Fox's Napolitano says after Sondland testimony that Democrats have a case for impeachment

[sjmay]

The evidence is overwhelming, which will be even more clearly demonstrated during the trial.

Republicans are in denial, they are not interested in the truth, they fear Trump's mean tweets and fear of being primaried. They are spineless cowards, and that would include Mr Bonespurs.

And, there is hard evidence, incontrovertiable evidence of Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction of Congress, Contempt of Congress, and abuse of power.


Now repubs are questioning Russian meddling, even Sen Kennedy stated, when asked by Chris Wallace
"who interfered in the 2016 election?" , he said:

"I don't know and neither do you". Republicans might was well wear the Russian emblem on their jacket sleeves.


I mean, just read the frickin' Mueller report, hard evidence was provided in the most excruciating detail, let alone the intel report that came out a couple years prior.

Republicans have become a cancerous rot on America.


You will be defeated, truth, justice, and American values will win and be restored, in 2020

Kennedy cleared that up last night with Cuomo saying he didn't hear the question correctly, and stated he was wrong.....but again, don't let facts get in your way.

 

[OscarLevant]

It's overwhelming to emotionally driven partisans. You're in the wrong party if you believe in truth, justice and America; because your colleagues all believe in socialism now. That's not American.

A true socialist wants all means of production and distribution to be taken over by the state. In such a state, there are no taxes, and everyone has a job, whether or not the job is productive in some way or not, ( socialism creates a lot of deadwood jobs in other words ) and there are no rich people. What they want is a type of socialism consisting of worker coops where there is no "boss" overall, it's the "anarcho-syndicalist" world as described often by Noam Chomsky. Such a world has never really existed, it's completely theoretical ( and I don't actually believe it is even possible to exist , as it is utopianism ) and the so-called socialist countries adopted the term because it was popular, but in fact, became de facto totalitarian societies, where freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, does not exist. Thus, socialism that the world has seen is really totalitarian dictatorships, fascism. For example, North Korea falls into this category. The other type of fascism is of the rich as ruling class, the oligarchical rule with a dictator who exploits everyone, though private enterprise is allowed, and there is more freedom of movement, but very little freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and the New Russia falls pretty much into this category.

I'm democrat, and no democrat I know wants any version of these totalitarian societies (Bernie Sanders even said so ) , therefore, *some* dems use of the term is simply conflating 'social justice' with socialism, which is actually an incorrect use of the term.

But, no republican is going to make that distinction, and they are going to paint *dem sociaiists* not as warriors for FDR style social justice, but as comrade-in-arms goose-stepping to the Soviet National Anthem.

In short, they are liars.

So, would that be you? Sounds like it, to me.

 

[American]

A true socialist wants all means of production and distribution to be taken over by the state. In such a state, there are no taxes, and everyone has a job, whether or not the job is productive in some way or not, ( socialism creates a lot of deadwood jobs in other words ) and there are no rich people. What they want is a type of socialism consisting of worker coops where there is no "boss" overall, it's the "anarcho-syndicalist" world as described often by Noam Chomsky. Such a world has never really existed, it's completely theoretical ( and I don't actually believe it is even possible to exist , as it is utopianism ) and the so-called socialist countries adopted the term because it was popular, but in fact, became de facto totalitarian societies, where freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, does not exist. Thus, socialism that the world has seen is really totalitarian dictatorships, fascism. For example, North Korea falls into this category. The other type of fascism is of the rich as ruling class, the oligarchical rule with a dictator who exploits everyone, though private enterprise is allowed, and there is more freedom of movement, but very little freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and the New Russia falls pretty much into this category.

I'm democrat, and no democrat I know wants any version of these totalitarian societies (Bernie Sanders even said so ) , therefore, *some* dems use of the term is simply conflating 'social justice' with socialism, which is actually an incorrect use of the term.

But, no republican is going to make that distinction, and they are going to paint *dem sociaiists* not as warriors for FDR style social justice, but as comrade-in-arms goose-stepping to the Soviet National Anthem.

In short, they are liars.

So, would that be you? Sounds like it, to me.

