Former Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro was convicted Thursday on two counts of Contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena from the J6 committee.

“Jury in deliberations now. We’re in God’s hands now. The only thing certain are more legal bills. That’s the Democrat’s lawfare game. Will have more once verdict is in,” Navarro wrote before the jury made its decision.

“The jury deliberated for about four hours before finding Navarro, 74, guilty of two counts of contempt for refusing to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee and turn over subpoenaed documents,” NBC News reports.

“Navarro’s sentencing is set for January. He faces a maximum of one year in prison and a $100K fine for each count,” OANN reporter Rachel Acenas said.

NBC News reports:

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta scheduled his sentencing for Jan. 12.

The two counts each carry a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in prison, in addition to a maximum fine of $100,000.

“There’s no mistake, no accident,” prosecutor John Crabb told jurors in the Washington, D.C. federal courtroom during closing arguments Thursday morning.

“That man thinks he’s above the law,” Crabb said. “In this country, nobody is above the law.”

Navarro’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, said during his closing that the government had failed to prove his client was guilty of criminal contempt of Congress.

“For the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt it also has to prove that Dr. Navarro’s failure to comply with the subpoena was not the result of accident, mistake or inadvertence,” Woodward said, stressing those final three words repeatedly.

Here’s what corrupt MSNBC said about the conviction:

From The Hill:

Just after the verdict was read, Navarro attorney Stan Woodward called for a mistrial, claiming the jurors went outside during their break were exposed to protestors toting Jan. 6-related signs. Government prosecutors said they did not see any protestors outside the exit the jurors purportedly used.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said he would not rule on the mistrial request until the defense provided him video or photo evidence of such a situation, which they said they were collecting.

To determine Navarro’s guilt, jurors had to find that prosecutors proved four elements: Navarro was subpoenaed, the information the committee wanted from him was pertinent to its investigation, Navarro failed to comply and his failure to comply was “willful.”


In closing arguments after a trial that lasted just one day following jury selection, Woodward again compared the government’s opening arguments to a movie trailer containing all the best parts of the movie — leaving “nothing” of substance for the movie, or case, itself.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.