Pass judgement on rejects Peter Navarro’s bid to stay out of prison past he appeals contempt conviction
“If anything, the record demonstrates just the opposite,” Mehta wrote in a
12-page opinion, sharply rejecting claims of favor. He famous that prosecutors opted to not rate Trump aides Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, who in a similar way refused to testify to Congress, and performed a lot greater roles in Trump’s interior circle on the past.
“Defendant’s cynical, self-serving claim of political bias poses no question at all, let alone a ‘substantial’ one,” Mehta dominated.
If the ruling holds, Navarro is also the primary member of Trump’s interior circle to proceed to jail for crimes stemming from the attempt to subvert the 2020 election.
Mehta famous that the federal appeals courtroom in Washington, D.C. might nonetheless reserve off Navarro’s sentence, however that cut of a better courtroom’s intervention, Navarro will have to “report to the designated Bureau of Prisons facility on the date ordered by the BOP.”
The opinion concludes a two-year odyssey throughout the district courtroom for Navarro, who was once held in contempt of Congress in 2022 nearest he refused to testify about his position in serving to Trump effort to topple the 2020 election effects. Navarro labored with Trump aide Steve Bannon — who was once in a similar way convicted of contempt of Congress utmost 12 months — on what they termed “the Green Bay Sweep,” a approach to have participants of Congress problem the election effects on Jan. 6, once they met to certify the election.
The Justice Area charged Navarro in April 2022 with two counts of contempt, one for refusing to testify and every other for refusing to show over paperwork. The case brought on a long pretrial procedure by which Navarro wanted to sideline the case by way of contending Trump had successfully blessed his recalcitrance by way of invoking govt privilege. However Navarro was once not able to persuade Mehta that such an invocation happened, and although he had, the pass judgement on famous, longstanding precedent barred it as a protection.
Navarro cited Nixon-era courtroom rulings to argue that his reliance on govt privilege was once a thorny enough quantity factor that his sentence must be suspension past he appeals. However Mehta uninvited the references.
“If anything, President Nixon did what President Trump could have done here. Through his counsel, he unequivocally claimed executive privilege by moving to quash the grand jury subpoena,” Mehta wrote. “Because the court found no evidence that President Trump ever invoked the privilege, no ‘presumption’ ever attached to Defendant’s testimony or records.”
