Peter Navarro, the former White House trade advisor and now a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, was recently convicted of contempt for defying a subpoena issued by a grand jury convened to investigate the January 6 Capitol insurrection.
On July 24, 2020 Navarro was convicted by US District Judge Amit P. Mehta for his refusal to comply with the commission’s subpoenas and to falsify his testimony. Navarro initially denied receiving the subpoenas, despite having received one in person at his Washington office. As part of the conviction, Navarro was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.
The conviction follows a lengthy dispute between the commission and Navarro, where Navarro argued that the subpoenas sent to him were unconstitutional and unlawful. Navarro argued that the subpoenas did not clearly identify the scope of the investigation or identify individuals or entities related to it, and that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Justice Department attorney defending the commission argued that Navarro’s claims were invalid and that the subpoenas were issued properly.
Navarro had remained defiant throughout the dispute, and when asked to comply with the subpoena, he refused and stated that he would “not recognize the authority of the commission or the court.” Navarro also argued that the commission, whose sole purpose is to investigate the insurrection, was a political tool of President Biden and the Democrats.
Judge Mehta rejected this argument, ruling that Navarro had no legal basis for his claims and that his refusal to comply with the subpoenas was contemptuous. Mehta stated that the authority of the commission was “clearly established” and that “every witness is obligated to appear and testify.” He further noted that Navarro’s conduct constituted “an egregious violation of the obligation to respond to the grand jury’s subpoenas” and of the court’s authority.
By criminalizing Navarro’s refusal to comply with the grand jury’s subpoenas, the court reaffirmed its authority and has established the importance of its subpoenas and the importance of those who receive them to comply. This conviction serves as a reminder to all witnesses that they must comply with the demands of justice and that failure to do so can have grave consequences.
