Judge Andrew Napolitano (future Supreme?) lays down lawpills on Obamagate

The only problem with Napolitano is that he believes in complete open borders.

First of all, source?

Second of all, it doesn't matter what he personally believes. It matters how he interprets THE LAW and THE CONSTITUTION.

Does this video sound like he's an open borders, globalist zealot?


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]


Sounds to me like he just sided with Trump on the refugee-ban (the first one, from early February, the one that the pile of communist-trash-west-coast circuit shot down because they're communist piles of degenerate garbage).

Last Edited by STAX on 03/08/2017 08:31 AM

Well, that is how he interprets the law which is the problem. You can hear him talk about it at about 5:45 in this video:



[link to youtu.be (secure)]

He's stating his opinion there (his utopian view of America), not how he interprets the law as it currently stands.

I, for one, agree with him. If there were no Soros color revolution operation to import terrorists into our country to destablize it, and if there weren't a Cloward & Piven strategy by the Saul Alinsky-ites to bankrupt our country with south-of-the-border illegals, the Ellis Island model of America from 100 years ago would be just dandy. That's NOT where we are today.

Eventually humanity will move to a more voluntarist society as the Founders envisioned. Our problem today is the communist radicals who seek to overthrow our Constitution, thereby moving us backwards as a species towards collectivism and one-world government. Can't you see all of this?

Last Edited by STAX on 03/08/2017 08:26 AM

I don't want this bobble head anywhere near our supreme court.

$3.50

He hates the pope

You would like a head nodder over opinionated mass media personality on the supreme court?

The judge is awesome, but not a future Supreme. It looks like he prefers to help select the Supremes, rather than be one. He certainly has Trump's ear, and was influential in last choice. I would love to see him on the bench, but I don't think that is his plan. If he can help President Trump select good people for the Supreme Court, he could be more influential on the court than he ever could be sitting on the bench. It's posable that President Trump could pick several justices in the next eight years, and if Judge Napolitano helps make those choices, the court will be a much better place.

Bill Bill Bill....your done ducking you misdeeds

He will never be a supreme. Plain and simple.

Totally agree. I think he definitely had a say in the finalist selection on the last pick (Gorsuch and the other finalists).

But I think Trump is also considering him as well. If Gorsuch sells out to the globalist RINOs, there's an even better chance Trump could pick a more principled man like Nap to secure his legacy as a great president.

Why would Trump want a tv personality to sit in judment of the future of our nation? Wow! Why isn't this tv personality sitting on the bench?

The whop wants wide open borders and GLP still luvs him. What a joke!

He is an establishment stooge and zero chance he will be a supreme. His shtick is he will give a couple juicy nuggets that sound good but then he will end with the flourish of "but no laws were broken" type jive. Even when laws clearly WERE broken he will tell you "nothing to see here".

The last gasp of the losing elite is to say "He's one of us". "no, really".

Guess they're running out of talking points again.

one more time, he is too old, a supreme court needs to be late 40's to early 50's

Thanks for the video, VERY informative!

Congress isn't going to do shit since America's intelligence agencies help dual citizen congressional members destroy America for foreign investors.

you seem to forget ... Trump is also a "tv personalit"

So he's basically saying what obozo did is legal and nothing will come of this?

And Trump knew it was legal
Therefore why not just tweet it to the world
No harm
No foul

Bulltripe. He is a real estate tycoon. And much more.

Or was a real estate.....

Here come de Judge!

Judge AN, FTW!!!

Here is sc 1802 that he is referring to:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

READ (B): (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

Does this not make it illegal for Obama to wiretap ANY United States citizen?

if you will recall, there was a big flurry about the NSA,
and everybody was upset, for a week.
nothing happened.
everybody's forgotten about it.
and the NSA went on its merry way doing what it always does,
and more.

That part might be "legal" although that is BS as it is unconstitutional so it is ILLEGAL, but be that as it may..

"in 1974, President Gerald Ford, who assumed office on the heels of President Richard M. Nixon's resignation, pardons his predecessor for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Congress had accused Nixon of obstruction of justice during the investigation of the Watergate scandal, which began in 1972."

There is a slew of other criminal offenses he IS guilty of surrounding this.