In the DOJ v. Navarro battle, bet Garland
An explanation about the decision not to prosecute Meadows and Scavino
The fallout of recent House votes to find Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, and Peter Navarro in Contempt of Congress has netted one indictment — against Navarro, Trump’s chief economic advisor.
Many on the Left were somewhat frustrated, but needlessly so. Many on the Right, if you can withstand the blaring tone of FoxNews, were elated about the Department of Justice nixing plans to prosecute the Former Chief of Staff and former Director of Communications. That elation is misplaced.
A couple of things:
First, Peter Navarro was indicted by a grand jury which means the Justice Department thought it important enough to put a grand jury into place to indict Navarro1. Peter Navarro, sans lawyer, has refused to cooperate with Select House Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol.
Second, Mark Meadows has cooperated with the House Committee insofar as he has turned over document and emails. Mark Meadows just won’t be interviewed and he has the best argument possible for claiming “executive privilege” — not only was he Trump’s Chief of Staff, he is a licensed attorney. So, Meadows understands his legal obligation to turn over subpoenaed documents and he is within ethical boundaries fairly safe claiming a privilege against submitting to interviews with the Committee. Plus, the charges likely coming against Meadows go beyond contempt — it’s already being reported Meadows burned sheafs of documents in a White House firepfireplaceace2 — a much bigger legal problem.
Third, Contempt of Congress is a thin charge — hard to prove and harder to get a conviction on. The fact that Navarro was indicted is telling. The DOJ seems pretty sure they can get a conviction. In the offices of U.S. Attorneys — pretty sure is about 99.6% (that’s their conviction rate after indictment).
Fourth, while Dan Scavino is not an attorney, his position as Director of Communications fits neatly into into the concept of “executive privilege” — he gives advice to the executive, in this case President Trump, and former President Trump has the right to keep those communications, to an extent, confidential. Get that? The privilege belongs to Trump not to Scavino or Meadows. Or Peter Navarro or Steve Bannon for that matter.
Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were indicted for Contempt of Congress because at some point Donald Trump was not getting “presidential communications” nor was it “deliberative”. Executive privilege fails when it falls outside of presidential communications.3
Donald Trump was trying to overtturn an election that he lost. By late December 2020, Trump was grasping at straws, illegally so, and Navarro and Bannon were aiding and abetting that process.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/03/navarro-indicted-for-contempt-of-congress-after-defying-jan-6-committee-subpoena-00037069
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-meadows-avoids-contempt-charges-after-being-seen-burning-documents-2022-6
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf This is worth downloading — the issue will be all the rage in the coming weeks.