Washerwoman Judge Nap Retracts Claim Don Jr Expects to Be Indicted


Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano spread gossip on Wednesday, claiming Donald Trump Jr.’s friends say Don expects to be indicted in the Mueller Russia probe. Napolitano made his comments to ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams on his SiriusXM show. The former judge had no evidence whatsoever for his comments but made them anyway.

It went viral and the media is still reporting it today. Yahoo has it up as a major story, only it’s not true.

Judge Nap cagily walked it back saying he heard from him — apparently Don Jr. — and he said it’s not true so he takes him at his word. How nice of the judge.

Brian Kilmeade asked him about it.

“You know I did say that, and I basically was repeating what had already been out there,” Napolitano said on “Fox & Friends.” “I since have heard from [him], and he says he never said it. And it was an inaccurate statement.”

“I take him at his word,” he added.

Saying he was repeating what “had already been out there” is a bit disingenuous. The judge said on Wednesday that Don’s friends said it and Nap gave the impression he spoke with the friends.

The judge has been wrong about almost everything, perhaps everything, he’s reported in recent years and it’s impossible to take him seriously. Unfortunately, some people still think he has good information or inside information.

He has diddly squat.

Listen to how he phrased it today:

Judge Nap has fallen far. He used to have good insights but it’s over for him.

Washerwoman Judge Napolitano Says Don Jr Expects to Be Indicted

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 years ago

These lawyers and judges that appear on the networks are assumed to be some type of experts and thus sought for their insight on the news. But who really are these lawyers and judges. Do they really have the expertise in the stories they pontificate on. He has made statements on recent cases that do not comport with the actual legal documents. It’s as if he did a cursory reading of those documents. I used to give the benefit of the doubt to these “experts” that engulf the media landscape but that benefit is no longer worthy. I have found it to be more and more the case that these media conglomerates do very little, if any, research into the matters they cover.

Just because you have here a “legal document” and across the table is an attorney, doesn’t automatically, or necessarily, prescribe a knowledge well enough to “render” such legal opinions. After all, it is “their” legal opinion and each attorney has ‘their” legal opinion on all these matters. We must remember, the “law” in all its facets is massive and extensive. For one lawyer, or any lawyer, for that matter, simply cannot have the “legal” expertise and broad knowledge to that extent. As in any profession, the education one receives gives the ability to formulate an argument but without any research it is superficial at best.

Which brings up another one of Fox’s favorites, which is Gregg Jarrett. Once again we have someone who is given the “title” of being an attorney. In promoting this one would assume the individual would have a stellar, and at least involved legal career. He’s been on Fox for quite a long time. When I first saw him I DID recognize him and somewhat surprised he was on the national Fox network. I recognized him because he was on a Wichita TV network for many many years, KAKE TV, I believe it was. He was nothing more than a news “host”. I never heard him mention any “legal background”.

I’ve noticed in many of these “on-air” legal experts very little is said of cases involving certain matters. There’s not only the specific legal citation but one also has to take into account any cases that arose from a particular law. The more I see of the entire legal “system” the more appalling it is. As in the case of the “Trump ban” that went before the Ninth Circuit the majority of the argument was not on specific legal matters but extraneous arguments unrelated to the case. It would certainly be refreshing to see a Court say to a litigant, that is irrelevant and immaterial. It’s an entirely different matter in Corporate Law. But the issue is far far too many laws are written purposely vague which creates more and more issues. In the case of this Trump / Russia nonsense the law, as written, is so unbelievably vague that any US person could be found guilty in some manner for violating it. And we certainly cannot hope for any improvement in the future. The system, as it is, can only end in more forms of tyranny from those in power, especially those who wish to continue in power. It is why so little change is made to that system, rather, only means to continue it further.

4 years ago
Reply to  Greg

I agree that the Judge is very superficial and has an awful record of predictions. We want analysis more than we want predictions, but he provides no analysis. He performs on TV to get an audience and impress his management.

Jarrett wrote a book which he promotes too much but it has lots of analysis in it. His legal background seems soft but he has made a large effort to explain the events and provide insights. He has covered much the problems with the scope of Mueller, the conflicts, and the recusal. The Judge is a soothsayer.

John Vieira
John Vieira
4 years ago

Article speaks for itself!!!