PUBLISHED: 8:57 PM 12 Apr 2017

Judge Napolitano Officially Calls For The Arrest & Jailing Of “Serial Liar” Susan Rice

Judge Andrew Napolitano says that Susan Rice should be behind bars.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a man known for speaking with conviction and power. He is not meek in terms of the preciseness in which he speaks when crafting his words, and he does not “beat around the bush.” He has done everything from faced network questioning, which almost cost him his job, and even angered the United Kingdom with facts about their spying with Obama, and he STILL did not back down. A testament to his truth? He is still on Fox News past it all and he is no less powerful in his speaking than he ever has been.

Now, fresh from stating that what was done to President Donald Trump by its real name, “espionage,” Napolitano is calling for jail time for Susan Rice, Obama’s former security advisor. Not only that, but he began the segment of Fox and Friends by saying that say Rice was a “serial liar” who has told untruths about Benghazi, surveying Trump, and even the Syrian weapons attack from when Obama was the U.S. leader. He said that her past will came to haunt her if she is asked to testify because she is no longer a “credible witness,” according to Law News.


Sure, Ms. Rice, it is about your race and sex; not that you may have hacked the White House, unmasked his team, or broken any number of federal laws.

The Judge feels quite strongly that if the testimony trips her up in a lie, the Department of Justice will be moved to prosecute her, and that could land her in the orange jumpsuit. “I think the Trump administration is so furious with what she did, that they will lay a trap for her and we’ll see if she falls into it,” the Fox Host said. He then made mention that lying under oath could be one way that Rice sees a prison cell, adding “a few other instances which Congressman [Trey] Gowdy and his colleagues come up with.”

What all of this means is that, to what must be ever mounting frustration to those that oppose Trump, is that the White House was right again. The left mocked him when he tweeted that he was hacked and spied upon, and the Democrats all were quick to talk about the President may be “mentally unstable” and imagining things only to be proven wrong. The most ironic part in all of this is that it was the outrage of General Flynn that caused the White House to wonder how ANY of this came to be known in order to produce any conversation at all! In essence, though questions remain about Priebus and his loyalty with regards to leading, it was clear that as Trump fired people, leaks kept happening.

Now it seems that much of that was not leaking at all, but may have been hacks or spy jobs from the Democrats and the departing White House. Each case and every instance of unmasking is likely different and it can not be imagined that Rice or her team did all of the hacking and leaking that Trump has seen, but even once is enough to be a federal crime. There is no reason to believe that she did it only once, either. Not that it would matter in terms of legality, but it would compound the offense. Not to mention, each time that she did it was another iteration of the cycle that could lead to more leaks, security flaws, etc.


Judge Napolitano says that if the prosecution trips up Rice during any testimony given, the Department of Justice will swoop in and likely prosecute.

If the motive can be proven to be more than “just” spying, but of trying to obtain information to blackmail the White House or anyone in it, then the muck gets much deeper. It would not matter whether or not Susan Rice actually obtained anything that was worthy of blackmail, for contrary to what most people say, not all politicians are sleeping around or hurting anyone. Still, the very ATTEMPT at trying to blackmail someone in office is a high crime, and that can lead to much more dire outcomes at sentencing time.

This is all getting so much attention because it is ingrained into the Constitution of the nation that such actions should not be tolerated at all. The reason that it is so is because once a leader is compromised or someone holds power over them, then the person who holds that information is now running the country. Let us pretend that Trump committed “FILL IN THE BLANK” ten years ago and it is quite serious. If someone like Rice or those like her prying ilk capture this information, then they can “make” Trump act however they want, whenever they want, and he is powerless to defy them. If he does, then whatever he did ten years ago comes out and he is then ruined anyhow.


If every time Trump picks up his phone and wonders if it is bugged, how can he get any work done?

This kind of thing happens more often than most would find plausible when properly studied and investigated. To this day, one has to wonder who had what on Obama that made him turn so far against everything that he ran on. The left may claim the same argument with Trump, but it would only be that, a claim. The President has kept his word on the TPP, unilateral trade deals, and a myriad of other issues that saw him more honest in his word in mere weeks than Obama was in eight years. With that in mind, should someone ever obtain such data on anyone in office, which is what spying often yields, then overnight a good leader can become a scoundrel and the voters wonder what just happened.

If not blackmail, Rice and her spooks may have just wanted to know information that they were not privy to via illegal means. If so, this is also a major offense and will put Rice in the same jumpsuit that “America’s Judge” was alluding to, so that is not going to help her any. The fact is that she had the right to see data gathered by the IC, but not the right to conjure her own data or to unmask anyone. The nuances of this are not yet known, but much like the fact that when Hillary Clinton was on trial, her errors were so great the Congress could not air them due to security risks, this may be of the same magnitude with Rice. If so, she may be seeing gray bars and eating commissary food for a very long time.


“The Judge ” risked his job to be the one to break the British spying story.