Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News legal analyst, and contributor wrote a featured article on Fox News where he argued that special counsel Robert Mueller was wrong when he said he wasn’t able to charge President Trump with obstruction. Napolitano then set out to explain that Mueller could have prosecuted the president.
I find the Judge to take positions that seem to conclude without an appropriate logic to support — which makes them ill-founded speculations. I have pretty much started discounting him as he seems to have an agenda with his ‘shown to be wrong’ interpretations.
Judge Napolitano likes to go on TV and point out facts, yet he never points out the fact he’s rarely right with any of his legal predictions. It’s very discrediting and disconcerting when he never corrects his previous mistakes, and he has a lot of them. I’m not a judge, but common sense tells me that if the Mueller investigation was initiated under pretenses that make it illegitimate as well as any accusations that came after that.
When Mueller confronted roadblocks during his investigation, he sought and received authorization from the DOJ to expand his investigation. The roadblocks consisted of attempts by the president himself to interfere with Mueller’s work in order to keep Mueller’s FBI agents at bay. Because of this behavior, the president, who originally was not personally a focus of the FBI investigation, became a subject of Mueller’s investigation.
We learned from Mueller’s report to Barr that while there is evidence of members of the Trump campaign collaborating with the Russians, there is not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy. We also learned that Trump personally engaged in 10 or 11 — depending on how you count them — efforts to interfere with Mueller’s investigation. Each of these attempts at interference constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice. That crime consists of any material attempt — whether successful or not — to impede a federal investigation for a corrupt purpose. So, a lawyer who files motions asking a judge to restrain FBI agents from violating the lawyer’s client’s constitutional rights is interfering with a federal investigation, but for a lawful — not a corrupt — purpose.
While Mueller gave several reasons why those 10 or 11 situations could qualify as obstruction or attempted obstruction, Mueller also gave several reasons why those situations do not qualify as obstruction. And the law only requires one non-criminal reason to negate the whole episode as being criminal. Again, if Mueller were so confident the POTUS committed a crime, he would have said so. As it is, Mueller publicly stated that he would not have indicted but for the policy.
Yet, when the subject of a criminal investigation orders those who work for him to lie to FBI agents or to falsify documents that are soon to enter FBI hands — as Mueller found Trump did — that constitutes an attempt to interfere with a federal investigation for a corrupt purpose. The corrupt purpose is not the vindication of constitutionally protected rights. Rather, it is keeping law enforcement away from the person who ordered the deceptions.
When federal law enforcement discovers evidence of presidential obstruction of justice, this immediately triggers two questions. The first asks whether the president can be prosecuted for these acts, as any other person would, and the second asks if these acts are impeachable offenses.
Napolitano’s conclusions are tempered not by his legal knowledge and expertise, but by his total dislike of President Trump, who did not appoint him to a high ranking judgeship in his administration and who has said negative things about their former good relationship.
We know that presidential obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense because both President Richard Nixon and President Bill Clinton — each of whom instructed aides to lie to FBI agents and falsify evidence — were charged with it. The charges came in articles of impeachment. In these cases, either the House of Representatives or its Judiciary Committee found that the appropriate constitutional language that forms the basis for impeachment — “high crimes and misdemeanors” — includes obstruction of justice.
If Napolitano wants to point out the fact, then he should point out those facts that the Democrats want to be hidden as well. That would be an unbiased opinion!
Judge Napolitano also fails to note that the Mueller investigation was ex parte, meaning the other side had no opportunity to provide evidence that statements were unfounded. The Judge doesn’t like our President, and I lost confidence in him quite a while back. Some of his legal analysis is faulty.
He was allegedly was fired from his Brooklyn teaching job, probably for incompetence yet he continues to make erroneous predictions on the happenings in DC. We neither need his “ROFL brilliance” nor the brilliance of Donna Brazille, Jessica Tarlov, Chris Wallace, Sheppard Smith, and Juan Williams on Fox News, but then again, I don’t watch the network, and they claim they are #1 in the ratings, so they don’t care what people think either.
All these crybabies have some ax to grind and shouldn’t be alleged analysts. Hey Fox, take heed, these are reproductions of analysts on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and the other fake news networks. All these “commentators” are dedicated Democrats, and poor ones at that.
What do you think about Napolitano continuing to go after President Trump? Do you feel it’s personal?