228

Judge says former Trump adviser Peter Navarro has failed to show Trump asserted executive privilege (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The judge overseeing Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress case ruled in a pre-trial hearing Wednesday that the former Trump adviser "has not met his burden" to show a formal assertion of executive privilege by former president Donald Trump.

Navarro will stand trial on criminal contempt of Congress next week for defying subpoenas issued to him by the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In a lengthy ruling, Judge Amit Mehta said that Navarro did not provide evidence that Trump asserted executive privilege specific to the Jan 6. committee's subpoena.

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 64 points 10 months ago

This is actually one I've been waiting for. It's about goddamn time some of these jackasses start seeing the inside of a courtroom for defying congressional subpoenas.

[-] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

💀

[-] paintbucketholder@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

Flashback:

Under Navarro's plan, dubbed the "Green Bay Sweep," former Vice President Mike Pence was to send disputed election results back to the states, thereby forcing hours of debate on Capitol Hill.

"It was a perfect plan," Navarro said in an interview late last year with the Daily Beast. "And it all predicated on peace and calm on Capitol Hill. We didn't even need any protesters, because we had over 100 congressmen committed to it."

Now that the masterminds behind the plan to end democracy in America in order to install an unelected dictator are seeing some consequences, how about we also go after co-conspirators like those "over 100 congressmen" who were so happy to go along with it?

[-] Rootiest@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago

Imagine if we like really did "drain the swamp" and suddenly started holding all these fucks accountable and just replaced them all with people who will really work for our best interests?

[-] DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago

Start with the Republican congressmen who spent fucking July 4 as guests in Russia attending off-the-record meetings with Russian counterparts

[-] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

💀

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

For me, it’s been tough waiting for the grownups to get their plans completely finished to be able to crush these people.

The morons took the quiet as a permission to keep spewing out incriminating evidence.

I kept screaming NOW!, but the grownups said not now, they are still digging their own graves.

So this is really fun

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

And FYI Trump can't exert executive privilege NOW because he isn't the executive anymore. Biden could exert that privilege on his behalf, but good luck with that.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 7 points 10 months ago

I could have swore this was already decided, but I guess it has to be done case by case...

[-] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

Fuck Navarro! Fuck, fuck Navarro!

[-] RoccosBasilisk@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Oh no!... Anyway...

[-] Talkurt@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago

I thought that was Tommy Lee Jones.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Wish version Tommy Lee Jones.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Tommy lee jones would punch you straight in the mouth for that comment.

[-] morphballganon@mtgzone.com 1 points 10 months ago

Looks more like Sir Anthony Hopkins in the thumbnail imo

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

He drank it, at lunch!

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023

228 points (99.6% liked)

politics

18075 readers

2945 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News