Trump tried to intervene while Navarro faced trial for contempt of court on January 6

[ad_1]

This confirms President Trump’s position that, as one of his senior advisers, you have an obligation to assert executive privilege on his behalf and to fully comply with the principles of confidentiality stated above when you responded to the subpoena Committee, wrote attorney Evan Corcoran. on behalf of the Trumps.

The letter appeared to be calculated to undercut a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta rejecting Navarros’ effort to dismiss the charges against him. Mehta noted in a 39-page opinion last week that Navarro presented no evidence that Trump actually asserted executive privilege on his behalf even though he made outspoken statements to block the testimony of other former aides.

The defendant failed to provide any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege, Mehta wrote. And, because the alleged assertion of executive privilege was not proven, the Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt.

It is unlikely that Mehta considered the Corcorans’ letter sufficient to derail the Navarros’ trial. Navarro initially claimed in court arguments that Trump told him, in a private conversation, to assert executive privilege before the committee on Jan. 6. But the Corcorans’ letter makes no reference to such an assertion. .

It’s the second time Trump has made a last-second bid to disrupt pending contempt proceedings for aides who defied the select committee. Days before longtime ally Steve Bannon faces a criminal contempt trial, Trump took the opposite tack of writing a letter to Bannon waiving any potential executive privilege and clearing the way for Bannon to testified to the committee. Prosecutors dismissed the gamble as a stunt to disrupt the trial, and Bannon ultimately took no steps to actually comply with the select committee’s subpoena, even after Trump’s express consent.

Navarro, like Bannon, has both claimed they are definitively immune from appearing before the committee Jan. 6 to discuss their involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. They said their sensitive conversations with Trump are protected by executive privilege and therefore Congress cannot compel them to discuss them. But US District Court Judge Carl Nichols rejected Bannon’s argument, noting that longstanding legal precedents do not allow witnesses to defy congressional subpoenas even in assertions of executive privilege. .

And in both cases, prosecutors noted there was no evidence Trump asserted the privilege on behalf of Bannon or Navarros.

[ad_2]