Donald Trump

Judge Andrew Napolitano: President Trump Obstructed

The libertarian legal analyst says Trump, like his White House predecessors, has abused executive power in all sorts of ways.

|

HD Download

Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News has long argued for libertarian positions on the nation's largest cable news network, consistently holding George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump accountable for alleged abuses of power.

In Napolitano's analysis, the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election lays out multiple instances in which President Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation, thus making him guilty under federal laws governing the obstruction of justice.

The president responded with a series of hostile tweets claiming, among other things, that Napolitano had asked to be named to the Supreme Court and requested a pardon for a mutual friend.

Napolitano sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to defend his name, lay out his case against the president, explain why Attorney General William Barr has been bad since his days in the George H.W. Bush administration, and put Donald Trump's presidency in a historical and constitutional context.

Hosted by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Meredith Bragg. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander.

Photo Credits:

2009 Owen DB/Black Star/Newscom

Andrew Harrer/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS/Newscom

For an audio version of this interview, go here.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEXT: Did the Attorney General Commit a Crime by Lying to Congress?

HD Download

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How dare the witch resist!

    1. Trump is lighter than a duck!

      1. He turned me into a newt!

    2. He obstructed a coup. You know who else obstructed a coup?

  2. The president responded with a series of hostile tweets claiming, among other things, that Napolitano had asked to be named to the Supreme Court and requested a pardon for a mutual friend.

    And some people wonder why Cohen had tape recordings of his conversations with Trump. If the man’s own lawyer doesn’t trust him to tell the truth, maybe it’s safe to assume he’s a liar.

    1. Oh, absolutely. However that a) doesn’t tell you that any particular statement is a lie – it just gives you a general path to follow and, b) it doesn’t mean everyone else isn’t lying also.

    2. Cohen had taped with other people too. Your thesis seems idiotic in light of reality.

    3. Cohen was taping absolutely everyone. What rock have you been under?

      1. +100

        Trump bad. All other logic out door.

    4. The president responded…

      How can you tell when Trump is lying?
      He’s responding.

      1. Nigga, please…….

    5. You’re hilarious! The man tapes all his clients because they are all untrustworthy? Or is the unethical act of taping one’s clients the act of a duplicitous lawyer? On that action alone, he should have been disbarred. You have the logical capacity of a rock.

  3. Because ‘Judge’ Napolitano has, of course, reviewed all the evidence. Right? Oh wait – you’re saying he hasn’t? You’re saying he’s talking out his arse in order to get clicks? My my, what has the world come to.

    Because this isn’t anything like a psychologist diagnosing someone despite never having met in person. Right?

    Also, he’s not a judge anymore. This crap of retaining titles for offices no longer held should stop. Really.

    Since we’re doing this twice.

    1. Word.
      It’s bad enough for the president. But at least that’s a pretty singular position that pretty much defines a person for the rest of his life. But “Madame Secretary” or “Judge”. Come on.

      In the town where I live we have elected offices such as “fence viewer” and “measurer of bark and wood”. I want to be elected to one of those so I can insist on being called “Fenceviewer Zeb” for the rest of my life.

    2. So you don’t like a legal analyst’s analysis, or acknowledge that a former judge might have more expertise in this matter than, say, a dentist or a coder or a serial blog commentator. Fine. Will you stop whining now?

      1. Why people hold this former judge in such high esteem? He was a low level state court judge in New Jersey and certainly never dealt with federal obstruction of justice issues.

    3. Napolitano’s explanation of what Trump did to obstruct justice, seems like a very expansive legal view of it, saying that Trump told Flynn to talk to the Russian Ambassador and say “Don’t worry about the sanctions”, and that’s interfering in the country’s foreign policy. It took him 2 minutes (about 5:00 to 7:00) to explain it.

      I don’t find that a convincing argument that Trump obstructed justice, or interfered in the country’s foreign policy.

      If Trump wins, then he’d be conducting our foreign policy, and if he doesn’t then he did nothing. And Napolitano didn’t explain how Trump obstructed justice regarding that either. And that Trump didn’t want people to know doesn’t make a crime either. Further, one could similarly make a case Obama and Clinton obstructed justice by hiding their involvement in setting up Trump for the Russian collusion delusion.

  4. “And some people wonder why Cohen had tape recordings of his conversations with Trump.”

    I don’t think anyone wonders why a shady-ass fixer collects blackmail material.

