Donald Trump

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

“The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming," says the Fox News analyst.

|

HD Download

"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 analyst Andrew Napolitano tells Reason in a wide-ranging interview.

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 former New Jersey Superior Court 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."

"The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming," he adds.

In two decades at the nation's largest cable network, Napolitano has provided an unapologetically libertarian critique of state power regardless of the party holding control in the nation's capital. In the past several months, he 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.

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."

Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander. Edited by Ian Keyser.

'Comatose' by Kai Engel is licensed under CC BY 4.0

NEXT: FNU LNU (no relation to GNU)

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. The walls are closing in! It’s the beginning of the end!

    How fucking scary is it that this retard was once in a position of deciding the lifetime fates of people in a court of law?

    1. Agree. This gadfly was properly taken to the woodshed a while back by Joe di Genova. When Napolitano said on FOX that the call Trump made was evidence of a crime, di Genova, who is a former U.S. Attorney and Special Counsel called Nap a fool who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Case closed on Nap. An overrated buffoon that for some strange reason, a few people listen to.

      1. FYI, just this year Joe di Genova and Victoria Toensing took on as a client an oligarch at the center of the Ukraine scandal.

        In other words, di Genova has conflict of interest over the Ukraine matter. And THIS is the guy you choose to believe over Napolitano?

        1. Yes, I trust people involved in Trump’s criminal activity to tell me whether or not they’re breaking the law.

        2. Another fake CNN talking point

          1. @Dhitter: “Another fake CNN talking point.”

            Says the guy who himself is simply parroting one of Trump’s OWN talking points! (In Trumpworld every news outlet which disagrees with him is “fake news”. His twitter followers are like the sheep in Orwell’s Animal Farm: they can only mindlessly repeat whatever words the Dear Leader puts in their heads.)

            (Oh, and BTW, it wasn’t CNN I heard that bit of info on.)

        3. listen to joe. listen to Napolitano. it’s easy. the judge is arrogant and an anti trumper. joe is solid and applies knowledge and common sense. this is all about governance. trump has it deep. knows what is the right thing to do for us. applies it. others be dammed. trump the transparent. people like the judge and other arrogant wannabe players can’t stand it.

          1. Pollock Pines Bill: “joe is solid and applies knowledge and common sense.”

            FYI, Joe di Genova has a conflict of interest. He and Victoria Toensing took on an oligarch at the center of the Ukraine scandal as a client.

            Meaning when he’s giving his views on the Ukraine matter on Fox News he’s looking after the interests of his clients first. Which means he probably spinning the truth.

            In other words he spouting what Trump himself would call “fake news”.

        4. Paid shrill laughably talking about conflicts of interest.

      2. 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 former New Jersey Superior Court 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.

        Actually, I think Napolitano’s analysis is uncharacteristically accurate. Because impeachment is a political action, no evidence at all is necessary – which is precisely what the DemonCRAPS have. Nothing. Their entire case is one of supposition, conclusion, innuendo, assumption, conjecture, speculation, surmise, suspicion, feelings and guesswork – all of which are hearsay and inadmissible at trial.
        To date, the only FACTS that have been adduced are statements by Zelezny and Trump, the call transcript, and the sworn testimony of those who were on the July 25th call. Unless someone actually heard Trump speaking, they cannot testify to his what he said – and no one can testify to his intentions other than Trump.

        And so you have the equivalent of a grand jury indictment – that august body which Sol Wachtler (former Chief Judge of NY State) immortalized in his comment that district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich” – trying to affect an air of unearned legitimacy while forwarding a smear campaign to the Senate for Trial.

        Sadly for the DemonCRAPS (but fortunately for the rest of the Country), gossip won’t result in conviction in the Senate.

        1. The July 25 call ¨transcript¨ is incriminating itself. Trump claimed that the U.S. had been very good to Ukraine but kvetched that the relationship had not been reciprocal. Zelensky asked for Javelin anti-tank missiles, whereupon Trump asked ¨Do me a favor,¨ to wit: investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden. All of this against the background of Congressionally appropriated military aid being withheld.

          Smells of quid pro quo to me.

          1. “Smells of quid pro quo to me.”

            But that wasn’t exactly a hard leap for you either, right? From the 2 scoops of ice cream forward, something had to be impeachable, whether it was bought and paid for by the opposition or not.

          2. Nope.
            Zelynsky said he wanted to buy more Javelins, not asked for some.
            IOW they already had the ones promised, so the “favor” had nothing to do with the actual delivery of that part of the aid, as testified to by Tim Morrison.

            1. If that is so, then the quid pro quo just changes to being allowed to buy more Javelin missiles in exchange for announcing a public investigation of the Bidens.

          3. ¨Do me a favor,¨ to wit: investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden.

            Your little opinion of course.

          4. nope…aid released when bipartisan panel said Ukraine is ok

        2. An angle I’ve been thinking of, but haven’t seen noted is this:
          Title IX kangaroo courts at colleges are deeply offensive to us because they violate the 4th 5th and 6th amendments. The bill of rights not only imposes legal constrictions on criminal proceedings. We expect the principles to generally apply to us no matter the circumstances. We expect it from ISPs, employers, HOAs, etc.

          Reason has rightly been asking for Title IX offices to follow the principles of the constitution and common law, even though these are not criminal proceedings (that is, no chance of prison time).
          Why is impeachment different? Shouldn’t the same principles apply?

          1. The impeachment process outlined in the Constitution includes a final step of a Senate trial. So, it is following the principles of the Constitution and a trial (admittedly following rules that specific to Senate trials, but at least based in the tradition of common law).

      3. But this kind of commentary garners attention. Good for ratings.

    2. the judge has come a long way since Freedom Watch and “Lies the government told you.” A long way to the left libertarianism of Nick Swarark.

      The President sets foreign policy not govt civil servants in the State Dept or NY Times. The left thinks Trump is an illegitimate president hence the “resistance.” Sorry the State Dept does not set policy they execute it.

      And it is in the countries interest and part of the president’s responsibility to ensure other nations do not have blackmail on major candidates for the presidency. Honestly isn’t this even if true the same thing Obama/Clinton did to Trump?

      The real threat is this cabal of former Russian/Ukranian immigrants or those whose ancestors who immigrated to the US who are obsessed with getting American boys killed to grind their axe with what the czar did to their grandparents. The left in this country (mostly socialists who came over from Russia) were big supporters of the USSR and sold the US out until their ethnicities were kicked out of power in the USSR then they became neocons…and couldn’t wait to get American boys killed in stupid wars in the middle east and now can’t wait to start a war with the modern czar Putin. Sorry but these folks in the State Dept and especially the Media need to be outed as fifth columnists who are a clear and present danger to our historical nonintervention foreign policy.

      The good judge seems to be on the side of Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot and their fellow travelers. What’s next Judge…damning of the Mises Caucus and Ron Paul? what happened to you?

      1. Well said, titus.

        Off topic, how’s Cleopatra’s kid doing?

      2. Judge Nappy thought the president should have been impeached when he turned down Nappy for a seat on the SCOTUS.

      3. I think what’s happened to Napolitano, is he asked Trump for a SCOTUS appointment, or some other cushy government job, didn’t get it, and is now throwing a bit of a tantrum at Trump. Trump may have been testing how he’d react if he didn’t immediately give it to him. A psychiatrist friend is the one who suggested this, which makes sense.

        It’s interesting the way Napolitano dedicates 2 sentences to say impeachment is unjust, immoral, and not enough to convict, but the rest of the article makes a case for impeachment, almost as if he’s egging it on. I think the judge believes it will hurt Trump, but I think he’s mistaken. It’s all a moot point, because I expect the Horowitz report and Durham investigations will put an end to the impeachment circus, when everything is revealed as an illegal Democrat setup by the Obama administration with help from Hillary to create and spread the fraudulent dossier around.

        It remains to be seen if the investigation was the insurance policy against Trump being elected, or if it was to cover up further spying by Obama’s administration against his political opponents, like Nixon but worse using government resources and agencies to do it.

        1. Obama setup . . . Clinton . . . Obama spying . . . worse than Nixon . . . illegal Democrat setup . . . Napolitano a spurned Supreme Court wannabe . . . Horowitz report will end impeachment . . .

          How are you and Trump coming along with that birther investigation, clinger?

          Delusional right-wing bigots are among my favorite faux libertarians.

      4. What happened to the judge is he became a whinny butthurt when Trump passed him over for the Stuperior court.

      5. Congress also sets foreign policy, not just the President. For example, the appropriation of aid to Ukraine or the Hong Kong resolution going through Congress right now.

    3. Is Napolitano gaslighting us, or is it terminal TDS?

      I tend to go with the former, as when Nick asked about the Republican defense that Trump was just investigating Ukrainian corruption related to US elections (actually US corruption interfering with Ukrainian corruption investigation) Napolitano completely dodged the issue and talked other impeachment counts.

      This is the whole deal with the impeachment charges. They require pretending that Biden’s interference in Ukrainian investigations simply never happened, and that Ukrainian interference in US politics never happened either. As it turns out, we’re finding out that the Establishment was up to its eyeballs in Burisma and Ukrainian connections and cash.

      The Narrative is that just out of the blue, Trump strong armed a random country to get random dirt on Biden.
      You have to be willfully blind yourself to known facts to accept The Narrative.

      Notice that they’re accusing Trump of precisely what the Dems and the DeepState did to Trump in 2016. If you want to know what crimes the Left have committed, just look at what they accuse the Right of. The Left Always Projects.

      1. True, except they had to invent something to investigate Trump for.
        Biden boasted on tape that he should be investigated

      2. Correct.

        Interfax-Ukraine News Agency: MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln

        Quote:
        Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the “family” of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.

        Derkach also announced the amount of money transferred to representatives of the Burisma Group, including Hunter Biden. According to documents, in general, in favor of Hunter Biden, Alexander Kwasniewski, Alan Apter and Devon Archer, Burisma paid about $16.5 million.

        According to Derkach, ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin repeatedly appealed to the NABU Director Artem Sytnyk in the framework of criminal proceedings for Burisma, but constantly received formal responses. The activities of Shokin, according to the MP, irritated then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during his fifth visit to Kyiv in two years. The visit on December 7-8, 2015, was devoted to solving the issue of Shokin’s resignation for the affairs of Zlochevsky and Burisma, he said.

        “The subject of pressure was the $1 billion credit guarantee that the United States should have provided to Ukraine: Biden himself acknowledged the pressure in his speech to the U.S. Foreign Relations Council in January 2018,” Derkach said.

        1. The news at Reason is in the comments section.

      3. Where is your evidence that any investigation of Burisma was active when Joe Biden expressed his concerns about the corrupt prosecutor? Please be specific.

    4. Nappy’s husband died recently and he’s still in mourning, so give him a little space. OK…that’s enough space!! He will continue be a neoliberal/Marxist, but do not despair, Trump is coming in 2020, with a Landslide!

    5. I am truly puzzled. Supporters of POTUS, let’s just say for the sake of argument Trump is acquitted in a 2 week trial.

      who thinks he won’t turn around, call Putin and tell him to pump billions into FaceBook or anywhere else who will take Russian Kompromat dollars. Maybe they might even finance riots at D campaign events.

      in any event Putin is now unrestrained, Trump is re-elected, Ukraine goes the way of Poland in ’38, who knows, maybe Findland is next, Trump Jr. gets Moscow tower and the world is a whole lot more totalitarian.

      1. You are huffing glue again aren’t you?

      2. Tim, you’re a fucking idiot warmonger

      3. >call Putin and tell him to pump billions into FaceBook

        TDS stage 4

        1. This is some next level ish.

    6. Napolitano is pretty much has the same opinions as almost every American: it’s exactly what they thought 2 months ago before the whole whistleblower/Ukraine foofurraw started.

      Napolitano has been on record for over a year that Trump should be impeached. So now that he all the sudden sees different reasons to justify impeaching Trump isn’t very convincing.

