january 6th will repeat itself. thank, you mister chairman. i yield back. >> the lady yields back. -- i know call a report on the resolution, recommending that the house of representatives, peter cain navarro and danny scavino junior in contempt of congress or refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. a report was circulated in advance including copies that are available. the clerk shall designate the report. >> report on the resolution recommending that the house representatives find peter cain navarro and daniel scavino junior in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the

january 6th capitol. >> without egyptian, -- open to amendment at any point. the chair recognizes -- from california. >> thank, you mister chairman. it's a freeze we use all the time, no one is above the law but it seems as if a few of the former presidents aides and allies seem to think they are, including daniel scavino junior. who is he? mr. scavino met mr. trump around 1992. and worked for him for many years. first at the trump national golf club, and then as director of social media for his 2016 presidential campaign. and as white house deputy steve chief of staff, or of communications and on his 2020 campaign, and later on efforts to reverse the election results,

which former vice president, mike pence, has denounced as an american. according to many published reports, mr. scavino worked closely with mr. trump to use social media, to spread lies regarding nonexistent election fraud, and to inflame a violent angry mob. for example, mr. trump's twitter account priest a false report alleging election fraud tweeting and here is the quote, a great report, statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. big protest in d.c. on january 6th. be there. we will be wild. mr. scavino also followed domestic violence -- extreme social media and he did it on behalf of mr. trump. this committee has reason to believe that doing so provided

mr. scavino with explicit advanced warning of the violence that was to occur on january 6th. mr. scavino may have shared these warnings of violence with mr. trump before january 6th. he reportedly attended several meetings with mr. trump and others regarding reversing president biden's legitimate victory. mr. scavino was also with mr. trump during the capitol attack, mr. trump failed to immediately try to stop it despite urgent bipartisan calls for him to do so. republican senate minority leader mitch mcconnell rightly said that the public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on january 6th. to inform both the american people and legislative reform proposals, this committee needs to speak with mr. scavino.

he has to fulfill his legal and moral obligation to provide this testimony and documents or he should face the consequences. that's why we're taking this action today, in the united states of america, no one is above the law. this committee is doing its job. the department of justice needs to do there is. i yield back, mister chair. >> the gentlelady yields back. we recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mister chair and the vice chair mentioned with ukraine, it reminds us that democracies are not defined by bad days or bad things that happen, but how they defended and come back from that. that's the importance of this committee. so dan scavino met donald trump when he was 16 years old. he became a longtime trump employee and remains a true trump loyalist. the trump administration and

scavino served as director social media and for its final two years, as deputy chief of staff or communications. as the select committee reports notes, then scavino was with then president trump on january 5th and sixth. he spoke with president trump several times on january 6th. i was with the president when many urged him to help stop the violence of the capitol. he was always in all relevant times a trump and white house insider. social media as a means of monitoring that is shaping trends, was dan can -- scavino's core business. reports tell us that dan scavino and his team honored extremists social media sites, modern -- to shape the public perceptions. there is in short a great deal of highly important information that than scavino has that the select committee needs to know. i want to focus on one aspect of, that the dance can be no could tell us about what then

president trump thought was likely to happen on january 6th. the president noted the rally could turn violent. -- did send an angry mob to storm the capitol. when trump noted on the evening of january 5th that he had a fired up crowd, did he know that they might take it literally when the next morning he told them to quote, fight hard? dense given was there and can tell us a lot about that. we need to hear from him and refusing to talk to us, he's disarming the american people in hiding the truth. it's unlawful and there's no excuse. president trump asserted that he generally did his own tweets but acknowledge that on occasion, scavino helped to shape them. we know that he often composed social media posts and discuss their language with trump. with that in mind, let's take a closer look. on december 19th 2020, trump re-tweeted a video that ended by urging viewers to quote, fight for trump.

