Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor to Donald Trump, was found guilty of contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena from a House select committee looking into the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Navarro is the second former Trump administration official to face criminal charges for failing to cooperate with the committee. Earlier last year, Steve Bannon was found guilty on two charges of contempt. The appeal of Bannon’s case is still ongoing.
During Thursday’s closing arguments, the prosecution informed the jury that Navarro “made a choice” to ignore a subpoena issued in February 2022.
Elizabeth Aloi, an attorney in the Justice Department, said that holding people accountable for breaking the law is essential to making the system work.
She stated that “the subpoena – it is not hard to understand,” and that Navarro was aware of “what he was required to do and when he was required to do it.”
Navarro’s lawyer Stanley Woodward disagreed that the subpoena was uncomplicated, claiming that it was unclear where in the Capitol complex his client should report for his deposition.
Moreover, he argued that the prosecution had not proven that Navarro’s refusal to comply with the subpoena was not the result of a mistake or accident, and that the court should dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
For the jury’s consideration, Woodward posed the question, “Why didn’t the government present evidence to you about where Dr. Navarro was or what he was doing” on the day of the scheduled deposition. To put it bluntly, “something stinks.”
John Crabb, the prosecutor, reacted by saying, “Who cares where he was. The key is to focus on where he wasn’t.
At one point during the trial, Crabb pointed at Navarro and said to the jurors, “that man thinks he is above the law.”
Navarro had strong reactions to the movements, sometimes throwing up his hand, shaking his head, or laughing. At some point during the procedure, Woodward got up, whispered to his client, and the two of them stood there together, silently.
During closing statements, the jury listened closely as the attorneys made their final points. As he glanced at the jury, Navarro clasped his hands behind his back.
Procedural haste and restricted defence options
Navarro joined the Trump White House as a trade adviser and quickly rose to prominence, becoming a familiar public face while establishing a reputation for behind-the-scenes squabbles with other members of the administration.
He also had a significant influence in the government’s reaction to Covid-19. He took the lead in mobilising medical supplies more quickly and defended Trump’s more out-there views on the virus, such as his support for the divisive medicine hydroxychloroquine.
Navarro’s attorneys have indicated that if he is found guilty, he will appeal the case, citing the fact that he was still employed by the White House after the 2020 election and that he lost a pre-trial fight to argue to the jury that Trump asserted an executive privilege that shielded him from the subpoena.
As Navarro entered the courthouse on Thursday, he told reporters, “So today’s ‘Judgement Day,'” referring to the impending verdict.
“I have been stripped, stripped of virtually every defence by the court and yet there is some defence left and the reality here is the government has not proven his case,” he said. The Department of Justice under Biden’s leadership is the largest law company in the world. That’s the enemy I’m trying to defeat.
This week, the trial itself proceeded with remarkable swiftness and ease. The jury deliberated on the matter for less than 24 hours.
Only three witnesses, all former members of the House January 6 committee staff, were called to the stand by the prosecution. The Justice Department relied on their testimony to argue that there was sufficient evidence to justify subpoenaing Navarro and that he had been duly notified of the committee’s demands.
Prosecutor Aloi argued that Navarro “had knowledge about a plan to delay the activities of Congress on January 6.”
According to Aloi, “the defendant was more than happy to share that knowledge” in television interviews and other public utterances, “except to the congressional committee that could do something about” averting a future attack.
To divert attention from his own work, Woodward tried to downplay the significance of the attack on the Capitol and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power.
“This case is not about what happened on January 6,” Woodward said in his summary argument.
The defence team for Navarro barely had time to examine one of the government’s witnesses during cross examination. His attorneys were focusing on the part of the allegation that calls for proof that Navarro’s refusal to comply with the subpoena was intentional and not the product of an honest oversight.
After initially planning to summon an FBI agent who worked on the Justice Department probe into Navarro, the defence ultimately decided not to call any witnesses in response to the prosecution’s presentation of evidence.
The ex-Trump assistant is in legal hot water for multiple reasons.
In addition to the criminal conviction, Navarro’s time as a Trump White House advisor has caused him ongoing legal issues.
Government records from Navarro’s private email account were withheld from the National Archives after his departure from office, prompting the Justice Department to file a civil complaint against him. He is challenging the verdict against him in court.