President Trump aide Peter Navarro asks Supreme Court to keep him out of prison

Navarro’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on Friday that there is “no question that Navarro poses no flight risk or danger to public safety if released pending appeal.”

“For the first time in our nation’s history, a senior adviser to the president has been found guilty of contempt of Congress after asserting executive privilege over a Congressional subpoena,” attorneys Stan M. Brand and Stanley Woodward said. said in a court filing Friday, adding: Mr. Navarro raised several issues in the appellate court, “arguing that the conviction will likely be overturned or a new trial ordered.”

The Supreme Court gave the Justice Department until 2 p.m. Monday to respond to Navarro’s request to stay out of prison while his appeal is processed.

In the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Navarro published a book about a conspiracy to flip the election to Trump during that day’s vote certification. He credits the idea to right-wing podcast host and former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon.

However, on January 6th, the House committee conducting the investigation issued subpoenas to the two men asking them to elaborate on these plans, which they ignored. Both men are currently contesting sentences of four months in prison for contempt of Congress.

Navarro’s lawyers said in a Friday filing that the law is not clear whether Congress intends to punish a senior adviser to the president like Navarro, and Navarro must assert executive privilege. It is said that he did not respond to a subpoena from Congress based on his belief that

But Mr. Navarro has no documentation to show that Mr. Trump planned to assert that privilege to prevent him from testifying, and Mr. Trump has never publicly corroborated his account. There wasn’t.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta called Navarro’s immunity claim a “weak source” and rejected the argument at trial.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed this week that most of Navarro’s claims would only succeed if “the president actually invoked privilege in some way in this case.” .

“That never happened here,” the appeals court said.

Rachel Weiner contributed to this report.