“President Donald Trump said Saturday evening that Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano asked to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and for a pardon for a friend of the former superior court judge in New Jersey.
“The president tweeted after his rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that Napolitano turned “very hostile” once his request to be nominated to the highest court in the land was rejected.” (via Breitbart and others; Veritaspac, 4/29/19, “Trump exposes Da Judge”)
– We’re betting that Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ “legal expert” will be called very soon to testify before any number of Democrat-led House Committees about his charge that President Trump is guilty of “Obstruction of Justice”.
– We also believe that “Nappy” will be tickled pink to get to testify.
– On Monday, the former New Jersey Superior Court judge again on Fox News, claimed that, with a few exceptions, the entire legal world was in agreement with him (and Sally Yates) that Trump did “obstruct” justice and the Mueller report provides more than ample evidence.
– In fact, there seems solid evidence that ‘all of legaldom’ does not agree with ‘Nappy’ and Ms. Yates (the Obama admin ‘holdover’, best known for her gross insubordination as Deputy AG in the Trump administration). For example, such legal observers as Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and Alan Dershowitz, renowned Harvard Law Professor, neither, of course, as smart as the the “Judge”, do not agree at all with him and ‘Sally’.
– Napolitano has become one of President Trump’s most outspoken critics, joining the ranks of Fox News’ “anti-Trumpers”, which include ‘Shep’ Smith, the ‘lovable cherub’, Neil Cavuto, Chris Stirewalt, Juan Williams, newly-hired Donna Brazile, and a few others.
– So, why do we think “Nappy” will be called to testify against President Trump?
Recall our earlier report that President Trump, somewhat annoyed with “Da Judge” tweeted:
“As now widely-known, immediately after the Judge first charged that the Mueller report had provided evidence that Trump had ‘obstructed justice’, the president tweeted that the 68 year old Napolitano had asked that Trump nominate him for the Supreme Court and had been told ‘no’. Trump said that “Nappy” also had asked that Trump intercede on behalf of a ‘mutual friend of theirs. He noted in his tweet that after telling “Nappy” ‘no’ to a SCOTUS nomination , the judge became quite “hostile.”
Since then, a piece by “HotAir” (not known as a big fan of Trump) dug deeper into this squabble Napolitano hits back at Trump: He was the one who suggested a pardon for one of our mutual friends, not me
It raises some interesting points: (however speculative)
“Whom do we believe about whether Napolitano “asked” Trump to appoint him to the Supreme Court, Trump or the judge? Politicoreported more than two years ago that Napolitano had been telling friends that he was on the president’s Supreme Court shortlist, an unlikely possibility given his age and relatively limited experience (eight years as a state court judge in New Jersey).
“The fact that he was chattering excitedly about it to confidants suggests that he really was lobbying POTUS for the job, possibly believing — and not without reason — that in Trump’s eyes the highest legal credential one could achieve in the United States is professional law bloviator on Fox News.
“Napolitano’s account of his conversations with Trump… casts their chats in a different light, though. Supposedly Trump was sounding him out about Supreme Court appointments, Napolitano mentioned Gorsuch, and then Trump started nudging the judge to make the pitch for himself. That *does* sound Trumpy, partly ingratiating himself to his audience, partly enjoying the spectacle of a courtier asking him for a job. Napolitano might have walked out of there sincerely believing he was on the shortlist.
“And you know what? Maybe he was, until Trump mentioned it to Don McGahn and Leonard Leo and they side-eyed each other and politely told him that they wouldn’t be doing that.
The dispute over the pardon is more interesting, especially since I feel like it should be relatively easy to figure out who their mutual acquaintance is. How many friends in common could Trump and Napolitano have who have been convicted of a federal crime?
And, Here’s The “Money Shot”!:
Anyway, Trump says the judge pitched him on pardoning their friend but Napolitano says it was more like the opposite, with the judge insisting that their friend had been justly convicted and Trump objecting. And then the judge says something interesting: “He said ‘You know this person as well as I do. Call this person up and tell this person he’s going to be on the list of pardons that I will seriously consider.’” That resembles some of the obstruction allegations in Mueller’s report, with Trump using go-betweens to carry messages and hinting at pardons for the likes of Paul Manafort while he was under pressure by the special counsel to cooperate.
Dah Dah! And there it is!
Does it seem improbable that the nest of snakes in the Democrat congressional caucus won’t pounce on this.
Imagine Nadler, Schiff, Maxine, and the assorted other nasty caricatures heading House committees wetting their pants over this opportunity to invite “Nappy” to appear and give his “credible” testimony on how Trump tried to lure him into criminal, impeachable acts!!
And, good old Nappy will be grinning all the way through it! DLH