Peter Navarro Had No Privileged Communications with Donald Trump’s Lawyer

Peter Navarro has been indicted.

I’m less excited about this indictment than virtually everyone else, because I know how easily Navarro will be able to stall a prosecution, particularly given that — unlike Steve Bannon — he was a high ranking government official when the events in question occurred (though also one who wrote a book about those events). I also know that the ultimate punishment for this is just a month in jail — not really the kind of punishment I’d like to see architects of a coup attempt face.

That said, there’s a detail about the indictment that does excite me.

Navarro made all the same empty excuses that Bannon did to avoid testifying, basically invoking Executive Privilege without requiring Trump invoke privilege on a question by question basis.

Oh, and also, he had already written a book about the issue.

In the case of Bannon, though, those discussions about invoking privilege to cover up his actions on January 6 were done through a lawyer, Robert Costello. Any communications between Costello and Trump’s lawyer will be privileged.

Navarro, however, represented himself. So the content of his communications with Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, will not be privileged. So the evidence against Navarro may quickly get more interesting than that against Bannon.

That’s the kind of thing that excites me.

92 replies
  1. !? says:

    “Navarro, however, represented himself. So the content of his communications with Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, will not be privileged.”

    That’s interesting. One wonders if Navarro was under the impression he was privileged? Or just arrogance?

    • Scott Johnson says:

      So conversations between my lawyer and someone else’s lawyer are (potentially) privileged, but were I to be representing myself pro se, my conversations with someone else’s lawyer would not be?

        • Citizen 42 says:

          The Cornell Law article doesn’t actually address Scott Johson’s question, which concerns communications between two different counsel representing two different persons, not communications between an individual attorney and an individual client (or potential client). So his question is really alongs these lines: “If a privilege exists for communications between retained counsel for different parties, why does a similar privilege not exist for comunications between a self-representing party (i.e., a party acting acting as his or her own attorney) and the attorney for an opposing party?”
          The implications of “Any communications between [Bannon lawyer Robert] Costello and Trump’s lawyer will be privileged. Navarro, however, represented himself. So the content of his communications with Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, will not be privileged” are (1) there is a privilege for communications between lawyers representing different persons, and (2) the privilege does not apply when one of the persons is pro se. Like Johnson, I’m puzzled (and troubled) by that seeming distinction, and I wonder whether it’s true.
          I no longer have access to Westlaw or Lexis, so I’m stuck with Johnson’s sources. I’ve run several searches in both standard Google and Google Scholar for court decisions [,14]. If the answer regarding this distinction is there, it’s buried deeper than I’ve been able to find, and I’ve written a book about the innards of computer-asisted legal research. I still don’t know whether that distinction is true.
          There are certain circumstances in which the attorney-client privilege can apply, by extension or analogy, to communications between attorneys representing different persons (e.g., litigants presenting a common claim or defense — a situation the Cornell Law article does not address, even by implication). Navarro seems to be trying to position himself in that relationship to Trump so that his communications with Trump’s lawyer would be seen as akin to those between two lawyers representing parties with a common claim or defense. I think it’s a stretch, but if you’re in Navarro’s situation, you probably roll the dice.

          • Rayne says:

            Look, Congress has already had to do the legwork on claims of privilege. Their research service summarizes the body of knowledge available.

            Executive Privilege and Presidential Communications: Judicial Principles (May 2022)

            Legal Sidebar: Executive Privilege and the January 6 Investigations (Sep 2021)

            There’s also a report on the persons outside the executive office as well though this is more pertinent to Bannon than Navarro.

            Executive Privilege and Individuals outside the Executive Branch (Oct 2019)

            What you need to ask yourself is whether any of the communications and actions taken were 1) part of the function and operation of the executive branch or related to Trump’s re-election campaign, because the latter has no privilege; 2) whether Trump’s attorney acted as a government employee or a campaign employee; 3) whether the communications and acts being investigated were in the furtherance of a crime.

            The House J6 Committee is investigating crimes about which they need to address the legislative failures which failed to prevent the crimes, all of which is part of Congressional oversight of the executive branch. Just as Congress investigated Nixon’s abuse of office and subpoenaed his tapes, they are demanding testimony and evidence which does not have absolute immunity under executive privilege. You’d do well to revisit United States v Nixon; if you’re old enough to yap about the Warren Court, you’re old enough to remember the 18-minute gap and the eventual unanimous SCOTUS decision.

