[rlmorel]

There are a lot of people who are saying "No, Levin and his ilk are WRONG on this" but I listened to the Levin show from last night where he goes over it in detail, and he SKEWERS Judge Napolitano who went on television to say people who are pushing this are trying to exploit a technicality, the American people aren't interested in a technicality, they want to know if wrongdoing was done, etc.

I listened to both Napolitano's take (at this link, around 4:49 in) and Mark Levin's take from his show last night, and besides the fact that Levin DID lay out his rationale (citing the specific DOJ memoranda from both 1973 and 2000 that both unequivocally concluded that it is the DOJ policy that a sitting President CANNOT be indited, and specifically listing the four specific tests for constitutionality of a Special Prosecutor in the Morrison vs. Olsen) I also listened to the explanation by Judge Napolitano which was shallow, vapid and lacking in detail.

Granted, I am sympathetic to the fact that Levin had a lot of time to make his case on his podcast, and Napolitano was on television which usually means you have very little time to make your case because it is television and you will get cut off...I was a bit appalled at Napolitano's comment about "the people don't care about a technicality"...

And then, even more oddly, Napolitano said that Levin was somehow taking the side of the MINORITY opinion as outlined by Justice Scalia, NOT the majority view outlined by Justice Rehnquist (both great men) which Levin immediately highlighted and discounted. I found that very odd, it really DID make Napolitano sound like he had no idea what he was talking about.

We either live in a Constitutional Republic, run by the rules of law, or we don't. If we don't, and the mood of the people is more important than a Supreme Court decision that took the time and outlined their rationale in detail, then...we simply don't live in a Constitutional Republic any more. What is going on here is CRITICAL to the future of this country. If this travesty is allowed to stand, and political campaigns (never mind the "little people" like us!) can be subjected to this type of hostile surveillance, then we are finished as country. I do believe it is that important.

To me, it is that simple.

[MayflowerMadam]

Napolitano is a feckless Never Trumper. He needs to go home, hop in bed with his “partner”, and shut up

And who cares if Levin is going with the “minority OPINION”? If Nap favors opinions over the law... again... he needs to go home. We care about the law.

[Alberta's Child]

Good post. Levin's argument is much stronger when he lays out the special counsel appointment as a violation of a specific statute or -- in this case -- a violation of established DOJ policy.

The constitutional argument is the one that seems weak to me because the U.S. Constitution is clear about the need for "principal officers" to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate but is not clear about what exactly constitutes a "principal officer" in the executive branch of the U.S. government.

I use the office of the Deputy AG as a perfect example. The Deputy AG post requires Senate confirmation by law or regulation, but that post wasn't even established by Congress in the first place. So it must be defined as a "principal officer" somewhere, but certainly not in the U.S. Constitution.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Judge Napolitano is often shallow, vapid and lacking in necessary detail.

He has become an entertainer, and his commentary is worthless as legal advise or opinion.