[ad_1]
Washington
CNN
—
Peter Navarro was sentenced Thursday to four months in prison for contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena related to the Congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Navarro was found guilty in September of two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena from the House Select Committee that investigated the attack.
The judge overseeing Navarro’s case on Thursday slammed him for arguing that the former Trump adviser’s prosecution was politically motivated, calling his decision a “self-imposed verdict.”
“I think what ultimately bothers me is that here we are, over a year and a half later, and you still want to suggest to me that this is a political prosecution. You want us to believe this is a political prosecution,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said aloud during the sentencing hearing. “When the evidence is completely to the contrary.”
“You are not a victim. You are not the subject of political prosecution,” the judge said. “These situations are of your own making.”
Mehta also fined Navarro $9,500.
Navarro immediately appealed the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday. His lawyers have previously said they plan to appeal to raise issues related to his claims that Trump invoked executive privilege and failed to comply with the subpoena.
Each count carries a mandatory minimum sentence of one month in prison, but prosecutors had asked Mehta to sentence Navarro to six months in prison and a $200,000 fine on each count.
They told a judge last week that a one-month sentence on each of the two charges was “insufficient to explain, punish, and deter defendant’s criminal offenses,” and said that Navarro, who did not respond to a subpoena, He argued that his decision was similar to the defendant’s conduct. Some of those who participated in the riot.
“The defendant, like the rioters at the Capitol, put politics first, not the country, and obstructed Congress’s investigation,” prosecutors wrote. “The defendant chose loyalty to former President Donald Trump over the rule of law.”
Mr. Navarro’s conviction and sentence represent another significant victory for the now-disbanded House Committee on January 6, which required the Justice Department to criminally pursue individuals who refuse to cooperate with investigations.
Former President Trump adviser Steve Bannon was found guilty of two counts of contempt in 2022 and subsequently sentenced to four months in prison. Bannon’s case is currently on appeal.
Navarro’s lawyers are seeking a suspended sentence of no more than six months for each charge, and last week asked Mehta to suspend his sentence while he appeals his conviction.
Mr. Navarro’s trial last September proceeded quickly, taking less than a day for the jury to consider all the evidence in the case.
Prosecutors brought only three witnesses to the stand, all of them former staffers of the House Jan. 6 Committee. The Justice Department used that testimony to argue that the committee had probable cause to subpoena Mr. Navarro and that he had been repeatedly informed of the request.
Prosecutor Elizabeth Aloi told jurors in closing arguments that Navarro “knew of the plan to delay Congressional action on January 6th” and was “willing” to share that knowledge publicly. However, he said that he did not mention it in the House of Commons. Committee.
Mr. Navarro’s lawyers did not present their own witnesses, instead focusing on the part of the contempt charge that requires Mr. Navarro to prove that his decision not to comply with the subpoena was intentional and intentional. I guessed it. That means there are no consequences for Mr. Navarro’s failure to comply with the subpoena. A mistake or accident caused by carelessness.
Navarro claims he did not comply with a subpoena ordered by President Trump, who claims he invoked executive privilege in the matter. But Mehta concluded ahead of the trial that Navarro had not met his burden of proving that President Trump had formally claimed privilege and testimony immunity that prevented his former aide from even answering the committee’s questions. I attached it.
A former aide said he plans to appeal this and other issues.
“The appeal of this case certifies that former presidents are required to exercise executive privilege over senior advisers, and future advisers must ensure that the presidents they served properly exercised that privilege. You will never be in the same position of not knowing what you did not exercise,” his attorney wrote in court papers.
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is currently considering Bannon’s bid to overturn his conviction for contempt of Congress.
During oral arguments last year, some members of the three-judge panel presiding over the appeals argued that the trial judge who oversaw Mr. Bannon’s criminal case had asserted executive privilege against Mr. Bannon as part of his defense. He appeared skeptical of Bannon’s lawyers’ argument that he made a mistake in refusing to do so. , and the former adviser claimed that when he failed to comply with the subpoena, he was simply acting on the advice of his then-attorney.
This article and heading have been updated to reflect further developments.
[ad_2]
Source link
