Updated
Summary
House Dems imploring GOP to act on gun safety. Former Trump White House aide has responded to the DOJ and filed lawsuit against the January 6th Committee. Peter Navarro, the former Trump White House aide, joins THE BEAT with Ari Melber to discuss the DOJ subpoena, but dodges questions regarding whether he has provided any documents to the DOJ. Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, joins Ari Melber to talk about Peter Navarro getting his first criminal subpoena case.
Transcript
JOHN HEILEMANN, MSNBC HOST: Testimony, preview initial hearings and provide the American people with a summary of its findings. So first hearing of this set in primetime, we will of course have full coverage here on MSNBC starting at 7:00 p.m. Eastern.
Thanks for being with us on this Thursday afternoon. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Aloha, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, John. We actually have breaking news on that very subject. Interesting stuff. Good to see you.
I want to welcome everyone to THE BEAT. I’m Ari Melber, and we begin with this.
Former Trump White House aide Peter Navarro who is now under a new grand jury subpoena to show up and cooperate with the deadline of today about the January 6th investigation, which runs on those two tracks, the House and the DOJ, well, he is my exclusive guest tonight. His first TV interview since the subpoena. That’s coming up.
We begin with the top story now on THE BEAT and across the nation, which is a push for tougher gun safety rules. President Biden will be addressing the nation in just over an hour. He has been pushing on this harder in the last few weeks with the spate of mass shootings than at any other time in his presidency.
In the Senate there is beltway talk of a, quote, “framework,” although gun safety advocates and other experts say they have seen exactly this kind of talk and this D.C. movie before. Now, in the House tonight, there are people working to make change, so the framework, which requires Republican support, is something that many people are not optimistic about.
But the Judiciary Committee, which is the pivotal and powerful place where this stuff originates, you can see they’re at work right now. The Democrats using this time today, tomorrow, to really push new bills and Democrats say Republicans must finally look at the carnage and act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): It has not even been 24 hours since the last mass shooting.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): We’re in a crisis of death. We have a war on the children of America.
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): Why don’t they feel an urgency to do something?
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): Do not tell me that the answer to this is to put even more guns on the streets or to militarize our schools.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): To my Republican colleagues, I ask, who are you here for? Are you here for our kids? Or are you here for the killers?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Tough talk on a tough issue. We want to show you exactly what the people pushing for gun safety are saying, and you could see tragically, the faces, the pictures of so many recently murdered children. That’s just the fact of what it is. That’s what the argument has been. And those Democrats as well as other gun safety advocates point to some facts like the spiking gun violence that tracks loosening gun laws in comparisons to other countries where stricter gun laws work.
So that’s the push for it. What about the other side? What about the argument against it. This is the news. We want to you hear just about everything so you can make sense of it. Here’s what Republicans are saying back today. They are largely arguing out loud that this state of affairs, this frequency of mass shootings, about one per day so far this year. If you feel like it’s getting worse, it is.
They say this state of affairs is largely inevitable and unavoidable, and these mass shootings must simply be accepted as part of American life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): The American people expect and deserve more from us than political charades that rehash old ideas and don’t actually solve the underlying problems.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Criminals do not obey the law. They do not follow the law.
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): It is reflexive and it is irresponsible to consider bills while we’re still trying to figure out what happened.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): Since the ’60s we really started having these mass shootings. Perhaps there were something in the ’60s.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That’s the response. There are some whataboutism, there are some not right now, and then there’s some talk that this is just the way it is. You can’t change it so stop trying.
Now that’s the back and forth, and whatever you think of what you heard there, some of the push back to gun safety rules involve policy debate. Might be objectionable but involved those Republicans that I just showed you making their argument for why there shouldn’t be more federal policy. Now that’s legitimate debate no matter how strongly people disagree, and it is good to hear it out.
But unfortunately that wasn’t the only thing that happened. I’m going to only show this briefly, but I want to give the tenor of what’s happening. Of course we’ve been covering the funerals for the children this week. This is a serious time, I don’t have to tell you, and this hearing was supposed to be a serious review by adults elected to represent other adult constituents about whether Congress should act to try to reduce these shootings or not.
And yet, as I’ll show you briefly, one Republican interrupted that proceeding to just luxuriate in and tout his love for guns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GREG STEUBE (R-FL): Right here in front of me I have a SIG Sauer P- 226. It comes with a 21-round magazine. Here’s a SIG Sauer 320.
[18:05:01]
Here’s a gun I carry every single day. This is an XL SIG Sauer P-365.
JACKSON LEE: I hope that gun is not loaded.
STEUBE: I’m at my house. I can do whatever I want with my guns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Fact check, false. You cannot do whatever you want with your guns. There are rules even in this deregulated environment. You can’t take your guns certain places. You can’t shoot them at people without cause. But that was one of the low points of the hearing.
