Peter Navarro, a former Trump advisor, was given a four-month prison sentence on Thursday for his refusal to cooperate with a congressional inquiry into the attack on the Capitol building on January 6.
In September, Navarro was found guilty on two charges of contempt of Congress, one for not turning over investigation-related materials and the other for missing his deposition.
Prosecutors argued Thursday that Navarro showed “utter disregard” for the House committee’s probe and “utter contempt for the rule of law.” They requested a six-month prison sentence from the judge.
“The committee was looking into an attack on our democracy’s fundamental foundation,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb stated. “Congress could not conduct any more substantive investigations.”
Steve Bannon, a former White House advisor who was found guilty on two charges of contempt of Congress last year, was recommended to get the same term.
Bannon was given the same four-month prison sentence as Navarro by a federal judge. He hasn’t yet served out that sentence, though, as the judge allowed him to stay free while his case was pending. In November, Bannon’s counsel argued before a federal appeals court that he should not have to serve jail time since he was only following legal advice.
Mehta stated that he would determine whether to postpone Navarro’s punishment following the submission of written submissions by his attorney.
In addition, the Justice Department vehemently refuted Navarro’s claims in public statements and court documents that the case was politically motivated. Navarro and his attorney received criticism on Thursday from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for blaming politics.
“It is regrettable that the claims are false. They deceived, Mehta claimed. ” Neither Joe Biden nor Nancy Pelosi have any responsibility for the prosecution. Such remarks from someone with more knowledge than you do—that’s what makes our politics so polarizing.
The political atmosphere, according to Navarro’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, “won’t be fixed or changed by punishing Dr. Navarro.”
Similar to during the trial, Navarro’s attorney contended on Thursday that the former Trump advisor felt executive privilege prevented him from answering the House committee’s subpoena.
“When I got that subpoena from Congress, Navarro made a few brief remarks to Mehta, defying the advice of his attorney, saying, “I had an honest belief that the privilege had been invoked.”
In earlier court documents, Navarro’s attorneys argued that the “open question” of whether the president can order subordinates not to testify before Congress “hamstrung” Navarro’s defense.
Once Mehta determined that the Trump adviser’s legal team was unable to provide evidence that Trump had asserted executive privilege, she prohibited defense lawyers from utilizing it as a tactic. During Navarro’s September trial, both his attorneys and the government prosecutors avoided discussing the matter.
Given the issues it raises regarding executive privilege for senior White House staff, Navarro told reporters following his conviction last year that he anticipates his case going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Reiterating their plan to file an appeal, Woodward stated on Thursday that the district court is “but a pitstop in our journey to understand executive privilege.”
In September, Navarro declared, “I am willing to go to prison to settle this issue.”
Leave a Reply