BREAKING: Federal court on CONVICTION for Trump aide

Glenn, there's going to be a major. backlash from the Trump administration. against a federal appeals court in the. aftermath of this latest ruling by an. appeals court against one of Donald. Trump's top aides. Can you explain what. just happened in court? >> Yeah, Brian. Trump is never pleased when. a court rules against him or one of his. loyalists or one of his henchmen, as I. would refer to Peter Navarro. But that's. who we're talking about here. You know, our viewers will probably remember Peter. Navarro was convicted of two counts of. contempt of Congress. Why? Because he. wouldn't testify about or in a real.

sense against Donald Trump when Congress. subpoenaed him. So he was charged, he. was convicted, he was sentenced, he went. to prison for four months. But he. continues to appeal his conviction. But. now an appeals court in Washington, D.C. just rejected his appeal, rejected his. efforts to get his conviction. overturned. With his claim all along, Brian, being, "Well, wait a minute. The. president invoked executive privilege, which prevented me from testifying." The.

problem is, and this is what we have. come to learn about Donald Trump's lack. of loyalty, Donald Trump never invoked. executive privilege to try to stop Peter. Navarro from testifying. But so, Brian, this is really a good news, bad news. story. Because the good news is the. court of appeals just said, "Um no, Peter. We're not going to overturn your. conviction." But here is what's really. at play. There is some nefarious. going on here. Because believe it or.

not, and and this is not something you. hear every day, the Department of. Justice under Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. actually abandoned its attempt to try to. convince the court of appeals that they. should uh affirm, leave intact, Navarro's criminal conviction. DOJ. actually filed something with the court. some months ago saying, "You know what? Um we're not going to take part in this. appeal. We're not going to oppose it.

So, why don't you just go ahead and. appoint an outside lawyer, think. independent prosecutor, and an amicus, friend of the court, who can come in and. make the arguments on behalf of DOJ, cuz. we're not going to make these. arguments." You know, it's really absurd. and it's depraved that the Department of. Justice won't even take a position that. opposes anything that one of Trump's. flunkies, lapdogs, henchmen, like Peter. Navarro, wants to argue in court. I.

mean, we are really in just just a pitch. dark on the ethics front when it comes. to this Department of Justice, but. that's what they did. Never-. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals just. said, "Yeah, we're not we're not going. to overturn. We're not going to throw. out Peter Navarro's conviction." But, you know, here's the thing, all along, Donald Trump could have pardoned. Navarro. He could have put an end to. this whole thing. But, there is a method. to this madness. It's a nefarious. method, because what they're trying to.

do is get Peter Navarro's contempt of. Congress conviction bubbled all the way. up to the Supreme Court in hopes that. maybe the Supreme Court will rule in a. way that even further expands Donald. Trump's executive power. For example, maybe they're hoping the Supreme Court. will say, "You know what? The president. doesn't even have to invoke executive. privilege. Every member of the executive.

branch must decline to testify about or. in a real sense, practical sense, against um Donald Trump, whether it's in. a criminal court, a civil court, whether. it's before Congress. I mean, this is a. scheme to get this issue up before the. Supreme Court, and you know, this and. Trump is forever hoping the Supreme. Court will rule his way and further. expand executive power. Let me try to. finish this thought. This is not an easy. or intuitive sort of issue that we're.

tackling here. If the president [snorts] invokes. executive privilege to try to shut down. the testimony before Congress or in. court of one of his flunkies, that. actually looks a lot like witness. tampering or obstructing justice. But if. they can get the Supreme Court to say in. substance, you know what? Nobody in the. executive branch can ever go against the. king. Can ever testify in any setting.

against the president. It actually. removes some of the potential taint from. a criminal and corrupt president like. Donald Trump who might have to sort of. squash that testimony by expressly. asserting executive privilege. This. whole thing We're living in the legal. upside down, Brian, where they're trying. to create basically precedent that will. allow a president to engage in even more.

criminal conduct. Donald Trump doesn't. seem to be satisfied with the. unconstitutional ruling that he won in. the Supreme Court that he has absolute. immunity to commit almost all the crimes. he wants against the American people. Um. you know, this this is it doesn't really. get much darker in today's Department of. Justice than what's going on in this. nefarious litigation involving Peter. Navarro's contempt of Congress. convictions. >> How is this different from when the DOJ. tried to dismiss its own prosecution.

against Eric Adams in New York? Because. remember, they wanted Eric Adams to be. able to do their bidding in New York, but they had to keep him on a short. leash. And so as kind of a little bit of. a carrot to him, they wanted to dismiss. their own prosecution for his. corruption. Ultimately, they were. successful at doing that. They even had. to bring in an outside prosecutor to. argue. against Eric Adams in the absence of the. DOJ. And so, why in this instance is. this different where an appeals court. judge is upholding the conviction of.

Peter Navarro when previously the DOJ. was allowed to completely abandon their. position? >> Yeah, Brian, it's a great question. There are some similarities and some. differences. Of course, here they are. not trying to get rid of Navarro's. conviction. I mean, Trump could have. done that with a pardon anytime he. wanted. Instead, they wanted to. nefariously use that conviction to get. the issue before the. >> a as a vehicle, basically, so that they. can expand Trump's power at the Supreme. Court.

