[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – President Trump’s former White House adviser Peter Navarro was sentenced Thursday to four months in prison for contempt of Congress, with a federal judge ruling that even though he was the “victim” he professed to be, he was subject to political persecution. He said no. Otherwise.
Navarro was convicted in September of two counts of refusing to testify and provide material to the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. was announced and dissolved at the end of 2022 after Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives.
The charge carried a minimum sentence of one month in prison. Federal prosecutors had asked Navarro to serve six months in prison, saying he “like the rioters at the Capitol, put politics first, not the country, and obstructed the Congressional investigation.” Prosecutors said Navarro “chose loyalty to former President Donald Trump over the rule of law.” Federal prosecutors said Mr. Navarro “snorted” at a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta handed down the sentence Thursday and ordered Navarro to pay a $9,500 fine.
Before sentencing, Mehta told Navarro that the term “executive privilege” is not a “magic spell” or a “get-out-of-jail-free card” to get out of a subpoena.
“My regret is that even today, there is little recognition in these circumstances of what our duty as Americans is to cooperate with Congress and provide the information that Congress seeks. “I haven’t done it,” he said. You think this is a political stunt, but it’s domestic terrorists running the committee. They had a job to do and you made it difficult. It’s really that simple. ”
“You are not a victim,” Mehta continued. “You are not subject to political prosecution, you are not. You have received all the scheduled processes.”
Mr. Navarro immediately appealed his conviction.
At the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb said federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia are committed to “enforcing the law without fear, favor or political influence,” and said Navarro He said his prosecution was “justice.”
“The defendant believes he is above the law, but no one is above the law,” Crabb said. “We are a nation of laws. The rule of law is critical to a functioning democracy.”
Navarro helped spread misinformation about the 2020 election after Trump’s loss, publishing a report that falsely stated it proved statistically “improbable” that Trump would lose the election. Announced. President Trump referenced this report in his infamous “It’s going to be wild” tweet on December 19, 2020, and his support for going to Washington for a “massive protest” on January 6. encouraged people to do so. Regarding that tweet, many of the January 6th defendants said: What drew them to Washington?
Navarro’s lawyers asked for the sentence imposed Thursday to be immediately put on hold, citing “new issues” presented in the case, including Navarro’s belief that Trump invoked executive privilege.
Attorney Stanley Woodward argued Thursday that “he did so because he believed he was obligated to do so.”
Mehta did not immediately rule on the stay request and asked for further explanation. Navarro has one week to submit briefs in the case, after which a judge will issue a ruling.
Crabb said before sentencing that Navarro had no bona fide basis to invoke the privilege. “The defendant brazenly defied Congress,” he said.
In their sentencing memo, federal prosecutors cited the case of right-wing podcaster and former White House staffer Steve Bannon. Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison in October 2022 for a similar contempt charge, but he has not yet served time as he is seeking to have the conviction overturned.
“Like Stephen Bannon before him, the defendant used his notoriety throughout the pendency of this case, in court press conferences, in his books, and on his podcast, to explain to the public why he did not comply with the committee’s subpoenas. has demonstrated: a disregard for government process and the law, particularly the commission’s work,” federal prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memo. “The defendant wrote a book on the very subject that was the subject of the committee’s subpoena. He was willing to tell the world what he knew, but he did not tell Congress.”
[ad_2]
Source link
