we'll be covering all of it. it is a busy night on the hill. there will be world news including what the consequences are for defying subpoenas that. you may recall the last person that did this was held in contempt. the first person that was held in contempt was steve bannon. keep it locked on msnbc. "the reidout" with joy reid starts now. good evening, everyone. we begin "the reidout" to save democracy at home and abroad. the house select committee on january 6th will meet to hold two aides to the former president in contempt of congress. we'll bring that to you live. first, the battle to defend democracy will continue in ukraine. we're five years into ukraine's invasion and the counter offensive continues to hold the line amid fresh concerns about the russian dictator's end game. there is evidence of russian brutality on the outskirts of

kyiv as a senior defense official said russia is making no progress in the advance on the capital. having failed to take the country, the kremlin says it's focussing its every forts on the east, the contested donbas region. russia is aiming to split the country in two, like north and south korea but in the north officials appeared to a notch a significant victory today a. fiercely contested suburb of kyiv is liberated according to the mayor and ukraine's president but the u.s. could not confirm that claim. the mayor added conditions were still too dangerous for residents to return. cities remain under siege like mariupol. the city that remains under ukrainian control. the mayor is calling for a complete evacuation of those who remain saying the city is on a verge of a catastrophe, 160,000 people are trapped without water, power or heat.

more than 5,000 have been killed since the start of putin's war. ukrainian and russian delegations prepare to start a round of in person talks in turkey this week. in an interview with russian media, volodymyr zelenskyy said he's willing to consider ukraine's neutrality in a peace agreement. biden was set to deliver a speech in warsaw, russian rockets struck fuel storage facilities on the outskirts of lviv 45 miles from the border with poland. and today, president biden continued to grapple with the fallout from his unscripted remarks about vladimir putin. >> for god sake, this man cannot remain in power. >> the kremlin called those comments alarming. today president biden stood by his remarks as he announced a new budget that includes substantial aid for ukraine. >> i'm not walking anything back. i was expressing more outrage i felt toward the way putin is dealing and the actions of this

man, just brutality. i want to make it clear, i wasn't then nor am i now articulating a policy change. i was expressing moral outrage i feel and make no apologies for it. >> biden is not worried his comment will ratchet up tension saying nobody believes the u.s. has a policy to remove putin from power. joining me is ben rhodes and professor of international affairs at the new school. i'll start with you, ben. you dealt personally with president biden will say things that are unscripted but often just true. some of his gaffes are just things that everyone understands. i don't think anybody sane believes that putin should remain the dictator of russia. do you think that there is any real impact from that? macron and france was very concerned about the remarks but he's also been trying to be sort of an intermediary and deal with putin. do you think there is anything

real here or is this more pearl clutching around the world and in some of the press? >> i think in the long term, joy, there is not much impact to this statement. it obviously wasn't how they would have planned it. it obviously probably raised eyebrows amongst the allies that we sought to bring aboard carefully around policy but i think it was necessary to clarify that the united states is not shifting to some overt policy of seeking regime change in russia, you know, because that would raise a lot of questions. how will you do that? would you ever deal with putin again on anything i think was necessary to clarify it. this is one of the dramas that we get in for a few days in washington. i think in the long term here. putin is showing that he's escalating no matter what the united states says and the reality is if there is someone, joy, who has believed for a long time that the united states has committed a regime change in russia, that's already vladimir

putin. we heard that since the color revolutions came from georgia in the early 2000s. might vladimir putin cite this line with his what about case but if it wasn't this line, it would be something else. >> no, indeed. there is nothing that biden could say that putin wouldn't twist into for whatever he wants. i mean lindsey graham said is there a brutis that should be killed. not much to do about that much. what i think is alarming is this idea putin would go full north korea. he's already going down the line. the idea of trying to turn ukraine into eastern ukraine and western ukraine, sort of draw a berlin wall down toward the east and in crimea, that seems alarming. your thoughts on that? >> well, i wouldn't really say it's that new. the original idea, people right from the beginning from the end

of february were talking about the split ukraine in the eastern part so the eastern part supposedly more related, affiliated with the russia share the language and what not so it really doesn't surprise me that this conversation has come forward. i think what is interesting is that clearly this conversation came forward because the rest of ukraine is not cooperating and a few days ago, the military said the first step of the operation has been completed. that is we are concentrating on donbas on the region and we are going to complete that kind of work. so that -- i mean, it is going to be if it is a division, it's going to be ukraine that is on the western part and that the russian part. so i wouldn't really go as far as north korea because a lot of parts in east ukraine actually

the original ones in 2014 that wanted to be associated, affiliated with russia, of course, there is a question of mariupol and other places that don't want to be in so that would probably be more brutal taking over but other than that, i think the division was in the works right from the beginning. >> but i mean, nina, to stay with you for a moment. is there evidence people in eastern ukraine want to be part of what is emerging as a failed state? russia is about to default on debt. it's a country starved economically by the world. it's a country reviled essentially an out law state. is there any evidence that people are in a beautiful port, capital that has this beautiful waterfront or that people in donbas are anything but miserable being under russian control? is there evidence they want to be part of what is emerging as a failed state? >> well, there is no evidence people in crimea have been miserable under russian control.

that really has not been -- there is no evidence to that and many who live in crimea want to be part of russia. we talked about in this program not once putin clearly, deeply over played his hand and so nobody even russians don't want to be part of russia. that is certainly the case. but to say that, you know, that their never wanted to be that, i mean, that's why donetsk became part of the russian state because they wanted that. the question is they will continue to want that. 300,000 russians fled russia itself so that is certainly a question but i don't think that that would give putin any reason to say it will work out and i'll let everybody go. in fact, the other way around. the less people want to be part of his state, the more he's going to force them to be.

so yes, in this sense we can talk about russia as a black hole as north korea of 11 time zones and more now because ukraine is one hour closer to europe. >> you know, ben, there is this talk of trying to come up with some sort of peace deal to end this horror. 3.8 plus million refugees and counting is saying 300,000 russians leaving that country. let's talk about this. i don't know how to come up with a peace deal when the dictator in russia is deploying the vogner group. he's using mercenary in full terrorism in ukraine. at what point can you negotiate a peace deal with someone like that because ukraine is saying being neutral seems to be

inmaterial to putin. they're neutral now. they're neutral to when crimea was seized. being neutral hasn't helped before. what do you make of this? >> yeah, i think it is also important, though, to look at donetsk, too, because putin certainly did not get resistance, violent resistance in crimea but from 2014, you know, i don't think there was some popular uprising in the donbas region to want to join russia. i think the russians stirred up and really sent people in to the donbas to stir up russian speaking populations there and what we've seen, joy, the pretext for this war was in part the defense of russian speakers or ethnic russians in eastern ukraine. look at the places treated the worst in this conflict. kharkiv, mariupol, they have

populations of russian speakers and putin killed those people indiscriminately, right? and the same way he's terrorizing the people of donbas. first of all, no, i think it's very clear ukrainians don't want to live under russia. nobody has welcomed russia in this invasion. second, i think that the question neutrality sure, of course, ukraine can and should put that on the table. we should support whatever position they take in the negotiations but the question is even if they make a statement of neutrality, what happens to that russian presence in donbas? this is a big chunk of ukraine and if russia thinks it will digest in big chunk of ukraine and maybe connect mariupol to that so they have language through crimea to the donbas, there is a minimal objective some people thought would be russia's objective back in february. clearly, putin wanted something more than that but might feel he's backtracking that position.

if you're ukraine, how can you accept a huge piece of sovereignty being consumed on top of a commitment of neutrality and also, is there any sense that the ukrainians who lived in these places would submit to that? there is not. i think neutral at the is an opening in terms of okay, maybe the basis of some longer term peace negotiation can essentially be around ukrainian neutrality but as long as these questions of ukrainian sovereignty are unresolved and what is ukrainian land and what can ukrainians accept, i still think we're much further away from a really lasting peace deal. that's why i think the ukrainians are being skeptical maybe the russians are dangling something like neutrality is the basis for talks so there can be a seize fire to stop and supply weapons going to ukraine and lick their own wounds and resume military defense. we have to be cautious about whether or not nato neutrality alone would be enough to resolve massive questions are the

russians going to leave ukraine land and crimea may be one to accept but donbas is much, much more challenging as far as mariupol and other lands occupying. >> nina, the other question is whether or not putin is obviously, you know, he may not want to show fear openly but this is a man that's banned russian tv from playing volodymyr zelenskyy's speeches. he's obviously afraid of this man. he understands the power this man has developed, you know, around the world that he has the sympathy of the world no matter what madness and fake nazi regime b.s. it doesn't work. zelenskyy is winning the information war as well as it does feel like his troops are winning the war war so could it be that the world's best bet here is just to put the gas on,

which is why i think -- to put the gas on, the rhetoric that president biden used more sanctions, maybe, you know, moving ukraine closer to nato because giving them the jets because it does seem like that's the only language putin will understand. >> actually, i don't think that's the only language putin understands because he has never shown that he understands the language of force. he himself uses force and this sense, i mean, i think also you and i see he's very donald trump is that if you give him, he's going to give you ten times more. i think that, you know, i'm not a military analyst in any way but i do think that neutrality is the beginning. although, i don't think putin is going to stop. for example, he takes mariupol and odesa hasn't even come into the conversation yet but it will because odesa was originally the

way they see it as a russian city why does it have to belong to ukraine? so it is -- again, you can ratchet sanctions up and that's fine but they are no longer economic sanctions. they're killing civil society, as well. the question is where search cancelled, either from the outside world or from putin and i don't think it a fear per se, it's that he's a kgb man, a man about control. who are you to speak up and tell me how i should behave. the more you tell him, the more he pushes back and so the question is do we really want russia as north korea collapsed? i guess we do because there is a collective responsibility russia has to pay for putin more than other countries have to pay for their dictators but at the same time, that is 145 million devastated from inside and from the outside, as well. >> well, it seems to me in that case joe biden might be right about the only end game is

russia's torment will end the same way ukraine's torment will end. this man is a dictator and there is no reforming or working with or appeasing him period. >> who is going to take him out? >> yeah, we're not even in the regime change business or world war iii business so it won't be the united states. ben rhodes, nina, thank you. up next on "the reidout" we're moments away from a meeting on the january 6th committee that will vote to hold two trump associates in contempt. there are several other major developments involving the effort to overturn the election including a bombshell ruling from a federal judge that states trump likely committed crimes. "the reidout" continues after this. "the reidout" continues after this mission control, we are go for launch. um, she's eating the rocket. ♪♪ lunchables! built to be eaten.

as a small business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving with comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to $500 a year. so boost your bottom line by switching today. get the new samsung galaxy s22 series on comcast business mobile and for a limited time save up to $750 on a new samsung device with eligible trade-in. ♪♪ i'm using xfinity xfi's powerful, reliable connection to stream “conference calls” on every one of these devices. i'm “filing my taxes” early. “wedding planning.” we're streaming uh... “seminars.” are your vows gonna make me cry?

yes! babe. (chuckles) look at that! another write off. that's a foul! what kind of call is that!? definitely “not” watching basketball. not us. i wouldn't do that. we are awaiting the members of the select committee on january 6th minutes from now will be gathering for a special

