Donald Trump

Fox's Judge Napolitano: "Evidence of [Trump's] Impeachable Behavior…Is Overwhelming"

The libertarian analyst predicts Dems will bring as many as five articles of impeachment against President Trump.


"The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president," Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano tells Nick Gillespie in a wide-ranging podcast.

Since joining Fox News in the early 2000s, no cable news personality has been more uncompromisingly libertarian than Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and best-selling author who now serves as senior judicial analyst at Fox and host of the Liberty File on the streaming service Fox Nation. During the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the judge inveighed against the growth of the federal government and overreach by the executive branch. Now, Donald Trump has earned Napolitano's ire.

The allegations are not "enough to convict [the president] of bribery" in a court of law, Napolitano says, "but it's enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment" since impeachment is "not legal [but] political." The judge adds that while he thinks impeachment is "absolutely constitutional," it is also "probably morally unjust." Besides bribery, he lays out four more likely articles that he thinks House Democrats will bring against Trump.

"The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors, election law violation," says Napolitano. "The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with a witness and the fifth may be lying under oath."

Over the past few months, Napolitano has emerged as one of Trump's harshest critics, claiming back in May that the Mueller Report demonstrated that the president had clearly obstructed justice. In response to the judge's comments, the president issued a series of angry tweets accusing Napolitano of seeking a seat on the Supreme Court and personal favors (the judge denies all claims in this exclusive Reason interview).

Though he thinks the recent House hearings provide grounds for impeachment, the judge finds it unlikely that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to remove the president—and that the bigger problem is the way federal government continues to arrogate power to itself.

"No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution," says Napolitano. "And each president has more authority than his predecessors, for the simple reason that Democratic Congresses give power to Democratic presidents and Republican Congresses give power to Republican presidents. That power stays in the presidency. So Donald Trump actually has more authority than Barack Obama did, who had more authority than George W. Bush did, etc."

Napolitano argues that the federal government stays in power by "bribing" states and individuals with giveaways. The result, he says, is unsustainable debt that will ultimately undermine the economy and with it, social order. "The decline of certain types of cultural gatekeepers that said no [to] certain lifestyles obviously is liberating," notes Napolitano. "But the same technology which lets me put the works of Thomas Aquinas in my pocket also lets the government follow me wherever I go and record whatever conversation I have with Gillespie or whoever I'm talking to, the Constitution be damned."

Make sure to subscribe to this podcast by using the buttons to the right.

For a video version of this interview, go here.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

NEXT: Does It Matter That Impeachment Enthusiasts Are Lousy on Foreign Policy?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We did this discussion already. Why double down with Napalitano? He has been anti trump from the get go. He was wrong about every step of Mueller. Why post this article again?

    1. Gillespie recently split off his interviews as a separate podcast subscription from “The Reason Podcast”, and he’s promoting it.

      1. Nothing changed from the interview. No reason to split it off with more than a sentence. Napalitano views didnt change.

        1. It’s all about the clicks. It’s the KMW way.

    2. Ok…so it wasn’t just me, then. The Napolitano quote on the expanding Executive is one I agree with.

      As for impeachment-worthy offenses….honestly, I just don’t see it. If we want to outlaw quid pro quo, we might as well start rounding up 535 members of Congress and all our Ambassadors around the world who do QPQs every fricking day. It is a real stretch, and then some, to make this into something warranting removal from office and overturning an election. This ain’t Clinton, and this especially ain’t Nixon.

      I don’t even see the immorality here. To me, it falls under a valid exercise of power under article 2. I would feel the same way if it were Obama, or Bush or whomever.

      I recently read an article from Dov Fischer (UCLA professor of law), “The Rorschach Impeachment: You see what you want to see” that I thought really nailed this. This is a case where people really do see what they want to see. If you were a ‘Never Trumper’ before…you want him out. Everyone else pretty much doesn’t give a shit about a phone call to Ukraine where bureaucritters complain.

      And Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous informer, is going to testify – like it or not.

