that list will not include mark meadows and dan scavino. the justice department decline

dan scavino at least negotiated with the committee before he defied them. these two outright defied the committee. i think that's a shaky basis for doj to reward people for partial cooperation but if you have to try to understand why doj drew the line where it did, i think that's what they were looking at. >> there is this notion floating out in the ether that maybe scavino and meadows are cooperating with the department of justice. how likely is that? >> i don't see that at all. i worked at doj, worked with dozens of cooperators, rule number one if you are cooperating with doj you have to admit what you did and plead guilty to whatever your crimes were. doj announced the opposite on friday, they said we will not be charging dan scavino and mark meadows. i do not think that is likely. >> peter navarro, how about the case progress? >> he is charged with two counts of contempt of congress, one for failing to testify, the other failing to turn over documents. this is a misdemeanor which means less serious than a felony, maximum of one year of jail for each cou

and there is a long set of negotiations between dan scavino's attorney and the committee's attorney. although they didn't come to any agreement, there was at least some conversation. and in the end -- >> i think navarro doesn't have an attorney, right? he wants to represent himself as well. >> there you go. and you know what they say about people who represent themselves. but -- >> i won't say it on air, but, yeah. >> so, the other two men had much more comply eighted issues and did try to deal with the committee. and the justice department basically said we're not going to hold you in contempt. but bannon and navarro, totally different cases. >> well, this is all around the select committee and january 6th committee. speaking of that committee, hearings are coming up next week and they're going to be led by bennie thompson, a mississippi democrat for whom january 6th is especially meaningful. >> you know, that's right laura. i travelled to mississippi with bennie thompson. and during that time there, i learned that he comes to this job with a very personal view of what a free and fa

scavino. the select committee begins its first public primetime hearings this thursday. the panel is expected to reveal new evidence and witness testimony. cnn national security reporter zach cohen joining us right now so, zach, what is the house committee saying about this decision that these two former high-level trump officials would not be indicted? >> reporter: fredricka, the committee says they're puzzled by this decision and don't understand how the department of justice did not indict both dan scavino and mark meadows for what they feel is their defiance of a congressional subpoena. now, they've made clear over the last several months both are considered to be key witnesses in their investigation and they reiterated that again last night reacting to the news they would not be indicted saying both individuals undoubtedly have knowledge about donald trump's role and efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of january 6th. now, that is why the committee believes that meadows a

what's up with the doj, not charging mark meadows and dan scavino, if they arrest peter navarro? how does that work? >> so, really, the bigger news here is that doj has agreed to prosecute the two cases, bannon and navarro, because traditionally, doj has been very hesitant to intervene in these issues between congress and its witnesses. we've talked a lot, stephanie, about how imperfect this mechanism congress has support and forcing its subpoenas, which is doj has to some extent here taking a stance, and so that it will back up congress when it needs help. but only when there's this flagrant sort of disavowal of obligation to comply with a subpoena. and so, what would ultimately save meadows, i think, if we read into the statement that doj has made, saying that they looked at each case, based on its individual circumstances. and so, you have meadows who provided thousands of documents to the committee, didn't go as far as they wanted, but did give obviously some very powerful information to them. and doj declined to get involved there. i think the big unanswered question is whet

they don't understand why dan scavino and mark meadows were not indicted for essentially refusing to cooperate with the investigation, especially since the committee has emphasized both men are key witnesses in their probe. that's something they reiterated in a statement last night, saying they undoubtedly have knowledge of former president donald trump's role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events january 6th. that's why they believe mark meadows and dan scavino should have been obligated to respond and cooperate in light of the committee subpoena and they want the department of justice to explain why they decided not to move forward and pursue charges against them. so look, it is complicated. both men are former senior white house officials. they do have some executive privilege protections because of their role. also because both men did to a certain extent cooperate with the committee or at least engage and start negotiations about being willing to cooperate. that's something that other witnesses who defied the committee outright have not. and they have seen

