OPINION:
As you read this, I have entered a federal prison. I am the first senior White House adviser ever to go to jail for a “crime” never before considered to be a crime, yet there are really two bigger stories for the American people to ponder.
The first story is about the death of the constitutional separation of powers and the demise of executive privilege that, since the days of George Washington, has helped facilitate effective presidential decision-making. The second is about the alarming success of lawfare and the partisan weaponization of our now dual system of justice.
Regarding story one, during a dispute over the Jay Treaty, President George Washington stood before Congress and said that to preserve the constitutional separation of powers, he could not command congressmen to come to the White House. Nor could Congress compel him to go before Congress. Thus, the doctrine of executive privilege was born.
Over the decades, through legal decisions and opinions, both the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice would zealously defend executive privilege as a bulwark of effective presidential decision-making. Without the insurance of confidentiality among and between the president and his advisers, he would not receive the best advice possible.
With my imprisonment, the constitutional separation of powers has been severely damaged while the doctrine of executive privilege lies smoldering on the ground. The only hope for a resurrection will be success on my appeal, which is now traveling through the Federal Appeals Court in the District of Columbia and then, inevitably, to the Supreme Court.
To be clear, U.S. v. Peter K. Navarro is a landmark case in constitutional law that raises significant “open questions” of “first impression” that cry out for the settling of good law by the higher courts.
• Can Congress compel a senior White House adviser and “alter ego” of the president to testify?
• Is executive privilege presumptive, and if not, what rules might govern a “proper invocation”?
• Should a defendant be stripped of any defense based on a president’s invocation of executive privilege prior to the case going to a jury on the basis of an antiquated, ill-fitting lower court precedent?
• Does the “rule of lenity” apply in a case that, for more than 50 years, the Justice Department said what I did in refusing to testify before Congress was not a crime in which I acted “above the law” but rather my duty to the Constitution and the obeying of the law?
These, among others raised by my case, are important open questions of great significance to our republic, which, thus far, our justice system has chosen to ignore in the fog of what has become a dangerous political war. This leads us to our second story.
Lawfare is partisan politics through the abuse of our legal system, and the Democrats, since Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign, have turned lawfare into a coarse art. In my case, consider that every individual involved in my road to prison has been a Democrat.
• Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formed the illegal Jan. 6 Committee with the not-so-hidden agenda of putting former President Donald Trump in prison. She said so.
• All seven Democrats and the two Republicans who issued my subpoena on the Jan. 6 Committee were Trump haters who played critical roles in Mr. Trump’s attempted impeachment.
• The congressional vote to hold me in contempt was on strict partisan lines — a beatdown by Democrats.
• The Justice Department prosecutors who would repeatedly play fast and loose with the facts were both Democrats. One would crow to the jury that I was “above the law” while maneuvering to ensure I was unable to explain to said jury that I was simply obeying the Justice Department’s own policy and the law of our land.
• My District Court judge, who would strip me of all possible defenses prior to my jury trial, was first a “bundler” of campaign contributions for candidate Barack Obama and then was appointed to the bench by President Obama.
• The jury I faced was drawn from voting roles that delivered an astonishing 95% of the vote for President Biden in 2020. A number expressed anti-Trump sentiments but were still seated.
• The three-judge panel that would hear my appeal for release pending my main appeal were all Democrats. There was only a 20% chance of that possibility based on a random draw, yet there it was, and here I am.
While it is true that Chief Justice John Roberts had the last word in denying my appeal, my search engines say that he votes with the liberal judges about 40% of the time and in recent years, he has moved further left.
The one lesson I’ve learned from Chief Justice Roberts’ coup de grace is that it is dangerous for one man alone to be allowed to decide another man’s fate, particularly when the stench of politics is in the air. Justice here would have been far better served if the chief justice had referred this issue to the whole court, which was clearly in his power to do.
Ultimately, Democrats need to understand that what they have done will eventually come back to haunt them as my imprisonment unleashes the dogs of congressional subpoenas on the executive branch.
During my four months in prison, the only good news is that my new book, “The New MAGA Deal,” will go to the printers and be ready for distribution on the eve of the Republican National Convention.
The book is a comprehensive unofficial guide to the Trump policy platform. It provides a road map to the 100 different policy reforms Trump 47 will initiate in his first 100 days, and you can preorder “The New MAGA Deal” at newmagadeal.com.
I’ll see you on the other side. Don’t cry for me, Argentina. Fight for Mr. Trump’s reelection.
• Peter Navarro served in the Trump White House as manufacturing czar and chief China hawk. This piece originally appeared at www.peternavarro.substack.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.