"It is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government," said Napolitano.
"So, that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime?" Smith asked.
"Yes, it is the same crime for which the Trump Organization , who decided not to seek an indictment because there wasn't enough evidence," Napolitano agreed.
"Well, no, he said he didn't seek an indictment because he wasn't charged because of the DOJ rule that said, 'you can lay it out, but you can't charge,'" Smith corrected.
"That’s on the obstruction of justice, whether or not there was a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump campaign," Napolitano explained. "He said there’s some evidence but not enough to indict. It’s the same crime: an agreement or solicitation for assistance for an American campaign regulated by the Federal Elections Commission where you are seeking assistance from a foreign government. That's a crime."
Smith asked if Rudy Giuliani's involvement, at the aid and instruction of the State Department, meant that he too had committed a crime.
"If it was done in order to enhance the president's reelection campaign, yes, it's the same crime that the president would have committed," said Napolitano. "If the president said, 'I want you to investigate the principal opponent's son,' thinking to himself it's going to help his campaign."
He went on to say that the Trump administration is "on very thin ice" for blocking the inspector general from turning over a complaint to Congress because the statues dictate that it must be.
"He didn’t do that. He got a cockamamie —- I'll tell you why I say that in a minute -- ruling from the Justice Department that he didn't have to bring it. The ruling from the Justice Department says, 'Well, wait a minute. The complaint was filed with the inspector general of the intelligence community. The president doesn’t work for the intelligence community, he works for the American public, and therefore that complaint is moot.'"
Napolitano exclaimed his shock that it would be moot, saying that the president of the United States was accused of bribery, "How can that be moot!?"
Under the statute, Congress has every right to the complaint, he explained. Meanwhile, the president has admitted to all of this publicly.
In the Mueller complaint, the 10 examples of obstruction of justice, it was an "equivocal" decision that it was an impeachable offense.
"Bribery absolutely it is an impeachable offense, there's no equivocation," he said. "And why do I say that? It’s stated in the Constitution. The basis for impeachment: Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The president offered a bribe -- if the president offered a bribe to the president of the Ukraine, that would be an impeachable offense."
See the full discussion below:
