On Thursday, ex-President Trump adviser Peter Navarro was found guilty of Congress charges after defying to help with a House Investigation into 6 January 2021 American Capitol violence. After a short trial, a decision came out. Peter was the second Donald Companion to be found guilty of Congress blame after Steve Bannon, ex-government adviser, was found guilty in two cases and was punished with four months in prison, but his case is currently on appeal.
Amit Mehta, Judge, set up Peter Navarro’s judgment for 12 January 2024. Navarro was verdict in Washington’s federal courthouse of two crime cases of disrespect of Congress, and both can be sentenced to more than one year in jail.
Prosecutors said Peter Navarro behaved as he was superior than law when he refused a subpoena for documents and overthrow from the House 6 January committee.
A defense lawyer said that Peter Navarro didn’t intentionally defy the House 6 January Committee. Peter Navarro said to reporters that he intended to appeal and that his denial to help Congress was based on executive advantages.
John Rowley, defense lawyer of Navarro, said the decision will be given by the DC Court of Appeals. He also said that it is the first time that a senior president companion, who has been an advisor of the president for four years, has ever been found guilty by the Congress.
There are serious issues here that need to be addressed by the Court of Appeals. Judge gave it decisions on the grounds of an evidentiary hearing last week, evidence showing that Ex-President Trump had given order to Peter Navarro to cooperate with executive privilege.
A judge gave the decision that the executive privilege arguments were not justified against the charges, and Navarro could not prove Trump’s invocation. But the defense lawyer said the prosecutor had failed to show that Peter acted intentionally on the will of Trump.
Peter Navarro in Court Room
Prosecutors said Navarro should have submitted any data he could provide and highlighted any queries or documents he believed fell under executive privilege protection. According to prosecutors, the data the committee wanted was easily available to the public.
According to prosecutor Elizabeth Aloi, Navarro made a decision. Peter decides to go against the subpoena of Congress. She added, “The defendant chose allegiance to former President Donald Trump over compliance to the subpoena.”
Woodward asked the judges why the government still did not show evidence to the court on the scheduled day where Navarro was or what he was doing.
John Crabb, prosecutors answered it does not make any difference where he was. The main concern is he was not here. Prosecutor John repeatedly said to Navarro while pointing to him that the man thinks he is superior to the law.
During closing arguments, judges were focused and carefully listened to lawyers who were presenting their final arguments. Peter Navarro stood on the opposite side of the room and focused intently on the judges.
On Thursday afternoon, after the decision was read, Peter Navarro’s legal team looked for a mistrial, expressing concerns over the potential influence that alleged protestors may have had when judges took a break.
Navarro’s lawyer, Woodward, said that it is obvious the judges would have been aware of those protestors. It is difficult for us to understand what impact that would have on their decision.
On Thursday, after the decision was read, Peter Navarro was continuously disturbed by protestors when he came out of the courthouse. Navarro said that it was a sad day for the United States, not because he was found guilty, but because he could not come out to have a decent and honest conversation with the citizens of the United States.