the committee promises to, quote, present previously unseen material documenting january 6th, receive witness testimony, preview additional hearings and provide the american people with a summary of its findings. so first hearing of the set in prime time. we'll of course have full coverage here on msnbc starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for being with us this thursday afternoon. "the beat" with or ri melber starts now. aloha, ari. >> we 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's under subpoena to show up today, he is my exclusive guest tonight. his first tv interview since the subpoena. that's coming up. we begin with the top story on "the beat" and across the nation, which is a push for

tougher gun safety rules. president biden will be addressing in nation in just over an hour. he has been pushing on this harder in the last few weeks. in the senate there is beltway talk of a, quote, frame work, although gun safety advocates and other experts say they have seen exactly this kind of talk and this d.c. move before. now, in the house tonight, there are people working to make change, so the frame work, which requires republican support is something that many people are not optimistic about. but the judiciary committee, which is the pivot and powerful place where this stuff originates, you can see they're at work right now. the democrats using this time today, tomorrow, so really push new bills. and democrats say republicans must finally look at the carnage and act. >> it has not even been 24 hours since the last mass shooting. >> we're in a crisis of death. we have a war on the children of america.

>> why don't they feel an urgency to do something? >> do not tell me that the answer to this is to put even more guns on the streets or to militarize our schools. >> to my republican colleagues, i ask, who are you here for? are you here for our kids? are are you here for the killers? >> tough talk on a tough issue. we want to show you exactly what the people push for gun safety are saying, and you can 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 -- other countries where stricter gun laws work. that's the push forward. what about the other side? 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're arguing out loud that this state of affairs, the frequency of mass shootings -- one per day so far this year. if you feel like it's getting worse, it is. they say this state of affairs is large i inevitable and unavoidable and these mass shootings must be accepted as part of american life. >> the american people expect and deserve more from us than political charades that rehash old ideas and don't actually solve the understood lying problems. >> criminals do not obey the law. they do not follow the law. >> it is reflexive and it is irresponsible to consider bills while we're still trying to figure out what happened. >> since the '60s we started having the mass shootings. perhaps there was something in the '60s.

>> that's the response. some what aboutism, some not right now, and some talk, 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. making their argument for why there shouldn't be more federal policy. that's legitimate debate no matter how strongly people disagree, and it is good to hear it out. unfortunately that wasn't the only thing that happened. i want to show this briefly, but i want to give the tenor for what happened. we have been showing the funerals this week. this hearing was supposed to be a serious review by adults elected to represent other adult recipients about whether congress should act to try to reduce the shootings or not. as i'll show you briefly, one republican interrupted that proceeding to luxuriate in and

tout his love for guns. >> right here in front of me i have a significant sawer. here's a significant sawer 320. here's a gun i carry every single day. this is an xl significant sawer p-365. >> i hope that gun is not loaded. >> i'm at my house. i can do whatever i want with my guns. >> 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 already passed two bills that would strengthen background checks. there's a wait in the senate. it's not that they've voted them down, it's that a minority blocked them 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 voten 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 "the new york times" board memberer michelle coddle has studied and written about this issue. her most recent piece, quote, nothing is stopping the nra's gun or ji in texas." david, you know a lot about what works and doesn't in washington. i pointed out there was a legitimate policy debate. that's legitimate. there was the show we previewed at the end. your thoughts on all of it? >> it's incredibly sad, ari, to see some of the republicans and

their response to this tragedy. but i 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. i say this -- washington is not a "west wing" episode, sadly. i think there are some republicans in the senate, some of them were part of discussions after sandy hook 11 years ago who really do believe we need to do some things. but you also 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. i think he's privately encouraging people to do the minimum required, and that's probably red flag laws, maybe some things on background checks. i doubt we'll sigh anything around an assault weapons ban, much less raising the age, so his members -- he can say, no, no, we did something, and try to take it off the table. i do think this is something

like january 6th, 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. it will frustrate a lot of us whether or not he think more needs to be done. but there's political motivation from republicans in the senate to say, no, no, we did something so they can focus on inflation and areas where they think they have more offense against the democrats. >> 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 on the right to, as you say, check the box. michelle we showed one of republicans say, while you're gathering the facts, you don't know 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 information and data we have shows where the gun laws fit in. take tulsa. we don't know everything yet. i'll update viewers on what we learn as we go, but this gunman suspect bought an ar-15 rifle hours before using it to go on this killing spree, armed with a rifle at 2:00 p.m., went to the hospital at 5:00 p.m. on a policy level if you have background checks, waiting periods, rules, which don't deny anyone the ultimate right to have a gun. you can absolutely draw the line you wouldn't have had a shooting that same day. >> the problem here is that republicans on this one particular issue have cdced to

take the approach of, unless you stop all shootings it's -- yes, you can have mental health care, you can have a course on how not to bully. you can have talk as racism and sexism and all kinds of things, which is what they're always pushing because they say it's not the guns, it's x, y, z. they do not want to talk policy. they're not interest 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 common sense restrictions that even republican voters support. this is not about policy for them anymore. >> right. including what's not about anymore -- david you said

washington's not a "west wing" episode. tell me about it. sometimes the republican caucus meetings feel more like a rerun of tucker carlson from a few nights before. it's more plagiaristic than it is original. and here's the new talking point. >> 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 the population will rise up. that has probably not occurred to you. it has definitely occurred to them. >> old idea and 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? >> 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.

listen, he is a menace. rue pert murdoch is a menace. rupert murdoch has done worse in countries in europe than we've seen others do. 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 is that kind of rhetoric is so scary, ari, because i do think it is not subtle the signals being sent that democrats are not ruling legitimately, that you should spock pile more guns. we've got the threat of democracy falling apart, health

care, women's rights to abortion and now this issue. they're all connected and it couldn't be more scary. 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 prime time. but i think these issues -- inflation at some point will recede. it's not permanent. the pandemic is going to recede. it's not permanent. knock on wood. but these things are if we're don't do anything about them. they're going to tear our country apart. he is the pied piper, tucker carlson. about the third of our party. >> very interesting you put it that way. we'll let tucker know as a political expert you think he has a path. i think appreciate both of you breaking down the issues. david, a lot of people know obama relied on you for advice. i don't know if they knew that

you're a florida statutory law expert, which is interesting to hear and speaks to the nuances here. even amidst the more ras there's things that can happen. it's the belief in hopelessness that make it a reality. approach food on thought. i'm going fit in a break because we have coming up what a mentioned at the top of the hour, an exclusive, my interview with -- indeed, the doj wants to talk to former trump aid peter navarro. she said a deadline of today and he's here talking us to live next. e talking us to live next nice and quiet.

hey, look! it's your mom! hot dog? ♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. ♪ harp plays ♪ only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. (emu squawks) if anyone objects to this marriage, speak now or forever hold your peace. (emu squawks) (the crowd gasps) no, kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪

(coughing) ♪ breeze driftin' on by ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ copd may have gotten you here, but you decide what's next. start a new day with trelegy. ♪ ...feelin' good ♪ no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com.

when it comes to cybersecurity, ask your doctor about the biggest threats don't always strike the biggest targets. so help safeguard your small business

with comcast business securityedge™ it's advanced security that continuously scans for threats and helps protect every connected device. the choice is clear. get unbeatable business solutions from the most innovative company. so you can be ready for what's next. get started with a great deal on internet and voice for just $49.99 a month for 24 months with a 2 -year price guarantee. call today.

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 investigations that have hit him with subpoenas. it's a standoff that started slowly and exploded this week. >> peter navarro says he has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors to testify before a grand jury. >> the department of justice investigation into the events leading up to january 6th is ramping up. >> peter navarro pushing back on attempts to try to get him to testify. he's filing a lawsuit today in d.c. court. >> this certainly marks a escalation as they start going at people who are in the white house. >> is there criminal exposure for people higher up? masterminds? people trying to do this stuff? the navarro news seems significant in that respect. >> 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. 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 that 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 of those who worked directly for trump, as "the washington post" reported. and politico stating this subpoena that i'm telling you about is, quote, the most aggressive known step prosecutors have taken into trump's west wing, a point the a.p. 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 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 -- caring 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 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, but according to the justice department of the united states. and mr. navarro just filed a lawsuit of his own against the january 6th committee. to have a grand jury like this, doj has to be investigating a crime, and based on what we know, it is a crime they think navarro may know about. while mr. navarro did speak out about his work to overthrow biden's victory, he has not done

a 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. >> hey, ari. how are you today? >> 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? >> well, first of all, let's fact check and de-escalate the rhetoric just a bit. the subpoena i received, which i did distribute to the media, did not compel my testimony. it -- all the subpoena did was ask for written -- 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 -- >> let's pause there -- >> this was a serious escalation -- >> 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? >> 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. >> one follow up and i will let the process go. i respect that there is a process there. are you currently offering them any evidence or material? when you say response, are you telling them in so many words

no? >> the seriousness for me is the average life span in america for an american male is 76 years old. if i were to two 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 important principles at stake here. that's why 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 changing things -- and what i'd like to do a ari is talk about did. >> as promised, okay, so you said you're in discussions with

doj but you're not revealing them. i respect that. >> what i said was -- i want to be clear. >> go ahead. >> what i said was i responded to them and i expect responses back from them. and there's -- >> okay, so turning to your lawsuit -- >> discussions or whatever you want. >> i don't mean to give it a special word. peter, turning to your lawsuit, we're going to make good on that. you filed this lawsuit. given the committee has been operating 11 months, the supreme court operated 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? >> well, the most important one constitutionally -- and this is why i'm literally putting my life on the line standing up for principal. the most important one is about executive privilege and the related concept of testimonial immunity of senior white house

advisers. for your viewers, executive privilege 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. what is being attacked here is executive privilege at a very unique, in my view, fanciful and absurd way. the key constitution question here, ari, is whether an encumbent president in joe biden can strip executive privilege from his predecessor and strip testimonial immunity from me. this is the most important issue. >> i read your filing. so, you're saying that, and let's get into it, peter. because respectfully you're talking about that argument.

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. >> ari, that's not factual. >> peter, let me finish and i'm going to let you respond. >> as you would say when we debate, that's false, okay? so that's false. >> okay, so let me show the evidence and you get to respond. >> yeah. >> so, here's the evidence. i'm go to say it to 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 what you say in your suit and the committee response. they haven't heard of privilege for you or others. >> navarro appears to fall back on the vague assertion that it

falls to president trump which is not on dubious, but irrelevant because our committee has not been given any invocation of executive privilege by donald trump. >> can you answer once and for all -- >> okay, let's take that -- little jamie raskin, okay, 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 -- >> i read, that but you admit that trump has not -- >> hang on. let me speak here, ari. >> you're getting time. you're getting time, but it's a back and forth. >> 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, to phoney 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 seeking to punish donald trump and prevent him from running in 2024. >> you're getting time on air to make that point that you have with them, but you acknowledge -- peter, you acknowledge -- peter this is important. i'll let you respond. it's not going to take long. peter, you acknowledge that trump has not invoked privilege for you. >> i have not -- anything. all i've said to you, ari, is that in terms of whatever raskin says, don't take that to the bank. >> okay. >> my point here is it's not my privilege to waive, okay? let me be clear about this -- it's not my privilege to waive,

and also as a senior white house official, here's what interesting, ari. i have absolutely testimonial immunity according to who? according to the department of justice going back to the 1970s over a dozen opinings from the office of legal counsel saying that people -- >> let's get into that. peter, i'm going to jump in on this point. >> i don't know how the department of justice just right here, by the way -- >> peter, you finished that answer, i'm going jump in. >> when it's there policy to support that. >> so, peter on this screen we have the supreme court which includes multiple trump appointees ruled 8-1 that this president's executive privilege claims would have failed even if he were president. you're raising an issue that, by the way, is interesting whether or not there's legal questions or gray area about former presidents, but this supreme court, with people that the

white house you serve put on it, 8-1, backed the ruling by the appeals court that trump doesn't have. i want to put one more thing on the screen. you say you were a white house aide. i want to get you on record about this. this is important stuff. >> hang on, ari. you can't keep going. let me respond to this. >> all right, i'm going to give you a minute to respond to this. >> one at a time, ari. fairness. one at a time. that case was a small piece that was related to the presidential records act. >> true. >> it was not a case broadly construed about executive privilege particularly that applies to testimonial type immunity and discussions with the president. >> okay, fair. so let's go to testimony which i'm going to put back on the screen for your response. >> i mean, please, do the case law. >> i read it. and this is a chance to cover more than one thing, so peter --

>> yes. >> peter, you said documents. that was a document case. now you get to testimony. >> presidential records act case, and it was a subset of -- >> yes, sir, records documents, yes. >> my view is -- >> peter, take some agreement from me. peter, i just agreed with you. it was a document record case. now let's go testimony. there are some people on the screen who have cooperated. donald trump's family. july july, his spokesperson, if you're right. and we hold open the possibility 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? >> welsh first of all, four of the six are not senior white house officials. so they don't have any claim -- they wouldn't have to same claim. rudy might. i'm not sure what their claims would be. with respect to kushner, i'd

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 advisers. so that's what i would say about that. >> interesting. okay. 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 at journalists. a lot of your argument, what we just discuss in the privilege is you keep saying that you have the right not to talk. you're waging this legal battle not the 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 tv.

>> what we're talking about now, ari, is the case law itself and the constitutionality of executive privilege, testimony, immunity, a second key issue in the case is the separation of powers. this committee, this kangaroo committee, has clearly violated the accept ration of powers. they're not supposed to act as judge, jury, and executioner. they're only supposed to pursue a legislative function. >> but you talked about the green bay sweep. >> let me give you a hypothetical. >> why didn't you talk to them about it if you talked in public? >> let me do this hypothetical for you. if it's held by the courts that a sitting president, incumbent president, can strip his immediate 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 a white house in 2024? what do you think? executive privilege and testimonial immunity will be obliterated as we know it. presidential decisionmaking will be destroyed as we know it. is that what you support, ari? do you support that? do you support -- >> you bring that up, and i'm fam -- you bring that up, peter and -- >> i'd love to know the answer to that. >> as i told you before, when you have a tv show i'd be happy to come on as a guest and answer your questions. >> tell your viewers. come on. tucker tells his viewer what is he thinks. tell them what you think. >> you know, we all have different standards. but i will take your premise seriously, sir, which is i know the party filing -- >> you should. this is why i'm fighting.

this is why i'm willing to go to jail for this. >> let me respond and give you a question. i'm going read from your filing where you talk about leading this charge. you say, quote, if an incumbent can strip a predecessor of privilege, you say, just imagine what will happen to biden and his advisers if republicans win in 2024. 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 in a republican white house? and what will you do? >> you bet your ass that i will lead the charge. i will take adam schiff and jamie raskin and nancy pelosi and all of those clowns and kangaroos. i'll take biden and every single senior staff member in there -- >> and do what in. >> put them with subpoenas. we'll start with the impeachment of biden. ukraine, the border, all manner of things he is guilty of and experience his senior staff.

i don't think that's good for the public. jefferson, adams, they all understood it. i don't think that the destruction of executive privilege and testimonial immunity that stopped trump from running for office in 2024 is a good democrat bet, and you shouldn't either. you should stand up and admit -- >> you but you admit if you end up back in power -- i want to get this on record. you admit if you get back in power, you'll use the doj to subpoena democrats you don't like? >> the doj, it's basically -- i will push as hard as i can to use the same b.s. 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'll hit us, we hit them back harder. that's not what i want, ari.

let me be clear. i do not want that. >> well, you wrote it in a court filing and just said it on air, sir, so it sounds like what you want. let me play what you said about dr. fauci. i'm going play this for your response. take a listen to what you threatened dr. fauci. >> 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 your [ bleep ] down in a chair in congress and confess to creating the virus that's killed almost a million americans now. we're going to fit you for an orange jump suit, tony. you can count on that. >> so, this is your agenda. >> but that's a separate issue from this issue here, ari. >> is it? because you're pledging abuse. i'm not conflating anything. it has nothing to do with what you're doing here. the issue, the only common

denominator here -- i just abhor this now. it's the weaponization of the investigate story powers of congress for partisan and both parties are guilty of it. shame on them. we've got to put a stop to this. this is just -- we are in -- look, as 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 conot care. >> peter, you're saying we have to, quote, put a stop to the thing you're pledging to do if you're returned to power. >> no. i said that if they pull this off, if they institutionalize in case law the ability of joe biden or an incumbent president to strip a predecessor

of executive privilege, that's wrong. if they do that -- the other thing we haven't talked about is the committee itself and how it is neither dually -- there's no ranking minority member. >> i did mention that. >> they can't issue subpoenas. they're unenforceable. >> peterle, i've given you a good amount of time. we've got to go back and forth. i've given you a good amount of time. yes, the document case, they acknowledge that. >> apples and oranges. >> last 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. >> yeah. >> it's a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. >> 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. >> fair enough. >> was it an illegal violent insurrection that the president at the time bore responsibility for? >> the last, as i wrote in my 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 -- >> this doubles back to an important point -- >> stop an illegal counting.

it was the last thing trump wanted. it's the last thing i ever -- >> if it was legal -- >> what's that? >> peter, if it was legal and you say you were doing that plan and you just said it again on tv -- your view of as you said how you could use the electoral count act to override or end the election that -- >> all we wanted was a count of the legal votes, ari. let's be clear. >> if you can say that here and admit to that, why won't you talk to -- >> i wrote it in a book! it's all there in chapter 21 in "in trump time." there was nothing illegal. >> that's part of what violates privilege. >> use to to stop trump from getting elected. >> i'm out of time. we gave you ample time. >> fair enough. ari, if this is allowed to stand, it's not good for either

party, and for the republic for which we stand. >> yep. peter, thanks for coming on "the beat," sir. >> all right, ari, take care. >> appreciate it. newsworthy guest making our news. we have our shortest break, one minute, and we're become with former prosecutor. e become with former prosecutor. that's really important, especially as you age. i noticed after kids that my body totally changed. i started noticing a little pudge. sok action! coolsculpting targets, freezes and eliminates treated fat for good. no needles, no incisions. discuss coolsculpting with your provider. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. you've come this far... coolsculpting takes you further. visit coolsculpting.com ♪i'm a ram♪ by chris stapleton expectations come with the territory. ♪♪ but raising expectations. that comes with determination. pushing ourselves further. lifting others even higher.

♪♪ and knowing that recognition isn't given. it's earned. ram j.d. power's #1 brand in new vehicle quality. ♪♪ we're back with former federal prosecutor who was monitoring the interview we just did with peter navarro, a former trump official who's been subpoenaed by the justice department. he said he's in some form of communication with the justice department. didn't give details. your reaction to what you heard? >> well, i guess my top line reaction, ari, is that somebody should tell mr. navorro that he has the right to remain silent. as you pointed out, talking about all the subjects makes it

harder for him to claim later his privilege, putting out a book, a lawsuit, and so on is just making his life more difficult. and that lawsuit he talked about at length is something he's doing himself. he doesn't even 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 -- >> let me jump in, renato. you make an important point. he's representing himself. we don't know if lawyers in the circle are in it. he's taking a different path from giuliani and others. what do you think of the place he's in? i showed the reporting from the "times," the a.p., and elsewhere, this is the highest he'll white house official from the trump era who's gotten a grand jury subpoena. what does that tell you about where that probe is headed? 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 and his advisers' involvement in the january 6th insurrection. 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. love your show. but not getting on your show and talking about it filing public lawsuits on your own. it's foolish on your face. you don't need to be a lawyer to know that's a big mistake. >> it certainly goes against standard legal advice and caution. i should say that mr. navorro comes out of the world of trump political space where donald trump and others violated and broke many so much rules and pieces of advice and legally lived to tell about it, so they may have a different recent memory history. whether that works urn these doj prosecutors will be determined over time. another thing i wanted 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 different type of figure -- the executive privilege issue is not one that comes up for normal citizens outside of government service. what does it mean when something like that writes down and says, as he leaned into tonight, if this doesn't go the way he likes he'll 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? >> yeah, i have to say, that 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 the plans in the future. if i represented doctor fauci, which i don't, in the future in some hypothetical world in which he's being prosecuted, you'd go to the judge and say this was the plan all along. i don't see any upside to this. this is unsophisticated.

