The law firm of choice for internationally focused companies

+263 242 744 677

admin@tsazim.com

4 Gunhill Avenue,

Harare, Zimbabwe

Trump Makes Retroactive Privilege Claim For Advisor Peter Navarro. Which Is … Not How Any Of This Works. – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)

Trump
econ
loon
Peter
Navarro
never
intended
to
hire
a
lawyer.
The
self-proclaimed
expert
on
all
things
from
epidemiology
to
election
law
was
pretty
sure
he
could
be
his
own
best
advocate.
So
when
he
refused
to
engage
with
the
January
6
Select
Committee
citing
executive
privilege,
he
did
it
without
the
advice
of
counsel.

For
weeks
after
his
arrest
for
contempt
of
Congress,
Navarro
continued
to
insist
he’d

go

pro
se

and
beat
the
charges.
Eventually
he
quit
spamming
the
courtroom
clerk
with ex
parte

emails
and
hired
competent
lawyers,
but
the
pleadings
have
scarcely
gotten
less
wild,
even
with

Stanley
Woodward

signing
his
name
on
them.

Indeed,
Navarro’s
lawyers
seem
set
on
repeating
the
exact
same
playbook
that
Steve
Bannon
used
to
get
himself

convicted

of
the
same
charge
last
summer.
They’re
somewhat
hampered
in
this
effort,
however,
because
Navarro,
lacking
counsel
at
the
time,
failed
to
get
even
the

meager
written
instruction

from
Trump
to
“where
appropriate,
invoke
any
immunities
and
privileges
he
may
have
from
compelled
testimony
in
response
to
the
subpoena”
and
“not
produce
any
documents
concerning
privileged
material.”
Where
other
witnesses
used
those
letters
as
a
fig
leaf,
Navarro
showed
his
whole

peach

to
Congress.
So
his
legal
team
has
been
reduced
to

suggesting

that
Trump
made
a
verbal
invocation
of
privilege,
perhaps
whispering
it
in
Navarro’s
ear,
without
submitting
an
affidavit
from
either
the
former
president
or
their
client
that
any
such
thing
actually
occurred.

Lacking
any
actual
evidence,
US
District
Judge
Amit
Mehta

barred

Navarro
from
presenting
executive
privilege,
Navarro’s
subjective
belief
that
Trump
had
asserted
such
a
privilege,
or
selective
prosecution
as
defenses.
This
was
entirely
consonant
with
Judge
Carl
J.
Nichols’s
rulings
in
the
Bannon
case.
Nevertheless,
like
his
buddy
Steve,
with
whom
he
plotted
the
“Green
Bay
Sweep”
fake
electors
scheme,
Navarro
refuses
to
take
no
for
an
answer.

He
immediately
responded
with
an

exhibit
list

that
included
his
own
contemporaneous
emails
expressing
an
intent
to
evoke
privilege
and
sue
the
government,
as
well
as
statements
from
Trump
invoking
privilege
as
to
the
unrelated
coronavirus
congressional
investigation.
Navarro
also
demanded
that
the
House
disclose
all
internal
communications
regarding
his
referral
to
the
Justice
Department,
as
well
as
any
executive
privilege
invocation
by
any
other
witness.

The
government

responded

that
the
communications
regarding
the
Covid
committee
were
irrelevant,
as
was
the
lawsuit
he
filed
against
the
FBI
after
being
indicted,
and

that
Navarro’s
self-serving
statements
are
hearsay.
It
further
refused
to
turn
over
congressional
documents
because,
even
if
the
court
hadn’t
barred
the
reliance
defense,
Navarro
can’t
possibly
claim
to
have
relied
on
something
he’s
just
now
finding
out
in
discovery.

But
Navarro
had
another
trick
up
his
sleeve,
and
this
week
he
presented
the
first
evidence

sort
of 

that
Trump
invoked
privilege
as
to
the
January
6
Committee.
It
comes
in
the
form
of
a

letter

from
Trump’s
lawyer
Evan
Corcoran
to
Navarro
expressing
Trump’s
general
tendency
to
invoke
privilege,
and
“confirm[ing]
President
Trump’s
position
that,
as
one
of
his
senior
advisors,
you
had
an
obligation
to
assert
executive
privilege
on
his
behalf
and
fully
comply
with
the
principles
of
confidentiality
stated
above
when
you
responded
to
the
Committee’s
subpoena.”
The
letter
is
dated
January
23,
i.e.
Tuesday

of
this
week
.
As
in two
days
ago,

or
eleven
months
after
he
was
subpoenaed
by
Congress.

That’s

not
an
affidavit.
It’s
not
even
confirmation
of
Navarro’s
claim
that
Trump
verbally
instructed
him
to
invoke
privilege.
And
it
doesn’t
explain
why
Trump
didn’t
give
Navarro
a
letter
the
way
he
did
for
every
other
senior
advisor.
(Hint:
They
all
hired
lawyers.)

The
Corcoran
letter
accompanies
a

motion

by
the
defendant
asking
the
court
to
reconsider
everything
it
said
seven
days
ago.
Perhaps
Judge
Mehta
would
like
to
let
Navarro
argue
that
he
really
did
believe
that
Trump
had
invoked
a
blanket
privilege?
Or
let
him
make
a
case
for
selective
prosecution
because
other
advisors
who
hired
lawyers
to
engage
with
the
committee,
instead
of
sending
nasty
emails
telling
them
to
pound
sand,
didn’t
wind
up
indicted?

After
all,
he
argues,
“Despite
being
advised
by
President
Biden’s
White
House
Counsel
that,
‘an
assertion
of
executive
privilege
would
not
in
their
view
be
appropriate,’
Mr.
Cipollone’s
counsel
advised
the
Select
Committee
that,
‘Mr.
Cipollone
will
not
speak
about
Presidential

direct
Presidential
communications
as
those
are
privileged.’”

Which
may
not
be
the
massive
own
of
the
DOJ
that
the
defendant
thinks
it
is.
After
all,
Cipollone’s
lawyers
made
sure
he
had
written
confirmation
that
Trump
wanted
him
to
invoke
privilege.
And
he
showed
up
and
testified
at
length
on
everything
that
wasn’t
a
direct
presidential
communication.
In
contrast,
Navarro
gave
the
committee
the
finger
and
refused
to
even
talk
about
his
communications
with
podcaster
Steve
Bannon,
despite
having
written
about
them
extensively
in
his
own
book.

Perhaps
Navarro
and
Bannon
can
get
together
and
come
up
with
a
catchy
name
for

whatever
this
strategy
is
.
Maybe
the
“Potomac
Flop?”
Or
perhaps
the
“Green
Bay
Weep?”

Well,
they’ll
probably
have
a
few
months
of
quiet
time
to
workshop
it


US
v.
Navarro

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.