The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Can the Attorney General Defend Presidential Obstruction?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One should expect fireworks this week as Attorney General William Barr testifies before the Judiciary Committees of both the House and the Senate about the investigation and the report of special counsel Robert Mueller regarding Russian interference in the 2016 American presidential election. By now, most folks know that the interference was substantial but don’t seem to care much.

We know from Mueller’s report that Russian intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated cyber warfare against the United States, and we did very little to resist them. The Russians were physically here. They engaged via email and text with many Americans. They ran popular political rallies. They attempted to alter vote tallies. They received internal polling data from the Trump campaign, with which they communicated 127 times in 16 months.

None of this seems to be causing outrage. Instead, the outrage is around the efforts President Donald Trump personally undertook to interfere with the challenging work of finding out who the Russians were and what they did. Why would he attempt to derail such an investigation? Did then-President Barack Obama know what the Russians were up to? That seems unlikely, since he ardently wished to be succeeded in office by Hillary Clinton, and the Russian efforts were aimed at helping Trump.

But the American intelligence community should have known. It captures all the fiber optic communications of all people in America. This mass suspicionless surveillance is unlawful and unconstitutional, but the leadership of our 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus has persuaded every president since George H.W. Bush that all this spying keeps America safe. We now know that it doesn’t. It didn’t find a single Russian spy bent on influencing the election.

Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of all people in America 24/7 produces information overload — too much data to sift through when searching for those trying to harm our way of life.

From the Mueller report, we also know the determination of the attorney general to prevent any criminal charges — no matter the evidence — from being brought against the president for his attempts to impede the investigation.

The credible evidence that Mueller found of Trump’s obstruction was rejected by Barr based on a unique legal theory of the obstruction of justice statute, a theory that even Barr’s own prosecutors have rejected.

The Barr argument goes thusly: In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a fruitless investigation. This sophistry would make the Jesuits proud.

As well, this argument goes, so long as presidential interference in an investigation is grounded in the Constitution and is not “corrupt” — the word in the federal obstruction of justice statute — it is not prosecutable.

ORDER IT NOW

The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, rejects Barr’s narrow view of obstruction and interprets the plain meaning of the federal statute as it was written. Thus, under this view, all corrupt interference or attempted interference with an investigation or judicial proceeding constitutes obstruction. A corrupt purpose is one that seeks personal gain for the obstructer, such as shielding him from the revelation of unpleasant truths.

So, if Trump fired FBI Director James Comey because Trump wanted to be the tallest person in the room or because he had a better director candidate in mind, there is no corrupt purpose. But if he fired Comey to delay or stop the FBI’s acquisition of painful truths about Russia, as he told NBC’s Lester Holt was his purpose, then whether the truths he wants to hide are about unlawful behavior or not, Trump’s purpose is corrupt and his behavior is prosecutable.

As well, if the pre-presidential Trump instructed retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to tell the Russian ambassador that Trump would relax sanctions on Russian banks and oligarchs once in office — as Flynn told Mueller was the case — Trump’s efforts to hide that truth from FBI investigators constitute obstruction. And, if Trump lied to the public about the communications between his campaign and the Trump Organization and the Russians — he said there were none — and he tried to prevent the FBI from learning about the 127 communications, Trump’s purpose is corrupt.

Asking Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to put an untruthful document about Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador into a government file that is likely to be subpoenaed and asking White House Counsel Don McGahn to lie to FBI agents are acts of obstruction. They constituted ordering subordinates to commit crimes for a corrupt purpose — shielding Trump from the revelation of unpleasant truths about his behavior.

We know that Attorney General Barr’s own DOJ rejects its boss’ narrow view of obstruction because of an indictment it announced just last week. A federal grand jury in Boston indicted a sitting judge of the Superior Court of Massachusetts for obstruction of justice. Her crime? She allegedly told the ICE agents in her courtroom to arrest a defendant appearing in front of her that the defendant would be released from her custody in the courthouse lobby.

When sheriff’s officers instead released him to the courthouse parking lot, and the defendant escaped, the judge was accused of obstructing justice even though it is legally impossible for her to have committed the underlying crime that ICE was prosecuting — illegal reentry into the U.S. by a once-deported and undocumented immigrant.