      1. Racist sees what he wants to see. Invokes violence at people, film at eleven.

        1. Racist sees what he wants to see. Invokes violence at people, film at eleven.

          Psst – I know you enjoy these little talks you have with the mirror, but we can hear you.

      2. This ain’t Clinton, and this especially ain’t Nixon.

        Clinton lied under oath, repeatedly, while suborning perjury from others. He then got on national television and lied directly to the American people. Nixon may have helped cover up the crimes of others.

        1. If you think Trump hasn’t lied repeatedly to the American people on television you are impossibly brainwashed by the always Trumpers. I agree that Clinton definitely lied about that blow job.

          Napolitano is ever so right about the snowballing executive power. It’s pushing us towards Banana Republic every day.

        2. DenverJ….I am not debating the merits of either case. POTUS Clinton was impeached; Nixon was not (he had the goo sense to resign).

          Now I was around for Nixon and the mood of the entire nation was dramatically different then (in 1974). The country was transfixed during Nixon; meaning, everyone knew it crossed the line and Nixon absolutely would be removed from office. It was bad.

          I am saying Nixon was a totally different vibe. What we see here is nothing like we saw during Nixon. That matters.

    3. You know if reason calls someone “Libertarian” chances are they are not.

      See Gillette, Napolitano….

      Nothing says Libertarian like allowing Lefty psychos to destroy this Constitutional Democratic Republic to hope for leniency from the Socialist mob.

  2. Napolitano’s ire

    Nice band name.

    1. Too many vowels

        1. That works. Need Don Imus back on the radio to promote it.

          1. Opening act: The Toe-heads.

            1. Pinky and the Toe-Heads

  3. Didn’t he say the same during Mueller?

    1. Probably and the Dems probably could have voted on articles of impeachment against Donald based on the Mueller report. Timing wasn’t right though. Trump would have been cleared by the Senate before the election. This is all about dinging Trump before the election, making him look more incompetent and or corrupt then the Dems running for office.

      1. The Mueller report found nothing. It was so desperate for anything it had to conclude that “they couldn’t find evidence of innocence”.

        And yes, Napalitano hyped that too. He is pathetic.

        1. Napalitano hyped that too. He is pathetic.

          Napolitano is a broken record even when he’s saying sane things. His way of reducing everything to a series of hyperbolic bullet points has always been off-putting. I often wish he would advocate someone else’s philosophy, because sometimes he makes just want to disagree with him out of principle.

          1. I honestly never understood what people saw in him. He was a district court judge in New Jersey. So what? Yet, people treat him like he is the Libertarian Hugo Black or something.

            1. Team. He was against Obama’s unconstitutional overreach, so Team Red figured he was on their side. Now that he is against Trump’s constitutional overreach, he’s the devil. He’s kind of right- every president since at least FDR has committed impeachable offenses. But, as he points out, each is just assuming the powers granted to his predecessors. If this were truly a case of Congress finally limiting executive overreach, I might support it. It’s not, though; it’s simply a partisan attack on Trump for doing what every president before him has done.

        2. They found nothing on Ukraine either. Look how silent the media is on the release of the Mark Sandy transcripts. Literally a non political officer of OMB directly in the know of why aid gets delayed. His testimony basically trashes all of the assumption, opinion, and rumors that the liberals built their case on.

          1. There are lots of stories about the Sandy testimony in the news.

          2. How does his testimony trash everything? As an accountant who wasn’t that much in the loop, he did testify that:
            – The aid was held at the White House’s request.
            – It was unusual.
            – He spent a lot of time waiting for explanation of why the aid was being held up. There was some explanation that the President wanted to know about other country’s aid to Ukraine.
            – When it got close to the deadline when the aid must be released, sign off powers were taken from him and given to his boss.

            None of it is earth shaking, but none of it blows anything up, either.

            1. And you somehow left the critical part of his testimony out… why Mike? Was that intentional? You know the part where he testified he was consistently told aid was on hold to figure out if other countries were chipping in? The same reason given for other countries like Lebanon.

              It’s just shocking you would ignore that part of the testimony.

        3. The Mueller report found nothing.

          I agree but facts don’t matter in DC. The whole point of opposition investigations is to route out the wrong team, not corruption.

