Talk:Andrew Napolitano/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Andrew Napolitano. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Relation to Janet Napolitano?

Well Andrew and Janet look almost identical so if they aren't brother and sister there must be some relation along the line. Cousins perhaps?12.25.109.71 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They both are related, no doubt whatsoever. However citation is needed. --93.82.9.129 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

He has said numerous times that he is not related to her. Arzel (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation? --Ftsw (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Start-class Rating

I've given this article a start-class rating. More information on his career as a judge and correspondent, and information about his books would improve the article. I might do this if I get time. Any input would be greatly appreciated! --Nemilar 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxymoron

Wouldn't a "pro-life" Libertarian be an oxymoron? Libertarians are supposed to be against government controlling the lives of private citizens. As a real Libertarian, it always disgusts me when Republicans try and label themselves as Libertarians to contend claims of bias.

This guy is an _extremely_ strong critic of the any infringement of rights based on the "war on terror". Opposes the PATRIOT act for example. There ought to be some discussion, because his libertarianism really sets him apart from typical conservative analysts. As to pro-life, he's Catholic. He addresses the issue in the last question of this interview, which is probably a good source on other aspects of him as well. Derex 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Libertarians can be pro-life, such as Ron Paul, who is the most well-known libertarian in the U.S. Sadistik 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One can be pro-life without advocating government intervention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikilled007 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Abortion is not a definite libertarian issue, and there are many pro-life libertarians. It all goes back to the old issue of when human life begins. If you believe that life begins at conception, then there is no apparent contradiction in being a libertarian against abortion.

The only issue here is when you as a libertarian believe life begins. If you believe life begins at conception, a libertarian must defend the individual rights of the fetus from that moment forward. If you believe life begins at birth, a libertarian must defend the right of the mother to abort the fetus any time up until birth. Most people believe life begins somewhere in between. It's a murky subject, one where no position can preclude one's claims to libertarianism. If and when we can answer this question definitively, then we can set a rigid standard that all libertarians would be obliged to defend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Several Sources"?

The article claims taht "several sources" have criticized the judge, but although there are 8 references they come from only two sources. Might it be more accurate to say "sources on both the left and the right..."? Either that, or more than two sources should be cited, I would think --Brons 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be more listed, but your suggestion is better anyway. Derex 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced Serveral Sources with Some. Arzel 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Foundation for defence of democracies...:Bill Kristol-Sen. Joseph Lieberman,R. James Woolsey Chairman of FDD, Fmr. Director of the CIA Judge Louis J. Freeh Fmr. Director of the FBI Robert 'Bud' McFarlane Fmr. National Security AdvisorDr. Paula J. Dobriansky Fmr. Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Steve Forbes CEO Forbes Magazine Amb. Richard Carlson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.24.32 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Endorsement of Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign"

The David Allen Show Podcast of Judge Napolitano's endorsement.

Source for "pro-life libertarian?"

There is no source listed after the sentence that declares Judge Napolitano is a "pro-life libertarian". There needs to be a source where he actually said he is a 'pro-life libertarian", otherwise it has no foundation in fact. I have had several interviews with the Judge, and he always identified himself as a "rugged individualist" over our conversations. He could have called himself a libertarian, it just simply needs to be properly sourced.Rpchristiano (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This description comes from Sean Hannity's interview of Napolitano. Napolitano agreed that the "pro-life libertarian" was an accurate description of himself. I changed the article to say "libertarian" in place of "Libertarian" as the capital L is often understood to imply affiliation with the Libertarian Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.246.200 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

JudgeNapolitano.com

Under the Politics header, the link to the website that apparently encouraged Napolitano to run for president in February 2009 no longer serves that function, and in fact has no mention of the judge whatsoever. While it maintains the judgenapolitano.com address, the home page link redirects to reteaparty.com. Should the line about the website be removed from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpogge (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian

No doubt Andrew Napolitano labels himself as a Christian. However in the English language the word Christian has been so diluted as to mean almost nothing at all. After all Glenn Beck thinks he is a Christian and he things God is an alien. Is there any way to be just a little more specific on this? Just Christian would have been good enough a thousand years ago since back then it would have meant that you are a Catholic but it isn't good enough to day, at least not in the English language. Is Napolitano a Catholic or some form of protestant? Either way, the article needs to be more specific or just not mention it at all. In modern English the word Christian by itself is not enough since it has lost most of its meaning. Catholic/Orthodox and the various forms of protestantism are so far removed from each other that they can not be grouped together under a term that has now become vague like "christian". They are about as different from each other as Islam and Judaism; kind of the same from far away but completely different upon closer inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.45.207 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom Watch

Just a suggestion to add a section for (or just a mention of / link to) Napolitano's online show, Freedom Watch. -FJ | hello 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WTC 7

Should there be a mention of his comments on the subject of World Trade Center 7? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Original Research tag to alleged content of Suicide Pact book

His most extensive work on the topic of 9/11, Suicide Pact, does not express any sympathy with the position, nor have any of his public statements since.^{[original research?]}

There is no citation as to the alleged content of the book Suicide Pact. Particularly, It appears the OR sentence was intended to falsely use the unrelated book's alleged content as basis for tilting the debate on the meaning of the non-related 9/11 allegations.