As for action, just to update you, the current Democratic House has already passed two bills that would strengthen background checks. Those await a vote in the Senate. It’s not that the Senate has voted them down, that’s how democracy is supposed to normally work. It’s that a minority in the Senate has blocked there from being an up or down vote on the floor. That’s important to understand.
As for new legislation, Speaker Pelosi is saying the House will vote on a new sweeping assault weapons ban as early as next week.
That’s the state of affairs. So you’ve heard the update of what’s going on on this rolling crisis in America, and we want to bring in experts who know a bit about it. David Plouffe is Obama’s 2008 campaign manager and MSNBC analyst, and “New York Times” editorial board member Michelle Cottle has studied and written about this issue. Her most recent piece, quote, “Nothing is Stopping the NRA’s Gun Orgy in Texas,” end quote.
David, you know a lot about what works and doesn’t in Washington. We showed the debate there. I was careful to point out that there is a legitimate policy debate about whether Congress should regulate or not. That’s legitimate. And then there was that little show we previewed there at the end. Your thoughts on all of it?
DAVID PLOUFFE, MSNBC ANALYST: It’s incredibly sad, Ari, to see some of the Republicans and their response to this tragedy. But I’d say this, I think the House should do what they think is right. Passed with all Democratic votes, the most sweeping gun safety measures you can. That’s not going to happen in the Senate. And so I’d say this, you know, Washington is not a “West Wing” episode, sadly, right.
So I think there are some Republicans in the Senate, some of them were part of discussions after Sandy Hook, you know, 11 years ago who really do believe we need to do some things. But I also think you have to look at what’s Mitch McConnell’s play here, and I think he likes his hand in this election. We’ll know in November whether he’s right or not. And so I think that he is privately quietly encouraging people to do the minimum required, and that’s probably, you know, red flag laws, maybe some things on background checks.
I doubt we’ll see anything around an assault weapons ban, much less raising the age, so that his members and he can say, no, no, we did something and try and take it off the table. But I do think this is something like January 6th, that, you know, the media, politicians, activists need to say on every day because we’re going to continue to have these shootings in schools, sadly, if we’re not going to act here. So I think that this is just, you know, one act in what needs to be a multichapter play.
MELBER: Right.
PLOUFFE: But I do think something may happen in the Senate, and it will frustrate a lot of us who think more should be done because I think there is some political motivation from the Republicans in the Senate at the leadership level to say, no, no, we did something so that they can focus on inflation and areas where they think they have more offensive maneuvers against the Democrats.
MELBER: Right. And if that’s true, it speaks to what can be mobilized even against this environment where they say, we can’t do anything. As you say, there may be political pressure even on the right to check some kind of box.
Michelle, we also showed one of Republicans saying that while you’re still gathering the facts, you don’t know exactly what caused each shooting. Fact check, true, because there are intricacies to each individual incident. But the thing about incidents when you pile them up, and sadly our data set here is large and fast. It’s coming at us, as mentioned, about one mass shooting per day. In many of the cases the data and the information we already have shown where the gun laws fit in.
Take Tulsa. We don’t know everything yet. And I’ll update viewers on what we learn as we go, but this gunman suspect bought an AR-15 style rifle hours before using it to go on this killing spree. Armed with a rifle he purchased at 2:00 p.m. and a handgun, he went to the hospital by 5:00 p.m.
Michelle, at a policy level if you have background checks, waiting periods, and other rules, which again don’t deny anyone the ultimate right to have a gun, you absolutely can draw a line that you wouldn’t have a shooting that same day.
MICHELLE COTTLE, THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD: The problem here is that Republicans on this one particular issue have decided to take the approach of, unless you can stop every shootings, there’s no point in even trying. So it’s not going to matter the details. Yes, you can have mental health care.
[18:10:03]
You can have a course on how not to bully. You can have talk about racism and sexism and all kinds of things, which is what they’re always pushing because they say that it’s not the guns, it’s X, Y, Z. And that’s where they want to go with this. They do not actually want to talk policy. They’re not interested in the policy. The issue of guns has become such a cultural identifier that it is not even about what the majority of the American public would like to see in terms of policy.
I mean, they are extremely popular commonsense restrictions that even the majority of Republican voters support.
MELBER: Right.
COTTLE: This is just not about policy for them anymore for them.
MELBER: Right. Including what it’s not about anymore, you know, David, you said earlier Washington is not a “West Wing” episode. Tell me about it. Sometimes the Republican caucus meetings feel more like a rerun of Tucker Carlson from a couple of nights before. It’s more plagiaristic than it is original. And here’s the new talking point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX HOST: But they’re not worried about the public health at all. What they’re worried about is public resistance to their policies. Disarming the population ends that resistance. They’re very concerned because they know they rule illegitimately that the population will rise up. That probably has not occurred to you. It’s definitely occurred to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: An old idea in new garb that having a bunch of guns in America will protect against tyranny. Where does this fit in in your view of the politics?