        4. 10 counts of obstruction and (in reference to trump seeking electronic burglary from the Russians) “Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, Russian military intelligence tried to hack Clinton’s personal office for the first time.”

          That’s not nothing. It’s apparently just not enough to convince cultists to stop being anti american.

          1. The Mueller report never found obstruction, there were no indictments on obstruction. IT was a field guide on how to go after him politically, but never an indictment on instruction. You can even reference Mueller’s testimony to the case. He did not rely on OLC guidance to not indict, as per his written and oral testimony.

            Why lie baby Jeffrey?

            1. They only recounted 10 distinct episodes of Obstruction, 4 of which meet all criteria for being charged with the Federal crime.

              But yeah, in the world of a Trumptard, that’s “never found obstruction” because you people ignore facts you don’t like and make up lies to replace them.

              1. No it didn’t. You literally are making that up. It found nothing

                1. Uh, go fuck yourself John.


                  Congratulations on destroying any semblance of a reputation you ever might have had in this world.

                  1. You might actually be the lowest IQ poster here… which is really something

                    1. Strong rebuttal of those pesky facts.

                      It’s evident that you don’t have a legitimate position on anything.

                    2. I’m quite comfortable with the facts, as I don’t have to twist logic into a pretzel to make them look the way I want.
                      What you’re experiencing is a hysterical breakdown due to a worldview utterly at odds with reality.
                      It will end you, one way or another

                  2. Jason, you’re a lying shitweasel. You have nothing and there is nothing to refute. You should go back to whatever progtard rag you usually jack yourself off to.

              2. They only recounted 10 distinct episodes of Obstruction,


                They ‘found’ the same things they found here. People willing to say that they felt Trump wanted things obstructed.

                They found opinions, presumptions, feelings and assumptions.

                They found no clear facts.

                And the opinions, presumptions, feelings and assumptions all came from people who openly said they were working against Trump. People who would do anything to get him out.

                And still they found no clear facts.

                So, as with Ukraine, they moved from even thinking about impeachment to bringing up the opinions, presumptions, feelings and assumptions whenever the real world starts to intrude upon the airless bubbles they live in.

              3. Only if one considers firing an underling he has authority to fire to be obstruction of justice. Rational people do not consider it ooj.

          2. “It’s apparently just not enough to convince cultists to stop being anti american”

            You’re the one keeping the Russian fairy tale alive to keep deflecting the fact that it was Hillary and the Dems who were shown over and over to be tampering with the election.

            1. 17 different intelligence agencies say you’re full of shit, and unanimously agree on that, as well as the fact that it was Russia.

              1. Your talking points need updating

                1. Facts haven’t changed, so no – they don’t.

                  1. You keep using that word as if saying “facts” makes it so, and in the process revealing an extreme insecurity in your philosophy

                  2. Jason, you have no fact#. You have no credibility. You’re just embarrassing yourself.

              2. 17 different intelligence agencies say you’re full of shit, and unanimously agree on that, as well as the fact that it was Russia.

                No, 17 agencies signed a “report” almost exclusively written by the lying Brennan, many with serious reservations. Hell, even Comey’s FBI didn’t fully buy it. Even Peter Strotzk emailed his lover that there was no there, there.

          3. At the time he said that, Hillary’s server had been offline for months, and had been scrubbed. Pretty hard to “hack” an offline, unpowered, disassembled server

            1. On July 27, 2016 Trump said “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”, long after the server had been bleached. That’s not hacking, merely releasing hidden info.

      2. Timing wasn’t right though.

        Meh – that ascribes more competence and coordination than is really there, I think.

        “Pelosi Was Right” is an increasingly common sentiment coming from the left, meaning Pelosi understood during the Mueller hearings that impeachment would backfire politically and so deliberately tried to steer the train a different direction. OTOH, the young and naive newbies wanted to grandstand and signal their authenticity by demanding impeachment.

        I don’t think the timing of this is particularly well calculated – it seems to me to be symptomatic of Pelosi’s failure to control the newer members of the party and giving in to something she knows is unwise in order to salvage what’s left of her own standing in the party.

