Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro made history Tuesday by becoming the first senior Trump aide to serve a prison sentence for actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. .
Navarro was found guilty last year on two counts of contempt of Congress. One count was for failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena for documents related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and the other was for omitting a deposition.
He fought to avoid prison in a series of legal battles, but was ultimately unable to make a convincing case and was left with no choice but to go to prison in Miami.
Here are the moments and events that chronicle Navarro’s journey to this day.
Trump administration’s Navarro
Navarro’s tenure in the White House, which lasted from April 2017 until then-President Trump left office, was centered on pursuing a hawkish foreign trade agenda focused on enacting protectionist policies. His focus shifted somewhat during the COVID-19 pandemic, as President Trump appointed him to manage the application of the Defense Production Act to essential supplies.
Navarro frequently clashed with then-top public health official Anthony Fauci over the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 and other related issues.
After Trump lost reelection in the 2020 presidential election, Navarro publicly claimed election fraud. Navarro described the November election as one of “total fraud.”
“We’re working here in the White House on the assumption that there will be a second term for Mr. Trump,” he said at the time.
Navarro told then-Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6 in an effort to overturn President Trump’s election, alleging a false theory that could cast doubt on various states’ electoral rolls. It called for action beyond the bounds of ceremonial duty.
January 6th: Special committee subpoenas Mr. Navarro.
The House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack issued a subpoena to Mr. Navarro in early February 2022, requiring him to produce documents and appear for a deposition.
The subpoena points to passages from Navarro’s own book, published in November 2021, that the committee says suggest he was involved in a scheme to delay the certification of the presidential election. Stated.
“As the White House trade adviser at the time, you worked with Steve Bannon and others to develop a plan to delay Congressional certification of the November 2020 election and ultimately change the outcome,” the committee said in its subpoena. It is reported that he did so.” “In your book, you reportedly described this plan as a “Green Bay sweep” and said it was designed as “the last best chance to wrest a stolen election from the jaws of Democratic deception.” ”
Navarro responded in a statement that Trump had invoked executive privilege.
“As the domestic terrorists carrying out the partisan witch hunt of January 6th well know, President Trump has invoked executive privilege. And it is not my prerogative to waive it. On Waiver of Privilege. should negotiate directly with the president and his lawyers, not through me,” he said in a statement at the time.
Biden administration denies claims of executive privilege
In March 2022, White House Deputy General Counsel Jonathan Su informed President Biden in a letter that he would not assert executive privilege to protect him from complying with a Congressional subpoena. He said he believed the allegations were “not in the national interest.” “The unique and unusual nature of the matter under investigation.”
“It is fanciful and dangerous to claim that a sitting president can revoke his predecessor’s executive privileges,” Navarro said in an email response to Suh.
“You and the Biden administration, along with your partisan judges and the witch hunt also known as the 1/6 Commission, are perpetrating great violence against our Constitution and our country,” Navarro said in his message. “See you at the Supreme Court.”
House despises Navarro
In April 2022, the House of Representatives voted to hold Navarro in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena. The vote also referred the charges to the Department of Justice.
Lawmakers voted almost entirely along party lines (220 to 203).
The vote followed a Jan. 6 committee vote to advance the contempt resolution to the full chamber. Member of Parliament at the time. The only Republicans on the committee, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, were the only members of their own party to support the resolution.
A federal grand jury indicted Navarro in early June 2022 on two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena.
In court, Navarro accused the Justice Department of “prosecutorial misconduct” in arresting him at the airport on his way to Nashville for a television appearance. The committee claimed it did not have the authority to subpoena him.
“That committee is a sham committee with no subpoena authority,” he told a federal judge. “They’re basically weaponizing investigative powers in a way that violates the separation of powers.”
In late June of that year, Navarro pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Judge rejects request for contempt investigation
In September 2022, a federal judge denied a request to investigate the charges against Navarro and asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce documents, arguing that the charges against him were politically motivated.
Navarro pointed to the department’s decision not to indict former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former chief of staff Dan Scavino on similar charges, saying he was being prosecuted selectively and that the court’s decision to indict him was He claimed that the ministry’s decision was “tainted by ‘illegal political interference.'” Action.
District Judge Amit Mehta rejected Navarro’s argument, saying Meadows’ and Scavino’s cases were vastly different.
Both Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino were explicitly instructed by President Trump not to comply with the committee’s Jan. 6 subpoena, and Mr. Meadows submitted thousands of text messages and other complaints about the matter. The judge said he had had “extensive” communications with the commission regarding the matter.
Mehta said Navarro had not received a specific request from Trump and told the committee there was “no apparent effort to comply” and “mainly through brief emails and public statements over a three-week period. He said he had been in contact with the committee over the years.
