Disgraced Faux Judge “Spank me hard Daddy” Napolitano, Bobby? He’s the best you can do?
Wow, you’re really scraping the barrel.
A reminder….
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-judge-andrew-napolitano-faces-second-sexual-assault-lawsuit

What nonsense. Wishful thinking propaganda by America hating, democracy hating, Biden hating idiots and criminals. Good job bob.

EDIT- The outrage is out there, friendo. The UN is calling out war crimes. Many western nations are too. Many Americans are too. I have for decades.

Recently reports and evidence have proven Israel knew Hamas was planning the attack over a year before it happened, they apparently had the entire 40 page plan in hand, and was getting their own intelligence saying they were implementing the exact plan they knew about in the weeks and months leading up to the attack, the exact plan they implemented on Oct 7. Netanyahu’s administration decided to take no action at all, seemingly allowing the attack as a pretext to a war they wanted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html

Friendly reminder, most Palestinians are pure Semites, direct descendants of ancient civilizations that spoke the Semitic language like Babylonians, Phoenicians, Cannanites, Assyrians, Akkadians, Arabs, and Hebrews… most Jewish Israelis are not even partly Semitic they are Europeans…so technically supporting Israel against Palestine is anti-Semitic, not the other way around like the official narrative claims.

Lol. Nice.

Don't forget, they stormed into closed door hearings live streaming the whole thing, even though electronic devices are 100% not allowed in such hearings by law to maintain state secrets, protect witnesses, and even to protect the president from baseless or unproven accusations becoming public. Closed door hearings are like classified information, and the Republicans just tried to broadcast them to the world.

Hilariously, hypocritically, the thing they're so faux outraged about today is the rules Republicans enacted so they could make it easier to impeach Clintons....

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/10/karma-republicans-clinton-rules-apply

Just a taste.....
Andrew Napolitano reminded Fox and Friends viewers...that Republicans wrote the rules on impeachment proceedings during the Bill Clinton years. Uh oh.

What transcript of what conversation?! Trump claimed to have been tapped, based on a Fox report, based on an Alex Jones theory. No evidence, like a transcript of any conversations Trump has had, has ever been produced....none. I have o idea what you're talking about.
And Faux news itself had to do a special report clearly stating that they never received the tips Napolitano claimed they had received in his commentary implicating the British, and they have NO evidence he was ever under surveillance....full stop.
Napolitano's commentary was pure bullshit, and they've apparently (astonishingly) taken him off the air for spreading it.
"The Russians did it" is from the FBI....Comey's the name, inserting himself into politics is his game....but he's backed up by the heads of no less than 17 intelligence agencies on the Russian involvement claim.

Because I'm assuming that one of the parties to the conversation didn't just write a transcript of the conversation from memory and give it to someone else, to later be leaked.

I just happened to come across an interesting theory that is plausible(The Brits did it). From the Judge who has railed againt the unconstitutional NSA spying, so I don't think you can chalk this up to pure FOX news bullshit. In fact they took him off the air indefinitely for expressing his opinion. All of Comey's statements would still be truthful as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html

Of course, just as I give little creedence to unsourced assertions that "The Russians did it" during the last administration, this will stay an interesting theory until the anonymous sources can deliver evidence.

What?!? Napolitano believes a completely crazy conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up based on pure hyper biased conjecture, and is willing to 'report' it as a fact with faux news's backing?!?
This must be a day of the week that ends in "y".

Now, as to the theory.... that a patriotic NSA agent, angry at Clinton's possible lack of safeguards on her emails which might contain sensitive information, hacked in and stole those emails and made them all public, doing exponentially more damage than her actions did, and exactly the maximum damage he was angry she made at all possible....it's just totally bat shit insane and defies all logic....so of course Napolitano and faux viewers believe it.

So wait...she's in trouble for not turning over an email and instead deleting it, but somehow Faux News and no one else has this email? Uh huh.....

I'll believe it when the DOJ says publicly that's what they're charging her with, not when Napolitano claims it...remember, he's the one that said he was CERTAIN that Alito was assassinated with a pillow.

IF, and it's a HUGE "if", this is true, it's terrible for her, but judging the story based on the source, it's highly likely (>95%) that this is in no way true and is nothing more than more Fox manufactured conspiracy fodder.