Save me the read out of the dictionary. We've heard this bull**** for a hundred years. "It'll be different this time, because WE'LL be in charge." The stupid arrogance makes me want to puke. Bernie Sanders is a goddamn liar, and those that follow him with run into the abyss trying to out do the last tyrant. Do you think we are stupid enough to believe your socialism ends at the first implementation? There is no end to taking rights away.

 

[dixon01767]

Now repubs are questioning Russian meddling, even Sen Kennedy stated, when asked by Chris Wallace
"who interfered in the 2016 election?" , he said:

"I don't know and neither do you".

Nope, Wallace asked "who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC..."

‘The entire intelligence community says it was Russia’: Fox's Chris Wallace interrupts GOP senator over Ukraine claims
:50 second mark.

That's just the strawman created by the Democrats.

I mean, just read the frickin' Mueller report, hard evidence was provided in the most excruciating detail, let alone the intel report that came out a couple years prior.

The only thing provided regarding the hacking in the Mueller report came from Crowdstrike. Oddly the DNC refused to allow the FBI to to a forensic examination. The DNC paid crowdstrike to do it instead and provide their report to Mueller.
Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency.
Fancy Bear - Wikipedia

Regardless, no one is claiming that Ukraine hacked the computers and Russia is innocent. That's just the strawman they cant let go of.

 

[dixon01767]

A true socialist wants all means of production and distribution to be taken over by the state. In such a state, there are no taxes, and everyone has a job, whether or not the job is productive in some way or not,

These current socialist/democrats have come to realize that the state sucks at business and so want to instead take advantage of the efficiencies of free market capitalism, and then massive taxes to fund their utopian dream and equalize income and wealth.

 

[Moderate Right]

Fox's Napolitano says after Sondland testimony that Democrats have a case for impeachment | TheHill

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said Thursday on “Fox and Friends” that Democrats have a case for impeaching President Trump after U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s congressional testimony.

“One would expect the president, in September, after the whistleblower's allegations came out, after the president was accused of a quid pro quo, to say ‘no quid pro quo.’ Here we go with the Latin again,” Napolitano said. “But it is clear from what Ambassador Sondland testified yesterday that there was an understanding that the president wanted some things from the Ukrainians.”
==============================================
Quid-pro-quo = bribery, which is in the Constitution is grounds for impeachment.

LOL. Funny how you guys always call Fox News fake news and are always lying and then you make a post such as this.

 

[maxparrish]

Napolitano's wiki page is extensive, you don't get a page like that because you are a 'lightweight".

Andrew Napolitano - Wikipedia

He might be a lot of things, but lightweight is not one of them.
No one bats 1000 in this world, Napolitano, like you, me, and everyone in the world, has had our share of strikes.
But, on Trump of late, he's right on the money.
As a democrat, I agree with libertarians on some things, such as foreign policy and legalization of all vice.

As long as he speaks, acts, and writes as a soapy headed lightweight, he's a wind-bag of helium in my book. Until two minutes ago, the ONLY exposure I had to his biography and alleged competency were from many years of forbearing tolerance of his "legal" opinions on FOX news and my studious review of one of his book's - the name of which I have thankfully forgoten.

Mind you, as a life long conservatarian I wanted to appreciate "the guy on Fox", but that book (read a decade ago) convinced me FOX had hired a nothing-burger - a civil libertarian by "guts", but a scholastic joke. And as many years have passed, he's gotten even worse.

Look, as a lay person I am probably more well informed on legal philosophy than 90 percent here. I've read books by Posner, Scalia, Bork, Barrett, Amar, etc. I am grounded in both original understanding (and textualism), as well as liberal originalism (Amar), and Libertarian legal theory (Randy Barrett). While I don't agree with many of them on some subjects, I was NEVER disappointed by the exposition of careful, linear, and objective explanations of their views (except for Posner).

Nappy had none of that. It was emotive tripe, "claims" of his "truthies" without bothering to cite supporting evidence or a careful line of legal reasoning.

Then his wackiness increased with Trump cheerleading (hardly warming to me given I was a "please not Trumper" and general election refusenik) climaxing with his excited crazy talk about 200 pending executive orders (apparently at the time he was buds with Trump) and Trump being 'revolutionary' in his first EO on Obamacare... (at which point I never paid attention to Nappy again).

Of course, now he has flipped to over-the-top hostility to Trump. But he hasn't changed, and increasingly become a drama queen (although I read, of recent some reasons why he may have destabilized).