PLOUFFE: Listen, sadly, if Tucker Carlson were to decide to run for president, he’s a plausible Republican nominee. I don’t think he would win the general election, but that tells you where the party is. I will say this, so listen, he is a menace. Rupert Murdoch is a menace. I mean, I’m not sure that the — you know, Rupert Murdoch has done more harm to this country and some other countries in Western Europe than historically we’ve seen few people do.
But the politics of this, I think we should not, you know, say, this is tough politics for the Republicans. In Florida after the shooting in Parkland, they passed laws in Florida, raising the assault weapons age from 18 to 21. Red flag laws, some other things. None of those Republicans paid a price in their primaries. So we should not let them off easy. This is largely supported not just by Republicans but by gun owners.
And I think that kind of rhetoric is so scary, Ari, because I do think it is not subtle the signals being sent that Democrats aren’t ruling legitimately.
MELBER: No.
PLOUFFE: That you should stockpile more guns. You know, we’ve got, you know, the threat of democracy falling apart, climate change, women’s healthcare, rights to abortion, and now this issue. And they’re all kind of connected in a way and it couldn’t be more scary.
MELBER: Yes.
PLOUFFE: But I think Democrats, starting with the president tonight, need to keep pushing. I’m really glad to see the January 6th hearings finally going to primetime. But I think these issues they’re going to help — listen, inflation at some point will recede. It is not permanent. The pandemic at some point is going to recede. It is not permanent. Knock on wood. But these issues are if we don’t do things about them. And they’re going to tear our country and our society apart.
MELBER: Yes.
PLOUFFE: But he is the pied piper right now, Tucker Carlson. He’s the most powerful figure in that party. It’s about a third of their party which means it’s a percentage of our country.
MELBER: Very interesting when you put it that way. We’ll let Tucker know that as a political expert you think he has a path, as they say. And I appreciate both of you breaking down these issues.
David, a lot of people know that Obama relied on you for strategy and advice. I don’t know if everyone knew that you are a Florida statutory expert and can call upon state law reforms off the top of your head, which is interesting to hear and speaks to the nuances here. Even amidst the morass you both referred to there is nuance and there are areas where things can happen. Indeed it is the belief in hopelessness that can make hopelessness a reality.
So appreciate both of you giving us food for thought on that, David and Michelle.
I’m going fit in a break because coming up we have what I mentioned at the top of the hour, an exclusive, my live interview with the first known member of the Trump White House to get a criminal federal grand jury subpoena for January 6th and the assorted issues in that investigation. Indeed, the DOJ wants to talk to former Trump aide Peter Navarro. They set a deadline of today and he’s here talking to us live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:18:57]
MELBER: Turning to a major development in the DOJ criminal probe of January 6th, and a BEAT exclusive. Trump White House aide Peter Navarro has spoken about his plot to keep Trump in office, a failed quest that sparked two different investigations that have now hit him with subpoenas. It’s a standoff that started slowly and then exploded this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC ANCHOR, “MORNING JOE”: Peter Navarro says he has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors to testify before a grand jury.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Department of Justice investigation into the events leading up to January 6th is ramping up.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Peter Navarro pushing back on attempts to try to get him to testify. In fact he’s filing a lawsuit today in D.C. court.
ALI VITALI, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This certainly marks an escalation as they actually start going at people who were in the White House.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES”: Is there criminal exposure for people higher up? Masterminds? People who were trying to do this stuff? The Navarro news seems significant in that respect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: It is significant and precisely that legal respect, because Navarro’s gone from a Trump official to a January 6th potential witness, to a defiant witness, to being held in contempt of Congress, to this week’s news, DOJ prosecutors serving him a new criminal subpoena in their inquiry.
[18:20:11]
Now, that’s not only the most serious legal move against Navarro, who became more well-known from openly discussing his January 6th plans, including on this program, it’s also the most serious legal move towards investigating the insurrection that involves anyone.
Let me repeat. Anyone in the entire Trump White House. “The New York Times” emphasizing in its new reporting this week that this is the Justice Department’s first known subpoena for someone who worked in the Trump White House. That’s a big deal. A new subpoena for Navarro is the strongest evidence that the DOJ is widening its probe to examine the activities and records of people who worked directly for Trump, as “The Washington Post” reported, and “Politico” stating flatly this subpoena that I’m telling you about, that’s in the news tonight, is, quote, “the most aggressive known step that prosecutors have taken into Trump’s West Wing, a point the AP also makes. Every major news outlet hitting this point.
Now before this news broke of the subpoena, there was no indication whether this Justice Department was ever going to go up the line to question, let alone potentially prosecute, Trump White House officials for a role in either the insurrection or the related and potentially linked attempt to steal the election by other governmental means.
