Legal experts think the indictment of former Trump White House employee Peter Navarro, which was filed on Friday, is nothing more than a political witch hunt. After refusing a subpoena from a Democrat-dominated House panel probing the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the US Capitol, Navarro was charged with contempt counts. Navarro was ordered to deliver testimonies and documents to the committee under the terms of the subpoena, which was issued in February. Navarro is facing two charges as a result of his refusal. According to the Department of Justice, each of the counts carries a potential sentence of 30 days to a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
For refusing to comply with the committee on Jan. 6, he is the second Trump aide to be charged with contempt of Congress. The House subcommittee has dismissed Navarro’s claim of executive privilege, stating that his inquiries do not violate any areas of privilege. At the time of the breach on Jan. 6, Navarro was an official adviser to the president.
This is in stark contrast to Steve Bannon, who, like Navarro, has been accused, but was an outside consultant to Trump at the time of the breach and not an official part of his administration. The House has also voted to punish former Trump adviser Dan Scavino and former White House top of staff Mark Meadows in contempt, but the Department of Justice has not brought any charges against them.
The accusation against Navarro is “interesting because it does bring up some fundamental constitutional questions,” according to John Tolley, a New York-based attorney and former prosecutor. The House has voted to hold high-profile persons in contempt of Congress, which is unusual but not unheard of.
During an inquiry into a gun-running operation, the Republican-controlled House chose to hold Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, but a federal court rejected to put him behind bars for neglecting to give over records. Despite being held in contempt, former Obama-era IRS officer Lois Lerner was able to avoid facing criminal contempt charges from the Justice Department.
The House Oversight Committee submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department in 2008, alleging that baseball legend Roger Clemens lied under testimony about using performance-enhancing substances. Clemens was tried and found not guilty.
According to Tolley, Navarro’s prosecution is unusual, especially when compared to similar cases such as Holder’s and Lerner’s. “Instead of being tried criminally, he should have been held in contempt,” he added. Michael Abramson, a practicing attorney, presenter of the “Advancing the Agenda” podcast, and Newsmax insider, believes the Justice Department should handle congressional referrals consistently.
“If it’s a Bush Justice Department, you want them to respond in the same manner that a Biden Justice Department would act,” he remarked. “You’re looking for stability.” People are protected by the law. For people to be treated equally, policies and procedures must be followed. When these regulations and procedures are not followed, persons’ rights may be jeopardized.”
When the Democrats control the House, Juscelino Colares, a law and political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, says it “definitely appears that we have come to a point where we have a two-tier justice system” of “selected enforcement,” where the FBI acts on indictments against Republicans.
“We can’t have a nation of laws and a nation where the laws are only enforced against one group of people at the same time,” he remarked. “This isn’t conducive to restoring public confidence in our institutions.” While it is normal to hold public figures in contempt, the DOJ seldom prosecutes someone who claims executive privilege.
Navarro has previously claimed that he should be protected since he was acting on behalf of the president. Navarro pointed out the contrast between himself and MLB All-Star pitcher Roger Clemens, who was subsequently exonerated by a Washington, D.C. jury despite facing a bipartisan criminal referral.
“I’m not as excellent as Roger Clemens as a baseball pitcher.” “However, he never served in the White House,” stated Navarro. “Removing President Trump’s executive [privilege] is a fantastical and ludicrous notion.” Navarro was apprehended by the FBI on Friday morning. Navarro told the court later that day that he was on his way to Nashville, Tennessee, for a television appearance Friday morning and that an FBI team let him go to the airport and try to board an aircraft before handcuffing him.
He said that he was then taken to a detention cell. The way in which Navarro was apprehended, according to Abramson, also raises questions. “Clearly, there are less troublesome ways to apprehend someone,” he remarked.
Navarro also told Magistrate Judge Zia Farqui that he had filed a complaint against the House of Representatives and the House Committee on January 6th. Navarro filed a lawsuit against Congress on Tuesday, arguing that the House Select Committee is unconstitutional and that the subpoena it issued to him in February is invalid. He told the judge on Friday, “This is something that needs to get to the Supreme Court.” “The Justice Department appears to have worked with the White House and Congress.”
If Tolley had been defending Navarro, he would have told him to provide the desired testimony but not to answer certain questions because they would breach executive privilege. “This may have protected him from being charged with failing to appear on the count,” he added. On the other allegation of neglecting to produce papers, he said Navarro should have supplied a privilege record outlining the documents he had but couldn’t turn over because they were privileged.