            Navarro’s gambled when he needed insurance — that’s just plain stupid. He looks like a privileged ass who thinks he’s above the law.

            As for Scott Johnson: he has a nasty habit of cluttering threads with “just asking questions” when he could have looked up all the information I just spelled out here. For that matter, so could you, it’s all publicly available on the internet and a former police officer and retired lawyer should be able to find it in within a couple dozen key strokes. Try harder. We don’t have time for this.

            • Citizen 42 says:

              The text of Marcy’s post that set the context for my comment is not about whether a valid claim of executive privilege exists, but that Navarro didn’t use a lawyer when he communicated with Trump’s lawyer and therefore the communication with Trump’s lawyer is not privileged:

              “Navarro made all the same empty excuses that Bannon did to avoid testifying, basically invoking Executive Privilege without requiring Trump invoke privilege on a question by question basis.
              “. . . .
              “In the case of Bannon, though, those discussions about invoking privilege to cover up his actions on January 6 were done through a lawyer, Robert Costello. Any communications between Costello and Trump’s lawyer will be privileged.
              “Navarro, however, represented himself. So the content of his communications with Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, will not be privileged. . . .”

              Regardless of whether Scott Johnson is a Tucker Carlson “just asking questions” troll, I had the same question about Marcy’s assertion regarding the attorney-communication privilege before I read Johnson’s. As Marcy wrote (and I agree), “Navarro made all the same empty excuses that Bannon did to avoid testifying.” But that has nothing to do with distinguishing a possible privilege for Bannon’s communications with Trump’s lawyer from a possibly nonexistent privilege for Navarro’s communications with Trump’s lawyer.
              The CRS reports you cite deal with executive privilege, not privilege for communications between attorneys representing different persons or privilege for communications between an attorney representing a party and a person proceeding pro se. But even for someone looking for information about executive privilege (which I was not), how many people actually know about Congressional Research Service reports? You do, I do (contrary to what you apparently think), probably most regular readers of this site do. But most people? Not at all likely.
              An exact-phrase search in Google for “executive privilege” (perhaps the second-most likely Google search for most people) returns “about 2,170,000 results” — and no CRS reports in the first 20 pages of results. (The most likely Google search for most people would be a plain ol’ non-advanced search for executive privilege, which returns “about 104,000,000 results.”) The fact that CRS information is public doesn’t mean anything for most people because they won’t know how to refine their search to find CRS reports. For the subset of people who would know about CRS and would think to add the exact phrase “Congressional Research Service” to the “executive privilege” exact-phrase search, Google would return “about 10,400 results,” with CRS reports (including reports republished by the Federation of American Scientists) dominating the first page.
              If I’d been looking for information about excutive privilege (again, which I was not), I’d have gone directly to (among other possible sources) the CRS site, searched there, and found the reports you cite (along with many others). But the situation posed by Marcy’s comparison of Bannon’s and Navarro’s circumstances was the import of a privilege for attorney-to-attorney comunications versus a privilege for attorney-to-pro-se communications, not executive privilege itself, and CRS doesn’t offer anything of evident value on privilege for those attorney communications.

              • bmaz says:

                Well, that was 496 words of run on bitching and splainin that Rayne did not give you exactly what you think you wanted. Don’t do that. Since you claim to know about all the resources, go use them, and don’t be a snot with us.

                • bacchys says:

                  Both you and Rayne are being ridiculous here. The executive privilege links, etc. don’t apply to the question, which, regardless of his history, was reasonable.

                  I think my limited knowledge of attorney-client privilege provides an answer, but, like most other things in the law, it’s not clear and asking three lawyers will produce at least five different answers- and that’s not counting the irrelevant rant about executive privilege.

                  I’m not going to cite anything because I don’t recall which cases I read touching on these issues, but my recollection is Bannon’s conversations with his attorney are privileged even when his attorney communicates what was said to another party’s attorney. Navarro, representing himself, however, has no attorney-client relationship with the other party’s attorney.

                  • bmaz says:

                    There is nothing ridiculous here. It might would have to be sorted out by a court, but there would not turn out to be much privileged.

                  • Rayne says:

                    Navarro, representing himself, however, has no attorney-client relationship with the other party’s attorney.”

                    If it’s this simple nobody should be asking. Stop wasting our time with this crap.

