Trump adviser Peter Navarro asks Supreme Court to keep him out of prison

Photo of author


TO senior advisor to former President Donald Trump He asked the Supreme Court on Friday to keep him out of prison while he appeals his conviction for refusing to testify before Congress about his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Peter Navarro, a 74-year-old economist, is forced to appear in prison in Miami on Tuesday, after The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said this week that “you have not shown that your appeal raises substantial issues of law or probable fact” to overturn his conviction or four-month sentence.

Navarro’s attorneys told the Supreme Court on Friday that Navarro “certainly does not pose a flight risk or a danger to public safety if released pending appeal.”

“For the first time in our nation’s history, a top presidential aide has been convicted of contempt of Congress after asserting executive privilege over a congressional subpoena,” his attorneys, Stan M. Brand and Stanley Woodward, said in filings. court on Friday, adding that Navarro will raise several issues in the appeal “that he believes will likely result in the reversal of his conviction or a new trial.”

The Supreme Court gave the Justice Department until 2 p.m. Monday to respond to Navarro’s request to remain out of prison while his appeal is ongoing.

Following the January 6th2021, attack on the United States Capitol, Navarro published a book in which he described a plot to throw the election to Trump during the certification of votes that day. He credited the idea to right-wing podcast host and former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon.

But when the investigating House committee on Jan. 6 issued subpoenas for the two men to explain those plans, they ignored them. Now they are both fighting four months prison sentences for contempt of Congress.

Navarro’s lawyers said in their filing Friday that the law does not make clear that Congress intended to punish high-level presidential aides like Navarro, who they said refused to comply with a congressional subpoena based on the belief that they should assert executive privilege.

But Navarro had no documentation showing that Trump ever planned to assert that privilege to prevent him from testifying, and Trump has never publicly corroborated his account.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta called Navarro’s immunity claim “weak sauce” and did not allow him to present it at trial.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit agreed this week that most of Navarro’s arguments would be viable only if “the president has actually invoked the privilege in this case in some way.”

“That did not happen here,” the appeals court said.

Rachel Weiner contributed to this report.

Leave a comment