    1. Look a few posts above yours. Some people do wonder.

    2. You’re calling Cohen a shady-ass fixer? How dare you impugn our President in that way! I’ll have you know Trump hires only the best people and he has impeccable credentials in that department. Are you calling Trump a liar by suggesting he doesn’t pick only the best people? You fuck-heads and your TDS “Orange Man Bad” bullshit make me sick.

        1. ^Unable to understand satire.

          1. Its satire of a Trump Supporter that isnt based in reality. It is a form of TDS. You can believe using a constitutional power isnt a form of obstruction and not be a trump supporter.

  5. The judge has been wrong about so much of this over the last few years, and he’s wrong here, too.

    1. To Wizard He is entitled to have a legal opinion and that is all it is. There is little consensus in the legal community. Many legal scholars disagree with the Judge. The fact he agrees with the likes of Nadler and not Dershowitz is interesting but not conclusive.

      1. AN is entitled to have all the wrong opinions he wants.

  6. “but ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior…”

    Andy, what consequences? Getting elected? You’re working off the presumption of guilt.

  7. Napolitano was on the other side when Austin DAs went after Perry for using his state constitutional powers. But hes such an anti trump asshat he switched arguments here.

    1. Trump separates the wheat from the chaff when it comes to libertarians.

      Turns out, a lot of “prominent libertarians” really are just free drugs, free sex, open borders progressives.

      1. I don’t think I’ve seen any libertarians or progressives saying that the government should provide people with free drugs (well, not the recreational kind anyway) or free sex. 🙂

        1. Considering all the other shit they have promised it’s just a matter of time.

        2. “I don’t think I’ve seen any libertarians or progressives saying that the government should provide people with free drugs”

          In the dead-tree version of the Chron this morning, there was serious hand-wringing and fore-lock-tugging over the fact that prescription meds are more expensive in SF than the nation-wide average.
          The article never quite blamed those greedy pharm companies, but didn’t miss by much.
          And you had to read nearly all the way through to find the difference is ~14%. In one of the most expensive cities in the world, with the highest RE costs and among the highest mandated labor pay and benies.
          So while the proggies didn’t say they should be ‘free’, they hinted that the prices should be controlled, while ignoring the government’s cause of the higher prices.

        3. To the extent that government programs effectively indemnify people from the negative consequences of their dangerous behaviors then yes the government makes drugs and sex less expensive.

      2. Don’t even let Reason staff get away with calling themselves Libertarians because they are not.

        These people expose themselves as hating Libertarianism once they talk about any issue. Even drugs.

        They refuse to ever mention repealing the Controlled Substances Act because it is unconstitutional and THAT is why all drugs should be legal. A Libertarian would admit that the USA could turn around and pass a constitutional amendment banning all drugs and it would 100% legal, just like the 18A made alcohol illegal for a time.

        Same idea behind why sex laws are unconstitutional.

        1. The Rule of Law making drug illegal via constitutional amendment would still be fought by Libertarians because banning ingestion of certain substances is morally wrong.

          1. Exactly so.

            That was a constitutionalist argument, which is also a valid argument.

            But that’s the really nutty fringe. Expecting the legal system to follow, you know, the law? That’s straight up nuts. Just ask any lawyer, constitutional scholar or supreme court justice….

            The first amendment says “shall make no law” restricting speech. Yet we have laws restricting speech and the supreme court rules that those restrictions must be “reasonable” and have a “government interest”. That’s insane. It says “no law”. There’s no “unless you deem it important” clause.

            The same goes for the second amendment. “Shall not be infringed” is completely incompatible with all of our restrictions on weapons.

            Nobody is a constitutionalist – not anyone in the government anyway. And there are very few true libertarians. Hence the “no true Scotsman” references. Notice how rare the invocation of the NAP is here. We’ve moved several layers past talking about libertarianism and are way into “pragmatic” solutions that are somewhat in the direction of liberty.

  8. This guy is desperate for attention. What a buffoon.

  9. Trump is as guilty as any black guy who resists arrest after being pulled over for nothing.

    Separately, he’s as guilty as any other politician.

    Neither is good reason for a principled “libertarian” to happily use the language that Democrats are promoting in their effort to make the United States into their party’s dictatorship.

    1. Trump didn’t resist a lawful in eyes of the law, order. How is the same again?

  10. Unpossible. No president with an (R) after hs name could be anything but an angelic being sent from Yahweh to force women to give birth against their will and give tax cuts to billionaires. Napolitano is dead to me.