The U.S. is planted thick with laws intended to preserve human freedom by keeping the government honest. When the government breaks its own laws and gets away with it, it undermines the personal liberty of us all.

Copyright 2019 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Robert Mueller, Russiagate 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rational says:

    JUDGE NAPALITANO DRANK THE KOOL AID.

    His articles are becoming more and more bizarre.

    Eg. “By now, most folks know that the interference was substantial but don’t seem to care much.”

    Mr. Nap, name the criminal statute that was violated.

    There was NO Russian interference. Foreigners have a right to freedom of speech too, and that is not illegal.

    I went to polling stations and did not see a single Russian threatening to beat people up unless they voted for Trump, etc. Have not seen a single video of any Russian doing that either.

    So please stop lying about this scam called Russian interference.

  2. Tusk says:

    Here’s a scenario:

    Police come to my house and ask to check inside to make sure I’m not doing anything illegal.
    I ask them for a warrant, and bar them from entering as they have no proof I’ve doing anything illegal.
    They then launch an investigation, to see whether it was obstruction of justice for me to stop them for investigating me for nothing (remember, there is no evidence.)
    They conclude, through their investigation, that I commited no crime as there was, once again, no evidence but are unsure whether me not allowing them into my house to investigate the non-event that they surmised from no evidence was illegal.

    What happened to reasonable suspicion or probable cause? It would indeed be a violation of rights for Government agencies to investigate someone for domestic terrorism under no evidence or suspicion. Why then are those same agencies allowed to investigate political opponents under the same premise?

    You are completely disengenious here.

    We know from Mueller’s report that Russian intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated cyber warfare against the United States, and we did very little to resist them

    Paying 160k for Facebook ads constitutes ‘sophistacted cyber warfare’?

    Did then-President Barack Obama know what the Russians were up to?

    I once again find it hard that Obama should have been kept in the loop of Facebook advertising, but I suppose the Neoliberal World Order requires all machinations to be submitted to the Deep State to ensure consistency on what is broadcast via the media.

    The fact is Mueller did not find any supposed Russian collusion, so you contradict yourself trying to make a point about Flynn.

    I would have thought that through a legal career that you would atleast have a modicum of respect for the law, perhaps even the rule of law, but that is clearly not the case. As evidenced by this line:

    The U.S. is planted thick with laws intended to preserve human freedom by keeping the government honest. When the government breaks its own laws and gets away with it, it undermines the personal liberty of us all.

    What undermines personal liberty is creating a system that incentivizes ignoring principals such as reasonable cause. Giving the Government enforcers the right to arbitrarily harass people and then penalising them for resisting. Police kicking in doors and arresting those who resist their searches to ensure, withouth any proof mind you, that nothing illegal is going on is the future of such a dangerous precedent.

    I urge anyone who read this to instead read Boyd Cathey’s article.
    https://www.unz.com/article/did-the-russian-really-interfere-in-our-elections/

    • Replies: @Macon Richardson
    , @Svigor
  3. I’m not a fan of Trump. He is patently a con man who has sold a lot of people a bill of goods. He is also in many ways simply not competent in doing his job, as is evidenced by his failure to control his own DOJ.

    But, man, you’ve lost your mind.

    In addition to everything else, you’ve lost sight of the fact that as head of the unitary executive, of which DOJ is a part, Trump himself is the chief prosecutor. He is different from you and me. It would be within his power and right and indeed his duty to stop an investigation of circumstances in which the knew no crime had been committed, or any investigation he did not believe was in the public interest, whoever the suspect might have been, and whatever anybody else thought about it. In this case the suspect was him and he knew he had committed no crime.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  4. Peggy says:

    One would think that you’d reconsider being so petty towards someone you supported, just because he couldn’t shoehorn you into the supreme court.

    Especially after being exposed by our president! Have you no shame, sir?

  5. @Tusk

    Thank you for your splendid rebuttal. Mr. Napolitano continues to act as a criminal prosecutor in his columns, not as a legal analyst. We, the readers of Unz Review hardly need another criminal prosecutor lying in our ear.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Tusk
  6. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rational

    “Foreigners have a right to freedom of speech too, and that is not illegal.” Agreed. The First Amendment and what “Freedom Watcher” used to defend as a “natural right” of free speech speech also means that Americans may read and hear what those foreigners write and say.

