Flabbergasting! Fox’s Judge Nap comes up with four articles of impeachment


“The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming,” says Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, who mostly gets legal issues wrong but somehow never gets fired, said in an interview with Reason.com published Friday, he believes there could be ‘three to four articles of impeachment” against President Trump.

He believes the President is guilty of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, obstruction of justice, and lying.

“The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president,” Napolitano told Reason.com’s, Nick Gillespie.

Reason quotes the Judge: The allegations are not “enough to convict [the president] of bribery” in a court of law, Napolitano says, “but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment” since impeachment is “not legal [but] political.” The former New Jersey Superior Court judge adds that while he thinks impeachment is “absolutely constitutional,” it is also “probably morally unjust.” Besides bribery, he lays out four more likely articles that he thinks House Democrats will bring against Trump.

“The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors, election law violation,” says Napolitano. “The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with a witness and the fifth may be lying under oath.”

“The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming,” he adds.


“One is bribery. The allegation is the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way,” continued Napolitano. “And they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered, they dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery. That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment.

The funds to the Ukrainians were delivered within the time frame and there is no evidence of bribery — other than gossip. The President never said they had to probe a political opponent.

President Trump wanted the 2016 election abuse by Ukraine investigated — abuse which did occur — there was a trial in Ukraine and two men were convicted, the Ukrainians did spread nasty propaganda, and a Democrat operative (Ms. Chalupa) allegedly tried to get them to influence the election.

Trump was also concerned about the fact that foreign nations aren’t sending much aid and almost nothing for military aid. That’s easily explained — we pay for their defense so why would they pay for someone else’s military expenses?

There is plenty of evidence that these were the President’s concerns. And why don’t we have the testimony of Mark Sandy of the OMB which allegedly explains the holdup of funds?

As for bribery, bribery is the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer. That didn’t happen.


Rules don’t have to be fair, Judge Nap also said.

That means they could impeach the President for stealing a chocolate chip cookie from a restaurant. The Judge is correct technically. The House does have the sole jurisdiction over the rules of impeachment.

However, this is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They were responding to traitor Benedict Arnold when they wrote the impeachment articles. Arnold was ready to surrender West Point to the British for the equivalent of $3 million dollars. They didn’t want a traitor to turn over our military college to the British. That is the context of the impeachment clause.

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the peoples’ House. It hardly is that. It represents the view of authoritarians.

In the interview, Andrew Napolitano lies about John Boehner writing the rules. It’s already been established he didn’t.

And why is Nick Gillespie just nodding and not challenging him???


The Judge said they might get Trump for lying for saying he didn’t remember a conversation with Roger Stone in response to a query by Robert Mueller.

That sounds like a thought crime.


Nap also said high crimes and misdemeanors are evidenced by the President asking help from a foreign government. However, what Nap doesn’t mention is that we have a treaty that allows him to do exactly that with Ukraine.

Andrew also has a conspiracy theory about why the President chose Rudy to do his work in Ukraine — attorney-client privilege.

The obstruction charge is Trump using executive privilege to keep officials from testifying.

Andrew brought up the fact that Ambassador Sondland said the government wouldn’t give him his phone records and notes. What he didn’t say is the State Department affirmed he had full access to them and could have gotten them any time.

Nap wants us to blame James Madison and the Constitution, not Adam Schiff. Seriously, that is what he says during the interview.

As far as the obviously partisan nature of this impeachment is concerned, not a problem.

The interview continues for over twenty-eight minutes.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments