Title: ‘Clearly Guilty’: Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano Says Trump Could Be Impeached Again Source:
Daily Caller URL Source:https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/06/ ... news-donald-trump-impeachment/ Published:Feb 7, 2020 Author:Shelby Talcott Post Date:2020-02-07 17:06:33 by IbJensen Keywords:None Views:1916 Comments:10
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explained Thursday how President Donald Trump legally could be impeached again, hours after slamming the Senates Wednesday acquittal vote in an op-ed.
Napolitano called out Senate Republicans for voting against additional witness testimony and added that the president is clearly guilty of the impeachment charges in an op-ed. He added to these comments on Fox & Friends Thursday morning, explaining how theres no double jeopardy, meaning Democrats could try and impeach him again if they want.
Because there is no double jeopardy protection, Napolitano said after bringing up the possibility committees continuing to discuss former National Security Advisor John Bolton being subpoenaed.
Stated differently, they could impeach him again if they want notwithstanding the political fallout which I think would be horrific for the exact same offense with the exact same evidence and perhaps more evidence.
WATCH:
Napolitano added that he was sorry to tell the president at this hour of the morning after his triumph yesterday, adding that its simply the law.
Hours early, Napolitanos op-ed, published by Fox News, hit back hard at the Senate GOPs unwillingness to hear witnesses. He wrote that the decision turned the impeachment trial into a steamroller of political power.
The evidence that Trump did this is overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one with firsthand knowledge denied it, Napolitano wrote. Numerous government officials recounted that the presidential leverage of $391 million in U.S. assistance for a personal political favor did occur and the governments own watchdog concluded that it was indisputably unlawful.
The Fox News advisor ended his op-ed by suggesting the president manipulated senators into voting against witnesses, writing Trumps acquittal was a legal assault on the Constitution. (RELATED: Andrew Napolitano Breaks Down How Trump Can Overcome Congressional Investigations)
Trump will luxuriate in his victory, according to Napolitano. 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. How?
By manipulating Senate Republicans to bar firsthand evidence and keep it from senatorial and public scrutiny, Trump and his Senate collaborators have insulated him and future presidents from the moral and constitutional truism that no president is above the law. Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling.
Poster Comment:
Now that his little butt-buddy Shep Smith is gone this dwarf homo has no playmate left at Fox. He's pissed that President Trump rebuffed his bid for a Federal Judgeship, he's NOT qualified to be a traffic court judge. He's like the little gnome Jerry Nadler who had a score to settle with Donald Trump who made a fool out of Jerry's father over a real estate deal years ago.
Although a registered Vegetarian, the little dwarf does like his meat whistles.
Clearly this Gy likes the easy money of punditry. There is no room on the sane side of the argument, so he chose the honey pot that is literally, LEFT.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Napolitano said after bringing up the possibility committees continuing to discuss former National Security Advisor John Bolton being subpoenaed.
A committee cannot subpoena anyone without being given that power by a vote of the entire House. That vote has yet to be taken.
Even then, the President can exert executive privilege and tie it up in the courts until well past the election, in the meantime using it as a club against House Democrats.
No one with firsthand knowledge testified under oath.
If this is the truth, then why would the Senate, who also swore to uphold the Constitution, permit another trial for impeachment? You would think that those with firsthand knowledge would be called as star witnesses to testify.
And that those in the Senate pushing forward to retry this again should be referred to as vexatious.