In any event, his yo-yo'ing between two distant partisan poles is a personality fault, not an intellectual one. Whatever its cause, unsupported overstatement is a pattern in his book and not to be taken seriously.

When he writes and speaks with the clarity of other libertarian legal minds, e.g. some of those at the Volokh Conspiracy (who did make a rational case for impeachment) I'll take him off the helium user list. Not before.

 

[OscarLevant]

As long as he speaks, acts, and writes as a soapy headed lightweight, he's a wind-bag of helium in my book. Until two minutes ago, the ONLY exposure I had to his biography and alleged competency were from many years of forbearing tolerance of his "legal" opinions on FOX news and my studious review of one of his book's - the name of which I have thankfully forgoten.

Mind you, as a life long conservatarian I wanted to appreciate "the guy on Fox", but that book (read a decade ago) convinced me FOX had hired a nothing-burger - a civil libertarian by "guts", but a scholastic joke. And as many years have passed, he's gotten even worse.

Look, as a lay person I am probably more well informed on legal philosophy than 90 percent here. I've read books by Posner, Scalia, Bork, Barrett, Amar, etc. I am grounded in both original understanding (and textualism), as well as liberal originalism (Amar), and Libertarian legal theory (Randy Barrett). While I don't agree with many of them on some subjects, I was NEVER disappointed by the exposition of careful, linear, and objective explanations of their views (except for Posner).

Nappy had none of that. It was emotive tripe, "claims" of his "truthies" without bothering to cite supporting evidence or a careful line of legal reasoning.

Then his wackiness increased with Trump cheerleading (hardly warming to me given I was a "please not Trumper" and general election refusenik) climaxing with his excited crazy talk about 200 pending executive orders (apparently at the time he was buds with Trump) and Trump being 'revolutionary' in his first EO on Obamacare... (at which point I never paid attention to Nappy again).

Of course, now he has flipped to over-the-top hostility to Trump. But he hasn't changed, and increasingly become a drama queen (although I read, of recent some reasons why he may have destabilized).

In any event, his yo-yo'ing between two distant partisan poles is a personality fault, not an intellectual one. Whatever its cause, unsupported overstatement is a pattern in his book and not to be taken seriously.

When he writes and speaks with the clarity of other libertarian legal minds, e.g. some of those at the Volokh Conspiracy (who did make a rational case for impeachment) I'll take him off the helium user list. Not before.

Has it occurred to you he turned on Trump because even a mind of alleged legal mediocrity, as you are so characterizing him, sees in Trump violations of law, abuse of power, moral turpitude on parade and for all to see and, as such, is unfit for the office?


I"m not 100th as accomplished as Napolitano, and li'l ol' me can see it.

But, can you?

That is the question.


By the way, I'm an admirer of both Oscar Levant and Maxfield Parrish.

Is that your name, or are you a fan of the artist and chose it as your avatar?

 

[maxparrish]

Has it occurred to you he turned on Trump because even a mind of alleged legal mediocrity, as you are so characterizing him, sees in Trump violations of law, abuse of power, moral turpitude on parade and for all to see and, as such, is unfit for the office?


I"m not 100th as accomplished as Napolitano, and li'l ol' me can see it.

But, can you?

That is the question.


By the way, I'm an admirer of both Oscar Levant and Maxfield Parrish.

Is that your name, or are you a fan of the artist and chose it as your avatar?

I'm a fan. Hopefully the image appears as an avatar, when I scan posts I never see it (although it appears in my profile).

 

[OscarLevant]

I'm a fan. Hopefully the image appears as an avatar, when I scan posts I never see it (although it appears in my profile).

It doesn't appear you need to download one of the images and upload it.

 

[Michael Cole]

LOL! No, it didn't, nor can you show otherwise.

Why lie about something like that? What's the point? Or is it the comma that's got you so confused?

When the Founders wrote "Bribery," it meant "Burisma." And when they wrote "Impeachment," it meant "BULL****!" Hehe

 

[cpwill]

Smart conservatives know what's up.

I would amend this somewhat. Wise Conservatives know what's up. You can be highly intelligent and still bought into the tribalist requirement to Defend Your Guy regardless of the facts.

