After Judge Napolitano said it's possible for Flynn's testimony to lead to an impeachment, Fox News' Smith asked why so many lies are emanating around Trump's administration over contacts with Russians.
December 1, 2017

After Andrew Napolitano told Fox News' Shep Smith that Trump could have big legal concerns on his hands depending upon what Flynn ultimately testifies to, Smith bemoaned the cascade of lies coming from the White House.

Napolitano called by telephone to discuss a possible Constitutional crisis between the government and Trump.

He went on, "If Robert Mueller has enough evidence, credible evidence, with which to charge the president of the United States with a crime. The constitutional crisis will come as he decides what to do. Does he indict the president, which has never happened to a sitting president or does he transfer this evidence over to the House of Representatives, which will then be under tremendous political pressure."

This is a Trump supporter saying this.

After Shepard asked if Mueller could indict Trump, the judge said, "Yes, he could."

Shepard read off a piece form an excellent article by the NY Times' Harry Litmanthat claims this could be an impeachable offense for Trump.

The judge explained the conditions that could lead to the indictment or an impeachment of Trump, and said "If General Flynn contradicts that in a credible way under oath, we have a serious problem on our hands."

Actually, it's the Trump administration that has the problem.

Shepard then made an astute observation that most conservative apologists refuse to acknowledge.

Smith said, "The crux of all of this as we have discussed here repeatedly and specifically about five months ago, why all of the lies? Why, now we know the lies from Flynn, why the lies from Manafort, why the lies from Papadopoulos.?"

He continued, "Why lie after lie after lie? What is motivating you to lie? And it appears that is at the heart of whatever this is."

It is simply not credible that all these Trump team members have terrible memories only when it comes to their Russian interactions.

The judge thought of two reasons:

"One was to interfere with the Obama administration's foreign policy because once we get into this, we'll do something different."

In December of 2016, Trump was not the president.

He continued, "The other was to shield, to deceive, to cover up whatever communications had occurred with the Russians between the Russians and the campaign before the election."

Which one seems more likely to you?

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.