scavino. it could hinder the committee's efforts to enforce subpoenas. >>> another trump ally is facing charges. a grand jury indictmenting former adviser peter navarro for contempt of congress over his effort to stone wall the january 6th investigation. the select committee begins its first public hearings this thursday. the panel expected to reveal evidence and witness testimony that we have not yet seen or heard before. >>> for more on the january 6th investigation, let's bring in cnn national security reporter, zach cohen. zach, fill us in on the justice department, their decision to indictment navarro, as opposed to mark meadows or dan scavino. >> yeah, good morning, boris and christi. the january 6th committee making clear it flat out disagrees with the justice department's decision not to pursue criminal charges against scavino and meadows. two people they cast as key witnesses in their investigation so far and they believe they should have to comply with a congressional subpoena even t

that list will not include mark meadows and dan scavino. the justice department declined to act on criminal contempt referrals for the former white house chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, a decision the january 6th committee calls puzzling. the committee will hold its first ever public hearing on thursday night. they plan to show previously unseen material documenting january 6th, call witnesses, and provide a summary of its findings so far. cnn has learned that two people directly tied to former vice president mike pence have received invitations to appear. this as a stunning report in the "new york times" says one day before pence certified the election, a top pence aide warned the secret service that trump was going to turn publicly against the vice president putting him in danger. the secret service disputes that account. of course we now know how january 6th unfolded. >> we want pence! we want pence! >> and joining me now is veteran democratic strategist james carville. great to see you. thanks for doing this. after the justice

scavino for fail our to comply with the 1/6 subpoenas. maddening. far more headlines of clarence thomas complaining that trust in the supreme court has been eroded by others than headlines calling out the very real conflict of interest posed by the political activist of clarence thomas' wife guinea who wanted to overturn the election result. where is that investigation, congressional democrats? or the mountain of corruption that occurred on donald trump's watch, the millions made by jared and ivanka in and out of government. i sorry to have to break it to you but it is almost certain that democrats will use their gavels come november and they will see how investigating is really done by ruthless, relentless, shameless republicans. we will have much more on this after the break. and later, it's a packed democratic primary in new york's brand new tenth district. congressman jones joining me to talk about his plan for supreme court reform. e court reform . thanks. not you, garoppolo! ♪♪ subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refres-

. >> the committee calls the decision not to prosecute mark meadows and dan scavino puzzling. this is ahead of the first public hearing on thursday. that's where new evidence and witness testimony is expected to be unveiled. >> let's bring in national reporter zach cohen with details. zach, walk us through the decision against prosecuting scavino and meadows. >> boris and christi, the committee is frustrated by the department of justice not to pursue inprosecute meadows and scavino. the committee put out a message in response to the news that the doj would not pursue criminal contempt charges. quote, we find the decision to reward mark meadows and dan scavino for the attack on the rule of law puzzling. they argued against the meadows' claim of immunity and it closes out with a common refrain that no one is above the law. the committee is taking issue with the idea that mark meadows as the former's president chief of staff was entitled to immunity because of his senior level position in the white house. scavino argued the same. clearly the department of justice felt the cases w

mark meadows and dan scavino would be spared from prosecution, the move was reported hours after another trump adviser peter navarro was indicted by a grand jury for refusing to cooperate. >> these are uninforcible, unlawful subpoenas and that committee should never have been formed. no american citizen should have to go through what i went through today. who is trying to do the right thing. i'm trying to do my duty to this country.

wondering why the doj would move to indict navarro and steve bannon but not so for mark meadows or dan scavino who were also referred for criminal charges. >> yeah, it's a great question, and one the committee is also asking the department of justice. just last night in a statement after the news broke that the department of justice would not be charging scavino and meadows, the committee released a statement saying, look, we want to know why you've decided not to. mr. meadows and mr. scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about president trump's role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events january 6th. we know that the committee believes that meadows and scavino should have been held in contempt and should have faced criminal charges in a similar way to navarro because they're key witnesses in the investigation, they have key information to their probe. now, ultimately the department of justice has said that it doesn't intend to pursue criminal charges for contempt of congress of either man but we'll see what happens down the line as well, because there is

