This is wrong!
Peter Navarro, a former adviser to ex-President Trump, received a four-month prison sentence on Thursday for his refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack. In September, Navarro was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress, one for not producing documents related to the probe and another for skipping his deposition.
During the sentencing hearing, prosecutors asserted that Navarro exhibited “utter disregard” for the House committee’s investigation and “utter contempt for the rule of law.” They advocated for a six-month prison term, emphasizing the gravity of the congressional inquiry into an attack on the foundation of democracy.
Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser, faced a similar sentence recommendation for two counts of contempt of Congress. Although a federal judge sentenced Bannon to four months in prison, he has not served the time as he remains free pending appeal.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over Navarro’s case, will determine whether Navarro’s sentence will be deferred after receiving written arguments from his counsel. Additionally, Navarro was ordered to pay a $9,500 fine.
The Justice Department vehemently denied any political influence on the prosecution, countering Navarro’s suggestions of political motivations. Judge Mehta criticized Navarro and his counsel for blaming politics, emphasizing that such statements contribute to divisive politics.
Navarro’s defense continued to argue that he believed he should not comply with the House committee’s subpoena due to executive privilege. The judge acknowledged Navarro’s assertion but did not consider it a legal defense. After his conviction, Navarro expressed anticipation that his case would reach the Supreme Court due to its implications on executive privilege for high-ranking White House staff.
Following the sentencing, Navarro attempted to address reporters, but protesters, blowing whistles and banging a cowbell, largely drowned out his remarks. This disruptive protest mirrored previous incidents, with Navarro requesting a new trial earlier, alleging jury prejudice, which the judge denied. Navarro’s legal team affirmed their intention to appeal, underscoring their commitment to understanding the complexities of executive privilege.