 

[cpwill]

Save me the read out of the dictionary. We've heard this bull**** for a hundred years. "It'll be different this time, because WE'LL be in charge." The stupid arrogance makes me want to puke. Bernie Sanders is a goddamn liar, and those that follow him with run into the abyss trying to out do the last tyrant. Do you think we are stupid enough to believe your socialism ends at the first implementation? There is no end to taking rights away.

To be fair, I don't know if I would say Bernie Sanders is a liar - he's just crazy. Liars know what they are saying is wrong. Bernie probably actually believes this stuff - like the people who Really Truly Want You To Know The Secret Truth About How NASA Has Hidden The Fact That The World Is Flat From All Of Us.

Warren is a liar, because she's an opportunist pretending to be Bernie because that's what a large chunk of the Democrat base wants, but, as near as I can tell, Bernie really is that nuts.

 

[American]

To be fair, I don't know if I would say Bernie Sanders is a liar - he's just crazy. Liars know what they are saying is wrong. Bernie probably actually believes this stuff - like the people who Really Truly Want You To Know The Secret Truth About How NASA Has Hidden The Fact That The World Is Flat From All Of Us.

Warren is a liar, because she's an opportunist pretending to be Bernie because that's what a large chunk of the Democrat base wants, but, as near as I can tell, Bernie really is that nuts.

Nah, his wifes scandal and his 3 mansions convince me he's a hypocritical lying ****.

 

[cpwill]

Nah, his wifes scandal and his 3 mansions convince me he's a hypocritical lying ****.

That would actually make me feel better about his political strength, which, frankly, makes me instinctively distrustful of it.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[SLC]

Nah, his wifes scandal and his 3 mansions convince me he's a hypocritical lying ****.

I think Bernie needs to start letting the People use his lake home

 

[OscarLevant]

Fox's Napolitano says after Sondland testimony that Democrats have a case for impeachment | TheHill

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said Thursday on “Fox and Friends” that Democrats have a case for impeaching President Trump after U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s congressional testimony.

“One would expect the president, in September, after the whistleblower's allegations came out, after the president was accused of a quid pro quo, to say ‘no quid pro quo.’ Here we go with the Latin again,” Napolitano said. “But it is clear from what Ambassador Sondland testified yesterday that there was an understanding that the president wanted some things from the Ukrainians.”
==============================================
Quid-pro-quo = bribery, which is in the Constitution is grounds for impeachment.

The media wouldn't play, but I found this other interview, which is pertinent to this discussion:

YouTube

In this interview, he didn't state that QPQ was bribery, per se, he stated that

"the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way"

He stated it in the first person, so if you (Trump) fail to perform an official duty for Ukraine until a thing of value comes your way, (Ukraine to investigate Biden) it's obvious that the thing must of value to you, personally, and the 'you' here, is Trump and the thing of value is the hope of taking Biden down given that polls show he's the most salient threat to Trump's reelection. In my view, and to almost all democrats and a few republicans, it's obvious that the driving factor for Trump's wanting Biden investigated is owing to this fact ( because he, and repubs, sure as hell weren't interested in investigating Biden in any serious level before Biden tossed his hat into the ring and polls indicated he can beat Trump by some 10 points ).



More quotes:


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

"Congressman Schiff, whether you like him or not, is only following the rules created by Republicans in 2015"

"The president has no right of due process until the Senate trial " ( paraphrased )

(paraphrased) "Here's what I think the Democrats will advance; 1. Bribery [he then defines bribery, quoted above] and that is enough, in my opinion, to take it over the threshold of an impeachable offense, ...I don't think it's enough to convict of bribery, but it's enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment. 2. High crimes and misdemeanors -- election law violation. 3. Obstruction of justice. 4. Interference with a witness, and the fifth may be lying under oath" where he discussed a letter to Mueller where one of Trump's answers conflicted with a particular fact uncovered in the Stone trial, so dems are interested in pursuing that.

He also stated that the doubted he will be removed from office because of the math in the senate.

