- Peter Navarro has demanded a 45-day adjournment of his charge of criminal contempt of Congress.
- Navarro said he was “very active” in seeking a legal team, but did not yet have a lawyer.
- Trump’s adviser accused prosecutors of trying to take advantage of his lack of representation.
Loading Something is loading.
Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro has said he faces “a number of obstacles” in hiring a legal team as he faces criminal disrespect for Congress over his disobedience to subpoenas from the House of Representatives committee investigating the Capitol attack. January 6, 2021
In a letter Wednesday to the federal judge presiding over the prosecution, Navarro said the FBI and federal prosecutors had been wrongful, saying he was pushing hard for a “quick trial” as part of his strategy to exploit the unrepresented. “.
“It is clear that the prosecutor’s office’s strategy is to take advantage of a person without adequate representation,” Navarro wrote in a letter to Judge Amit Mehta. “I’m looking for a legal team at the moment, but I’m facing a number of obstacles.”
Navarro was represented by a public defender during his initial appearance in court. But he said he could go on without a lawyer, saying, “I don’t want to spend my retirement savings on lawyers.”
His letter raised questions about his appetite for representation, and it was unclear whether his legal team challenges were financial in nature. A copy of his letter, published in a public court, edits – or obscures – lines in which Navarro seems to describe his struggles.
Navarro is due to appear before Mehta, appointed by Obama, in federal court on June 17. But in his letter, Mehta asked for a 45-day postponement of the hearing, an extension that would postpone routine court appearances until late July or early August.
“At the moment I am left without legal representation and the prosecutor’s office has already started submitting requests despite my request for delay. In this vacuum, the prosecution puts me at a serious disadvantage, “Navarro wrote.
Navarro’s letter came ahead of the House of Representatives’ first public hearing on Jan. 6, a prime-time procedure that will include testimony from a Capitol police officer and a documentary filmmaker following members of the far-right Proud Boys. The long-awaited hearing is the first of about half a dozen the commission plans to hold by June.
With his indictment in early June, Navarro became Trump’s second former adviser on charges of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a summons from a House of Representatives committee investigating Jan. 6. Former Trump chief strategist at the White House Steve Bannon has pleaded not guilty to two counts of contempt last year and is due to stand trial in July.
Any charge of contempt carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a fine of up to $ 100,000. Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have refused to file similar charges of contempt against former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino in response to a referral to Congress, according to a copy of a letter sent by the U.S. Attorney. Matt Graves to the House of Representatives. Councilor Doug Letter.
Earlier on Wednesday, federal prosecutors asked Mehta for an order preventing Navarro from publicly revealing evidence in his case. Prosecutors underlined public statements in which Navarro claimed that the Ministry of Justice was wrong and described the House of Representatives commission investigating January 6 as a “kangaroo commission”.
Most recently, the Justice Department said, Navarro appeared on the Fox News TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight and said the Justice Department had used a “terrorist strategy to arrest him.”
Navarro “has demonstrated in public statements that he intends to challenge the validity of the pending allegations in the press,” federal prosecutors said. “Furthermore, in the proceedings, the defendant does not have a lawyer who can monitor his use of non-public discovery material and who obeys the clear rules of the county, limiting out-of-court statements and other efforts to tarnish jurors.”
Add Comment