Via Mediaite, this is the flip side of the Dershowitz clip from earlier. In that case you had a left-wing civil libertarian pandering to Fox News viewers by telling them what they wanted to hear about a legal matter. In this case you have a right-wing civil libertarian telling them the last thing they want to hear. Napolitano’s done this a lot lately too; there’s no sugar-coating from him about POTUS’s legal woes. He must be the second least popular figure on the network among Fox fans by now, save only for Shep himself.
I highly recommend reading the YouTube comments to the clip, speaking of which. Early favorite: “Judge Nap is a globalist traitor.”
His reasoning about how Trump might handle an interview demand from Mueller doesn’t make sense to me, though. To an ordinary criminal defendant, the options are limited: Either you sit “voluntarily” for an interview with your lawyer beside you or you get subpoenaed and go it alone before the grand jury, where it’s up to you whether to take the Fifth. I find it hard to imagine the president of the United States being compelled to walk into a courtroom (or some other room) without counsel and assert his privilege against incrimination, though. That’d be a three-step process: First Mueller would have to take the momentous decision to issue a subpoena, then he’d have to convince the Supreme Court to uphold it, then he’d have to figure out a way to force Trump to testify (whether in court or elsewhere) without attorneys present. If he persisted throughout those three stages with Trump insisting loudly and often that he won’t answer questions, it’d be seen by many as an attempt to embarrass and harass the president purely for the sake of doing so — which is something anti-Trumpers should be thinking about. If he doesn’t want to talk, that’s his right. Let it go.
Relatedly, Hugh Hewitt floats a novel argument about impeachment: Trump would enjoy it!
The difference now is the militarized industrial news complex that simply must be fed. It will gorge itself on impeachment. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will be the new Peter Rodino for those old enough to recall the Nixon impeachment drama. Rudolph W. Giuliani will be reprising the role played by James Carville in the Clinton impeachment drama, going after critics and prosecutors of Trump the way the Ragin’ Cajun went after independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and team.
It will be a ratings bonanza. Who likes ratings bonanzas? Who can command the media — or any particular outlet — and appear on 10 minutes notice? Who, in short, might learn to love “the process?” Trump, of course. It isn’t a normal presidency seeking normal historical achievements. He already has some of those in his massive tax cut, his two justices on the Supreme Court, a much-needed military rebuild and a new realism regarding China. This president can look at his markers already down on the table and actually come to relish the battle.
Maybe Mueller should subpoena him. Trump would get some primo Twitter material from it, if nothing else.
The post Andrew Napolitano: Let’s face it, there’s “ample evidence” to indict Trump in the McDougal payoff appeared first on Hot Air.