A federal judge on Monday rejected former Trump aide Peter Navarro’s claim that his prosecution is “politically motivated” and his request to investigate his indictment for contempt of Congress.
The former Trump aide was indicted on two counts of contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 select committee, and, according to court documents filed with the US District Court in Washington DC, has claimed that his prosecution was politically motivated and he sought documents from the Department of Justice.
In his request, Navarro argues that he was selectively prosecuted and that the Justice Department’s decision to charge him was “tainted with ‘unlawful political interference,’” pointing to its decision not to prosecute former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino for contempt.
But District Judge Amit P. Mehta rejected Navarro’s claims, noting that Meadows’s and Scavino’s cases were materially different.
Don't Miss
Meadows and Scavino were both expressly directed by former President Trump not to comply with subpoenas from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and had “extensive” communications with the committee on the issue, with Meadows turning over thousands of text messages, the judge said.
Navarro did not receive any specific request from Trump and “made no apparent effort to accommodate” the committee, communicating with the committee “over a three-week period largely through terse emails and public statements,” Mehta said.
The judge also noted that the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Meadows and Scavino weakens Navarro’s claims of “politically motivated animus.”
For instance, Navarro claimed that a public statement from President Biden in which he said he believes people who denied the committee’s subpoenas should be prosecuted showed political interference.
Again, Judge Mehta rejected this, saying “it cannot be that the President’s public statement was so influential that it gave rise to Defendant’s prosecution but not a prosecution of either Meadows and Scavino.”