      1. “pretty much has the same opinions as almost every American”

        Maybe move out of your bubble

    7. Trump is accused in show trials of doing no more than Biden in asking the Ukranians for new corruption investigations, but Trump asked about American corruption concerning 2016 election interference, Biden’s Burismal conflict of interest, and Soros/Burisma/Atlantic Council manipulation of Ukranian policy.
      Trump has never flagged in defending Ukrainian freedom, nor in defending Americans, in Tea Party fashion, from “holier than thou”, bellicose bureaucrats in wannabe mode.
      Biden represents the Democratic party’s sanctioned lawlessness in our government, in our cities, on our border, and in the Congress.

      1. Technically, it’s a show hearing. If there’s a show trial, that will be in the Senate, and it’s most likely the outcome will be Trump’s not being removed from office.

    8. So James Cameron WANTS to have a Dem president, who will, almost CERTAINLY, give us higher rates of unemployment, much higher taxes, more intrusion into our lives and other “good” things.. Trump is a bombastic man, and probably a liar, but tell me which recent president wasn’t. If Hillary (who suborned murder with her husband, Billy Boy not to forget Whitewater) is an honest person, you are truly a moron. This is not an insult to you, it is a fact.

    9. Napolitano is a closeted gay. Gays hate Trump because Trump is going after pedophiles. Many gay people get initiated by other gays when they are either teens or children. So Napolitano has this seemingly irrational hatred of Trump like many gays.

      https://ecelebrityfacts.com/fox-news-andrew-napolitano-gay-rumors-married

      1. Why do you care about his sex life? Sounds to me like you’re a jealous closet-case yourself.

        -jcr

    10. Only little thing to worry about, will the Senate convict?

      Not likely.

      Ready for the aftermath of over throwing the legal government elected by the people?

    11. The Judge has obviously been compromised I smell the stink of Soros’s money and promises for future position.

      The Turncoat should be talking about the real criminals – Creepy Joe and his Loser son Hunter – they raped Ukraine for millions and Joe is on tape for bragging about his hard assing the Ukraine President to fire the Prosecutor who had the balls to investigate his dim witted son.

      Trump is the best President of our life time and George Soros is one Evil SOB – Do some real research – Obama was his boy , Obama was nothing before George opened all the doors for the Muslim and BathHouse Barry did his job in laying the foundation to take down America

  2. Nappo has finally jumped the shark…

    1. He jumped it over a year ago about Mueller.

  3. I think Napalitano needs to release his tax returns. I want to know who is paying him to put out straight disinformation. And if no one is paying him to do that, his friends and family need to do an intervention and get him some help.

    1. I loved that he said Trump has more authority than Obama.

      Explains why DACA is over now.

      Nap is a fucking clown.

      1. The fact that you can’t see the reality of States accruing and never declining or releasing power shows how far you’ve mortgaged your libertarian card to Trump’s arse.

        1. The fact that you can’t understand that all of the power in the federal government doesn’t lie with the President and that the government can be even more powerful today but the current President able to wield a smaller share of that power than the previous one shows that your head is so far up your ass that it is unlikely we could get it out with a crowbar.

          1. Ya ya, except when Obama was in … and Clinton was in …. they all had too much power. Poor widdle Twumpie baby doesn’t have enough.

            Ya ya.

            1. Ya ya, except when Obama was in … and Clinton was in …. they all had too much power. Poor widdle Twumpie baby doesn’t have enough.

              They all three could have too much of it and Trump still have less than the other two. So damisek’s point still stands and Napalitano’s point still falls.

              Why do you think jibberish and saying something non responsive is going to win the argument?

              1. “Could” is not fact. Come back when you can show some evidence that Trump has less power than Obama, Bush, etc. Your whines and fears are not evidence.

                1. He gave evidence, DACA. Obama had the power to create it out of thin air and Trump has been denied the power to end it.

                  1. Which is absurd on it’s face.

                  2. I mean, this is a really direct example.
                    There’s no refuting it.
                    But some people, like alphabet guy, seem so slavishly devoted to their dogma – both sides! orange man bad! – that they’re utterly incapable of admitting nuance, as if it would threaten their entire belief system.
                    And they are so incredibly insecure in the basis of that belief system that a rather innocuous statement like damikesc’s sparks an emotional outburst so uncontrollable that they must react with a tantrum regardless of looking like a fool.
                    Tis bizarre

                    1. When Obama first proposed DACA, it too was challenged in the courts. Did you forget that?

                      Obama wasn’t allowed to enact his singular will without having his decisions reviewed by the courts.

                      It is the same with Trump. He isn’t allowed to enact his singular will without having his decisions reviewed by the courts.

                      I don’t see how DACA provides any particular example of Obama “getting his way” while Trump’s will has been thwarted.

                    2. DACA was upheld for Obama (allowing his will to continue since he enacted it unilaterally) and upheld against Trump (thwarting his will).

                      I think the goal of DACA is admirable, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to insist that children who are brought and raised here be sent back to a country they’ve never really known, but throwing a temper tantrum and writing an EO should never have been upheld. And it is even more absurd to say that the next guy doesn’t have the authority to rescind that EO.

                    3. I will absolutely get behind amnesty if the legislature passes it AFTER border security is accomplished

                    4. No more amnesty for illegals. The Lefties already abused that compromise.

                      This is evidently a war and Lefties are desperately losing.

                2. Shouldn’t you have to prove he has more power for your opposite assertion to be true?

                  I mean mike could point to the number of national injunctions against trump policy changes as an example. He already pointed to not being able to overturn a previous EO, first time that has been blocked.

                  So you’ve now made an assertion that trump has taken more power. So prove it.

                  1. John and all the Trumpistas are making the assertion that Trump has less power, flying in the face of every political organization and every unchecked bureaucracy that ever existed. The only governments that have ever lost power have been those overthrown or conquered.

                    Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary facts. The burden is on you Trumpistas making the extraordinary claim.

                    1. How many Obama policies were stopped by national injuctions by judges who admitted what he was doing he could do but they didn’t like his rhetoric in the campaign?

                      How many were refused to be allowed to rescind prior EO’s?

                      Trump is about it. He’s clearly got less power than Obama had, largely due to judges perverting the power of the executive. Hint: One executive cannot force a following one to follow their own directives.

                    2. Ah, so alphabet’s mind is so childish that Trump=government in its entirety

                3. A great deal of the power the executive branch is in regulations and Trump has served under a much lesser regimen of those – by his own orders.
                  https://cei.org/blog/trump-regulations-federal-register-page-count-lowest-quarter-century

          2. Sure, it *can* be. So what? Congress almost never takes back any significant power given to the Executive branch. The best scenario is that they don’t give any more.

    2. I’ve seen the same thing..the judge has all of a sudden lost focus on what really matters…ending the Fed, stoping foreign wars, getting the hell out of the middle east and ending all these foreign entanglements. Trump (sans Yemen) has been the most pro peace president we have had since Reagan and Ike. JC..stop it Judge..we don’t want another neoliberal or neocon in the office. As Dave Smith says…the biggest threat are the wars and the FED not woke bs. Maybe the left has pics of he good judge…media matters, Soros…neocons (Kristol and team)? The judge needs to be the strong libertarian we used to know. I’m waiting for him to praise Cathy Young and condemn Tom Woods tomorrow…

      1. All that matters is that Orange Man Bad!

        1. “Slander is the last arrow of the loser”… Aristotle. You validate that idiom! Trump will run the tables in 2020, and the D’s know it, and say it!

      2. I think he just has a vendetta because Trump passed him over for SCOTUS (proving a wise decision) and he’s pretty, shallow, and unprincipled.
        WTF does he care about the deep state? He’s part of the club

    3. Still waiting on trump’s returns. How do you feel about him lying to you about his intent to release them?

      1. Of course you’re waiting on that. Because next to “faux news”, that’s your most original argument, you independent thinker you.

      2. I seriously doubt you would understand anything about his return. I couldn’t. And the Dims never read anything, so they certainly wouldn’t. Trump’s policies are producing records for all Americans, and he’s really doing to roll after his 2020 Landslide. Don’t believe me, ask the Dims! Do you agree with theses Dim positions?
        Medicare for all (including Illegals), Citizenship for all Illegals, Open Borders, No Wall, Government run Healthcare, All other private insurance wiped out (180 Million), Free college for all Illegals, Increased Taxes. Income whether Working or Not, No 2nd Amendment. Do you agree with these policies? If so, we need talk no more!

    4. Nappy is gay and never had children. His hubby died recently. I doubt he has any friends much like S. Smith!

      1. Drudge is gay too. The gays support each other and are aligned against Trump because Trump is going after pedophiles. Many gays start by “initiating” teens and children, who turn into gays when they get older. Then they initiate other teens and children. Wash, rinse, repeat. Although Trump has vowed to solve AIDS in ten years, the gays absolutely hate him.

  4. This guy cries more than that one guy, what was his name, the guy whose wife I’m plowing…

    1. I think you call him “dad”.

      1. Hey, my step mom was banging, but no, that’s not it…

  5. Bombshell. Etc

    Reason in a race to the bottom.

  6. “No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution”

    I must’ve missed all those impeachment hearings because it seems they only care when orange people fuck up

    1. Guess you slept through Clinton, eh?

      1. Guess you slept through Clinton, eh?

        You mean when he perjured himself when he was on trial for sexual harassment?

        People seem to forget that.

        He was on trial for SEXUAL HARASSMENT and no one tried to impeach him over it.

        No one tried to impeach him UNTIL HE LIED DURING THAT TRIAL.

        THEN they went after him.

        1. I dont think they forget it… I think they were ignorant to begin with.

        2. And how many other things did the Republicans just ignore until that point?

          One good does not excuse the thousand wrong.

        3. Azathoth: “You mean when he perjured himself when he was on trial for sexual harassment?”

          FYI, Clinton was NEVER put on TRIAL for sexual harassment. Trials are about CRIMINAL charges. Clinton WAS involved in a CIVIL lawsuit against him filed by Paula Jones. That I suspect is what you are alluding to.

          As for the perjury charge, that stemmed from him lying to a grand jury. There ARE no grand juries with a civil lawsuit. The grand jury Cliton lied to was one set up by Ken Starr for his own investigation.

          Get your facts straight.

          1. Trials also occur in civil lawsuits that survive summary judgment proceedings, which the Jones matter didn´t

          2. “Trials are for CRIMINAL charges.”?
            None other that the US Constitution says otherwise.
            U.S. Constitution – Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
            “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”

        4. Uh, Bill Clinton never went to trial for sexual harassment. The District Court granted summary judgment in his favor because Paula Hound Dog failed to show a genuine issue of fact requiring a trial. She sold her right to appeal from that judgment on the merits for cash on the barrel head.

  7. Since Impeachment is a political not criminal process you could theoretically impeach a president for spitting on the sidewalk.

    1. You could only in the sense that Congress could get away with it and there likely wouldn’t be any remedy. But the fact remains that the Constitution says “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Yes, Congress could pretend that covers spitting on the sidewalk but they would be wrong and would be ignoring their duty under the Constitution. The fact that there isn’t anything anyone could do about it doesn’t make it any more wrong.

      1. Yeah as we’re constantly reminded impeachment is a political process. The problem with this particular impeachment is that it is an entirely partisan process. Conviction requires 2 thirds in the senate and Democrats in the house have made no effort whatsoever to convince their Republican colleagues that the presidents actions justify removal. Quite the contrary. The Democrats have rigged the process as an increasingly tedious PR campaign for the purpose of dirtying Trump going into the 2020 election. With zero Republican votes in the house for articles of impeachment the senate has no incentive to take this up as a serious matter, let alone vote to convict. Whether or not Trump’s actions are “impeachable” is beside the point because nobody believes he’ll be removed by any other means than losing in the election.

        1. Gaear Grimarud: “The problem with this particular impeachment is that it is an entirely partisan process.”

          Are you suggesting the impeachment of Bill Clinton was NOT “an entirely partisan process”?

