Left: Peter Navarro, former Director of the White House National Trade Council, speaks at the final day of the conservative conference on February 24, 2024. (Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via AP). Right: Steve Bannon, host of War Room, closes out the final day of CPAC on February 24, 2024. (Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via AP)
Peter Navarro, once again, is pleading to stay out of prison following his two-count conviction of contempt of Congress, according to a motion filed by the onetime trade adviser to Donald Trump in a Washington, D.C., appeals court.
The 30-page emergency motion for relief asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to quickly hear Navarro’s request that he not be forced to report to federal prison for four months while he appeals a lower court’s ruling that he serve his sentence immediately.
“For the first time in history, a senior presidential advisor has been convicted of contempt of congress after asserting executive privilege over a congressional subpoena. Dr. Navarro has appealed and will raise a number of issues on appeal that he contends are likely to result in the reversal of his conviction, or a new trial,” wrote attorney Stanley Woodward.
That argument is one Navarro has attempted to advance, mostly unsuccessfully thus far. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta denied his request for a new trial and at sentencing, the Barack Obama-appointee laced into the former White House adviser for his apparent lack of contrition after he flouted a congressional committee subpoena from lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The emergency motion evokes an argument Navarro is also making in federal court against the Justice Department. The department sued him more than a year ago to claw back government records prosecutors say he took after his departure from the White House in January 2021.
There, Navarro’s argument that his records were not subject to subpoena because of executive privilege rights has been met with skepticism and rebuke. Only a week ago, U.S. District Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly warned Navarro that if he failed to comply with a court-ordered request to locate hundreds of official presidential records, he could be held in contempt of court.
Kollar-Kotelly, appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, gave Navarro until March 21 to show cause for why he shouldn’t be held in contempt.
The 74-year-old is expected to report to prison imminently, though a date has not been set on the docket. But in the emergency motion, Navarro argues that he should not be required to report because he is neither a flight risk nor danger to the community.
“And the appeal is not taken solely for purposes of delay,” Woodward wrote. “The only issue this court need decide is whether the appeal presents a, ‘substantial question of law or fact likely to result in—(i) reversal, (ii) an order for a new trial, (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeals process.”
He wishes to argue, in sum, that as a presidential adviser, Navarro should be able to claim that he had a reasonable belief that he had a “legal duty to assert executive privilege” over the records Congress sought from him.
Specifically, lawmakers were after his testimony and records pertaining to his public efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election through a fake elector scheme. Navarro was one of many advisers to receive a subpoena and one of the very few to flatly deny the request.
Navarro’s cohort in their self-proclaimed “Green Bay Sweep” election subversion strategy, Steve Bannon, was also held in contempt of Congress. He was also sentenced to four months in prison. But Bannon has yet to serve any day of his four month sentence handed down in October 2022. Bannon appealed swiftly after and his sentence is on hold pending that appeal.
When Navarro faced a jury trial in Washington, D.C., Judge Mehta did not permit him to argue that he ignored the subpoenas from Congress.
There was no proof or evidence Navarro offered to support his claim that Trump had invoked privilege over his testimony and records. Mehta remarked to Navarro in court last August that his line of defense was “pretty weak sauce,” CNN reported.
Today, Navarro says that was a decision that relied on “repudiated” case law and in effect, because Bannon was released pending appeal, so should he.
Woodward declined comment on Navarro’s behalf when reached by e-mail Tuesday.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