    –The typical libertairan

    1. Let’s see if you catch anyone with that.

    2. No president with an (R) after hs name

      Most presidents with an (R) after their name are like most presidents with a (D) after their name: war mongering statists.

      Trump is a little less so, not for lack of trying, but for lack of competence.

      Of course, that’s why full totalitarians like you, Tony, hate him so much. You and your friends, Tony, want a competent Fuhrer who gets things done.

      1. You’ll excuse me for wanting competence in the most powerful man in the world.

        1. Well Tony, it’s certainly better than when Obama was in charge. Your mulatto master was one fucking incompetent piece of shit. The thing you probably liked about him is that he lead from behind, just the way you like it

          1. Saved the economy of planet earth, succeeded in providing healthcare for 20 million more Americans, wasn’t a fat fucking Russian stooge with serious mental health issues… I’ll take that incompetence over the current variety.

            1. Everything you said is total bullshit. You were close on one thing. He is a SKINNY Russian stooge.

            2. You mean he delayed a recovery with bullshit economic policies and declared 2% growth the new normal because of his bullshir policies then took credit for saving the world after tax cuts and deregulation drove growth back above 3. You’re a fucking idiot Tony.

              Over 30% of the growth under Obama was from the energy sector that he constantly tried to stifle by delaying pipelines and exploration contracts. This growth happened in state and private lands, ins pits of Obama, not because of him. You’re a fucking idiot Tony.

              1. I suppose you’ll argue that direct policy action by Trump has caused current economic conditions. Or perhaps you won’t, since you won’t be able to point to any actual data.

                Obama saved the world. And was black. What a fucking inspirational story. Unless you’re a fucking moron.

                1. “Obama saved the world.” …. and …. Practically destroyed every thing/person/economy/foundation/principle on it in the process.

                  I’m still struggling twice as hard to earn healthcare (affordable — my *ss!), pay hyped-up taxes (due to leaching and wasted and failed policy like green energy), keep equipment running (EPA crap that’s utterly useless) and learning anything (education is in the toilet with 2-times the sticker price). Due to the Obama Administration and its first term of full Democratic support.

                  But at least things are finally getting better (Making America Great Again) and heading in the right direction…

                  Tony (like others on the left, and 70% of the prison population, and the USSR, and Venezuela) care more about dirt, rocks, birds and “whats in it for me at the expense of everyone else” than every civilization or humanity on the planet.

                  That must be how such outrageous claims of “saved the world” can even be imagined. Hitler “saved the world” from those jew’s too! Like minded screams.

        2. Why did you support the candidacy of a hopelessly incompetent woman for that job, then?

          -jcr

          1. I never backed Sarah Palin, that was you guys.

            1. Funny go say that about a governor, who at the time of her candidacy had the highest approval rating of any sitting Governor in the republic. You really don’t have any valid criticism of Palin other than you don’t like her.

              1. I don’t like or dislike her, I just find her incredibly stupid, and it all pretty much happened on camera.

    3. Still going with stupid eh Tony.

      1. Of course he is. I always thought that Tony and Pb might get to getter and fuck each other, but apparently PB likes his boys even younger than Tony.

    4. “angelic being sent from Yahweh to force women to give birth against their will”
      That’s a unique way to say you think killing kids is cool.

      “give tax cuts to billionaires”
      No, Hillary still isn’t president.

    5. Tony
      May.3.2019 at 4:08 pm
      ‘I’m still a loser, wa, wa, wa.’
      –The typical fucking lefty ignoramus

      1. Ive never seen anyone wallow in hypocrisy quite the way Tony does.

  11. I’m not surprised that a judge can support the old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich.

  12. And today, after a phone call with his boss Putin, Trump claims that Russia has no intention to interfere in Venezuela. Never mind the troops and bombers they have sent there.

    LOL

    1. What should Trump do if Russia does interfere in Venezuela?

    2. So just like Obama did in regards to Russia in Crimea and Syria? Totes a puppet.

    3. “BOMB VENEZUELA”
      Oh, war, KWlib revives
      ‘He loves destruction of innocent lives
      War brings delight to his googly eyes
      When kids go to fight
      And lose their lives
      He said, War! huh good god, y’all
      What is it good for?
      Thwarting Russia, say it again

  13. But not nearly as bad as FDR abused executive power. And he is a hero to many.

  14. So what is the proper way for a President to protect themselves from a frame-up by the most powerful intelligence and justice agencies in the world?

