My Response to the Wall Street Journal's Hatchet Job

Letter to the editor

Team,

Check this letter to the editor out below. It’s a response to the Wall Street Journal which would love to see me in prison, thank you very much.

The back story here is that when I was in the White House, I was the WSJ’s favorite whipping boy besides Donald Trump. They hated that Trump and I pushed tariffs on Communist China and featured me in several lead editorials predicting a “Navarro recession” because of my trade views. Of course, the boss and I always got the last laugh because the US economy loved the Trump tariffs.

It’ criminal that Rupert Murdoch was allowed to buy the WSJ and turn it into the Never-Trump roll of toilet paper it is today.

While they printed my letter, they studiously deleted the website for my legal defense fund.

So enjoy as I strike back at the empire.

Peter Navarro Responds on His Contempt Conviction

The former Trump trade adviser argues that he was doing his constitutional duty.

Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro arrives at federal court in Washington, Aug. 30. PHOTO: SARAH SILBIGER/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Your editorial “Peter Navarro’s Contempt Conviction” (Sept. 9), which gives two cheers for a guilty verdict against me for doing my constitutional duty, ignores hard truths.

First, the Supreme Court and Justice Department draw a clear legal distinction between Internal Revenue Service bureaucrats like Lois Lerner and presidential “alter egos” like myself. Ergo, there is no Justice Department “double standard” on contempt prosecutions for the right to exploit.

I am the only senior presidential adviser ever to be indicted for this. My indictment runs contrary to longstanding Justice Department policy that senior White House advisers can’t be compelled to testify before Congress. You argue that I “could have appeared” and pleaded the Fifth or “invoked executive privilege on specific questions.” Yet the judge ruled that if I had done so, I would have forfeited my right to the department’s absolute testimonial immunity, weakening executive privilege and my case.

Second, your editorial claims there is “no evidence” President Trump invoked executive privilege. There is plenty of evidence, including phone calls, a Mar-a-Lago visit and communications with Trump aides. The privilege had also been invoked for all other advisers. Shouldn’t you ask why a court considered that “weak sauce” instead of throwing me under the weaponized Justice Department bus?

Third, rather than “a significant victory for oversight,” this conviction mortally wounds the separation of powers. Whenever one party controls the White House, Congress and Justice Department, partisan committees will now be able to hound every former president and his advisers.

Fourth, the Republican House can issue a blizzard of subpoenas, but as long as President Biden controls Justice Department indictments and pardons, he, his West Wing advisers and Hunter can ignore them. To argue otherwise is naive.

There is much at stake in U.S. v. Navarro. If I win, I will have settled good law in defense of the constitutional separation of powers.

Peter Navarro

Washington

Mr. Navarro was director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, 2017-21.

If you haven’t yet, please:

And share this post with a friend.