Is Steve Bannon’s Conviction Really the Same as Peter Navarro’s?

President Trump’s trade advisor, Steve Peter Navarro, may be in big trouble with the law — and not just because he called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that little punk kid running Canada after the G7 summit.

As it turns out, he may have engaged in insider trading while serving as an advisor to President Trump by making securities purchases based on non-public information about White House policymaking … just like Steve Bannon did before him.

But if you’re thinking that Navarro must know that this means Bannon’s verdict was correct, well … maybe not!

Some context on what happened

Steve Bannon is a self-proclaimed hater of all things establishment, but he might end up going to prison for something that everyone knows he did.

Last Thursday, in Virginia, Steven K. Bannon was found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence and misdemeanor battery after an ex-wife accused him of grabbing her by the neck and pulling her hair. This conviction is noteworthy because if he’s convicted on both charges and they don’t get merged,

there are two different ways in which his sentence could be served: one where he spends time behind bars, and one where he doesn’t.

Here’s what no one is talking about: Yesterday, another Trump Administration official was found guilty of almost exactly these same crimes — except his charges carry with them up to 60 years in prison if he’s convicted. Unlike Steve Bannon, these crimes did not happen over a decade ago.

They just happened last year, and only eight months ago. And unlike Steve Bannon, whose trial lasted one day and had no witnesses or cross-examination of evidence,

Jeff Sessions’ prosecution Steve has been going on for nearly a month now — all with testimony from more than 50 witnesses who were cross-examined by defense counsel. The entire proceedings have been under intense media scrutiny throughout — so why does everyone think that Justice Department attorney Peter J.

A review of some key facts

In August 2017, Steve Bannon was found guilty of non-willful concealment and disclosure of documents in a US Bankruptcy Court case stemming from his time on board at Biosphere 2.

Two years earlier, he had also been found guilty in a US District Court case on similar charges related to document disclosure before another bankruptcy court. The conviction related to his work on behalf of Biosphere 2 in its 2003 bankruptcy process, not his work on Trump’s campaign or administration.

In April 2019, President Trump brought Peter Navarro into the White House Council of Economic Advisers and later made him Director of the National Trade Council.

How are they different?

It is worth noting that while both people were convicted of obstruction, there are major differences between their convictions.  The crime for which Bannon was convicted happened on January 27th and the conviction was announced on March 20th, a span of about three months.

For Navarro’s conviction, however, it took more than six months from when he committed his crime to when he was convicted. These timelines indicate that Trump may have been trying to obstruct justice in a much more flagrant way with Bannon than with Navarro.

The media coverage around these cases also reflects this difference in severity: most articles about Bannon highlight his intent to hinder Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion whereas articles about Navarro focus on how Trump has been bullying and threatening him since before he joined the administration.

Why does it matter?

Ever since President Trump came into office, we’ve been hearing a lot about his cabinet and what they each do. Some more than others.

Some have garnered significant amounts of power because of the relative neglect that other parts of the administration were met with (such as Homeland Security). And some were relegated to some seemingly insignificant roles by comparison.

The Secretary of Labor might not seem like a consequential position about the Secretary of Commerce or Treasury, but it does matter when you look at how important labor is for American economics (as it makes up 40% of our GDP).

So what does that say about Secretary of Commerce and Wilbur Ross’ old friend from Wall Street, Pete Navarro?

Conclusion

Both men were indeed convicted of lying to investigators about the duration of conversations with Russian officials, but their stories are slightly different. This means that in all likelihood, each man could have told a different story about what happened and not been lying. It is possible,

for example, that Mueller has contradictory evidence and isn’t able to build a case against either man. That would mean either one or both men could be telling the truth- even if one of them was more adamant than the other.

Keep browsing Law Scribd for more updates.