here it is. january 6th was then just two and a half weeks off. dan scavino could tell us something useful about why donald trump reach tweeted that particular message. president trump also re-tweeted a video titled quote, how to steal an election. among other things, it argued that covid-19 was created to ensure that trump would lose the election. here's that. qanon had already re-tweeted that one by the time trump did. we would like to hear with president trump's director social media has to say about that. with the trump's extremist followers on the donald and other hard right social media sites make of all that? of president trump urging them to join a while protest on january 6th? some of his followers on the donald fringe site to get his marching orders. dan scavino had every reason to know that they would be violent. dan scavino was well aware of

-- to the extremist users that used the site like donald trump, like the donald. danced vito himself sent out a video on the same site, understood to be quote, literal or -- president trump had by then been president for a full four years with dan scavino at his side. they knew that the january 6th crowd could turn violent. they knew exactly what they were doing, and the select committee needs to hear directly from dance communal about his and president trump's role in inciting violence that they. thank you, mister chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. thank you >> thank, you vice chair for convening us today. our committee has a singular purpose, to ensure that our nation never again experiences

the violence of january 6th. that there is never again an effort to overturn a presidential election or to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power. that is our object. every single witness called before this panel should cooperate. it is a patriotic duty to help congress and the american people understand how the tragedy of january 6th came about. more than a duty, it is a necessity when served with a lawful subpoena to appear. which is why we are here today. peter navarro and dan scavino have refused to comply with the duly authorize subpoena, offering up again and again, spurious and unjustifiable excuses. mr. scavino's case, he has clearly relevant testimony for our committee. scavino was intimately involved with former president trump social media content strategy and served as deputy chief of staff or communications while also actively promoting trump's campaign.

the subcommittee believes that scavino was with trump on january 5th and sixth, including during the period when the capital was under attack, that he was party to conversations with trump about challenging, disrupting or impeding the congressional proceedings to certify the election results, and that he may also have had prior knowledge regarding the likelihood of violence on january 6th due to his monitoring of social media sites with such violence was discussed and predicted. specifically through press reporting we are aware that on january six mr. scavino is advising from throughout the day, potentially even directing, directly sending messages from the white house and potentially playing a role in the video message from released, hours after rioters reached the capitol. it's also been reported that mr. scavino as president -- strategy session with trump as esteemed on how they could convince congressional republicans to successfully -- to the certification of the election and thus overturn it.

this is why mr. scavino has obligation to appear before us. nevertheless mr. scavino claims to be protected under executive privilege, but that claim isn't grounded in the law or reality. executive privilege does not allow for a person to simply refused to appear before a congressional committee. and doesn't apply to scavino's campaign act if it's on behalf of former president. it doesn't apply to a potentially unlawful scheme to instruct congress, and it does not apply to the official duties when as he or the current president of the united states, asserts. it is not in the public interest to do so. i have one more thing to add tonight. the department of justice has a duty to act on this referral and others we have sent. without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight. without oversight, no accountability, not for the former president or any other president as the president or future. without enforcement of this lawful process, congress csis to be a coequal branch of

government, and the balance of power would be forever altered to the lasting detriment of the american people. finally, i want to return to judge carter's remarkable opinion, finding that a former president of the united states may have committed a crime and fraud against the united states. the judge said that dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in american history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in search of legal theory. the plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process. as the vice chair pointed out, he also said, if the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those

responsible, the court fears january 6th will repeat itself. that responsibility to investigate and pursue accountability, extends to those who hold the highest office in the land or those who hold no office at all. if no one is above the law, that no one must be above the law. we are upholding our responsibility, the department of justice must do the same. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mister chairman, madam vice chair, distinguished colleagues. our committee is dedicated to getting to the truth and to taken any steps necessary to do so. when material witnesses fail to comply with lawful subpoenas, they have no choice but to refer them for contempt of congress.