          Gaear Grimarud: “Democrats in the house have made no effort whatsoever to convince their Republican colleagues that the presidents actions justify removal.”

          FYI, impeachment in the House of Representatives is equivalent to an indictment by a grand jury. At the moment why do they need to convince anyway. What they’re doing right now is the investigation which precedes the indictment. Investigation is all about collecting the evidence. With indictments that’s normally done in secret behind closed doors in grand juries. It’s being done in public here because the Republicans jumped up and down and demanded the investigating be done in public.

          One other thing.. It is not the Republicans in the HOUSE Democrats will need to convince but the Republicans in the SENATE. That is where the impeachment trial will take place and the senators play the jury who will get to decide whether Trump is guilty or not. Since we have not even got that far yet, your complaint is premature.

      2. This.

        There is what people have the *power* to do, and what they can do that is consistent with the Constitution, the law, the rule of law, and self-government.

        A jury has the *power* to find you guilty out of malice.
        A judge has the *power* to rig a trial against you.
        The ruling class has the *power* to impeach the President because he attacks their corruption and privilege.

        The people within the system have the *power* to lie and pretend and betray. Enough traitors willing to lie can execute a coup.

        But if there are enough patriots to stop them, the traitors can be executed in their turn.

        The Establishment must be feeling desperate to attempt a naked coup. With the walls closing in from Barr and Durham, they may feel there is little to lose.

      3. Copying this comment from above since it applies here and I’d really like to get feedback on it.

        An angle I’ve been thinking of, but haven’t seen noted is this:
        Title IX kangaroo courts at colleges are deeply offensive to us because they violate the 4th 5th and 6th amendments. The bill of rights not only imposes legal constrictions on criminal proceedings. We expect the principles to generally apply to us no matter the circumstances. We expect it from ISPs, employers, HOAs, etc.

        Reason has rightly been asking for Title IX offices to follow the principles of the constitution and common law, even though these are not criminal proceedings (that is, no chance of prison time).
        Why is impeachment different? Shouldn’t the same principles apply?

    2. EXACTLY — “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”

      LOL… So anybody (absolutely anybody) would never be found as guilty of said crime but President Trump specifically could be found guilty anyways because of __________________????

      That’s some SICK justice we’re listening to.

      1. TJJ2000: “So anybody (absolutely anybody) would never be found as guilty of said crime”

        If we’re talking presidents…then the short answer is: probably.

        Yet your statement is also just plain wrong. That is because presidents have NOT been the only ones who have been the subject of impeachment investigations by the House of Representatives. So have a long list of federal judges (around sixty of them, including three from the Supreme Court). Fifteen were convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Several others resigned before proceedings got that far.

        In other words, Congress has had no problem impeaching judges. It’s the executive branch where it seems to have a problem. With one exception has never even tried to impeach anyone from that branch other than a president (the exception was a cabinet secretary back in the 1800s: William Belknap, who was the Secretary for War).

  8. No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution…

    Not just presidents. Top to bottom the government has violated individual liberties like only governments can. At some point the state must be brought under control. Is this impeachment the start of that? Not even close.

    1. Impeachment, especially in this case, is the exact opposite of that

  9. Well he does believe that every president post-Wilson has violated the constitution. Libertarians have long held that every president has done something impeachable. Politics has restrained impeachment for most of them, but the future looks like if one party doesn’t control all the branches, then impeachment will become almost routine.

    1. Well, if the party in the White House doesn’t control the House, anyway. It’s not like the Senate can impeach without any help from the House.

    2. More specifically, if the same party does not control both the House and the Presidency.

    3. Well he does believe that every president post-Wilson has violated the constitution.

      So, he has a keen grasp of the obvious. Good for him.

      -jcr

      1. I find it odd that he excuses Wilson…

  10. how are those impeachment polls looking?

    1. Well, 538’s “impeachment tracker” shows that it’s neck and neck within the margin of error. Support for impeachment has dropped substantially among independents, (From 46.4% a week ago, to 41% yesterday.) and even a bit among Democrats. (83.1% to 80.3) and has dropped very slightly among Republicans. (12.3 to 12.2%)

      So far televising the impeachment hearings has been a success… for Trump. I guess people were free to imagine damning evidence as long as the Democrats were keeping everything secret, but it took very little transparency indeed to reveal how weak their case against Trump really was.

      1. Independents are all that matter. The number of Republicans who support this nonsense is about equal or actually smaller than the number of Democrats who don’t. So it has no effect on Trump’s appeal to his base. It is however improving his appeal to independents. Democrats may be happy but they were not going to vote for him anyway.

        1. Considering that a large fraction of “independents” are just Democrats and Republicans who don’t like admitting it, you’re probably not going to see “independent” support for impeachment drop below 30% or so no matter what happens.

          Every time they come out with some new pseudo-scandal, people who aren’t paying attention start out thinking it’s serious, and then in a few weeks to a couple of months figure out they’re being conned.

          Meanwhile the people paying attention don’t take this seriously unless they already wanted rid of Trump, in which case they go along with the joke because they’ve got no reason to fight it.

  11. Wait.. reason is posting rabid anti trumper napalitano as an expert? Where is the Dershowitz counter? Napalitano was literally wrong about everything during the Mueller investigation. Yet reason feels he is the neutral observer to give analysis?

    1. Napolitano is NOT a never-Trumper. He’s actually a friend of Trump’s who apparently lives in one of Trump’s own building.

      JesseAz: “Napalitano was literally wrong about everything during the Mueller investigation.”

      All Napolitano has done is explain the law and Constitution to the Fox News audience (and here to the reason.com audience). He’s done on Fox News for years. The Fox News audience never had a problem with him until Mueller came along abd started explaining that to them as well. Then they started turning on him.

      Which does seem to say a lot about Trump supporters. Anyone who says anything about the Dear Leader they don’t agree with, then he must “literally wrong about everything”.

      Which is why you now get some who are now claiming that Napolitano is not just wrong about Trump but wrong about EVERYthing–including (apparently) view Napolitano expressed back before 2016 on the wrong doings of Obama and Hillary, the very sort of views they had no problems with back before the Dear Leader came along.

      1. Nap has become a never-Trumper since he got humiliated telling his friends he was on the short list for SCOTUS, and then passed over without even a nod. He was humiliated in public and with his friends, and for a guy with such an ago that he calls himself “Judge” 25 years after he was a judge for only 8 years, this was unforgivable.

        In years prior, Nap would have never suggested that thinking about firing someone or refusing to participate in their own lynching was criminal obstruction or said he was guilty without benefit of a trial, yet that is exactly what he laid out for Trump. He’s been predicting Trump’s undoing and political downfall at every mention of Democratic accusations ever since. This is not the Nap that was a unapologetic supporter of Rand Paul. This is a man with a hurt ego and bent on predicting the fall of the man who pulled down his skirt in public. It’s sad really.

        1. Bluwater: “Nap has become a never-Trumper since he got humiliated telling his friends he was on the short list for SCOTUS, and then passed over without even a nod.”

          You’ve been reading Wikipedia, I see. The claim in that wiki article not only does not provide a source, it also wrong on ANOTHER point: it cites the Kavanaugh appointment but the original rumour concerned the vacancy Gorsch eventually filled.

          AFAIK that original rumour about the Supreme Court seat came from a Trump tweet. A tweet which Napolitano himself refuted in an interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo. You can view the interview at:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wurxce8tRHQ

          Bluwater: “He was humiliated in public and with his friends, and for a guy with such an ago [sic] that he calls himself ‘Judge’ 25 years after he was a judge for only 8 years, this was unforgivable.”

          On what basis are you making that particular claim? Do you know Napolitano yourself? Because if noit then you presumably relying on nothing more than rumour, exaggeration, and innuendo.

          After all, if anyone has an ego it is Donald Trump, not Andrew Napolitano.

          1. Lol.

            We see Nap has a new house boy

            1. Well, well. I see Trump has a new troll. I hope you enjoy living under bridges and kissing the Dear Leader’s ass.

              1. We see you’ve read and commented on precisely 1 article.
                It’s fn pathetic that Nap would send you here to whine on his behalf.
                But “pathetic” seems to be Nap’s thing these days

  12. “”but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment” since impeachment is “not legal [but] political.””

    ” The former New Jersey Superior Court judge adds that while he thinks impeachment is “absolutely constitutional,” it is also “probably morally unjust.””

    “”The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming,” he adds.”

    Don’t the first two remarks kind of rob the last of any sting? The reason the evidence of “impeachable behavior” is overwhelming, is exactly because impeachment IS political, and the House, having a Democratic majority, is perfectly prepared to impeach trump even if doing so is unjust.

    So the only evidence of impeachable behavior they need, is that he had the bad taste to win the 2016 election running as a Republican. And, yes, the evidence that he did that IS overwhelming.

    1. How does one define “impeachable behavior” if not by whether impeachment based on it would be morally unjust? If it would be wrong to impeach someone based on the behavior, then how is it impeachable behavior?

      If you take him at his word that it would be unjust, then there is no way doing so is Constitutional. Napalitano is reading the words high crimes and misdemeanors out of the document. It doesn’t say “the Congress may impeach for any reason they want.” It says it can only do so for treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. Those words have meaning. Clearly Napalitano understands that. Otherwise, why would he be saying it is unjust? Unjust why? It is unjust because the behavior is not a high crime and misdemeanor.

      So, no even by Napalitano’s own terms, impeachment would be unconstitutional. There just wouldn’t be a remedy for the unconstitutional act. And that happens all of the time. The government often does illegal things for which there is no legal remedy.

      1. My take on this is that Napolitano is correct that basically every modern President has committed impeachable offenses. In the sense that they’ve done things a democratic country that took seriously the rule of law and constitutional government would not tolerate.

        And in this sense, the evidence of impeachable offenses is overwhelming.

        But the impeachment is unjust for the simple reason that the Democrats aren’t impeaching him for THOSE offenses, (because they spit on the rule of law and the Constitution, and don’t see them as offenses.) but instead for some BS made up stuff.

        It’s like you arrested Dillinger, but since you didn’t actually object to bank robbery or murder, you charged him with aggravated mopery, and convicted him in a show trial.

        1. Okay but Napolitano seems unable to explain just what “those offenses” are. Basically, he gives a fancy legalistic version of “orange man bad.”

          1. John: “Napolitano seems unable to explain just what ‘those offenses’ are.”
            We’re you listening when Napolitano listed six or seven possible articles of impeachment?

        2. The first action against a president who abuses power is to vote then out. There is a reason impeachment was made so damn hard, it should only be used in extreme cases.

          1. Impeachment was made relatively *easy*. Only a majority vote in the House. It’s easier than overriding a presidential veto, it’s easier than amending the Constitution, it’s easier than suspending the rules of the House itself. Only the conviction part was made difficult.

            1. Pedo Jeffy, as a Canadian, why do you keep stinking your nose in American business?

              Go back to your NAMBLA meeting.

      2. “Morally unjust”? We’re talking about the U.S. Congress here.

  13. I do not like or admire any of the participants in this political theater. Even if the Constitution does not require normal rules of evidence in an impeachment trial, the public will expect the trial to follow rules they see on TV dramas. So far, it looks to me that there is no actual evidence to convict, even if Trump did it. Everyone seems to say that we all know what kind of man Trump is, so we all know that he must have had some sort of bad thing going.
    But there is no direct evidence of any sort.

    1. JohannesDinkle: “Even if the Constitution does not require normal rules of evidence in an impeachment trial,…”

      FYI, this business has not yet reached the trial stage. Trump has not yet even been indicted. (That’s what will happen when the Hosue of Representatives vores on articles of impeachment.) This is just the investigation stage, similar to what Ken Starr with Bill Clinton and Robert Mueller did to Trump. This time the House is doing its own investigating rathe than outsourcing it to the Justice Dept.

