Speaker 1: The last 24 hours have been some of the craziest and most disturbing in many
ways in the sort of news cycle that we've seen in weeks, and we're going to talk about
the Sean Hannity text messages. We're going to talk about the Trump right anniversary and Donald
Trump canceling his press conference scheduled for tomorrow. But before we do any of that,
I have what is one of the wildest interviews that I have seen, certainly in months. It is
an interview that took place on MSNBC. Host Ari Melber interviewed Peter Navarro. Peter Navarro
was Donald Trump's assistant. He was assistant to the president for a period of time. He was Trump's
director of trade and manufacturing policy. He was the National Defense Production Act policy
coordinator, and he is freely admitting that he was one of the planners of the attempted coup
to steal an election that Donald Trump didn't win. I don't think we need really more introduction.
I'm just going to get right into the material. Peter Navarro admits to the entire thing here,
and it is. Let's just get into the clips because there's just so much. This first clip is kind of
the backstory. Why did Peter Navarro start developing with Trump? This plan for a coup?
Well, it was all based on false beliefs, slash lies, slash misunderstandings,
slash distortions. Let's start right there. Speaker 2: Sure. The backstory is while I was
in the administration after the election getting on Thanksgiving, I produced what would be an
exhaustive three volume report. I went over tens of thousands of pages of documents and proved that
the election was in all likelihood stolen through fraud and election irregularities. That's the back
background on January 6th. That's green baseball, and that's false. But the question is part of
the interview. I will. Yes, it is about that, but that's a question for the start of the interview.
Speaker 1: Navarro says will disagree about whether the election really was or wasn't stolen.
You have to put aside the disagreement to proceed, and Ari Melber ultimately does it.
But everything is predicated on that. And so it's sort of the crucial point that that
entire premise was untrue. Let's continue. Speaker 2: I just want to I just want to make
sure here that we're kind of going by rules of the road. The question is, and you'll get
time to talk. You got to say that. And what I'm saying is that I don't have to say anything, sir,
I'm asking you. The question is what was the plan itself and who was in on it? Right, exactly. And
I'm going to tell you that the plan was simply this. We had over 100 congressmen and senators
on Capitol Hill ready to implement the sweep. The sweep was simply that we were going to challenge
the results of the election in six battleground states. They were Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Georgia, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada. And basically these were the places where we believed that if
the votes were sent back to those battleground states and looked at again that there would be
enough concern among the legislatures that most or all of those states would decertify the election.
Speaker 1: Now, of course, that wasn't true. It didn't happen. There was no
such evidence. But this is the same plan that was written up in the memo by Trump's lawyer.
So it's all coherent there. It's there's no doubt as to whether that was the plan it was
Speaker 2: that would throw the election to the House of Representatives. And I would say to you
here, Ari, that all of this again, I wouldn't say it was in in the lanes legally, it was prescribed
by the Constitution. There is a provision to go rather than through the Electoral College
to the House of Representatives, and all this required was peace and calm
on Capitol Hill. And at 1:00 p.m., Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz and Gosar, a representative,
started the Green Bay sweep beautifully. Speaker 1: So the premise here is had it not been
for the riots, had it not been for the riots, they would have had a shot at carrying this plan
forward, which is a new way that they are sort of denouncing the. Some of them are pretending
there were no riots. Some of them are arguing that the riots were peaceful. In one sense,
the riots were part of the plan as far as Trump was concerned. But some of these people who had
what they thought was a more clever way to steal the election are saying actually, the violence
got in the way because it interrupted what we were going to do have Pence reject electors,
et cetera. Now we get to just an incredible part where Ari Melber straight up says to Navarro,
You're describing a coup. Do you realize that? Take a look at this incredible video
Speaker 2: rather than through the Electoral College to the House of Representatives. And all
was required was peace and calm on Capitol Hill. And at one p.m., Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz and
Go Shot, a representative started the Green Bay sweep, beautifully challenging the results of
Arizona. Here's the most important thing I can tell you about this. The the thing that
we were trying to deal with was was a media which refused to acknowledge any kind of possible fraud
or irregularities. And by getting into it, I've given you, Peter. I've given you. I've given you
some time here, and I think you explain that I'm going to follow up here and I want us to have a
back and forth, but that involves both of us. You just described a way. Yeah. You just described
this plan as a way to take an election where the outcome was established by independent secretaries
of state, by the voters of those states. And legal remedies have been exhausted, with the Supreme
Court never even taking, let alone siding with any of the claims that you just referred to. So
legally, they went nowhere. And then you're describing the way that the incumbent? Hold on,
hold on. You will get your turn. I just let you go for a while. Let's go this back and forth, sir.
