Federal Judge Raises Doubts About Peter Navarro’s Defense in Contempt of Congress Case
In a key pre-trial hearing on Monday, former Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro defended himself against charges of defying subpoenas issued by the House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Navarro claimed that he did so because Trump had asserted executive privilege. However, Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed skepticism about Navarro’s testimony, calling his defense arguments “pretty weak sauce.” The judge pointed out that Navarro’s testimony only represented one side of the conversation and questioned the absence of direct evidence from the former president. Navarro’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, acknowledged that Trump is not expected to testify on behalf of Navarro, potentially undermining a key defense strategy.
Navarro’s case, which is set to go to trial next month, may have significant implications for congressional authority and the extent of presidential power. Another former Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, was convicted by a jury on similar charges last year and is currently appealing. Navarro’s testimony during the hearing emphasized that Trump had made it clear during a call on February 20, 2022, that he did not want Navarro to cooperate with the committee. Navarro described the invocation of privilege as “very clear” and emphasized that there was no question about it. However, the lack of direct evidence and the judge’s doubts about Navarro’s defense arguments have raised uncertainty about how he will be able to defend himself during the trial.
During the hearing, Navarro urged people to donate to his legal defense fund, stating that the case has already cost over half a million dollars. He emphasized the importance of the case for the constitutional separation of powers and settling legal questions surrounding congressional authority. Throughout the hearing, Navarro maintained a defensive stance, standing with his arms folded and pacing back and forth when off the stand. At one point, he became testy with the prosecutor, prompting the judge to instruct him on how to conduct himself during cross-examination.
A significant point of contention during the hearing was the inclusion of written testimony from a key defense witness, Trump aide Liz Harrington. Navarro’s team requested a stipulation agreement, which would allow agreed-upon written testimony to be submitted into the record. However, prosecutors opposed this move and suggested that Harrington submit an affidavit that could be cross-checked with her grand jury testimony. The judge has yet to make a decision on this matter.
As Navarro’s trial approaches, the outcome of his case could shape the balance of power between Congress and the presidency. With doubts raised about his defense arguments and the absence of direct evidence from Trump, Navarro’s ability to effectively defend himself remains uncertain. The judge’s decision on the inclusion of written testimony from a defense witness also awaits resolution.
Original Story at www.cnn.com – 2023-08-28 20:46:00
Comments are closed.