Now we know this DOJ is demanding Navarro cooperate by a deadline of today or face consequences. News cameras were staked out all day in front a D.C. district court to see if Navarro would come in for today’s deadline. The shot you see might look relatively ordinary, cars on a street but it’s outside the place where the grand jury meets and where this might have happened.
There were in public sightings that we know of as people kept an eye out for this White House witness who’s now one of the most important people for getting information, not according to the media, not according to him, not according to me, but according to the Justice Department of the United States. And Mr. Navarro just filed a new lawsuit of his own against the House January 6th Committee.
Now to have a grand jury like this, DOJ has to be investigating a crime, and based on what we know, it is a crime that they think Navarro may know about. And while Mr. Navarro did speak out about his work to overthrow Biden’s victory, he has not actually done a major TV interview since being held in contempt of Congress nor since getting this subpoena from the Justice Department until now.
Peter Navarro, former Trump White House adviser, joins us for this exclusive.
Thanks for joining me.
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AIDE: Hey, Ari. How are you today?
MELBER: I’m good, thanks. We want to get to your lawsuit, and I will reserve time for it, but given the news first, can you tell us, did you cooperate or comply with this deadline in the grand jury subpoena today?
NAVARRO: Well, first of all, let’s fact check and de-escalate the rhetoric just a bit here. The subpoena I received, which I did distribute to the media, did not compel my testimony. It — all the subpoena did was ask for — the documents broadly construed, which the January 6th Committee had asked for. That’s all we know at this point. I’m in negotiations, discussions with them about that. Having said that, Ari, I agree with you that this was a serious escalation.
MELBER: Let’s pause there — I’ll let you —
NAVARRO: Yes.
MELBER: I’ll let you continue, but you’re making some news. As of today, you are discussing with the Justice Department turning over those records?
NAVARRO: No, what I did was — let me say this very carefully. I have responded to the Justice Department, and there will be ongoing interactions on that to be determined. Let’s let that process take its course.
MELBER: One follow up and then I will let the process.
NAVARRO: Sure.
MELBER: One follow-up and then I’ll let the process go. And I respect that there is a process there.
NAVARRO: Sure.
MELBER: Are you currently offering them any evidence or material? Or when you say response, are you telling them in so many words no?
NAVARRO: Let’s talk about the bigger issue now. That is the essence in my response. And the seriousness for me, Ari, is, you know, the average life span in America for an American male is 76 years old.
[18:25:01]
If I were to go to prison for a year, which is what the contempt of charge could do to me, that would be about a fourth of my remaining life, and there would be a fine that would take a significant portion of my retirement savings, so I’m taking this very seriously. But there are some really important principles at stake here. And that’s why on Tuesday at district court I filed a lawsuit against the committee.
Now that lawsuit — you and I talked to that offline a week or so ago that I was intending to do that, but that was before I got the grand jury subpoena. I added the U.S. attorney to the case before I filed and what I’m doing now is basically challenging things.
MELBER: OK. Well, as —
NAVARRO: And what I’d like to do —
MELBER: And as promised, Peter.
NAVARRO: Ari, is talk about —
MELBER: Yes. As promised.
NAVARRO: Yes, OK.
MELBER: So you said you’re in discussions with DOJ but you’re not revealing them. I respect that.
NAVARRO: What I said was — I want to be clear.
MELBER: But I’m saying that respectfully.
NAVARRO: What I said, Ari — Ari.
MELBER: Go ahead.
NAVARRO: No, what I said was I responded to them and I expect responses back from them.
MELBER: OK.
NAVARRO: And there’s —
MELBER: So turning to your lawsuit —
NAVARRO: You can call that discussions or whatever you want.
MELBER: Yes, no, I don’t mean to give it a special word. So, Peter, turning to your lawsuit, because we are going to make good on that. You filed this suit.
NAVARRO: Yes. Yes.
MELBER: Given that the committee has been operating for about 11 months, the Supreme Court has recognized its validity in a different case. What do you think is your strongest argument that could win in court in your new suit against the committee?
NAVARRO: Well, the most important one constitutionally, and this is why I’m literally putting my life on the line standing up for principle. The most important one is about executive privilege and the related concept of testimonial immunity for senior White House officials.
For your viewers, executive privilege, it goes back to George Washington, and it’s been long an institution which is recognized in case law, Ari, as being important to allow candor to presidents to promote effective decision-making. So that’s just a really critical principle.
MELBER: Yes.
NAVARRO: Now what is being attacked here is executive privilege in a very unique, in my view, fanciful and absurd way. The key Constitution question here, Ari, is whether an incumbent president in Joe Biden can strip executive privilege from his predecessor.
MELBER: OK.
NAVARRO: And strip testimonial immunity from me.
MELBER: So let’s get into it.
NAVARRO: This is the most important issue.