peter navarro's testimony is integral to our investigation and despite the fact that he is given multiple television interviews regarding our subpoena, he's failed to comply with our investigation anyway. he is protected by executive privilege, but he has never sought counsel as others we have have. he has so usually this is never filed any not what's happening case, on it seeking responsibilities to supply -- and economist with a ph.d. from harvard, mr. navarro ran unsuccessfully for august in my home state of california five times. he wrote several books on economics and trade, many of which focused on china. he was brought on by the trump campaign in 2016 to advise the former president on economic and trade issues. it was such an important adviser to the former president that in office -- was created just for him to oversee. the white house national trade council. he was the architect of the presidents trade policies,

which, according to a study commission by the u.s. china business council, quote, hurt the u.s. economy and failed to achieve major policy goals. now, mister chairman, i think the american people might be wondering, why our committee would need to speak. -- about the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. it's the vice chair noted, that is because mr. navarro held that title as a director of white house national trade council. and he devoted much of his time to white house political efforts outside the scope of his official duties. in fact, the american people are likely to know that mr. navarro in his political capacity. he was so active in the 2020 reelection campaign, that the united states special counsel ruled in 2020 that mr. of our oh repeatedly violated the hatch act. that is because the former president trusted mr. navarro as a spokesman and confidant. he was so intimately involved

with these efforts that mr. navarro allegedly led a call and january 2nd, with a group of state legislators, about the effort to convict and vice president pence to delay the election certification for ten days. they -- by mr. meadows reminder of the press said, quote, mark, i am reaching out because i have details on the call that navarro helped convene yesterday with legislators as part of his effort to get pence to delay certification of the election for ten days. including that the plan is to -- where you want to call on the president spoke? and quote. among the many questions that we have for mr. navarro, we need to hear from him about this conversation and about that phone call. and we need to hear from him about his other calls with steve bannon and the house is already held in contempt. it -- took place --

we know that mr. navarro believes he and mr. bannon came up with a strategy for overturning the election because he details it in his book, which i know my colleague from florida will discuss in greater detail. this is as clear case for contempt as we are likely to see, mister chairman. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes -- mrs. murphy. >> thank, you mister chairman. i will just pick up where my colleague left off. over a month and a half, ago mr. navarro was subpoenaed by this committee. we sought documents and testimony regarding his efforts -- and to prevent the result from being certified. this information is central to our committees inquiry. mr. navarro refused to comply, making a cursory claim of executive privilege. there are many reasons why this blanket assertion of executive privilege lacks merit, as a married or of law and as a matter of common sense.

most fundamentally, neither the incumbent nor the former president has asserted privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony or document production to the committee. and mr. navarro has no unilateral authority to assert privilege himself. beyond that foundational flaw, his privilege claim, since the election, he has spoken and written widely above the precise subjects that are the focus of our subpoena. clearly, mr. navarro is eager to tell his story as he sees it, so long as he can do so on his own terms. for example, in 2020 and in 2021, mr. navarro published a three-part report on his website called, the navarro report. in it, he makes allegations about election fraud that have been debunked. furthermore, in 2021, mr. navarro published a book called, in trump time. he described in detail actions he took to change the outcome of the election. for instance, mr. navarro claims credit for working with

steve bannon to concoct a scheme they called the green day sweep. the core of the plan was to encourage vice president pence to delay certification of the electoral college votes on january 6th and to send the election back to state legislators. in his book, mr. navarro also writes what he called attorney general william barr -- he also writes that he called william barr, asking the department of justice to support president trump's legal efforts to challenge the election results. barr declined. 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 concerned with elective privilege with keeping certain matters confidential when it's

convenient for him. unfortunately for him and fortunately for the american public, that is not how the law works. no president, incumbent or form, or has claimed privilege. and at any event, his claim of executive privilege is severely undermined, if not -- by has extensive public disclosures on the same issues the committee seeks to question him about under oath. as a result of his actions, mr. navarro is clearly in contempt of congress and should be referred to the department of justice for criminal prosecution. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. chair recognizes mr. raskin. >> thank you, mister chairman. tom pain says the cause of america is the cause of mankind. and today, democracy is under siege all over the world. and just as we are working to defend a fortified moxie abroad, and ukraine, and other places, we are working to defend and

fortify democracy here at home. the assault on american democracy that exploded on january 6th, mister chairman, had to coordinated elements that we have been able to see. one was a violent insurrection from the outside, infused by propaganda and disinformation. and a led by domestic violent extremist groups like the oath keepers, the proud boys, the pre three percenters, the qanon networks. the militia group. but the other component was a seeker campaign on the inside to replace our constitutional process of governing presidential elections with a -- lies and counterfeit processes that make a mockery of american democracy. this is what the political find us call a self clue. it is not a coup against the president, like mark quds.

