Talk:Andrew Napolitano

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • You mean other than his "longtime friend? <eyeroll> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.236.190 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/09/should-states-be-the-ultimate-deciders-of-the-legality-of-same-sex-marriage/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305051436/http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2008/03/31/advertiser_news/news/37.txt to http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2008/03/31/advertiser_news/news/37.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302151938/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1599815.php/Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-s-fatwa-on-TSA-and-cousin-Janet-on-FBN to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1599815.php/Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-s-fatwa-on-TSA-and-cousin-Janet-on-FBN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315035557/http://freedomwatchonfox.com:80/ to http://freedomwatchonfox.com

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)Reply

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)Reply

I am unqualified to make changes so I submit this for those concerned with accuracy.

Both phrases "Obama wiretapped Trump" and "Obama wiretapped Trump Tower" are incorrect. At no time did Napolitano accuse or allege either the British or Obama of wiretapping. Ever.

What he did state is that Obama used the British agency to "go around" normal surveillance channels. That's it, as far as the Fox News interview goes. (Please listen to the interview itself.)

Evidence that neither British nor Obama / White House wiretapping was not even IMPLIED by Napolitano is unambiguously detailed in the Fox News [online] article http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html where he explicitly states what the unnamed sources told him: "GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls."

That's it. Not that the British wiretapped anybody. Or that the White House did. He very clearly explains that the British agency has digital access to electronic communications held in the NSA.

Thus he

1. never says that Obama ordered such.

2. never says that the White House wiretapped anything. Nor British.

3. does say that the NSA - the U.S. agency - DOES surveil communications.

4. does say that the British have access to that.

5. does say that Obama legally could have requested transcripts directly from the NSA, however there would be a record of such if he did.

6. says that sources told him that Obama was most likely provided with transcripts from the British.

Even more, he

1. never said that Obama DID do any of this. Or the British.

2. never said that his sources said Obama DID do any of this.

3. did say that "if (emphasis mine) Obama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump’s conversations ... there would exist somewhere a record."

4. did say "GCHQ, most likely (emphasis mine) provided Obama with transcripts" (per sources).

5. did say "by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access" Note that this is stated in the hypothetical "would have had" - not that he "did".

Even the title of the online article is the speculative conjecture "Did Obama spy on Trump?" rather than the accusatory or alleging or declarative "Obama spied on Trump"

Everything above is in the online article, and nothing to the contrary is found in the broadcast interview.

So going directly to source - not the interpretation of a USA Today or NYT writer's interpretation - there's no "Obama wiretapped."

Change it to whatever you think best from direct sources. "allegations ... Obama wiretapped" is factually incorrect. Maybe "allegations that Obama obtained surveillance" ?

Thanks for all your hard work. I spend quite significant personal time preparing and sourcing and carefully proofreading this too, saving you time, and presenting it in verifiable form, so I hope you appreciate the work that I have put in, even though I am not following through with making the change itself. Being a nonmember, I suspect it would just have been reverted anyway, so I'll just leave this in your capable hands. And thank you for your time on this as well.

And perhaps this is significant - Napolitano used the word wiretap (in any form) exactly once - and that was to describe old fashioned telephone line wiretapping.24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: Nobody 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) 08:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that myself right now. Especially since later im the subsection there is the following passage:

In response to “Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmead stating that Napolitano was claiming Trump's phone was “wiretapped”, Napolitano denied actual physical tampering, instead citing the agency has digital access to digital information.

Kinda contradicts the whole narrative of the section. Name of that section should be refactored. 37.99.44.30 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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.

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply