NOTABLY, MR. NAVARRO KEPT A
JOURNAL DETAILING THIS EPISODE
AND OTHER POSTELECTION ACTIONS
HE TOOK.
FINALLY, EARLIER THIS YEAR, AT
THE SAME TIME HE WAS REFUSING
TO COMBINE --
HE MADE MULTIPLE MEDIA
APPEARANCES, DURING WHICH HE
DISCUSSED HIS VARIOUS ROLES AND
THE EVENTS THAT CULMINATED AND
THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK.
I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY A MEDIA
CLIP RIGHT NOW.
CAN YOU PLEASE CUE THE CLIP?
>> WHAT ABOUT THIS INTERVIEW
THAT IS KIND OF INTERESTING IS
I HAVE SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE TO
SHARE WITH YOU ABOUT WHAT I WAS
INVOLVED IN AND WHAT I KNOW.
>> GIVEN THAT YOU TOLD ME THAT
YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT YOU PUSHED
TO DELAY OR DEAL WITH THE
CERTIFICATION, IF 100 MEMBERS
BACK UP AND YOU SAID IN PUBLIC
TRUMP WAS ON BOARD.
IF YOU SAY ALL THOSE THINGS OUT
HERE, WHY RISK A LEGAL BATTLE
OR GOING TO JAIL TO REFUSED TO
DISCUSS WITH THE COMMITTEE
UNDER OATH?
>> BECAUSE I HAVE THE LOYALTY
TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS INVOKED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THIS
MATTER.
IT IS NOT MY AUTHORITY TO
REVOKED THAT PRIVILEGE.
>> YOU SAY IT'S NOT YOUR
PRIVILEGE TO WAIVE, BUT LET'S
LOOK AT HOW OFTEN YOU WAVED.
IT LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE
NEWS YOU MADE ON THESE TOPICS.
>> TRUMP ADVISOR NAVARRO IS
SPILLING THE BEANS.
>> WE HAD OVER 100 CONGRESSMEN
AND SENATORS ON CAPITOL HILL,
READY TO IMPLEMENT --
>> PETER NAVARRO.
>> THE BOSS TELLS PENCE TO TAKE
MY FREAKING CALL.
>> NAVARRO TELLS ROLLING STONE
--
>> IT WAS ABOUT SENDING THE
BOAT BACK.
MOST OR ALL OF THOSE DATES WERE
DECERTIFIED --
>> HOW DO YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO
TAKE SERIOUSLY YOUR CLAIM THAT
THIS IS SECRET AND PRIVILEGED
WHEN YOU WENT OUT THERE TALKING
ABOUT IT AND WHEN YOU AND BAN
AND SAID THE COMMITTEE'S DOG
WOULDN'T BARK?
THEY WERE AFRAID OF YOU AND THE
REPORT.
IT SEEMS NOW LIKE THE DOG HAS
PARKED.
>> THANK YOU.
HE HAS SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE TO
SHARE WITH THE JOURNALISTS, BUT
HE REFUSES TO SHARE THAT
KNOWLEDGE IN RESPONSE TO A
LAWFUL SUBPOENA.
EVIDENTLY, MR. NAVARRO IS ONLY
>> GOOD EVENING FOR NEW YORK.
I'M ALEX WAGNER IN FOR CHRIS
HAYES.
WITH JUST WATCHED THE
BIPARTISAN HOUSE COMMITTEE
INVESTIGATING THE JANUARY 6TH
INSURRECTION VOTING TO MOVE
FORWARD FOR THE CONTEMPT
REFERRAL.
MOMENTS AGO, THE HEARING
WRAPPED UP THIS COMMITTEE
MEMBERS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO
HOLD FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DAN
SCAVINO AND FORMER TRUMP
ADVISOR PETER NAVARRO IN
CONTEMPT AFTER BOTH MEN REFUSED
TO COMPLY WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS.
SUBPOENAS.
kidney problems.
THOSE REFERRALS HER HEAD TO THE
HOUSE AND THEN TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHERE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK
GARLAND WILL BE LEFT TO DECIDE
ON WHETHER TO CRIMINALLY INDICT
THE TWO MEN.
--
CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT FOR
MSNBC AND HOST OF THE BEAT WITH
ALREADY.
ARI, VIDEO OF YOUR INTERVIEWS
WITH PETER NAVARRO WERE SHOWN
IN THAT COMMITTEE HEARING.
PART OF THE REASON THAT WAS
DONE WAS TO BASICALLY TEAR
APART MR. NAVARRO'S DEFENSE,
THAT SOMEHOW THESE
CORRESPONDENCE, THESE DOCUMENTS,
ARE SHIELDED BY EXECUTIVES
PRIVILEGE.
TELL US WHY IT'S MEANINGFUL
THAT PIRRO NAVARRO WENT ON YOUR
PROGRAM TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ROLE
HE PLAYED WITH MR. TRUMP IN THE
JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTION?