              • Rayne says:

                Dude. You’re a lawyer according to your first post here. Go fucking be a lawyer and figure it out.

    • P J Evans says:

      Arrogance, I think. He says he’s not a lawyer, but he has experience with legal stuff.

  2. Alan says:

    I don’t follow this at all. What privileges are we talking about?

    > Bannon, though, those discussions about invoking privilege to cover up his actions on January 6 were done through a lawyer, Robert Costello. Any communications between Costello and Trump’s lawyer will be privileged

    How do you figure? I don’t see what privilege would apply to communications between Bannon’s lawyer and Trump’s lawyer unless there was a joint defense arrangement.

    > Navarro, however, represented himself. So the content of his communications with Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, will not be privileged.

    Communications between Navarro and Trump’s lawyer might still be subject to executive privilege.

  3. Al Ostello says:

    I heard Navarro squeal on Ari Melber’s show last night. I love that squeal !!!

    Lock him up !!!

    “We spent a lot of time lining up over 100 congressmen, including some senators. It started out perfectly….Gosar and Cruz did exactly what was expected of them. It was a perfect plan. And it all predicated on peace and calm on Capitol Hill. We didn’t even need any protestors, because we had over 100 congressmen committed to it.” — Peter Navarro

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Leaves out an essential feature, though: the mob pressure on Pence, who was not intimidated by 100 ordinary congresscritters. They were intimidated by the mob, too, hence the scores of text message to their mob boss, to turn off the mob.

      • Scott Johnson says:

        Once Warnock and Ossof were seated, Congress was evenly split, with McConnell retaining the gavel only thanks to a) inertia and b) Pence was still VP and thus the tiebreaking vote was still Republican.

        But without Pence around, McConnell lacks a majority.

        (This assumes that the incoming Georgia Democrats are seated without incident).

        • Peterr says:

          Jon Ossoff was elected to a full term in 2020, while Warnock was elected to fill a partial term and now must face the voters this November.

          At most, there will only be one incoming senator from Georgia next January.

          • Scott Johnson says:

            Was talking about Jan 2021, in between the new Congressional term starting, and the inauguration of President Biden and VP Harris. Senate was 50-50 after the two GA Dems were sworn in, but Mitch McConnell still held the gavel because Pence was still the Vice-President.

            Senate may or may not change control next January, but the Vice-Presidency will not.

            • Eichhörnchen says:

              Warnock and Ossoff were not sworn in until Jan. 20, 2021.

              Still not clear on your point?

      • Al Ostello says:


        Weasels will be weasels…lock up all the weasels and let’s have plenty of special elections :D

  4. person1597 says:

    Peetsy got dem low down, disinherited, privilege-less blues…”And I say oh, whoa, whoa, no honey
    It ain’t fair, daddy it ain’t fair what you do,
    I see what you’re doin’ to me and you know it ain’t fair.
    And I say oh, whoa whoa now baby
    It ain’t fair, now, now, now, what you do
    I said hon’ it ain’t fair what, hon’ it ain’t fair what you do.
    Oh, here you gone today and all I ever wanted to do
    Was to love you…”

    • GonzoDon says:

      “Everybody knows the dice are loaded,
      Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed;
      Everybody knows the war is over,
      Everybody knows that the good guys lost;
      Everybody knows that the fight is fixed
      The poor stay poor and the rich get rich
      That’s how it goes,
      And everybody knows.”
      [Leonard Cohen]

  5. Al Ostello says:

    Also, I would not be surprised if we get at least one more indictment (maybe Meadows?) next week before the hearings start. :D A boy can dream

    • Leoghann says:

      Friday afternoon, DOJ stated they would not be indicting Meadows or Scavino on contempt charges.

  6. punaise says:

    This may be the closest we ever get to the long-pined-for (dating back to Karl Rove) frog march:

    Navarro was taken into custody on the charges Friday morning, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia told TPM.

  7. Alan K says:

    If anyone sees a frog march photo of Navarro, pls send link. I will print it out and paste it on my dartboard – well I don’t have a dart board but I might get one just for this.

    • Peterr says:

      If he was arrested at the airport, there has to have been *someone* with a cell phone video.

      “Yes, mom, I made it to the airport. But the FBI is hauling this guy off right before we’re about to board, and he is *not* happy about it. Take a look . . .”