there are sophisticated arguments he could be making like with mark meadows' approach, but that is not what mr. navarro is doing here. >> yeah. 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 and insight here on the news. thank you for joining us. we're going fit in a break, and as the president prepares the speak tonight, which we'll have on msnbc, we have the situation in texas -- families grieving while ted cruz dodges. - familie while ted cruz dodges. plus an ea boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+. ♪ life can be a lot to handle. ♪ this magic moment ♪ but heinz knows there's plenty of magic in all that chaos. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪

refresh italiano subway now has ♪ sitalian-style capicola ♪ on the new supreme meats and mozza meat. just like my nonna makes when she cooks! i don't cook. wait, what? it's a good thing he's so handsome. subway keeps refreshing and refre- here's candice... who works from home, and then works from home. but she can handle pickup, even when her bladder makes a little drop-off. because candice has poise, poise under pressure and poise in her pants. it takes poise. (mom allen) verizon just gave us all a brand new iphone 13. (dad allen) we've been customers for years. (dad brown) i thought new phones were for new customers. we got iphone 13s, too. switched to verizon two minutes ago. (mom brown) ours were busted and we still got a shiny new one.

(boy brown) check it out! (dad allen) so, wait. everybody gets the same great deal? (mom allen) i think that's the point. (vo) iphone 13 on us for every customer. current, new, everyone. on any unlimited plan. starting at just $35 all on the network more people rely on. we got the house! you did! pods handles the driving. pack at your pace. store your things until you're ready. then we deliver to your new home - across town or across the country. pods, your personal moving and storage team. you know liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need? oh, like how i customized this scarf? wow, first time? check out this backpack i made for marco.

oh yeah? well, check out this tux. oh, nice. that'll go perfect with these. dude... those are so fire. [whines] only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ right now, we're all feelin' the squeeze. we're having to get creative. find a new way. but birthdays still happen. fridays still call for s'mores. you have to make magic, and you're figuring out how to do that. what you don't have to figure out is where to shop. because while you're getting creative, walmart is doing what we always do. keeping prices low for you every day. so you can save money and live better. ♪ for state controller, so only yiu will save taxpayers money. wait, who, me? me? no, not you. yvonne yiu. yvonne yiu. not me. good choice. for 25 years, yiu worked as an executive at top financial firms.

managed hundreds of audits. as mayor, she saved taxpayers over $55 million. finding waste. saving money. because... yiu is for you. yiu is for you. exactly. yvonne yiu. democrat for controller. there are many different important things going on. today the news broke about the january 6th committee planning

the 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. the president will address the nation this next hour. he's expected to call for action on gun safety and addressing gun violence. there have been mass shootings in buffalo, uvalde and tulsa plus several other mass shootings that have not made the national news to the same degree. look at this, over 233 multiple casualty shootings ongoing in 2022 in this first half of the year. it's more than one a day. four or more people being injured or killed. there's a lot of push for somebody to push or act. meanwhile, there's the push back. even in the home state of this tragedy, texas, a top senator with national ambitions is

pushing back hard rallying around guns saying there is no way to stop any of this unless you do anything but gun control. >> don't have unlocked back doors. >> install bullet proof doors and locking classroom doors. >> the most effective tools 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. >> 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 murders or on the scene. ted cruz knows just like you do what happened. they can't be protecting them when they're outgunning the good people. that's the whole point. we'll be right back. the whole t we'll be right back. this summer, dinosaurs are in our world. pet dinosaur? i'll take care of you.

nice and quiet. hey, look! it's your mom! hot dog? you're pretty particular about keeping a healthy body. what goes on it. usually. and in it. mostly. here to meet those high standards is the walgreens health and wellness brand. over 2000 high quality products. rigorously tested by us. real world tested by you. and delivered to your door in as little as one hour. ♪ my name is monique, i'm 41, and i'm a federal contract investigator. as a single parent, i would run from football games to work

and trying to balance it all. so, what do you see when you look at yourself? i see a person that's caring. sometimes i care too much, and that's when i had to learn to put myself first, because i would care about everyone all the time but i'm just as important as they are. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown line, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com

[ roaring ] of serious ♪ ♪e effects you coming or what? would you really want father government to have the last say about what happens in schools? how about the village that sends your elementary aged child home with a comic book including graphic displays of sexual grooming. >> i'm here to speak on behalf of our children and i'm here to say we need to reject the ideology of equity in our schools. >> no mask mandates. my child, my children will not come to school on monday with a mask on, all right?