to be clear thrkis is not a defense of the conduct of meadows or dan scavino. it's shameful conduct, it's disrespectful to congress's authority. is it criminally chargeable? it's just a closer call than the other two faces. >> a subpoena used to mean something in this town. >> and a subpoena from congress ought to mean something. >> i agree with you on that. it seems to not be the case here. let's talk about this "new york times" report on mike pence one day before the capitol riot and insurrection, pence chief of staff mark short reportedly warned the secret service and said that trump was going to turn against pence, and that might put pence's security at risk. the secret service dispute this is and says that was not the case, this was not communicated. but let's listen to what trump said. let's listen to what trump said two days before the insurrection. >> i hope mike pence comes through for us, i have to tell you. i hope that our great vice president, our great vice president comes through for us. he's a great guy. of course if he doesn't come through, i wo

scavino? they both also have been referred to the doj for failing to comply with the january 6th committee subpoena. >> that's right, and so because he and navarro and scavino were both referred by the committee on the same day, this raises a lot of questions about why navarro goes forward, dan scavino has not been prosecuted by the justice department. neither has mark meadows whose referral was about six months ago, jake, and we also know that obviously the justice department is still investigating both the scavino and the meadows referrals. we also know, of course, that steve bannon has already been facing charges here in this same federal court. the best we can figure it out from talking to sources, jake, is that the other two, scavino and meadows, are considered very close advisers to the former president. so there's a level of protection that they enjoy that navarro does not enjoy. so that's one reason whyia see this case going forward, jake, and not those others. >> all right, evan perez

when you think about the subpoenas still lingering out there, you've got one for dan scavino, half of one for john eastman because they never fully voted on that contempt referral through the full house floor but the open question of the five republican lawmakers who have now been subpoenaed by the committee and effectively said they're not going to comply with those. the difference, of course, is that they are sitting lawmakers. there are other questions about what you can do to compel them or punish them for not complying with congressional subpoenas and then, of course, in the case of someone like dan scavino who is when you consider claims of executive privilege on par with navarro because they were both in the white house serving as staffers to the president, their claims to executive privilege are the same which is to say they're neutered in the same way that pete and chuck have both laid out which is that the supreme court has already said that that doesn't hold water here. but, yeah, there are clear questions about the subpoenas that are still lingering out there. i do think,

they said they wouldn't charge mark meadows, dan scavino. talk about the interplay between the committee and how department of justice tracks or doesn't track with what the committee has been doing. >> reporter: there's been a lot of confusion about the overlap, lack of overlap between what the justice department is doing and the january 6 committee is doing. keep in mind, the january 6 committee has a lot of information, including hundreds of hours of transcripts of people that were involved in january 6, worked at the white house, understood the rally, have evidence that could help the justice department. the committee refused to turn any of that over to justice department so far. that's one way the investigations are separate. to your point, the committee asked the justice department to please prosecute people that do not comply with subpoenas. this is very different from the justice department's own investigation. the doj investigation would exist even without requests from congress. that's been completed many times. what the committee h

the evidence is pretty clear on this and it's important, as evan noted at the beginning, dan scavino, deputy white house chief of staff is in a different position having at least attempted to comply with the committee and a different relationship with the white house. the evidence here for peter navarro is explicit. he chose not to come in and wrote a book about his misdeeds, so it's hard to see how he has much of a defense here. it's going to take some time. but whether he pleased or is brought to trial, this is far stronger than some of the other -- as a case, a contempt case, than some of the other folks in this orbit. >> ryan, let me come back to you. and they are looking for this wealth of information from peter navarro, but he's been on television, on podcasts, on radio shows. i want to play what he said, this was january 5th of this year, one day shy of the insurrection one-year marker. >> the plan was simply this. we had over 100 congressmen and senators on capitol hill ready to implement the sweep. we were going to challenge the results of the election in the six battleground

but i don't know if or done hearing the story of mark meadows and dan scavino yet. i think there's still a possibility that they could be charged in a larger conspiracy to obstruct the election certification. >> let us see what happens. barbara mcquade, we'll have to leave it there. former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, and msnbc legal analyst. thank you for your time tonight. >> thanks, mehdi. >> last week, we learned that the house committee investigating january six has heard testimony that president trump reacted positively to crowds on january six, chanting, hang mike pence! according to an account provided to the committee, trump said something to the effect of, maybe mister pence should be hanged. now, today, the new york times is out with new reporting that on the day before the capitol attack, vice president pence's own chief of staff was so worried about the threat to pence's safety, they warned the secret service, according to the times, pence's chief of staff called the vice president league secret service agent into his office, and

