Ex-Adviser Peter Navarro: Trump Ordered Me to Defy Congressional Subpoena

[Nevilledog]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/11/world/covid-omicron-vaccines#a-former-aide-says-trump-has-ordered-him-to-ignore-house-democrats-subpoena-over-the-us-pandemic-response

No paywall
https://archive.ph/fe7Mq

Peter Navarro, who served as trade adviser to former President Donald J. Trump and who fought with government scientists while helping to orchestrate the administration’s coronavirus response, is refusing to respond to a congressional subpoena for documents, telling lawmakers he is following a “direct order” from Mr. Trump not to comply.

House Democrats released Mr. Navarro’s written response to their subpoena on Saturday, along with a letter asking him to appear on Wednesday for a deposition before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which is investigating the federal pandemic response, including whether Trump administration officials interfered with scientific decisions.

“Your blanket refusal to comply with the subpoena in its entirety is improper,” Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the committee chairman and the No. 3 House Democrat, wrote to Mr. Navarro in a letter the committee made public. He added: “It is abundantly clear that you possess information responsive to the subpoena that is not covered by any colorable claims of executive privilege.”

The demand sets up a clash that could result in a move by House Democrats to hold Mr. Navarro in contempt of Congress, if he fails to appear. Last month, another Trump adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, surrendered to authorities after a grand jury indicted him on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide information to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

*snip*

[PortTack]

1. So tell me who are the sheep? You have no control to defy the orange mass and do the right thing?

[C_U_L8R]

2. Jumping off a cliff because Trump told him to

This won't end well for this toadie.

[onecaliberal]

3. It will be fine. Nothing happens to them.

[Volaris]

17. If trump ordered him, doesnt that count as obstruction?

[monkeyman1]

33. very much so !! see what the D.O.J. has to say about this ?

[Volaris]

43. Tbh, probably not much at this point :(

I trust Garland, BUT hes also very clearly an institutionalist, and so whatevers gonna come out of DOJ is gonna take its sweet time.

[monkeyman1]

45. agreed !

[Siwsan]

4. It seems the cult leader has spoken, and he must be obeyed

It's kind of chilling how intimidated these minions have become.

[global1]

5. "Ordered Me" - Really???......

Are you kidding me?

Roll Over - Peter.

Sit - Peter.

Give Me Paw - Peter.

Fetch - Peter.

[JHB]

10. Good Peter. Here you go, boy. Tosses a treat for Peter to snatch from mid-air

Peter discovers it's a old, leftover Trump casino chip. Of the lowest denomination they came in.

[Botany]

6. ATTN Peter Navarro

TFG is no longer President and in so he has no authority over you. If you want to help
TFG cover up his unneeded killing of up to a million Americans because of his failed and
in many cases purposely poorly planned response to the C-19 virus and global pandemic
you go right ahead. TFG will not give a shit if you end jail for contempt.

Son, your reputation is already in the dirt the only thing you can do now is to stand up and do the
right thing and speak honestly about what you can testify to as the truth.

[certainot]

31. if we get the truth we'll find out trump WANTED it to get worse. that is no CT. he

is clearly capable. when it started coming he would have been getting intel briefings and he would have gotten worst case scenarios that involved him being able to declare state of emergency, get out the military, cancel elections, etc.

did he ask those questions?

if he wanted to slow it he would not have told limbaugh, who was clearly working for him since the 2016 primaries, to call it an outright hoax at first, and later to downplay it, politicize masks and vaccinations, etc. he knew ALL rw media followed limbaugh

he saw opportunities to consolidate power and make money on meds etc and dem investigators should assume it.

in oct (surprise) 2014 limbaugh/GOP created an ebola scare, blamed obama and dem immigration policies and turned 9 senate seats.

in 2019 before COVID they were using RW radio to do the same with the congo ebola outbreaks. was russia helping with a social media and radio campaign in congo, getting locals to attack clinics, the same way it's being used still now to attack faucci etc? then they got control of the ebola, but along came COVID

dem investigators have to stop being so naive

[monkeyman1]

34. TFG will post bail for you ! what a dumb ass !

bet he end's up crying for his mommy !!!!

[tanyev]

7. Oh, is Navarro employed by the Trump Organization?

Because that’s the only place Trump has authority to give orders.

