The Department of Justice said Peter Navarro, a trade and coronavirus adviser to former President Donald Trump, has no blanket claim to executive privilege that would have prevented him from testifying or providing documents to the House committee that investigated the Capitol protests on Jan. 6, 2021, USA Today reported.
Navarro faces two charges of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House panel.
On the eve of the trial in January, Trump formally invoked executive privilege to keep communications with Navarro confidential. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta postponed the trial to hear more arguments about the dispute, USA Today reported.
The Justice Department argued Navarro never documented the claim of executive privilege before he was charged. But even if he had, the committee sought to ask him about protests and speeches on Nov. 14, 2020, and about purported election fraud in a report he released, which fell outside his official duties protected by executive privilege, USA Today reported.
"The Defendant argues that both executive privilege and testimonial immunity excuse his noncompliance with the Committee's subpoena," U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves said in the filing. "This is incorrect."
Navarro has until April 4 to reply.
"No assertion by former President Trump could have covered most of the information that the Committee asked the Defendant to produce in documents or at his deposition," Elizabeth Aloi, assistant U.S. attorney, wrote in the 26-page brief.
The select committee subpoenaed Navarro on Feb. 9, 2022, and Navarro responded almost immediately that he would not comply because of executive privilege, Politico reported. After weeks of failed discussions between the committee and Navarro, President Joe Biden's White House counsel issued a letter indicating that the president had determined not to support any claim of privilege over Navarro's testimony. Navarro then "blew off a March 2 deposition date," Politico reported, and Navarro was held in contempt.
"At no time did the Defendant provide the Committee with any evidence supporting his assertion that the former President had invoked executive privilege over the information the Committee's subpoena sought from the Defendant," Aloi noted in her Tuesday night brief. "And at no time in his communications with the Select Committee did the Defendant raise the issue of testimonial immunity, nor even suggest that former President Trump had requested that he communicate any assertion of such immunity to the Committee."
"While a valid assertion of executive privilege may provide a bar to prosecution, a subpoenaed witness's mistaken belief that executive privilege was asserted or excused compliance is not a defense at all," Aloi wrote. "The Defendant should not be permitted to testify about contrary and mistaken beliefs before the jury."
The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the president to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the executive branch from the legislative or judicial branch of the government, according to the U.S. Constitution.
Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege, the privilege's foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the president and his advisers must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.