Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro has been dealt a blow in his contempt of Congress trial, as a federal judge ruled that he cannot argue that former President Donald Trump asserted privilege to shield him from a House January 6 committee subpoena. US District Judge Amit P. Mehta stated that Navarro had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that Trump formally granted executive privilege or testimonial immunity. The ruling severely limits the arguments Navarro can present in his defense. Navarro’s criminal case, brought by the Justice Department, is set to go to trial next week, and he has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
During an evidentiary hearing on Monday, Navarro testified about alleged assertions from Trump regarding the privilege. However, Judge Mehta found Navarro’s testimony to lack specificity and detail, and he pointed to the lack of follow-up from Trump to Congress after the House voted to hold Navarro in contempt. Mehta concluded that either Trump himself or someone authorized by him would have had to personally invoke the privilege for it to be validly asserted, and Navarro had not provided adequate evidence of such an assertion.
Navarro expressed his concerns about the ruling, stating that it raises complex constitutional issues related to the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. He also suggested that Mehta’s conclusions would likely be appealed, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. Navarro argued that Congress should not abuse the subpoena process to punish the party out of power.
The case was initially scheduled to go to trial earlier this year but was delayed to allow Mehta to consider the evidence regarding Trump’s alleged assertions. Navarro claimed that in conversations with Trump following the committee subpoena, the former president made it clear that he did not want Navarro to cooperate with the panel. However, Judge Mehta remained skeptical of Navarro’s assertions, stating that he still did not know what Trump said during the February call. Mehta referred to a comment Navarro made about Trump regretting not letting him testify as “weak sauce,” suggesting that it did not provide sufficient evidence of privilege invocation.
This story has been updated with additional information.
What was the basis of Peter Navarro’s argument for privilege in his contempt of Congress trial?
Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro has suffered a setback in his contempt of Congress trial, as a federal judge ruled against his argument that former President Donald Trump invoked privilege to protect him from a House January 6 committee subpoena. US District Judge Amit P. Mehta noted that Navarro had failed to provide enough evidence to establish Trump’s formal granting of executive privilege or testimonial immunity. This ruling severely limits the defense arguments Navarro can present in his upcoming criminal trial, in which he has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought by the Justice Department.
During an evidentiary hearing, Navarro testified about alleged privilege assertions from Trump. However, Judge Mehta found his testimony lacking in specificity and detail and highlighted the lack of follow-up from Trump to Congress after the House voted for Navarro to be held in contempt. Mehta concluded that for the privilege to be validly asserted, either Trump himself or someone authorized by him would have had to personally invoke it, and Navarro had not provided sufficient evidence of such invocation.
Navarro expressed his concerns about the ruling, stating that it raises complex constitutional issues related to the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. He also anticipated that Mehta’s conclusions would likely be appealed, with the potential for the case to reach the Supreme Court. Navarro argued that Congress should not misuse the subpoena process to punish the party that is no longer in power.
The trial was initially scheduled to take place earlier this year but was postponed to allow Judge Mehta to evaluate the evidence regarding Trump’s alleged assertions. Navarro claimed that in conversations with Trump following the committee subpoena, the former president made it clear that he did not want Navarro to cooperate with the panel. However, Judge Mehta remained skeptical of Navarro’s claims, noting that he still did not have a clear understanding of what Trump said during their February conversation. Mehta described Navarro’s comment about Trump regretting not letting him testify as insufficient evidence of privilege invocation, referring to it as “weak sauce.”
Note: This story has been updated with additional information.
