department to the charges to bring. peter navarro, obviously, is not a senior as senior an adviser to the former president as mark meadows, as even dan ska vino who we know was essentially an alter ego for the president on the internet. he was writing all the president s tweets. was very involved with all of his messaging around january 6th. you know, around the time that he was trying to overturn the election. so for all of those reasons, you still see the justice department investigating, trying to decide what to do about the mark meadows referral. the dan skavino referral in the same boat. navarro is a simpler one for prosecutors to bring, and you saw in recent days, you know, you could see that navarro was getting ready. he kind of knew what was happening. he decided to go to court and file a very bizarre lawsuit, trying to forestall what we are
mark meadows was much more central, the gate keeper to the president, the chief of staff. but he did give the committee some text messages and then stopped and said i m not going to cooperate any further. is that the reason for delay? take us in the room when prosecutors are saying he koornted some but then stopped. where s the line? it looks to me like prosecutors are considering two factors. one is executive privilege. the defense that mark meadows and navarro and dan and steve bannon are all have raised or will raise is executive privilege. they ll say we don t have to testify about our conversations with the president. steve bannon had no claim of executive privilege. he wasn t even in the white house at the time. by contrast, mark meadows was chief of staff. he has the strongest claim of executive privilege and i think navarro and ska vino fall in the middle. the second factor, as you said, is was there any compliance here? mark meadows, as you noted, did
contempt. sent to it doj, and doj has now charged peter navarro with a crime. there s a message to other people who may be considering defying the committee. however, it does bear noting this makes quite clear that doj is nowhere near charging mark meadows. the mark meadows contempt referral got sent over six months ago. this one got sent about two months ago. so it raises the question will doj will charging meadows, seems like not. will doj will charging dan skavino held in contempt the same day? there s a mixed message. i think if i m somebody thinking about well, should i comply with the subpoena to testify in hearings? i m taking note of this indictment of navarro, and i could push me toward testifying. help me with the question. we know peter navarro was involved after the election of trying to help, trying to find ways to sometimemy the results, steal the election. that s peter navarro. we know from text messages that
midterms how the hearings go is immensely important. eli, we know hundreds of people fed into that but peter navarro not among them, he gets indicted and the whole performance act today, but two months after referred for contempt. we ve not heard from steve bannon, dan skavino, who was there with social media for the president, we haven t heard from mark meadows, chief of skaftaffd not going to hear from these guys as you point out so will the committee deliver what it needs to deliver, a full, fair story, without them? i still think they k erin. as a prosecutor, you don t always get to put everyone you want on the stand. a lot of bad guys in the prosecution, not exactly saying that s exactly here, but a lot of the main people you want to question you, co can t, they wo tail take the fifth. you can make a case, though, based on other witnesses, on