      Impeachment TRIALS happen in the Senate, not the House of Representatives. That’s when the rules of evidence start to apply. Right now all the House us doing id COLLECTING and assessing the evidence. That’s normally done in secret (eg by grand juries). This time it’s being done out in public because the Republicand decried secret investigations (even though they themselves wrote the rules demanding it, and conducted their own secret investigations when they had a majority in the House (eg on Benghazi). So they got their wish.

      But this is not yet the trial. That WILL happen in public and require Trump be given due process.

      JohannesDinkle: “But there is no direct evidence of any sort.”

      Actually there is tons of evidence, direct and indirect. But I guess some of us only see what we WANT to see.

      1. What rules of evidence apply to an impeachment trial has not yet been

        1. not yet been determined.

  14. Were there any follow-up questions about the Judge’s view on Obama? (hint: he supported impeachment of Obama over DACA)

    https://www.wnd.com/2014/12/judge-napolitano-impeach-obama-for-amnesty/

    For that matter, just to make it interesting, ask him if he thinks Abraham Lincoln committed any impeachable offenses.

    1. “”In order to increase his federalist vision of centralized power, ‘Honest’ Abe misled the nation into an unnecessary war.”

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/01/thomas-dilorenzo/judge-napolitano-on-lincoln/

      If that’s true, wouldn’t that be impeachable?

      1. Yeah, personally I would have gone for his suspension of the writ of habeous corpus, (A congressional, not presidential, power!) his shutting down opposition papers in Union territory, having political foes arrested…

        1. Not to mention arresting at least two judges, one of them a federal judge, although I’ll grant you those were more Seward’s doing than Lincoln’s. Yet Seward was undoubtedly just acting on Lincoln’s orders.

    2. Eddy Eddy Eddy …. all that matters is that Hillary lost. Everything before that is ancient history.

      1. No, the Russian hacking prior to election day is also relevant.

        /sarc

  15. The judge is right but why stop the investigation now when there appears to be so many others involved (Giuliani and his indicted associates, Pompeo, Barr, Pence, Perry and the Ukrainian Russian aligned gangster to name a few)? The Republicans kept Benghazi going for years. I’d like to hear from Barr and examine his records to determine how he justified covering up for Trump. Bolton has a story to tell as well.

    1. //The judge is right//

      And that is exactly where anyone with even half a brain stopped reading your comment …

      1. And since you know there is comment after that quoted bit, apparently you don’t have even half a brain.

        1. Do you not know what the term “with even” means? Because it appears you do not.

          1. Considering you think tariffs are not taxes, your definition of anything is immaterial.

        2. You’re making yourself look really, really bad on this thread

          1. Oh no! You look bad in the eyes of Nardz. Better watch out, he’ll call you psychotic and write an essay about you slaying dragons!

          2. If I were, you wouldn’t have to point it out.

      2. It’s so refreshing when the Trumpists are open about how they avoid encountering ideas that would threaten their worldviews. Usually you just lie to us.

    2. The Republicans kept Benghazi going for years.

      Right, and not a single high profile political figure lost a job or were impeached*, and there was a body count in Benghazi.

      *If we don’t count Hillary being rejected for ascension to the Iron Throne.

    3. Don’t worry. They won’t. They’ll squeeze anything they see as even remotely advantageous out of it. If that isn’t working, they’ll make it up.

  16. “No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution. 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.”

    This is 100% true, and it is a problem.

    If you look at impeachment as akin to a grand jury exercise, then impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. So the judge would be correct in that sense – there is enough mischief for an indictment. The trial happens in the Senate. But before we get to that point, doesn’t the Judiciary Committee have jurisdiction on impeachment? Isn’t what we have now really an oversight hearing?

    Team D should think long and hard about what could happen at a Senate trial. It will not end well for them, I think.

    1. Yeah, I think the Nap is taking a prosecutors view of it. You can indict on the flimsiest of evidence despite its inability to be proven at trial.

      People who want any real since of justice in this country should note that the ability to indict a ham sandwich is not the path to a good judicial system. One thing I’ve had in common with some SJWs is prosecutorial reform. But how can we try to get reform when we are backing using the same shit against a sitting president?

      1. Probably = The Nap is taking a prosecutors view of it.

        But to my other question. Isn’t it the case that the Judiciary Committee has to bring articles of impeachment, and not the intelligence (boy, is that mis-named, intelligent my ass) committee?

        Seems like all of this horseshit was a dry run for the main event. Meaning, they needed to practice a few time before actually making the case.

        1. The initial inquiry was assigned to the Intelligence Committee. Next the Judiciary Committee will draft actual articles of impeachment and recommend (or not) to the full House of Representatives.

    2. My money is on Team D not passing an impeachment on to the Senate, where they will get their heads handed to them.
      They just want to get as much dirt out on Trump as they can and will probably add that his obstruction is why they can’t, quite get to an impeachment.
      They saw how it worked for the Republicans, with the Clinton impeachment. They are going to try to avoid the same fate.

      1. “They saw how it worked for the Republicans, with the Clinton impeachment. They are going to try to avoid the same fate.”

        The situation isn’t quite symmetric there, though, because in both cases the majority of the media had the Democrats’ back in the conflict, being Democrats themselves.

        That’s the fundamental thing screwing up our politics right now, and I blame the right for it: It was quite natural for the left to want a virtual monopoly on media outlets, but to let them have it uncontested? How stupid of the right. Really, the only media market the right has any kind of dominance over is talk radio, and they didn’t get that by trying, it was handed to them by the left treating radio as a worthless media ghetto.

        1. You are ignoring NPR. The left has had a strong talk radio presence from before Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s difference was the taking of calls from the audience, but that was not innovative. I remember hearing political call in shows back in the 1960s.

      2. There’s already talk of passing a resolution to censure rather than impeach.
        Any Rs that fall for that should be primaried out on their asses.
        Trump wins because Trump doesn’t let the Left dictate reality.
        Trump did nothing wrong, and idiots like Hurd who want to get along by bending over are a danger to the country

    3. Team D should think long and hard about what could happen at a Senate trial. It will not end well for them, I think.

      I think that Pelosi and the Democrats know exactly what to expect in the Senate. Let’s just refresh on this, shall we?

      Pelosi resisted impeachment talk, which goes right back to the night after the 2018 election, because she worried that Trump would just be acquitted by the Senate and “exonerated” going into 2020. She wanted to focus on issues and real legislation.

      But then the whistleblower came along, reporting misconduct that is digestible by the average American. That changed the calculus for Pelosi. Why? Because now they can make the case, for Americans, that Trump is unfit for office, in clear terms that everyone can understand and agree with. And a vast majority of Americans now believe that Trump did something wrong. Not everyone agrees that he should be impeached and removed, but only a minority of people thinks that the “call was perfect.”

      So now they have laid out the case in the House. They talk about achieving a Nixonian moment – when the levy holding back Republican dissent finally breaks – but I don’t think Pelosi expects that to happen. Do they think the Senate will convict? Maybe they hope there’s an outside chance it’ll happen, but I doubt it.

      Instead, what they’ve done is (i) lay out why Trump is unfit to be president and (ii) given every Republican in Congress a chance to demonstrate to their constituents that they are 100% aligned with Trump. That sets up congressional Democrats with a best-case scenario for running in 2020. Every one of them gets to campaign against Trump. Every one of their opponents is cast as a Trump surrogate and abettor.

      So I’m not sure why you think a Senate trial “will not end well for them.” A conviction and removal is unlikely, but that was never the gameplan. The Senate looks like they’re planning on doing a show trial for a couple of weeks before acquitting Trump and spend most of their time talking about Hunter Biden. That’s not great for Biden, but it’s hard to see how that’s good for Republicans, especially the ostensibly “moderate” ones that still exist.

      1. The Senate will not convict, but a properly presented impeachment trial will inform the electorate in making its November decision.

      2. SimonP, it’s nice to see your intelligent commentary. I think for it to go well for the Democrats they need one vital piece of the puzzle that I’m not sure they have: a candidate with widespread appeal.

        I’m not sure how the Democratic Party runs internally, but I don’t see signs of any internal leadership. They don’t seem to have any idea of identifying and grooming Presidential candidates. They seem to just see who shows up for the debates, and hope for the best.

  17. Again, it is terrifying to consider that this guy was ever a judge. He’s been wrong about virtually everything so far and is very clearly making outlandish statements out of personal bias. He thought he was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court and, when he wasn’t, he lost his god damned mind.

    How long is Napolitano going to keep embarrassing himself?

    1. The only things he’s been wrong about is anything related to Trump … according to Trumpistas. I’d take his track record over theirs any day.

      1. You have no idea why he was correct on these issues. But you know that the “Trumpestas” think he was wrong so therefore he must be right.

        It is just infuriating that those damned, uneducated Trumpistas can’t be as thoughtful and educated as you are.

        1. Nothing to do with education, dear boy. Everything to do with blinders and Hillary hatred. Everything to do with State power and the evil known as government.

          1. You are so educated you seem to think unsupported assumptions make a persuasive or even valid argument. It clearly does have something to do with education; namely your lack of it.

            1. Oh, now I’m the uneducated? I went from disparaging the uneducated to disparaging myself?

              I can logic real good as you do.

              1. You are unable to make a reasoned argument and think that unsupported assertions are valid. So, yes you are poorly educated. The fact that you don’t understand that and don’t see the irony of your insulting people as “uneducated” just means you don’t understand irony as well as logic and rhetoric.

                1. Where are your reasoned arguments? Oh yea, “Trump sez ….”

              2. Holy shit. You dont understand sarcasm either.

                1. Do you define sarcasm like you define taxes and tariffs?

              3. Well, anyone who thinks a hunter-gatherer group or a tribe of chimps is the equivalent of the Roman Empire certainly qualifies as uneducated.

                1. Like those who think the Roman empire is like a modern technological society? Why, that’s just an excellent comparison!

                  1. The Roman Empire was one of the most technologically and administratively complex societies in the world at the time, so yes, that was an excellent comparison.

                    Not surprising that the most advanced level of society you can think of is a group of chimps, though.

            1. Pedo Jeffy, you little piece of shit. You are considered a joke here by everyone. You are not one to be calling anyone out, ever.

              Now go back to being the little spoon for Buttplug.

          2. “Everything to do with State power and the evil known as government.”

            Which you’re apparently fine with if you don’t have a boogeyman to bitch about.
            Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?
            This whole thread is you dousing whatever credibility you had in gasoline and lighting it on fire

          3. “”Everything to do with blinders and Hillary hatred. “”

            Or on the other hand.

            Everything to do with blinders and Trump hatred.

            Welcome to partisan politics.

    2. Geraje Guzba: “He thought he was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court and, when he wasn’t, he lost his god damned mind.”

      Now you’re just repeating a lie tweeted by Trump to smear Napolitano, same as he’s smeared lots of other people he’s crossed swords with. Napolitano gave his own account of the incident to Fox Business’s Maria Baritomo earlier this year. Check out:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wurxce8tRHQ

  18. The good Judge is brought back into the Reason fold in 3.2…

    1. Until he can conduct an interview consisting entirely of questions again, he isn’t welcome here.

  19. Ok, I’ll admit I skimmed this article, but it seems to me that Napalitano is essentially telling us what most* of us already know:

    You can impeach the president if you don’t like the color of his tie.

    *what most people should know if they were ever taught anything in civics class.

    1. People who resort to the can argument are being intellectually lazy because they cant back the should argument with actual arguments. That is Naps issue.

  20. At this point Schiff is saying it doesn’t matter if Trump did or didn’t, or was or wasn’t successful in doing it, it’s the thought (crime) that counts.

    1. Unclear on the concept of an inchoate offense?

  21. It’s both amazing and not-amazing how rabid the Trumpistas are. All they really cared about was Hillary losing, and when Trump pulled a miracle and beat her, they suddenly besotted themselves by adopting all his policies as golden.