    1. It’s ridiculous. The position is apparently if you are President, head of the executive branch, with the removal and pardon power, you may not even consider or talk about using those powers for your own political advantage when your own executive branch has been hijacked and used as a cynical, political weapon against you. The special counsel, congress, and FBI underlings can act purely politically but all you can do is not use your powers? Suggesting that the Supreme Court, or, gasp, some lower court, would have the authority to substitute their judgment as to the propriety of using discretionary powers solely committed to the executive is to suggest a different political system than we have, and one that would quickly break down. This is why there is a Political Question doctrine. SCOTUS can’t say that Trump actions were “improper” where he has the absolute right to take those actions without usurping Article II power.

      This entire episode is 100% politics. The President can do what he wants. Congress can do what it wants in terms of impeachment. Would the SCOTUS have the power to say that Congress improperly characterized something as a “high crime and misdemeanor”, for instance, asking a subordinate to fire someone for political reasons? No. That would be usurping Article I.

      But these are the positions of anyone who thinks Trump violated an obstruction statute.

      1. Ideally, Trump should push Barr to prosecute as many democrats for as many things as he can.

        1. The crimes are there all you need is a President will to look and support the bureaucrats willing to execute on the laws.

          Democrats are scared shitless because they largely depend on bureaucrats covering for their crimes in exchange for government favors.

          1. They should be. Their crimes are without number and sir villainy without end. They’ve spent two years overplaying a very weak hand when their own houses are not in order. So they should be scared.

            The irony is that Trump would likely have foregone a lot of potential prosecution for these scum had eye just backed off and done their jobs. Trump is a deal maker, and the democrats could actually have gotten some things they wanted over the last two years. Now they get nothing and hopefully all end up in prison. Maybe hard labor. Like in Caddyshack 2 when Jackie Mason buys all the snobs at the country club slave auction and makes them work on one of his construction sites.

  15. “President Trump Obstructed”

    He does look obstructed these days. It’s his diet. You can’t just eat steaks and burgers every day. Have a salad or some bran cereal from time to time.

    1. Have you tried it? Salads are boring unless they are predominantly meat and bran cereal is still loaded with carbs. And fiber only assists regularity in those whose digestive systems are accustomed to a high-fiber diet. In other words, it isn’t necessary.

      1. Can’t even get a real Caesar salad these days even in the good restaurants. Yes that means with the egg yolks, anchovies and Worcestershire. You have to make it yourself. Putting chicken in it is an abomination.

        1. On the canal side of 101 in San Rafael, there was a white-tablecloth Italian restaurant, with a dock and docking privileges, on the canal. I drove there; parking was generous.
          An order for Caesar meant the server showing up with an empty mixing bowl and ingredients table-side and making it right there (I do not remember being asked about the ‘chovies; was there a question?); wonderful Caesar and a good show for a date.

          1. Sounds awesome.

            My mom used to make it for dinner sometimes and it was like that.

            She had a big wooden bowl and would mix it up right at the table. So it was fun.

          2. Marshaul is right though American salads are mostly boring. One that I make sometimes is Israeli salad which is chopped tomato and cucumber with parsley, lemon juice, olive oil, and there are variations you can add. Best if you let it sit in the fridge a few hours and still good the next day.

            I make that often when grilling steak because it goes well with that.

          3. Ah….but did the waiter start making the ‘real’ caesar salad by rubbing a cut clove of garlic inside the metal bowl? 🙂

  16. And now the “libertarians” (hilarious) here will ditch the Judge in favor of the Trump-Tard Con Man Liar in Chief.

    1. ‘Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
      May.3.2019 at 8:10 pm
      “And now the “libertarians” (hilarious) here will ditch the Judge in favor of the Trump-Tard Con Man Liar in Chief.”
      And now our kiddie-porn scumbag will offer more bullshit.
      BTW, the Liar in Chief was termed out several years ago, turd, and your hoped-for new Liar in Chief lost. Along with you, loser.
      Fuck off and die.

    2. Hey PB, you prefer toddlers, or early grade school kids? You sick pederast piece of shit. No wonder you’re a ducking progtard. You shitbags are trying to normalize your pedophilia now.

  17. Can someone explain why destroying 33,000 subpoenaed emails, smashing phones, and taking SIM cards isn’t obstruction.
    Can someone explain why refusing to yield relevant documents on an congressional investigation into your actions and then spying on committee members and journalists who investigate you, isn’t obstruction.
    But somehow an angry tweet is.

    1. “Can someone explain why destroying 33,000 subpoenaed emails, smashing phones, and taking SIM cards isn’t obstruction.”