  8. harpie says:

    Marcy’s live tweeting NAVARRO’s court appearance, now, starting here:
    2:55 PM · Jun 3, 2022

    3:03 PM

    Here’s the call-in.

    Toll Free Number: 888-363-4734
    Access Code: 7936689

    No recording! […]

    3:13 PM

    He’s just talking and talking and talking about how he can’t be prosecuted.

    Navarro: Prosecution has put me in untenable position about conflicting constitutional interpretation.

    • harpie says:

      3:14 PM

      Navarro: This is something that needs to get before the Supreme Court IN THIS CASE. Prosecution has colluded with Congress and the White House. Prosecution has STRIPPED me of Executive Privilege. OLC says I have absolute testimonial immunity. That case DESERVES TO BE HEARD.

      [harpie: OMG]

      3:16 PM

      Navarro says he needs a delay bc he’s going pro se, so needs some time for a legal strategy bc he doesn’t want to spend his retirement on lawyers.

      [He’s sounding about as smart as Brandon Fellows, for those who understand the reference.]

      Navarro: I think I’ve made my point clear here.

      3:18 PM

      Navarro claims prosecutors are trying to eliminate two key institutions of the Republic, including testimonial immunity and executive privilege.

      • Scott Johnson says:

        It’s always amusing when a pro se dirtbag goes to court and makes various specious assertions of sovereignty, unheard-of-rights, or frivolous allegations of government misconduct which destroy any possible case against him.

        Most such kooks, though, are mostly harmless tax resistors, not former Administration officials who were involved in an attempted coup d’etat.

          • Scott Johnson says:

            Why do I suspect that the poor PD was doing a facepalm during the entire hearing, wishing that he/she was representing some low-level dealer instead, one who knew that the only things that should be said to the judge are “yessir” and “nosir”? (Or ma’am, if the judge happens to be a woman)?

            Have a good friend who is a PD in the District, though she mainly represent clients (DUIs and such) in DC Superior Court, not US District court. Thankfully she’s not involved in this mess. :)

          • P J Evans says:

            The “pro se” is actually his suit in another court, which is already getting shot at by said court.

            • bmaz says:

              Yes, I know. But until he obtains a criminal lawyer, he is pro se on that too. The FPD was just for arraignment and release purposes by my understanding.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        I love Brandon Fellowes! He definitely would’ve had the sense to shut up in this situation, unlike Mr. Navarro.

    • harpie says:

      3:20 PM

      Navarro: I actually live right next to FBI. Literally right next to FBI. What did they do? Let me get all the way to the airport. Board the play. Come at me. Put me in handcuffs. Put me in a jail cell. I was more than willing to find modus vivendi.

      Who ARE these people? This is not America. I was a distinguished civil servant for 4 years. NO ONE questioned my ethics.

      [fact check. Ummmm]

      [harpie: did NO one on that plane take a video?]

      3:21 PM

      He repeats again that they’re “colluding” with the White House.

      Note: He has by running his mouth made it clear HE was trying to preempt DOJ actions.

      The behavior of THESE people is unconscionable. No one should be treated the way these people treated me today.

        • harpie says:

          I thought Marcy’s “board the play” might have been a typo for “board the plane”?

        • Lawnboy says:

          Tattoo: ” Boss, the plane, the plane!”

          Richardo M: “Get the golf cart (out of the proud boy storage unit), we have another visitor to Fantasy Island.”

          • eyesoars says:

            He was on fantasy island long before he got on the plane.
            Hopefully, his future will soon include 30 days in the slammer. This may introduce him to reality, but I have my doubts.

      • harpie says:
        3:47 PM · Jun 3, 2022

        “No one ever questioned my ethics” – Peter Navarro, who—during his “distinguished” career—was referred by the Office of Special Counsel for disciplinary action after repeated ethics violations flagged by ethics watchdog @CREWcrew [link]

        “In an administration full of people illegally using their government positions to influence an election, Navarro has been one of the worst,”

    • harpie says:

      3:24 PM

      Fauqui gives the Brady warning.

      “You can sit down,” he says for a second time to Navarro.

      3:26 PM

      Weekly reports.
      Notify pretrial of all travel.
      Court approves all other travel.
      Contact pretrial services to interview him.
      Verifies address (apparently right next to the FBI).
      Surrender passport.
      Not use illegal drugs.
      No gun.

      [These are standard. Navarro will hate them.]