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

with the bizarre qanon text messages ginni thomas exchanged with mark meadows she encouraged him to overturn the 2020 election. this comes after the committee today scored a significant victory in court against trump lawyer and insurrection memo author john eastman who tried and failed to weasel out of a subpoena for documents. more explosive however, the judge in the case said trump probably committed a felony when he tried to stop congress from certifying the vote for biden in a sweeping and historic 44-page ruling today, u.s. district court judge david carter wrote based on the evidence the court finds it more likely than not trump elected to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th, 2021. professor at the alabama school of law and former u.s. attorney and elie, and peter, former fbi counter intelligence agent. thank you for being here. joyce, i'm going to you. i'm reading through this 44-page

ruling and as a layperson, it's jaw dropping. the walk through that the judge that the federal judge carter takes us through what happened and this seemingly very specific plot between eastman and members of congress and it is seemingly coordinated through the president. your thoughts on that ruling? >> so the judge lays out the evidence for criminality between trump and eastman and very much the way i'm used to doing as a federal prosecutor in a document we call a prosecuted memo that folks in a u.s. attorney's office sit around and take a look at to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to indict and in this case, the evidence is laid out in a very compelling and linear fashion. the judge considers the evidence of trump's intent, which joy, you and i have talked about a lot because that's an important and hard to prove issue and concludes it's there. there is one important caveat.

this judge is looking at the evidence in a civil case context, which means he only had to decide it was more likely than not that the former president and john eastman were engaged in criminal conduct and of course, the burden of proof in a criminal case is much heavier. it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> this is what was written as part of this. eastman and trump per the judge launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election unprecedented in election history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in search of a legal theory. if eastman and trump's plan worked, it would have ended the peaceful transfer of power undermining democracy and the constitution. and elie, as we're starting to get pieces of this story, it seems that there were some members of the united states senate and the wife of a supreme court justice who both seemed to be on the same page and have the

same legal theories, legal theories, i'll put in square quotes and be operating almost as if they are playing from the same playbook. ginni thomas seemed determined that the vice president of the united states acted to overturn the election and ted cruz who there is an extensive story about him "the washington post" about his seeming complicity. your thoughts? >> joy, we don't want to wake merrick garland. okay? we have to be careful to protect him from having to wake up and do his job. look, to be honest, joyce was just talking about what she would do as a prosecutor's office and quite frankly, a prosecutor would be great. it would be great if we had one in america willing to prosecute and defend our country instead of what we have going on right now. think about it this way, the ruling that we have, which is a great ruling and kind of lays everything out, that's going to be appealed because the trump

side has no good argument. they just have a delay tactic so they're going to appeal. it will go to the circuit court and go to the supreme court where one of the people who was implicated in this scheme, their husband will be one of the judges at the supreme court to decide whether or not these emails can actually get out. right? like that is the system that we have right now and the person who is supposed to be on our side fighting against that system is i mean, like we say every time i'm on the show, either merrick garland has a super secret investigation going on that nobody knows about but he's got all the cards ready to go or the biggest failure of an attorney general in american history. those are the stakes right now and that's what we're looking at. >> that's what we're looking at. i want to tell you what you're looking at as you look at the screen. this is the members of the january 6th committee taking a walk in there. we have a few more minutes. the best thing for you as a

former fbi guy is when they admit they did it. that makes your job easier. here is peter navarro coming on ari melber's show. >> if the votes were sent back to those battle ground states and looked at again that there would be enough concern amongst the legislatures that most or all of those states would decertify the election that would throw the election to the house of representatives. >> do you realize you are describing a coup? >> no. i totally reject many of your premises there. >> ari tried to alert him to the foolishness. peter, the thing that's so wild is when you read "the washington post" piece about what ted cruz was advising be done, if you read the eastman memo about what he was claiming could be done and you go through what g ishlgs