      It’s just mom having a bad day.

      1. Or how selling 20% of our uranium reserves to a Russian proxy and simultaneously collecting huge speaking fees plus a nine figure donation to their personal ‘charity’ isn’t high treason.

    2. That was so years ago. This is about Trump, so he will be couped out of office and THEN we can have Queen snuke in office. Of course ignoring all the new violations of law she commits.

  18. Still waiting for the manuscript so we can see the particulars.

  19. Napolitano: The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to “make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”

    This is of course precisely backasswards. When the Citizenship Clause was amended into the prior text of the proposed amendment the debate was largely about whether its language replacing “Indians not taxed” with “subject to the jurisdiction of” would open the door to Indians claiming citizenship.

    So, when listening to Napolitano it is wise to remember that he is an ignoramus and an idiot.

  20. This is actually a complicated case. The reason for this is that the President is the head of the executive branch, and as such, he’s in charge of the DOJ. Which means Mueller was working for him. And the people in charge of Mueller were working for him.

    Now, here’s the complicated bit. Mueller was given a mandate to look into Russian meddling in the election. There is some argument over whether the mandate to look into the Trump campaign with respect to Russia was legitimate or not, but he also had that mandate. So he had an Attorney General and assistant AG’s over at the DOJ who were in charge of the investigation. And he also has staff at the white house who work for him but are not in that chain of command, like the White House Counsel.

    So it was part of Trump’s responsibility to make sure that investigation was being managed correctly. And it was by far the biggest and highest profile investigation at the DOJ, with an essentially unlimited budget. So here’s this huge investigation, and the guy in charge, Jeff Sessions, recuses himself. So now there’s a break in the chain of command. Rosenstein takes over that responsibility, but Trump can’t trust him because he’s been signing off on an ever expanding scope.

    Also complicating matters is the fact that Trump knows he hasn’t been working with the Russians. He is also fairly certain that nobody else in the campaign was working with the Russians. So when Mueller went past a few months, he has to be wondering what the heck is going on over there. As should most Americans. From all outward appearances, it looks like the question of “conspiracy with the Russians” was settled very shortly after Mueller got his team in place.

    Yet they kept expanding in scope, looking to “get” individual people rather than investigating specific crimes. This is the point where executive leadership should have been stepping in and overseeing the investigation. But there was no such person in place. So they kept digging around, looking to find anything on the people around Trump, instead of looking in to the Russia interfering in the election thing.

    So, what does Trump do? It is his job to tell the head of the DOJ to get it under control. And the head of the DOJ is saying no, he’s not going to be in charge. Not, “no, I disagree that the scope is way out of control”, but “No, I’m not going to make those determinations”.

    So he goes out and finds someone who will.

    And they are calling that obstruction of justice.

    Now, I can see where those making that argument are coming from…. not the people suffering from TDS who still believe he is a Russian puppet and believe he obstructed justice because they want any excuse they can find… but the people making a sincere argument. Because if you or I had conspired to get the US AG run out of office in order to get someone in place who would reign in an investigation that targeted us, that would be pretty clear obstruction of justice. You know, since we are not in charge of the executive branch and all.

    The rest of it is pretty stupid. Saying that tweeting about how you want the investigation shut down or the AG to start doing his job is “obstruction of justice” is pretty weak sauce. That is well into state-loving authoritarianism, and not the kind of thing any self-respecting libertarian should tolerate.

    But directing the people who work for you to reign in an out of control investigation…. that’s a tougher call. Because it is his job and responsibility to tell them to reign it in. And it is their job to do so. And it is unquestionably against both DOJ policy and just general criminal justice theory for the government to target individual people with “I’m going to find something on you, I’m just going to keep digging until I find it… even if I have to manufacture some trumped-up process crime to do it.” And that is exactly what the Mueller investigation became.

    So what is Trump to do? He let the thing go on for more than a year past the time when the investigation was complete in terms of the original mandate. And they showed no signs of ever shutting things down. They were doing a lot of highly questionable things, like working closely with state AG who ran for elected AG positions on platforms of “I will use my office to undermine the president and put him and his family in jail” to use the fruits of the federal investigation to aid them in that cause. That’s something that any real libertarian should have a big problem with, but it doesn’t get much play anywhere in the press, even in the libertarian press.

