Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6
Source: The Guardian
Peter Navarro, a top White House adviser to Donald Trump, revealed in a court filing on Monday that he had been ordered to testify before a federal grand jury and produce to prosecutors any records concerning January 6, including communications with the former president. The grand jury subpoena to Navarro, which he said was served by two FBI agents last week, compels him to produce documents to the US attorney for the District of Columbia and could indicate widening justice department action ensnaring senior Trump administration officials. Navarros disclosure about the subpoena came in an 88-page filing that seeks a federal court to declare the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack unlawful, in a desperate move to stop a potential contempt of Congress indictment for defying the panels subpoena.
The grand jury subpoena appeared to be part of a case to hold Navarro in contempt rather than pertaining to the justice departments criminal investigation into the Capitol attack, though the exact nature of the justice department subpoena was not immediately clear. But the new filing, reviewed by the Guardian, that Navarro will submit to the US district court for the District of Columbia, is not expected to succeed beyond causing a nuisance and possibly delaying the justice department from moving on a contempt indictment. The filing is seeking the court to rule that the select committee is not properly constituted and therefore illegal, because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some Republican members put forward by the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.
Since the panel supposedly lacks a Republican minority despite the presence of Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger its subpoenas are unenforceable, the suit argues, and therefore his non-compliance with his subpoena is immaterial and should mean the justice department cannot act on a referral for contempt of Congress. The filing also asks the court to grant an injunction preventing the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, from enforcing a 28 May 2022 grand jury subpoena compelling him to produce documents requested in the select committee subpoena.
Since the subpoena of the Committee is ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable, the US Attorneys Grand Jury Subpoena is likewise ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable and the US Attorney must be enjoined from any actions to enforce this subpoena, Navarro wrote. The argument that the select committee is not properly constituted has been a common charge levelled by some of Trumps allies against the congressional investigation into January 6, as they seek to find any way to avoid having to cooperate with the sprawling investigation. But even as Navarro repeats the claim echoed by prominent Republican members of Congress challenging their subpoenas from the panel, he may find his suit an uphill battle given that multiple federal courts have repeatedly rejected that argument as meritless.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/31/peter-navarro-january-6-subpoena-grand-jury
Garland is doing nothing.


PSPS
(15,044 posts)All of this nonsense will just be dragged out through our "legal system" with endless appeals until he dies of natural causes. I'm surprised these stories still merit more than a column inch on the back page anymore.
dchill
(42,660 posts)Or ignorable.
PSPS
(15,044 posts)dchill
(42,660 posts)DOJ has enforcement capabilities.
angrychair
(11,302 posts)If Republicans have showed us one thing with complete clarity it's that if you have enough political power and money that court and Congressional subpoenas are meaningless.
Example 1: Trump
Example 2: Steve Bannon
Example 3: Mark Meadows
Example 4: Rodger Stone
This list could be a lot longer. If January 6th has taught us anything it's that "yes, some people are above the law".
BumRushDaShow
(161,994 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2022, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
because they have the power to frog-march for "Contempt of Court" vs the limitations of "Contempt of Congress".
Even Stone showed up for his grand jury subpoena (edit - to note it was Bannon that has a court date but Stone was convicted and got pardoned).
PSPS
(15,044 posts)I predict many years of appeals and other delays (and another pardon with the next GOP president.) Stone's been dirty for decades and has never served any time for anything.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)thank you.
BumRushDaShow
(161,994 posts)and every attempt that he has tried for a delay has so far been batted away.
The former Trump adviser is charged with two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot.
April 6, 2022, 5:34 PM EDT
By Pete Williams and Daniel Barnes
WASHINGTON Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon cannot argue at his trial that he is not guilty of contempt of Congress because he was following the advice of his lawyer, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols said such a defense is not available in a contempt of Congress case, dealing Bannons defense a major setback. He faces trial in July.
Its a serious blow, because he doesnt have another good defense, said Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor. Hell now have to make a decision about whether to proceed to trial or try to cut some kind of deal.
A federal grand jury indicted Bannon in November on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. One count accused him of refusing to appear for a deposition, and the other was for declining to produce documents requested by the committee.
If he is convicted, Bannon, who is 68, could be sentenced to a year behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
(snip)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-deals-blow-steve-bannons-legal-defense-upcoming-trial-rcna23314
And I will freely admit that every single time I see your account name, I keep seeing this (downtown here) -

(and I know your name isn't that but still)