This needs a *lies , because it's more than likely that it's all Fox lies, but if not, then it's about her lies, so either way.

It only seems amateurish because it's not supposed to be taken seriously. This "exclusive" isn't a big deal since you can go anywhere and find much more in depth interviews, or simply the product of his leaks which is what's really important. I don't really care what Snowden has to say, but NBC news does because that's what they're trying to do.

If you make it about the person, it's easy to turn around, it's easy to dismiss this one guy. If he ever slips up, looks stupid or something whatever he did and the people that support what he did can be ignored easily.

So this is all about a distraction. Act like this "exclusive" is a big fat hairy deal, and only bring up useless everything, nothing of value or substance really.

Let's look at the News websites right now. CNN first.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/us/edward-snowden-interview/index.html?iref=allsearch

This about how he sees himself, so it's about ego, do you see yourself as a patriot. The title is immediately meant to draw a line, who agrees who doesn't, read the article with your feelings. Next NBC themselves.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/nsa-officials-snowden-emailed-question-not-concern-n118011

First NSA disputing his claims, people calling him naive and basically presenting no evidence just like the NSA hasn't. Then Kerry and some other guy saying he doesn't have to stay in Russia, that it's not the US's fault for him being there. Completely absurd bullshit, and no one would be allowed to take Snowdens side in these talkbacks. It's useless. On to Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/29/kerry-tells-snowden-to-man-up-and-come-home/

Focussing on Kerry acting like a tough idiot.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/29/glenn-greenwald-new-book-no-place-to-hide-tells-how-nsa-spies-on-us/

And a surprisingly decent opinion piece on Glenn Greenwald from Judge Napolitano.

I'm surprised that Jon, being as liberal as he is, cannot see through the myth of Lincoln. I guess it's indoctrinated thoroughly into most Americans that Lincoln free the slaves. Sure he counters Napolitano's arguments, but he doesn't touch the sacred myth of Lincoln.

Let's see, Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Judge who went to law school. He doesn't have a degree in history, he hasn't presented a book with citations or even notes. Nothing tangible about this, it's not supported by any facts whatsoever, I suggest he write an essay at least that can be backed up.

This is the problem with a lot of academia, anyone can claim anything for history because it's a soft science. You should be forced to demonstrate your findings with evidence, none of which is presented here. So it's just hard to take seriously.

I'd love to see an essay written on this subject, and references to the evidence on which this idea comes from. So far though I've only seen stuff that's ethereal.

Also maybe it's just me but why is this being brought up again? If you want to take down Lincoln whatever you can do this to every president, they're world leaders who make hundreds of decisions. To me though this is most likely about racists trying to show that the country isn't that racist and the real baddies are those who stopped the racists.

Specifically this new challenge to the Civil War reminds me of a book that came out awhile ago arguing that the Palestinians aren't actually from Palestine, so they don't belong there. There's no issue, they don't belong so the Jews are doing nothing wrong occupying their land and keeping them in a giant open air prison. This book was praised in the media for obvious reasons that Israel is one of our close allies. It didn't take long though before it was destroyed academically by some intelligent people. It has largely been forgotten because it's a waste of fucking paper.

This in my opinion is a waste of breath and time, please prove me wrong.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/TDS-Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-Discusses-Slavery-with-Jon

TDS: Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses Slavery with Jon has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

"I believe there are nuances and unknowns being ignored or unknown to ChaosEngine and yourself that is clouding both of your viewpoints here."

By the way, this opinion is again not an 'argument' much less a 'fact'.

"I must agree with you there. Compensated emancipation, if it could have been done successfully and non-violently (big if's), would be preferable in my eyes to 'war'"

And yet, this is one of Napolitano's arguments that Stewart decided to ridicule (thus inspiring my original comment). But as a 'comedian' he can get away with non-arguments and instead rely on "funny faces" and other contortions (unlike some other folks I can mention). Maybe some eye-rolling.

Yes, that is apparently what Napolitano said...but this statement is foundationally incorrect.
Lincoln did not 'engage in war' as you seem to indicate, he responded to a violent armed insurrection, attack, and secession. Most reasonable people would see that as the South engaging in war and the union responding to attack.
(perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word 'engage'. Technically he did 'engage' after being attacked, but I think you are implying he started the war. That sentiment is incorrect.)
You seem to want to ignore those facts and the implications that logically follow them.

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.