The referrals were passed unanimously by the committee, which consists of nine legislators, and is directed next to the Plenary Session of the Parliament for voting. If both go outside Parliament, the referrals will be sent to the Ministry of Justice, which will decide if there is enough evidence for prosecution. The commission has forwarded three previous criminal referrals. The committee’s vice-chairwoman, Republican MP Liz Cheney from Wyoming, linked the committee’s work to Ukrainian citizens fighting for freedom amid a Russian invasion. “As we meet here tonight, Vladimir Putin continues his barbarity against Ukraine, killing innocent people, reminding us of what happens when authoritarian regimes rule,” Cheney said, drawing a direct parallel between the commission’s work and the invasion of Ukraine. Both Cheney and the committee chair, Mississippi Democrat Benny Thompson, linked the referral recommendation to Monday’s federal judge ruling that Trump and conservative attorney John Eastman may have been plotting a crime as they tried to January 2021. Congressional certification of the presidential election. The panel alleges that Scavino was given six extensions to attend an interview and submit documents, noting that many of the issues that Navarro said he could not discuss that he had previously written about in his book. The first, for Trump’s former adviser, Steve Bannon, was arrested by the Justice Department and led to an indictment against Bannon. He is facing criminal charges this summer. The Justice Department is still considering a motion of censure against former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, which was voted on by the House in December. Scavino was originally called up at the same time as Bannon and Meadows. A third allegation of contempt for former DOJ employee Jeffrey Clark was voted out of committee, but did not reach Parliament after Clark agreed to meet with the committee. Clark sat down for an interview, but invoked the 5th Amendment more than 100 times.
Why does the committee vote in favor of Scavino?
Scavino used a series of delay tactics to prevent any substantial co-operation with her investigation, according to the commission, which claims he never dealt with effectively and therefore violated his summons. Scavino is one of Trump’s closest and most loyal allies, having served in the government from beginning to end and as one of the first members of his campaign. He was closely associated with Trump’s social media channels, frequently posting messages to Trump supporters on behalf of the then President. The commission believes that Scavino is aware of the meetings and the details of the events that preceded January 6, including the strategy meetings that were directly linked to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. “Mr Scavino reportedly attended several meetings with the President to discuss election challenges,” the commission wrote in its report. “Mr Scavino was also monitoring social media on behalf of President (Donald) Trump, and did so at a time when the sites Mr Scavino allegedly frequented suggested the possibility of violence on January 6.” The commission cites news outlets discussing Scavino’s follow-up to TheDonald.win, which the report described as “an online forum frequented by people who openly supported and planned the violence in the weeks leading up to January 6.” Scavino continues to question his need to testify, according to a March 25 letter from Stanley Brand’s lawyer to the White House, which Brand provided to CNN on Sunday. The letter returns legal questions to the Biden government, which had decided not to protect any of Scavino’s deposits. Scavino, however, argues that the law has not yet been settled on whether the current president can waive the privilege of all testimony, including Scavino’s talks with Trump, especially if Trump can claim it alone. privacy.
Because the committee votes for a criminal referral for Navarro
The commission accused Navarro, a former White House trade adviser, of making no attempt to comply with the summons, saying Navarro had made it clear that he was unable to work with him because Trump had claimed executive power over the issue. Thompson cited the executive privilege argument in his opening remarks Monday. “They may have played a role in an attack on American democracy, but they can ignore our investigation because they were working for the government at the time. That’s their argument,” Thompson said. “They are not kidding anyone. They are obliged to comply with our investigation. They refused to do so. And that is a crime.” The committee responded by informing him that there were many issues he wanted to discuss with him that were not covered by privilege, but Navarro turned down the offer. Navarro also asked the commission if the proceedings would take place in public. He eventually closed the communication with the commission and referred all questions about his cooperation to Trump and his lawyers. The committee noted Navarro citing the privilege despite the fact that many of the issues he wanted to discuss with him had already been written in great detail in his book. “There are issues that the Selection Committee believes it can discuss [him] without raising any concerns about executive privileges, including, but not limited to, questions relating to [his] a three-party public report on alleged fraud in the November 2020 elections and the plan [he] described in [his] “the commission wrote in an email to Navarro on March 1. “In the days before 6 January 2021, according to information received by the Selection Committee, Mr Navarro also encouraged Mark Meadows (and possibly others) to invite Roger Stone to a discussion on 6 January,” the committee wrote. Navarro was very public about his efforts to work with Trump’s campaign to overthrow the 2020 election. swing to challenge the election results in an effort to delay and ultimately prevent certification. In a statement to CNN, Navarro responded to the commission’s contempt report by saying he believed President Joe Biden could not relinquish Trump’s executive power in his case. He also claimed that the commission’s investigation was based on a false notion that the 2020 presidential election was “free and fair”. “My position remains that it is not my executive prerogative to resign and the Commission should negotiate this issue with President Trump,” Navarro said in a statement. “If he relinquishes the privilege, I will be happy to comply; but I do not see any attempt by the Commission to clarify this issue with President Trump, which is bad faith and bad law.” This story and title have been updated with additional developments on Monday.
