Peter Navarro, a former economic adviser to President Trump, has been ordered to go to a Miami prison on March 19 to begin serving a four-month term for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Navarro, 74, was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress last year: one for failing to submit papers pertaining to the investigation and another for failing to appear for his deposition.
In a court filing on Sunday, his lawyers requested that a federal appeals court temporarily suspend his sentence while he appealed his conviction. If that effort fails, he could become the first key Trump aide to face jail time for attempting to overthrow the 2020 election.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over Navarro’s trial, denied the request for the Trump ally to remain free pending the outcome of the appeal process.
In a recent ruling, the judge dismissed Navarro’s appeal, stating that it does not present a significant legal question and does not justify his release.
Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser, was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress last year. He was sentenced to four months in prison, but a different judge ruled that he could remain free while awaiting appeal. In November, Bannon presented his case before a federal appeals court and has yet to serve any time.
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Navarro demonstrated a complete disregard for the House committee’s investigation and a blatant disrespect for the rule of law.
“The investigation conducted by Congress was a critical endeavor, as it aimed to uncover an attack that struck at the core of our democracy,” emphasized Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb. “It was an investigation of utmost significance, leaving no room for more serious matters to be addressed.”
During his sentencing, Navarro expressed to the judge that he sincerely believed that Trump had invoked executive privilege. However, Judge Mehta had previously ruled that this defense was not admissible during the trial.
According to the lawyers representing the former Trump adviser, they argued in court documents that Mehta’s decision had severely limited Navarro’s defense. They pointed out that the ruling had left a crucial question unresolved: whether a president has the authority to instruct his subordinates to refuse testimony before Congress.
Navarro, in a conversation with reporters, expressed his belief that his case has the potential to reach the Supreme Court. He highlighted the significant questions it raises regarding executive privilege for senior White House personnel.
