The votes came in along predictable party lines, 220-203, with the only two Republicans voting to hold Trump cronies Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress today for their refusal to cooperate with the January 6 Committee being Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Once again and always, kudos to those two for having the balls to come down on the right side of history. The Hill:
Scavino and Navarro have both claimed they cannot cooperate with the committee due to executive privilege concerns. While Scavino was referenced in a letter from Trump’s attorney raising that issue, the former president has not done the same for Navarro.
President Biden has said he would not claim executive privilege for either man.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Jan. 6 committee who was also the lead House Democratic prosecutor during Trump’s second impeachment, said the two men “have blown us off completely,” and alluded to the multiple subpoenas issued to Scavino.
“If 90 percent of success in life is just showing up, then 90 percent of acting in contempt of congress is not showing up by failing to respond to multiple subpoenas you’ve been lawfully served,” he said.
Where this gets laughable, and fast, is that the executive privilege gambit was never going to hold water to begin with, but now, this particular week, after the testimonies of both Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump — the latter especially — there is NO WAY that they can make that concept fly, Navarro in particular because he never got Trump to play along the way Scavino did. They would have better luck putting paper mache wings on a rhinoceros, and escaping the jaws of justice with that legal device, than they will have arguing legal privilege applies to their communications with Trump on January 6.
Adding to this comedy — and to the consternation of Navarro and Scavino — is the fact that Bennie Thompson has not chosen to reveal what Ivanka said in her testimony. He wouldn’t even give a hint by answering whether “anything new” had been revealed by her. His response to a reporter who asked that was, “Nice try.”
So, you’ve got a situation where mums the word regarding what Trump’s family members testified about and now it’s time for the contempt of Congress charge just voted upon regarding these two bozos to go gently down the stream to the Department of Justice.
But reportedly they’re not worried about it, or at least Navarro is not. He attended a gala at Mar-a-Lago recently where a 42-minute “documentary” called “Rigged: The Zuckerberg Funded Plot to Defeat Donald Trump” produced by Citizens United President and Trump ally David Bossie, starring Kellyanne Conway and other Trump advisers, claims to prove how Facebook helped Democrats by pouring money into states for voter turnout and education efforts. Washington Post:
The fraud fete on a sweltering spring night showed how much Trump and the ecosphere around him remain focused on the last election and his false claims of fraud — and how he now inhabits a cosseted club life where he is the roundly cheered, and rarely challenged, star who everyone pays to see. As he traversed the club, he repeatedly asked guests and members about fraud in certain states and offered vague claims of explosive findings that he said were still to come. […]
When Peter Navarro, the former Trump adviser who posited some of the most extreme theories on overturning the election and is now under contempt proceedings by the House of Representatives, barreled into the room late, longtime Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski hollered out “Doctor!” and embraced him.
“Oh that vote,” Navarro said dismissively of the contempt proceedings against him, as he walked into the ballroom for the screening before all other guests, seeming a man without a care in the world.
Yeah, that vote. The fact of the matter is that even in a best case scenario situation with Trump asking for executive privilege, Navarro never had a prayer, considering how he’s gone on right-wing media and written a book about his experiences in the Trump White House. But it was a nice fantasy to hold onto just to have something to say, especially in lieu of any better legal theories, which are unfortunately non existent.
We’ll see if Navarro goes so blithely through what is about to come.