Judge Napolitano Says the Zimmerman Prosecution ‘Shot Themselves in Both Feet’ With This Seemingly Odd Decision

Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial on Tuesday played parts of Sean Hannity’s 2012 interview with Zimmerman, seemingly allowing the defendant to tell jurors his side of the story yet again. Judge Andrew Napolitano called the decision a “head-scratcher” and accused the prosecution of shooting themselves “in both feet.”

Appearing on “America Live” with Megyn Kelly, Napolitano said he’d never seen a move like that from prosecutors. He said it seems the prosecution is trying to prove to the jury that there have been some inconstancies in Zimmerman’s story about what happened on the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Napolitano went on to say that perhaps potential inconsistencies could be helpful during cross-examination if Zimmerman is called to testify by the defense. However, at this point, Napolitano said he couldn’t imagine the defense putting Zimmerman on the stand.

“He doesn’t have to testify,” Napolitano added. “There has been so much of him in front of this jury at the choice of the government. All of the explanations he gave are lucid. The differences between them are minuscule. I honestly think that the government has been shooting itself in the foot and with what they did today, they shot themselves in both feet.”

Read more here.

Judge Napolitano: If Obama Knew IRS Was Targeting Conservatives During Election – “Impeachable Offense”

Judge Andrew Napolitano joined FM Newstalk 97.1 morning host Jamie Allman today to discuss the widening IRS targeting scandal.

Judge Napolitano told Jamie that if Obama knew his IRS was targeting conservatives during the 2012 election, and did nothing, it is an impeachable offense.

Now it has become a question of integrity. What did he know and when did he know it? Because if he knew during his campaign that the IRS was targeting his opponents and he did nothing to stop. In other words, he let the IRS do this stuff in order to help him defeat Mitt Romney, impeachable offense in my view. And, I’m not afraid to utter that word. It’s a horrible word. It brought us misery over Clinton who took his eye off the ball as 9-11 was being plotted. But, if the president did that he is unworthy of being in office.

Obama’s Drone Policy Is “Stalinistic”

Does Obama Have The Power To Kill Indiscriminately?

Surprise! Jobless Claims Up 78,000 Week After Election; PA, OH Worst Hit

The Department of Labor has announced that new jobless claims rose by a staggering 78,000 in the first week after the election, reaching a seasonally-adjusted total of 439,000. Over the past year, and in the weeks leading up to the election, jobless claims were said to be declining, dipping as low as 339,000, with the media proclaiming that they had reached the “lowest level in more than four years.” Now, suddenly, the news seems far less rosy.

From the Department of Labor press release this morning:

In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 361,000. The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 372,000.

Read more here.

Judge Napolitano on FBI: ‘If they can do this to David Petraeus, they can do this to anybody’

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano told The Daily Caller that, during its investigation of former CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer, the FBI appears to have wrongfully treated a simple domestic dispute like a national security or criminal matter.

“David Petraeus didn’t betray his country,” Napolitano said in a phone interview. “He betrayed his wife. Big deal.”

Napolitano said the federal investigation was “the use of law enforcement either for a personal vendetta that [Tampa military liaison Jill] Kelley pushed through her FBI agent connection, or a political vendetta – somebody wanting to silence, by embarrassing, humiliating and destroying the credibility of Petraeus.”

“Not only does it not appear there was a crime committed,” Napolitano continued, “[and] not only does it not appear that there was a national security implication, but this is hardly the type of thing that the FBI investigates. This was instigated, apparently, by the Kelley woman, and her friend in the FBI. That is an inappropriate means to commence an investigation by the FBI.”

Napolitano, who is a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, said federal agents, like members of the judiciary, are typically prohibited from working on cases that present a conflict of interest. (RELATED: CIA denies claim it held hostages at Libya annex)

“In fact, the FBI has an internal rule that if an FBI agent knows the complainant, the victim or the target, that FBI agent cannot have anything to do with the case, because that often clouds an individual’s judgment,” Napolitano continued. “It’s like a judge trying a case in which he knows one of the parties. It’s prohibited, and the judge has to reveal that, and get off the case. The principle is the same for the FBI. For that reason, I don’t believe the government’s version of these events.”

