House Select Commitment on Jan6th finally subpoenas Peter Navarro but don’t expect anything…updated with case law

I’m begging you to stop listening or believing the Blue QANON. Conversely have any of their predictions ever come to fruition? Spoiler of course not because their predictions are not grounded in facts

One on my readers asked an excellent question - I’ve updated with my response because I think it would be instructive for my readers to read my lengthy answer to their excellent question -update at the bottom of this article…

January 6th Committee @January6thCmte

The Select Committee subpoenas former White House trade advisor Peter Navarro. The committee is seeking records and testimony from Navarro, who, according to reporting, interviews, and his own book, was involved in efforts to delay election certification and change the results.

To be clear (and I certainly welcome your skepticism) I think it’s foolish to expect that Peter Navarro, Steven Bannon et al will suddenly “see the light” and willingly cooperate. Meaning I do not think it’s realistic that Navarro will actually comply with the lawful Congressional Subpoena. Why? Well if past is prologue then only an idiot would expect a sudden about face from Donald J Trump’s inner circle.

Notwithstanding it is not lost on a lot of us that the targets of the House Select Committee’s subpoenas, somehow justify a lucrative book deal but only to later invoke some non-existent privilege.

Again this is not me criticizing the House Select Committee. The amount of work the House Select Committee has accomplished in a relatively short amount of time is laudable and as I’ve previously stated;

…I trust the House Select Committee on Jan 6th & you should too…

What I am trying to do is to reasonably set your expectations. In some respect today’s subpoena (see letter) is pro forma but the Committee needs to establish a record that they attempted to use every arrow in their quiver. Hence the likely outcome will literally be the following

• Navarro files a Lawsuit in the Federal District Court

• Navarro capitulates, (in short running the 117th Congress clock down)

• Navarro reluctantly appears and then asserts his fifth amendment rights

Again this is really more of the House Select Committee getting Navarro on the record, specifically allowing Navarro to show he has zero intention of cooperating or telling the truth. As the House Select Committee on Jan6th, cover letter states…

…Navarro reportedly worked with Steve Bannon and others to develop and implement a plan to delay Congress’s certification of, and ultimately change the outcome of, the November 2020 presidential election. In his book, Mr. Navarro described this plan as the “Green Bay Sweep.” 

In an interview, Mr. Navarro reportedly added that former President Trump was “on board with the strategy,” as were “more than 100” members of Congress. Mr. Navarro also released on his website a three-part report, dubbed the “Navarro Report,” repeating many claims of purported fraud in the election that have been discredited in public reporting, by state officials, and courts.

The interesting dichotomy is in some respects Navarro is profiting off the same unfounded election fraud conspiracies (lies) and he’s simultaneously attempting to put some daylight between himself and the Domestic Terrorist that attacked the citadel of our Democracy. All while taking his queues from Team Trump. And you might disagree with me, but Pence’s staff have been far more valuable witnesses than the likes of Bannon, Stone, Navarro et al…

“…The Green Bay Sweep was very well thought out. It was designed to get us 24 hours of televised hearings.”

With respect to some of the TV interviews cited in today’s letter - I am fairly confident that the House Select Committee is specifically referencing this MSNBC interview (full disclosure I largely stopped watching MSNBC because I felt like I was getting my news from a secular eco-chamber) and lately I’ve largely watched either CNN or PBS or BBC news. I mean some of you might remember the 5 week Fox News diet that I consumed. It was a long five weeks but in my industry if you successfully out maneuver an opponent that requires you to think like your opponent.

And I’m also going to point out -even with Pete Navarro’s book and his numerous interviews where he expounded on “the coup” (stop reading now if you don’t want to be pissed off at me) there’s nothing criminal about Navarro’s book or subsequent interviews. With one important caveat - if there’s documentation that proves Navarro coordinated with the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and/or III%ers then perhaps we can discuss the potential criminal liability. But I’m beseeching you to stop give your brain power to the Twitter Blue-QANON —they don’t know what they are tweeting about.

Frankly it is beyond exhausting trying to scream louder than the Blue-QANON-screaming goats. Again I’ve always strived to give my readers the facts, copious original documents and snark which are occasionally sprinkled with some spiciness. When tell you that Peter Navarro’s “report, his book and his interviews” I do not see any criminal exposure for him. That’s me telling you how the judicial system and the DC machine work. Again my previous assertion will dramatically change if (or when) there’s documentation that shows a direct nexus between the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, III%ers and other smaller militia groups (when are we ever going to actually talk about the “army of god” militia?)