        As Exhibit 1 I offer that independents aren’t paying attention to this shit anymore and aren’t taking the Democrats seriously. A strategy that looks at that and says “let’s continue crying ‘wolf’ every day between now and the election” is a poor one.

        1. The problem is that while independents didn’t take them seriously, their base did. They are in an impossible situation. Every day they proceed with this circus, more independents tire of it and wonder why they are not trying to accomplish anything. But, if they stop, it will totally demoralize their deranged base who have managed to convince themselves that Trump is going to be removed from office and sent to jail if only the Democrats would do it.

          I think this entire thing is just stalling for time. It is something to do to keep their base happy on the hope that they somehow find some actual wrong doing that they sell the public on.

          1. I think this is exactly right.

          2. They are like George Bush trying to come up with a reason to invade Iraq that would sell to the public.

            George’s first reason was the real one. Regime change. But that didn’t sell so he needed something that would.

            1. Leading to that awkward speech where he had to come out publicly and say “yeah, I know we said WMDs, but actually we had lots of reasons, and we just picked the one we thought would play best in the media; we would tell you the other reasons, but they’re secret.”

        2. Fair point and I agree.

  4. Didn’t know Don Rickles was still around.

  5. #TrumpUkraine has surpassed #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history. And Drumpf will definitely be impeached by the #BlueWave Congress, as I’ve been predicting for over a year.

      1. Giuliani [said] “I never went to Ukraine”

        Indeed, then how could he possibly dig up dirt there?

        1. I drove by the big Ukranian church in Philly yesterday. I’m expecting a subpoena any time now.

        2. He met Zelensky’s aid in Madrid, instead — which is a nicer place to meet.

          1. We’re impeaching Trump because Giuliani ate tapas?

            1. I suppose in the sense that we were going to put Jeffrey Epstein on trial for having dinner parties.

              1. I saw one article where the headline was Epstein was offered a young neurologist.

                My immediate thought was how young can a neurologist be?

                1. My immediate thought was how young can a neurologist be?

                  A child genius!

              2. Except Epsteins victims have come forward and stated his crimes. Ukraine has never claimed to be a victim here.

                1. I was merely commenting on his characterization of the accusation, not the substance of it.

                  1. There’s an additional degree of separation there though.

                  2. It’s kind of an issue of substance when trying to make a comparison though. The substance is quite substantially different.

              3. Epstein?!!

                He said tapas not topless!!

            2. What I was originally saying was that we might not be impeaching Trump because Giuliani might take the fall.

      2. Falling on his sword implies guilt of some crime. Aside from your insistence on information being a campaign contribution, again no court has ever agreed to that interpretation, there is no crime.

        1. The assertion that getting opposition research on one’s opponent is not a thing of value is an oversimplification. I’m not going to refute it for a fourth time.

          1. You’ve never refuted it, because you know you are wrong. No court has ever stated information is a thing of value. Trump was not attempting to hire anybody from the Ukraine to do research. You’re wrong. There is simply no even arguing this point lil mikey.

            And you’ve never even refuted it, so why lie about it now? LOL.

          2. Let me put this more simply for you…

            When a campaign such as the Obama or Hillary campaign reaches out to a friendly reporter to point them in the direction of something on their opponent, and then say.. MSNBC/CNN write a story about it… is that an in kind contribution? Yes or no. Obama/Hillary didn’t write the expose on an opponent as a campaign expense.

            Let’s see if you can be logically consistent.

            1. I’m not sure what FEC regulations cover tipping off journalists in hopes they will write an embarrassing piece about your opponent. That’s a different scenario.

              1. And you have nothing of substance to offer, just your typical shit flinging

              2. Let’s take a different example then. Let’s say you contracted with a former British spy to obtain intelligence from Russian sources, then used that information as a pretext to obtain a warrant to secretly surveil your opposition’s political campaign while your department of justice illegally unmasked dozens of Americans, and then after you got caught red handed the wife of your FBI director, who happens to work for the same company as the aforementioned British spy, continues feeding bogus information back to the FBI in order to facilitate further surveillance and also leaks to the media?

