WASHINGTON (CN) — Peter Navarro, former senior trade adviser to Donald Trump, was sentenced to four months in prison on Thursday on contempt of Congress charges stemming from 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” behind the attack and accusing him of peddling false claims of widespread voter fraud.
He crafted a scheme known as the “Green Bay Sweep,” prosecutors say, to use Trump loyalists in the House and Senate to decertify swing states' 2020 election results to hand Trump the election.
Navarro had argued that he was protected by executive privilege — a legal doctrine intended to protect some of the president’s communications with his advisers — and therefore was not required to appear before Congress, nor to provide the requested documents.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, also ordered Navarro to pay a $9,500 fine.
In February 2022, Navarro received an email from the special committee in which former senior investigative counsel Dan George asked whether he could send the subpoena via email and whether Navarro had an attorney, according to George’s trial testimony in September 2023.
“Yes. No counsel. Executive privilege,” Navarro responded within three minutes.
But Navarro would have had to appear before Congress to invoke the protection on a question-by-question basis and for each requested document.
“The words executive privilege are not a magical incantation or magical dust,” Mehta said. “It’s not a get out of jail free card."
He rejected statements Navarro had made throughout the case, publicly and in court, that he was the victim of a political prosecution ordered by President Joe Biden.
“You are not a victim, you are not the object of a political prosecution, you have received every process you are due, as every American is entitled to,” Mehta said.
He recognized that Navarro had every right to make such statements to the press and the public, but took issue with his repeating them in his courtroom.
Mehta pointed to the cases of Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows, two of Trump’s closest aides in the White House, who were not prosecuted for failing to appear before the select committee, noting they had at least provided documents and text messages.
The committee had recommended they be charged with contempt of Congress for their failure to appear, but the Justice Department declined to pick up the case.
“They misled. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden are not responsible for his prosecution. From someone who knows better, that contributes to why our politics are so divisive. It's regrettable,” Mehta said of Navarro’s statements.
Navarro made a surprise statement before the court, in which he asserted that he believed he had invoked the privilege correctly, noting that the learning curve in the case was steep but felt assured it could provide a "roadmap" for future presidential advisers.
"I'm not only the first person to be charged with this, I'm also the last," he said.
Navarro was convicted by an eight-person jury in September, after which he claimed the jury had been wrongly influenced by protestors holding signs outside the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., during a short break.
Mehta denied a mistrial motion by Navarro, finding a lack of evidence to prove his claim after reviewing submitted video footage and security camera recordings that showed the jurors had no interactions with the protestors — both for and against Navarro — and spent little time near them.
Stanley Woodward Jr., Navarro’s defense attorney, asked Mehta to waive the mandatory minimum of 30 days for a contempt conviction, arguing that Navarro had a good faith belief he had correctly invoked executive privilege and felt “duty-bound” to do so.
Mehta was quick to reject that idea, noting that as an experienced lawyer, Woodward understood how such privileges — specifically attorney-client privilege — should be used.
“Any lawyer worth his salt would advise Navarro, ‘We need to engage with Congress and figure out what is and isn’t covered,' that didn’t happen here,” Mehta said, noting Navarro did not seek out legal counsel prior to invoking executive privilege.
Woodward said Navarro’s case was just an example of how little was understood about how the protection should be used.
“We’re frankly but a pitstop on our journey to understand what exec privilege is and how it should be invoked,” he said, indicating that the questions should be considered by the D.C. Circuit.
Navarro said as much in a statement to reporters outside the courthouse — amid a din of cowbells and whistles from a small group of protestors — arguing his prosecution raised separation of powers issues that should be considered by the Supreme Court.
Fellow Trump adviser Steve Bannon was convicted on two contempt of Congress charges for refusing a similar subpoena, which landed him a four-month prison sentence, but he remains free pending an appeal.
Navarro and his lawyers filed an appeal of Mehta’s judgement to the D.C. Circuit immediately after the court adjourned. He will also remain free pending his 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.
