Fox's judicial analyst accuses Trump of unleashing "a torrent of hatred"

Andrew Napolitano, judicial analyst for FoxNews, wrote an op-ed for the network's website in which he accuses President Donald Trump of unleashing "a torrent of hatred" with his attacks on the four Democratic congresswomen of color.

He wrote further:   "I have known President Trump personally since 1986.   The private Trump I have known is funny, charming and embracing.   That is not the public Trump of today."

Emphasizing that government workers "take an oath to support the Constitution . . . [which] not only commands of government both racial neutrality and color blindness, it generally prohibits government officials from making distinctions among people on the basis of immutable characteristics."

"So, when the president defies these moral and constitutional norms and and tells women of color to 'Go back,' he raises a terrifying specter.  The specter is hatred not for ideas he despises but for the people who embrace those ideas.  The specter is also a dog whistle to groups around the country that hatred is back in fashion and is acceptable to articulate publicly."

Napolitano ended his op-ed by saying that hatred "must be rejected loudly in all its forms -- especially when it comes from the president."

*     *     *     *     *

Now this is not such a remarkable statement.  It's so self-evidently true.  But considering where it came from -- the senior judicial analyst for the FoxNews network -- and that it was a written op-ed published on the network's web site, I think it is very remarkable.   And it goes along with some other things that Napolitano has recently said that showed less than full, blind support for Trump that we tend to expect from the "Trump network," as some people call Fox.

Ralph

Mueller hearing: afternoon session and summary points.

The big take-aways from the Mueller hearings:

1.  A hostile foreign power systematically attacked our electoral process, sowed disinformation on a million-dollar-plus social media campaign.

2.  The disinformation campaign was designed to help Donald Trump's election and hurt Hillary Clinton.

3.  The Trump campaign knew about this foreign government sponsored help and welcomed it, even if there is no proof that they actually conspired and coordinated with them.   But neither did they report it to the FBI, which is what they were supposed to do.

4.  Once in office as president, Trump tried in multiple ways to interfere with the investigation into this foreign attempt to interfere with our democratic process, including clear-cut attempts to obstruct justice.

A report from the Senate Intelligence Committee (chaired by a Republican) was released late yesterday about their investigation of Russian meddling in our election.   They found that in 2016 Russia had infiltrated all 50 state voting systems, and showed in Illinois that they could actually alter data on voter roles, which could change who gets to vote.

Now they've had four more years to develop even more ways to control our democratic processes.   But Trump and the Republicans refuse to do anything about protecting us.   Mitch McConnell refuses to bring up for a Senate vote, two election security bills passed with a bipartisan majority in the House.

His ridiculous reason:   It would give the Democrats an electoral advantage.  What it would do instead is to reduce the Democratic disadvantage caused by Republican manipulation of our democratic process.

I begin to wonder if it's only Trump that the Russians have some blackmail-able dirt on, but other Republican leaders as well.

Ralph

Some take-aways from the Mueller hearings -- morning session on obstruction.

The morning session with the House Judiciary Committee focused on evidence of obstruction of justice by President Trump.    Former Justice Department official and currently political analyst for MSNBC Chuck Rosenberg had this memorable line of characterization:  "Some things are exciting, but not important.    This was important, but not exciting."

In fact, there was almost nothing really new in substance;  but some things got verbalized and may have been news to people who haven't been paying attention very carefully since Mueller's report came out.    But it was very important nevertheless just because it would have been news to many.  And there were a few important clarifications from Mueller that I'll highlight later.

Mueller had the energy level of a wet dishrag.   Some commentators who have known him in prior years say that this is not the Robert Mueller they knew even a few years ago.

I even wondered if he may have some beginning organic brain decline.   He was often halting in his speech, searching for words.   He had trouble following the quick questions from committee members who each had only five minutes and thus talked fast, giving page references in the report, then not waiting for Mueller to find the page before plunging ahead with the question, leaving him struggling to keep up and frequently having to ask for it to be repeated.

More than 100 times in the morning alone, Mueller declined to answer a question, citing the various areas he could not get into -- like internal deliberations process, anything having to do with an ongoing investigation in another department, or anything that was in the slightest bit speculative.   Just the facts in the report.

Even during the ongoing morning session, people were tweeting that Mueller's performance was "a disaster."    I perhaps wouldn't go quite that far, but it was pretty bad.   This was supposed to be the hearing that "brings the Mueller report to life."   Instead, it was boring.

Here's what noted constitutional legal scholar Lawrence Tribe tweeted about the morning session:
   "Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced."

On the other hand, Mueller did agree with a questioner that there was evidence that the president committed acts of obstruction of justice.   And he did initially agree that, had it not been for the Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he would have indicted the president.   But then later, he walked that back a bit -- but he left the clear impression that there is sufficient evidence for indictment, saying "yes," when asked if the president could be indicted after he leaves office.

Here is perhaps the most important -- unremarked upon -- take-away.   Not a single one of the Republicans even tried to refute the truth of anything in the report.  They went after the "biased," "Trump-hating" investigators, the origin and process of the investigation, not the substance.

More in another post about the afternoon session on the Russian interference in our election.   I'll go ahead and say, though, that whatever Mueller had for lunch, he should have had for breakfast.    He was much more energetic, alert, involved, and quick-witted.

Ralph

The president's racist rants have stopped us cold -- or maybe stopped us hot.

I have responded to the utter vileness of the president's political weaponizing of race and otherness with my own paralysis -- by just not writing ShrinkRap posts for a few days.

Not that it's not worthy of comment.   But how many ways can you express contempt;  how often can you write something that warns -- and have it make no difference, apparently -- before wanting to just give up?

And then there's the argument that the best, most hurtful thing you can do to Him-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named is to simply ignore him.  Refuse him the attention he craves.

Be all that as it may, the message I bring today is simply a reminder.    Tomorrow (Wednesday, August 24th) is the day that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will spend five hours testifying before the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.

One source said that all the channels, except Fox, will be carrying the hearings live.   We can be assured that Mueller is not going to dramatize or sensationalize his findings.   In fact, Democrats' worry is that he will be so low key that Republicans will walk all over him with their rabidly aggressive questioning of bias and malfeasance in the investigators and their process.

Those who know Mueller, who have worked under him, say he is no pushover -- and neither does he sensationalize.   If "yes" or "no" answers the question, that's what he will say.    So the questions have to be carefully crafted to bring out the full answers.

Others say, if he did nothing but open his report randomly and read a few paragraphs, it would be devastating for the president.

I urge you to watch.    Record, if you can, and watch later if you can't watch live.  The Judiciary committee begins first at 8:30 am for about three hours;   then  a short break, and the Intelligence Committee begins about 12:00 noon for about two hours.

Ralph