Fox News “senior judicial analyst” Andrew Napolitano saved his recommendation for the end but his FoxNews.com column asking, “What does it take to remove a president?” after impeachment, makes it very clear that Trump has “amply” qualified.
Napolitano, who has been noticeably absent from Fox’s on-air coverage of Trump’s impeachment trial, openly contradicted Fox’s “nothing to see here” messaging: “His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms," Napolitano wrote in his column.
Napolitano went on to note that that Government Accountability office concluded Trump “acted unlawfully” when he asked the president of Ukraine for a favor. “But did he act criminally?” Napolitano asked.
The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”
Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.
That evidence “implicates two other crimes,” Napolitano wrote. Those are bribery and contempt of Congress.
Napolitano concluded that there are “valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment” and any Republican senator who may have “whispered” to him that he will be acquitted has “violated the oath of ‘impartial justice’ and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.”
Finally, there is this:
What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.
Published with permission from News Hounds.