but it is a coup organized by the president against the constitutional framework itself. the two contempt citations we vote on tonight will go to persons who have critical information about both components of this assault on america and the coordination between them. peter navarro worked to overthrow the election by nullifying 79 electoral college votes, cast by tens of millions of americans, who live in arizona, georgia, pennsylvania, michigan, new mexico, and wisconsin. how does so-called green bay sweep, which, by the way, is an insult to green bay packers all over the country. but has his so-called green bay sweep not been blocked by the bravery of our police officers, 150 of whom were injured, wounded, or hospitalized by insurrectionary violence and by

vice president pence's refusal to abandon his constitutional duties, this attempted coup would have, quote, permanently and did the peaceful transition of power in america, unquote, threatening the survival of democracy and the constitution as united states district judge david carter put it so powerfully in his remarkable decision today, rejecting the claims of navarro's comrade in these efforts, john eastman. we subpoenaed navarro -- by february the 23rd, 2022, and took him for a deposition on march 2nd. he has produced no documents and failed to appear for his scheduled deposition. peter navarro must be held in criminal contempt of congress and the american people because he is acting with criminal

contempt for the congress and the american people. the american people want to know what's sets him above the law. the supreme court said in 1950 and u.s. versus brian that is subpoena creates a public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the government is bound to perform when properly summoned. in 2020, the supreme court emphasized that it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with a subpoena. but navarro invokes the words executive privilege, repeats the phrase over and over again. it is not my privilege to weigh. and he thinks he has found a magic wand to nullify the powers of the u.s. congress, just like he thinks he has found a magic wand to nullify the powers of the states to cast their own electoral college votes. now, navarro statement of executive privilege is, quote,

not his to waive, is in fact accurate. but if the executive privilege is not navarro's to waive, then neither, for the exact same reason, and by definition, is it his to assert in the first place. the supreme court has been clear that the executive privilege belongs to the president of the united states. and on february 28th, 2022, the white house counsel notified mr. navarro that president biden determined that assertion of executive privilege is not justified with respect to navarro's effort to cover up the evidence of his participation in this assault on american constitutional democracy. so, navarro then appeared to fall back on the vague assertion that the executive privilege here belongs to former president trump. which is not only dubious, but entirely are relevant because our committee has not been given any attempted invocation of executive privilege by donald trump. either formally, or informally,

indirectly by peter navarro, or directly by donald trump. nothing. there is primarily no assertion of executive privilege here, either by the actual president or by any former president. and even if there were, even if president biden try to assert executive privilege for peter navarro, he would fail immediately because the privilege does not apply to private political business. much less to criminal activity like conducting coups or insurrections against the government. the privilege applies only to professional speech on government policy by advisers rendering confidential advice on matters within their domain of professional responsibility. now, peter navarro was the white house trade advisor. he was not within his job description to overthrow presidential elections,

coercive vice presidents into abandoning their constitutional responsibilities, or impose counterfeit regimes in place of the u.s. constitution. when navarro was plotting to overthrow the election, by canceling out the electoral college votes of 49 million americans in six states, to seize the presidency for his chosen candidate for four years, he was not rendering advice on trade policy. we are not seeking documents or testimony from navarro, related to his official duties as trade advisor. and indeed, on a press call to announce release of his outlandish and cartoonish three part report on outright fraud in the 2020 election on his personal website, navarro acknowledged publicly that he was writing as a private citizen and not as a federal government officials. rnment officia ls

please spurs the nonsense talk about executive privilege rejected now by a report that has looked at it. this is america. there's no executive privilege here for the presidents, much less treat advisers, the plot crews unorganized insurrections against the peoples government and the peoples constitution and then to cover up the evidence of their crimes. the courts aren't buying it, and neither are we. navarro insists only on adding insult to his contempt. more than a year after biden beat trump by more than 7 million votes, navarro continues to spread the big lie. trump won and he says quote, be on any shadow of a doubt this election was stolen. he brags about his work with steve bannon to apply pressure on vice president pence to do the wrong thing. he tells the complete story in his book in trump time, and in his three part report, which was made up of titles like, the immaculate deception, and the art of the steel.

how they tried to get pence to abandon its constitutional duties and force the contest into a contingent presidential election under the 12th amendment in the house of representatives. and he goes on steve bannon's podcast and he makes noises about the next insurrection. a year after the election was over he said, if they want an insurrection they keep pushing this, they're going to push the american people over the freaking edge. mister chairman, madam vice chair, the american people a post january 6th insurrection, and the american people oppose future insurrections and cruise against our government. we are fighting to defend the institutions and values of democracy against coup plotters and insurrectionists, and we are supporting other democracies around the world under siege by autocrats -- police and despots. we are on the site of people of ukraine against vladimir putin

who is not a genius but a mass murderer. we stand strong on the side of democracy, freedom, the constitution, and the rule of law against people who smashed our police officers in the face with confederate battle flags and try to cancel out the results of our presidential election. these two men are in contempt of congress, and we must cite them both for their brazen disregard for their duties and our laws and institutions. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the chairwoman from virginia. >> thank you, mister chairman, and i want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their commitment to providing a full and factual accounting of everything that led to january six. events of that day, and to ensure that such an attack on the republic never happens

again. mister chair, i served in the navy for 20 years, and when you talk to the people in the military that's what they say. they say they serve in the military. they serve the american people. today, i can tenure to serve as we all do on this committee. with mr. scavino and mr. navarro entering the administration, they agreed to serve the american people. the president who serves the american people has a unique duty under the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and those that serve under the president, especially those closest to the administration, are integral to performing that duty to take care that the laws of -- our faithfully executed. not to undermine those laws. congress has a constitutional duty to investigate, and we have a duty to the american

people to investigate the violent attack on our capital that attempted to prevent the peaceful transition of power. mr. scavino and mr. navarro have a duty to respond to the subpoenas of this committee. however, they've decided, apparently, that they are above the law. 50 years ago this year, a small group of people on the nixon administration also decided they were above the law. they engineered a cover-up to hold on to political power. they were almost successful, but it took congress, the senate, to get to the truth. a truth that the american people deserved. this committee has conducted more than 800 voluntary depositions and interviews with more schedules, including witnesses who worked in the previous administration. the committees receive nearly 90,000 documents pertaining to january 6th. and we followed up on more than

435 tips received through the committees tip line. hundreds of witnesses have voluntarily come forward and cooperated with our investigation. however, mr. scavino and mr. navarro refused to answer this constitutional duty. why are they special? why is it when we get closer and closer to the former president, his inner circle, those nearest to the president, why are those the ones who refused to tell the american people what they know? what is it they are covering up? now mr. scavino and mr. navarro attempt to obstruct the pursuit of justice, and conceal the truth despite both publicly acknowledging their roles and promoting election fraud conspiracies and counseling the former president on changing the outcome of election. wet, mr. scavino and mr. navarro, are you covering up?

who are you covering for? we've been through this process before. wet mr. meadows are you covering up. and who are you covering for. when given the opportunities to give the truth about the attack on january 6th, mr. scavino and mr. navarro can tenure to put loyalty to donald trump before the constitution and the american people. tonight, i will vote to hold mr. scavino and mr. navarro accountable for their actions, and recommend that the house of representatives sight both of them for contempt of congress. the department of justice must act swiftly. i will echo what my colleagues have already said, but more bluntly, attorney general garland, do your job so that we can do hours. and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. if there is no further debate,

i know recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming, miss cheney, for a motion. >> mister chairman, i move that the committee favorably report to the house, the committee's report on a resolution recommending that the house of representatives find peter k. navarro, and daniel scavino junior, in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. >> the question is on the motion to favor with that report to the house. those in favor say aye. >> i. >> those in oppose, say no. in opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> a recorded vote is requested. we will call the vote. >> miss cheney? >> i. miss cheney votes i. >> miss lofgren?