Napolitano clearly stated that the 9/11 affair will be doubted by skeptics on both sides. I found no weight either way except for the fact the Napolitano appeared at a Truther show granting credibility to the conspiracist by his sole appearance on the show.

Actually the retaining of such language in Wikipedia tends to support conspiracists as it may be inferred that the defector was "put in line" for "coming out of the closet".

I suggest to simply scrap the OR tagged sentence.64.237.239.252 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn Law School

Ok I'm editing myself. He's a VISITING professor at Brooklyn Law School. I've restored the listing, with the distinction (a major difference if you're an actual professor). 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:195C:C7AF:2839:335F (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede claimed he's "Distinguished Professor" at Brooklyn Law School. Their Web site faculty directory doesn't list him as full-time, part-time, adjunct or emeriti. Guess it was a mistake. Perhaps he gave a "guest lecture" or something at some point ? I removed the statement. Also I added a reference to his work for the well-known news source WorldNetDaily. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:195C:C7AF:2839:335F (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Napolitano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

LGBT

Is it appropriate to have this article in the following categories with no citation? His sexuality doesn't seem to be common knowledge: LGBT broadcasters; LGBT judges; LGBT Roman Catholics 63.128.86.125 (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea removing them. There's no evidence that he's gay and he's also a devout traditionalist Catholic.SteelMariner^Talk 03:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- You mean other than his "longtime friend? <eyeroll> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.236.190 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspended from Fox?

Guys, let's be careful how we phrase this. He was taken off the air, but it is unclear if this is permanent or temporary. This is a BLP, so let's be as neutral as possible. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

House Intelligence committee confirms NSA surveillance of Trump team

Trump's "team was “incidentally” surveilled by the National Security Agency prior to inauguration. “This all appears to be legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA,”" http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/22/gop-intel-chair-it-s-possible-trump-campaign-was-incidentally-surveilled.html The data was "widely" disseminated, which was asserted by Napolitano. Oh Oh... looks like Judge N may have been correct afterall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C381:1C4C:20FD:C871:46BD:EC2E (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Further, it looks like there is NSA evidence of "wiretapping" of Trump team so characterizing Napolitano's opinion as conspiracy theory may be wrong. A wait-and-see posture may make more sense at this point. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325435-nrcc-email-falsely-proclaims-obama-surveillance-of-trump and http://trib.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/the-latest-trump-defends-wiretapping-claims/article_816dd790-4aef-5be3-ba20-34cae3df96a1.html

I agree that his allegations probably should not be under "conspiracy theories" but as a separate section all their own, because of their prominence. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Termination from Fox for political purposes?

Various websites have attributed the Feb 2012 cancellation of Napolitano's show to his support for presidential candidate Ron Paul and other positions perceived as outside of the poltical mainstream. But one example can be found in this link: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2841. Internet searches will reveal a number of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.189.243 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at the Fox News website indicates he is still "senior judicial analyst" and posted commentary as recently as yesterday (March 2, 2012). While it is true that the blogs have postulated a variety of theories why the show he hosted was cancelled, he clearly was not fired by the network. Ratings looks to be the prime culprit given the ongoing shakeup in the lineup.

Capitalismojo (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Disappointed by this analysis. Just because Fox keeps him on the payroll doesn't mean his show wasn't taken off the air for political purposes; in fact it could be a way of keeping him off rival stations. Trusting Fox website as a source on this matter is problematic, no matter what it reports. Would welcome other sources on this matter.

You can use judge nap's twitter as a reference. he tweets out links to his appearances on fox and essays on the fox news website almost every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapxapxap (talk • contribs) 06:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes judge napolianoa s stated by himself said that now he gets more air thab before. which is true they got most of their views from freeodm watch so by sending te judg as an analyst they get more view and he more exposure. So it turned out for the better; clever judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.156.206 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Judge Napolitano is BACK ON FOX so this article is obsolete.

http://deadline.com/2017/03/napolitano-donald-trump-return-fox-news-obama-wiretap-british-intelligence-video-1202054675/ Also and related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapRNpEjXUo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C381:1C4C:0:0:0:6673 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete this, I know its opinion, but this is a talk page. I think Andrew Napolitano should run for presidency of the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:89F1:6273:20CC:4C8D (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect: "The allegation was later asserted as fact by Trump"

I am unqualified to submit a change so I just did the legwork and leave it to some reader to make the change.

