we know that mr. navarro believes he and mr. bannon came up with a strategy for overturning the election because he details it in his book, which i know my colleague from florida will discuss in greater detail. this is as clear case for contempt as we are likely to see, mister chairman. i yield back. gentleman yields back. chair recognizes mrs. murphy. thank, you mister chairman. i will just pick up where my colleague left off. over a month and a half, ago mr. navarro was subpoenaed by this committee. we sought documents and testimony regarding his efforts and to prevent the result from being certified. this information is central to our committees inquiry. mr. navarro refused to comply, making a cursory claim of executive privilege. there are many reasons why this blanket assertion of executive privilege lacks merit, as a married or of law and as a matter of common sense.
there are many reasons why this blanket assertion of executive privilege locks merit as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense. what mr. scavino and mr. navarro are you covering up? who are you covering for? who are you covering for, thaetsz a big question especially when you think about what i just mentioned. the president s own top aid and son-in-law is testifying, so why can t you share what you re doing. and that brings a key moment from inside that room the history. peter navarro has been claiming his view, his own assertion of executive privilege as the reason he ll not address the committee as reason for lawful subpoena. of course he admitted to some of the very things they wanted to question about including the outlines of a coup in an interview right here on msnbc s the beat. that brings us to this moment of
extra interview because you can t get someone on contempt if they take the fifth. if he talskes it in a blanket w and they serve it up to the department of justice and they see this guy pled the fifth, would that be enough for contempt? i don t think so. i think his game would probably be to go up and make a blanket assertion question by question. it would be, by the way, out of the public eye in a private deposition on saturday, so i think it would be a very uncomfortable but unsatisfying back and forth for both parties. a lot to understand here. harry litman, thank you. thank you, victor. thanks, alisyn. fox news host larry logan is doubling down on her outrageous comparison of dr. fauci to a nazi, the doctor known as the angel of death. so far knox news has said nothing.
be more valid than others, but a blanket assertion that says you can t have any document even when there s an exception here which is valid, a potential criminal act, criminal behavior, the january 6th insurrection, these are all things that could lead a court to say listen, when we balance the powers of a former president wherever they may be, compare that to the incumbent s president and also fair with the national and public s interest in transparency is, i think you re going to come out pretty solidly on the idea of president biden, the only president of the united states, president biden retains the power and the former president will not have a valid claim. be waiting for that decision from the three judges on the court appeals. laura coates, grateful for the insights. let me bring in a lot of questions, will the committee gather evidence or will the trump defiance run out the clock?
counting on now. they knew this could be coming. kaitlan collins, thanks very much. joining me to discuss, shan wu, defense attorney and former federal prosecutor and ron brownstein, senior editor for the atlantic and cnn political analyst. a lot of cases to go through here. let s go on the mcgahn case. this is key. doj is going to appeal. not clear yet, i believe, whether they re going to ask for a stay, but probable they ll ask for a stay here. what is likely to happen next? that s exactly right. i think it s key whether they ll ask for a stay or not. it makes sense they would ask for the stay. so really what happens next, jim, is it s going to they re going to lose on this argument of absolute immunity. it s been widely expected as kaitlan was reporting. in myers case, the judge rejected this blanket assertion. it s going to end up with mcgahn in a witness chair but then it s still going to go question by question. he may try a little bit more, or