-- ginni thomas had done, they're the same. >> you're absolutely right. that's why it's important to decide whether or not they will confer them to contempt prosecutions. the second part is the criminal justice process and i understand i have tremendous respect for ally and the urgency and sense of urgency and wanting to get this information out but the fact of the matter is our criminal justice process takes time and that's by design and i get we need to and want to get these people on the record. we want to see results as soon as we can but the fact of the matter to joyce's point, this is we have to prove up if we're going to bring charges, it has to be up to a probable cause or proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard and all the different elements of the crime, there has

to be admissible evidence what we can show from an email, statement, testimony we can achieve that high hurdle. i can't tell you how many times i worked into work as an fbi agent just frustrated because i knew somebody did something wrong and i wouldn't be able to take it to the u.s. attorney's office and get them charged. we see two things going on. one is that route. the other route, the route we're watching folks walk into now, that may be the better path to get to the truth of what happened on january 6th. >> we just saw liz cheney walk in and she's probably the most -- a lot of republicans are angry with her. she's public enemy number one for republicans. she's a truth teller in the instance. i think the challenge and elie and i are probably on the same page. i won't speak for you, elie. the problem is in the case of new york, cy vance's successor, tough on trump and his career believe was ready to go. he had what peter just said that

you need a great case that he literally believed when he left that office could be prosecuted and his successor said i don't want to do it. the problem is not doing anything is a political decision. i worry that merrick garland is making a political decision it would be too upsetting for republicans and trump supporters if he did the thing that seems obvious which is to pursue a case that is about an american coup. your thoughts? >> so if you're asking me -- go ahead, elie. >> that's for you elie. >> so let's also add the fact that the criminal referral was given to garland months ago. long time ago and there is still not criminal indictment for the contempt. the contempt they vote on tonight like when does that get handled by garland. remember, there is a tick, tick,

tick, tick clock going on here. eight months is when the midterm election is arguably and the select committees argue, investigation is stopped if garland isn't here now. now he's going to be in the situation where perhaps he has to work against congress. it's just, we need to be moving a lot quicker than what we're seeing. >> and we're going to take a quick break and peter, i promise you'll be first out of the block and then joyce. we'll take a very quick break. you can see there adam schiff heading in. we'll take a quick break before we get to this contempt vote. we'll be right back. o this conte we'll be right back. grillin', chillin', spillin', dillin'. bec-ing. never brie-ing. smokin', yolkin', flippin', dippin'. if you're not oozing, then you're losing. tater totting, cold or hotting. mealin', feelin', pie-ing, trying. color your spread. upgrade your bread. pair it. share it. kraft singles. square it. allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from kraft singles.

overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! flonase all good. my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down?

(♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today.

large out-of-state corporations have set their sights on california. they've written a ballot proposal to allow online sports betting. they tell us it will fund programs for the homeless, but read the fine print. 90% of the profits go to out-of-state corporations, leaving almost nothing for the homeless. no real jobs are created here. but the promise between our state and our sovereign tribes would be broken forever. these out-of-state corporations don't care about california. but we do. stand with us.

we're back with our great panel as we await the january 6th select committee to hold a contempt vote for two members of donald trump's inner circle, his trade secretary peter navarro as well as his, what most people know as his social media guy but i want to go to you peter. you had a comment you wanted to make about the length of time we're seeing hear with merrick garland and this investigation. >> absolutely. the point that i wanted to make is it takes time to build a criminal case, the criminal justice system is designed for decades and decades and generations to be something that is very precise that has to meet a very high standard because

that's the system of justice we want in the united states. we don't want vladimir putin's russia on a whim he can take political opponents, whip up charges and throw them in jail for 15, 20 years. the process is there to be dell remember rid, precise. frequently thanks runs counter to our desire in a political context to get to the truth. when you look at prosecution, the prosecution is there as a tool to investigate and go after violations of the law. not necessarily to just tell the truth of everything that happened. that on the other hand is very much what congress is doing. congress a political entity doing through the january 6th committee. what i worry about at the end of the day, we're very quickly reaching the point where there is attention between congress and what doj is doing but rapidly going to precipitate into very significant decisions where one party or the other are going to start doing things to adversary impact what the other is trying to do and i think we'll see that come to ahead in the next few months.

