Judge Napolitano Returns On Fox News, Stands By Claim Brits Spied On Trump

Tyler Durden's picture

Fox News' legal analyst Andrew "Judge" Napolitano returned to the air on Wednesday morning, nine days after the network benched him when President Donald Trump cited the Fox talking head as the source of claims that Barack Obama used British intelligence to wiretap him. Napolitano refused to change his story saying he stood by his claim about spying on President Donald Trump that got him benched by the network on March 21 for an indefinite period.

“I stand by my statement on surveillance,” Napolitano told Bill Hemmer.

According to Deadline, Napolitano was there to talk about a Fox News report that the FBI allegedly wired a staffer of former Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock, who has been charged with fraud and corruption. But first, Hemmer asked Napolitano about that Obama/Brit intel wiretap claim he first made on Fox & Friends. Napolitano said that was his story and he was sticking to it.

“And the American public needs to know more about this rather than less because of a lot of the government’s surveillance authorities will expire in the fall and there will be a great debate about how much authority we want the government to have to surveil us.”

“We’ll see how the story plays out,” Hemmer said, noncommittally.

“I think a lot more is going to come,” Napolitano responded..

His return raises the question as to why Fox News benched Napolitano in the first place.

Following the joint press conference between Trump and Merkel, in which the president cited Napolitano's allegation, Fox News reacted immediately saying it “cannot confirm Judge Napolitano’s commentary; Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now President of the United States was surveilled at any time in any way. Full stop,” Shepard Smith said on the network’s air moments after Trump gave his don’t-look-at-me response to the German reporter.

Previously, a spokesperson for British PM Theresa May had called the claims “ridiculous” saying “they should be ignored and we’ve received assurances that these allegations will not be repeated” by the White House, which may explain why Trump pointed the finger at Fox.

It was White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer who initially got the ball rolling, the day before Trump’s Merkel photo-op, admonishing reporters for their coverage of Trump’s Twitter rant about Obama-ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower. To make his case, Spicer read from a prepared list of reports he said support Trump’s claims, including one from a Fox News Channel broadcast.

“On Fox News on March 14, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement: Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command…He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, he didn’t use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ… the initials from the British intelligence spying agency. By having two people say to them the  president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump he’s able to get it and no American fingerprints on it.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Squid Viscous's picture

when he's proven right give him his show back you cowards

knukles's picture

And here I'd been hoping all along for Max Waters and Rachel Maddow to get the slot.
Enough to make a man binge drink himself to Hell

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) knukles Mar 29, 2017 12:53 PM

This is who started the spying, this lizard who wants the world to end with him.


PrayingMantis's picture


... posted this on another thread ...


... meanwhile, Evelyn Farkas, Obumboclot's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, said that the Obumboclot administration had spied on Donald Trump >>> https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f2_1490801747 ...

... caption says: "... OOPS!! MSNBC confirms that President Obama used the federal government to spy on Donald Trump .Yesterday, on March 28, 2017, while speaking live on MSNBC, Evelyn Farkas, who had been Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense as part of President Obama’s administration, said that the Obama administration had spied on Donald Trump.
A quick online search shows that this has not so far been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, or any other mainstream media source." ...

...note the Brzezinski connection on Mourning Joe ...


FrozenGoodz's picture

Great the clown show can resume!!



NoDebt's picture

There's a possibility this could be a good sign.  When somebody from the R's side of the room shoots their mouth off, says something untrue or blatantly unsubstantiated and gets suspended from their gig, they usually NEVER come back.  They're out for good and no amount of apology or public flogging changes that.

Yet here's Nap back at his post in only a couple weeks UNREPENTANT about what he said??

Guys, this NEVER happens.  Something's up.  

froze25's picture

Trump probably called them and said, "you still want exclusives with me and my staff?, put him back on the air"

Antifaschistische's picture

 “cannot confirm Judge Napolitano’s commentary"

Oh, funny....look at all the unsubstantiated claims from the MSM during the Hillary campaign about Trump.  NO ONE gets fired for unsubstantiated claims!!!

Embrey's picture

True. The public needs to differentiate between fact based, open sourced reporting and agenda driven advocacy. One is journalism and the other is politics pretending to be journalism.

SWRichmond's picture

benched by the network on March 21 for an indefinite period.

...until it started looking a lot like Trump and Napolitano were right, and after we heard a lot of shit from our viewers.

Rage against The Machine.

Chupacabra-322's picture

Just goes to show you the level of Moral, Ethical Character this man possesses.

Much Respect.

shamus001's picture

He's a "Commentator" not a news reporter for Chris sakes.  We watch him for his "opinion" if we wanted Lefty-BS opinions we'd log onto MSNBC or CNN

Embrey's picture

I understand your point but Napolitano's allegation takes him beyond commentator. He has entered the world of journalism by making this charge. Sooner or later I expect to see his evidence. If it is baseless my opinion of him and my desire to listen to future commentary will be zero.
When one begins to make potentially criminal allegations he has left the realm of opinion.

