Connect with us

BREAKING NEWS

‘Going for the Jugular’: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump Subpoenaed by ‘Tenacious’ Special Counsel – Legal Experts Respond

Published

on

The Dept. of Justice’s special counsel investigating Donald Trump’s role in the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the ex-president’s unlawful retention and refusal to return hundreds of classified and top secret documents has issued subpoenas to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

“The decision by the special counsel, Jack Smith, to subpoena Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner underscores how deeply into Mr. Trump’s inner circle Mr. Smith is reaching, and is the latest sign that no potential high-level witness is off limits,” The New York Times reports.

The Times notes that the then-president’s daughter was with her father during his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, and with him in the Oval Office that day when he called his vice president, pressuring Mike Pence to unlawfully reject the electors in an effort to keep him in office.

Ivanka Trump officially served as White House Advisor to the President and the Director of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship. Kushner was a White House Senior Advisor and the Director of the Office of American Innovation.

Former U.S. Attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman, who was already on MSNBC as the news broke, observed Smith was “going for the jugular.”

READ MORE: Attorneys For Those Possibly Facing Indictment in Trump Georgia Probe Move to Kill Any Legal Action: Report

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, responding to the news, observed: “Pence. Meadows. Jared. Ivanka. One of these people has an *interesting* constitutional defense; the others will likely find themselves in the grand jury at least once—and maybe, depending on the scope of their invocations of executive privilege, twice.”

Former top DOJ official Andrew Weissman, also an MSNBC legal analyst and on the air at the time, called Special Counsel Jack Smith “tenacious” for subpoenaing Mr. and Mrs. Kushner, noting they were not being asked to appear for an interview, but for sworn grand jury testimony.

“There’s a wealth of information they could have about the fake elector scheme, about putting pressure on DOJ. Obviously, the pressure on Mike Pence,” Weissman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace. “Indeed, it could even go into Mar-a-Lago because he couldn’t deal with what was it that they were told about how to retain or not retain documents.”

“This isn’t just about asking for them to come in for an interview, This is about asking them to come in and be in the grand jury,” Weissman stressed. “It shows that Jack Smith is really being tenacious. Usually there are all sorts of accommodations that are made for people like this to be interviewed, to have their counsel present, but this is saying, ‘No, like everyone in America, I’m entitled to everyone’s testimony in the grand jury,’ and they’re being treated just like everyone else.”

READ MORE: Watch: Alaska GOP Lawmaker Says It’s a ‘Benefit to Society’ When ‘Child Abuse Is Fatal’ Because There’s a ‘Cost Savings’

“The former president is now the former president, the Attorney General is not Attorney General Barr, and those kinds of accommodations don’t need to be made, or Jack Smith is going to be fired, and you see him really taking advantage of that, and making sure he can get their testimony under oath in the grand jury which is what you really need to do to set up a case going forward if you are going to bring charges.”

Weissman, asked if he thinks Bill Barr would also be subpoenaed, he said the former Trump Attorney General likely either has or will be subpoenaed before the grand jury. Litman countered that Barr may have already appeared voluntarily.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

BREAKING NEWS

House Votes to Boot George Santos 311-114

Published

on

Representative George Santos (R-NY) has been expelled from Congress following a 311-114 vote; two House members voted “present.”

The expulsion of Santos follows a debate on his fate on Thursday. The vote required a two-thirds majority, or 290 of the 435-seat chamber. This is Santos’ third vote of expulsion; last month, a vote failed with 31 Democrats voting against, according to The Hill.

While the vote was decisive, some notable Republicans voted to save Santos, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN).

“We’ve not whipped the vote and we wouldn’t,” Johnson told CNN Wednesday. “I trust that people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith. I personally have real reservations about doing this, I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set for that.”

READ MORE: ‘If I Leave They Win’: Santos Claims ‘Bullying’ at Off the Rails Press Conference

Santos himself had harsh words for the House following the vote. Leaving the capitol building, he briefly spoke with reporters.

“The House spoke that’s their vote. They just set new dangerous precedent for themselves,” he told CNN. “Why would I want to stay here? To hell with this place.”

He then cut his time short, telling reporters, “You know what? As unofficially no longer a member of Congress, I no longer have to answer your questions.”

Santos also faces 23 federal charges, which include fraud, money laundering and misuse of campaign funds, according to CNN. He has pleaded not guilty. An Ethics Committee report found evidence that Santos used campaign funds for Botox and even an OnlyFans account.

On Thursday, Santos said he refused to resign because otherwise, “they win.”