>> you set me up perfectly for the next question. the concern i have for all of you to jump in on this is that there are actors on the republican side who are not taking this attempted coup as a cautionary tale but instructions as ways to improve and tweak the process because they too want power. there is this extraordinary story "the washington post" about ted cruz climbing all over his supposed principles and jumping over josh hawley to get his first up higher for the insurrection and help the former literal political enemy donald trump who called him all sorts of names, his farther a murderer and lying ted and all that. ted, john eastman who in that great -- the extraordinary ruling we talked about was asked about ted cruz and whether he had communication with ted cruz, senator cruz and to change the outcome of the 2020 election and vote the fifth, joyce, i find

that interesting. let's go to the timeline. he amp fies trump's stolen election claims, goes on hannity and announces he's going to represent pennsylvania republicans in an effort to block the certification of the election. that case gets rejected. on december 8th, my birthday trump asks him to argue the election that would overturn the election there multiple states. they start an emergency ten-day audit to delay the electoral vote count and on january 6th he's the first senator to object to the results after the siege of the capitol he votes to reject pennsylvania. he's involved, joyce. he's involved in the effort from beginning to end, from december to january. should he not be subpoenaed by the january 6th committee?

>> so this is a perfect illustration of the point that pete was just trying to make, for one thing it shows why these criminal cases can take so long. if you jump early, you can misimportant pieces what could be and could not be criminal conduct. we know john eastman and senator cruz were actually co-clerks together many years ago for the judge. often people who clerk for a judge at the same time develop a close friendship. they were members of the federal society so they would have had a lot of opportunity to stay in touch. that tells me whether i'm a congressional investigator or a prosecutor that i need to understand more about that relationship. it may be innocent but there may be important pieces of information here that contribute to our understanding of what happened on january 6th. so to your question whether we want to set a precedent for subpoenaing a sitting senator, a big part of that comes down to

whether i, as the january 6th committee, have the ability to enforce my subpoenas that and that's exactly what we'll learn more about tonight. congress has to rely on the justice department if it chooses this path of going obstruction of justice when people don't comply with their subpoenas that. so far, it's a real mixed bag. doj agreed to prosecute steve bannon. we're still waiting to hear about the fate of mark meadows, trump's former chief of staff. what doj would do if the january 6th committee subpoenaed a senator is i think very much up in the air. >> indeed. we'll start paying attention because we can see chairman bennie thompson touching the mike and taking off his mask. we can see liz cheney too, stage left here and zoey to his right. here we go. >> to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol will be in order. the select committee is meeting

this evening to consider the house of representative find peter k. navarro and daniel scavino junior in contempt of congress for refusal to come pry with subpoenas that duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. without objection, the chair authorizes to declare the committee in recess at any time. i'll recognize myself for an opening statement. this evening, the select committee is considering two more citations for criminal contempt of congress for daniel scavino junior and peter navarro. before i get started, i want to comment quickly on the ruling today and john eastman's lawsuit to stop the select committee from obtaining certain records.

as the vice chair i said in our statement earlier today, this ruling is a clear victory for the rule of law. i encourage people at home to read what judge carter wrote and considered his words very carefully. his warnings about the on going threat to american democracy should alarm every person in this country. i want to read a short excerpt from judge carter's ruling. dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in american history that campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in search of a legal theory. the plan spurred violent attack on the seat of our nation's government led to the death of several law enforcement officers and deepened public distrust in our political process.

more than a year after the attack on our capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. i'm proud to say that this committee is helping to lead that search for accountability. it's why we're here tonight. so let's turn to mr. scavino and mr. navarro. these aren't household names and my colleagues will share some details about who they are and why they are so important to our investigation. in short, these two men played a key role in the ex presiden's in the 2020 election. the selection committee is learning more about their roles in what they need new and mr. scavino's case, he strung us along for months before making it clear that he believes he is above the law. mr. navarro despite sharing

