Powered by Topple

‘This is a political trial’: Peter Navarro tells Trump to ‘get rid’ of impeachment lawyers, hire Matt Gaetz 

Powered by Topple

Attorneys for President Trump are making a mistake by framing their impeachment defense on narrow constitutional principles only, and the legal team would be better off with U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz rather than some “stiff” at the forefront, ex-White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro insists.

Appearing on Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax TV, Navarro was reacting to a soundbite from Trump lawyer Bruce Castor.


Navarro apparently maintains that evidence of voting irregularities — that prompted the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 that unfortunately was horribly marred by a fringe group of lawbreakers — should be incorporated into the impeachment defense rather than just a reliance on stuffy legal arguments.

“That lawyer that you just put on…you gotta get rid of those guys. These people don’t understand,” he said. “This is a political trial. And the Democrats are coming hard at the president on political grounds, and this is a free pass for the president because they’ve already acquitted him on the Republican side…so why not provide an affirmative defense.”

(Source: Greg Kelly Reports)

“The way to do that is you get to use somebody like Matt Gaetz as your lead attorney, instead of that stiff you had on, and then you use ‘The Navarro Report’ and other reports that have been put out…”

On the War Room podcast, self-described Florida Man and MAGA stalwart Gaetz previously admitted that he would be up for the challenge:

“If the president called me and wanted me to go defend him on the floor of the Senate, that would be the top priority in my life. I would leave my House seat, I would leave my home, I would do anything I had to do to ensure that the greatest president in my lifetime—one of the greatest presidents our country has ever had, maybe the greatest president our country has ever had—got a full-throated defense that wasn’t crouched down, that wasn’t in fear of losing some moderate Republican senator but that was worthy of the fight that he gave to the great people of this country for four years.”

Navarro has written three detailed analyses of alleged voting irregularities in six battleground states that are now consolidated the one report bearing his name. And Navarro was alluding to the fact that 45 Republican senators have already voted to dismiss the case against President Trump, which presumes that the Democrats have no chance to get to the 67 votes needed to convict the ex-POTUS.

Since Democrats are claiming that Trump incited the riot at the Capitol, guest host Steve Cortes, sitting in for Kelly, agreed with Navarro that the Trump team must “meet narrative with narrative” to effectively clear the president’s name. “The president needs to, in my view, launch a full-throated defense of why he has so continually voiced suspicions about the November 3 vote,” which would benefit the country in terms of election integrity going forward.

“There are no tin-foil hats in ‘The Navarro Report,'” the author, a Harvard PhD, noted. With that in mind, he also alluded to the Time article about the pro-Biden cabal that interfered in the election as well the blatant hypocrisy of Simon & Schuster in cancelling Sen. Josh Hawley’s book contract while inking a deal with Hunter Biden.

Trump’s signature “you’re fired” catchphrase from his Apprentice time might come in to play here if he takes Navarro’s advice. Watch the Newsmax discussion embedded below and draw your own conclusions:

In an Op-Ed for the Washington Times about Navarro’s compendium, Cortes —  a senior advisor to the Trump 2020 campaign —  claimed that “The Navarro Report, with its meticulous accounting of the theft, should be the cornerstone for the Trump defense.

“By embracing the granularity and statistical ‘receipts’ of the Navarro Report, Mr. Trump can stand boldly in the well of the Senate and methodically and emphatically make the case that there was nothing false about his statements. Therefore, he must be found not guilty.”

That aside, under a common sense reading of the U.S. Constitution, the senate has no jurisdiction over a former federal official.

Robert Jonathan

Comments

Latest Articles