Peter Navarro to Face Contempt Trial Over Defiance of Jan. 6 Committee

Peter Navarro to Face Contempt Trial Over Defiance of Jan. 6 Committee: A federal judge allowed the trial to proceed after finding little evidence that the former president authorized Mr. Navarro to ignore a subpoena from Congress.

A NYT article allows me to touch upon a continual source of annoyance.  Some people are (rightly) quite aggravated when certain individuals stonewall Congress.  This is not how it is supposed to work. 

Congressional oversight (sorry Justice Alito) is an important function. There is an aspect of politics and theater involved. The current House Republican leadership surely shows this with some of their moronic hearings.  But, it still serves an important function. The 1/6 Committee was one of many efforts that provided useful information and public benefit.

Congress is allowed to call witnesses, by subpoena if necessary, within a broad ambit. They cannot illegitimately target people or invade their privacy (Watkins case) but the limits are narrow.  And, witnesses do have the ability to declare 5th Amendment immunity.  There are other limits, but some open-ended "I prefer not to" rule is not in place. And, they should at least show up and have to declare immunity.

Peter Navarro, one of multiple people who refused to show up but readily wrote books about their experiences, obstructed Congress. He should have long ago been held in contempt and been punished for it.  The article links to one from February 2022.  It has been over a year since then.  

This is far from atypical.  Once (after an extended process) Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt, and given a short sentence, he still appealed.  The case has yet to be decided.  This is a nullification of congressional power and allows rank criminal obstruction.  It is horrid stuff.

This is not new.  And, it leads people to think Democrats in Congress are losers.  There is no magic answer to address long-term practice here. If a person refuses to testify, it is an extended process to press them, especially if the House or Senate has to refer the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal sanction.  There are a variety of rules about pressing people to testify, including members of the executive department.  Doing a bit of digging, there apparently never was a federal judge forced to testify.  

People dream of some congressional marshall seizing these people off the street or something and it gets a magical thinking world.  There needs to be a reform of the process to streamline things.  It is in the interest of congressional power, no matter who is in control, to be able to enforce subpoenas and press against obstruction of Congress.  

The worst violation here was during both impeachments when the Senate Republicans refused to agree to vote for witnesses. This led the House impeachment managers in the second impeachment to pretend that they didn't really need them.  I understand the sentiment, especially since it was likely that pressing the point would have led to tit-for-tat by Trump's attorneys and could have been messy.  But, a trial warrants witnesses.  

Senate Republicans made it a moot point to worry about if the witnesses would have refused to testify.  But, they had no leg to stand on constitutionally.  Still, we have allowed a situation where obstruction, even when these people talk about the same subjects in books and media appearances, is the standard operation procedure.

We are starting to see that with the investigation of Thomas and Alito in the Supreme Court (Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo) too.  It's wrong. It makes the government look (rightly so) broken.

ETA: Navarro was found guilty.