      3:29 PM

      Reminder: 800 people riled up by Navarro had to abide by these conditions, most of whom were ALSO charged with misdemeanors, many with Class B misdemeanors.

        • Peterr says:

          That’s what pisses him off. “I’m not Nobody. I’m special. I’m important. I. Am. Somebody! How dare they treat me like everyone else.”

            • FL Resister says:

              High schadenfreude in this thread.
              Any chance Peter Navarro and Rudy Giuliani talk to one another?
              Will the Jan 6 committee expose Mike Flynn’s role in the coup?

    • harpie says:

      3:30 PM

      Faruqui: I’m sure you weren’t doing drugs before so I don’t think that’s a burden.

      Navarro: These are forms of coercion. Please, whoever’s listening in digital land, I served with distinction in WH for four years.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Marcy’s thread is just fascinating. I suspect Navarro is both lucky and unlucky that he got Faruqui as the magistrate judge. Lucky because Faruqui doesn’t seem to be arrogant. Unlucky because Faruqui will give Navarro plenty of rope and sit back and see what Navarro does with it.

    • harpie says:

      3:35 PM

      Fauruqui: All the illegal drugs says is don’t break the law. It’s fine to have it on there. You’re not subject to drug testing. Travel is primary burden. I don’t think you need to turn in your passport. You have not attempted to flee the country.

      Faruqui raises possibility that DOJ would want to charge further charges.

      3:38 PM

      Faruqui: I want to warn you what will happen if you violate conditions of release.

      • bmaz says:

        With probable cause, you actually can be subject to drug testing, though don’t see any here.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          But did you see him on Ari Melber? That’s a joke. Of course there’s no probable cause for drug testing. It doesn’t piss me off when people get treated fairly. It upsets me that not everyone gets treated fairly by the “justice” system.

    • harpie says:

      3:40 PM

      Navarro asking Faruqui to restate conditions of release. Asks to grab his notepad.

      Navarro: My understand on travel is an email or phone call is enough, without a return.

      Faruqui: That’s correct.

      3:42 PM

      Navarro: If I travel in the meantime what do I do? I did have plans. For the record I was arrested at the door of an airplane and not at my home. I’m supposed to be at Nashville tonight and NY tomorrow.

      Faruqui: I think you’ve just given Ms. Shook notice.

      3:43 PM

      Faruqui [no doubt thinking of Navarro’s upcoming media appearances]: Every time you speak, you could be putting yourself at risk. Please don’t miss forest for the trees.

      3:45 PM

      Navarro confused about having to tell Pretrial know about contact with law enforcement.

    • harpie says:

      3:48 PM

      Faruqui: I understand you’re frustrated by these conditions. For now you’re just going to have to roll with this.

      Navarro: The word is not frustration. I’m, let’s just say, disappointed in our Republic [coup plotter doesn’t like rule of law, go figure]

      • bmaz says:

        Lol, what a fucking pussy. My clients face harsher pre-trial release conditions every day. Quit whining Navarro.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Your clients might not have the same, Harvardian, above-the-law arrogance as a former counselor to the president. In TrumpWorld, accepting any consequence for malfeasance without whining to the moon would make Navarro a pussy.

          And for a guy from the Ann Arbor of Cambridge, Mass., going pro se and not having a lawyer lined up to back him up or take over the case makes Navarro a hapless if vicious wimp.

    • harpie says:

      3:51 PM

      Akpan wants to exclude time, bc of lawsuit.

      AUSA: Public has an interest in speedy trial. Discovery not voluminous. No basis to exclude for civil trial. We oppose.

      3:55 PM

      Pro se guy says he needs time to find a lawyer.

      [harpie: he’s probably already getting lots of calls
      from “whoever’s listening in digital land”.]

    • harpie says:

      4:02 PM

      Navarro: I want to see what they have now.

      4:04 PM

      Navarro’s gonna try to communicate exparte. But Faruqui is warning him not to.

      4:05 PM

      Navarro now trying to claim Faruqui agreed to review his own civil case. He did not.

      And done.

  9. Joe Stewart says:

    Her live tweet thread is awesome! ROTFL. OMG it was funny. And I can both picture and hear the Magistrate clicking through the usual end of hearing items (…passport, no drugs, no guns etc.). I added in my head the, “Next case.” Navarro is just another privileged white boy brought into the criminal justice system, a system designed and perfected to protect his exalted position in society. What a punk. And while I accept that this charge won’t yield much jail time, I’m delighted he’s going through the process. Let’s get Trump arraigned too.

