'Stalinistic': Judge Andrew Napolitano slams Barr over 'secret' Roger Stone hearing

washingtonexaminer ^ | 02/25/2020 | Spencer Neale

[gloryblaze]

Napolitano has been good on his analysis of the Stone case. Here he is just ticked because the hearing regarding the pretrial bias of the jury foreman and the Judge is "secret."

I'm not sue Barr can micro-manage hearings like this; if he did, he'd be attacked for interference. Plus, the guy is kind of busy.

[Harpotoo]

Isn’t this the fox news judge who insisted Trump should have been convicted on his impeachment?

[NFHale]

Man, he REALLY turned into a major league sh*thead, didn’t he???

I used to like that guy too... damn. What the Hell happened to him to make him so bitter?

[Ann Archy]

WTH did BARR ALLOW A SECRET MEETING???

[yukong]

As a trial attorney, I can say that hearings that pertain to possible jury impropriety are usually always “in camera” hearings. That is...private and not open to the public. I have done a few of them over the years. This is standard procedure, and actually shows ignorance on the part of Andrew Napolitano. As a former trial judge, he should know that these types of hearings are usually in private. Secret would mean we don’t even know the hearing happened. But we do, and it is normal for it to be private.

[Bryan24]

I’m thankful Andrew Napolitono is not a federal judge. He decent realize that Amy Berman Jackson is a Federal Judge.....which is a completely separate branch oof government. William Barr has no authority over her at all.

[aquila48]

What do you think of the judge’s overall handling of Stone’s case and what has come out regarding the jury foreman?

[Parley Baer]

I agree with you on this one. Judge Nap is right this time. Judge Jackson should be disbarred.

[jmaroneps37]

Nappy GFY you quisling scumbag.

[politicianslie]

The Judge is just another DNC operative.

Don't just disbar her, make her available to SUE by Roger Stone for her criminal, biased actions.

After she pays Stone an outrageously large settlement, then put Amy up against a wall and shoot her for being part of the DNC led coup.

[yukong]

I will say...I’m not surprised at all. We can all hope and pray that a judge will be impartial and not allow their personal world views effect their rulings and conduct while presiding over a case. But we all should realize that such is just folly. Why are presidential elections so important to each side? Because it gives the president the power to appoint judges that believe as he/she does politically. Presidents appoint federal judges, circuit judges and SCOTUS judges that share their world views, including their political views. No different here. Yet folks are outraged when the judge does just as they were appointed to do. She was appointed by a democrat hack president. Why was she appointed by Obama? Because she would rule in ways that are favorable to Obama’s views and democrats desires. No one should be surprised.

But to really answer your question...it is clear she wanted a certain outcome. No real doubt there. But then she shares the views of the tainted juror. It isn’t outrageous to her. Clearly. No surprise.

[centurion316]

William Barr has no authority over her at all.

You are correct. Napolitano is either clueless, or he is misquoted in this article. Judge Berman-Jackson controlled the hearing and the gag order was completely within her authority. Barr was not asked and he could not do anything about it.

[yukong]

Agreed. No one has any authority over federal judges. They are totally independent and answer to no one. Certainly not the Attorney General. He had not say over any of this. Nap is a nut.

[henbane]

No one has any authority over federal judges. They are totally independent and answer to no one.

This may be a tad over-stated here.

The Congress has complete authority over Judge Jackson. She may be impeached by the House and convicted and tossed off the bench by the Senate.

Also, she can be tried, found guilty and jailed for any common criminal offense like attempting to illegally influence the outcome of a trial. If it should be discovered that Judge Amy Berman-Jackson knowingly conspired with that Dem activist jury foreperson before or during Stone's trial, she will have to be arrested, jailed and await judgement on the merits.

Any federal judge like Amy may be prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a US District Court, Judge Berman-Jackson would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would.

[yukong]

True...but it will never happen. In the history of the US...only 15 federal judges have been impeached. Only 8 convicted. And none of those convicted were for bias. So thus no one has authority over her.

[henbane]

Perhaps the presence of President Trump as a brand new force in the Executive Office may exert some influence over a case like this--and Senator Lindsey Graham's Senate committee should begin a probe on Berman-Jackson's suspicious connection to the biased jury foreperson.

The fact of success or failure of prior impeachment cases in no way removes the impeachment & removal authority of Congress over Judge Berman-Jackson.

She stands before the scales of Lady justice as do we all.

[yukong]

No question Congress has impeachment/removal authority. My point is the Republicans in Congress do not have the political courage or desire to exercise that authority. Bottom line. She will face no repercussions.