[bucolic_frolic]

51. Yeah, that's what I want to know too

TFG is not in power anymore, not Commander-in-Chief. So this is a private, non-governmental order, and it's baloney if Navarro is not a paid employee or consultant of TFG or his companies, and I'd bet none of that is true, so this is about loyalty, the political cult.

[kairos12]

8. Also

My neighbor's dog told me not to go to Costco on the weekends.

Same relevance.

[barbtries]

9. trump is in no position

to order this asshole anything. WTF

Congress needs to start putting these people in cells. it's so frustrating!

[captain queeg]

11. These guys need to go to real jails when charged with contempt

None of those white collar country clubs. 2 months is no big deal depending on where you are locked up.

[calimary]

32. THIS!!!

[bluestarone]

12. A judge some where needs to ORDER

ALL persons subpoenaed to HAVE NO CONTACT with TFG!!

[Mad_Machine76]

21. +1

[calimary]

39. But that assumes they'd obey such an order.

If they’re true followers of him, they’d ignore any such orders and meet with him ANYWAY. HE never follows somebody else’s rules. So why should they?

I think that’s the prevailing “wisdom” with those crackpots.

[onenote]

49. On what legal grounds?

I’m what legal proceeding?

[Jilly_in_VA]

13. Hey Pete!

Has it occurred to you that tfg is no longer president? NO? Well, read the news, boy. Try it sometime.

[twodogsbarking]

14. Typical Trump. Sacrifice others for his benefit.

To contribute call 1-800-sucker. We already have your credit card.

[maxrandb]

15. Please make that sniveling POS Navarro

the first one charged with inherent contempt and locked in a Capitol broom closet.

In the history of the entire world, there are few people more deserving of a ass kicking than fucking Pete Navarro

[Paladin]

16. It's just going to keep on going this way...

...until Democrats develop enough anger and ruthlessness to scare Republicans into doing the proper thing. I wonder if we can put aside decades of wimp behavior, get pissed, and save our democracy. I'm not particularly hopeful...

[femmedem]

18. By saying he's following a direct order, isn't he incriminating TFG?

Ordering someone not to comply with a subpoena is obstruction of justice, isn't it?

[greenjar_01]

30. Conservative Lawyers Brigade will be around shortly to tell you it's a gray area

[ShazzieB]

36. I was getting ready to say the same thing, femmmedem.

I think he just pointed a big fat finger at Trump! Nice going, dude.

[onenote]

47. Not necessarily.

This is the pertinent portion of the obstruction of Congress law (18 USC 1505)

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—


I have my doubts that Trump "ordering" Navarro constituted the use of threats or force and the case law surrounding the meaning of "corruptly" in Section 1505 is confusing enough that it is rare for a case relying on that part of the statute to be brought.

[femmedem]

48. Thank you so much for the relevant portion of the law!

That was so kind of you to look that up.

And also, thank you for explaining that "corruptly" likely doesn't apply either. I would have thought it would have been a slam dunk, not knowing that it isn't clearly written.

TFG is so stupid about so many things, but unfortunately he is smart enough to imply threats without specifying threats in a way that could come back and bite him in court.

[Escurumbele]

54. Won't this part covers his criminality "obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration"

By telling him to not respond to the subpoena he is "obstructing and impeding".

That should cover it, doesn't it?

[onenote]

56. Only applies if the obstruction occurs "corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any any threatening

letter or communication"

I doubt that Trump's communication to Navarro was threatening (or needed to be to get Navarro to refuse to cooperate with the committee).

[femmedem]

61. Jennifer Rubin has a new column about "corruptly."

I noticed last night that Rachel Maddow used the word "corruptly" without discussing the law when talking about the effort to stop the certification.

Now Jennifer Rubin writes about a recent court ruling:

"The judge made a critical finding that the counting of the electoral votes in the House is an “official proceeding.” Her logic is airtight: “There is a presiding officer, a process by which objections can be heard, debated, and ruled upon, and a decision — the certification of the results — that must be reached before the session can be adjourned. Indeed, the certificates of electoral results are akin to records or documents that are produced during judicial proceedings, and any objections to these certificates can be analogized to evidentiary objections.”

The opinion gets even more interesting. The defendants argued that “corruptly” in the obstruction statute is too vague, but the judge rejected that with some ominous implications for those who plotted to halt the electoral vote counting: In this sense, the plain meaning of “corruptly” encompasses both corrupt (improper) means and corrupt (morally debased) purposes. … The Court agrees that § 1512(c)’s proscription of knowing conduct undertaken with the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or influence the proceeding provides a clear standard to which the defendant can conform his behavior.