    • Thomas says:

      Yep. PUNK. That’s the word that describes all of these spoiled rotten vicious brats from Trump all the way down to the Proud Boys.

      As a fan of the Ramones, I think that calling them punks is unfair to actual punks

      • John Colvin says:

        He went away on a summer day
        Said he’s going down Nashville way
        But he never got there
        He never got there
        He never got there, they say

        The AUSAs took Navarro away
        They took him away
        Away from me
        The AUSAs took Navarro away
        They took him away
        Away from me
        Hey ho, hey ho

        Pretrial don’t know
        Where Navarro can be
        They took him from me
        They took him from me

        Ring me, ring me, ring me
        Up the President
        And find out
        Where Executive Privilege went
        Ring me, ring me, ring me
        Up the FBI
        And find out if
        Navarro’s alive

    • Scott Johnson says:

      It’s amazing how much “they are treating me like a common criminal” whining has come from 1/6 participants who found themselves arrested. (Often times, this is code for “they are treating me like a [ethnic slur]”, a happening that they’ve long assumed that white privilege would protect them from, but they assume is just and proper treatment for those lower on the social hierarchy than themselves).

  10. Harry Eagar says:

    This was enlightening. I had thought Navarro was just a cynical power broker too much Impressed that he had gone to Harvard. Now I see i was wrong: He is a lost soul who finally found his fuehrer and, like Goebbels, will kill all his children, his wife and himself when the curtain falls.

    But when trump refuses to pay for his legal bills, then there is a chance he will lash back in his pain.

    • timbo says:

      Yeah, what’s the reasoning behind not prosecuting these lawbreakers? A truly bad joke…and evidence that there is indeed an imperial Presidency in the US, not beholding to the actual laws of the Congress.

  11. Michael says:

    Isn’t part of the issue that Meadows and Scavino have a stronger case for executive privilege than Navarro? (Both because they were Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff while Navarro’s portfolio was COVID and trade and because Navarro by all accounts talked to everyone who would listen about January 6th and then claimed executive privilege when subpeonaed by the committee?)

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have several community members named “Mike” or “Michael.” I realize you have somehow not been asked to do this since your first comment in 2018, but with the anticipated influx of new community members this month differentiation is absolutely necessary. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Rayne says:

      First, the executive has to invoke the privilege, narrowly, specifically, and make a strong case for it (see the 4th graf).

      Second, the privilege belongs to the executive; Trump is not now the executive. Trump already sued the committee over release of documents; the D.C Circuit Court and the SCOTUS both denied his assertion of privilege. Meadows also produced 2,319 responsive messages which were not restrained by any privilege Trump might have claimed, while holding back +1,000 due to “conflicting privilege claims.” Good luck with either executive or attorney-client privilege if the content is unrelated to lawful executive action or if Trump campaign product.

      Third, the current executive has declined to assert executive privilege repeatedly over materials related to the Trump administration requested by the House J6 committee for its investigation.

      Fourth, if Navarro either published content related directly to Meadows and/or Scavino in his book or discussed in his numerous interviews, it’s not privileged as the horse is out of the barn. Nor can Navarro claim attorney-client privilege when he’s neither client nor attorney for a client.

      Fifth, see crime-fraud exception, and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Eventually nearly all claims of privilege made by perps involved in conspiracies related to the assault on the Capitol and obstruction of Congress will fail; privilege claims now are only delay tactics.

  12. Leoghann says:

    Navarro has always impressed me as being similar to his orange hero and Pillow Guy–uncork him and he just spews words, with no particular relationship with the truth. The only difference is he has a deep, very loud voice to do it with.

    His performance in court today, though, makes me wonder if he’s been taking whatever it is that Lin Wood takes.

  13. Overshire says:

    Poor Little Peter should be glad they arrested him before he got on the plane. I’d have let him board, then arrested him at the front door of the venue where he was supposed to speak, slapped him in cuffs, leg irons, and into the back of an un-air conditioned prison transport van for the ride back to DC. With meal, gas, and rest stops, call it 16 hours or so, just in time to spend the weekend in the municipal lockup with the other common criminals until court on Monday. But maybe I’m just a vindictive bastard when people try to burn my country down.

Comments are closed.