He mentioned about the horrific fact that Trump is spending a trillion dollars per year, that, because of that fact, he is not optimistic about the future, talked about his historically other nations collapsed and implied we, as a nation, are headed that way. He also mentioned that Trump's drones have killed more people than Obama's, and Obama's drones killed more people than Bush's, etc., that the whole idea of drones in other countries killing people is about as unconstitutional as one could imagine, and would horrify the likes of Madison et al ( plus the eavesdropping on citizen's phones ) I'm inclined to agree with that.


Another interesting comment he made was that both dems vote to give their respective presidents more power, and today's president, by extension, has more power than predecessors not dreamed of ( and counter to the intention of ) Madison, etc.

He stated that the Patriot Act is the most antipatriot piece of legislation ever written. I agree.

 

[OscarLevant]

Didn't happen, try again. And don't pretend that suddenly you're a Napolitino fan........he's libertarian and no where near your politics. Wanting unspecified things from Ukraine isn't grounds for impeachment at all. Sondland presumed a lot, and that's why he got bent over and reamed by the Republicans yesterday.

I can't speak for the person you are replying to, but in my own case, let me say a few things:


If looked out the window in the morning, and there is snow everywhere, I can presume it snowed the night before and be certain ( enough to testify under oath) that it did, indeed, snow the night before.


Methinks repubs are conflating "presume" with "assume", and they most certainly are not the same thing, where the former can equal certainty ( enough to assert it under oath) and the latter means the opposite of certainty.


In my comment #217 :

[Napolitano] he didn't state that QPQ was bribery, per se, he stated that (in a YouTube interview I linked to, as the one in the OP doesn't play in my browser )

"the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way"

He stated it in the first person, so if you (Trump) fail to perform an official duty for Ukraine until a thing of value comes your way, (Ukraine to investigate Biden) it's obvious that the thing must of value to you, personally, and the 'you' here, is Trump and the thing of value is the hope of taking Biden down given that polls show he's the most salient threat to Trump's reelection. In my view, and to almost all democrats and a few republicans, it's obvious that the driving factor for Trump's wanting Biden investigated is owing to this fact ( because he, and repubs, sure as hell weren't interested in investigating Biden in any serious level before Biden tossed his hat into the ring and polls indicated he can beat Trump by some 10 points ).

I also note that Napolitano is a full fledged libertarian, and identify as a liberal with certain libertarian leanings ( legalize vice, prostitution, all drugs, though regulate) and a few other items.

The point is, just because someone "is not your politics' doesn't mean you can't quote them to support an argument you are making, nor does that make you particularly "a fan" so that is a logical fallacy

Not everyone is totally pure on any point in the spectrum, just as no male or female does not have traits in common with the opposite sex.

 

[OscarLevant]

I would amend this somewhat. Wise Conservatives know what's up. You can be highly intelligent and still bought into the tribalist requirement to Defend Your Guy regardless of the facts.

Yes, intellectual capacity and wisdom are, indeed, very separate faculties and one does not necessarily beget the other, after all, very smart humans did invent the nuclear bomb, though one could argue the wisdom of it, certainly.

 

[OscarLevant]

Didn't happen, try again. And don't pretend that suddenly you're a Napolitino fan........he's libertarian and no where near your politics. Wanting unspecified things from Ukraine isn't grounds for impeachment at all. Sondland presumed a lot, and that's why he got bent over and reamed by the Republicans yesterday.

Did you listen to the video? Because, Napolitano goes on to explain why a presumption has a lot more weight than an assumption. Sondland stated that "Perry knew it", "Pompeo knew it" "Everyone was in the loop", and lo, the whole crew knew it, and thus, because Trump is directing all of those persons not to testify, and therefore Congress can confirm what Sondland said, that they can infer their testimony would have been consistent with what Sondland "presumed".

 

[dixon01767]

Has it occurred to you he turned on Trump

"Turned" He was talking of Trumps impeachment when Manaford was charged in Oct 2017.

 

[dixon01767]

The media wouldn't play, but I found this other interview, which is pertinent to this discussion:

YouTube

In this interview, he didn't state that QPQ was bribery, per se, he stated that

"the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way"

.

Do you realize that his delayed duty was fulfilled and nothing of value came his way?

 

[Geoist]

I would amend this somewhat. Wise Conservatives know what's up. You can be highly intelligent and still bought into the tribalist requirement to Defend Your Guy regardless of the facts.

Agreed. Case in point, Oxford grad Congressman Kennedy