BREAKING: Federal court on CONVICTION for Trump aide

[00:00:00]Glenn, there's going to be a major backlash from the Trump administration against a federal appeals court in the aftermath of this latest ruling by an appeals court against one of Donald Trump's top aides. Can you explain what just happened in court?

[00:00:10]>> Yeah, Brian. Trump is never pleased when a court rules against him or one of his loyalists or one of his henchmen, as I would refer to Peter Navarro. But that's who we're talking about here. You know, our viewers will probably remember Peter Navarro was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress. Why? Because he wouldn't testify about or in a real sense against Donald Trump when Congress subpoenaed him. So he was charged, he was convicted, he was sentenced, he went to prison for four months. But he continues to appeal his conviction. But now an appeals court in Washington, D.C.

[00:00:45]just rejected his appeal, rejected his efforts to get his conviction overturned. With his claim all along, Brian, being, "Well, wait a minute. The president invoked executive privilege, which prevented me from testifying." The problem is, and this is what we have come to learn about Donald Trump's lack of loyalty, Donald Trump never invoked executive privilege to try to stop Peter Navarro from testifying. But so, Brian, this is really a good news, bad news story. Because the good news is the court of appeals just said, "Um no, Peter. We're not going to overturn your conviction." But here is what's really at play. There is some nefarious going on here. Because believe it or not, and and this is not something you hear every day, the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche actually abandoned its attempt to try to convince the court of appeals that they should uh affirm, leave intact, Navarro's criminal conviction. DOJ actually filed something with the court some months ago saying, "You know what?

[00:01:56]Um we're not going to take part in this appeal. We're not going to oppose it.

[00:02:00]So, why don't you just go ahead and appoint an outside lawyer, think independent prosecutor, and an amicus, friend of the court, who can come in and make the arguments on behalf of DOJ, cuz we're not going to make these arguments." You know, it's really absurd and it's depraved that the Department of Justice won't even take a position that opposes anything that one of Trump's flunkies, lapdogs, henchmen, like Peter Navarro, wants to argue in court. I mean, we are really in just just a pitch dark on the ethics front when it comes to this Department of Justice, but that's what they did. Never- Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals just said, "Yeah, we're not we're not going to overturn. We're not going to throw out Peter Navarro's conviction." But, you know, here's the thing, all along, Donald Trump could have pardoned Navarro. He could have put an end to this whole thing. But, there is a method to this madness. It's a nefarious method, because what they're trying to do is get Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress conviction bubbled all the way up to the Supreme Court in hopes that maybe the Supreme Court will rule in a way that even further expands Donald Trump's executive power. For example, maybe they're hoping the Supreme Court will say, "You know what? The president doesn't even have to invoke executive privilege. Every member of the executive branch must decline to testify about or in a real sense, practical sense, against um Donald Trump, whether it's in a criminal court, a civil court, whether it's before Congress. I mean, this is a scheme to get this issue up before the Supreme Court, and you know, this and Trump is forever hoping the Supreme Court will rule his way and further expand executive power. Let me try to finish this thought. This is not an easy or intuitive sort of issue that we're tackling here.

[00:04:03]If the president [snorts] invokes executive privilege to try to shut down the testimony before Congress or in court of one of his flunkies, that actually looks a lot like witness tampering or obstructing justice. But if they can get the Supreme Court to say in substance, you know what? Nobody in the executive branch can ever go against the king. Can ever testify in any setting against the president. It actually removes some of the potential taint from a criminal and corrupt president like Donald Trump who might have to sort of squash that testimony by expressly asserting executive privilege. This whole thing We're living in the legal upside down, Brian, where they're trying to create basically precedent that will allow a president to engage in even more criminal conduct. Donald Trump doesn't seem to be satisfied with the unconstitutional ruling that he won in the Supreme Court that he has absolute immunity to commit almost all the crimes he wants against the American people. Um you know, this this is it doesn't really get much darker in today's Department of Justice than what's going on in this nefarious litigation involving Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress convictions.

[00:05:27]>> How is this different from when the DOJ tried to dismiss its own prosecution against Eric Adams in New York? Because remember, they wanted Eric Adams to be able to do their bidding in New York, but they had to keep him on a short leash. And so as kind of a little bit of a carrot to him, they wanted to dismiss their own prosecution for his corruption. Ultimately, they were successful at doing that. They even had to bring in an outside prosecutor to argue against Eric Adams in the absence of the DOJ. And so, why in this instance is this different where an appeals court judge is upholding the conviction of Peter Navarro when previously the DOJ was allowed to completely abandon their position?

[00:06:07]>> Yeah, Brian, it's a great question.

[00:06:08]There are some similarities and some differences. Of course, here they are not trying to get rid of Navarro's conviction. I mean, Trump could have done that with a pardon anytime he wanted. Instead, they wanted to nefariously use that conviction to get the issue before the >> a as a vehicle, basically, so that they can expand Trump's power at the Supreme Court.