as recently as two months ago when they met and voted to hold navarro and dan scavino, another trump aide, in contempt. adam schiff, one of the members of the committee, responded abstractly after the indictment saying prosecution of those who refuse to comply with the subpoena is essential for this committee to fulfill their oversight committees navarro is a former trump trade adviser who involved himself in the plot to overturn the 2020 election he worked with steve bannon, he was coordinating 100 workers on it then-president trump was onboard with the plan. the committee called him up and said you have information that is very relevant to our investigation. they issued a subpoena he did not comply. the committee's hope is this is the beginning of a more aggressive posture by the justice department that will also include charges and arrests against other members that the committee has cited but the doj has not acted on most notably dan scavino as well as mark meadows, the chief of staff at the time. >> what are we expecting from the committee's first hearing in primetime next week?

meadows, and dan scavino, the deputy chief of staff. meadows the chief of staff. that's according to prosecutors familiar with the situation and a letter from the house council. i maybe not correct with his. but you have for referrals. four people have refused. bannon and navarro are getting prosecuted. >> yes. >> scavino and meadows are not. how do you make sense of, that legally? >> it is a great question. we have learned more about what the garland part -- the doj -- has been doing this week then i think we have, collectively, in months. >> yes! it was the part of the iceberg we could not see. >> so, going into the hearings next week, we now know exactly what you said, the disposition of these cases. meadows had the strongest argument because, the first way to put it is that he cooperated or pretended to, initially. and then they ran into disputes. but he did provide a lot of evidence. and some damning material about all of this. >> a lot of damning material! >> it appears to come from his text chain. navarro, we just discussed. scavino is the smallest fish. an

>> i don't think we should read too much into the doj's decision not to indict mark meadows and dan scavino. all they announced, was that they wanted to indict those two men for the misdemeanor crime of contempt of congress. because they defy congressional subpoenas. two other individuals, who committed precisely the same crimes, steve madden and peter navarro, were indicted, why? because they didn't have any executive privilege claims, meadows is giving out being the former chief of staff, and deputy chief of staff respectively to the president. they benefited from an olc memo, from many years ago, saying that they have such a potentially robust executive privilege, even though i believe it could've been defeated in court. that the department of justice should shy away from indicting those top government officials for defying congressional subpoenas. that doesn't mean they are in the clear. the more information we learned about mark meadows for example, when he's passing on treasonous text messages, phone calls, that were coming in from don jr., we know from ginni thomas. he still has a wo

chief of staff mark meadows and adviser dan scavino both escaped indictments the same day another former trump aide, peter navarro, was charged with two counts of contempt for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas. the commtee called the decision not to charge the two men "puzzling," and said they will seek clarification from the justice department. the first public hearings of the january 6 committee start thursday. a michigan baby formula plant is restarting production today, in a step that could ease a nationwide formula shortage in the coming weeks. the abbott facility was forced to close in february after a bacterial contamination was found in the company's formula products. several babies were sickened and two died after consuming formula made at the plant. abbott is one of just four companies that produce 90% of the nation's baby formula. students and staff will not return to uvalde's robb elementary school, where a gunman killed 19 students and two teachers last month. the district's superintendent said, "our kids, our staff, we're not going back," adding that sdents wi

scavino, be charged with contempt. but so far the justice department has not taken action against them. >> so let's bring in rachel scott. she's live in u.s. district court tonight. rachel, we know the first of the january hearings will be next thursday night in primetime with americans able to watch. in the meantime, peter navarro we know could face time behind bars, potentially, but there's still nothing forcing him to talk here. >> that's exactly right, david. if convicted on both counts, navarro would face up to two years behind bars and a maximum fine of $200,000. he would still not be compelled to speak or comply with investigators. as for those televised hearings, those are set to kick off next thursday. >> rachel scott with us tonight. thank you. >>> we turn next to the investigation in uvalde texas tonight, abc news learning robb elementary school had an internal alert system and a teacher trigger it less than a minute before the gunman got into the school. tonight "the new york times" is reporting the school

