case he does say anything to the press there, he hasjust case he does say anything to the press there, he has just been found guilty of two counts of contempt of congress. guilty of two counts of contempt of concress. ., ., ., congress. here we are with one of the most important _ congress. here we are with one of the most important constitutional| the most important constitutional separation of powers issues, and people will not let me speak. what i am going to do now is allow... the marshalsjust _ am going to do now is allow... the marshalsjust saw you, am going to do now is allow... the marshals just saw you, you're am going to do now is allow... the marshalsjust saw you, you're in trouble! — marshalsjust saw you, you're in trouble! you just assaulted me. crosstalk ican i can hold this anywhere i want commences_ i can hold this anywhere i want commences public— i can hold this anywhere i want commences public property, . i can hold this anywhere i want. commences public property, sir. i can hold this anywhere i want- commences public property, sir. let the commences public property, sir. lott the man commences public property, sir. the man talk. crosstalk go ahead and talk, man, go ahead and talk. .. go ahead and talk, man, go ahead and talk. ,,. ._ go ahead and talk, man, go ahead and talk. ., ~ ., talk. sad day for america. not because they _ talk. sad day for america. not because they were _ talk. sad day for america. not because they were guilty - talk. sad day for america. not - because they were guilty verdicts, because i cannot come out and have an honest, decent conversation with people in america. people of america i want you to understand that this is the problem we have right here, this kind of divide in our country between the local marxist left and everybody else here, and this is nuts. what i want to try to do here is have an interesting discussion about what just happened. is have an interesting discussion about whatjust happened. that is what you'll want to know. you want to know whatjust happened, i'm going to give mr raleigh first crack at this, and there's some issues, each of my attorneys hear from mr irvin, mr brent... did these guys go? they are back there. let'sjust do it. i appreciate if you guys can work through... there is no problem with the print media. you get it. apologise to the pool cameraman, but thatis apologise to the pool cameraman, but that is what editors are for. have added, my friend.— that is what editors are for. have added, my friend. thank you. listen, on behalf of — added, my friend. thank you. listen, on behalf of dr— added, my friend. thank you. listen, on behalf of dr navarro _ added, my friend. thank you. listen, on behalf of dr navarro want - added, my friend. thank you. listen, on behalf of dr navarro want to - on behalf of dr navarro want to stress — on behalf of dr navarro want to stress our— on behalf of dr navarro want to stress our appreciation to the court. — stress our appreciation to the court. to— stress our appreciation to the court, tojudge mehta and the jury that heard — court, tojudge mehta and the jury that heard this case. this is a landmark— that heard this case. this is a landmark case. while we have a decision— landmark case. while we have a decision and respect the jury's decision, _ decision and respect the jury's decision, this would not be decided here, _ decision, this would not be decided here, this _ decision, this would not be decided here, this will be decided by the dc court _ here, this will be decided by the dc court of— here, this will be decided by the dc court of appeals. this is the first time that— court of appeals. this is the first time that a — court of appeals. this is the first time that a senior presidential aide who has— time that a senior presidential aide who has served his president for four years — who has served his president for four years has ever been held in contempt — four years has ever been held in contempt of congress. there are legal— contempt of congress. there are legal issues here. they need to be decided _ legal issues here. they need to be decided by— legal issues here. they need to be decided by the court of appeals. judge _ decided by the court of appeals. judge mehta decided based upon a hearing last week that there was inadequate evidence to show that president — inadequate evidence to show that president trump had formally instructed dr navarro to invoke executive — instructed dr navarro to invoke executive privilege. professionally we disagree with that decision, we think— we disagree with that decision, we think that — we disagree with that decision, we think that the evidence establish that irr— think that the evidence establish that in fact president trump instructed dr navarro to invoke executive — instructed dr navarro to invoke executive privilege —— respectfully, we disagree. but in any event we think— we disagree. but in any event we think that — we disagree. but in any event we think that based upon the separation of powers— think that based upon the separation of powers between congress and the executive, _ of powers between congress and the executive, executive privilege is part and — executive, executive privilege is part and parcel of the office of the president— part and parcel of the office of the president of the united states and that no— president of the united states and that no expressed invocation of privilege — that no expressed invocation of privilege was even necessary. otherwise president reagan for example would have no executive privilege — example would have no executive privilege and any confidential conversations he had with his senior aides _ conversations he had with his senior aides at _ conversations he had with his senior aides at the — conversations he had with his senior aides at the time would be waived and you _ aides at the time would be waived and you att— aides at the time would be waived and you all could ask his aides what president— and you all could ask his aides what president reagan spoke to about sensitive — president reagan spoke to about sensitive matters, so we think it is part and _ sensitive matters, so we think it is part and parcel of the office, we are confident that the court of appeals— are confident that the court of appeals will hold to that affect and this case _ appeals will hold to that affect and this case is not over by a long shot — this case is not over by a long shot i— this case is not over by a long shot. ., �* ., ., , . shot. i don't have anything much more to add _ shot. i don't have anything much more to add to _ shot. i don't have anything much more to add to what _ shot. i don't have anything much more to add to what he - shot. i don't have anything much| more to