NO DICE: Navarro shut down by Supreme Court on prison release
The United States Supreme Court, or at least around half of it, might be willing to bend over backward to help Donald Trump get himself out of trouble. That privilege doesn’t necessarily apply to his friends, though.
Peter Navarro was sentenced to four months in prison for contempt of Congress after he ignored subpoenas demanding his testimony in the investigation of Trump’s role in the January 6th attack and related election interference schemes. Even as he reported to prison last month, he continued to spout conspiracy theories and warn that if he could be convicted for efforts to cover for the former president, any American could suffer a similar fate.
Navarro, at that point, had already been denied a last-minute reprieve from the Supreme Court, but he’s filed yet another request to be let free while he pursues an appeal. USA Today reported:
“Navarro had argued he should remain free while appealing because he’s not likely to flee the country and poses no danger to public safety. He also said he is raising issues in his appeal that could overturn his conviction, including what constitutes a ‘proper’ invocation of executive privilege.”
No dice. The Supreme Court isn’t having it.
The former advisor to Trump is spending a fraction of the time some other supporters have been imprisoned for their efforts to keep him in office. Navarro’s attorney has said he doesn’t expect his client to spend more than 90 days with good behavior. If his conjecture proves accurate, Navarro has already served almost half of that time.
He’s also spending it in a special institution for older inmates, and reportedly in the least-severe ward, along with other white-collar convicts. That’s a far cry from the D.C. jail that Republican Congressional MAGAs have visited for sob stories and photo ops.
Navarro argued that he couldn’t testify because Trump had executive privilege as a former president, but there are at least two problems with that assertion (setting aside the fact that there’s no evidence Trump invoked that privilege).
First, there was no judicial review of whether said privilege would apply to the questions that might have been asked of Navarro.
Second, he did not appear, invoke the 5th Amendment, and refuse to answer based on privilege. Instead, he made a display of contempt by simply refusing to show up.
Now he’s suffering the consequences of that decision.
For clarifications, comments, & typos, email: editor@occupydemocrats.com.
