Former White House adviser Peter Navarro accused the House COVID-19 probe of trying to intimidate him as he announced on Tuesday evening he would not comply with a subpoena to appear for a deposition at midday on Wednesday.
It makes him the latest Trump loyalist to put himself on a collision course with Congress, risking criminal contempt proceedings.
In a scathing letter to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com, he attacked President Biden and accused the investigation of using him as a pawn in their 'witch hunt.'
And he said he was a man of 'modest means' who would not let Democrats in Congress drain him of cash.
'President Donald John Trump, my commander in chief, has invoked executive privilege with respect to any interactions with your subcommittee; and the law is very clear on this,' he wrote.
'This is not my privilege to waive. Only President Trump can waive the privilege.'
Navarro was Trump's trade adviser, but war early to raise the alarm about COVID-19 and clashed frequently with the president's medical advisers.
In a letter to Rep. Jim Clyburn, chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Navarro said he had not right to waive former President Trump's executive privilege and accused the Democrat of seeking to intimidate him with an early morning subpoena
He was subpoenaed in November to produce documents related to the probe and then appear for closed-door testimony Wednesday.
However, he refused to supply the documents triggering a stern warning from Jim Clyburn, chairman of the subcommittee.
'Your blanket refusal to comply with the subpoena in its entirety is improper,' Clyburn wrote. 'Courts have clearly held that White House advisers, such as yourself, cannot avoid compelled congressional process.'
His letter signalled a second front in Democrats' subpoena battles with Trump allies who refuse to cooperate.
A Jan. 6 investigation has already led to Trump strategist Steve Bannon being charged in criminal court and could soon see the House recommending former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows face contempt charges.
In his response, sent on Tuesday evening, Navarro said he had received Clyburn's latest 'threatening letter.'
'It comes on the heels of an unnecessary early morning visit by one of your gendarmes to deliver a subpoena which I already acknowledged the receipt of to your assistant Beth Mueller,' he wrote.
'She assured me that acknowledgment of receipt of the subpoena would obviate the need for any show of force.
'Yet bang on my door your jackboot did in the early hours of the morning. Clearly, the game afoot here is to try to intimidate me.'
The investigation, led by Clyburn, is looking into allegations that the Trump administration put its political interests ahead of safety in the nation's pandemic response
Navarro - famous for his take-no-prisoners approach - also used the letter to attack Clyburn himself, seizing on the fact that it was the congressman's endorsement of candidate Joe Biden in South Carolina that helped turn around a flailing campaign.
'Let me also remind the American people here that it is you, sir, who is arguably the person most responsible for the feckless fool with obviously diminished mental capacity now sitting behind the Resolute desk in the White House,' wrote Navarro.
'Your endorsement of Joe Biden during the Democratic primary in South Carolina is generally regarded as the turning point in the career of a man who should otherwise have been relegated to the dustbin of history along with his venal son Hunter Biden, who is a congressional investigation waiting to happen.'
The result, continued Navarro, was an administration presiding over a 'stagflationary' crisis, a supply chain emergency, and facing emboldened rivals in the form of China and Russia.
'Over 2 million illegal aliens are flooding over our border in this year alone; and it will be black and brown Americans who will bear the economic burden of this invasion through higher unemployment and depressed wages,' he continued.
Clyburn and other Democrats on the panel are investigating allegations that the Trump administration put political interests ahead of safety in the nation's pandemic response.
They want to know whether Navarro and other officials had undue influence over awarding contracts for personal protective equipment and medical supplies.
But Navarro defended the work of the Trump administration.
Trump allies Steve Bannon (left) and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows have refused to cooperate with the House investigation into Jan. 6, following instructions from Trump that he has executive privilege and his communication should remain private
'The second fact I would remind you of sir is that more people have now died from Communist China’s virus on the watch of Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci than during the last year of the Trump administration,' he said.
'And we’ve seen this high death toll despite the fact that the Trump administration handed over a suite of vaccines that I personally jumpstarted in a February 9, 2020, memo.'
He also set out - complete with a plug for his book - how he argued for travel bans in early 2020 when others were still oblivious to the danger of the new coronavirus.
And he accused the subcommittee of 'shoddy legal work' in making its case against him.
But Trump and his allies have struggled to win court cases protecting what they say is the former president's executive privilege.
Last week an appeals court ruled against Trump as he tried to prevent the National Archives from handing over some of his White House records to the Jan. 6 investigation after Biden said he would release them, much to Navarro's anger.
'In this regard, the recent decision of the Democrat-stacked appeals court regarding the January 6 Committee that a sitting president can revoke the privilege of a former president is about the most stupid and dangerous court ruling I have ever seen,' he wrote.
'Talk about an open invitation to the politicization of executive privilege.
'That, too, is a Supreme Court decision waiting to happen. Let me also restate something I noted in my original letter: I have no intention of allowing you or your Subcommittee to drain me financially by forcing me to hire a high-priced Washington lawyer. I am a man of modest means on the edge of retirement and have no intention of burning cash on this matter.'
Post a Comment