On Thursday, a federal appeals court made a decision against Peter Navarro, a former adviser to President Trump, regarding his request to avoid jail time while he appeals his conviction. Navarro was found guilty of not following a congressional subpoena that was part of the investigation into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit supported the decision made by the trial judge last month. They stated that Navarro’s appeal does not present a significant legal question, which means he does not qualify for release during the appeal process.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that Navarro’s defense based on executive privilege lacked foundation. This defense would have required former President Trump to have formally invoked this privilege, which, according to the court, did not occur.
The appeals court emphasized that even if executive privilege were applicable, it wouldn’t excuse Navarro’s total failure to comply with the subpoena. They highlighted that Navarro did not claim, nor could he claim, absolute immunity from testifying.
The court also noted that a valid claim of executive privilege would not have exempted him from the requirement to submit documents not covered by the privilege and to testify about matters not protected by the privilege.
Last year, Navarro, aged 74, was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress. His charges were related to his failure to provide documents for the January 6 investigation and his absence from a deposition. He received a four-month prison sentence.
Peter Navarro has been directed to report to a Miami prison by Tuesday. This makes him the first significant adviser to President Trump to face jail time related to efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over Navarro’s trial, prohibited his lawyers from using executive privilege as a defense. This decision came after they failed to demonstrate that Trump had indeed invoked such privilege.
Navarro’s defense argued that they were at a disadvantage due to the unresolved question of whether a president can instruct his aides not to testify before Congress. During his sentencing, Navarro expressed to the judge his genuine belief that the privilege had been invoked, leading him to disregard the requests from the House January 6 committee for documents and an interview.
Navarro’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, was approached for a comment by The Hill.
During the trial, federal prosecutors criticized Navarro for his complete disregard for the House committee’s investigation and his contempt for the law. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb emphasized the significance of the investigation, stating it concerned an attack on the very foundation of American democracy.
Steve Bannon, another former White House adviser, was also found guilty of contempt of Congress last year and received a four-month prison sentence. However, unlike Navarro, Bannon was allowed to remain free while his appeal is pending. Bannon’s appeal was heard in November, but he has yet to serve any time.
After his conviction, Navarro told reporters that he believes his case will eventually be considered by the Supreme Court due to the important questions it raises about executive privilege for high-ranking White House staff. He stated his willingness to go to prison to resolve this matter but also mentioned his belief that the chances of him serving time are relatively low because he is confident in his legal position.