Read more here.

Yes, Congress can steal your liberty

Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? In the Senate’s dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.

Congress is supposed to work in public. That requirement is in the Constitution. It is there because the folks who wrote the Constitution had suffered long and hard under the British Privy Council, a secret group that advised the king and ran his government.

We know from the now-defunct supercommittee, and other times when Congress has locked its doors, that government loves secrecy and hates transparency. Transparency forces the government to answer to us. Secrecy lets it steal our liberty and our property behind our backs.

Last week, while our minds were on family and turkey and football, the Senate Armed Services Committee decided to meet in secret. So, behind closed doors, it drafted an amendment to a bill appropriating money for the Pentagon.

The amendment would permit the president to use the military for law enforcement purposes in the United States. This, of course, would present a radical departure from any use to which the military has been put in the memory of any Americans now living.

The last time the federal government regularly used the military for domestic law enforcement was at the end of Reconstruction in the South, in 1876. In fact, the deal to end Reconstruction resulted in the enactment of federal laws forbidding the domestic use of American military for law enforcement purposes.

This has been our law, our custom and our set of values to which every president has adhered for 135 years.

It is not for directing traffic that this legislation would authorize the president to use the military. Essentially, this legislation would enable the president to divert from the criminal justice system, and thus to divert from the protections of the Constitution, any person he pleases.

And that person, under this terrifying bill, would have no recourse to a judge to require the president either to file charges against him or to set him free.

Can you imagine an America in which you could lose all liberty — from the presumption of innocence to the right to counsel to fairness from the government to a jury trial — simply because the president says you are dangerous?

Nothing terrified or animated the Founders more than that. The Founders, who wrote the Constitution, had just won a war against a king who had less power than this legislation will give to the president.

Read more here.

PENN AG TOM CORBETT SHOULD EMPANEL GRAND JURY IN SESTAK AFFAIR

By Dick Morris and Judge Andrew Napolitano

With a Democratic Attorney General in Washington, a Democratic president, and both houses of Congress solidly in Democratic control, it is obviously futile to hope that the possible bribery of Joe Sestak to induce him to withdraw from the Senate race against Arlen Specter will be fully investigated. But, as the facts of this scandal grudgingly emerge from the White House and from Congressman Sestak, there is an alternative way to pursue justice.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett — who is the Republican nominee for Governor this year — has ample jurisdiction to convene a grand jury to get to the bottom of the scandal and answer the key questions:

1. Who offered a job to Sestak?

2. What job was proffered?

3. And did the president know of the offer?

Corbett’s jurisdiction stems from the concept of universal jurisdiction, now accepted virtually everywhere. The concept is simple. If someone on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River fires a pistol across the Hudson and the bullet from the pistol hits someone on the NY side, where did the crime take place? For about 600 years, the answer would have been in NY, where the harm was caused. Under the Reagan administration, and in response to urgings from the Meese Justice Department, the courts began to accept the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. This principle gives jurisdiction to law enforcement in the place wherever any act occurred that may have resulted in a crime. Thus, under our scenario above, the shooter could be prosecuted in NJ or NY.

Thus, if Cong. Sestak was in one of his homes, in PA or VA, when he received a telephone call offering him a job if he withdrew from the PA Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, law enforcement authorities in PA and VA — both of which have Republican state Attorneys General — can subpoena Cong. Sestak to testify before a state grand jury and compel him to answer the who, what, when, and where that everyone has a right to know.

The people of the United States and, particularly the people of Pennsylvania, want these questions to be answered honestly. They will not settle for a Democratic stonewall that refuses to let the truth emerge.

Under our federal system, we need not tolerate giving one party the power to be the prosecutor, judge, defendant, defense attorney, and jury. We can open the process to checks and balances.

Corbett should make it possible for the truth to emerge by convening a grand jury and summoning Sestak, Emanuel, and anyone else who may have been involved to answer questions under oath.