    I used to accept, but not really understand, how the masses could accept FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the lesser tinpot dictators who appeared to “solve” society’s problems. Miraculous, as it were. Trouble and strife, then suddenly peace and order. But having seen all these Trumpistas latch on to Trump’s rectum like it is the source of all sustenance …. well, know I understand it too. Hillary would have been a much worse President, society would suck far worse. But that doesn’t make Trump infallible, and the Trumpistas have forgotten that.

    1. Are you capable of giving a reasoned argument? Do you not understand that you don’t give a single reason or fact for why Trump is so bad and his evil supporters so wrong for not abandoning him? You just assume it is true and then launch a lecture of how horrible people are based on a completely unsupported assumption.

      Do you just not understand how stupid that makes you look?

      1. He’s gone psychotic.
        Just like progressives, he makes statements about his fantasies and gets mad that everyone else doesn’t share them.
        Yes, he’s gone full moron

        1. You just dumped your fantasies here. You Trumpistas somehow think Trump politicians are good guys, as opposed to just about every other politician in history.

          That’s an extraordinary assertion, flying in the face of everybody’s experience, except the die hard fanbois. It’s going to be fun watching you idiots flail around in 2020 or 2023, whenever Trump leaves office. Suddenly you’ll rediscover how evil politicians are.

      2. You have a reasoned (sic) argument? Pray tell, where did it wander off to?

        1. We could explain it to you, but you’re too stupid for that.

      3. And yet you manage to prove his point with every word you type. The “Trumpistas”, as the other commentator calls them, are the sorts of people who had no problem with Napolitano’s views back during the days of Obama when Napolitano spoke out against many of the abuses perpetrated by Obama, Hillary, et al (eg Obama’s use of drones to kill supposed jihadists, Hillary & Benghazi, Hillary’s emails). Now that he’s giving views about the legality of Trump’s actions suddenly they’ve turned against him with a vengeance, with some even going so far as to claim he was ALWAYS wrong.

        Really? Even about Hillary?

        Worse, they repeat lies that Trump tweeted about Napolitano to smear him as if those lies were the gospel truth. It’s like they’ve joined a cult. A cult which demands undying loyalty. The evidence is all around them yet the Trump cultists are unable to see it. Such is the power of the Trumpo cult.

        1. I’m amazed at the emotional instability of people such as yourself – how quickly you break character and let the mask fall off as you tantrum.
          You accuse others of being in a cult of personality, though you’re a clearly 100% committed member of another cult of personality – you, like many, are just anti instead of pro.
          Your life has no value but hate.
          Sad

          1. Nardz:: “as you tantrum”

            “Tantrum”?

            You do realise that making plainly exaggerated claims does NOT help your case?

            Nardz: “you’re a clearly 100% committed member of another cult of personality”

            And just whose personality, pray tell, would I be part of a cult of?

            Nardz: “you, like many, are just anti instead of pro.”

            I take it you’re alluding to Trump. I’m not pro or anti. I’m simply one of those people who have been following what has been going on and making up my own mind. I’ve looked at both the pro-Trump media AND the anti-Trump media. I take it that is NOT what you’ve been doing.

            As it stands, the evidence against Trump is now overwhelming; and it has reached that stage in part due to Trump himself. He’s the one who made that July phone call in which he made the quid pro quo. After having barely escaped the Mueller probe by the skin of his teeth, he just had to go and test his luck again. That was just asking for trouble

            He’s also the one who released the summary of that phone call. That was just plain dumb. It was like Nixon releasing the WH tapes.

            He’s the one who keeps trying trying to block the investigation in assorted ways, whether directly himself or through lackeys like Barr and Pompeo.

            Trump is his own worst enemy.

            1. As it stands, the evidence against Trump is now overwhelming; and it has reached that stage in part due to Trump himself. He’s the one who made that July phone call in which he made the quid pro quo.

              Hey idiot, if that was so cut and dried, Schiff never would have had to hold closed-door testimony to get his witnesses’ narratives in order. Sondland never would have had to completely contradict his opening statement in his testimony. Vindman wouldn’t have admitted that his edits were Schiff-like fan fiction (“well, he didn’t say it, but this is what I thought he should have said”). Hill wouldn’t have spent most of her testimony crying about Russian interference (as if the US is so fucking innocent in that regard, ESPECIALLY with regards to the Ukraine during the previous administration, or even Russia in the not-so-distant past).

              No, the evidence is not “overwhelming”–otherwise, they wouldn’t have needed Eric Ciaramella to use a flimsy, second-hand assertion of illegal favor trading to come up with Mueller 2: Retard Boogaloo.

    2. It’s utterly mind-numbing how delusional and irrational Democrats and Never Trumpers are.

      Only Useful Idiot lefties have accepted autocratic/dictatorial leaders. Ever. To say Trump supporters do is utterly false.

      1. Pitbullll: “Only Useful Idiot lefties have accepted autocratic/dictatorial leaders. Ever. To say Trump supporters do is utterly false.”

        Really?

        And yet Trump’s “Useful Idiots” seem to have no problem sucking up to someone who loves autocratic/dictatorial leaders like those of North Korea, China, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia.

        They also blindly repeat the lies the Dear Leader has himself tweeted. As if those truly were the gospel truth.

          1. I take you’re trying to make a point–or are you simply trolling?

    3. What’s unfortunate is we’re wasting time on a sham investigation that, by all circumstantial evidence appears to be a deep (permanent) state coup. Evidence which includes but is not limited to… admission that there was a FISA warrant for the Trump campaign, and now it appears that the reasons for that FISA warrant were more than likely fabricated.

      If we could get back to discussing tariffs or his tweets or his border wall, I think that things would be more productive.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.): “If we could get back to discussing tariffs or his tweets or his border wall, I think that things would be more productive.”

        You think that discussing Trump’s tweets would be “more productive”?

      2. What’s unfortunate is we’re wasting time on a sham investigation that, by all circumstantial evidence appears to be a deep (permanent) state coup.

        Sondland and Mulvaney have both admitted to the basic plot of withholding military aid to Ukraine in order to benefit Trump’s electoral prospects. You can grouse about how lower-level officials might have disagreed with that approach to “foreign policy,” but at the end of the day that’s what Trump did. Are you suggesting you agree with his doing so?

        Evidence which includes but is not limited to… admission that there was a FISA warrant for the Trump campaign, and now it appears that the reasons for that FISA warrant were more than likely fabricated.

        This is an outright lie. If you’re going to make false statements that are implicitly predicated on multiple conspiracy theories, you should be forthright about what they are – so everyone can see how loony you are.

        1. Sondland and Mulvaney have both admitted to the basic plot of withholding military aid to Ukraine in order to benefit Trump’s electoral prospects.

          No, they didn’t. And Sondland contradicted himself in testimony.

          This is an outright lie.

          No, the piss dossier was false. You’re just in denial about it.

    4. Your arguments on trump are as bad as your economic arguments. Why are you arguments always based on assumptions as truth with no backing by actual evidence?

      1. You mean economic arguments like tariffs being taxes?

        What a self-lubricated genius you be.

    5. “It’s both amazing and not-amazing how rabid the Trumpistas are. All they really cared about was Hillary losing, and when Trump pulled a miracle and beat her, they suddenly besotted themselves by adopting all his policies as golden.”

      Need a hand with that strawman? Looks pretty heavy.

      1. Can you come up with any other explanation for why Trump is so perfect and good?

        1. The explanation is simple: your premise is wrong. It’s not that people are changing their policy preferences to align with Trump, it’s that Trump is simply a politically moderate candidate who represents what most Americans actually want. It’s also that the Democrats have gone off the rails politically, embracing social justice, socialism, and tens of trillions of dollars in new spending.

        2. Is there a single person here who has ever said he’s “perfect and good”? Or is it people saying these investigations have all been partisan bullshit? And maybe people think Nap going off on fever dreams isn’t as productive as going off on actual problems like killing American citizens without due process?

          You know what I would have loved to see? The Democrats go after him for some real shit like selling arms to SA, drone striking an American citizen, or signing unconstitutional bills.

    6. “Hillary would have been a much worse President, society would suck far worse. But that doesn’t make Trump infallible”
      You are exactly right on both counts. I’ve been voting Libertarian since Clinton because the alternative was always tweedle dee or tweedle dum. Trump is far from infallible. He’s not a libertarian or classical liberal by any stretch of the imagination. He’s a loud mouth, egotistical blow hard. He wakes up every morning, goes on twitter and shoots himself directly in the foot. But in terms of actual policy to date he’s exponentially better than HRC or any of the current Democrat contenders. I don’t have a lot of time left on the planet and neither do you. If we ever have a libertarian society it will arise in post apocalyptic creative destruction not our current political system. In the meantime I’ll take Trump for the next 5 years. If that makes me a Trumpista so be it.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud: “But in terms of actual policy to date he’s exponentially better than HRC or any of the current Democrat contenders.”

        So what particular “actual policy” policies of Trump’s do you approve of?

    7. they suddenly besotted themselves by adopting all his policies as golden.

      What has Trump done or tried to do? Roll back regulations, bring troops back home, cut taxes, kept the stock markets high, enforce immigration law against illegals, repeal Obamacare, and get tough on China. Like it or not, those are policies mainstream US voters like.

      But that doesn’t make Trump infallible, and the Trumpistas have forgotten that.

      Your problem is that you think anybody who opposes the kind of hair raising misconduct we have seen from Democrats (Kavanaugh, Russia collusion, Ukraine, etc.) and/or who is generally OK with Trump’s moderate political positions to be a “Trumpista”.

      1. NOYB2: “…bring troops back home…”

        Really? How many?

        He’s just deployed 2000 more troops to Saudi Arabia and its unclear how many he’s bringing home from Syria or Afghanistan or South Korea or the wilds of Africa. He’s certainly PROPOSED cuts, but that isn’t the same as actually carrying them out.

        NOYB2: “…cut taxes…”

        And guess who got the most benefits from that tax cut: millionaires and billionaires like Trump himself. Worse, that tax cut was paid by adding it to the national debt–as opposed to cutting defense or social security. Meaning that future generations of Americans will be paying for it.

        NOYB2: “…kept the stock markets high…”

        That wasn’t Trump’s doing.

        NOYB2: “…enforce immigration law against illegals…”

        FYI, Obama was already doing that. Obama deported more than two MILLION illegals during his time in office. In contrast, thus far Trump’s deportations are nowhere near the levels of Obama.

        NOYB2: “…repeal Obamacare…”

        When was Obamacare repealed?

        NOYB2: “Like it or not, those are policies mainstream US voters like.”

        Like it or not, I suspect most voters do NOT want Obamacare repealed–not if it means they themselves will lose coverage and wind up uninsured or with lower coverage,

        As for their views on Trump in general, the recent election results in states like Kentucky and Louisiana were NOT good for Trump, suggesting that many even in the South are unhappy with him and his policies.

        1. Look, you aren’t listening. I’m not interested in your beliefs about the relative merits of Obama or Trump. I’m telling you that a large number of Americans don’t want to see Trump impeached for the simple reason that we’re reasonably satisfied with most of his policies and prefer him to the available alternatives, and because the consequences of a successful removal from office of a sitting president less than a year before the election would be very messy.

          So, if you or the other guy think that people oppose his impeachment due to blind loyalty to the person, you’re an idiot.

          1. NOYB2: “I’m not interested in your beliefs about the relative merits of Obama or Trump.”

            You’re the one who listed all the supposed achievements of Trump. Now that I’ve refuted most of them all of a sudden you’re “not interested”.

            What do you think that says?

            NOYB2: “I’m telling you that a large number of Americans don’t want to see Trump impeached…”

            So? A large number of Americans did not want to see Bill Clinton impeached in the 1990s either yet did that stop Republicans from trying?

            Should they NOT have tried? Is that what you’re suggesting?Clinton did commit perjury, after all.

            Should a person only be impeached/prosecuted if he or she is UNpopular?

            Is that the way the justice system is supposed to work?