“If I leave the bullies take place. This is bullying,” Santos said. “The reality of it is it’s all theater, theater for the cameras and theater for the microphones. Theater for the American people at the expense of the American people because no real work’s getting done.”

Santos also threatened to file a resolution to expel Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). Bowman pulled a fire alarm in September. Bowman pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge, and said it was an accident. He said he thought the fire alarm would open a locked door as he rushed to a vote. Bowman paid a $1,000 fine.

There have only been six total expulsions from the House, including Santos. Santos is the only Republican to ever be expelled from the House.

The previous expulsion was in 2002, when Representative James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled after a 420-1 vote. Traficant had been convicted on 10 counts of corruption-related crimes.

Before Traficant, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers (D-PA) was the first representative of the modern era to be expelled. Myers got the boot following his conviction for accepting bribes. Myers couldn’t keep out of trouble; in 2022, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison on charges of election fraud.

Prior to Myers, the only expulsions from the House were in 1861, at the start of the Civil War. Henry Cornelius Burnett (D-KY), John William Reid (D-MO) and John Bullock Clark (Whig-MO) were all expelled for joining the Confederacy.

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

Peter Navarro, Former Top Trump White House Advisor, Guilty of Criminal Contempt

Published

on

Peter Navarro, the controversial economist and former top Trump White House advisor, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress Thursday afternoon after a short trial that began on Tuesday.

Navarro refused to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Legal experts had predicted a “quick conviction” after Navarro, called a “conspiracy theorist” who promotes “fringe” economic theories, had called no witnesses. The jury deliberated for under five hours. He faces up to two years in prison.

“The defendant chose allegiance to former President Trump over compliance with a subpoena,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Aloi told the jury Thursday, as Politico reported. “The defendant chose defiance.”

“Our government only works when people play by the rules and it only works when people are held accountable when they do not,” Aloi also said, during closing arguments. “When a person intentionally and deliberately chooses to defy a congressional subpoena, that is a crime.”

READ MORE: Fani Willis Slams Jim Jordan’s ‘Illegal Intrusion’ in Scathing Rebuke: ‘You Lack a Basic Understanding of the Law’

Politico reported earlier that “ Navarro has long claimed that Trump told him to defy the committee’s Feb. 9, 2022 subpoena and assert executive privilege, a demand he said conferred immunity from having to cooperate with Congress’ investigation.”

“There’s no mistake, no accident,” prosecutor John Crabb told jurors, NBC News adds.

“That man thinks he’s above the law,” Crabb said. “In this country, nobody is above the law.”

READ MORE: ‘How Much the Former President Should Pay Her’: Judge Hands Trump Big Loss in E. Jean Carroll Case

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

‘Look for a Quick Conviction Here’: Navarro Jury Could Reach a Verdict ‘Early This Afternoon’

Published

on

Peter Navarro‘s criminal contempt of Congress trial is moving quickly and the jury may come to a verdict as early as this afternoon, court watchers say.

Navarro, who has been called a “conspiracy theorist” who holds “fringe” and “oddball” economic views, is a former top Trump White House aide. He advanced “Big Lie” election fraud claims and refused to comply with a February, 2022 subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. He was criminally indicted in June of 2022 by a federal grand jury.

The trial began Tuesday in D.C. federal court.

Just before 11 AM Thursday the case was handed to the jury, Politico’s Kyle Cheney reports.

READ MORE: ‘Going to Go Very Badly’: Marjorie Taylor Greene ‘Demanding’ Biden Impeachment Inquiry, GOP Strategist Warns Against

“Given the brevity of the case, a verdict is highly likely in the next few hours,” Cheney adds, noting: “If convicted, he faces up to one year on each of two counts — one for refusing to testify, one for refusing to provide docs.”

“Navarro has long claimed that Trump told him to defy the committee’s Feb. 9, 2022 subpoena and assert executive privilege, a demand he said conferred immunity from having to cooperate with Congress’ investigation,” Politico reports. “For months, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrestled with intricate questions about how executive privilege might apply to a former adviser to a former president, whether Navarro’s belief that Trump had invoked the privilege constituted a defense to the charges and how the Justice Department’s decision to charge him compares with its longstanding views of immunity for some senior executive branch officials from compelled congressional testimony.”

Wednesday evening, former top DOJ official Harry Litman noted, “Peter Navarro evidence already done, closing arguments tomorrow. Basically, it’s an incredibly simple case — he knew he had to comply with the subpoena, and he still thumbed his nose at it.”

Adding the the government called three witness but “Navarro called nobody,” Litman predicted: “Look for a quick conviction here.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.