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

both government employees. they worked in the white house. they drew salaries paid by the taxpayers. they had conversations with the ex president so now they are saying they won't answer any of our questions because of executive privilege. there are a couple big problems with their argument. first, generally speaking, executive privilege doesn't belong to just any white house official to the president, here president biden has been clear executive privilege does not prevent cooperation with the select committee by either mr. scavino or mr. navarro and while the ex president reportedly raised privilege concerns when it comes to mr. scavino and mr. navarro's case, nobody is even trying to invoke privilege except mr. navarro himself. that's just not the way it works. peter navarro isn't president.

it's important to note that even if a president has formerly said invoked executive privilege regarding testimony of a witness which is not the case here, that witness has an obligation to sit down under oath and assert the privilege question by question. but these witnesses didn't even bother to show up. second, if the ex president has a claim to privilege, this happened in a privileged capacity. if mr. scavino or mr. navarro are claiming they all -- that all the information they have is protected by executive privilege, they did it in their officials roles paid by taxpayers. as i said before, we want to talk to mr. scavino and mr.

navarro about their roles in the attempt to over turn an election. the american people didn't pay their salaries to do that. now, there are a lot of laws that set out what government officials aren't allowed to do when they are on the clock are using government resources. it's important that taxpayer dollars don't support political activity and there are few bright lines about every specific situation. i can't sit in my office on capitol hill and make fundraising calls. every staff member has to take an ethics training every year to remind them that what's in and out of bounds. i don't mean to make light of it but it just for the record and for those watching at home trying to overturn an election is out of bounds. way out of bounds. yet, mr. scavino and mr. navarro won't talk about the causes of

january 6th because they were white house officials at the time engaged in official business and so executive privilege stands in the way. they potentially played a part in an attack on american democracy but they can ignore -- but they can ignore our investigation because they worked for the government at the time. that's their argument. they're not fooling anybody. they're obligated to comply with our investigation. they have refused to do so, and that's a crime. our investigation aims to give the american people a lot of answers about a great many matters but i think we'll also leave you with some unanswered questions to consider for yourselves. questions about the sort of people who deserve the power and responsibility of positions of public trust. for a great many of us, it means

something profound when we raise our hands and swear an oath. we haven't finished the work of our investigation but i can say confidently that the many involved in the run up to january 6th, an oath, i fear would happens if those people, again, given the reigns of power. these men, mr. scavino and mr. navarro are in contempt of congress. i encourage my colleagues to support adoption of this report, and i'm confident the house will adopt a resolution citing them for this crime. i hope the justice department will move swiftly to hold them accountable. and please, now to recognize my friend the gentleman from wyoming -- for any remarks he cares to offer. >> thank you very much, mister chairman.

we are entering a critical stage of our investigation. we've now taken a testimony of hundreds of witnesses with knowledge of the events of january 6th, including more than a dozen former trump white house staff members. we've learned that president trump and his team were warned in advance and repeatedly, that the efforts they undertook to overturn the 2020 election would violate the law and our constitution. they were warned that january 6th could and likely would turn violent, and they were told repeatedly by our state and federal courts, by our justice department and by agencies of our intelligence community that the allegations of widespread fraud, sufficient to overturn the election were false and and supported by the evidence, and yet despite all the specific warnings, president trump and

his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power, to halt our constitutional process for counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great nation. as a federal judge concluded today, that the inequality of president trump's plan for january 6th was quote, obvious. today, as the chairman noted, we addressed to specific witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony. mr. scavino worked directly with president trump, to spread president trump's false message that the election was stolen, and to recruit americans to come to washington with the false promise that january six would be an opportunity to quote, take back their country. this effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive.