    I and others have been reading carefully and commenting on the columns of St. Mueller’s altar boy since November 2017. Mr. Napolitano had fully emerged as a Russophobic Establishment tool by February 22, 2018, in a column entitled “Mueller in Hot Pursuit.” It may remain the worst in the shameful series because its target is not just President Trump or Russia, but people like you and me. One of my comments in that thread:

    ******

    Well, shucks. No Russophobic dirk to look for this week in the folds of his robe — Mr. Napolitano is finally full on, swinging the Establishment sword at “the Kremlin” and “its indicted spies.” And he’s doing it to scare the American people.

    “It is a felony for foreign nationals to participate in American federal elections, and it is a felony for any Americans knowingly to assist them.” No citation of the statute(s), or of the particular acts among all “Judge” has mentioned within the scope of the subject indictment. He is endorsing the notion that, under the Constitution he pretends to cherish, a non-US citizen and any American “assistant” can be criminally convicted for “phony web posts” or “aggressively revealing embarrassing data about Clinton,” i.e., publishing anything deemed relevant to a federal election on the internet. If you suggested after Sunday School there in Nebraska that your friend check out those documents at Wikileaks, then will Mr. Mueller come for you? Well, that depends:

    “The other reason for the indictment is to smoke out any American collaborators. He has identified American collaborators, but not by proper name, and the Department of Justice has said — not in the indictment, in which case it would be bound by what it says, but in a press statement, which binds no one — that the American collaborators were unwitting dupes of the Russians. My guess is that Mueller’s American targets are under electronic and visual surveillance and that he is listening to their (premature) sighs of relief.”

    So don’t worry, Big Brother most likely still loves you, or at least won’t send you to your room. As long as you were only an “unwitting dupe,” and have stopped playing with the bad kids.

    Until Mr. Mueller could get here on his white horse, “the Russians ran unchecked through our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas.” You see, kids, the First Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I’m doing right now are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam’s Club.

    I hope there’s no gentlemen’s agreement that precludes some of the other writers published on this website from confronting Mr. Napolitano on this vile column.

    ********

    Anyone who accepts the notion that her pure, American mind needs to be protected from Russian (or any other) foreign contamination has been successfully brainwashed.

  7. buckwheat says:

    If Trump would just appoint this asshole as a Traffic Court Judge in Washington DC he would flip flop in a New York minute. I don’t know what kind of drug Nappy is on but they sure have screwed up what few brain cells he had left. Either that or he’s been banging Mad Maxine and her ignorance has rubbed off on him.

  8. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:

    The writer is most clearly a paid shill for the Hillary Billary Obama Stay out of Jail Cartel. He is a hard worker because he like them are what used to be called “Over Achievers”. You know they work long hours because they are really a little short on the IQ end things. But with the Judge he goes one step further and gives free Sexual Favors just because he enjoys it soooo much! Not the real kind of sex but some kind of visual self humiliating spectacle for the Governing Board of the Hillary Billary Obama Stay out of Jail Cartel to watch and read as he does his Public Demonstration of Unconditional Love for them. Not my choice of entertainment and in fact I suggest it’s Pornographic. Remember, you will know Pornography when you see it or read it and I think this Article by the Former Judge is Pornographic. Not that I want censorship, least of all on the Unz Review but perhaps a warning disclaimer for the reader so those under the age of say 62 are notified it could turn their stomach. Those of us 62 and older have seen enough horseshit to recognize the Former Judge Sycophant for what he is and know not to pay any attention to the man behind the screen. Anyhow its just another long winded article about nothing.

    I did like comment indicating whether or not there is obstruction if there is no crime and that is the core issue isn’t it. We used to call this Made Up Shit.

  9. @donald j tingle

    I’m not a fan of Trump. He is patently a con man who has sold a lot of people a bill of goods. He is also in many ways simply not competent in doing his job, as is evidenced by his failure to control his own DOJ.

    You are also not a fan of having a brain.

    Paul Craig Roberts had it right way before Trump took the Oath of Office: he would have no way to get rid of the hundreds or maybe thousands of swamp creatures coming and going within DC.

    Trump sold no one a bill of goods. He was honest in his statements. A con involves dishonesty and also involves in the con man getting something as part of the con.