                Or heck, let’s say that social network with over 3 billion active users put hundreds of its full time employees to work directly on a political campaign and gave that campaign access to data that was denied to other campaigns and also violated the privacy terms of its user agreement?

                1. Both of those sound pretty shady, and possibly ripe with illegal activities. I don’t know specifically, off-hand which laws. I’m not a Democrat or Democratic Party supporter, just like I’m not a Republican or Republican Party supporter, so you won’t find me defending anything illegal a Democrat has done.

                  Back on the subject of the Trump campaign’s possible violation of FEC regulations, what actually happened is:
                  – The Department of Justice looked into the Ukraine quid pro quo case and decided not to pursue it, making a public statement that they weren’t sure how to assess the value that opposition research would have had to the campaign. (Trump’s alleged solicitation of an investigation was made public before it could happen.) They also said there was no precedent of a *Presidential* campaign having done something similar.
                  – The head of the FEC publicly opined that it was still a violation of FEC regulations, and criticized the DoJ for dropping the case. I don’t know if the FEC head is a Democrat partisan or appointee, but there was admittedly some flavor of partisanship in his statement.
                  – There is still a political group (forget their name offhand) suing either the FEC or DoJ. This isn’t that important a detail, but just mentioning it for completeness.

                  When JesseAz says there is no precedent of a case where information was considered a thing of value to a campaign, I think he is referring to the DoJ statement, but oversimplifying what they actually said. I doubt JesseAz has searched the entire history of all FEC case law (including cases involving non-Presidential campaigns), but he makes assertions such as “no court has ever agreed to that interpretation”. I think what he really means to say is there’s never been a case involving a Presidential campaign, which is straight out of the DoJ’s statement on the Ukraine case.

                  Also, it is worth mentioning, that impeachment articles probably won’t even go into anything related to FEC regulations. They look to be heading in the direction of charging Trump with extortion (although they message it as “bribery” because they think the American public will buy into “bribery” better than they will into extortion). I’m not an expert, but I think that may still leave Trump open to an FEC case after his Presidency ends, or Trump campaign officials open to a case.

                  1. The Department of Justice looked into the Ukraine quid pro quo case and decided not to pursue it, making a public statement that they weren’t sure how to assess the value that opposition research would have had to the campaign.

                    Except that the Trump campaign didn’t do shit. It was the Trump administration, under the executive’s legal obligation to enforce the law, using a treaty with Ukraine that obligates both sides to assist in investigating criminal wrongdoing. But I’m supposed to believe that, because Joe Biden is running for president, that it is now illegal for an administration headed by the other party to investigate his obviously shaky activities? One wonders how that interpretation applies to the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign.

                    1. Not illegal to investigate Biden; a possible FEC violation to pursue an investigation in the manner that Trump allegedly did.

                    2. Trump was not interested in an investigation. He just wanted a public announcement of an investigation.

        2. Also, if Trump didn’t tell Giuliani to pursue an investigation it undermines the narrative that Trump just wanted to uncover corruption in Ukraine, since we then have to go with Giuliano’s own public statement he was investigating on his own to help his client.

          1. Do you know what reaching is mikey? You are still claiming to be neutral though, right?

            1. I’m a non-partisan, libertarian observer of the impeachment. I’m neutral in that I’m still watching the testimony and waiting for a trial, and agree Trump’s guilt hasn’t been proven sufficiently. Disagree with anyone who says there’s nothing to see here. There is lots of circumstantial evidence of abuse of office.

              I do think Trump is a reprehensible and incompetent President. I was also critical of Obama and Hillary. So, maybe I should say non-partisan because I don’t have a neutral opinion of Trump.

              I will point out when comments are made here in defense of Trump that are not factual.

              1. Were any uses of the Magickal “Phone and Pen” an impeachable Offense?

                1. I don’t remember any of the specific uses. I thought phone and pen was an un-Constitutional overreach.

                  Impeachment never occurred to me, but then impeachment wouldn’t have occurred to me for the Ukraine matter, either. It’s not like Nancy Pelosi asked me if the Democrats should impeach Trump.