dan scavino, mark meadows, though he did provide his text messages. but there are big names that might ultimately come through, and potentially in a public way. the former acting attorney general jeff rosen, rich donahue, mark short, greg jacob, the former counsel to the former vice president. i think things will take care of themselves, even out. regardless of, i think, the hardened opinions, the committee is going to tell a compelling story with new evidence and information they have accumulated over the course of a year. >> all right. jackie alemany, thank you very much for coming on this morning. >>> coming up, a number of nba coaches aren't just talking basketball in the aftermath of mass shootings. we're going to play for you the comments coming from the league. >>> plus, first it was disney. now, it's a pro baseball team. florida governor ron desantis is blocking funding for the tampa bay rays over what he calls political activism. that's just ahead on "morning joe." and, we're back! it's time to see which chew provides the longest-lasting flea

. >> reporter: the department of justice informing that they will not indict mark meadows or dan scavino for criminal contempt of congress, this despite the committee saying that the two men did not comply with a subpoena request from congress. this is a blow to the committee as they try to put weight and enforcement behind these subpoenas that they've handed down. they have a number of subpoenas that are still outstanding at this point, including five subpoenas for republican members of congress that these republican members have defied up until this point, and the committee has not said how they plan to enforce. while that was certainly a blow to the committee to lose out on the meadows and scavino subpoenas and criminal contempt referrals, they did have some success in that peter navarro who's openly defiant was indicted by the department of justice and will now face criminal prosecution and could face towup to two years in pris and fines up to $200,000. this comes at an important time for the committee. they begin their public hearings thursday next week, the first one in prime time

declined to charge mark meadows and dan scavino, who were both acting white house chief of staff, and scavino was a counselor of the president of some regard. what is your reaction to the d.o.j. not enforcing the subpoenas on those two men? >> deeply disappointed and alarmed. because if the department of justice is unwilling to prosecute people who are in flagrant contempt of congress, then it's going to breed further contempt. other people simply deciding they, too, don't need to show up. that a subpoena is, well, maybe i will, maybe i won't. the reality is both of them have very direct evidence relevant to our investigation. both of them have evidence and lines of questions we want to ask them that don't involve any conceivable privilege. so to me the decision of the department is inexplicable, and it doesn't, i think, herald good news in terms of accountability because if the department is unwilling to prosecute people who are in obvious contempt of congress, then what about the more serious crimes involving the efforts to overturn the election? >> stephen: at the end of this inves

congress asked two other people to be prosecuted, dan scavino and mendoadows. navarro has been out there talking. the justice department is wrapping up these referrals at the house. navarro now is in court facing charges just like abandon. >> all right, katelyn paula, thank you for bringing us the latest on this, we appreciate it. >>> more guns than people in the united states, one photographer has a fascinating look into america's gun culture, what he learned traveling around the country and taking pictures with their guns. he joins me live, next. how am i looking? looking good! the most cautious driviver we got am i there? no keep going how's that? i'll say when now? is that good? lots of cars have backup cameras now you know those are for amateurs there we go like a glove, girl (phone chimes) safe driving and drivewise can save you 40% with allstate click or call for a quote today wealth is breaking ground on your biggest project yet. worth is giving the people who build it a solid foundation. wealth is shutng down the office for mike's retirement party. wor

. >> speaking of big names justice department decided not to prosecute mark meadows and dan scavino. what do you think about that? >> i think it's confusing to people. people are looking at this saying four different people defied the subpoenas. two indicted. two did not. why could that be? one could be because of the strength of the executive privilege defense. they probably have stronger claims than the two people charged but i don't think the executive privilege are particularly strong in any event. and then the fact that meadows partially cooperated until he stopped and scavino lawyers went through the motions to negotiate. i think that's a pretty thin basis to split hairs but i think that's why we ended up with the confusing outcome. >> just really quickly, the idea we heard from congressman nadler that perhaps they're cooperating with doj. >> i think it's very, very unlikely that's the case. i cooperated dozens of witnesses. rule number one is the person has to tell the truth and plead guilty. we learned on friday they're not charging meadows and scavino. there's no indication