    Your ridiculous statement makes no sense.

    Being President is being in “charge” of hardly anything. Anyone would know this in 2019 America.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    , @Realist
  10. Realist says:

    Even Alan Dershowitz, a self confirmed liberal, completely disagrees with Napolitano on this issue.

    Remember Napolitano is the dipshit that said, a few months ago, the SCOTUS was not political.

  11. Realist says:

    You are also not a fan of having a brain.

    Why the ad hominem attack on Donald J Tingle?

    Paul Craig Roberts had it right way before Trump took the Oath of Office: he would have no way to get rid of the hundreds or maybe thousands of swamp creatures coming and going within DC.

    Trump sold no one a bill of goods. He was honest in his statements. A con involves dishonesty and also involves in the con man getting something as part of the con.

    Why would Trump actually hire these ‘swamp creatures’ into his administration???
    He is a Deep State denizen.

  12. @Macon Richardson

    I don’t think he was ever a prosecutor, just a judge, law professor, etc.

    But you’re right that he hasn’t a clue and I no longer trust his judgment.

  13. One should expect fireworks this week as Attorney General William Barr testifies before the Judiciary Committees of both the House and the Senate…..

    Well, not the House it turns out. Barr has learned not to talk to Democrats. I wounder if he knew what he was getting into.

    LIAR! TRAITOR! IMPEACH HIM!

    Barr says no thanks to a second helping.

    I look forward to (piece of shit) judge Andy making the case for Barr’s impeachment.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  14. @restless94110

    Are you contending that Trump did not promise to drain the swamp?

    If an honest man knew that he could not drain the swamp, he wouldn’t promise to do so, would he?

    Given that Trump has a history of stiffing his creditors, how could one, consistent with having a brain, associate such a propensity to stiff one’s creditors with honesty?

    • Replies: @restless94110
    , @Svigor
  15. A123 says:

    Is there evidence of Russian interference in the U.S. election in favor of their preferred candidate Hillary Clinton?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

    Yes. There is a provable money trail between Russia and Hilary.

    Why did Mueller intentionally ignore collaboration between Russia and Hillary?

    Could it be that Meuller was obstructing justice and covering up Hillary’s treason?

    Shocking!!!!!!

  16. Tusk says:
    @Macon Richardson

    Thank you, unfortunately Mr Napolitano writes as if he wishes to work for CNN or Washington Post, as many other commentors have noticed, which is somewhat jarring to see when Unz carries many other writers that have faithfully dissected the ‘Russian narrative’ excellently. He seems to be in the grip of delusion if he fully believes what he writes, and I fail to see how someone with a history in the legal field could be this ignorant to the truth.

  17. anon[275] • Disclaimer says:

    what happened to this guy?

    early onset senility?

    • Replies: @Anon
  18. You are confused.

    The ad hominem logical fallacy is: You are stupid, therefore you are wrong.

    My statement was: You are wrong, therefore you are stupid.

    It is the opposite. I then explained why the guy was stupid.

    You yourself then commit another logical fallacy. You ask a question why would Trump actually hire swamp creatures, and then jump to a conclusion (because he is a deep state denizen himself).

    But there are many other possible reasons all very plausible.

    Just one of them would be the most probable that you find in hiring in business every day: you take the best and the brightest with great resume and you hire them and then you supervise how they perform. They prove themselves in their jobs. If they don’t perform then you eventually let them go or they resign. This is how it is done in business and even on Trump’s shows.

    It’s results based and frankly it’s not always easy to tell who is a swamp creature and who is not or who will continue to be a swamp creature and who will straighten up.

    This is a far more plausible conclusion than yours.

    In any event, jumping to one and only one conclusion is as stupid as the other person’s nonsense.

    • Replies: @Realist
  19. @Liberty Mike

    So now you are off in more logical fallacy lands.

    Who would contend that Trump did not promist to drain the swamp?
    Foolishness on your part.

    Then you jump to the logical fallacy that only an honest man would promise to drain the swamp only if he could drain the swamp before he tried to do it. Therefore in your illogical world, Trump is not honest because he should have known beforehand that he could not drain the swamp.