            Or does it work differently if you’re president? After all, Congress has impeached, convicted, and removed from office 15 federal judges since the 1790s, and various US states have impeached state governors from time to time.

            Why should the same rules not apply to presidents?

            If Trump truly has committed crimes while in office, just like Bill Clinton did, why should he NOT be impeached? Just like Republicans were right to try impeaching Clinton.

            Or are you suggesting American presidents should be immune to the rule of law–just like English kings were back in the days of the absolute monarchy? Is that the kind of America you want?

            NOYB2: “…the consequences of a successful removal from office of a sitting president less than a year before the election would be very messy.”

            “Messy”? Why? You think Pence is less capable of running the country than Trump? I mean it’s not as if other US presidents haven’t departed from office mid-term in one way or another, leaving a VP to fill in.

            NOYB2: “…if you or the other guy think that people oppose his impeachment due to blind loyalty to the person, you’re an idiot.”

            First of all, ad hom name-calling (“idiot”) is not a good way of making your case. In fact it’s more what people tend to resort to when they HAVE no way of justifying some particular stance of theirs.

            If you think your opposition is NOT blind loyalty then prove it! If you oppose Trump’s impeachment then presumably you also opposed Clinton’s, right? Not to mention the removal of state governors from office through impeachment.

            Or is it that you only oppose Trump’s removal?

            I look forward to your response.

            1. Fuck off.
              Nobody needs to prove anything to you.
              You repeat talking points like a mindless bot.
              You are an idiot, though a rather useless one as you aren’t convincing anybody.

              1. Nardz: “Fuck off.”

                I can see I’m dealing with an Einstein here. An Einstein with a mind limited to four-letter expletives.

                Was I even talking to you?

                1. I’m curious: what other errands are you running for Nap today?
                  I mean, I understand commenting on this 1 article exclusively must be time consuming, but I’d also guess that Nap needs his dry cleaning picked up and his pool kept in order.

      2. You really just prove his point, because you’d rather talk about everything that Trump “tried to do” in glowing, general terms, than focus on Trump’s various and multiple failures on virtually every one of those issues.

        People voted for Trump because he promised to “make America great again.” He has manifestly failed to do that.

        1. People voted for Trump because he promised to “make America great again.” He has manifestly failed to do that.

          True, he hasn’t thrown you off of the top of Trump Tower yet, for example.

  22. the senate won’t convict so none of this matters.

    1. This is all a political circus. It matters to the degree the voters are entertained and persuaded.

    2. The Senate will not convict. A properly presented trial, however, will inform voters as to Trump´s unfitness for office, such that he is less likely to be re-elected.

      1. “ A properly presented trial, …”.

        Like the the shit show Schiff just put on the last two weeks? Everyday Americans don’t care or have time to follow this stupid shit. Get used to waking up angry every morning knowing Trump will be president for the next 5 years you fucking bitchy loser.

  23. If Nappy and all the Never Trumpers – much less all the Democrat lunatics – are soooooo certain of Trump’s guilt and the strong evidence with which to prosecute and convict, why aren’t they proceeding with Articles of Impeachment and Senate trial?

    Why are they continuing the Schiff Show? It just makes any rational viewer recognize just how wrong they are.

    Are the walls closing in? Do they “got him” now?

    Why is America putting up with this BS? – a 3 year impeachment campaign in search of a crime. Democrats will continue this crap until voted out of power or jailed for their crimes.

    1. They’re doing it now because Pelosi wouldn’t let them do it 6 months ago.

      This is because all the progressives she dislikes are sitting Senators, so forcing the impeachment proceedings into primary season forces them to stop campaigning to deal with impeachment.

      The more centrist folks in the race, people she would prefer to be President, aren’t sitting Senators currently so they benefit by having this stretch out essentially until election day.

      1. Interesting observation.
        Well made.
        I’ll note: this can’t be good for Biden. But maybe she figures Biden is toast anyway, so what the hell?
        Question is: who’s the “centrist” she supports?
        Buttigieg?
        Patrick?
        …Steyer???

        1. Yeah, I don’t see how this works without Biden going down with the ship. I’d imagine Pelosi would prefer him to win if possible, she knows what she’s getting and Uncle Joe is a career DC swamp creature so she knows how to interact with him. Two peas in a pod. She’d be willing to sacrifice him to ensure that the commies don’t end up winning though.

          I don’t know if she really supports anyone in particular, so much as she doesn’t want Sanders or Warren winning the nomination. I don’t think this about lifting anyone in particular up, it’s about torpedoing those two.

          1. I’ll also add that some of those progressive senators were the loudest about starting impeachment proceedings.

            Now they’re getting what they asked for, good and hard. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

            1. A silver lining for Pelosi is that a failed impeachment will hurt ‘the squad’, whom she detests. Not that I can blame her. I wouldn’t be shocked if she is working with primary challengers in all their districts to get them off the ballot for the general election.

          2. How did you come to this conclusion? You’re making some big assumptions. The time seems pretty ripe for impeachment. I don’t think waiting a year would work. If anything the time was chosen so it won’t interfere with the election. Does the Senate trial have a rule that all Senators must be present? Note that Clinton’s Senate trial was 2 or 3 days. So if Pelosi wants to get the progressives off the campaign trail it won’t be for long.

            1. Clinton´s Senate trial took weeks, not two or three days.

          3. She’d be willing to sacrifice him to ensure that the commies don’t end up winning though.

            And which of the other Democratic candidates is not a socialist of one form or another?

            Biden is the only moderate running on the Democratic side, and “moderate” is about the only positive attribute he has.

      2. For 200 years “primary season” was the summer before the November elections. Are we so Soviet that it now (if econazis lose) begins again before the electoral votes are even counted?

      3. You give her too much credit. The simple fact is that the House is slipping from Pelosi’s control, the senior House Democrats are awful people, and she can’t handle the democratic socialists that she has to deal with. But she’s so senile and incompetent, she doesn’t even fully realize it.

  24. Obstruction is the easiest I would think. But hey, take your pick- he’s got enough of them.

    Anyone disagreeing just wants to keep their head stuck in the sand because “it’s their guy.” they have no allegiance to the country or its constitution- just power.

    1. Yes. Claiming executive privilege is obstruction. Let me laugh at you harder.

      1. Where has Trump claimed executive privilege? OTOH, the direction for witnesses not to appear at all in response to valid subpoenas has been explicit. The logical inference is that the testimony of folks like Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo would be inculpatory.

        1. Where has Trump claimed executive privilege? OTOH, the direction for witnesses not to appear at all in response to valid subpoenas has been explicit.

          Democrats are welcome to make that argument to the Senate.

          The logical inference is that the testimony of folks like Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo would be inculpatory.

          The logical inference is that Trump wants these people to testify before the Senate, rather than a hostile House committee.

          1. The logical inference is that Trump wants these people to testify before the Senate, rather than a hostile House committee.

            Yeah, we’ll see if the Senate bothers to call any of these people with direct insight into Trump’s thinking to testify under oath. I am not expecting that to happen.

            1. Yeah, we’ll see if the Senate bothers to call any of these people with direct insight into Trump’s thinking

              I’m sure it would be just as legitimate as the Kreskins that the Democrats have called up who all claim to be able to read Trump’s mind.

    2. wearingit
      November.22.2019 at 3:41 pm
      “…Anyone disagreeing just wants to keep their head stuck in the sand because “it’s their guy.” they have no allegiance to the country or its constitution- just power.”

      Fucking lefty ignoramus heard from.

      1. Who has only allegiance to progressive power, and hates America and our constitutional republic.

    3. Anyone disagreeing just wants to keep their head stuck in the sand because “it’s their guy.” they have no allegiance to the country or its constitution- just power.

      Yeah, I’m an educated gay immigrant who used to be a Democrat. But opposing Trump’s impeachment obviously makes me into an uneducated redneck deplorable. Democrats really have a way of converting people to their side! Keep going!

    4. Blind allegiance to government power is the only way to achieve the libertarian dream.

      1. You state Mike Laursen’s position so succinctly

  25. Judge Napolitano’s stock has certainly dipped the past year or two here at Reason.

    I hate to sound like a millenial, but I think the wiki on impeachment in the United States is pretty comprehensive. Especially when it talks about treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

  26. This country is already dangerously politically divided. If the Democrats attempt to remove a democratically elected President from office for trying to investigate the former Vice President closing an investigation on his own son while simultaneously suggesting that man should be President are the people who supported that President just supposed to go along with it? Impeachment should be reserved for severe crimes, the sort of thing that would garner obvious bi partisan support, think Nixon. If the public aren’t buying your grounds for impeachment then its a clear case that you shouldn’t be pressing it. The Republicans made this mistake against Clinton and now the Democrats are doing it against Trump.

    1. Matt Ross,
      It is incorrect to say impeachments should be for ‘severe crimes’. The Constitution says ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. That runs the gamut from severe to a misdemeanor. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65: The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
      The action does not have to be severe. Or even a crime.

      1. It’s whatever the House decides. If they go too far, they will theoretically be punished by the voters.

        1. Good comment. You’re exactly right. That’s one reason I don’t really understand the criticism of the process of the impeachment. The House is following a process they are completely allowed under the Constitution to pursue. Let the voters decide if they chose well or not. [Although given the location of some House members some are always pretty safe].

    2. The danger is that impeachment proceedings will become as common as government shutdowns, used as a way to give gravitas to political grandstanding, and which will quickly become just another yawn, and the slide into complete mob rule will continue apace.

    3. What was the “severe crime” in which Nixon engaged?

      1. The same as Obama, only a small fraction as severe

  27. “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,”

    Absolutely!
    His name is Trump, and therefore he can easily be impeached for being Trump!

  28. Context: Trump told Nick he likes Libertarianism, “a lot of good things”. Trump wins and Ukraine elects a soi-disant libertarian with a 3-point platform. This is enough to draw the boiling wrath of all Dems, communists and fascists. The LP in 1972 wrote the Roe v Wade decision in its platform, but male blabbermouth Napolitano prefers Ceausescu methods sending men with guns to force women into involuntary labor against Amendments 9, 13, 14. Napolitano is as libertarian as Mussolini, and knows as much abt the Constitution. Surely we can do better than this!

  29. in my view, you’ve lost your mind. expletives deleted.

  30. First it is important to remember how off the rails Napolitano was for the Mueller stuff. I used to have a lot of respect for him, but I think he is slipping either because he despises Trump so much or because of his age.

    On this issue, I may be one of the few people that was skeptical of the Democrats original argument who, after watching the impeachment process, now thinks that the preponderance of evidence indicates that he did indeed do what the Democrats allege. I don’t think they have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that’s not really the requirement for Impeachment.

    Unfortunately, for me and I think the majority of Americans, I think the Democrats severely begged the question. Even if everything the Democrats allege is true, what Trump did is at worst, “bad taste” in my opinion. Burisma and Hunter Biden stinks to high heaven. Biden’s recorded comments would seem to confirm that there was dirty dealing on a level much worse than anything Trump supposedly did. Even without Biden’s comments it would seem to me fully in line with the President’s duties to want to investigate this kind of potential graft and bribery of the former VP. Above and beyond that, conditionally withholding aid, is entirely a thing that Presidents do all the time. Especially military aide as they are the Commander-in-Chief after all. Remember Obama and “pallets of cash” to Iran? That was far more illegal than what Trump is alleged of doing. So it seems to me that this entire case of impeachment hinges upon a thought-crime of the alleged reasons for why Trump did a thing, and ignores that fact that there is an entirely reasonable explanation for his actions, that is at least colorable under law and the history of previous Presidential action.

    On a practical note, I don’t think impeachment is going to accomplish what the Democrats think. Trump won’t be kicked out of office. His voting base won’t care. If anything, it will motivate them “get out the vote” because it is “another example of the establishment corruption attacking him”. I also think it will actually remove a lot of desire for Democrats to vote. A lot of the pent-up frustration at Trump is likely to fizzle when Democrats think “he got what he deserved with Impeachment”. Some Democrats and a lot of Independents are going to view this impeachment for what it is, which is “nakedly political” and that isn’t good for the Dems either.