the committee has many questions for mr. scavino about his political, social media work for president trump including his interactions with an online form called the donald, and with qanon, a bizarre and dangerous cult. president trump, working with mr. scavino successfully spread distrust for our courts, which had repeatedly found no basis to overturn the election. and trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on january 6th. on this point, there is no doubt. the committee has videos, interviews and sworn statements from violent rioters from demonstrating these facts. mr. navarro is also a key witness. he's written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of january 6th. yet, he does not have the courage to testify here. we have many questions for mr.

navarro, including about his communications with roger stone and steve mann, regarding the planning for january 6th. as judge quarter concluded today quote, based on the evidence the court finds it more likely than not that president trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th 2021. our committee will continue to litigate to abstain a testimony we need. we have already defeated president trump's effort to hide certain white house records behind a shield of executive privilege. as the court said today, not today, but as the court said in that case, under any of the tests advocated by former president trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by president biden and the january six committee, far exceed his generalized concerns

for executive branch confidentiality. that same conclusion should apply to mr. scavino and mr. navarro. let me pause for a moment on one specific legal point. like mr. meadows, mr. navarro insists that he is above the law, and his categorically and absolutely immune from any congressional subpoena regarding january 6th. we are aware of no court anywhere in america that has ever agreed with this proposition. to the extent that mr. navarro and mr. meadows are attempting to rely upon memorandum for the justice departments of legal counsel, those miranda explicitly do not apply here. in this context, mr. navarro was not acting as a white house aide advising the president on official matters and policy. he was acting as a trump campaign operative planning a

political effort to obstruct or repeat congress's constitutional proceeding to count electoral votes. the department of justice is interested with the defense of our constitution. department leadership should not apply any doctrine of immunity that might block congress from fully uncovering and addressing the causes of the january 6th attack. congress is a separate and coequal branch of government. it must have the authority and ability to protect its independence and safeguard the constitutional separation of powers. in the coming months, our committee will convene a series of hearings. the american people will hear from our fellow citizens who demonstrated fidelity to our constitution and the rule of law, and who refused to bow to president trump's pressure.

the committee has heard from many of these individuals including republicans appointed by president trump, two posts in the department of justice. republican to, stood firm, who threatened to resign and refused to participate in efforts to correct the department with the stolen election lies that led to january 6th. we have heard from leading republicans serving and legislatures and in state and local governments, who also stood firm, who resisted pressure from the former president and did their constitutional duty. and we have heard from republicans who were serving in the trump white house including those who warned in advance that the presidents plans were unlawful, and those who try to intervene with the president to get him to halt the violence when it erupted on january 6th. ce whenin a time when many republin

members of congress had abandoned their obligation to our constitution, and are putting politics above duty, each of the individuals i just mentioned has by contrast demonstrated a firm and unwavering commitment to this nation, and to our constitutional republic. each has done what is right despite tremendous personal, political, and professional costs. each is a model for the american people of the kind of public servants this nation needs. men and women who know our institutions don't defend themselves, and who recognize the obligation that comes with holding positions of public trust. as we meet here tonight, vladimir putin continues his brutality against ukraine, killing innocence, reminding us what happens when authoritarian's rule, and each

day we see footage of the unyielding courage of the ukrainian people who are fighting and dying to defend their freedom. their bravery reminds us that democracy is fragile. democracy only survives if citizens are willing to defend it. we live in the greatest constitutional republic in history. no citizen in our republic can be a bystander. if we don't stand for our freedom and our public, we will lose them. in his ruling today, judge carter put it this way, if president trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining american democracy and the constitution. if the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears

january 6th will repeat itself. thank, you mister chairman. i yield back. >> the lady yields back. -- i know call a report on the resolution, recommending that the house of representatives, peter cain navarro and danny scavino junior in contempt of congress or refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. a report was circulated in advance including copies that are available. the clerk shall designate the report. >> report on the resolution recommending that the house representatives find peter cain navarro and daniel scavino junior in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the