Judge Rejects DOJ’s Effort To Aid January 6 Committee
The judge appeared skeptical of prosecutors’ suggestion that the committee’s work should dictate his schedule.

The January 6 committee can’t get everything it wants, even as it approaches its 11th hour. That reality came into focus as a federal district court judge roundly rejected the Department of Justice’s petition against postponing a former Trump administration economic adviser’s contempt trial.
Judge Amit Mehta, who rides the United States appeals circuit in the District of Columbia, threw a brushback pitch to government lawyers who argued that providing Peter Navarro’s testimony to the committee justified keeping the trial’s original timing. The charges for contempt stemmed from the economist’s failure to heed the committee’s subpoena.
The judge’s intention to postpone Mr. Navarro’s case arose from his responsibility overseeing the trial of the leader of the Oath Keepers, Elmer Stewart Rhodes. That prosecution, for seditious conspiracy, has already lasted for six weeks and presents greater legal complexities than Mr. Navarro’s two charges of contempt.
The appeal for a rushed timetable was motivated by the reality that this congressional session will end on January 3. While control of the House of Representatives has not yet been decided, it appears as if Republicans have a slim edge as votes are being tallied. Should they take the helm, the January 6 committee would likely sunset.
Mr. Navarro will now get his day in court on January 11. Judge Mehta noted, “I understand the U.S. attorney’s desire, but I don’t want these proceedings to be a lever in a way the U.S. attorney’s office has suggested,” indicating that he was skeptical of prosecutors’ suggestion that the committee’s work should dictate his schedule.
The Washington Post reports that the prosecutor leading the effort against Mr. Navarro, Raymond Hulser, expressed the government’s “strong preference” that the case not be moved, unusually vociferous language for a scheduling matter.
Mr. Hulser expressed a desire for the government, via the spectacle of a trial, to be a “catalyst” for someone to say, “I will go and I will answer questions. I will provide documents.” Judge Mehta appeared to bristle at the suggestion that the executive and judicial branches work hand in glove to aid a congressional committee.
DOJ and the committee have not always moved in lockstep. Government lawyers have lambasted the representatives for their “failure” to share 1,000 witness transcripts, which the justice department claimed complicated its “ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct.”
The committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, said of Attorney General Garland’s team: “My understanding is they want to have access to our work product. And we told them, no, we’re not giving that to anybody.” It appears those rifts have been healed.
Mr. Navarro has pleaded not guilty to both charges. He is the second person prosecuted for stymieing the committee’s work. The first, Stephen Bannon, a one-time senior adviser to President Trump, was convicted and sentenced to four months in prison. He has appealed.