adviser pretrial hearing, peter navarro is in federal court fighting the congressional subpoenas issued over the committee investigating january 6. he claimed executive privilege and that trump later regretted not letting navarro of it. and the judge called the argument weak sauce, and i quote. what do you make of the nature of that response? it seems to be setting a tone for some of the arguments coming out of trump world. >> not surprised by the judge's response and there were similar comments made in the mark meadows proceeding in georgia by the judge where the judge was questioning the credibility of certain statements made by mark meadows as he's tried to argue that all of his actions were under the color of law and somehow related to some very important federal policy. but in the case of navarro, one big problem, he is claiming that trump man as certification of executive privilege, but there .