Friday, February 7, 2020

Is Judge Napolitano Acting on Behalf of the Deep State?

Judge Napolitano
Judge Napolitano's puzzling behavior toward President Trump continues to get worse and worse.

I am no supporter of Trump but it is clear that the impeachment of Trump was the result of an alliance of mainstream media, the Democratic party and elements of the Deep State.

Not that long ago, The Judge stood up to this axis of evil but no longer.

On the day Trump was acquitted by the Senate, the Judge wrote a scathing op-ed attack against Trump. He wrote:
Trump will luxuriate in his victory. But the personal victory for him is a legal assault on the Constitution. The president has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, he has trashed it.
His argument in part went this way:
The abuse allegations address Trump's solicitation of assistance for his reelection campaign from a foreign government by holding up the release of $391 million in military aid to the same foreign government. These funds were congressionally appropriated and ordered to be paid by legislation that Trump had signed into law.
Federal law prohibits such solicitation as criminal and prohibits government officials from seeking personal favors in return for performing their governmental duties. The latter is bribery.
But Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz made clear on the Senate trial floor that if a president is acting in the best interests of the country, then, if it also benefits the president personally, it does not matter. And it certainly is in the interest of the country to understand the nature of the dealings of Hunter Biden in Ukraine at the time Joe Biden was vice president. The huge payments to Hunter certainly look very shady. Case closed.

It is difficult to understand how the Judge can hold a different opinion.

Libertarians may have lost the Judge to the Deep State.



  1. Remember when they tried a similarly weak accusation against Trump a couple of years ago, when it came to light that he'd paid-off Stormy Daniels? They said it violated campaign finance laws because paying her off to keep quiet during his campaign helped his campaign for re-election, and thus was a campaign expenditure that should've been reported; his failure to report it was a violation of campaign law or something.
    But just about any personal expenditure can therefore be a reportable campaign expenditure: Paying to get a haircut right before the debates; getting a stained suit dry-cleaned so as to improve one's appearance during a TV appearance. Etc. Etc.
    Sort of similar to the argument Judge Nap is making: If it helped Trump's campaign in any way---even in a secondary or afterthought sort of way---then it's a violation.
    I think it's ridiculous. As Dershowitz pointed out during the hearing, Lincoln's actions during the Civil War were self-serving as to his re-election. And all Presidents mingle political acts that are in the interests of the country, with acts that help them politically. At the end of the day, didn't Truman incinerate many tens of thousands of innocent civilians for political gain---i.e. to look tough to the Russians AND in the eyes of the American people? Didn't FDR maneuver us into WWII partly because he believed it would pull us out of the Depression---something good for the country but ALSO good for his re-election chances?
    Dershowitz was spot-on in his opening comments when he said it has to be a Federal criminal act, and can't have any benefit for the country.

    1. That’s a blank check for a president to do whatever he wants then. Any moron can say it was a benefit for the nation no matter what he did. All the examples you have here are all BS reasons, obviously. I can’t see how it’s good. I mean, why write that trump is a bully when he “sanctions” New Yorkers, he can just say it’s for the good of the country, and obviously good for his good small guv base to see him punishing those liberals.

    2. It's not a "blank check" for the President. He still can't break a Federal law while performing a purely self-serving act. Would you grant a blank check to Congress by making the basis for impeachment so broad and vague as to enable them to weaponize impeachment for political purposes?
      Don't get me wrong, I like gridlock, and I like mostly toothless, impotent government. But I don't agree with Judge Nap that Trump's actions are some grievous violation of the Constitution; It pales in comparison to other unconstitutional acts of past Presidents---acts which aren't for Congress to decide are unconstitutional, but rather, for SCOTUS to determine probably.

    3. I'll take the bait.

      Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the authority to decide the constitutionality of a particular action, law, etc.? It isn't there. Nor was the court meant to possess such a power solely.

    4. You are correct. And Congress has the power to impeach Judges. They just don't have the balls to even suggest it.

      Most have been indoctrinated to treat SCOTUS like gods.

  2. Bob, I agree. I met Judge Nap at Mises University a few years ago, and purchased a couple of his books, but he seems to have gone never-Trumper.

    I do think the most likely explanation is that something went horribly wrong (for him) when he met with Trump shortly after the election. He's gone from advisor (in some capacity) to bitter critic.

    1. He did flip in a heartbeat. It almost makes one wonder what they (SCOTUS and potentials) have hanging over them to create some really bizarre decisions.

    2. I think the deep state is more overt now than it ever was and doesnt care who knows what they do and their efforts are no different than any other terrorist state