Ex-Trump Adviser Peter Navarro Sentenced To 4 Months

Yeah - can you explain to me why Jim Jordan wasn’t charged?

 

Ever hear of Eric Holder?

 

Charge with contempt for his first no show, do like the Dems and drain him dry with legal expenses.

 

I'll bite. Who has been prosecuted for ignoring one and not sentenced?

 

Because the Dems knew they had no standing to do so against him else they would have. You tell me why they didn't. He was in negotiation with them and had submitted a list of questions to him when they issued the subpoena, they could have charged him for not appearing why didn't they. They let the committee end without taking any action.

Here this might help you.


...“I write to strongly contest the constitutionality and validity of the subpoena in several respects,” Jordan wrote.

A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment to CNN....

...In the letter, Jordan stated that the panel did not respond to his initial January letter outlining his concerns when the panel wanted to speak with him voluntarily, even though he said a committee spokesperson had assured him he would get a response “in the coming days.”

“Rather than engaging in good faith about the serious issues I raised on January 9, you abandoned the matter for 123 days, only to abruptly reengage two weeks ago with a sudden and drastic escalation,” Jordan wrote.

The congressman said that while the committee publicly announced its subpoena to him on May 12, he did not receive it until May 16....

...
“You have not explained the Constitutional basis for the extraordinary claim that a congressional committee may compel the testimony of other Members of Congress,” Jordan wrote in one instance.

He referred to the panel’s subpoena of him as “a dangerous escalation of House Democrats’ pursuit of political vendettas” and accused committee members of leading a partisan investigation that is not designed to seek the truth but instead to settle political scores, specifically with former President Donald Trump....
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/jim-jordan-january-6-subpoena/index.html

They knew it would be dismissed so stop with the canard about Jordan.



https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/jim-jordan-january-6-subpoena/index.html

 

Of course they can send charges to the DOJ and request prosecution, especially if he reneges on and agreements to give full testimony.

 

They are refusing to testify because they know (or have reason to believe) Democrats will just use the facts of what happened to concoct or support a legal theory that there was a crime.

Unfortunately the notion that "If you did nothing illegal, there is nothing to hide" is often not true in the legal arena.

It is not as simple as things being obviously legal or illegal. In some cases prosecutors will try to use anything as "evidence" to support the picture they are trying to create, and so these White House advisors do not want to give anything to a prosecutor that could be used as ammunition.

And even if it were not for that, the media would still be likely to take what they said and use it dishonestly to portray an unfair picture.

Another reason they may be unwilling to testify is that Trump may have discussed doing something illegal, questionably illegal, or unethical which never actually ended up happening. This might not actually be illegal, since no crime ended up being committed, but prosecutors might still try to use that as "evidence" to support another alleged crime, or attempt to turn it into a crime.

There is reason to hide the full truth when the other side will misuse the truth.

I doubt that what they are hiding is anything that would testify to an obvious crime having occurred.

 

I don't think it's difficult to guess what sort of things Trump discussed with them, that Democrats want them to testify to. The public already has a good idea of the facts that probably went on. The debate is really over the characterization of those facts.

 

And that is apropos to what?

 

I don't recall him ignoring a Congressional subpoena.

 

I'll second this question.

 

Not even close to a legitimate reason to ignore a subpoena.

The POINT of a subpoena is to force someone who might not want to testify, to testify

Your opinion that the Democrats would "misuse" the truth is just that, an opinion (and not a very well founded opinion on top). Discussing a plan to do something illegal IS a crime. It's called "conspiracy"

 

Subpoenas, the committee and now I'm even questioning the moral ethnicity of having judges. Because as the one judge pointed out "Presidents aren't kings". Well, do you know what a subpoena(forced testimony) is? It's the power of the king, they can look back in history books about that.

Granting Congress contempt power was not without controversy or debate. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45043

Where we are today, is reviving King George's Britain, and now the Judges have retained the throne of imperial might. As we've seen in the advancement of the arguments made by Prosecutor Smith. Trump as a defendant and public figure is all game, but somehow in the "administration of justice"(lol), they are off limits despite being in the same legal space.

They argue, at best, because they are not the ones on trial. But how can a trial be fair and impartial if one side is questioned, while the other one isn't? How can we be citizens equal under the law, if some citizens can compel documents and testimony, while others can't?

How can the 'limited rulership' of a judge in their court be reconciled with their overall civilian status? If anything, one can argue they are more powerful than King George's men, since they have both the protection of citizenry with the authority of the king.

 

You really have no clue how the legal system works, do you.

 

So double standards is your excuse? Is that really all you have?

 

Enlighten me, that would be more productive in a conversational setting.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jim-j...eatens-hunter-biden-with-contempt-of-congress

 

touche

 

You do realize that that works both ways, right?

he can plead the 5th, as a number of his staff who did appear did plead the 5th.


they are lawful congressional subpoenas, they are supposed to show up. If they disagree with the reason, they can contest it, but one has to show up, first. and yes, Hunter should have appeared, as well, for the same reason. But a number of Repubs didn't appear for their subpoenas en masse, so they have diminished the authority of the congressional subpoena when they did that and now there is chaos. I understand that before the bulk defiance by Trump, Jordan, Bannon, Navarro, et al, there were only a few rogue cases but nothing on the scale committed by Republicans after 1/6. After that, the authority of the congressional subpoena has been shot to hell.

 

So this is you, clapping for the destruction of the rule of law in our nation. Truly, if you don't like living here, why not leave and go somewhere else that you might enjoy better? I heard Cuba makes democrats swoon....

 

Neither is Eric Holder. I mean, there's a list.... Or do you only care about Jim?

 

And the list isn’t not just one party either….despite all the crocodile tears from righties.

 

The point of what I said is that they should not have to testify.

Look, it's not like we do not know what they would say, if they answered all questions that they were going to be asked truthfully.

Everyone knows Democrats and prosecutors are going to try to use that against them.

Even though, in my opinion, a crime did not occur, Democrats and prosecutors want to use information to argue that there was a crime.

As I've already explained, it's not just a simple question of whether or not a crime occurred. Think about how often the media has gloated over Trump associates being charged and convicted of crimes, without ever bothering to state in those news articles what the specific evidence was.
I believe this proves that the connection between facts and criminal charges is not a simple one.

 

You can't use something "against someone" if there isn't something there to use.

It's not the job of any news reporting agency to list the exact charges someone has been convicted. They report the person has been convicted. Court records are open to the public (unless sealed for some reason, and in those cases the news reporting agency would not have access either). If you're curious enough to know the exact charges you can find them yourself.

 

Why don't you move to Cuba. I AM clapping FOR the rule of law. These guys break the law they go to jail.

So what is your problem?