Peter Navarro contempt of Congress trial delayed for months over executive privilege issues

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNN Politics

CNN — A federal judge on Friday delayed the contempt of Congress trial for former Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro, likely for months, to allow for additional pre-trial debate over the role executive privilege could play when the case goes to a jury.

Over the course of a nearly two-hour hearing Friday, US District Judge Amit Mehta grilled Justice Department prosecutors on the position the department has taken, in previous internal Office of Legal Counsel opinions, that close aides to a president can be immune from congressional subpoenas.

The trial had been scheduled to begin on Monday. With the questions Mehta is raising about executive privilege, the Justice Department has been put on the spot to clarify its murky interpretations about the scope of presidential immunity.

During the Trump administration and in prior administrations, DOJ has issued internal guidance describing a sweeping “absolute immunity” that protects some presidential aides from having to even show up when Congress subpoenas them for testimony – though whether such immunity exists has been rebuffed in court.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/politics/peter-navarro-contempt-of-congress-trial

---

This is the Congressional "contempt" (refusal to be responsive to the J6 Committee) similar to what Bannon was finally convicted for. The difference is that Navarro was still working in the 45 administration during the period at issue where Bannon had left early on in 2017 and really couldn't claim any "executive privilege".

Article updated.

Previous article/headline -

Peter Navarro contempt of Congress trial will be delayed for months, judge says

CNN --A federal judge on Friday delayed the contempt of Congress trial for former Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro, likely for months, to allow for additional pre-trial debate over the role executive privilege could play when the case goes to a jury.

Over the course of a nearly two-hour hearing Friday, US District Judge Amit Mehta grilled Justice Department prosecutors on the position the department has taken, in previous internal Office of Legal Counsel opinions, that close aides to a president can be immune from congressional subpoenas. The trial had been scheduled to begin on Monday.

Mehta had opened the door to the possibility that Navarro could present evidence at trial - potentially taking the stand - that he had been told by Trump that the former president was invoking executive privilege over his testimony to the House January 6 Committee. So far, Navarro has presented no evidence that Trump made a such an invocation when he was subpoenaed for documents and testimony by the now defunct House January 6 select committee.

Federal prosecutors bristled at the idea that Navarro should still be allowed to present such evidence, arguing that it doesn't exist in the first place and that if it did, it would not be up to the jury to decide whether such invocation would have shielded Navarro from the subpoenas. Mehta ultimately decided that the issue raised legal questions that needed to be decided before trial, so he postponed its Monday start date.

Original article -

CNN --A federal judge on Friday delayed Peter Navarro's criminal contempt of Congress trial, likely for months, to allow for additional pre-trial debate over the role executive privilege could play when the case goes to a jury.


This story is breaking and will be updated.

[dem4decades]

1. Can it be delayed till the next DOJ makes it go away? Always the same bullsht

[Alexander Of Assyria]

15. Since the Judge didnt actually say the trial is delayed months...thats CNN and a title...

i wouldnt panic…and its Judge Mehta.

« Mehta ultimately decided that the issue raised legal questions that needed to be decided before trial, so he postponed its Monday start date.

The judge did not schedule a new date for the trial, and instead set a briefing schedule on the privilege questions that will extend through the end of March. »


2 months.

[Easterncedar]

2. It's beginning to feel a lot like Fitzmas

Still, and on and on

[Walleye]

3. What is this all straightened out in the Watergate case?

Keep on delaying it and all the perps will have died of old age

[Marthe48]

4. Enough with the bs

I wish every freaking person would stop dragging their feet, would stop coddling the accused. They are people living in the U.S.A. and subject to all of the laws thereof. Not a single one of us is 'a little more equal' than any of the rest of us.

If this guy doesn't have anything to hide, if the crime boss traitor doesn't have anything to hide, go tell your side of the story. Not holding my breath.

[FredGarvin]

5. Navarro has a huge legal team behind him

Paid for by dark money.