>> i. >> this lofgren votes i? >> mister schiff? >> i. >> mister schiff votes on? >> mr. aguilar? >> i. >> mr. i will our votes on. >> mrs. murphy? >> i. >> this is from murphy votes i? >> mister raskin? >> i. >> mister raskin votes i? >> this is gloria? >> i. >> this is gloria votes i? >> now the chairs recorded? >> mister chairman, you are not recorded. >> the chair votes i. >> mr. kinzinger? >> mister kinzinger votes i? >> mr. king zinger votes i. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> mister chairman, on this vote there are nine eyes and zero nos. >> the motion is agreed kyiv.

the vice chair's is recognized. >> pursuant to clause two olive rule 11, i request that members have to calendar days in which to file with the clerk of the committee, supplemental or additional views on the measure order reported by the committee tonight. >> without objection, the staff is authorized to make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the report to reflect the actions of the committee. there will be no further business without objection select committee stands adjourned. >> 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. 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 this saga as of right now. probably pretty dated because of your -- >> thank you for having me on the news tonight. >> thank you. we will be back with more. we are hoping to bring you a member of that january six committee coming up next.

we will ask them about what happened tonight and about what the committee will do about -- w, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah, i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ ♪ yeah, that's all me ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment ♪ ♪ so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi.

learn how abbvie could help you save. i'm mark talk tand i live inologist vero beach, florida. my wife and i have three children. ruthann and i like to hike. we eat healthy. we exercise. i noticed i wasn't as sharp as i used to be. my wife introduced me to prevagen and so i said "yeah, i'll try it out." i noticed that i felt sharper, i felt like i was able to respond to things quicker. and i thought, yeah, it works for me. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. mission control, we are go for launch. um, she's eating the rocket. ♪♪ lunchables!

built to be eaten. this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.

this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app. welcome back.

the january six committee just voted unanimously to hold peter navarro and dan scavino in contempt of congress. now, it goes to the department of justice where attorney general merrick garland will have to weigh in. in the meantime, the committee is also grappling with what to do about ginni thomas, the wife of former supreme court justice, clarence thomas, now that text messages have shown her to be involved with correspondent of white house chief of staff mark meadows. -- i want to bring now our guest, harry lippman, and former deputy -- and a former u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania. and barbara mcclain --

she was also a professor of -- folks, let's just first talk a little bit about what was litigated in the hearing last -- just a few moments ago. cited, numerous times, it's a ruling that came out a few hours ago, less than 24 hours ago, from a clinton appointed justice, david carter, in california. he announced in his ruling that he believes donald trump likely committed a crime in trying to overturn the 2020 election. he writes in that ruling, quote, the illegality of the plan was obvious. president trump vigorously campaign for the vice to single-handedly determine the result of the 2020 election. as vice pence stated, no vice president in history has ever asserted such authority. every american, and certain the president of the united states, knows that elect -- president trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental

principle. barbara, what is the meaning of this ruling -- as they move forward in their investigation? >> it is really an extraordinary ruling that we have a federal judge, who is a neutral, independent arbiter of a dispute, has found he laid out the evidence, he talked about what trump and others did. he talked about their knowledge and intent. and he said it is more likely than not that they committed the crime of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. the certification of the election. of course, context matters here. that is, this was a civil dispute. it is focused solely on the effort by john eastman to prevent his emails from being turned over from the january six committee. but nonetheless, they are looking at the same question that the justice department will be looking at in deciding whether to start an investigation and even though this is by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a

reasonable doubt, it must at least be sufficient for the justice department to start an investigation if they have not already done so. >> harry, how did you read that ruling and what are the implications as far as you are concerned? >> i agree with barbara. it is thunderous and unprecedented on one level. a federal judge is coming right out, and he marshals evidence over a few pages that looks overwhelming, criminal intent and marches through all the elements. it is a very specific evidentiary ruling saying, eastman is trying to shield this from the committee getting it, but guess what? he cannot do it. there is no attorney client privilege if the client, that would be former president trump, is actually planning a crime. so, he finds it and it's true, it's by a preponderance, but it is a very significant development, sort of in the atmosphere. on the other hand, it doesn't really put any particular --