the committee is frustrated by the decision not to prosecute dan scavino and mark meadows. two key witnesses in the investigation and two former members of the trump inner circle. both were subpoenaed several months ago and both did cooperate before ultimately deciding they would draw a line and stop. that is when the committee decided to refer both to the department of justice for criminal charges. these cases are complicated because scavino and meadows did make some effort to cooperate with the committee. obviously mark meadows handed over information before he stopped cooperating. we learned the department of justice did not find enough to bring criminal charges which is a blow to the committee's ability to enforce subpoenas at this time. we are looking at public hearings coming up through june. it is really crunch time for the committ committee. there are still subpoenas for five lawmakers they have not been able to enforce. we will see how it effects the investigation and the impact on the hearings. this is a big blow to the committee. >> this news about meadows and sc

scavino, peter navarro and steve bannon. the justice department told the house that it would not be prosecuting meadows and scavino as a way to enforce the congressional subpoenas. but a grand jury did indict navarro for his refusal to turn over documents and his failure to testify. while he wasn't talking to the committee, he had written a book and even spoke about a plan called the green bay sweep. he ultimately did not engage with the committee, so he is in trump just like steve bannon facing contempt charges. katelyn polantz, cnn, washington. >>> just named tropical storm alex is moving in to the atlantic after inundating both sides of the florida straits with heavy rain. some streets were turned in to rivers. in miami officials are warning that waste water may be overflowing into the ocean. carlos suarez has more. >> reporter: parts of south florida are still drying out after nearly a foot of rain fell in some cities. here on ft. lauderdale beach nearly 8 inches of rain caused some flooding along a 1 a. police here spen

i'm frustrated that for instance, mark meadows and dan scavino have refused to come in and talk, and the justice department has failed to indictment them for that. all it does is send a message you just have to resist the select committee and you may be able to resist all. that's a frustration. >> stephen: mick mulvaney tweeted in response to the testimony he saw that meadows will have to come testify. do you think what we learned recently will increase the pressure on the justice department. not increase the pressure, but provide revelations the justice department can see as justification for the indictment? >> i certainly think so. we have these two investigations-- and again, i don't know what justice is doing or not doing, but assuming they're investigating, we have our investigation that's very public. this all kind of feeds together. and even though we are not the committee that goes out and indicts people criminally, we can bring forward important information. and i think the case we're making right now is the president knew that he had lost the election and he attempted to ov

scavino for not cooperated with an investigation about the protest at the p-uppercase-letter this follows the earlier indictment of a former trump advisor by the nam of peter navarro appeared agent taking him away on handcuffs an leg irons over his defiance of subpoena. christina coleman shows us how navarro is responding to all of this tonight. good evening, christina appeared . >> peter navarro did not hold back his frustration today afte he was arrested by the fbi. he was indicted on charges on a federal grand jury after refusing to comply with the subpoena issued by the house january 6 committee. the subpoena got a deposition a part of the investigation. >> but that kangaroo committee is doing right now is investigating for punitive purposes they are essentially acting as judge, jury, and executioner their mission, thei clear mission is to prevent double jump from running for president in 2024. he calls it unlawful and is suing nancy pelosi over the activity. he maintains -- since he worked at the trump white house, citing executive privilege. >> i am in and a tenable position. there

scavino. chairman betty thompson and vice chair liz cheney expressed concern saying in a statement we find the decision to reward mark meadows and dan ask a receive trivino for their attack on the rule of law puzzling. we hope the department provides greater clarity on this matter. the justice department has yet to give specifics. later this summer, former trump aide steve bannon will head to trial for ignoring the house committee. >> there is no way for us to really decipher what makes the difference between navarro, bannon and meadows there could be different facts on the ground in terms of their level of compliance with the subpoenas. >> on thursday night, the committee will make its case to the american people in "primetime." former abc news president james goulston has been tapped to bring previously unseen material into the home of millions expected to watch the hearing. and, bret, just hours ago, five men, including the leader of the proud boys had their charges upgraded to seditious co

scavino. two of the very top aides to the former president who were very close to him on january 6th, very familiar what was going on and the leadup to january 6th. are the worried about the message sent by the federal government, by the just it department if they're not going to force these two officials to comply? these two former officials to comply and testify? >> yeah. that's something that's way above my pay grade. i just don't understand. the world i come from, comply with the subpoena or don't comply with the subpoena. there's no middle ground. and if you're not compliant, you get arrested. i mean, that's just the way that it works. so it doesn't bode for my confidence in whether or not the justice department would prosecute someone either from the trump administration or one of his sycophants if there was a crime discovered as part of this investigation. i think they've made up their mind, and i think that what we're seeing is that if you're part of a political administration, an elec