    Then you throw in some nonsense about Trump stiffing his creditors, something you have zero knowledge of the details of, to again attack Trump’s honesty.

    You are suffering from an apparent rather mild case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but that does not make your faulty logic any less deranged.

  20. Svigor says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So it turns out Judge Nap asked Trump for a SC nom and got turned down and that’s why he went nevertrumper.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Hey Nap do you and Shep shower together?

    LMFAO.

  21. Svigor says:
    @Rational

    Nappy’s swinging in the breeze, now that Mueller’s gone tits up.

    Fuck Mueller, fuck Napolitano, fuck Schiff, Nadler, et al, and the swamp they inhabit.

    And I don’t even like Trump, lol. But you shitbags make him look good.

  22. Realist says:
    @restless94110

    Hey dumb ass who are you replying to???

    Just one of them would be the most probable that you find in hiring in business every day: you take the best and the brightest with great resume and you hire them and then you supervise how they perform.

    Just like the dumb fucks that engineered the Vietnam war???

    Any one who thinks that Bolton, Pompeo and Abrams are the best and brightest is a fan of not having a brain.

  23. Christo says:

    Bla-bla @nevertrump

    Seems a waste of time to even print Nappy’s articles much less read them, they all say the same thing.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  24. Realist says:
    @restless94110

    You are also not a fan of having a brain.

    Why the ad hominem attack on Donald J Tingle?

    Paul Craig Roberts had it right way before Trump took the Oath of Office: he would have no way to get rid of the hundreds or maybe thousands of swamp creatures coming and going within DC.

    Trump sold no one a bill of goods. He was honest in his statements. A con involves dishonesty and also involves in the con man getting something as part of the con.

    Why would Trump actually hire these ‘swamp creatures’ into his administration???
    He is a Deep State denizen.

  25. Svigor says:
    @WorkingClass

    Well, not the House it turns out. Barr has learned not to talk to Democrats. I wounder if he knew what he was getting into.

    The House shitbir- er, sorry Democrats were planning to use teams of lawyers to question Barr. I.e., sweat him until they got a process crime, or some such. Just as vampires recognize other vampires, lawyers know not to let themselves be grilled by teams of Congressional lawyers. That’s what defense counsel and the Fifth Amendment are for.

  26. Svigor says:
    @Liberty Mike

    Lol are you seriously doing the “he stiffed Wall Street bankers, ergo bad PotUS” bit?

    At least half the GOP electorate would love to do the same thing. Hell, the further from the political middle you go, the more such people you find.

    Does this really seem like a site for the squishy, conformist middle to you?

    “OY VEY, dose poor innocent banksters, defrauded by da predatory Blormpf!”

    LMAO. Great bit you got there. Do you do bar mitzvahs?

  27. Svigor says:
    @Christo

    Haha, I literally didn’t even read a word of it. I just heard about Blormpf twatting that Nappy asked for a SC nom and Blormpf turned him down, and that’s why Nappy did a volte face into NeverBlormpf Derangement Syndrome.

    So I went looking for Nappy’s latest thread. Why Unz still publishes him is a mystery. Maybe he draws eyeballs, has a silent fan base here, or something.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  28. Svigor says:
    @Tusk

    This is one of the biggest reasons people hate lawyers. Because the profession is stuffed to the gills with legalistic pieces of shit. We’ll leave aside how, if you let them proliferate, and write your laws, you wind up with a legal system designed to provide them with work from here to eternity, because there are so many laws that you’re always breaking at least one at any given moment, and they’re written for lawyers, not human beings, so you have no idea what they are or how to obey them.

    Instead, we can just look at the type of shit the Injustice Department has been up to in the last few years. We’ll leave aside how they let the Clinton Crime family skate when they had them dead to rights on acts that would have gotten any ordinary American thrown into jail.

    And just as you say, these people can, with a straight face, call it justice to charge someone with “obstruction of justice” for “obstructing” “justice” when “justice” was actually “injustice” and in pursuit of no genuine underlying crime. And then happily go on TV and harp on how this is all perfectly legit and above board and by the book.

    THEN THE BOOK IS A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT, AND IT’S A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT BECAUSE SOME WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU WROTE IT.

    There are still a few boomers who don’t know that the FBI is led, top to bottom, by fucking lawyers. They think of the FBI as cops, so the shit-stink of “lawyer” hasn’t quite totally covered them yet.