MELBER: This is important. And I read your filing. And so you’re saying that, and let’s get into it, Peter, because respectfully you’re talking about that argument. And executive privilege does exist. Your problem, sir, is it doesn’t exist for you yet because Donald Trump doesn’t have your back. You say you’re standing tall and going to the mat. You’re clearly demonstrating —
NAVARRO: That’s — Ari, that’s not factual.
MELBER: Let me finish, sir.
NAVARRO: That’s just not —
MELBER: Peter, let me finish and then I’m going to let you respond.
NAVARRO: That’s not factual.
MELBER: You say it’s counter-factual so let me give you some facts.
NAVARRO: As you would say when we debate, that’s false, OK? So that’s false.
MELBER: OK, so let me show the evidence and you get to respond.
NAVARRO: That’s just false. Yes.
MELBER: So here’s the evidence. I’m go to say it so people hear it clearly. Executive privilege does exist and can be litigated. The former president has not invoked it publicly or in writing for you. I’m going to put up for viewers in your response what you say in your suit and what the committee says they haven’t heard from Donald Trump citing privilege for you or others.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): So Navarro then appears to fall back on the vague assertion that the executive privilege here belongs to former President Trump which is not only dubious, but entirely irrelevant because our committee has not been given any attempted invocation of executive privilege by Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Can you answer once and for all —
NAVARRO: OK, let’s take that —
MELBER: — why should you have privilege if Trump won’t say it?
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Little Jamie Raskin, OK, can talk all he wants. The president is not going to cooperate with a kangaroo committee run by people like Raskin and Adam Schiff, and one of the things I do in the lawsuit, Ari, based on case law, is I go over what’s called the legislative history of each of the seven Democrats on that nine-member committee, and it’s relevant, Ari.
MELBER: I read that.
NAVARRO: Because for a five-year period
MELBER: I read that but you admit that Trump has not invoked —
NAVARRO: Hang on. Come on, let me speak here, Ari.
MELBER: But you admit that Trump has not invoked privilege for you.
NAVARRO: Come on, it’s your show. You have all night —
MELBER: No, you’re getting time. You’re getting time, but it’s a back and forth.
NAVARRO: Let me speak. Let me finish this point. Over a five-year period, those seven Democrats have engaged initially on a discredited Russia hoax in 2016 to get rid of Trump, two phony impeachment trials and three efforts alone to try to disqualify Donald Trump from office for mental or physical reasons.
That’s a legislative history, which shows that committee is not performing a legislative function, but rather seeking to punish Donald Trump and prevent him from running in 2024.
[18:30:00]
MELBER: And you’re getting time on-air, to make that point that you have with them, but you acknowledge that Trump — but Peter, you acknowledge Trump — this is important Peter, and I’ll let you — I’ll let you respond, is just a question, we’ll take long. Is not going to take long. Peter, you acknowledge that Trump has not invoked privilege for you?
NAVARRO: I haven’t not reached anything. All I’ve said to you, Ari, is that — in terms of whatever Raskin says, don’t take that to the bank. My point here is it’s not my privilege to waive. OK? Let me be clear about this. It’s not my privilege to waive, and also as a senior White House official. Here’s what’s interesting, Ari, I have absolute testimonial immunity, according to who? According to the Department of Justice, going back to the 1970s over a dozen opining’s from the Office of Legal Counsel say —
MELBER: So, let’s get into that, Peter, I’m going to jump in. I’m going to jump in on these points. So, we go back and forth.
NAVARRO: The Department of Justice, which is right here, by the way.
MELBER: Now, Peter, you finish that answer — Peter, I’m going to jump in – – NAVARRO: When it’s their policy to support that.
MELBER: So, Peter, on the screen, we have what this Supreme Court which includes multiple Trump appointees ruled eight to one. That this ex- president’s executive privilege claims would have failed. Even if he were still president. You’re raising an issue that — by the way, is interesting about whether there is legal questions are gray area about former presidents but this Supreme Court with people that the White House you serve, put on it.
Eight to one, back the ruling by the appeals court that Trump doesn’t have it. I want to put one more thing on the screen for your response. Because you say, OK, you were a White House aide. But look at your colleagues, I want to get you on record on this, Peter because this is important stuff. And these hearings are starting next week.
NAVARRO: Hang on, Ari. You can’t going to keep going. Let me respond to this. OK?
MELBER: You want to — all right. I’m going to give you a minute. Peter, I’m going to give you a minute to respond to this. Go ahead. Go ahead.
NAVARRO: One at a time. That case was a small piece that was related to the Presidential Records Act. It was not a case broadly construed about executive privilege, particularly that applies to testimonial type immunity and discussions with the president. So that is —
MELBER: So, let’s go to testimony, which I’m going to put back on the screen for your response —
NAVARRO: I mean, please, do the case law. That’s when I don’t — with the surprise.
MELBER: I read it.
