[Swordsmyth]

Clearly Judge Nap is hating on Trump so he can eventually nominate him for Supreme Court Justice once Ginsburg kicks the bucket.

Or the FBI surprised him with what they were able to dig up on him, like he said.

[Ender]

Benedict Arnold was a hero to the Revolution, until he wasn't.

Benedict was a hero who discovered the evil take-over of the Liberty movement by TPTB- the Snowdon of his day.

Benedict’s Birthday
Becky Akers

If politicians hadn’t usurped the American Revolution, perverting it from a rebellion against a tyrannical empire into an attempt to enthrone themselves, the Feds would no doubt have decreed Benedict Arnold’s birthday today a paid vacation for the unions. Instead, Arnold’s conflict with homegrown dictators made him a prototypical Ed Snowden as he tried to save the country from its government. And Americans hated and vilified him for it, then as now.

Arnold was the rebels’ biggest military hero for the first two years of the war, winning battle after battle against overwhelming odds, often by his wits and other times through the sheer strength of his personality. Then a serious wound sidelined him. General George Washington appointed him military governor of Philadelphia, where Arnold quickly learned that the homegrown politicians who’d seized power weren’t fighting for the same freedom he was; rather, like modern Progressives, they’d created a huge, centralized bureaucracy — with themselves firmly in control, of course. Indeed, they idolized the State in the constitution they foisted on Pennsylvania: God “alone knows to what degree of earthly happiness mankind may attain by perfecting the arts of government…”

Arnold appealed to the Continental Congress for help in thwarting this cabal. But Pennsylvania supplied too many soldiers and materiel to the Continental Army for Congress to oppose its rulers. Next stop: King George III, whose Redcoats were the only force willing and able to save America from totalitarianism…

Revisionist? You betcha. You’ll never read this new theory of Arnold’s treason, based on meticulous research, anywhere but in my novel, Meanwhile, David John Marotta, financial advisor and contributor to Forbes, kindly posted an interview with me in honor of Arnold’s birthday. As you might expect, we mention and even the TSA.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...icts-birthday/

I had the honor of chatting with fellow novelist Tyler Tichelaar about my new historical thriller, . Among other topics, we discuss a political party of enormous influence during the American Revolution that historians have nevertheless totally forgotten, the Radical Patriots. Humorless devotees of Big Government, the Radicals were fitting forbears of today’s Progressives. As I tell Tyler, “…before their reign of terror ended, the Radicals had hanged several of their opponents and fought a battle, complete with cannon, against others, including Benedict Arnold. They confiscated people’s homes for themselves” – eminent domain, eighteenth-century style – “and established dozens of ‘committees’ (we call them ‘bureaucracies’ now) to regulate citizens’ lives. The Radicals first rose to power in Philadelphia; under their thumb, the city — and, as their grip widened, all of Pennsylvania — resembled modern America under Washington DC.”

One of the most fascinating questions about the Radicals is historians’ silence on them. Why have they completely ignored these politicians and bureaucrats? Is it because they prove yet again the mercilessness, brutality and horror of the State? Or is it because Benedict Arnold, who defied the Radicals and all tyranny, must be demonized – and that’s unlikely once folks see his treason as a heroic reaction against dictatorship?

At any rate, read the interview and let me know your theory on why historians ignore the Radicals. And for more information on these despots wrapped in a page-turning, can’t-put-it-down story, snag a copy of .

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...y-revisionism/

[Swordsmyth]

Benedict was a hero who discovered the evil take-over of the Liberty movement by TPTB- the Snowdon of his day.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...icts-birthday/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...y-revisionism/

He was a traitor who sold out to the British.
The British were not the good guys.

[Swordsmyth]

Next stop: King George III, whose Redcoats were the only force willing and able to save America from totalitarianism…

LOL

The guy who tried to take our guns was going to save us from the people who gave us the 2ndA.
@Ender, you need to stop reading this garbage.

[Anti Federalist]

Didn't Napster used to be a hero here?

I still hold him in high regard.

"The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," he wrote. "However, this use of the word 'crimes' does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes."

I just think he's wrong on this.

[Danke]

Benedict Arnold was a hero to the Revolution, until he wasn't.

