Thursday, September 26, 2019

Round 2: Oh Boy, Joe DiGenova "Educates Judge Napolitano"

Following comments Tuesday night on the Tucker Carlson show where former US Attorney Joe DiGenova called Judge Napolitano a fool for saying that President Trump committed a crime during his phone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, DiGenova was back on with Tucker Wednesday night and continued his attack.

He said he wanted to educate the Judge and stated that the reason, for the Judge's attacks on Trump, is because the Judge is sore that Trump didn't nominate him for the Supreme Court.

Video below, get your popcorn out.



(ht Jay Stephenson)


  1. What's clear is that it's not clear if a President committed a crime when he does what Trump did. Is it a crime of "election interference"---? Who knows (but that seems a stretch); Is it a crime of seeking benefits from a foreign government? Maybe. (still seems a stretch though).
    All we know is both Team Blue and Team Red will go to extreme lengths to exaggerate and minimize it, respectively.

  2. Is Trump just getting everyone on record, that using foreign governments to dig dirt on political opponents is wrong? Is the whistleblower a Trump plant? Is there record of a previous conversation, establishing that this phone call of interest is one big sting operation? Is it a setup, to prosecute individuals with involvement in the Trump dossier and FISA warrant?

  3. It's a shame that Judge Nap has fallen so far so fast. I believe he may be compromised.

  4. What troubles me the most is that very very few people seem to understand that there is almost ZERO legal analysis going on in this brouhaha. Judge Napolitano stated that soliciting aid from a foreign power for his campaign is a crime. I don't think that there is anything controversial in that assertion. Clearly, there are laws on the books against political campaigns soliciting aid from foreign parties. His position seems to be, given that the transcript of the call itself had not yet been released) is that if there was solicitation and if that is what Trump is claiming it was, then yes, the president would be admitting to a crime.

    When I watched the Shep Smith / Andrew Napolitano video I noticed that Smith engaged in an enormous amount of "framing" and of "leading the witness." I noted that what I did not see was much in the way of legal analysis by Napolitano about what it would take to establish quid pro quo, for example, or why what Trump said constitutes solicitation. In addition, if there even IS any additional evidence, I did not hear Napolitano cite it nor establish his reason to believe that it is credible, if it even exists. Somehow, Smith didn't seem to have the time for this on his show. Kind of strange, isn't it?

    OK. Now to the Tucker Carlson / Joe diGenova video. Carlson asks diGenova about what Napolitano said and diGenova says that Napolitano is a fool (name calling). He said that Judge Napolitano had made a foolish statement and that there was no crime. Further, he made the assertion that even if Trump had told the Ukrainians that they were not getting the money that this would not have constituted a crime. Carlson didn't seem to have any more time on his show segment for diGenova to explain his reasoning or perhaps even offer counter-evidence or counter-precedent. Kind of strange, isn't it?

    What's the common denominator here? Fox News. Why would they limit the discussion so narrowly, to not much more than smearing and name-calling? Why? Because controversy produces outrage and that produces clicks, likes, and views. Actually informing the audience and digging into the meat of the issue, not so much.

    Nobody seems to have seen this. Everybody has an opinion, and all of the mouth-breathing commenters on both videos were choosing a side and smearing their opponents and calling names and impugning the guests for one reason or another, and NOBODY, not in ONE comment mentioned how both hosts had limited the exposure and time and the questions asked of both guests. I'm only a little disappointed that Fox is playing to the lowest common denominator by making a Punch-and-Judy puppet show out of the issue, but really, nobody is going to call them out for it?