NAVARRO: He said —
MELBER: This is a chance to cover more than one thing. So, Peter, Peter, you said documents, that was a document case. Now you get to testimony people talking the committee —
NAVARRO: Presidential Records Act case, and it was subset —
MELBER: Records documents? Yes.
NAVARRO: OK. My view —
MELBER: Peter, Peter, take some agreement from me. Peter, I just agreed with you. That’s Yes, it was a document record case. Now, let’s go on testimony. There’s some people on the screen who have cooperated. Donald Trump’s family, his chief lawyer in this effort, Rudy Giuliani, his chief spokesperson.
Over 700 people have cooperated with the committee. If you’re right, and we hold open the possibility that legally you could be right, the case hasn’t been decided. What do you say to these people? What do you think of their cooperation?
NAVARRO: Well, well, first of all, four of the six are not senior White House officials. So, they don’t have any claim. They wouldn’t have the same claim. I mean, Rudy might, I’m not sure what their claims would be. With respect to Kushner, I call him out in my own lawsuit, I thought it was cowardly. What he did to go to the committee and undermine the executive privilege of other senior White House advisors. So that’s what I would say about that.
MELBER: Interesting, OK. There’s the other question that hangs over all of this, Peter, which is you have every right to prosecute your view of these events, you’re clearly doing so. And we make time for you so people can hear from you. That’s part of our job as journalists. A lot of your argument, what we just discussed, and privileges.
You keep saying that you have the right not to talk, you’re waging this legal battle, not to talk to the committee, not to talk potentially to DOJ, although, as you said, TBD. So, you’re risking going potentially to jail, not to talk to them. But you’re out here talking in public. You do realize these investigators can hear you when you talk on T.V.
NAVARRO: What we’re talking about now, Ari, is the case law itself and the Constitution allottee of executive privilege testimony immunity. A second key issue in the case is the separation of powers. This committee is kangaroo committee has clearly violated the separation of powers. They’re not supposed to act as judge, jury, and executioner. They’re only supposed to pursue a legislative function. And —
[18:35:00]
MELBER: But you talked about the Green Bay Sweep.
NAVARRO: Let me — let me give you a hypothetic.
MELBER: You talked about the Green Bay Sweep. Why can’t you talk to them about it if you talk about it in public?
NAVARRO: Please just let me — let me do this hypothetical for you. If it’s held by the courts, that a sitting president — incumbent president can strip a — his immediate precedent — predecessor of executive privilege and all of those aides of testimony immunity. What do you think is going to happen in 2022, when the Republicans take back the House?
And if a Republican president like Donald Trump gets in the White House in 2024. What do you think executive privilege and testimonial immunity will be obliterated, as we know it? Presidential decision makings will be destroyed. As we know it. Is that what you support, Ari? Do you support that? Do you support Biden —
MELBER: You bring that up — You bring that up and I’m fam — you bring that up, Peter —
NAVARRO: I’d love to know the answer to that. Do you support that?
MELBER: And I — as I’ve told you before when you have a T.V. show, I’d be happy to come on as a guest and answer your question.
NAVARRO: Don’t stay on that. Tell your viewers. Come on. Tucker tells his viewer what he thinks. Tell him what you think, Ari. It’s an important constitutional issue.
MELBER: Well, you know, we all have different standards. But I will take your premise. Seriously, sir, which is — I know that part of your filing.
NAVARRO: You should. This is why I’m fighting. This is why I’m willing to go to jail for this, Ari.
MELBER: So, let me respond. Let me respond to you. And give you a question. I’m going to read from your filing. When you talk about leading this charge. You say in their quote, if an incumbent can strip the predecessor of privilege, exactly you just mentioned, then you say just imagine what will happen to Biden and his advisors if Republicans win in 24.
Quote, if I’m not dead, or in prison, I will lead the charge. What are you threatening? And are you suggesting that you would be here in the Republican White House? And what will you do?
NAVARRO: You bet your ass that I will lead the charge. I will take Adam Schiff, and Jamie Raskin, and Nancy Pelosi and Elaine Luria, and all of those clouds and kangaroos. I’ll take Biden and every single senior staff member in there and I will put them with subpoenas. And we will start with the impeachment of Biden, for what? Ukraine, the southern border, all manner of things he is guilty of.
And will subpoena his senior staff. I don’t think that’s good for the Republic. OK, Ari. I don’t think — I think executive privilege George Washington understood this. Jefferson, Adams, they all understood it. I don’t think that the destruction of executive privilege and testimonial immunity that stop Trump from running for office in 2024 is a good Democrat bet. And you shouldn’t either —
MELBER: But you admit — OK. But you admit — you admit — you admit that if you end up back in power, Peter, I just want to get this on the record. You admit that if you get back in power, you will be trying to use the DOJ to issue politicized, subpoenas base Democrats who don’t like —
NAVARRO: I’m telling you I’m not using the DOJ. It’s basically — I will push as hard as I can to use the same B.S., that the Democrats are using now to try to put me in prison for standing up for principle. If they want to play that game. We’ll play it right back. They hit us. We hit them back.
