You guys you're good to go if
you want.
This is going to be wild.
So let's start with the fact
that this is a landmark case.
This is a landmark case that's
bound for the supreme court.
Why do I say that?
This is the first time in the
history of our republic that a
senior white house advisor and
an alter ego of the president
has ever been charged with the
alleged crime.
>> Because you lied.
>> It's first time that this has
ever happened.
Now at the same time what's so
remarkable about this case is
that even as the department of
justice was bringing this case
they had a policy for more than
50 years that says people like
me senior white house advisors,
alter egos of the president
cannot be compelled, cannot be
compelled to testify before
congress.
Absolute.
Yet they brought the case.
This case is a landmark case
because it's about the
constitutional separation of
powers.
That goes back to the days of
George Washington when the
legislative -- all right we're
going to cut away from Navarro I
did not know how long this might
this might go, obviously, he
feels that this is a landmark
case that will ends up at the
U.S. Supreme court.
I'm not quite sure that legal
experts believe this is going to
ends up at the U.S. Supreme
court.
But let's find out.
First of all, let me check in
with Evan Perez.
I think this is probably going
to go to the U.S. Appeals court
then that's where it will ends,
correct?
>> I suspect that this is not
going too far.
But look, he had the right to
make this claim.
>> Sure.
>> But you know part of his
problem, according to
prosecutors and according to the
case here, is that he just kind
of ignored the subpoena.
Ignored congress.
>> He didn't respond at all.
>> Right.
Then he tried to say that he
tried to bring the former
president he wanted the former
president to come in and testify
and that got shot down by the J.
In the end he didn't really have
much of a defense.
That's partly what they will try
to appeal.
Three try to say that he didn't
really have to make this
assertion.
Here's the thing, you know, in
every one of the other the cases
of senior aides to the former
president who had this assertion
of executive privilege they
brought their lawyers, they
responded to congress and said
this is why we're not showing
up.
Here, fight this out with the
former president and we will
show up whenever you work that
out.
So you saw members of the former
president's, you know, white
house council's office they all
came in because they were,
negotiated a deal with congress
to get access to the testimony
that the committee rightfully
had a right to do.
So, that's part of the Peter
Navarro's problem.
He tried to ignore this issue
and then that's why the justice
department ended up bringing
this case.
>> Then they wrote a book about
it.
>> He wrote a book about a lot
of the things they wanted to
know about.
>> So it wasn't so sacrosanct at
all.
Jamie I rudely interruptedded
you because Peter Navarro was
about to speak.
You were about to speak about
the January 6th committee in
addition to our own Adam
Kinsinger step back and tell us
again what is the reaction they
tried to get Navarro to testify
to provide documents he refused
he has been found guilty today
of contempt of congress.
>> So what I've heard is they
feel that he deserved to be
found guilty today and we got
this statement from Tim mulvee
who is the communications
director for the
January 6th committee.
And he says "His, meaning
Navarro's defiance of the
committee was brazen like the
other witnesses who attempted to
stonewall the committee.
He thought he was above the law.
He is not.
That is a good thing for the
rule of law."
Then mulvee goes onto say "I
imagine that those under
indictment right now are getting
a good reminder of that."
So, you know, it's not just that
Navarro was convicted today but
it does send a message to other
people may be unindicted
co-conspirators or who may be
facing the case in Georgia that
this is a wake-up call.
They can face conviction.
>> I want to bring in former
judge scheera right now to get
her take on all this.
Judge, tell us, first of all
your view of this conviction,
did you think that this was just
a Fait accompli of course the
jury was going to find him
guilty of contempt of congress
because that's what he did?
>> Absolutely.
There was no defense here and
that's why he didn't have
anything to say in the courtroom
only outside the courtroom now.
If you really had a defense he
could are taken the stand ask
explained his point of view.
But the fact of the matter is
there was no defense.
He simply ignored the order to
come and show up.
You have to assert the privilege
to every question.
Some questions maybe you don't
have a privilege maybe you think
do you but you have to show up
and assert it.
He made no effort on the
documents, he made no effort to
testimony.
He just ignored them.
Executive privilege belongs to
the executive it had to be
asserted if it was going to be
by someone and it really wasn't
because he didn't come to
congress.
So I agree with others who have
said what's important here is
the message that it sends.
You cannot ignore congress, you
cannot ignore a grand jury, you
cannot ignore a court.
>> So in other words, beyond
just ignoring it he could have
gone to congress and said and
sat they asked him questions he
could have said to every one of
them but especially to the ones
he thought it was relevant to, I
believe that falls under
executive privilege I'm not
going to answer it and just gone
through that procedure that
those motions and at least shown
that respect to the legislative
branch of congress even while
not answering their questions?
>> That's absolutely right.
You got it.
That's what goes on in grand
jury investigations althe
time.
When somebody thinks they have
an attorney client privilege
they have to come, they have to
assert it.
I think you saw when president
presidenttrump he asserted the privilege
hundreds of times but there's a
transcript of that.