Oldwood's picture

HE says his "anonymous sources" still stand by their story. If it's good enough for the NYTs to declare their anonymous sources as sacrosanct, then this should be good enough, yes?

Embrey's picture

No. The problem is exactly that to which you refer.
In my opinion, the Constitutional protection allowed to 'the press' in the 1st Amendment should include journalists that eventually open source their material. Otherwise, anybody can say anything about anyone and cry 1st Amendment. Where is the responsibility of 'the press' to serve as an actual check and balance to power rather than advocates for one side or the other? It is a problem almost as old as the 1st Amendment. Where is the line between journalism and propaganda?

East Indian's picture

The whole idea of the 1st Amendment is that anyone can say anything; subject to 1. defamation and 2 face the consequences.

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

Giving ZH trolls downvotes is like rewarding your dog with a snack after it shits on your carpet.

Please, no mas.

knukles's picture

The SOMA and Matrix are so powerful that everybody's talking like "listening" is something new.
We all been "listened to" for years.  Every last electronic communication on the globe, for a long fucking time.

So, my take on all this is 2-fold.
1.)  Everybody seems to have already forgotten that long ago our privacy was stolen from us.
2.)  The the fucking Progressives who could have undone this, instead made it worse.

Is anybody listening?

And they're "listening" is a gross fucking understatement pablum and belly rub oil way of saying that Our Asses are no longer secure in our homes or communications.

So quit with the shouting and screaming.

froze25's picture

Guess its back to "snail mail" with the letters wrapped in Tin foil.

Implied Violins's picture

...and this is news? Here's the real news flash: they knew you'd write this twenty years ago.

Yog Soggoth's picture

When individuals get large settlements for breach of the 4th Amendment that will stop quickly. All we need are some good supreme judges to set precedent. The hard part is proving you are being spied on. Bait and trap scheme, or FIOA?

hxc's picture

Neither needed. Patriot act violates the 4th amdt. Just need some good justices...

Oldwood's picture

For me, the issue is not about being listened to, it is the fact that ONLY they lay claim to that "intelligence" and as such, can claim anything they want, LEAK information from "anonymous sources" without ANY proof, and we must simply accept it as fact. They ARE the arbiters of truth now. Only they have this metadata well to retrieve their selective facts (if facts at all) and there is no one who can refute it.  Our intelligence can claim there is Russian interference, even though they provide NO proof and Democrat leaders in the Senate state it as FACT (see Warner today) that Russia interfered on BEHALF of Trump. The Russians claim they did no such thing...high level officials, and it matters not. No proof, but there it is...a FACT. How do you push back against that?

We currently have Democrat leaders and the MSM talking heads calling Trump, his staff and surrogates and anyone else who does not go along with this shit...LIARS. We saw ONE Republican do that to Obama and he was damned near taken out. Today, the "intelligence community" farts in Trumps general direction and it is all the proof needed for a full on attack to denigrate and ultimately unseat the POTUS. Hard times indeed.

PrayingMantis's picture

...  double posting ... sorry ...

Ghost of Porky's picture

Of course Napolitano's right. Everybody spies on everybody else, all the time, every day, all day long, everywhere, everyplace, in every way, on the phone, through your TV, in your email, via your ISP or your local grocery store checkstand.


You think Obama went 8 years with that kind of power and never once peeked at a political enemy? Do you think he'd hesitate to do it to Trump especially when Hillary was 98% guaranteed to be his successor?


Let's stop pretending here. It happened.

Squid Viscous's picture

you obviously need to watch more CNN and PMSNBC,

44magnum's picture

Absolute power corrupts absolutely or some sort of drivel like like? Maybe we should ask the guys who have a monopoly on creating money from thin air and charging us interest on it, they must know what the saying is.

tunetopper's picture

The only thing markable about this story is that Fox had to go ask someone if they should fire Da' Judge or place him on double-secret probation.  Now ask yourselves this: WHO DOES FOX ANSWER TO?

tunetopper's picture

The only thing markable about this story is that Fox had to go ask someone if they should fire Da' Judge or place him on double-secret probation.  Now ask yourselves this: WHO DOES FOX ANSWER TO?

Consuelo's picture



It's the James Brown wig...

mc888's picture

The propaganda ratio on Fox News has been rising quickly. They're getting pressured.

Laura Ingraham was on O'Reilly last night and made a comment re "the Russian invasion of Ukraine".

If Russia invaded Ukraine, it would have been over in 2 weeks. There would be no ongoing skirmishes, no ammo depots blowing up on the weekend, and no Ukraine. It would just be Russia.

