A report from Newsmax dated Friday, January 19, 2024, former trade and pandemic adviser to Donald Trump, Peter Navarro, is facing a possible six-month jail sentence for contempt of Congress. This comes after he refused to cooperate with a House investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Federal prosecutors have expressed concern over Navarro’s “defiance and contempt” for both the rule of law and the authority of Congress. They are urging for a severe penalty as a deterrent against future obstruction.
Navarro, aged 74, was convicted in September on two counts of contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
More Read
The subpoena, issued in February 2022, demanded Navarro to produce documents and testify before the committee regarding his role and communications leading up to and during the violent insurrection that disrupted the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
Prosecutors filed a 20-page sentencing memorandum on Friday, asserting that Navarro’s conduct was “egregious” and warranted significant punishment. They argued that Navarro prioritized politics over the country and obstructed Congress’s investigation even after learning that his claim of executive privilege would not shield him from the subpoena.
The prosecutors also claimed that Navarro aggravated the assault on the Capitol by rejecting Congress’s authority following the attack.
In drawing a parallel, they referenced the case of Stephen K. Bannon, another former Trump adviser convicted of contempt of Congress for defying the same committee’s subpoena. Bannon received a four-month prison sentence in October 2022, pending appeal.
Prosecutors argued that Navarro should receive a longer sentence than Bannon due to his higher position in the White House and more direct involvement in the events of January 6.
Contrarily, Navarro’s defense has requested leniency and probation, contending that he acted in good faith and followed Trump’s assertion of executive privilege. They argue against a disproportionate sentence, citing the unprecedented and politically motivated nature of Navarro’s case. They highlight historical instances of defying congressional subpoenas, asserting that Navarro’s situation should not be treated differently from similarly situated individuals.