              2. You’re actually the sockpuppet of a subhuman piece of shit Canadian asshole who spent 2 years shilling for Clinton and then got so assblasted when she lost that you retired your original cytotoxic account and started posting as chemjeff until everyone here got so tired of your shit that you had to start 3 or 4 other sockpuppet accounts just to get people to interact with you, you pathetic, sad little faggot.

                1. Pedo Jeffy should be raped to death by cartel thugs. He won’t even respond to me anymore because he’s so frightened of me.

      3. Or maybe Giuliani will fall on his sword

        Yes, he has been maneuvered into being the fall guy. No worries. Trump will pardon him.

        1. Now, I’m wondering if Sondland is being set up as another fall guy. There are news stories today about his activities in Romania, and #metoo accusations.

          1. I’m sorry, you think he’s being set up as a fall guy by Trump? Please explain how Trump’s legion of dastardly bad guys got three hard lefties to accuse him of sexual assault.

            1. Good point. Seriously.

      4. Found the two-minute clip from the O’Reilly radio interview with Trump:

        It’s more interesting to listen to the actual recording than news stories that quote from it.

        1. It was strange that Trump would ask the president of Ukraine to talk to Rudy if he didn’t want Rudy in Ukraine.

          1. We have telephones and even Skype.

  6. One more round of table banging and this Nappy fellow just might have me starting to believe.

    1. Maybe if he used his shoe?

  7. Fox’s Judge Napolitano: “Evidence of [Trump’s] Impeachable Behavior…Is Overwhelming”

    The evidence before the court is incontravertible
    There’s no need for the jury to retire…

    1. Are you saying the Judge is an asshole?

      1. I hear Khrushch/e/v and Khrusch/ô/v which is it?

        1. Oh that showed up in the wrong place.

        2. Don’t know – I always wondered the same about Gorbachev. HW Bush would always call him “Mr. Gorba-chahv,” which made no sense to me. But I know almost nothing about Russian.

  8. I see this as Nap saying prosecutors would indict. They can indict a ham sandwich. And that it would not be enough to convict at a trial.

    I have longed for prosecutorial reform that would end the can indict a ham sandwich advantage for prosecutors. Should we applaud if the judiciary committee goes with the ham sandwich? Not I.

    So what I get from this is that there isn’t enough to proceed to a trial phase. If impeached then there is a trial. Sure it’s political but you are still trying to convince jurors of guilt.

    1. When, Dear Lord, will Mama Cass finally see justice served and not just on rye with mustard.

  9. OT: 55 million set off for Thanksgiving

    Isn’t it about time to ban Thanksgiving due to its devastating carbon footprint?

    1. I dunno.

      CO2 is good for plant growth.

      It has no discernible effect on the weather.

  10. I think we’re all missing the biggest bombshell here—– Joe Piscopo still exists!!!!

    1. Joe Piscopo song that could not be made today:

      I Wanna Sound Like a Black Man

    2. You fargging icehole.

      1. The mouth on that guy!

        1. My mother said that to me once.

          1. +1 88 Magnum.

            1. it shoots through schools.

      2. ima gonna put jer bells in a sling!

  11. No they are not. There isn’t overwhelming evidence of anything. And Napalitano knows that. He is just gaslighting here and lying. He has fallen so far and lost so much credibility.

    1. God, you’re ignorant. Go back to complaining about African American basketball players being payed, racist.

      1. I asked you this before, but never saw whether you answered –

        What is a “Markett hug?” It sounds nice, and I’m wondering whether I should try to get one.

        1. I smell a cat meme coming.

        2. A libertarian who just graduated from a Jesuit research university in Milwaukee, WI?

        1. He’s implying a second syllable, to maintain the meter.

          1. Hyphen would be a better choice in that case

  12. “The allegations are not “enough to convict [the president] of bribery” in a court of law, Napolitano says, “but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment” since impeachment is “not legal [but] political.” ”

    It’s OK to simply allege high crimes and misdemeanors because impeachments is political ?

    That doers not speak well for the concept of impeachment

    1. That doers not speak well for the concept of impeachment

      I think it’s early to be making that call.