. >> mark meadows and dan scavino refused to come into under contempt of congress, court has failed to indict them for that so it just sends a message, you just have to resist the select committee and you resist all penalties. that's been a frustration. >> do you think he's right, that the justice department is sending a message to other uncooperative witnesses? >> well, it's probably not a deliberate message but it is an inferential message, that is the message they would take from the decision to decline the prosecution of meadows. one sort of understands the department of justice. they are in favor of executive privilege, executive confidentality. i am afraid, what's really the problem that underlies this, is congress has csystematically undercut it is own authority, certainly not if thrp a trump department of justice so it's been a long time since its had its own mechanisms for enforcing its subpoenas and sad to say, probably time for them to try to find a way to revive that and maybe go back to the times when we send the sergeants in arms to arrest mark meadows or something like t

that's meadows, deputy dan scavino, peter na vara toe and steve bannon. and in the end the house gets a mixed result. the justice department told the house last week it would not be prosecuting trump's close white house advisers meadows and scavino as a way to enforce their congressional subpoenas. but a grand jury did indict navarro for his refusal to turnover documents and his failure to testify. while he wasn't talking to the committee, navarro had written a book that described the trump world reaction to the election and even spoke about a plan called the green bay sweep. the committee said he ultimately didn't even engage with them so now he's in court just like another trump confidant, steve bannon, facing contempt charges. kaitlan polance, cnn, washington. >>> fuel prices keep getting worse for u.s. drivers, but one gas station in northern california is taking it to the extreme. have a look at this. according to cnn affiliate kgo, this auto repair shop was selling gas for $9.60 and for supreme they paid 1.99 per gallon. aaa says the u.s. national a

the house voted to hold navarro and former trump aide dan scavino in contempt it also voted to hold steve bannon and former chief of staff mark meadows in contempt. but so far the doj has only prosecuted bannon and navarro. navarro is representing himself. he says he doesn't want to spend the money on counsel. >> if the department of justice is coming after you, you better have the ability to talk to them and you shouldn't just simply take the attitude that both bannon and navarro apparently have which is get lost. they have the ability to enforce their ctions. actions.>> he wanted vice presit pence to send electoral votes back to the states. navarro appears in court again on june 17th with 1/# 6 committee plans a "primetime" hearing next thursday. bret? >> bret: chad pergram on the hill. thank you. the chief of staff for then vice president mike pence warned the secret service that then president trump was about to publicly attack his boss. one day before the january 6th capitol riot. that's according to the "new york times." marc short was said to be unshore of the specific nature of th

the new york times reported that 2 other trump aides, mark meadows and dan scavino. well, not face charges. >> as the nationwide baby formula shortage continues. and abbott nutrition facility has resumed its production to address the problem. the plant in sturgis michigan shut down back in february at the fda launched an investigation into contaminated formula from that facility. the move combined with supply chain problems and the war in ukraine has led to the monthslong shortage. ryan vast spoke with some parents who are now looking forward to some much needed relief. >> i've literally like i was shaking and in tears as a mom, i would have never and could have never imagined being in this position for >> it's going to essentially we're down to our last 2 cans. just hoping and praying. mom's like natasha and blessing and caretakers all over the country. >> may soon see the relief that they've been searching for with baby formula. hopefully returning to store shelves across the nation. abbott, nutrition's maybe from the plant is back up and running in sturgis michiga

or maybe they've gotten cooperation from mark meadows or dan scavino or peter navarro, one of these people who refused to testify. maybe someone there has seen the light. >> yeah. adrian, you've worked inside campaigns. you know how a lot of these kinds of conversations can develop. the decision to do this exactly to the hour just 24 hours before they decided to do this gives you as clear an indication as you can get that in their minds, this was very clearly, this is something they have to get on and get it on immediately. >> yeah. that's exactly right, chris. i'm speculating just like barbara and matthew are, but my thought is perhaps because of the compelling testimony from some of the republicans last week, republicans who were on the front line of defense in some key states like arizona that perhaps more witnesses have decided to come forward and share their testimony and perhaps went to the committee and said i was inspired by bauers. by some of these witnesses who testified last week. i want to tell my story, what i went through and what i know. we're speculating here, but to the po

