Peter Navarro, a former White House advisor to former US President Donald Trump, was ordered to go to a Miami jail on March 19 to begin serving a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena issued by the select committee on January 6.
“Dr. Navarro has now been ordered to report to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, FCI Miami, on or before 2:00 PM EDT on March 19, 2024,” Navarro’s attorney stated in a court document, as per Politico.
Last year, Navarro was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for failing to produce investigation-related files and another for failing to present his testimony.
While his lawyers ask a federal appeals court to postpone his sentence while he seeks to overturn his conviction, Navarro, 74, could become the first major Trump aide to face a jail sentence for a crime related to the 2020 election disruption conspiracy.
“Accordingly, Dr. Peter Navarro respectfully reiterates his request for an administrative stay … Should this Court deny Dr. Navarro’s motion, he respectfully requests an administrative stay so as to permit the Supreme Court review of this Court’s denial,” reads the document.
Who is Peter Navarro?
Navarro was the second former Trump advisor charged with failing to appear before the January 6 panel. In July 2022, a jury convicted Steve Bannon of disregarding the committee’s subpoena.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison, but another judge permitted him to remain free pending appeal. Following that, he presented his case to a federal appeals court in November and has yet to serve any time.
US District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over Navarro’s trial, refused to release the Trump aide while the appeals process was continuing.
During the trial, prosecutors alleged Navarro showed “utter disregard” for the House committee’s probe.
However, Peter Navarro argued in court that he had an “honest belief” that Trump had invoked presidential privilege, which Mehta barred him from using as a defense at trial.
Navarro’s lawyers said in court filings that Mehta’s decision “hamstrung” his argument by keeping the subject of whether a president can instruct his staff members not to appear before Congress.
