WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal jury on Thursday convicted former senior Trump White House official Peter Navarro on two counts of contempt of Congress over his refusal to provide documents or testify before the special House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The committee subpoenaed Navarro in early 2022, identifying him as one of the “political forces” that directly led to the attack by peddling false claims of widespread voter fraud and crafting a scheme, known as the “Green Bay Sweep,” to keep President Donald Trump in power despite his electoral defeat.
Navarro failed to appear and declined to turn over any records, arguing that his role as one of Trump’s most senior advisers granted him immunity under executive privilege, a legal doctrine intended to protect some of the president’s communications with his advisers.
The jury's guilty verdicts came after about four hours of deliberation. Navarro faces up to a year in jail for either count.
Following the jury's verdict, Navarro and his attorneys spoke to reporters outside the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, calling it a "landmark case" and claiming it was the first time a senior White House adviser has been convicted of a crime. He promised to appeal the jury's decision and to continue litigating the case up to the Supreme Court.
"I am willing to go to prison to settle this issue," Navarro said, as protesters both in support and against huddled behind him with signs reading "Bro, should've plead the 5th, Peter 4 Prison" and "Free J6 Political Prisoners Now."
Before making their way out of the courtroom, Navarro’s defense attorney Stanley Woodward Jr., asked for a mistrial, pointing to an hour break the jury took earlier Thursday outside the courthouse, where they likely would have heard chants from protesters gathered outside the building that could have influenced their decision.
Justice Department prosecutor John Crabb Jr. pushed back, saying that he had just reentered the building a few minutes prior and did not see any crowds gathered outside, only individual protesters who had been outside all week.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta took note of the issue, but directed Woodward to bring it up in a posttrial motion so he can fully consider it.
Prior to Wednesday’s proceedings, Mehta blocked Navarro’s attorneys from arguing that their client blew off the subpoena because he thought Trump had asserted executive privilege to block his cooperation, what had been his primary defense during pretrial hearings. The Barack Obama appointee ruled that Navarro had failed to provide any evidence Trump had actually made that assertion.
While speaking with reporters outside the courthouse, Navarro pointed to Mehta's decision as the first sign the case would not go his way.
"At the end of the day, when Mehta ruled that I couldn't use executive privilege as a defense, the die was cast," Navarro said.
The jury’s verdict came after a quick two-day trial, where Justice Department prosecutors laid out their argument that by skirting the subpoena, Navarro had placed himself above the law. They further emphasized this point by calling three witnesses, all former investigators with the special committee, who identified Navarro as a valuable witness, communicated with him directly and would have recorded his testimony had he appeared.
Dan George, a former senior investigative counsel for the committee, provided testimony about the direct communications he had with Navarro over email, where he made repeated references to executive privilege — including his first, five-word response to George — which George said meant very little, as he would have to invoke the privilege on a question-by-question basis.
Marc Harris, the former senior investigative counsel who would have questioned Navarro at his deposition, testified that in the days leading up to his scheduled appearance, Navarro stopped answering investigator’s emails and made no indication that he could not appear for any reason.
Woodward jumped on that note during his closing arguments Thursday morning, calling on the jury to question why the government did not investigate where Navarro was on the day he was meant to appear before the committee.
He said that prosecutors had failed to prove that his client had willfully refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing there was no evidence confirming beyond a reasonable doubt that some mistake or accident had prevented him from appearing.
Navarro did not testify, despite standing behind the defense table throughout both days of trial, leaving the jury with no evidence of his actual whereabouts that day.
The Green Bay Sweep plan — named by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon after a Green Bay Packers play designed around a running back forcing their way into the endzone behind a wall of offensive linemen — involved Trump loyalists in the House and Senate contesting the ballots from six swing states that President Joe Biden had won to allow Republican-dominated legislatures from those states to decertify their states’ election results, effectively giving Trump more electoral votes and therefore the election.
Bannon was similarly charged on two contempt of Congress counts for refusing a subpoena, which landed him a four-month prison sentence, although he remains free pending an appeal.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