  29. Svigor says:

    I didn’t really make it clear in my previous comment, but:

    If Drumpf borrowed all the money from every bankster on Wall Street and then defaulted, I’d cheer myself hoarse.

  30. Socrates says:

    This issue reminds me of the question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
    Likewise, if you obstruct an investigation of a crime that never happened aren’t you saving the government a lot of money? Shouldn’t we reward that person?

  31. jacopo says:

    The obstruction theory the judge criticizes obscures the real issue: using an obstruction investigation to hide numerous apparent 18 U.S.C. 242 violations on the part of federal officials from being scrutinized by the President and his duly-appointed and -confirmed Attorney General. But harping on Barr’s theory serves to distract from looking at law enforcement malfeasance. Under the judge’s theory, a President has to sit on his hands as his own Executive Branch officials conspire to remove him from office unlawfully or risk handing them any easy obstruction charge. Who needs elections at that point?

  32. @Rational

    Funny how Nappy doesn’t like to talk about the Mexican Consular network in the US when it comes to interference in US elections. When were talking consular networks, we’re talking the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which I suppose has the force of law here in the US.

  33. Anonymous [AKA "user_number_s"] says:

    FBI opens investigation into a crime that never happened to cover up spying on political opponent. Cant find a way to use CIA / FBI fabricated “evidence” to indict. Therefore obstruction.

    Libertarianism in 2019

  34. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:

    Napolitano’s real question should be when there will be action to punish every public supporter of an attempted coup against a duly elected POTUS, including himself as a member of the propaganda effort.

    Questions in regard to any attempt to resist that coup are short sighted. These people should be running and hiding for their crime. Not attempting to milk it for political capital after it failed. That they are not doing so highlights an essential corruption in our system.

    There has to be real, severe consequences for driving political instability through institutions, as an undemocratic response to a democratic election, based on invented conspiracy (propaganda narrative) that Napolitano further advances in this very article.

    This is the essential opinion of half of the nation.

    This is the result of the failed coup effort.

    This is the reason that Napolitano should lose sleep over every single night for the rest of his life.

  35. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Early onset mask removal.

  36. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:

    Advocacy for the view that there was “election interfence” by Russians, or otherwise that Russian information input into the public sphere corrupts an election or matters in any way, implies a loss of voter free agency in the presence of certain information.

    Because information access cannot be controlled in the modern age, the narrative serves as an anti-democratic tool to be picked up and wielded whenever a group does not like an election outcome.

    This “election interference” narrative is a direct assault on democracy and the American voter.

    Any functional democracy must assume complete voter free agency.

    Last, if these people are so worried about so called foreign election interference, then where is the call to investigate anyone with a (((second passport))) who wrote an article, edits a media distribution channel, posted on facebook, or even sits in congress and was in position to “interfere” in the election as someone with deep and formal ties to a foreign nation?

    People like Bill Kristol, with their foreign allegiances, are not any more my “nation” than an average Russian, working class Brit, etc. They hold wildly differing social allegiances, geopolitical allegiances, and political views. We convene in our mutual interests literally nowhere. They are at least as functionally foreign as any Russian, and likely more so given an honest analysis.

    • Agree: mark green
  37. Judge Nappy = Establishment Conspiracy Theorist

  38. @Svigor

    The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

    A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

    The biggest turds on Unz are Judge Nappy and Patrick Cock-Burn. They are both establishment hacks, widely available in the MSM. This conflicts with Unz Review’s mission statement. They should not be here.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  39. @Rational

    Speaking of interference in foreign elections, let’s re-visit the Russian election of 1996 and Hillary’s Husband-of -Record’s effort, via the IMF, to get Besotted Boris reelected.

  40. @Verymuchalive

    Yep. We may as well have Rachel Maddow on here if MSM talking heads are allowed to be featured writers. Nappy has become nothing more than a Foxnews propagandist since he fell out of favor with Trump & Co. Instead of just going back to his usual practice of writing articles pointing out government malfeasance, he has decided that it’s now his role to let the world know that he’s pissed at Trump.

    Lew Rockwell is still featuring Nappy’s articles. I wonder how long that’s going to be true.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.