TheLastTrump's picture

Russia took back the Crimea. It was their right- that's their fucking port built at great cost.


But they couldn't just attack or they'd risk NATO. So they used anonymous soldiers to get the job done. Arguing against all the intel & witness accounts is a waste of time. It was the perfect response, Putin walked the tightrope there.


The main crime I saw in that region was the CIA sponsored regime change in Ukraine. Maiden? Weren't innocent civilians shot down by men dressed as police snipers? Just to cause chaos & anger? Was that ever confirmed? If that was our people they should be in prison.



mc888's picture

> Russia took back the Crimea. It was their right- that's their fucking port built at great cost.

Actually it was the Crimeans that requested Russia take them in. Guess they felt safer with Vlad than with a bunch of CIA-sponsored UkieNazis.

> Arguing against all the intel & witness accounts is a waste of time.

Sure, like the eyewitness accounts of the MH17 crash site? That noted how the bodies were already in advanced stages of decomposition and missing blood? And how the fuselage had bullet holes from being shot down by a Ukrainian fighter? Seemed to be no end of mainstream argument against eyewitness testimony when it didn't support the mainstream narrative.

> Weren't innocent civilians shot down by men dressed as police snipers?

Ballistics tests showed the same sniper killed civilians on both sides in order to incite violence.


Secret Weapon's picture

He will not be available for a show on Fox.  He will be on the Supreme Court bench. 

Jim Shoesesta's picture

Unfortunately Napolatano is wrong almost all the time, if not all the time.  He is a useless commentator. 

Tenshin Headache's picture

Oh, I don't know, he does OK.

"What if it is the law of the land that everyone in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted receives a multi-hour tutorial from the FBI on how to protect state secrets? What if the successful completion of that tutorial is a legal prerequisite to the receipt of a national security clearance and thus the receipt of state secrets?

What if that tutorial reminds the people to whom secrets are being reposed that it is their legal obligation to recognize and accept and understand the law before they can receive any state secrets? What if, in order to confirm that understanding, all people who receive the tutorial are required to sign an oath at the end of the tutorial recognizing, accepting and understanding the law and agreeing to be bound by it? What if Clinton signed just such an oath?

What if Clinton had no intention of complying with the oath she signed at the time she signed it? What if we know that because we know she hired the information technologist to divert her emails the same week she received the FBI tutorial? What if she never told the FBI that she planned to divert all her emails — including those that would contain state secrets — to a private non-secure email server in her home?

What if it is the law of the land that the failure to secure state secrets is a felony, known as espionage? What if it is the law of the land that espionage can be committed by a person who intends to expose state secrets or by a person who doesn’t care if she exposes state secrets? What if the FBI explained to Clinton on her first day as secretary of state that the grossly negligent exposure of state secrets constitutes espionage?

What if Clinton sent or received more than 2,000 emails that contained state secrets? What if she authored more than 100 of them herself? What if some of the 2,000 emails were so secret that the FBI agents investigating her lack the security clearances to view those emails?

What if Clinton did all this so that she could keep her behavior as secretary of state secret and away from all officials in the State Department outside her inner circle, away from the president and away from the American people? What if she orchestrated and carried out a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act?"

- Judge Andrew Napolitano


(perhaps you can do better?)

Embrey's picture

I loved his frickin' show. While it was on air I truly thought Napolitano might actually be able to motivate the masses to effect change and demand liberty. I always assumed that show was pulled because it's audience was growing. No offense to Stossel but I was done with Fox after they pulled that program.

FoggyWorld's picture

Let Fox know because Stossel retired a bit young due his having cancer.   There are some reruns on Fox Business but there ought to be room somewhere for the Judge.

Stan522's picture

Sycophant Lib's don't care about any of this.... It's their inconvenient truth....

Socratic Dog's picture

Awesome quote.  No wonder they want to shut him down.

Duc888's picture



"Unfortunately Napolatano is wrong almost all the time, if not all the time.  He is a useless commentator. "

...................care to back that up with any facts?  Or are you a useless troll?

RightLineBacker's picture

True, trolls are "useless".

But more importantly they are lowlife scum that should be castrated with a dull knife and left to bleed to death.

Kevin Trader's picture

Fortunately Napolatano is right almost all of the time, if not all of the time. He is the most useful commentator.

Vague sentences are awesome

TheLastTrump's picture

TheLastTrump clade7 Mar 29, 2017 5:02 PM

He drew off badly needed votes (we lost the general election by votes) by stating before the election that he was going to vote Johnson? because Trump was a big govt guy.


At this point there is no going back without open warfare. We will have big govt or internal war. This country will Balkanize without a strong central govt.


He's correct of course, but he threw away his vote and no doubt many others followed his example. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Prepare yourselves.

booboo's picture

Getting mighty hot on that island Chalky. Time to pop that dick out yo mouth and cum home