Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro was on Thursday sentenced to four months in prison for refusing to comply with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Navarro was convicted in September on two counts of contempt of Congress — one for failing to produce documents related to the probe and another for skipping his deposition.
Prosecutors argued Thursday that Navarro showed “utter disregard” for the House committee’s probe and “utter contempt for the rule of law.” They asked the judge to impose a six-month prison term.
“The committee was investigating an attack on the very foundation of our democracy,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb. “There could be no more serious investigation undertaken by Congress.”
The same sentence was recommended for Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser who was also convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress last year.
A federal judge sentenced Bannon to four months in prison, the same term Navarro received. However, he has not yet served that time because the judge said he could remain free pending appeal. In November, Bannon’s attorney argued before a federal appeals court that he should not have to serve jail time because he was merely following legal advice.
Mehta said he would decide whether Navarro’s sentence will be deferred after his counsel submits its arguments in writing.
The Justice Department also forcefully denied that the prosecution was influenced by politics — something Navarro has suggested in court filings and public remarks. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta chided Navarro and his counsel Thursday for blaming politics.
“It’s unfortunate that the statements mislead. They mislead,” Mehta said. “Nancy Pelosi is not responsible for this prosecution; Joe Biden isn’t responsible for the prosecution. It’s those kinds of statements from someone who knows better… that contributes to why our politics are so divisive.”
“Punishing Dr. Navarro won’t fix or change that,” Navarro attorney Stanley Woodward later said of the political climate.
Like at trial, Navarro’s counsel argued Thursday that the ex-Trump adviser believed he should not comply with the House committee’s subpoena due to executive privilege.
“When I received that congressional subpoena…I had an honest belief that the privilege had been invoked,” Navarro told Mehta in brief remarks, made against his counsel’s advice.
Navarro’s lawyers previously claimed in court filings that his defense was “hamstrung” by the “open question” of whether a president can direct his subordinates not to testify before Congress.
Mehta barred defense attorneys from using executive privilege as a defense, after finding that the Trump adviser’s counsel failed to prove Trump invoked said privilege. Navarro’s lawyers and government prosecutors tiptoed around the issue during his September trial.
After his conviction last year, Navarro told reporters he expects his case to reach the Supreme Court due to the questions it raises about executive privilege for high-ranking White House staff.
Woodward said Thursday that the district court is “but a pitstop in our journey to understand executive privilege,” reaffirming their intention to appeal.
“I am willing to go to prison to settle this issue,” Navarro said in September.