Napolitano: Schiff is ‘Correct’ to Conclude Mueller Report Will Have Evidence of Conspiracy
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano offered a defense of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Thursday by saying Robert Mueller‘s findings are likely to at least partially corroborate Schiff’s claims about Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
Ever since Attorney General Bill Barr summarized Mueller’s report in President Donald Trump‘s favor earlier this week, the president and the GOP have demanded Schiff’s resignation because of his role in promoting collusion allegations.
On the other hand, Democrats are demanding the release of Mueller’s full report – which is reportedly hundreds of pages long — so it can be fully scrutinized.
As Napolitano joined Neil Cavuto to discuss this on Fox Business, he said he was “not convinced” that Trump has been fully exonerated on collusion and obstruction. By parsing Barr’s summary, Napolitano determined that there must be “some evidence” of a conspiracy with Russia, even if it wasn’t enough to file charges.
Napolitano offered a similar analysis about obstruction of justice, saying there was evidence to support both sides of the argument for whether that’s what the president did, and Mueller let Barr make the call on that. He continued to express concern about Mueller’s report getting a complete release, noting that Trump’s critics “will have a feast on some of the things that’s in there.”
As Napolitano said it was a “political interpretation” to that there’s no evidence of collusion or obstruction, he and Cavuto agreed that the report’s murkiness will give both political sides ammo to use against one another. Since Schiff is standing by his statements on collusion, however, Cavuto asked what are the chances the House Intelligence Committee knows something others do not.
“I think that Congressman Schiff is correct, in that report will be evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, not enough evidence to prove the existence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Napolitano answered. “In that report will be evidence of obstruction of justice, interfering with an FBI investigation for a personal gain but not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Watch above, via Fox Business.
Have a tip we should know? firstname.lastname@example.org