committee, and while the subpoena was expected, it is the committee s most aggressive step yet. it could result in an epic legal battle which frankly is also anticipated. the panel is asking for phone calls, texts, videos from the former president relating to the attack on the u.s. capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. it s also demanding trump testify under oath on november 14th. in a letter accompanying the subpoena, the panel said this. as demonstrated in our hearing, we have assembled overwhelming evidence including from dozens of your former appointees and staff that you personally orchestrated and oversaw a multipart effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and to obstruct the peaceful transition of power. cnn s senior crime and justice reporter joins us now. the january 6th committee making it clear that they see trump as the central figure of this effort. reporter: exactly, victor. the center of everything. that is what this cover letter and
Mean, is it usual for an attorney to put their client, their star witness essentially, on the stand for hours in a pretrial? highly unusual. many experts thought that it wouldn t happen. so there was a lot of shock and surprise when mark meadows actually appeared in the hearing. he didn t have to appear. the hearing could have proceeded just with the lawyers making arguments. but as you said, he was on the witness stand more than four hours. risky move, but from his perspective, i think it was do or die. he wants the case moved to federal court so he can hopefully draw a judge perhaps appointed by donald trump and have access to a larger jury pool, perhaps jurors more favorable to donald trump than they believe those jurors might be in fulton county. and he is also planning to make a motion to dismiss the entire action and i think again his calculation is that that motion would be met more favorably by a federal court judge. and there is another trump
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 .