    So what are we to think? It is inarguable that Trump wanted Mueller to wrap it up. He wanted Comey to wrap it up before Mueller was hired. There’s a pretty good case to be made that he was correct and they should have been wrapping it up back then. Yet when push came to shove, Trump let them keep on running their unlimited investigation – even though there surely seem to be more than just a few members of the team who are motivated by “get Trump” rather than “uphold justice”. He still let it run its course, until they themselves said they were done.

    If you take that set of circumstances to any libertarian worth his salt – absence any of the baggage of partisan politics and personal opinion about the players – and just asked what they thought about a government investigation being run like that, absolutely 100% of the time they are going to be opposed to that action by the government. It is bog standard civil liberties. The ACLU would come down against that sort of investigation 100% of the time, in the abstract.

    The question of an abstract and hypothetical chief executive who makes a half-dozen comments about wanting that investigation shut down over the course of 2.5 years being guilty of obstruction of justice because of that is slightly more complicated. But I still dare say that the generic libertarian or civil libertarian would evaluate the abstract scenario the same way – no way is that obstruction of justice.

    I may be wrong about that analysis – but it is pretty impossible to get that answer today. Motivated reasoning is a powerful thing. And opposition to Trump is seemingly the most motivating of things for reasoning these days. So I really doubt that there is anyone you could ask and get a truly honest answer – because they are going to back in to their already existing choice based entirely on avoidance of cognitive dissonance. And they’ll never even know they are doing it. Every single one of them will believe that this bizarre circumstance that is a flagrant violation of civil liberties is pure as the driven snow. And they’ll be incapable of understanding how anyone could think otherwise, absent impure motivations.

    This is how people really think about things. They arrive at a conclusion first, and back-fill the reasoning. That is why all of these articles from libertarian writers are getting so many people riled up – because they’ve stretched “libertarian” around very unlibertarian things because they have judged Trump as the piece of the puzzle that is the most unlibertarian thing – and filled in the rest based on that. For most in that circle, being against Trump but not buying in to the DNC led opposition is inscrutable.

    And from what I can tell, theirs is the normal behavior. Even among the commentariate here, there is a large contingent of the “You guys are suffering from TDS” crowd who are also buying in to being on team Trump. But there is also a chunk of weirdos who are libertarian in their philosophy and politics, think Trump is an idiot and don’t support him while simultaneously thinking the opposition to Trump is batshit insane and terribly misguided in almost every instance. This does not seem to be a position that most people can hold in their head, but as a libertarian it seems to be the only logically consistent position. (logically consistent with libertarianism)

    1. The fact that Mueller’s mandate by Rosenstein was to only to investigate any links between or cooperation with the Russians by any members of the Trump campaign tells you all you need to to know. There was no mandate to investigate any Democrat or any other Republican – it was totally cooked up as a “get Trump” scheme from the moment Rosenstein signed it. Now it’s time to investigate the investigators.

    2. Reason can remove the 1500 character limit but not give us an edit button?

      1. Voice to text is a dangerous thing….. that’s all I’m saying.

    3. Cyto….great post. Thanks!

  21. Biggest revelation to come from this article: Meredith is a man!?

    I accidently clicked on his name. Imagine my surprise. I mean, it’s totally cool and shit, but I was surprised.

  22. I guess no SCOTUS nomination for Napolitano.

    Napolitano has been wrong on other things and not sure why he so sure of his position. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

    1. Sure. I don’t suddenly hate the guy. He’s just wrong here. I usually like him.

  23. Guard Bees on alert!
    Must defend the Queen!
    Must…Defend…Trump!

  24. Napolitano was totally pro-Trump before he was turned down for a Supreme Court nomination. Now he’s totally anti-Trump. Seems easy enough to draw a conclusion.

  25. I can see how Nick would mistake an antichoice girl-bullying conservative for a libertarian. But the rest of the cast have no such handicap to use as excuse. What gives? Are we so short of libpersonators that new ones must be invented?

  26. If someone knows an investigation is pure bull shit, then that person has a natural inclination to tell everyone to stop doing the bull shit. If that’s “obstruction” then it surely is not a crime. He let the investigation by Mueller go it’s distance. The judge should get over it.

    1. Amen!!! Since when was, “I’m not guilty so stop harassing me” become “obstruction”…

      These witch-hunting clowns have absolutely no concept of the word justice what-so-ever.

  27. Detomidine HCl, Boc Sciences is the world’s leading provider for special chemicals. We offer qualified products for 90038-01-0(Detomidine hydrochloride),please inquire us for 90038-01-0(Detomidine hydrochloride).

Please to post comments