doesn't put garland's feet to the fire in the sense that garland will still exercise independent review, see it as a separate question. but it seems to me this whole day, including the hearing we just saw, has really sort of upped the pressure, the public pressure, on the department to be making a decision about trump that to date it has not had great eagerness to undertake. >> we know -- i mean, if eastman's case ends up before the supreme court -- if it does end up in front of the supreme court, it will likely be ruled on by all of the justices, including clarence thomas. now, thomas is in the news because his wife has a lot of email correspondence with mark meadows that puts thomas in an awfully uncomfortable position. we are getting reports that betty thompson, the chair of

the january 6th investigation, is saying that he is comfortable with the committee subpoenaing jody thomas to testify in front of the committee. which the idea -- the idea that her husband making decisions -- incredibly complex. what are the legal complications as far as you see them if ginni thomas is in fact subpoenaed? >> this really will bring to a head of the ethics role in the supreme court where justices get to decide their own recusal decisions. in some of those text messages, which have been widely reported, ginni thomas's urging mark meadows not to concede, to continue to fight. and at one point she even makes reference to talking to her best friend, which some believe is clarence thomas himself. and so, people certainly are entitled to live their own lives, apart from their spouse. and engage in certain kinds of political activity, even if their spouse is a judge.

but when it comes down to a direct conflict, and clarence thomas is the one deciding whether she has to testify, for example. that could be a very direct conflict. but even if it is not directly asked to her, for example, the decision that the supreme court recently made about whether the national archives should turn over white house documents. he was the only justice who descended from that opinion. and now, i think it calls into question his impartiality. was that because he really believe that was the right legal decision? or was he concerned that they were heading down a path where her email messages could be turned over or her text messages? so, i think there is a very uncomfortable position about conflict of interest when chief justice john roberts is working so hard to try to maintain legitimacy at the court, that to allow these very deferential -- i think could really undermine public confidence. >> harry, what happens? what is the likelihood that

justice thomas says, the right thing to do here is for me to recuse. >> 2%? first of all, they are probably going to try with -- and she has no basis to resist. so, it would really be her throwing down the gauntlet ashley has done before. but if it comes up to thomas on a recusal motion, it is as barb says, it is perverse, but the supreme court is able to decide if each justice for himself. there is this broader problem here, though, she is deeply in the stew of the entire effort through meadows. we just have to have these 29 emails. there's probably going to be more. and as she is a member of a sort of conservative elite that the justice is as well. so, i think there is a separate just unsavory-ness. even apart from recusal. but, the hard fact about

recusal is it will go directly to him and nobody would that big odds that he would actually agree to step aside. >> yeah, january 6th is just one of many topics that ginni thomas has been effectively lobbying on. topics that also are before the court. i want, just before we have to go here, i want to talk about ted cruz. there is extensive reporting in the washington post that senator ted cruz was involved in planning a response to the election, if you will. an effort to undermine its credibility and perhaps even stage a coup, legally speaking, with president trump. do you foresee as we are learning more about this, that senator ted cruz could be subpoenaed by the committee? ld b subpoenaed by this is a hot pot. members of congress, these committees have also been deferential to their own. to members of congress. to senators.

it would be a very significant development if they were to subpoena him. yes, it does seem to be that he was another piece of this equation. a really instrumental piece. they needed somebody in the house and somebody in the senate to agree to challenge the certification of states. he agreed to be that senator. if he has the kind of intent that we are starting to see, like the judge described in that decision today, he could even potentially have criminal charges. so it is more theater to come i think. >> imagine that, a sitting senator and the wife of a supreme court justice potentially subpoenaed. henry and barbara, thank you both and that is all in on this monday night. i'm alex wagner in for chris hayes. the rachel maddow show with ali velshi starts right now. >> good evening, alex. thank you. thank you at-home for joining us this hour and i'm coming to you live tonight from the city of lviv in ukraine