President Trump’s former economic adviser Peter Navarro filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on Friday as a last resort to avoid publicity during his prison sentence as he appeals his conviction for contempt of Congress.
Navarro was ordered to a Miami prison on Tuesday to serve a four-month sentence for failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Thursday 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, former President Trump needed to invoke the privilege, but the court found that it “didn’t happen here.” ” he said.
In Friday’s appeal to the High Court, Navarro’s lawyers argued that he should remain free while the appeal continues because he does not pose a public safety or flight risk.
They also argue that he is 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? ”
Top stories from The Hill
Mr. Navarro, 74, was found guilty last year on two counts of contempt of Congress. One charge is for failing to produce documents related to the January 6 investigation, and the other is for omitting a deposition.
A federal appeals court found that Navarro’s failure to fully comply with a subpoena from the now-disbanded committee on Jan. 6 violated a claim of executive privilege.
“Even if appellant is granted administrative privilege, his complete non-compliance 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 continues.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who oversaw Navarro’s trial, barred his lawyers from invoking executive privilege as a defense because they could not prove that executive privilege was invoked by President Trump.
In a court filing, Mr. Navarro’s lawyers said the defense was “hamstrung” by the “unresolved issue” of whether the president can direct subordinates not to testify before Congress.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