    1. It’s all pointless anyways, they don’t have and won’t get the votes in the Senate necessary to actually do anything.

      I posted this a little further up, but this is being done because it’s politically useful for establishment Democrats. Pelosi slow-rolled this thing for months, conveniently long enough for it to slide into primary season. All the progressives that Pelosi dislikes are Senators, forcing them to deal with impeachment proceedings takes them away from their campaigns. The more centrist people running aren’t Senators, so they benefit.

      If she’s timed this right, they won’t even attempt to remove him from office until after the election. They need to pick up Senate seats to do what they want. If he doesn’t win the election, problem solved he’s not in office anymore. If he does win but they don’t pick up enough Senate seats, we’re back to where we are today so slow-rolling it didn’t hurt. If he wins and they do flip the Senate, he gets removed.

      What I don’t think she’s accounted for in that final state is that if he wins re-election, that’s essentially America saying “We don’t give a fuck about what he allegedly did”. Removing him at that point would be very politically dangerous.

      1. She wants to time it for after the election so they can get as much mileage as possible from impeachment hears *before* the election. That’s all.

      2. They’d have to do more than just “flip” the Senate, since conviction requires a 2/3 vote.

        Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection in any given year, 23 of them Republicans this time around. The Republicans are at 52 seats right now, if they had a horrific election they might end up at 29 seats. Takes 34 seats to block a conviction, assuming everyone is voting.

        So it’s theoretically possible the Democrats could convict after the election with just their own votes, but only if the Republicans lose better than 80% of their races, and the Democrats lose none of them.

        Alternatively, if they took the Senate, they could make a point of convening a flash trial while a significant number of Republicans were out of town, and just proceed straight to conviction before they could get back. It wouldn’t technically be unconstitutional, it would just get DC burned to the ground. But, would they understand that? Maybe not.

        1. The Democrats would be overthrown by force if they attempted such a thing. There’s a limit.

    2. Burisma and Hunter Biden stinks to high heaven.

      So fucking what? Hunter Biden isn’t President.

      Biden’s recorded comments would seem to confirm that there was dirty dealing on a level much worse than anything Trump supposedly did.

      Laughable.

      Above and beyond that, conditionally withholding aid, is entirely a thing that Presidents do all the time.

      Name ONE example of a US political leader tying foreign aid into an investigation of a political opponent. Are you from Brazil or something?

      Especially military aide as they are the Commander-in-Chief after all. Remember Obama and “pallets of cash” to Iran?

      Yeah. Their money, Trumpian. Tied into a long sought foreign policy goal of the United States. Jesus Christ, is everything you post this bad? God.

      1. So fucking what? Hunter Biden isn’t President.

        If you are too dumb to connect the dots between his daddy being VP with direct involvement in Ukrainian politics around the same time, especially when he is getting around 3 million a year with no prior experience, and his dad’s actions directly benefit the company that hired H. Biden…well I don’t know how you are capable of processing conspiracy the Dems are alleging.

        Laughable.

        Yep totally laughable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10&feature=youtu.be&t=79

        Name ONE example of a US political leader tying foreign aid into an investigation of a political opponent. Are you from Brazil or something?

        First of all this hasn’t been proven. Even if it had, you have failed to explain why being a political opponent somehow exempts you from investigation if your alleged actions are potentially unlawful and corrupt. You have also failed to demonstrate why this is any worse than any of the numerous sleazy deals previous Presidents have made, like Clinton helping rehabilitate despots around the world who were “nice” enough to donate to his private charity. So in short, if what the Dems alleged happened, for the reasons they allege, it may be gross, but it is hardly worse than the disgusting track record of the previous two presidents and their foreign aide shenanigans. Yes, I realize the bar is somewhere below sea level at this point.

        Yeah. Their money, Trumpian. Tied into a long sought foreign policy goal of the United States. Jesus Christ, is everything you post this bad? God.

        It was not “their money” it was the Shah’s money, and Obama directly used it in a way that was in opposition to the expressed will of Congress. If you are going to be accusing me of not knowing the facts, at least get your’s in line.

        LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian

        I think you accidentally used the wrong sock puppet account…

      2. So fucking what? Hunter Biden isn’t President. Name ONE example of a US political leader tying foreign aid into an investigation of a political opponent.

        As you observe, Hunter Biden isn’t president or a political leader. So in what way is an investigation into Hunter Biden an investigation of a political opponent?

        1. In the July 25 phone call with Zelensky, Trump expressly requested an investigation of Joe Biden. As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

          1. You brought up Hunter Biden, not me. Here is what Trump said about the Bidens:

            The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.

            You’re misrepresenting the phone call.

            Give up your lies and propaganda. Americans aren’t stupid, they can read and see for themselves.

        2. Gee willickers, could it be because he is the son of Dear Leader’s most potent political rival? You clowns are fucking magnificent. Never change.

          1. Well, I don’t make the mistake of mistaking you for a clown: you’re dangerous and out to destroy this country.

            1. He makes the argument for dumping his ilk in landfills more eloquently than I ever could.

          2. If Biden were so potent, why must he resort to groping every woman and girl he comes across?

          3. If Joe Biden truly is ” Dear Leader’s most potent political rival” I can certainly understand your feelings of desperation.

            The guy just tried to verbally menace Lindsey Graham. And failed.

    3. It is hard to reach the right conclusions with you start with the wrong facts.

      Burisma and Hunter Biden stinks to high heaven.

      So it sounds like Hunter got a board seat due to his political connections. That’s not good corporate governance, that’s for sure! But normally that’s just a problem for the company. Is there any evidence that Burisma used that connection to get favorable treatment in the U.S.?

      Biden’s recorded comments would seem to confirm that there was dirty dealing on a level much worse than anything Trump supposedly did.

      So explain to me which of these facts you disagree with: that Shokin was widely regarded as corrupt; that Shokin wasn’t actively investigating Burisma; that Biden’s efforts to pressure Shokin out of office were consistent with American foreign policy as well as the efforts of other international organizations; that Shokin’s removal made investigation of Burisma more likely, not less.

      Even without Biden’s comments it would seem to me fully in line with the President’s duties to want to investigate this kind of potential graft and bribery of the former VP.

      Absolutely no one – save those trying to justify the president’s actions ex post facto – has alleged anything of the sort happened.

      Above and beyond that, conditionally withholding aid, is entirely a thing that Presidents do all the time.

      Is it? This military aid was appropriated by Congress and had cleared all the necessary administrative hurdles to be released to Ukraine. Getting that aid to Ukraine was essential for Ukraine’s own self-defense and to bolster its negotiating position with Russia. Trump had no apparent legal authority to further condition that aid to serve whatever policy interest he might be said to have had – and none, indeed, has even been claimed. He just held it up.

      Remember Obama and “pallets of cash” to Iran? That was far more illegal than what Trump is alleged of doing.

      The “pallets of cash” were legally Iran’s. They were sent as “pallets of cash” because, as you might recall, Iran has no access to the international banking system. If anything was putatively “illegal,” it was unilaterally blocking Iran from receiving that cash in the first place.

      So it seems to me that this entire case of impeachment hinges upon a thought-crime of the alleged reasons for why Trump did a thing, and ignores that fact that there is an entirely reasonable explanation for his actions, that is at least colorable under law and the history of previous Presidential action.

      A “thought-crime” would not have resulted in any actual action. But Trump engaged in several actual actions to further his scheme, including withholding the military aid, which has harmed Ukraine and America’s standing in the world even despite it’s ultimately being released.

      If this were a mere thought-crime, it is hard to understand the vast number of people around Trump who understood him to be doing anything other than fighting corruption in Ukraine. Giuliani was on TV months ago talking about digging up dirt in Ukraine on Biden. We’ve now seen the inside-view of those efforts, as conveyed by various diplomatic officials involved. Sondland has confirmed Trump’s state of mind, as has Mulvaney. Vindman witnessed the July call. Multiple other officials instrumental in carrying out the plot have testified to its irregularity and apparent motives. Meanwhile, the White House has maintained a strict clampdown on officials and evidence that might support their version of events, for reasons that are hard to understand except by inferring that they are far less exculpatory than they would have us believe.

      It is possible to believe that Trump had benign motives only if one were to impose on one’s thinking a ludicrously high standard of proof and a simple refusal to draw reasonable inferences from Trump’s behavior.

      1. The fan fiction is getting even longer in scope.

      2. @SimonP, thanks for engaging me in a productive way. I appreciate your critiques and arguments even if we don’t agree.

        So it sounds like Hunter got a board seat due to his political connections. That’s not good corporate governance, that’s for sure! But normally that’s just a problem for the company. Is there any evidence that Burisma used that connection to get favorable treatment in the U.S.?

        Here’s the problem with that interpretation. Hunter clearly and obviously was not qualified or capable of performing that job. He not only got the position, he got a killer deal, salary and benefits-wise (Not only at Burisma but at several other companies). Why would these companies do that if they didn’t think they would get something valuable in return? It isn’t coming from Hunter, so the most logical conclusion is they think it gets them access to the VP. Burisma was being investigated by the corrupt prosecutor that the US pressured the Ukraine to fire (debatable position I will admit). So yes, if you accept that premise they got something out of it. Now, I will give you that it could very likely be a “happy coincidence” as the prosecutor was a dirtbag by pretty much all counts. But it is suspicious. We won’t know if there was any actual dirty dealing without an investigation, and there has been no investigation thanks to the direction actions of Obama and Biden (whether those actions were related or not).

        So explain to me which of these facts you disagree with: that Shokin was widely regarded as corrupt; that Shokin wasn’t actively investigating Burisma; that Biden’s efforts to pressure Shokin out of office were consistent with American foreign policy as well as the efforts of other international organizations; that Shokin’s removal made investigation of Burisma more likely, not less.

        I disagree with the part where Shokin wasn’t actively investigating Burisma or that removing him made it more likely (it clearly didn’t as there have not been). If we take the Dems angle this is in spite of serious pressure by the current administration. So I think that argument is very inaccurate.

        Absolutely no one – save those trying to justify the president’s actions ex post facto – has alleged anything of the sort happened.

        That’s not a very good faith argument. That’s simply not true. Even if it were true, it doesn’t change whether the President can or should have the right to pressure a foreign government via conditioning aid. Would it change your position if the President did the exact same thing, but the Dems were on board for an investigation? If so, why? Who gets to decide when something is “legitimate enough” to condition foreign aid on, especially since it is all speculation until a proper investigation happens? It is simply inarguable that foreign aid doesn’t regularly come with strings attached. Even if the H. Biden/Burisma allegation is crazy (Trump’s an idiot after all), I don’t think that should prevent him from having the authority to pressure an investigation. That investigation isn’t into Joe Biden, unless there is indeed a dirty connection in which case, everyone should want that to come to light. If there is nothing to that, then any dirty dealing would be tied only to Hunter and should be of relatively little value as political fodder. Everyone already knows Hunter is a dirtbag, that isn’t news. I defend the President’s authority to attach idiotic strings to aide, but not his intelligence.

        Is it? This military aid was appropriated by Congress and had cleared all the necessary administrative hurdles to be released to Ukraine. Getting that aid to Ukraine was essential for Ukraine’s own self-defense and to bolster its negotiating position with Russia. Trump had no apparent legal authority to further condition that aid to serve whatever policy interest he might be said to have had – and none, indeed, has even been claimed. He just held it up.