we're now learning that the doj won't prosecute mark meadows and former social media dan scavino, so what are we expecting to actually see in these public hearings and what are the political ramifications for both sides here? >> well, we know the committee is going to share more of what it knows about january 6th with the american people. not only efforts to overturn the election, but also who organized, who paid for this rally that became the attack on the capitol. security issues, how were these insurrectionists able to breach the capitol in the ways that they did. also, we do not know what sort of witnesses are going to play a role in this hearing because the committee has not released a slate of witnesses. we do know that the committee has depositions recorded from folks that are within trump's inner circle, people like ivanka trump, like jared kushner, and there are also reports out there that a mark meadows aide could also play a key role. we'll just have to wait and see. >> a lot of anticipation. a lot we don't know in all of this. i want to turn to the growing debate over gun

the house committee calls the decision not to prosecute mark meadows and dan scavino pussle. cnn national security reporter zach cohen joins us now. what more do we know about the decision? >> the committee is saying they don't fully understand how the department of justice could reach a decision not to indict dan savino and mark meadows especially because they made clear both men are key witnesses. that's something the committee reiterated again last night, responding to the news that meadows and kscavino would not face charges related to their subpoena. they said both men have information about former president donald trump's role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election and in the events of january 6th. now, that is why the committee believes that both meadows and scavino should have had an obligation to comply with the congressional subpoena regardless of their status in the white house and regardless of their partial cooperation with the investigation. that is what separates scavino and meadows from other witnesses who defied the subpoenas and been indicted by the justic

scavino the deputy of chief of staff also face the same fate and indictment? so far the department of justice has not taken that step. their situation is a little different but this shows that these subpoenas, that the committee puts out are serious and this is an example how they will be enforced if they're not complied with. >> yeah, if convicted, what, two years in jail potentially, $200,000 if fines as you point out. ryan, thank you very much. for more on that let's bring if former nixon white house counsel john dean. he's now a cnn contributor. john, thanks so much for joining us. so peter navarro was arrested by the fbi. he could go to jail rather than cooperate with this federal investigation. you, of course, made a very different calculation during the watergate hearings. what does this is a about trump's allies now? >> well, i've been surprised at navarro who all along since he was hired at the white house has sort of defied the norms and the processes. he's sort of been in your face to the congress. he did file a lawsuit contesting their authority. t

scavino the department of justice has not acted on yet, but now, the department of justice showing if you defy congress, there will be repercussions. >> joining us now with new insight into january 6th, new york times senior political reporter maggie haverman, headline in the times tonight, reads before january 6th, aide warned secret service of security risk to pence, in her upcoming book "confidence man" according to the stories lead, the day before the mob of supporters stormed the capitol on january 6th, 2021, mike pence's chief of staff called pence's lead secret service agent to his west wing office. the chief of staff had a message for the agent -- the president was going to turn publicly against the vice-president and could be security risk to pence because of it. maggie is with us now. what more can you tell us about the warning and the events you learned surrounding it? >> sure, anderson, thanks for having me. this is an extraordinary moment to think a chief of staff next to sitting vice-president so concerned about the potential threat created by a pressure campaign led and

scavino. we got a sign they were looking into it when as evan reported, they served navarro with a subpoena, related to his refusal to comply and related to communications with the former president. the justice department was looking into this, and now he's been indicted by a grand jury. >> evan, navarro tried to fight this. he filed a civil suit against the committee. explain what that's about. >> on tuesday, he walked down to the courthouse personally to file his lawsuit that he said he himself had written. he had prepared himself. he was representing himself. a judge very quickly slapped his wrist and said this is not the proper way to file this lawsuit. but in this lawsuit, he was largely -- it was a meandering complaint about how he's being treated. he called the january 6th committee a kangaroo committee. i ran into him outside of the courthouse, paula was on the phone with him at the time, actually, and one of the -- the focus of his complaints was really how the fbi pounded on his door