Trump's stated position: "All we did was quote a certain, very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television," Trump said. "I didn't make an opinion on it. That was a statement made by a very talented lawyer on Fox. And so you shouldn't be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox."

Of many sources, one is https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonwells/trump-deflects-wiretapping-question

At any rate, "The allegation was later asserted as fact by Trump" is completely false. Perhaps consider "The accusation was later reported by a Trump spokesperson"24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: The article as it currently exists is absurdly false and blatantly so. I put serious work into laying out the legwork above but it seems that it's being ignored as if it came from ignorant trolls. If I were to make the change it would just be reverted; so is there no member of the community that wants to act upon this travesty of misinformation? So do we need to ramp up the memes of the ridiculousness of wikipedia, or does someone give a ____ about credibility and integrity?24.27.72.99 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

GCHQ admits to being original source of Trump campaign surveillance

Prop 13 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)April 13, 2017

Article in The Guardian confirms GCHQ as the original source for Trump campaign surveillance.

"Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added."

. . . .

Later in the article, itrefers to Napolitano by name:

“The White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, claimed the “British spying agency” GCHQ had carried out the bugging. Spicer cited an unsubstantiated report on Fox News. Fox later distanced itself from the report.

The claims prompted an extremely unusual rebuke from GCHQ, which generally refrains from commenting on all intelligence matters. The agency described the allegations first made by a former judge turned media commentator, Andrew Napolitano, as “nonsense”.

“They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored,” a spokesperson for GCHQ said.

Instead both US and UK intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.”

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

While GCHQ claims that they weren't targeting Trump's campaign, rather, they were targeting the Russians Trump's campaign was talking to, the fact is that GCHQ alerted the Obama administration to Trump's campaign and provided the surveillance they had obtained on Trump's campaign. It was immediately subsequent to this sharing of surveillance that the Obama administration sought a warrant through a FISA court--and was rejected.

In other words, it appears that Napolitano's actual assertions regarding GCHQ were essentially correct.

As others have pointed out, there are other claims made in this article about what Napolitano said that appear to be false. As far as I can tell, Napolitano never said some of the things that are being alleged in this article. Those claims should either be substantiated or removed.

Lead section

I removed some "material" from the lead as undue weight. --Malerooster (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And it was readded. --Malerooster (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

footnotes

As of this moment, the footnotes seem to be misnumbered. Either that or none of the first footnotes support the information they are attached to. I'm not going to try to fix this or verify further, but if anyone cares about this page being credible, it needs to be done.

Spieling (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Undue Weight on dismissed allegations in leading paragraph

Sensational allegations in the opening paragraph do not define Napolitano's extensive career, giving the allegations undue weight. They may be related to his media career, but note that the lawsuits were dismissed. In addition, dates and wording around this issue are not correct. Napolitano was not "terminated" or "let go." According to straight-reporting media, they "parted ways," some said "parted amicably." He left Fox in June 2021, not after the Fawcett allegations were made public more than a month later. Fox News labeled the Fawcett allegations "baseless," and said "the complaint does not meet the standards of the law." I will remove the allegations from the opening paragraph. I will review wording and dates in the media career section and may edit them to reflect reality or remove them. Photoloop (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

According to this article in The Daily Beast, Napolitano was "oustedousted from Fox News following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct." Even if the suits were dismissed or withdrawn, we have that. I agree that we need to be careful in this or any BLP but we can't necessarily ignore that kind of material. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In the story you reference, he "split with the network" in August. But he left in June. They repeat the incorrect August timeframe lower down. So the publication has zero authority on this. The same complainant spoke about Larry Kudlow and Fox News. Why isn't the story referenced in those pages? All of the allegations were openly refuted, and all of the cases were dismissed. Napolitano refuted it all in public and it was even documented in your reference. Not a single publication that I can find said that he lied about that. So absent evidence nobody else has, we have to accept that those things were not true, and therefore they should not be aired in Wikipedia. High profile people are targets for this kind of thing and there's a good reason Wikipedia does not and should not be used to play those games. It isn't fair to hound people with garbage like this, or to add it to Wikipedia, even if the media circus writes about it and then they all cite each other. Circular citations don't make something true. Photoloop (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)