>> IT WAS STRIKING.
YOU AND I WERE SITTING THERE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE
GOING TO INTRODUCE.
THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT THERE
WAS A FOOTNOTE, BUT HERE WE SAW
AS YOU MENTIONED, EVIDENCE
OFFERED AMONG THE EVIDENCE IS
WHAT PETER NAVARRO SAID IN
PUBLIC.
THAT'S FOR TWO BASIC REASONS
THAT ARE VERY SIMPLE.
ONE, ON PART OF THE EFFORTS TO
OVERTURN THE ELECTION, PETER
NAVARRO SAID, I DID IT.
I DID IT.
HE CALLS IT A GREEN BAY SWEEP.
OTHER PEOPLE CALL IT A COUP.
I THINK FOLKS JUST SAW SOME OF
THAT EXCHANGE.
I DID IT.
NUMBER TWO, HE SAYS I CAN'T
TALK ABOUT IT.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, ALEX,
IT'S PETER, YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.
AND HE HAS ALL OF THE LEGAL
RIGHTS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO
PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE
IMPOSSIBLE CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE,
BUT AS YOUR QUESTION ELUDES TO,
THOSE WERE SHREDDED BY AMONG
OTHER PEOPLE AND REASONS FIRST
AND FOREMOST, PETER NAVARRO,
BECAUSE YOU BREAK YOUR OWN
PRIVILEGE IF YOU SAY SOMETHING
SO PRIVILEGED YOU CAN'T DISCUSS
IT AND YOU RELEASE IT TO THE
PUBLIC.
THAT'S WHEN HE DID IN THE
INTERVIEWS OR WRITINGS WHICH HE
ALSO DID.
ONE MORE POINT I'LL MAKE AS WE
WERE JUST WATCHING THAT.
THEY BOTH SHOWED A VOTE OF SOME
OF --
WHAT PETER NAVARRO SAID,
BASICALLY CONFESSING, BUT THEY
ALSO SHOWED OUR EXCHANGE WHEN I
SAID TO MR. NAVARRO,
RESPECTFULLY, YOU DO UNDERSTAND
THAT BY TALKING ABOUT IN THIS
MUCH, YOU'VE BROKEN PRIVILEGE
AND WE PLAY THOSE CLIPS.
HERE, WE HAD THAT THROUGH --
LOOKING THROUGH THE LOOKING
CLOTS.
AND THE COMMITTEE WATCHING IT.
AS FOR THE NEWS, WHAT HAPPENS
NEXT IS A POTENTIALLY FULL VOTE
ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, AND IF THAT
PASSES IN A PREVIOUSLY HAS,
WITH THE COMMITTEE DOES, AND
THEN MERRICK GARLAND HAS TO
DECIDE ARE THERE ANY NEW
INDICTMENTS HERE?
>> THERE IS GOING TO BE
ENORMOUS PRESSURE ON MARY
GARLAND, THE AG TO INDICT THESE
FOLKS AS THEY'RE NOT --
AS MISS MURPHY SAID AT THE END
OF HER REMARKS, ATTORNEY
GENERAL GARLAND, DO YOUR JOB.
SO FAR, STEVE BANNON HAS BEEN
INDICTED, JEFFREY CLARK HAS
BEEN INDICTED, MARK MEADOWS,
IT'S IN A HOLDING PATTERN, IF
YOU WILL.
BUT DO YOU THINK GARLAND MOVES
FORWARD WITH AN INDICTMENT OF
NAVARRO AND SCAVINO GIVEN WHERE
WE ARE, AND GIVEN HOW FLIMSY
THEIR DEFENSE SEEMS TO BE HERE?
>> YEAH, THIS IS SOME OF THE
WEAKEST DEFENSE, BECAUSE BOTH
MR. NAVARRO AND MR. SCAVINO DID
NOT ENGAGE IN ANY MEANINGFUL
WAY.
MR. MEADOWS DID ENGAGE AND
INDEED COOPERATE TO SOME
DEGREE.
WHATEVER YOU THINK OF MARK
MEADOWS, HE DID TURN OVER SOME
DOCUMENTS.
HE DID ENGAGE AND THEN PULLED
BACK.
THEY HAVE VERY WEAK CLAIMS TO
SAY THAT THEY CAN JUST DEFY
SUBPOENA OUTRIGHT.
MERRICK GARLAND'S JOB IS TO
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND JUST
DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS ILLEGAL
VIOLATION OF THE SUBPOENA ARE
NOT.
WHEN MEMBERS PRESS HIM, THEY
CAN SHARE THEIR VIEWS, BUT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD NOT
RESPOND TO THAT.
WE'RE SEEING THAT KIND OF
PRESSURE.
