Fox News' Napolitano drops bomb on viewers: 'Schiff is correct'

[catbyte]

Sorry, I'm sourcing Raw Story because I refuse to get anywhere near TRUMPRAVDA, but I thought it was interesting. Are they trying to inoculate the herd?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox News’ Napolitano drops bomb on viewers: ‘Schiff is correct’ on evidence of Trump conspiracy and obstruction

MATTHEW CHAPMAN, ALTERNET
29 MAR 2019 AT 17:57 ET

The Republicans in Congress have going absolutely batty over what they regard is the total exoneration of Donald Trump by the Mueller Report – which none of them have seen a single page of. They are even escalating their attacks on Trump’s Democratic critics to include absurd demands for apologies and the resignation of House Intelligence Committee Chair, Adam Schiff.

So you have to wonder how Trump and his MAGA Martinets will respond when they hear that the senior legal analyst at fox News agrees with Rep. Schiff. In a conversation with host Neil Cavuto (video below), Andrew Napolitano presented the bare legal facts that demonstrate Trump’s complicity in conspiratorial endeavors with Russia and efforts to cover them up. Napolitano noted that special counsel Robert Mueller “must have found some evidence of a conspiracy,” and that “there obviously is evidence of obstruction of justice.” He elaborated on those points during the interview:


“I think that Congressman Schiff is correct. In that report will be evidence of the existence of a conspiracy. Not enough evidence to prove the existence beyond a reasonable doubt. In that report will be evidence of obstruction of justice, interfering with an FBI investigation for a personal gain. But not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

snip

So all the hoopla by the right and the devoted cult followers of Trump is, as usual, just the yammering of ignorant partisans who are more interested in feeding their fantasies than in accepting reality. And the reality is that there is abundant evidence of criminality by Trump and his associates. Whether a prosecutor could obtain a conviction by the standards that apply in a courtroom is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the President’s activities were immoral, unethical, or proof of his unfitness for office.

snip

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/fox-news-napolitano-drops-bomb-viewers-schiff-correct-evidence-trump-conspiracy-obstruction/

[zaj]

1. There might be enough obstruction evidence...

... but Mueller felt Barr needed to let Congress determine that.

[TruckFump]

2. Exactly! EOM

[Igel]

8. That can't make sense.

The decision over this question had to be made by somebody--to indict or not. That's executive, not legislative, and Congress has pretty much nothing probative to say. They can agitate for an indictment to be brought, but it's not in their power. Mueller punted and said he didn't decide that question, but the question had been raised, investigated, and left undecided. That means it would go to Rosenstein.

Ignoring it would be to also decide that by default, but since Barr and Rosenstein were Mueller's bosses, they bore ultimate responsibility. And so if the summary is accurate, they decided.

Barr could have said, "Um, the issue's on my desk and I will leave it unresolved." Which at that point would leave it on his desk, defaulting to "not indict".

[zaj]

11. The DOJ policy says they can't indict...

... and that makes it an impeachment question. One for Congress and not DOJ.

[uponit7771]

9. +1, This !!!!

[RoadRunner]

3. The standard for indictment & prosecution is not reasonable doubt

It’s probable cause. A much lower bar. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is for juries. Probable cause is for grand juries and law enforcement.

[Ponietz]

5. +1

12 impartial jurors would do their duty and convict.

[uponit7771]

10. Thx for this !! Why are legal pundits going around saying beyond reasonable doubt if PC would do?

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Just IMHO but the president of the US should set the highest bar of stnds in this country, so...

regardless of any prior legalized concept of a normal standard for obstruction of justice and interfering w/ an ongoing criminal investigation, etc., the president and the standards he must follow are far higher than normal citizens of the US and thus, by this enhanced standard, should be charged for these crimes (multiple or not, who really knows what the Mueller report says). Being that Barr is sitting on it/hiding it, something is wrong and points to wrong doing by rump and/or cronies.

[lindysalsagal]

6. Here it is on The Hill

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/436337-fox-news-legal-analyst-mueller-report-will-show-schiff-was-correct-on

Fox's Napolitano predicts Mueller report will prove Schiff 'correct' on some collusion
BY JUSTIN WISE - 03/28/19 04:05 PM EDT

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/436337-fox-news-legal-analyst-mueller-report-will-show-schiff-was-correct-on?jwsource=cl

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller's full report on the investigation into Russia's election interference likely contains some evidence of conspiracy between Russia and President Trump's campaign.

"I think that [Rep. Adam] Schiff [(D-Calif.)] is correct: In that report will be evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, not enough evidence to prove the existence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Napolitano said while speaking with host Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Network.

Napolitano acknowledged that he is unaware whether Schiff, who is leading a House investigation into Trump's links with Russia, has information that Mueller doesn't. But he added that Schiff would have "to decide when and under what circumstances to reveal those sources" if he does have such information.

“There was a big difference between whether there was evidence of collusion — and I think that evidence is in plain sight — and whether you can establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy,” he told CNN on Monday.

[triron]

7. Whoa.

That's quite an admission.

[triron]

12. Sure looks like it.