[00:06:30]>> Exactly. That's what they're hoping to do there by declining to get rid of Navarro's conviction. Now, let's go up to New York. In the Eric Adams case, they wanted to control Eric Adams. They wanted to kind of keep him as a puppet with Donald Trump being the puppeteer and pulling the strings. So, he'd be a good little mayor and do whatever Donald Trump wanted him to do. But, instead of um keeping that case intact and using it as a vehicle to that end, they wanted to dismiss the case, but preserve the ability to re-indict him and prosecute him anew. They wanted to dismiss it without prejudice to re-bring it, which is just a variation on the theme. What they want to do is pervert the the processes that are in place in the criminal justice system to always work to Donald Trump's advantage to either sort of keep damaging information out of the court system and away from Congress or to try to expand Donald Trump's executive power so he can continue to crime with both impunity and immunity.

[00:07:37]It is a game that's being played in different ways depending on what the case calls for. What I would analogize to is remember Steve Bannon was similarly convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress, exactly like Peter Navarro was. They both violated a subpoena for documents that could have potentially incriminated Donald Trump, and they both violated a subpoena for testimony before Congress that could have incriminated Donald Trump. But but remember, Donald Trump's dirty DOJ officials moved to dismiss Steve Bannon's case, and that motion to dismiss is now pending before the trial court judge who presided over the trial in the first instance instance, but Steve Bannon's case made it through the DC Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, made it up to the Supreme Court, and all of a sudden Donald Trump's dirty DOJ said, "You know what?

[00:08:34]We're going to try to vacate this conviction and dismiss it altogether."

[00:08:38]The reason I believe is because Steve Bannon did not defend his case on a claim that executive privilege shielded him. He he he made other defenses in his case, and he lost. He went down in flames. But because that issue is the issue that Peter Navarro offered at trial, and that issue is the one they want to bubble all the way up to the Supreme Court, they're letting Navarro's criminal case run all the way up the appellate chain, whereas they kicked Steve Bannon's case back down, and they're trying to dismiss it entirely. I think as a prelude to then paying Steve Bannon millions of our taxpayer dollars.

[00:09:22]Why? Well, because if the judge dismisses Steve Bannon's conviction in the interests of justice, as Jeanine Pirro told the court was the reason for moving to dismiss his conviction, what happens? Well, he's going to get a payday on the on taxpayer's dime because they'll be able to hold up that dismissal and say, "You see, it really was dismissed in the interest of justice because he was wrongfully prosecuted in the first place." He wasn't. But, you know, we can throw into the mix how Todd Blanche created the weaponization fund to give Donald Trump control over 1.8 billion of our tax dollars, how he granted, you know, Donald Trump and his family members and his businesses basically immunity for life from IRS audits and potential, you know, tax crime uh investigations and prosecutions. This is a Department of Justice out of control, and it is all operating for the benefit of dear leader, the convicted felon, who presently occupies the Oval Office.

[00:10:24]>> Glenn, do you think that this is bad news for Peter Navarro in the sense that he is being used as little more than a vehicle for Trump to expand his own power, and basically, again, being puppeteered throughout this process, whereas he could have just been granted the gift that would have been Trump's DOJ dismissing this prosecution altogether, or is it just all well and good? Peter Navarro knows what he's in for, and even if this doesn't work out, there's probably a pardon waiting for him at the end of this thing.

[00:10:57]>> You know, I think he is willing to be used as a doormat on which Donald Trump will rub his dirty feet as much as he wants to Donald Trump's own advantage.

[00:11:08]But, but here's the thing, in in normal times, somebody would very much want their criminal conviction to be either overturned or would want it would want to receive a pardon. But, right now, Peter Navarro stands convicted of two crimes, two counts of contempt of Congress. And again, in ordinary times, you know, that might kind of cramp your employment opportunities. But, where is Peter Navarro presently?

[00:11:34]Back in the Trump administration. So, I think Peter Navarro is happy to be used by dear leader because he probably thinks the better off dear leader is, the more he can steal and grift and crime with impunity, well, then maybe the better off one of his lapdogs, his flunkies, his sycophants like Peter Navarro is.

[00:11:55]>> Last question here. This is a federal trial. Obviously, Trump has the ability to pardon anybody who was convicted um in federal court. Are there any state charges that Peter Navarro could be charged with where a presidential pardon wouldn't apply?

[00:12:10]>> If only. But, you know, Brian, a congressional subpoena is uniquely and exclusively federal, has nothing to do with the local um and you know, the the crime of uh disobeying, defying that congressional subpoena is exclusively federal. So, I don't see any viable state crimes, but let me kind of give deliver one more piece of bad news.

[00:12:36]If there was some local implication to what Peter Navarro did, the jurisdiction would be Washington, D.C. and guess what? The only local court in all of the states and the District of Columbia where a presidential pardon does apply, it's in the the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. That's like the local court just like you have a local court in Manhattan, in Miami, in Chicago, in Detroit, and L.A. Well, presidential pardons don't apply to any of those other jurisdictions, but believe it or not, they apply both in federal district court in D.C. and in local Superior Court in D.C. So, in this one, I think we're out of luck.

[00:13:21]>> Got it. Um all important information and again, we will stay on top of this as this process plays out. For those who are watching right now, if you appreciate our legal analysis, the best way to support our work is to subscribe to both of our channels. Those links are right here on the screen. They're also in the post description of this video.

[00:13:36]Completely free to subscribe, but again, a great way to support our work and independent media more broadly. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen.

[00:13:42]>> And I'm Glenn Kirschner.

[00:13:43]>> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.