MELBER: On this topic —
NAVARRO: That’s not what I want, Ari. Let me be clear. I do not want that. OK.
MELBER: Well, you wrote it in a court filing and you just set it on air, sir. So, it sounds like what you want. Let me play a little bit of what you said about Dr. Fauci in the same day. I’m going to play this for your response. Take a listen to what you threatened, Dr. Fauci.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAVARRO: What’s that? Here’s your future, Tony. Republicans are going to sweep and take the House back from Nancy Pelosi. And as soon as that happens, you’re going to sit (BLEEP) down in a chair in Congress, and you’re going to confess to creating the virus that’s killed almost a million Americans, now. We’re going to fit you for an orange jumpsuit, Tony. You can count on that —
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: So. this is your agenda is trying to imprison your opponents.
NAVARRO: But that’s a separate issue from this issue here, Ari. I’m sorry, that you would go —
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: I’m not conflating anything, Peter. You’re pledging abuse of power.
NAVARRO: It’s just got nothing to do with what we’re doing here, Ari? The issue — the only common denominator here, and I just pour this right now. It’s the weaponization of the investigatory powers of Congress for partisan ends and yes, Ari, both parties are guilty of it. Shame on them.
[18:40:00]
We got to put a stop to this. I mean, this is just — I mean, we are in — look, it’s an economist, I’ll tell you, I’ve never seen the world and this U.S. economy this bad. We have real problems. The American people doesn’t give a crap about what that kangaroo committee is doing. They do not care.
MELBER: But, Peter — but. Peter, you’re saying we have to, quote put a stop to the thing you’re pledging to do with your return to power?
NAVARRO: It — no. I said that if they pull this off. If they institutionalize in case law, the ability of Joe Biden or an incumbent president that stripping a predecessor of executive privilege, that’s wrong. But if they do that, and if they allow — the only thing we haven’t talked about, Ari, is the committee itself and how it is neither dually authorized or properly constituted.
It has no ranking minority member, Ari. No ranking minority member. They can’t issue subpoenas. They can’t issue subpoenas. They’re (INAUDIBLE). They’re unenforceable.
MELBER: Peter, I’ve given you a good amount of time, but we got to go back and forth. I mentioned that point in your case, and I mentioned that, that the Supreme Court acknowledged the legal validity of the committee and yes, the document case but they ignored that.
Last item I want to play Mitch McConnell — last item, I want to play Mitch McConnell. Before I lose you, sir. And I’ve given you a lot of time. Take a listen to Mitch McConnell the night of January 6th.
NAVARRO: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It was a violent insurrection. For the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was after January 6th about it, your response in closing? Because this all is about something larger than privilege, although I’ve given you time to make your arguments. Was it an illegal — was it an illegal violent insurrection that the president at the time bore responsibility for?
NAVARRO: The last, as I wrote in my interim time book, the last three people on god’s good earth who wanted violence that day, on Capitol Hill was Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and myself, because per the law, well, within the lanes of the law, we had a strategy, not a plot, a strategy using the Electoral Count Act to get a legal counting of the actual votes.
We believed with due cause that that election was tainted. And at that time, peace and calm was all we wanted. Ari, the fact that violence erupted that day —
MELBER: These doubles back to an important point, Peter.
NAVARRO: Stop the illegal counting. It was the last thing Trump wanted —
MELBER: If it was legal. Peter, this goes back to the point —
NAVARRO: It’s the last thing Trump wanted. It’s the last thing I am —
MELBER: If it was legal. Peter —
NAVARRO: What’s that?
MELBER: If it was legal, and you say you were doing that plan, and you just said it again on T.V., if it was your view of how you could — as you said use the Electoral Count Act to override or end the election that put Biden as president-elect — hold on —
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: That’s all we wanted.
MELBER: Yes. So, if you can say that here and that — and you admit to that — you admit to that. Why won’t you talk to the committee about what you just said?
NAVARRO: I wrote it in a book. It’s all there in chapter 21 in Trump time. Read the book. It’s — there was nothing illegal —
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: To stop Trump from getting elected. Come on, Ari.
MELBER: Peter, I’m out of time, but we did give you ample time. And Peter I do appreciate — Peter, appreciate you coming back.
NAVARRO: (INAUDIBLE) year, Ari. Because if this is allowed to stand, it’s not good for either party and for the republic for which we stand.
MELBER: Yes. Peter, thanks for coming on THE BEAT, sir.
NAVARRO: All right, Ari. Take care.
MELBER: Appreciate it. Newsworthy guests making some news. We have our shortest break one minute and we’re back with former prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:45:15]
MELBER: We’re back with former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, who is monitoring the interview we just did with Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House official, who has been subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee and the Justice Department. He had a deadline of today. Among other things, he said that in some form, he’s in discussions with the Justice Department. He did not give details, but that’s new. And we discussed many other aspects. Renato, your reaction to what you heard?
RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I guess my top-line reaction ally — Ari, is that — is that somebody should tell Mr. Navarro that he has the right to remain silent. As you pointed out, talking about all these subjects makes it harder for him to claim later that is privileged putting out a book, putting out a lawsuit and so on is just making his life more difficult.
And that lawsuit that he talks about at length is something that he’s doing himself, he said you can have a lawyer, and there’s an old saying that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. And I think that is the case here. Yes, there are some —
MELBER: And yet — let me jump in, Renato. You make an important point. He’s representing himself. We’ve discussed that in the program. We don’t know whether other lawyers in this sort of circle are in or not. He’s certainly taken a different path, as mentioned from Giuliani and others.
What do you think of the place he’s in? Because I showed the reporting from the times the A.P. and elsewhere that this is the highest level, White House official from the Trump era who’s gotten the grand jury subpoena? What does that tell you about where that probe is headed?
MARIOTTI: Well, it certainly tells me I agree with you, Ari. This is the first concrete evidence we have that the DOJ is looking criminally at the statements of Trump and his involvement — in his advisors’ involvement in the January 6th insurrection. And when you have FBI agents showing up at your home and serving a grand jury subpoena on you, you should be calling a criminal defense attorney not getting on your show.
No offense, they’ll love your show. But not getting on your show and talking about it and filing public lawsuits on your own. It’s a very — it’s foolish on its face, you don’t need to be a lawyer to know that that’s a big mistake.
MELBER: It certainly goes against standard legal advice and caution. I should say that Mr. Navarro comes out of the world of Trump political space where Donald Trump and others violated and broke many such rules and pieces of advice, and legally live to tell about it. So, they may have a different sort of recent memory history. Whether that works under these DOJ prosecutors will be determined over time.
Another thing I want to ask you about is what it means when someone who’s facing this kind of subpoena, but also has links to the government, which does make him a sort of a different type of figure. The executive privilege issue is not one that comes up from normal citizens outside of government service.
What does it mean when someone like that also writes down and then says as he sort of leaned into tonight that if this doesn’t go the way he likes, he will be trying to get back into government or working with his allies there, which he has to go after people who are currently in government power?
MARIOTTI: Yes, I have to say that the statement that you played of his comments regarding Fauci was pretty chilling. I think he’s creating potential liability for himself if he goes forward with these plans in the future. I mean, I — if I represented Dr. Fauci, which I don’t, in the future and some hypothetical world in which he was being persecuted by Mr. Navarro and his associates, of course, you’d be playing that to a judge and explaining that this was the plan all along.
I don’t see any upside to doing this. It’s fairly unsophisticated. I think there are sophisticated arguments. Mr. Navarro could be making a pursuing approach like Mark Meadows is with an attorney and trying to fight this in the legal system. But that is not what Mr. Navarro is doing here.
MELBER: Yes, well, this involves prosecutors. They will have a lot more sway over all of this. It’s a job you’ve done. So, we wanted to get your reaction inside here on the news. Thank you, Renato Mariotti, for joining us. I’m going to fit in a break and as the president prepares to speak tonight, which we’ll have on MSNBC. We have the situation in Texas families grieving while Ted Cruz dodges.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:53:47]
MELBER: There are many different important things going on today. The news broke about the January 6th Committee planning these primetime hearings. We just heard from one of the key witnesses in that ongoing controversy. And then there’s the gun epidemic, where we began our show and I want to give you this update going into the evening.
The president will address the nation this next hour. He’s expected to call for action on gun safety and addressing gun violence. There been mass shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Tulsa, plus several more shootings that are classified as mass shootings but have not even made the national news to the same degree indeed.
Look at this, over 233 multiple casualty shootings ongoing in 2020. In this first half of the year. It’s over one per day is defined as four or more people being injured or killed. So, there’s a lot of push to do something to act. We’ll hear the president on that tonight. Meanwhile, there’s the pushback and even in the home state of this tragedy. Texas, a top senator with national ambitions is pushing back hard rallying around guns saying there’s no way to stop any of this unless you do everything but gun control.
[18:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Don’t have all of these unlocked back doors. We install bulletproof doors and locking classroom doors. The most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus. What stops armed bad guys is armed, good guys. Absent fathers, declining church attendance, video games. If you could wave a magic wand and eliminate all firearms in America, there would be substantially more murders. It’s never been about guns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: It’s about guns because they’re being used to murder children. And as for good guys and good gals with guns. There have been people with guns inside the sights of some of these mass murderers or on the scene. And Ted Cruz knows just like you do what happened. Good people with guns can’t prevent bad people with weapons of war when they’re outgunning the good people. That’s the whole point. We’ll be right back.