>> Exactly. That's what they're hoping to. do there by declining to get rid of. Navarro's conviction. Now, let's go up. to New York. In the Eric Adams case, they wanted to control Eric Adams. They. wanted to kind of keep him as a puppet. with Donald Trump being the puppeteer. and pulling the strings. So, he'd be a. good little mayor and do whatever Donald. Trump wanted him to do. But, instead of. um keeping that case intact and using it. as a vehicle to that end, they wanted to. dismiss the case, but preserve the.

ability to re-indict him and prosecute. him anew. They wanted to dismiss it. without prejudice to re-bring it, which. is just a variation on the theme. What. they want to do is pervert the the. processes that are in place in the. criminal justice system to always work. to Donald Trump's advantage to either. sort of keep damaging information out of. the court system and away from Congress. or to try to expand Donald Trump's.

executive power so he can continue to. crime with both impunity and immunity. It is a game that's being played in. different ways depending on what the. case calls for. What I would analogize. to is remember Steve Bannon was. similarly convicted of two counts of. contempt of Congress, exactly like Peter. Navarro was. They both violated a. subpoena for documents that could have. potentially incriminated Donald Trump,

and they both violated a subpoena for. testimony before Congress that could. have incriminated Donald Trump. But but. remember, Donald Trump's dirty DOJ officials moved. to dismiss Steve Bannon's case, and that. motion to dismiss is now pending before. the trial court judge who presided over. the trial in the first instance. instance, but Steve Bannon's case made. it through the DC Federal Circuit Court. of Appeals, made it up to the Supreme.

Court, and all of a sudden Donald. Trump's dirty DOJ said, "You know what? We're going to try to vacate this. conviction and dismiss it altogether.". The reason I believe is because Steve. Bannon did not defend his case on a. claim that executive privilege shielded. him. He he he made other defenses in his. case, and he lost. He went down in. flames. But because that issue is the. issue that Peter Navarro offered at. trial, and that issue is the one they.

want to bubble all the way up to the. Supreme Court, they're letting Navarro's. criminal case run all the way up the. appellate chain, whereas they kicked. Steve Bannon's case back down, and. they're trying to dismiss it entirely. I. think as a prelude to then paying Steve. Bannon millions of our taxpayer dollars. Why? Well, because if the judge. dismisses Steve Bannon's conviction in. the interests of justice, as Jeanine.

Pirro told the court was the reason for. moving to dismiss his conviction, what. happens? Well, he's going to get a. payday on the on taxpayer's dime because. they'll be able to hold up that. dismissal and say, "You see, it really. was dismissed in the interest of justice. because he was wrongfully prosecuted in. the first place." He wasn't. But, you. know, we can throw into the mix how Todd. Blanche created the weaponization fund. to give Donald Trump control over 1.8. billion of our tax dollars, how he.

granted, you know, Donald Trump and his. family members and his businesses. basically immunity for life from IRS. audits and potential, you know, tax. crime uh investigations and. prosecutions. This is a Department of. Justice out of control, and it is all. operating for the benefit of dear. leader, the convicted felon, who. presently occupies the Oval Office. >> Glenn, do you think that this is bad. news for Peter Navarro in the sense that. he is being used as little more than a.

vehicle for Trump to expand his own. power, and basically, again, being. puppeteered throughout this process, whereas he could have just been granted. the gift that would have been Trump's. DOJ dismissing this prosecution. altogether, or. is it just all well and good? Peter. Navarro knows what he's in for, and even. if this doesn't work out, there's. probably a pardon waiting for him at the. end of this thing. >> You know, I think he is willing to be. used as a doormat on which Donald Trump.

will rub his dirty feet as much as he. wants to Donald Trump's own advantage. But, but here's the thing, in in normal. times, somebody would very much want. their criminal conviction to be either. overturned or would want it would want. to receive a pardon. But, right now, Peter Navarro stands convicted of two. crimes, two counts of contempt of. Congress. And again, in ordinary times, you know, that might kind of cramp your. employment opportunities. But, where is.

Peter Navarro presently? Back in the Trump administration. So, I. think Peter Navarro is happy to be used. by dear leader because he probably. thinks the better off dear leader is, the more he can steal and grift and. crime with impunity, well, then maybe. the better off one of his lapdogs, his. flunkies, his sycophants like Peter. Navarro is. >> Last question here. This is a federal. trial. Obviously, Trump has the ability. to pardon anybody who was convicted.

um in federal court. Are there any state. charges that Peter Navarro could be. charged with where a presidential pardon. wouldn't apply? >> If only. But, you know, Brian, a. congressional subpoena is uniquely and. exclusively federal, has nothing to do. with the local um. and you know, the the crime of uh. disobeying, defying that congressional. subpoena is exclusively federal. So, I.

don't see any viable state crimes, but. let me kind of give deliver one more. piece of bad news. If there was some local implication to. what Peter Navarro did, the jurisdiction. would be Washington, D.C. and guess. what? The only local court in all of the. states and the District of Columbia. where a presidential pardon does apply, it's in the the Superior Court for the. District of Columbia. That's like the. local court just like you have a local.

court in Manhattan, in Miami, in. Chicago, in Detroit, and L.A. Well, presidential pardons don't apply to any. of those other jurisdictions, but. believe it or not, they apply both in. federal district court in D.C. and in. local Superior Court in D.C. So, in this. one, I think we're out of luck. >> Got it. Um all important information and. again, we will stay on top of this as. this process plays out. For those who. are watching right now, if you. appreciate our legal analysis, the best.

way to support our work is to subscribe. to both of our channels. Those links are. right here on the screen. They're also. in the post description of this video. Completely free to subscribe, but again, a great way to support our work and. independent media more broadly. I'm. Brian Tyler Cohen. >> And I'm Glenn Kirschner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.