they have needed to release those, in order to make a persuasive argument to hold mark meadows in contempt. a lot of those messages were released in the contempt report that the committee handed out a few months ago. we re still waiting on whether or not the doj is going to ultimately take up that contempt referral. but, there is a fine line that were straddling to apply public pressure, to get people like sean hannity to cooperate, versus holding back some of these messages and holding public presentation is possible, to draw the american public. and yet, some of the things we have our splash-y and explosive, and drawing the american public and. the text messages sent to mark meadows from rick perry, a day after the election, which is essentially a pit strategy, aggressive strategy, in typical
meeting. they are voting tonight on a measure to defer criminal charges. trump s social media advisor dan and trade secretary peter navarro. both witnesses violated subpoenas that refusing to sit for depositions and both were deeply involved in the scheme to subvert the results of a democratic election and paul off the first american coup. in the 34-page contempt report, the committee says he was likely with trump on january 6th and 5th and say they have reason to believe he may have had advanced warning about the potential for violence. separately, navarro worked with alt right extremists and steve bannon on the green base sweep to delay certification of the vote and navarro has explicitly said trump was on board with the strategy. separately, the washington post reports the committee now wants to interview ginni thomas, the wife of clearance thomas
that s me saying that. i will tell you this very point is also in the new contempt report from the house committee, which states, quote, navarro appeared on national television discussing subjects that were the focus of the subpoena which he is defying, and that statement, footnotes and cites his february 10 appearance in the beat on nbc. that was about his sweep but also noting he simply would not comply with the committee requests even if, as i raised it in the question, he might face possible contempts on indictment. why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to discuss with the committee under oath? the president has invoked executive privilege. it s not my privilege to wave. do you understand you have waived it by discussing it under oath and are you prepared to risk indictment for defying the subpoena? i ll stand tall ton this.
relevant details on tv and podcasts and in its own book, he also stone walled us. the contempt report published last night gets into the weeds on this but broadly, mr. scavino and mr. navarro are making similar executions. they re claiming that the information we want from them is shielded by executive privilege. to remind everyone executive privilege is a power of the president to make sure officials with information and conversations in private. it s a privilege used to protect the presidency and our national security. it s usually involving a president and that president s closest advisors cabinet secretaries, top aides in the lead up to january 6th. mr. scavino and mr. navarro were
witnesses, certainly documentary evidence does indicate some involvement from some, our colleagues. we have asked several of them to come in and talk to us. we have not yet issued subpoenas and actually there are other individuals that it is becoming clear have information that will be helpful to our investigation. so we have that determination has not been made, although, we are willing to pursue anything that gets us closest to the truth. can you offer any thoughts and i m not specific once are being made public. but in terms of this reporting today, examination both on the part of the doj in the cases involving insurrectionism themselves as well as by your committee of donald trump s words and the response that they garnered and the knowledge, it s in the contempt report from mr. scovino and navarro.