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

[Ender]

LOL

The guy who tried to take our guns was going to save us from the people who gave us the 2ndA.
@Ender, you need to stop reading this garbage.

YOU need to learn some real history.

[Ender]

I still hold him in high regard.



I just think he's wrong on this.

Agree about Nap & am looking at all sides of this impeachment carp- haven't made a final decision.

[Swordsmyth]

YOU need to learn some real history.

From a novelist that thinks King George was the good guy?


LOL

Arnold the traitor failed but we didn't fall to the tyranny of the radicals anyway, what you posted is pure garbage.

[unknown]

Didn't Napster used to be a hero here?

Still is.

IDGAF about Trump.

The Judge gives the constitutional perspective.

He doesnt play favorites.

[Swordsmyth]

Still is.

IDGAF about Trump.

The Judge gives the constitutional perspective.

He doesnt play favorites.

LOL

[unknown]

Wouldnt it make more sense to go after Trump for the bumpstock ban, Red Coat gun confiscations, extending and wanting to enshrine the unPatriot Act, the extra-judicial killing of whats his face.

[unknown]

..

[unknown]

I still hold him in high regard.

I just think he's wrong on this.

Stating the obvious here: Trump could not give a $#@! about the constitution.

He doesnt even know wtf it is.

The other $#@!s in DC know theyre violating the rule of law. Trump doesnt even know that.

Trump was under the impression that the President is like the CEO of a company, that hes the boss.

Hes more of an authoritarian than anything else.

[dannno]

Didn't Napster used to be a hero here?

I guess you don't recall why he was suspended from Fox News?

I guess you don't recall what he said shortly after his suspension?

[dannno]

Still is.

IDGAF about Trump.

The Judge gives the constitutional perspective.

He doesnt play favorites.

Answer the questions I posted to zippy above, you will quickly see why you and the Judge are wrong.

[donnay]

Judge Nap is truly a disappointment. Obviously Nap's grudge towards President Trump is more powerful to him, than Liberty.

[Todd]

I still hold him in high regard.



I just think he's wrong on this.

This ^

[Todd]

Stating the obvious here: Trump could not give a $#@! about the constitution.

He doesnt even know wtf it is.

The other $#@!s in DC know theyre violating the rule of law. Trump doesnt even know that.

Trump was under the impression that the President is like the CEO of a company, that hes the boss.

Hes more of an authoritarian than anything else.

Good Lord! So much Truth...gonna splode heads here.

Trump reminds me of grandma in Christmas vacation when shes asked to say Grace and states the Pledge of Allegiance.

[unknown]

Good Lord! So much Truth...gonna splode heads here.

Trump reminds me of grandma in Christmas vacation when shes asked to say Grace and states the Pledge of Allegiance.

Hahah, I needs to sees this scene.

[donnay]

Good Lord! So much Truth...gonna splode heads here.

Trump reminds me of grandma in Christmas vacation when shes asked to say Grace and states the Pledge of Allegiance.

That was Aunt Bethany.

[Pauls' Revere]

Benedict Arnold was a hero to the Revolution, until he wasn't.

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


As far as I know, he had kicked ass and was turned down at least once for a higher command? and/or assigned a higher degree of battle responsibilities. Instead he was put in charge of supply coordination which he deemed petty and insignificant to his role. By todays terms he could have been the lead commander of all Logistics and Supply Chain of the Revolution. Which is actually a huge role, but nobody recognized the importance of such things back then. It was beneath him and menial and in some ways he was butthurt by not being recognized as a great officer. Reminds me of McCain and that no matter what human behavior doesn't change only the names and faces.

[RPtotheWH]

I guess you don't recall why he was suspended from Fox News?

I guess you don't recall what he said shortly after his suspension?

I found the answer to the 1st question but I would like to know which statement you are referring to?

[enhanced_deficit]

Cross platform support happens sometimes. There were recent reports that almost 30% of people showing at Trump rallies these days are Dems/minorities.

A libertarians supported judge being supported by Dems is not too unusual; during GOPA wing neocons supported Iraqi freedom war scam, many Libertarians started to like Dem Kucinich and he become almost a Ron Paul ally.