WE MUST RESPOND TO WITHOUT
HOLDING BAD, BECAUSE THESE
PEOPLE ARE CONNECTED TO THE
WHITE HOUSE OR THEY WORK FOR
SOMEONE WHO MY WORK IS
PRESIDENT AGAIN, IS THERE ANY
REASON THAT YOU CAN DEFY THE
SUBPOENA?
THERE ARE SOME PRIVILEGES THAT
EXIST, AND THERE ARE SOME
REASONS.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM NAVARRO
AND SCAVINO, ANYTHING VERY
CREDIBLE THERE, WHICH IS WHAT
WE'VE DOCUMENTED.
THE DOJ HAS THIS OBLIGATION,
AND THIS IS A BIG DEAL, BECAUSE
OF 150 PEOPLE HAVE COOPERATED.
DOES THE DOJ STAND WITH THEM
AND THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU HAVE
TO COOPERATE WITH LAWFUL
SUBPOENAS ALMOST ALWAYS?
SOME EXCEPTIONS EXIST.
AS THE DOJ STANDS WITH --
WITH THE NAVARRO SINCE
CONVENIENCE OF THE WORLD.
I THINK THERE IS PRESSURE ON
GARLAND, BUT I THINK IT WOULD
BE BEST IF THEY VIEW IT AS
EVIDENTIARY PRESSURE.
WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO,
NOT OWE, POLITICIANS WANT THIS
OR THAT.
>> AND THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
CLAIM.
BETTY THOMPSON, THE CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE SAID PETER
NAVARRO IS NOT PRESIDENT.
YOU DON'T GET TO CLAIM THAT,
PETER NAVARRO.
AND YOU GUYS WERE BOTH EMPLOYED
BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
YOU DON'T GET TO PLAN A COUP AS
PART OF YOUR WORK ON BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
WE KNOW PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE
WATCHED TELEVISION PROGRAMS.
WITH PETER NAVARRO'S ROLE IS TO
SOME EXTENT.
HE'S TOLD US --
THE GREEN BAY SWEEP.
BUT THEN SCAVINO MAY HAVE BEEN
PRIVY TO SOME REALLY IMPORTANT
DETAILS, AMONG THEM, AND THIS
WAS CITED IN THE HEARING TODAY,
SCAVINO MONITORED A PRO TRUMP
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE DAYS AND
MONTHS LEADING UP TO THE
JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTION, AND
IT'S NOTABLE THAT, WHAT IS IT,
DECEMBER 19TH, 2020, THE SAME
DAY THAT TRUMP TWEETED, BIG
PROTEST IN D.C., JANUARY 6TH,
BE THERE.
IT WILL BE WILD.
ON THAT SAME DAY, USERS OF THE
DONALD DOT WIN, WHICH IS A
WEBSITE FOR TRUMP SUPPORTERS,
BEGAN SHARING SPECIFIC
TECHNIQUES, TACTICS AND
PROCEDURES FOR AN ASSAULT ON
THE CAPITOL.
COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDED
INFORMATION ON HOW TO USE A
FLAGPOLE AS A WEAPON.
HOW TO SMUGGLE FIREARMS INTO
D.C..
MEASUREMENTS FOR A GUILLOTINE
AND MAPS OF THE TUNNEL SYSTEMS
UNDER THE CAPITOL BUILDING.
WE HAVE POURED THROUGH SOME OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS, THE
EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE BEEN PRIVY
TO AND THE COURSE OF THE
INVESTIGATION INTO JANUARY 6TH.
THIS IS STUFF THAT HAPPENED ON
JANUARY 6TH.
FLAGPOLES BEING USED AS
WEAPONS.
PEOPLE ARMED WITH --
SO DAN SCAVINO.
WHEN HE KNEW, WHEN HE SAW IN
ADVANCE OF JANUARY 6TH, THAT
SEEMS LIKE CRITICAL INFORMATION
FOR THEIR INVESTIGATION.
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND IT
GOES TO THE CULPABILITY,
POTENTIALLY, INSIDE THE WHITE
HOUSE AND AMONG PEOPLE ABOUT
WHAT WAS BEING PLANNED.
THERE WAS A CRIME SPREE AT THE
CAPITOL.
THERE WAS AN INSURRECTION.
THERE IS AN INDICTED SEDITION,
EVERYONE IS ILLEGALLY --
THERE HAS NOT YET BEEN LEGAL
LINKS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT BACK
TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE EVIDENCE YOU JUST
REFERENCED IS, DO PEOPLE HAVE
THAT KNOWLEDGE?
AND WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE, THEN
THEY SAY, LET'S GO SEND PEOPLE
TO THE CAPITOL WITH THOSE KINDS
OF THINGS IN FRONT OF THEM.
THE COMMITTEE IS PUTTING THAT
EVIDENCE OUT TO THEM.
>> THE PRESIDENT TWEETING, IT
WILL BE WILD, BE THERE JANUARY
6TH!
IT IS ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
YOU ARE A PRINCIPAL PLAYER IN