White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s contempt of Congress case moved a step closer to the Supreme Court this week. After a three-judge appellate panel ruled against him last month, he asked the full appeals court to rehear his case.

The rehearing petition could serve as a precursor to Navarro asking the justices to take his case, should the full appeals court reject him. In his petition, he argues that the panel’s reliance on the appeals court’s own precedent “grievously misconstrues” the law and “flouts decades of Supreme Court precedent.”

Appeals courts abide by their own precedents unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise or the appeals court reverses itself, as Navarro urges the Washington, D.C., court to do here.  

Navarro was prosecuted during the Biden administration for not complying with a House Jan. 6 committee subpoena. His lawyer said his client has “turned down” a pardon in order to “vindicate his case in court.”

The Trump adviser had moved to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that he said Trump had invoked executive privilege on his behalf. The trial judge found that didn’t happen and blocked Navarro from arguing to the jury that he mistakenly thought he didn’t have to respond to the subpoena.  

“Because President Trump did not, in fact, invoke executive privilege, neither the Select Committee’s subpoena nor the prosecution for Dr. Navarro’s contumacy in the face of that subpoena presents the separation-of-powers concerns of which Dr. Navarro complains,” the panel said last month in rejecting his appeal.

Navarro already served his four-month sentence in the case, with the Supreme Court rejecting his bid to stay free while he appealed.

His appeal centers on the meaning of “willfully” in the federal law under which he was prosecuted. The law says that someone who is “summoned as a witness” by Congress “to give testimony or to produce papers” can’t “willfully” default on a subpoena. Under the D.C. appeals court’s precedent, willfulness requires only intentionality, not evil intent. Navarro argues that precedent is wrong and that, if the law had been correctly interpreted, he could have shown he lacked unlawful intent.

The panel that ruled against him last month noted that Navarro had published a book that took credit for devising a plan to “leverage” the vice president’s authority under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to “delay certification” of the results of the 2020 presidential election on Jan. 6, 2021. The committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol sent Navarro a subpoena seeking documents related to his book and statements, and ordered him to appear for a deposition. He claimed executive privilege before seeing the subpoena and refused to turn over documents, to appear for his deposition or to engage with the committee’s efforts to accommodate his privilege claim.  

The post Peter Navarro inches closer to Supreme Court in his Jan. 6 subpoena contempt appeal appeared first on MS NOW.

Author: Source Author

From MS Now.