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
Part of why I published this article is I could already see the chatter that “the DOJ gonna indict Navarro” <—nothing could be further from the truth -right now I’m finishing up my research on the PRA and plan to publish tomorrow. I don’t know if it’s the Blue-QANON’s insatiable thirst to be relevant or they genuinely believe the bullshit they tweet but to suggest Navarro’s going to be indicted is not at all grounded in the facts or the ever growing public record. I’m sorry if that is difficult pill for some of my readers to swallow but it’s the unfiltered facts. I just don’t see the DOJ indicting Navarro - absent an iron mountain truck load of documents to prove he coordinated with the domestic terrorist.
It is my understanding that you dont not have to be aware of an entire conspiracy in order to be considered a co-conspirator because part of this Spaghetti throwing was the fraudulent electors and forged state documents as encouraged by Trump campaign AND Giuliani who was also trying to set up voting machine seizures… all of which they KNEW was a lie. And I still believe the Tweet from the head of the proud boys saying he was personally invited to the WH despite the pushback from WH that it was a regular PUBLIC tour in the middle of a pandemic. They have a manifest for that? My point is only how is ALL OF THIS IN COMBINATION not a conspiracy to Defraud the United States?
“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 conspiracies to defraud the United States -however SCOTUS has long held —> defraud is a very broad term.
See Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910) —>see LLOC (law library of Congress) https://tinyurl.com/5e6wmtxy SCOTUS 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”
See Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) —> see LLOC https://tinyurl.com/5e6wmtxy -here SCOTUS affirmed their previous holding in Hass BUT Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:
“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.”
Peter Navarro’s book and subsequent interviews are likely “protected speech” which is why I 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. Don’t get me wrong do I “feel” like Navarro did violate 18 U.S.C. 371 kind of -do I think he broke the law, not so much but as I said 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.
It just seems to me that “Stop the Steal” - was all about deceit regardless of the 1/6 violence. How can fraudulent electors or a coordinated effort to throw out the electoral college all together and send it back to the house not be seen as deceitful? All was based on what they knew to be lies. So Im confused why the conspiracy has to be linked to actual violence. Navarro suggests their “plot” would have worked had it not been for the violence that interrupted it. Giuliani “testified” to state legislators - had his law license suspended because he had no evidence and was basically just making crap up.
This said… I read nearly ALL those links. And I thank you so much!!! Watching the GOP twist themselves into pretzels to excuse Trump’s malfeasance at every opportunity just tells me the law is only as good as those willing to enforce it. And for some unknown reason, Trump is clearly above it at every turn. No wonder he doesn’t even bother to try.
Thank you for the information. Things are a little clearer with this. I can now see your argument about the difficulties of indicting Navarro. To the person who asked the question, it was a great one !
Things that make you go mmm. I never considered Navarro to be just across the criminal line...good to have food for thought
Part of why I published this article is I could already see the chatter that “the DOJ gonna indict Navarro” <—nothing could be further from the truth -right now I’m finishing up my research on the PRA and plan to publish tomorrow. I don’t know if it’s the Blue-QANON’s insatiable thirst to be relevant or they genuinely believe the bullshit they tweet but to suggest Navarro’s going to be indicted is not at all grounded in the facts or the ever growing public record. I’m sorry if that is difficult pill for some of my readers to swallow but it’s the unfiltered facts. I just don’t see the DOJ indicting Navarro - absent an iron mountain truck load of documents to prove he coordinated with the domestic terrorist.
It is my understanding that you dont not have to be aware of an entire conspiracy in order to be considered a co-conspirator because part of this Spaghetti throwing was the fraudulent electors and forged state documents as encouraged by Trump campaign AND Giuliani who was also trying to set up voting machine seizures… all of which they KNEW was a lie. And I still believe the Tweet from the head of the proud boys saying he was personally invited to the WH despite the pushback from WH that it was a regular PUBLIC tour in the middle of a pandemic. They have a manifest for that? My point is only how is ALL OF THIS IN COMBINATION not a conspiracy to Defraud the United States?
…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 conspiracies to defraud the United States -however SCOTUS has long held —> defraud is a very broad term.
See Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910) —>see LLOC (law library of Congress) https://tinyurl.com/5e6wmtxy SCOTUS 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”
See Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) —> see LLOC https://tinyurl.com/5e6wmtxy -here SCOTUS affirmed their previous holding in Hass BUT Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:
“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.”
Peter Navarro’s book and subsequent interviews are likely “protected speech” which is why I 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. Don’t get me wrong do I “feel” like Navarro did violate 18 U.S.C. 371 kind of -do I think he broke the law, not so much but as I said 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.
It just seems to me that “Stop the Steal” - was all about deceit regardless of the 1/6 violence. How can fraudulent electors or a coordinated effort to throw out the electoral college all together and send it back to the house not be seen as deceitful? All was based on what they knew to be lies. So Im confused why the conspiracy has to be linked to actual violence. Navarro suggests their “plot” would have worked had it not been for the violence that interrupted it. Giuliani “testified” to state legislators - had his law license suspended because he had no evidence and was basically just making crap up.
This said… I read nearly ALL those links. And I thank you so much!!! Watching the GOP twist themselves into pretzels to excuse Trump’s malfeasance at every opportunity just tells me the law is only as good as those willing to enforce it. And for some unknown reason, Trump is clearly above it at every turn. No wonder he doesn’t even bother to try.
Thank you for the information. Things are a little clearer with this. I can now see your argument about the difficulties of indicting Navarro. To the person who asked the question, it was a great one !