Ain't America great?

[The Grand Illuminist]

19. Dark money is their key.

And no way to stop it.

[republianmushroom]

6. delayed until the statutes runs out, if that is possible? Then weep it under the rug. Got it judge

that fine old motto is dead.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

17. No.

[Mawspam2]

7. Okay, let it be delayed...

...now sit your ass in the pokey until the trial starts, bail revoked!

[JohnSJ]

8. This country sucks, and it is becoming more clear everyday to me that the major leaders of the

January 6 insurrection against our country, will not be prosecuted if history is any example.

https://theintercept.com/2023/01/24/ultra-podcast-hamilton-fish-nazi/

[llashram]

11. if

all these mofo's were not white. 'Justice' would have been meted out to all of them. And IF this was President Obama, he would be in prison. No doubts

[JohnSJ]

12. most likely

[Grins]

9. What's the phrase? "Justice delayed is justice denied"?

And I don't mean for Navarro; for us!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

16. Its 2 months.

[llashram]

10. WTF!

[Lonestarblue]

13. Sometime last year I read an explanation that executive privilege belongs to the current president.

At the time of the Congressional subpoenas, Navarro and others were no longer close aides to a president who could exert executive privilege because Trump was not president. The DOJ needs to get its act together on this concept.

If executive privilege extends to former presidents, it becomes impossible to investigate crimes because someone like Trump can simply claim that all actions during his administration, including crimes, are protected from investigation because of executive privilege. If it belongs only to the current president, why is this judge (an Obama appointee) allowing Navarro to claim it?

This whole fiasco with Trump has certainly revealed a lot of problems with our system of justice and the DOJ. The opinion that a sitting president who commits a crime cannot be indicted is foolish and needs to be eliminated. Executive privilege needs to end when a presidency ends. The FBI needs to be nonpartisan and investigate Supreme Court nominees instead of refusing to do their jobs.

[msfiddlestix]

22. This 10,000 %

Should be it's own thread.

[PerceptionManagement]

14. Good. It will be much more expensive and damaging to navarro :-)

[tavernier]

18. I swear, the BS that is happening in this country day to day

is just unimaginable. We have truly become a lawless nation. We still have laws and rules, but red tape and loopholes and endless delay tactics have rendered our system dysfunctional. It is really really frustrating.

[riversedge]

20. "So far, Navarro has offered no evidence that Trump made a such an invocation when he was subpoenaed

Seems to me that Navarro would have to have a witness--or written statement by Trump himself.
OR--could Navarro call Trump himself to the stand????



https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/politics/peter-navarro-contempt-of-congress-trial
.................So far, Navarro has offered no evidence that Trump made a such an invocation when he was subpoenaed for documents and testimony by the now defunct House January 6 select committee.

Federal prosecutors bristled at the idea that Navarro should still be allowed to present such evidence, arguing that it doesn’t exist in the first place and that if it did, it would not be up to the jury to decide whether such invocation would have shielded Navarro from the subpoena.

Mehta ultimately decided that the issue raised legal questions that needed to be decided before trial, so he postponed its Monday start date.

The judge did not schedule a new date for the trial, and instead set a briefing schedule on the privilege questions that will extend through the end of March.

Even as they welcomed the delay and the opportunity for more briefing, Navarro’s lawyers were vague on what kind of evidence they would seek to present if given the chance to raise the defense that there had been an invocation of privilege. .......................................

[BumRushDaShow]

21. I remember back then when the subpoena first went out from J6

when the media was swirling around the lack of a response by 45 to invoke ANY "Executive Privilege" for his minions. Of course the issue of whether that could even be done when out of office was also being hotly debated.

The whole Nixon affair that prompted creation of the Presidential Records Act still didn't really deal with what is and is not "Executive Privilege" and if it could even be invoked post-Presidency (except maybe for some exceptions that have to do with national security). They are all relying on the fuzzy DOJ OLC policies.

[ck4829]

23. Kick