Judge Andrew Napolitano is pushing whatever love and support that he had with Trump supporters from the brink of the abyss, into the abyss.
Napolitano’s op-ed suggests President Trump’s multiple attempts to interfere with the work of investigators looking into his 2016 campaign are aligned with the legal definitions of obstruction of justice.
Judge Nap cited a few examples from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, including Trump’s alleged talked about a pardon for former Trump Organization lawyer, Michael Cohen, if he chose not to testify against him. He included another allegation made in the report by Don McGahn who testified that the President wanted Mueller fired, which McGahn refused.
Officially, Trump has denied both of this but don’t let fact get in the way of a coup. Napolitano seems as if he’s thrown out the “innocent until proven guilty” and lost all reasoning.
When the Department of Justice designated Robert Mueller as special counsel to take over the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign in May 2017, Mueller’s initial task was to determine if there had been a conspiracy — an illegal agreement — between the campaign and any Russians to receive anything of value.
When former FBI Director James Comey informed Mueller that he believed Trump fired him because he had declined Trump’s order to shut down the investigation of Trump’s campaign and of his former national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Mueller began to investigate whether the president had unlawfully attempted to obstruct those investigations.
The president’s job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable. [Fox News]
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you do not follow through with some form of obstruction, you are not obstructing anything. One would think you have to follow through with the act and the final result would have to be based on that act. Otherwise, it’s just talking, am I correct?
Also, given that it was within the President’s authority to shut down the investigation (subject to Congressional review) I do not believe obstruction is legally actionable. It’s possibly politically actionable if he had shut it down at the beginning or after actual evidence had been discovered.
Mueller couldn’t find clear and cut evidence of obstruction, and he’s been in the business for years. Atty General William Barr didn’t see anything and told the nation as much. The government spent 30 million dollars of taxpayers money, couldn’t find anything on the POTUS and want to continue over something that never produced or bore fruit. It’s over.
The music stops and if you don’t have a chair, your out. Every investigation that leads to violating a citizens rights must be based on a solid foundation of reasonable cause. Congress is weaponizing their oversight responsibilities for political objectives. Can the power of oversight responsibility be abused?
I think oversight abuse has historically been used on both sides. The Supreme Court of the United States needs to review how “we the people” have oversight on the people who are elected in the Oversight Committees. Checks and balances. So if POTUS feels he is being harassed, then he should take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also should review and have direct oversight of the 9th circuit.
What do you think of Judge Nap’s analysis? Do you trust the Fox News contributor?