Former Trump Adviser Navarro Convicted of Contempt of Congress
On Thursday, Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to former Pres. Donald Trump was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, US Capitol riots....
0:00
/0:00
Facts
- On Thursday, Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to former Pres. Donald Trump was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, US Capitol riots.1
- Navarro, who indicated he would appeal the jury’s decision, is scheduled to be sentenced in January when he’ll face a maximum of one year in prison and a fine of $100K for each count.2
- During the short trial, prosecutors argued Navarro acted as if he was “above the law” when he defied the subpoena; his defense claimed Trump invoked executive privilege.3
- The jury deliberated for four hours before handing down its decision.3
- The committee had sought Navarro’s cooperation because of his claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election and alleged plan to postpone the certification of Pres. Joe Biden’s victory.4
- Navarro is the second Trump adviser to be convicted for defying the Jan. 6 committee. Last year, Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress and sentenced to four months in prison; his conviction is currently under appeal.5
Sources: 1USA Today, 2CBS, 3Associated Press, 4Politico and 5Reuters.
Narratives
- Republican narrative, as provided by One America. It’s not surprising that the witch hunt against Trump and his former aides led to prosecution from the weaponized Dept. of Justice and a conviction from a politically motivated jury. This case should be appealed — to the Supreme Court if necessary — so that this injustice against Navarro can be reversed.
- Democratic narrative, as provided by MSNBC. For a party that preaches the importance of 'law and order,' these actions by the GOP are deeply hypocritical. If this was part of a witch hunt, Navarro could have just cooperated with the House subpoena and proved his evidence rather than acting as though it was an optional request.