The judge ruled that the trial could proceed.Navarro convicted
Mehta said in a pretrial hearing in late August 2023 that Navarro had failed to prove that Trump had invoked executive privilege that he claimed prevented him from testifying before the committee on January 6. handed down a judgment. With this ruling, his trial will proceed as scheduled next week.
Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress in early September 2023 after jury deliberations that lasted nearly five hours. Sentencing was scheduled for January.
After his conviction, Navarro told reporters that he was not convicted for contempt of Congress, but for his “association with J6.”
“You saw the opening argument of prosecuting attorney John Crabb, and he didn’t plead the case in contempt. He said I was responsible for the J6 rebellion, but… That is completely unfounded,” Navarro said.
He also told reporters he expected his case to reach the Supreme Court because of questions about executive privilege for White House officials.
“I’m going to go to jail to solve this problem. ” Navarro said.
Judge rejects request for retrial
In January, Mehta accused Navarro of failing to prove that the jury had been biased by Jan. 6-related protesters during a brief outdoor recess just before the verdict was delivered. The court ruled that a new trial would not be allowed.
Mehta also said that Navarro’s lawyers knew the jury could be exposed to protesters before the verdict was reached, but they had no idea whether the jury would rule in their favor before raising concerns. I decided that I was waiting for it. Therefore, they waived it as grounds for a new trial, he wrote.
“Defendants may have no knowledge of allegations of outside improper influence on the jury, may silently bet on a favorable verdict, only to later discover that the jury was unfairly biased by outside influence.” , only to complain that a retrial is warranted,” Mehta wrote. “That’s exactly what happened here.”
Navarro sentenced to four months in prison
In late January, Navarro was sentenced to four months in prison, the same sentence given to former White House adviser Steve Bannon, who was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress last year. Ta.
Prosecutors argued that Mr. Navarro showed “total disregard” for the House committee’s investigation and “utter contempt for the rule of law.” They asked the judge to impose a six-month prison sentence.
“The committee was investigating an attack on the very foundations of our nation’s democracy,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb. “There can be no more serious investigation by Congress.”
In early February, Mehta denied Navarro’s offer to stay out of prison while he appeals his conviction.
On March 11, Navarro was ordered to report to a Miami prison to begin his sentence.
In another effort to avoid prison time, his lawyers filed a March 9 lawsuit asking a federal appeals court to temporarily suspend his sentence while he appeals his conviction. He argued that it should be put on hold.
On March 14, a federal appeals court rejected Navarro’s bid to stay out of prison while appealing his conviction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit largely upheld a trial judge’s ruling last month that Navarro’s appeal did not raise a “substantial question of law” and therefore did not justify his release.
The federal appeals court also found that for Mr. Navarro’s claim of executive privilege to raise a substantive issue, President Trump needed to invoke the privilege, but the court found that it “didn’t happen here.” ” he said.
“Even if appellant is granted administrative privilege, his complete failure to comply with the subpoena is not excused,” the appellate court said in a two-page order. “Appellant did not claim, and could not claim, absolute immunity from testimony.”
“A properly asserted claim of executive privilege would not relieve him of the obligation to produce non-privileged documents and appear at depositions to testify on non-privileged matters,” the court said. The command continued.
Navarro urgently appeals to Supreme Court
Navarro filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on March 15.
His lawyers argued that he does not pose a public safety or flight risk and should remain free while his appeal continues. They also said he was in a position to raise important issues in court.
“For the first time in our nation’s history, a senior adviser to the president has been found guilty of contempt of Congress after asserting executive privilege over a Congressional subpoena,” Navarro’s lawyers wrote.
“Dr. The question is whether “affirmative” invocation of executive privilege is necessary to prevent prosecution for contempt. What was required of former President Trump to exercise the “appropriate” privilege? ”
Justice Roberts dismisses emergency appeal
Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday struck down a last-ditch effort to free Navarro, setting a March 19 court date.
Roberts said Monday that he would not suspend Navarro’s four-month prison sentence while his appeal progresses.
“This application pertains solely to the question of whether applicant Peter Navarro has fulfilled his responsibility to establish his right to relief under the Bail Reform Act,” Roberts wrote, noting that Navarro has challenged the district. He cited an appellate court ruling that “disclaimed” any argument that would raise the issue. The court concluded that executive privilege was not invoked by President Trump.
“We see no basis for agreeing with the finding that Mr. Navarro waived these claims in the release process, which is separate from the pending appeal on the merits.”
Mr. Roberts accepted Mr. Navarro’s offer to avoid prison in order to take on urgent matters arising from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although it was just a paragraph long, it was the first time in a decade that Roberts had issued an “intracourt” opinion, a written explanation of a decision in a case that did not refer to consideration by the full court.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