Because the defendants’ plan to violently enter the Capitol and disrupt the counting was “independently criminal,” she wrote, the defendants could be prosecuted for obstruction. In other words, they knew what they were doing was illegal. The judge — no doubt aware of the larger audience — added that “other cases, such as those involving lawful means ... will present closer questions.” That might, for example, involve someone who raised spurious objections to the electoral votes or urged a state to devise an alternative slate of electors.

What does this say about other defendants should Friedrich’s reading of the corruption law hold up? It is a blockbuster: If President Donald Trump and his cronies sought to stop the House proceedings (for example, by extorting Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, inducing election state officials to commit fraud or pressuring the Justice Department to declare the election fraudulent), they too might find themselves on the wrong side of an obstruction charge.

Full column: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/14/federal-court-has-ruled-that-obstructing-electoral-vote-count-is-illegal-trump-should-panic/

Edited to add: I just saw that the column is already posted on DU: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216143416

[Captain Zero]

62. Yes. It's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by TFG.

How can that not be?.
I think he's guilty of obstruction.
Out in the open.

[Takket]

19. that is certainly a wise thing to do...

as opposed to deciding whether or not to obey a Congregational subpoena on the advice of, say, oh i don't know... a lawyer? Yeah, definitely the right move to not testify because drumpf says so, because I'm sure drumpf has Navarro's best interests at heart, and would never advise someone to risk going to prison for contempt just because drumpf wants to cover his own ass.

Yeah, listen to drumpf, not a lawyer.

[Cracklin Charlie]

20. The hyena...

Is he implicating tfg in a crime here?

[Pantagruel]

22. "I was just following orders"

That defense has a weak track record.

[Thomas Hurt]

23. The Pig is not in office anymore, Navarro doesn't work for him anymore.

Still rolled over and pissed himself like puppy.

[Buns_of_Fire]

24. Also, Peter, your daily butt-smoochie session with Lord Rump

has been rescheduled for 2:45. Adjust your schedule accordingly.

[bucolic_frolic]

25. Obstruction .. obstruction .. obstruction is good enough for me

[PatrickforB]

26. PRISON. He is a traitor.

[NCjack]

60. He wins the "soap on a rope" prize.

[TNNurse]

27. You take "orders" from this person who has no authority

to give orders??? You have no self respect. I hate to think how else you demean yourself

You are essentially his "boy" or his "whore" whichever apply.

He will never see this, but it made me feel better to write it.

[monkeyman1]

46. what ya expect out of madame donny !!!!

[LittleGirl]

28. What about that personal responsibility?

Always blaming someone else for their behavior.

[greenjar_01]

29. Who takes orders from private citizen with no supervisory role over you?

ROFL

What a herb.

[dchill]

35. Pretty sure Navarro's contempt is inherent.

[Mr.Bill]

37. If they had arrested Bannon and held him without bail,

the others would be lining up to testify.

[George II]

38. Spineless sycophant.

[bringthePaine]

40. that "order" is also clearly obstruction - win/win

[onenote]

58. Not under the relevant statute.

See post #47

[Bristlecone]

41. How is this not obstruction by Trump and contempt by Navarro?

[onenote]

57. See post #47

[spanone]

42. What do all these criminals have to hide? Were they not doing 'the peoples' work?

Criminal Contempt.

[sinkingfeeling]

44. Sounds like the Mafia.

[Harker]

50. I'll issue a contravening order immediately.

Trumpsky has no more authority than I.

[The Wizard]

52. What a bullshit artist

Get out of town and move to the Soviet Union. Putin has a special salt mine for people like Navarro.
A subpoena is a legal order. Claiming to be Trump's slave is of no legal value.

[samsingh]

53. isn't that a crime in itself?

[struggle4progress]

55. "I swear that I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the Reich and people, Donald Trump"

[struggle4progress]

59. 18 USC 1512

... (b) whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to —

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to —

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

63. My former boss, who now has no actual power except among his followers,

Told me to do something which I know is illegal, and which has no upside for me, but is good for him. Even though he is notorious for not standing by those who get into trouble on his behalf, I obey. Is that an accurate summary?