Then you will use the incumbent losing party power that was the Republican Party that was losing
power to overtake and reverse that outcome. Do you realize you are describing a coup? No, I totally
reject many of your premise is there. First of all, the election was still in doubt and would
be until it was certified. Second, the idea now Speaker 1: that that isn't, you cannot ever
satisfy that because he is saying the election is in doubt until it's certified. But his plan was to
prevent its certification based on alleged doubts that he is raising that can never be satisfied.
You can never satisfy that in Ari Melber is pointing out the crucial part. All of these
independent think individual secretaries of state in different states. Many Republicans said there
isn't evidence for this. So you check that off the list courts threw out. I think it was 63 different
complaints that were made. Maybe one was sort of provisionally accepted on theoretical grounds,
but the courts did not find that their claims were with merit. The Supreme Court declined to take it
up. So at a certain point, you can't say we are acting on the basis of X. That justifies that
because every legal and sensible empirical remedy had been exhausted and had been rejected. Then he
says, well, until it's certified, then it is in doubt. But you're the one preventing
its certification. It's a circle Speaker 2: that secretaries of state,
particularly in Michigan and Pennsylvania, were like innocent parties. I mean, Jocelyn
Benson and Kathy Boockvar, the secretaries of state in Michigan and Pennsylvania,
they were put in power by George Soros for the express purpose of shifting the playing field.
Speaker 1: Wow, wow. So then lastly, here, why wasn't Navarro more involved in pushing
Mike Pence to do the thing they wanted him to do? Remember, Trump wanted Pence to reject this
and to stop that and to seat a different slate of electors. And Navarro seems to say he was
basically kept away from Mike Pence conversation. Speaker 2: Why wouldn't he leave, do you think?
Why wouldn't he listen to you? I talk about in the in Trump Time book his chief of staff, Marc Short,
who is a Coke network conservative, meaning that he's a never Trumper basically walled off. Vice
President Pence from the day mark Chuck, the chief of staff's duties back in 2018, and it was
a sad story. Mike was always good to me until that day. The thing about Mike's betrayal of President
Trump? Wow, really interesting. He never shared the legal analysis of his general counsel, Greg
Jape and Marc Short. With time and again, that was really Peter. That brings us back. But that brings
us back to the same point. And this maybe it's maybe relevance in future elections, which is,
don't you think somebody would have thought of this if the incumbent administration through
the president or the vice president could just cancel the election outcome because he goes out
of the Senate? Well, then a lot of people would try to stay in power. We have an entire system
designed to thwart. And I want to say this respectfully, but it's the truth or people like
you just stop people like you who think that you can anoint yourself, the reviewers of the voters,
of the American people of what they lawfully did, that you trump the Supreme Court, no pun intended
people like you or what the Constitution are designed to stop. And it worked,
and it did stop you. Which I guess brings us to, Speaker 1: you know, incredible. I mean,
truly incredible. He's admitting to the entire thing. And it was all based on their opinion,
which was rejected or not corroborated by every secretary of state that was pulled
into it by every court that was. Pulled into it and ultimately the Supreme Court saying there,
not even anything here for us opting not to take this up despite having a
three justices on it selected by Donald Trump. This is Exhibit A. Evidence admitting to the
entire thing, pulling together every aspect of it, every aspect of it. It's incredible.