Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who previously worked under Donald Trump, has filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid imprisonment while he challenges his conviction for contempt of Congress.
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the defendant’s request and instead ordered him to surrender to federal lockup authorities by March 19th.
In his emergency application, Navarro addresses Chief Justice John Roberts and expresses his discontent with the appellate court’s ruling. Navarro’s attorneys highlight the “unprecedented nature” of his conviction as the basis for their complaint.
According to the application, Dr. Navarro stands out as the sole former senior presidential advisor who has faced prosecution for contempt of congress after invoking executive privilege on behalf of the president. The District Court recognized that Dr. Navarro genuinely believed he had a duty to assert executive privilege on behalf of former President Donald Trump. It is undisputed that Dr. Navarro did, in fact, assert executive privilege in response to the congressional subpoena he received.
The House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was convinced that Navarro possessed crucial information pertaining to the investigation into the events that unfolded before, during, and after the pro-Trump riots. And the jury was persuaded by the prosecutors.
Navarro refused to provide the requested records to Congress when asked. Even when faced with the possibility of a subpoena, he still did not comply. It wasn’t until he was officially subpoenaed that Navarro finally had to submit the records.
Trump’s attempt to use executive privilege as a defense did not succeed. He failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that he had executive privilege over his former trade specialist, Navarro.
In September 2023, he faced a daylong trial and four hours of deliberations, resulting in his guilty verdict on two counts of contempt of Congress.
The emergency application highlights a significant milestone in our country’s history – the conviction of a senior presidential advisor for contempt of congress. This unprecedented event occurred as a result of the advisor asserting executive privilege over a congressional subpoena. Dr. Navarro, the individual in question, has appealed the conviction and intends to raise several issues on appeal. He firmly believes that these issues have the potential to lead to the reversal of his conviction or a new trial.
In January, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta handed down a four-month prison sentence and a $9,500 fine to the 74-year-old for his uncooperative behavior.
Navarro claims in his application that the judge denied him the opportunity to present a comprehensive defense, while giving the state an unfair advantage.
The request for a stay is described in detail (emphasis in original):
Moreover, the district court precluded Dr. Navarro from presenting any evidence in his defense explaining that even though he did in fact default on the congressional subpoena, he felt duty-bound to assert executive (the district court acknowledged that Dr. Navarro at the very least thought he had invoked), while simultaneously allowing the government to summarize its case to the jury as Dr. Navarro’s assertion of executive privilege unequivocally did not excuse him from complying with the subpoena and his failure to do so put him, “above the law.”
The defense, struggling with pretrial rulings, chose not to call any witnesses or present any evidence during the trial.
Navarro’s application asserts that his prosecution, along with the subsequent failure of his privilege defense, was an unusual occurrence in history.
The stay request contends that it is not clear whether Congress intended to penalize senior presidential advisors who, in good faith, declined to comply with a congressional subpoena. These advisors may have believed in good faith that they had a duty to assert executive privilege, a position that the Department of Justice held for over four decades before pursuing a prosecution of Dr. Navarro.
Read More:
- Is It Illegal To Drive Barefoot in New York? Here’s What The Law Says
- Is It Illegal to Drive Barefoot in California? Here’s What the Law Says