Democrats. You think of it as a purely democrat area. Its a very unfair situation. Donald trump may have violated the gag order in his Hush Money Trial yet again yesterday during a radio interview, complaining about the jury. Well get expert legal analysis on that. And yesterdays Opening Statements and first witness. Plus, well go through the newly unsealed transcripts in the classified Documents Case which shows a former white house staffer tried to warn trump about the legal issues he could face. You know, if he stole classified documents. And its another day where trump is in court and President Biden is on the Campaign Trail. This time in trumps home state. Well preview the president s speech in tampa, florida. Good morning. Welcome to morning joe. It is tuesday, april 23rd. Along with joe, willie, and me, we have u. S. Special correspondent for bbc news, katty kay. And Deputy Managing Editor for politics at politico, sam stein. Doing a little Way Too Early duty this morning. Of co
the judge agreed and told bannon s team to consider that. meanwhile, the justice department said bannon s sudden wish to testify before the january 6th committee is nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability. over the weekend, bannon s legal team said he would give testimony after former president trump waived executive privilege. but a new filing from the doj says there was never even privilege to begin with. a trump lawyer told the fbi the former president never actually invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials. the justice department also says bannon s willingness to comply now will not help him, writing, the criminal contempt statute is not intended to procure compliance. it is intended to punish past non-compliance. hugo, how much trouble is steve bannon in, and what is he trying to do? i think he is in a lot of
told the fbi that the former president never invoked the executive privilege over any particular information or materials and, in fact, offered no basis for bannon s refusal to comply. former assistant deputy attorney general harry lippman and maya wiley with me. they wrote, the criminal contempt statute is not intended to procure compliance. it is intended to punish past non-compliance. stonewalling is a known feature of folks in trump s orbit. has that caught up with steve bannon? it sure has. by the way, it was always going to catch up with steve bannon. one of the things to note with all of this coverage about his willingness to testify and whether or not donald trump invoked executive privilege, there was no executive privilege that could be invoked around any conversations with steve bannon
particular information or material. the justice department also says that bannon s willingness to comply now will not help him, writing this. the criminal contempt statute is not intended to procure compliance. it is intended to punish past noncompliance. joining us now, congressional reporter at politico, our friend nicholas wu. we ll set steve bannon aside and move now to today s january 6 hearing. first one in more than a week. tell us a little bit about some of the key players we ll be hearing from and what their testimony might reveal? today s hearing is going to look at the convergences between these extremist groups and trump s orbit. one committee member, representative stephanie murphy of florida, told me that they would look at how trump s tweet on december 19th, 2020, telling people to be at the january 6th, was a clarion call to these
one is the criminal contempt statute, which has been around since 1857 and allows them to say to the justice department, we need this information. you need to put these people in jail until they give it to us. the other is that congress itself can file a civil lawsuit in washington, d.c. to get at this information. either way, the congressional committees, if this does go to court, i m quite sure will prevail. there s an obvious need for this information. the arguments on the other side are bogus. there s two one, the members of congress are saying they have a right to privacy, which is particularly ironic, because i haven t seen them protesting over the last week on the supreme court steps, but i guess they think men in congress have a right to privacy, and the rest of us don t. the second thing they will say is speech or debate immunity. that s a clause in the constitution which says in general members of congress have immunity while on the floor. but that s got to be a legislative