        You argument is very debatable here. Which is not to say it isn’t potentially valid, but there are plenty of people (not just Trump defenders) who would argue that this is well within the President’s authority and consistent with past Presidential actions. Ukraine’s interests are irrelevant. They certainly needed the aide, but that has never stopped the US from conditioning aide. We do it all the time, especially when the other guy can’t say, “No”. Finally, we’ve been arguing as if the aid actually was held up, but even if you don’t buy my larger argument of Presidential authority, the fact is that the aid was not withheld past the final due date, therefore, it wasn’t even really held up. For all you or the Democrats can prove, the President was just bluffing and running out the clock, even if he did actually pressure them. I don’t believe that, but to allege an impropriety here of an impeachable nature, they should at least show an arguable crime. He didn’t even prevent the aid by the deadline.

        The “pallets of cash” were legally Iran’s. They were sent as “pallets of cash” because, as you might recall, Iran has no access to the international banking system. If anything was putatively “illegal,” it was unilaterally blocking Iran from receiving that cash in the first place.

        Your argument would be the equivalent of saying Fidel deserved and owned cash that the US had appropriated for Batista. That is insane. That cash was for a previous regime. Obama had no authority to hand it to the current Iraqi government, nor did he have the authority to add additional strings (which he did), assuming your and the Democrats argument about the limits of Presidential authority in this matter are true. You cannot have it both ways. Either Obama did something considerably worse, or what Trump is alleged to have done, is not outside his authority.

        A “thought-crime” would not have resulted in any actual action. But Trump engaged in several actual actions to further his scheme, including withholding the military aid, which has harmed Ukraine and America’s standing in the world even despite it’s ultimately being released.

        The Democrats have not proven that Trump did anything at this point. He absolutely did not withhold aid. He may have slightly delayed it, but it was still within the official timeline, and the Ukraine would have received zero military aid except for Trump’s specific actions. Remember Obama did not provide any military aid, just medical and financial aid on a smaller scale at that. As for whether that improved the US’s standing, that’s entirely debatable point for another day. We certainly don’t “owe” Ukraine anything.

        If this were a mere thought-crime, it is hard to understand the vast number of people around Trump who understood him to be doing anything other than fighting corruption in Ukraine. Giuliani was on TV months ago talking about digging up dirt in Ukraine on Biden. We’ve now seen the inside-view of those efforts, as conveyed by various diplomatic officials involved. Sondland has confirmed Trump’s state of mind, as has Mulvaney. Vindman witnessed the July call. Multiple other officials instrumental in carrying out the plot have testified to its irregularity and apparent motives. Meanwhile, the White House has maintained a strict clampdown on officials and evidence that might support their version of events, for reasons that are hard to understand except by inferring that they are far less exculpatory than they would have us believe.

        First, I’d argue that Giuliani needs to be committed to a mental hospital posthaste. The amount of crazy shit that comes out of his mouth is truly terrifying. Sondland did not confirm Trump’s state of mind. He repeatedly said he had no contact with Trump. He said he (Sondland) understood X based on what Giuliani said or things he heard from another third-party. Sondland admits that everything he believes is based entirely on third-hand data. That’s hardly proof. I also very much disagree that Trump or any of his allies should appear in front of the House Committee. We all know how the Mueller thing went down. Even if you agree with the Democrats it is pretty hard to not see this for what it is. This is not a court room proceeding (these things never are). If a Salem Witch trial is convening, you gain absolutely nothing by showing up to plead your case. This impeachment ceremony is not about fact finding, it is about scoring political points.

        It is possible to believe that Trump had benign motives only if one were to impose on one’s thinking a ludicrously high standard of proof and a simple refusal to draw reasonable inferences from Trump’s behavior.

        My standard of proof is solid, provable evidence that he actually broke any law. And while we’re at it, “evidence” that doesn’t sound like a twisted game of telephone. Trump is a disgusting pile of human feces, but that doesn’t mean that everything he does is for the reasons that the craven and equally garbage opposition conjure up.

  31. Judge Nap was all about Trump until he didn’t get a SCOTUS seat – now he’s turned happily into a POS.

    1. I don’t know, maybe he’s just running false flag for him.

      I mean the worst imaginable outcome for the Democrats would be for the House to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate then use the trial to do a deep dive on insider dealing, corruption, and nepotism within the administrative state, and then vote not to convict Trump.

      Because once Trump survives impeachment in the Senate he becomes effectively immune to any further investigations or removal efforts.

  32. Didn’t Eddie Munster promise he was going to be SCOTUS justice?

    Vindictive so-and-so, ain’t he?

  33. There’s basically two arguments being made up above…

    1. The press is out to get poor Dear Leader who is being unfairly maligned when the press questions his constant prevarications and lies. Poor Poor Dear Leader.

    2. Ahahahaha… Senate Republicans aren’t going to convict the President because of his lies and corruption so just suck on it libtard we like our corrupt strongman anyway. I hope he never dies and that we’ll get to drink your lib tears for decades.

    Both are pretty interesting arguments coming from libertarians. Am I in the right place? Hmmm…

    1. “Am I in the right place?”

      No, fucking lefty ignoramuses should be at CNN

    2. Better stock up on straw, you are about to run out…

      1. Whoops, meant to reply to parent and not Sevo.

  34. Nappy is pissed he didn’t get appointment to supreme court. Now he attack’s Trump at every turn like he jump a demretard.

  35. In two decades at the nation’s largest cable network, Napolitano has provided an unapologetically libertarian critique of state power

    As it turns out, however, Napolitano is neither a libertarian nor a good jurist.

  36. “No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution. 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.”

    In other words: Because my unsupported, sophomoric, poorly formulated theory about ever increasing executive power must be true, it follows that Trump must have more power than his predecessors. QED.

    This guy was ever a judge? The legal profession really has low intellectual standards.

  37. It’s all about the clicks, baby.

  38. What happened to the Judge and to Drudge for that matter…not a Trump guy, but it’s all nonsense.

  39. Where’s Dear Leader’s due process? He hasn’t been read his Miranda rights and hasn’t been afforded the right to an attorney!! So unfair!

    1. What is Nancy waiting for? Pass the articles of impeachment and throw it over to the Senate. Republican senators are chomping at the bit!

  40. Judge Nap is taking his opinions too seriously. He hasn’t overcome judicial arrogance. He should have recognized the invalidity of the “show trial” conducted by Schiff. No witness has produced any substantive evidence of anything.
    But he is right – impeachment is a political process. So no rules apply. And power corrupts. Judge Nap is “judging” what was in Trump’s mind and heart. No one is competent to do that.

  41. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

    …….. Read More

  42. The aid to Ukraine flowed within a normal window of time for these sorts of things, and no investigation was opened on the Bidens by Ukraine.

    So, what’s the problem? Where are the ‘high crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors?’

  43. So his point is no rules apply and he can be impeached because butt hurt Ds can’t accept the 2016 election?

    Yea Nick you’re so libertarian LOL

    Hey maybe interview Jay Sekulow or John Solomon

    Or are we stuck on Orange Man bad ?

  44. The contention that the phone call was inappropriate also assume there is nothing there in regards to the Bidens,

    I means it’s Captain Obvious there is something there but John Solomon has it pretty well documented

    https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/

  45. Enough evidence to justify “three or four”. Well, which is it? Are you sure you are a judge. The evidence is applied specifically to each count, so make up your mind. Unless you are talking out of an orifice other than your mouth, Judge N.

  46. Nick Gillespie interviews Eddie Munster, but where’s Woof-Woof?

  47. Nap: “The federal government stays in power by an act of bribery.”

    Yes, but what action creates the money for the bribe? Theft! Theft (taxation) is the root cause keeping it in power!

  48. The Deep State got to him. Trump can do no wrong. Trump is a god-king. Hail Trump. He should singlehandedly make all the laws for everyone.

    –Freethinking nonpartisan libertarians

    1. WTF are you talking about

  49. where is the woof – woof?
    … whether its we got nothing and cant do nothing.. please stop this mess already.. season for politician to bring their power of issue to people.. I hate this so much.. too much talk when nothing is done for citizen!

  50. loves me some Napolitano. he goes DIRECTLY to the facts and leaves it there, as a good jurist should. it kills me that we have trump apologists here on a reason thread. trump’s a simple one dimensional man that relies on others to tell us “what he means is…”. pay attention, this has been true since the election Trump NEVER clearly explains ANYTHING. his adherents daily tell us “what he meant”. a clever ploy but not one i will call intentional on his part…I DON’T THINK HE IS SMART ENOUGH. his 6th grade vocabulary should inform anyone

    1. It is true that Trump uses odd and incomplete sentence structures like a superpower to avoid being pinned down on any position.

  51. Trump clearly deserves impeachment. The real question is whether we deserve it. Our country needs to be drawn together instead of drawn apart, even if the sitting President openly commits extortion, bribery, failure to carry out laws passed by Congress, and obstruction of justice, as Trump has done. If deliberate lying to the American people is considered impeachable, Trump would be guilty of thousands of impeachable offenses. (Not a deliberate lie: I will build a wall, since he does not have the power alone. Deliberate lies: I will not try to cut Social Security and Medicare, then doing it anyway; I will stand up against the pharmaceutical industry, then placing himself in their pockets.) Nevertheless, our country needs to reduce division and impeachment will only exacerbate it.

    1. Good argument. Maybe the best argument against impeachment anyone has made.

  52. Our country needs to be drawn together instead of drawn apart, even if the sitting President openly commits extortion, bribery, failure to carry out laws passed by Congress, and obstruction of justice, as Trump has done.

    Oh, fuck off. The left has been talking about impeaching him ever since the election, in a pathetic attempt to lay the blame on someone else for their own failures, as is their wont. Chuck Schumer openly admitted that the government intel agencies were going to try and fuck him over, which they certainly appear to have done with their repeated FISA shenanigans (and it’s not exactly an accident that the neocons recruited an intel spook to try and act as a spoiler candidate, nor that the majority of Democratic candidates in 2016 had ties to the spook community themselves).

    Mueller spent two and a half years getting people indicted for process crimes after it became apparent that no actual collusion took place, if for no other reason than to justify his own position, in the hopes they’d actually be able to nail Trump on obstruction instead. After that failed, they latched on to hearsay from a whistleblower who’s only apparent sources are people who never actually heard Trump commit the crime he’s being accused of, to the point that an Army officer falsified documentation because Trump didn’t say what he thought Trump should say–which is why his “edits,” i.e. fan-fiction, were rejected by the other officials who listened to the call.

    It probably would have been a lot easier to draw the country together against Trump if you fuckheads had just left well enough alone and geared up for 2020. Instead, your party didn’t even take back the Senate and only gained an historical average of House seats in the mid-terms, and your top candidates at the moment are a crazy Commie, a hectoring school-marm with a control streak the size of the Grand Canyon, and a senile former VP with a hair-sniffing fetish who can’t even keep in his false teeth. And that’s not even taking into account the VP’s deadbeat son, who has to get positions on foreign boards with Daddy’s influence and can’t even take responsibility for the women he’s knocked up.

    So congratulations, feel free to look in the mirror whenever you cry about the country being divided.

  53. Chuck Schumer openly admitted that the government intel agencies were going to try and fuck him over

    Why are the impeachment hearings being held by the Intelligence Committee? Shouldn’t they be in the Oversight and Reform Committee?

    1. Or Judiciary, like with Nixon?

  54. Ok, fine. Quit dicking around and impeach.

  55. It’s always interesting to see how fickle some of the commentariat are. It was Amash Rah! Rah! until he spoke out against President Trump, and now the same thing with Napolitano. It would be nice to see some more clearer minds in this refuge of libertarian thought.

    Saying that Trump is a boor or clumsy does not mean that one wants Bernie of the fake Indian as president, it’s simply acknowledging what many of his political supporters have always know: he’s better than the alternative, but that’s where it ends.

    Go ahead, start the hate…. I’m expecting it.

  56. Libertarians need to face a hard truth. Trump is the most libertarian person that could be elected President in our nation. Lower taxes, less regulation, mostly good judicial appointments, criminal justice reform.
    Criticize all you want but it only gets worse from a Libertarian perspective from Trump. Or did we all forget the Republican and Democrat contenders in 2016 and again in 2020.

Please to post comments