Peter Navarro, a former adviser to President Trump, was found guilty on Thursday of criminally disobeying a congressional subpoena in connection with the scheme to rig the 2020 election.
Navarro was found guilty of two counts of contempt for refusing to appear before a House committee on January 6 and give over papers that had been subpoenaed after the jury debated for almost four hours in a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C.
Each offense carries a potential punishment of $100,000 as well as a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail and a maximum sentence of one year.
On January 12, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta set Navarro’s sentencing.
After the verdict, Navarro appeared to be more upset with the protesters who were standing behind him as he spoke to media outside the courthouse.
He lamented the “divide” in the nation and “the woke Marxist left,” saying it was a “sad day for America,” not due to the guilty verdicts but more because he was unable to engage in an open, sincere discussion with the populace.
This is crazy, he continued.
Navarro continued by saying that he wasn’t shocked by the prompt decision. The outcome of the case was predetermined, he claimed. The appeals court will hear this case because of this.
John Rowley, one of his attorneys, remarked, “This case is not over by a long shot.”
Following the announcement of the judgment, Navarro’s attorneys also filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing to the judge that the jury had left the courtroom during a break for a break while deliberations & would have been exposed to demonstrators holding signs regarding Jan. 6 outside the building.
According to Stanley Woodward, a lawyer for the Navarro family, the jury declared their decision around ten minutes after the intermission.
In response to Woodward’s concerns, Mehta instructed him to submit a motion and promised to return to the matter later.
Woodward said that the government had not succeeded in demonstrating that his client had committed criminal contempt of Congress during his final remarks on the matter on Thursday morning.
Woodward emphasized those final three phrases again, saying, “For the government to demonstrate its case beyond any doubt, it also has to prove that Dr. Navarro’s failure to comply with the subpoena wasn’t the result of accident, mistake, or inadvertence.”
“This case pertains to those three words,” he stated, adding that the prosecution had neglected to inform the jury of Navarro’s location at the time of his scheduled appearance for his deposition with the committee on January 6.
Who is concerned where he was? the prosecutor retorted, John Crabb. Where he didn’t matter more.
Navarro, 74, claims he didn’t show up because former president Donald Trump directed him to utilize executive privilege in the case, even though Trump neither told the committee so on January 6 or provided any evidence in Navarro’s favor that he had.
Navarro was required to appear in court and provide any relevant information, according to the prosecution.
In her closing statement, Assistant US Attorney Elizabeth Aloi defined contempt as disrespecting the law. For whatever reason, she claimed that Navarro “knew he was ordered to appear and produce documents.”
The defendant’s claim that the former president had invoked executive privilege was unimportant, according to Aloi.
The task of our country to serve its people cannot be completed if individuals like the defendant can decide to disregard the government’s subpoenas, she continued.
The jury was chosen on Tuesday, and by late Wednesday afternoon, the trial’s opening arguments and witness evidence were finished.
Thursday morning, Navarro informed reporters that “today is judgment day” and said that he is a victim of a “weaponized Biden Justice Department” as he entered the building.
Soon after 11 a.m. ET on Thursday, the jury’s deliberations commenced. In the early afternoon, Navarro tweeted, “We’re in God’s hands now,” while pleading for donations to his defense fund to “fight these armed partisan bastards.”
Two counts of contempt of Congress were brought against Navarro last year: one for failing to submit documents & the other for failing to offer testimony.
In his opening remarks, Woodward informed the jury that many of the facts in the case—such as the fact that Navarro had been served with and complied with a subpoena and had failed to appear for testimony or provide the necessary documentation—were not in dispute by the defendant. Woodward, however, maintained that Navarro had not wilfully disobeyed the subpoena, which was an important aspect of the case.
Three Jan. 6 committee staff employees were called as witnesses by the prosecution, while none were called by the defense.
To escape the contempt allegations, Navarro raised a number of executive privilege defenses prior to the start of the trial. He claimed that in order to prevent him from disclosing information to the panel on January 6, Trump had instructed him to utilize an authority that can be utilized to safeguard presidential decisions.
The argument was rejected by Mehta in a decision last week, noting that the “extraordinary assertion of power” allowed by executive privilege was “not to be lightly invoked” and pointing out the lack of evidence to back up Navarro’s claims.
Navarro is one of many Trump friends who have recently been found in contempt of Congress.
For his refusal to comply with a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee, former White House strategist Steve Bannon was found guilty by a jury last year on two charges of contempt of Congress. Four months in jail and a $6,500 fine were imposed on him as punishment.
Even though he hasn’t finished his term, he is appealing.
Mark Meadows, a former chief of staff in the White House, was found to be in contempt of the Democratic-controlled House in 2021 for refusing to provide information regarding the Capitol riot. In spite of Meadows providing some emails and other records to the committee on January 6, the Justice Department decided not to charge her.