So if you genuinely believe that Peter Navarro’s is a criminal Jan6th coup-mastermind. Please indicate specific statutes and behavior that make you convinced that the DOJ will indict Navarro. Spoiler there isn’t any. However I agree that Navarro likely stepped right up to the line of criminality but never actually crossed it. And like I previously stated it is exhausting seeing so much disinformation and misinformation saturating social media and the overall discussion. However because I know that my current position might not be popular… just listen to Rep Adam Schiff’s answer when the MSNBC anchor pressed him on “is the Justice Department doing all that it should be”

repadamschiff

A post shared by Adam Schiff (@repadamschiff)

At any rate I would also highly recommend that you (re)read the December 28, 2021 Daily Beast Article, titled:

Trump Adviser Peter Navarro Lays Out How He and Bannon Planned to Overturn Biden’s Electoral Win

…in my view that Daily Beast Article is one of the more comprehensive articles published, specifically examining Peter Navarro’s role in the deadly Jan6th domestic terror attack…

PS after three grueling weeks, never giving an inch and what my bosses repeatedly say to me;

“kid you’ve got nerves of steel -you make grown men cry”

Today I proved to them, once again why they renew my contract and pay me pursuant to the Ts & Cs of my contract. I’m pretty sure some of my bosses didn’t think I could do it - oh but I did and our client is extraordinarily happy that the lobbying resulted in [redacted] nomination being pulled. So I’m taking tomorrow off but here’s your prerequisite salt water therapy. Today was a good day and I may have made a grown man cry. And that satisfies my very tiny cold black heart.

file411_dc

A post shared by File411 (@file411_dc)

-Filey

---

February 9, 2022 -11:30PM update

I was asked a really excellent question concerning Navarro’s “potential” criminality, see below for my (albeit wordy answer), below:

this is going to be a wordy response to your excellent question & I’m going to give you actual documents and/or case law;

18 U.S.C. §371 (see https://tinyurl.com/57b887u6 ) which reads in part;

“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…”

The terminology of the “defraud clause," <—that essentially prohibits (criminalizes) conspiracies to defraud the United States, however SCOTUS has long held that “defraud” is a very broad term.

See Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910) —>see the Law Library of Congress for the aforementioned case; https://tinyurl.com/5e6wmtxy in whichSCOTUS held:

“To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention”

Also see SCOTUS Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924), see LLOC link https://tinyurl.com/5e6wmtxy —Here SCOTUS affirmed their previous holding in Hass BUT Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

…“The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

Peter Navarro’s book and subsequent interviews are likely considered “protected speech” —which is why I specifically left the opening; that if documentation emerges and it proves an actual “nexus:” from Navarro to Trump to Oath Keepers, Proud Boys etc then YES I would reconsider my current position.

The point is some saying the DOJ “will indict” Navarro <—that’s an uniformed position because if you reread the two cases cited —that’s why I said that I can’t actually argue that Navarro committed a crime, specifically “seditious conspiracy” or “conspiracy to defraud”

In layman’s terms prosecutors would need to establish that Navarro’s actions (again I could be wrong but I believe his book & interviews are considered protected speech)

1. Navarro cheated the government out of money/property;

2. Navarro directly interfered or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or

3. Navarro wrongfully used “a governmental instrumentality”

Prosecutors are required to prove beyond :reasonable doubt” that Navarro engaged in one of the three actions stated above. Moreover “the intent” required to prosecute “conspiracy to defraud the government” -this requires prosecutors to prove the defendant possessed the intent (state of mind):

• (a) to defraud,

• (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency… which then caused the disruption of the functions of the agency or of the government.

The government must prove that the defendant knew that at the time the statements were made, the Defendant knew were false or fraudulent. Conversely the government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions.

See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).”.it is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

Don’t get me wrong do I “feel” like one could argue that Navarro did violate 18 U.S.C. 371 kind of but is there concrete proof, no, at at this time. I do however think if evidence and/or documentation proves Navarro he broke the law. Then, yes of course, I’m open to changing my position if there’s actual documentation that Navarro was part of a conspiracy - specifically see 18 USC 2384: Seditious conspiracy See —> https://tinyurl.com/4adt94ht

I hope that makes sense or at least provides you with additional info. Again I’d love to see Trump, Giuliani, Bannon, Stone. Waldron, Powell, Flynn, & Navarro indicted but I also understand the elements that prosecutors must prove. At the bare minimum if the DOJ isn’t investigating Donald J Trump & his cohorts for seditious conspiracy —then that’s a big problem. However based on public information and belief there’s nothing in the current record which insinuates that the DOJ is not investigating Trump et al. Case in point see the January 5, 2022 article concerning the DOJ & Trump…

Attorney General Garland did NOT make an announcement of a Special Counsel but boy he threw down like a judicial gladiator