      Yes, impeachment is a political process, but it’s set up such that it would be almost impossible to impeach a president for purely partisan reasons.

      The percentage of Democrats who support impeachment is in the 70-80% range. Even with that level of rabid support, they still can’t do it without convincing a significant number of Republicans to go along with them, which ain’t gonna happen unless they find convincing evidence of clear crimes.

      I’m not holding my breath.

  13. REPORTER: We’re talking to prestigious conservative legal commenter Judge Napolitano. Your Honor, I understand you think Trump committed impeachable misconduct.

    NAPOLITANO: Yes, just like Obama and Lincoln.

    REPORTER: Ooookay… we’ve been talking to Andrew Napolitano. Next, the cat video that’s been sweeping the Internet…

  14. “Constitution be damned”

    I think the judge just stumbled on the new campaign slogan for both the Dems and GOP.

  15. The only thing these turds in the comments section have going for them is that they are right: these Senate Republicans aren’t going to convict no matter how evident Dear Leader’s corruption. You gotta hand it to them; they say they’re for limited government but their actions speak louder than their pitiable sloganeering. They are the first to bow down and take it from Trump’s red white and blue mushroom dick. That’s pretty ironic, don’t ya think, Trumpian dick suckers?

    1. You’re the kid fucker, right?

      1. No, the mortgage-welsher.

      2. I told you guys that you had the wrong person. You’re looking for the other colossal douchebag besides you. Here:

        traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.

        The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.

        Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,

        Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.

        If you don’t stop i’m Going to subpoena and sue you for defamation like Gilmore threatened to do when I changed my screen name to Gi1more a couple of years back. That was fun. Where is that colossal douchebag anyway?

  16. “The fourth [impeachment article] will be interference with a witness”

    Just ‘cos Schiffy the Clown read it to her live on camera?

  17. “not legal [but] political.”

    I don’t know what the judge means by that distinction, but the way I’ve heard it used, it posits a hard and fast line between legal processes, taking place in some Empyrean realm which disdains contact with mundane considerations, and political processes, taking place in the dirt and grime of icky partisan grubbiness.

    It’s more of a continuum.

    The Senate’s own rules, in the event of impeachment, describe the upper body as a court for the trial of impeachments. They have a trial, rules of evidence, and in Presidential impeachments, a Chief Justice in the chair. Senators in practice have more leeway than regular judges in consulting with constituents and talking about the case in advance, but don’t adopt the flattering idea of a rigid barrier between impeachmeant hearings and pure judging.

    The Founders didn’t bother looking for judicial impartiality in the Senate, preferring instead to rely on the 2/3 rule to weed out purely partisan accusations – the assumption being that any charge which attracts a 2/3 vote in support must have enough evidence to support a consensus that the accused is guilty.

    Nor were the Founders fully trusting of the judges, or else they wouldn’t have checked them with juries – or made them impeachable. Let history show whether judges are political or not.

  18. The message seems to be lost in the propaganda.

  19. My friends Ralph Fucetola and Kathy Greene, libertarian figures from way back (mentions in “It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand” and “Alongside Night”), live on the same street as Judge Nap and see him at functions from time to tiime. Some day I’m going to have to meet him and ask what all this mishugoss was about.

    1. Strange that Trump would ask the president of Ukraine to talk to Rudy if he didn’t want Rudy in Ukraine.

      1. It’s spelled mishigoss by the way..

  20. “The evidence for impeachment is overwhelming!”*

    *because there are no standards of evidence in a political process. BUT the evidence is not sufficient to convict in a criminal trial. AND all presidents in living memory have also committed impeachable actions. AND the impeachment process is politically motivated and unethical.

    Maybe reason’s headline editor should read the whole article???

  21. You can’t help stupid, but you can laugh at liberal DIMS and Judge ???

  22. Evidence that Napolitano is a statist hack is overwhelming. So is the evidence that he isn’t very bright.

  23. We can kiss the remnants of our democracy good-bye. Trump is the tipping point. Farewell to the ambition of the Founding Fathers.

Please to post comments