add to what he just said. just today— more to add to what he just said. just today was _ more to add to what he just said. just today was an _ more to add to what he just said. just today was an important - more to add to what he just said. just today was an important step| more to add to what he just said. l just today was an important step in the direction — just today was an important step in the direction of— just today was an important step in the direction of a _ just today was an important step in the direction of a successful- the direction of a successful appeal. _ the direction of a successful appeal. and _ the direction of a successful appeal, and then... - the direction of a successful appeal, and then... that's i the direction of a successful- appeal, and then... that's about all i appeal, and then... that's about all i have _ appeal, and then... that's about all i have to _ appeal, and then... that's about all i have to say — appeal, and then... that's about all i have to say. you _ appeal, and then... that's about all i have to say. you seem _ appeal, and then... that's about all i have to say. you seem to - appeal, and then... that's about all i have to say. you seem to have - i have to say. you seem to have missed — i have to say. you seem to have missed the _ i have to say. you seem to have missed the joke _ i have to say. you seem to have missed the joke there. - i have to say. you seem to have missed the joke there. let- i have to say. you seem to have missed the joke there.— i have to say. you seem to have missed the joke there. let me see if missed the 'oke there. let me see if i can break— missed the joke there. let me see if i can break this _ missed the joke there. let me see if i can break this down _ missed the joke there. let me see if i can break this down for _ missed the joke there. let me see if i can break this down for you, - i can break this down for you, and if you guys... you're good to go if you want. this is going to be a wild. let's start with the fact that this is a landmark case, this is a landmark case that is bound for the supreme court. why do i say that? this is the first time in the history of our republic that a senior white house adviser, and alter ego of the president, has ever been charged with the alleged crime, thatis been charged with the alleged crime, that is the first time this has ever happened. now, at the same time, what is so remarkable about this case is that even as the department ofjustice was bringing this case, they had a policy for more than 50 years that says people like me, senior white house advisers, alter ego is of the president, cannot be compelled to testify before congress. absolute. yet they brought the case. this case is a member case because it is about the constitutional separation of powers —— landmark case. that goes back to the days of george washington and the days of george washington and the legislative branch first beginning to try and battle with the executive branch. and if you go back and look at the supreme court rulings, few and far between they are, and more importantly the department ofjustice position, then you will understand that there are very good reasons why executive privilege is sacrosanct. it is the mechanism, the mechanism by which effective presidential decision—making is made. so this case is not about me i happened to be the only one in the barrel on this. and what's interesting about this. and what's interesting about this case is thatjudge mehta during the course of this case actually made history. how did he do that? he made history. how did he do that? he made history. how did he do that? he made history by ruling that people like me, senior white house advisers, cannot be compelled to testify. he said that. nojudge has ever said that before. the reason why he felt that it did not apply to me is because he did not believe, despite all of the evidence we put on, including my own personal testimony, that the privilege had been properly invoked, and that is another open question for the appeals court, because there are many legal scholars who believe that the privilege is presumptive, presumptive. there are many other issues that are related to this case that are open questions, but at the end of the day, at the end of the day, the day thatjudge mehta ruled that i could not use executive privilege as a defence in this case, the die was cast. this was pro forma. proforma. we knew going in what the verdict was going to be. that's why this is going to the appeals court... that's why this is going to the appeals court. . ._ that's why this is going to the appeals court... 0k, we believe there. appeals court... ok, we believe there- that— appeals court... 0k, we believe there. that is _ appeals court... ok, we believe there. that is peter— appeals court... 0k, we believe there. that is peter navarro, i there. that is peter navarro, speaking outside of court, one of donald trump's e white house aides. he hasjust been donald trump's e white house aides. he has just been found donald trump's e white house aides. he hasjust been found guilty donald trump's e white house aides. he has just been found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt of congress. he refused to appear before a committee of lawmakers last year. that committee was investigating the attacks on the us capitol building, january 6, of course, and the prosecutors told the jurors there navarro acted as though he was above the law when he refused to give evidence, and you heard him saying there that he will appeal against this decision. let's bring in our panel. andrew fisher and bryan lanza. bryan, ithink in our panel. andrew fisher and bryan lanza. bryan, i think we better start with you. what do you make of that?— make of that? listen, i've known peter a very _ make of that? listen, i've known peter a very long _ make of that? listen, i've known peter a very long time. _ make of that? listen, i've known peter a very long time. he - make of that? listen, i've known peter a very long time. he is - peter a very long time. he is challenged by truth often. he had to appear, _ challenged by truth often. he had to appear, it _ challenged by truth often. he had to appear, it was not a question, and he decided — appear, it was not a question, and he decided to go down a defiant route _ he decided to go down a defiant route and — he decided to go down a defiant route and this is the process. i would — route and this is the process. i would say— route and this is the process. i would say this, though. he is right in the _ would say this, though. he is right in the sense — would say this, though. he is right in the sense that we're entering a very dangerous time, because it is not uncommon for congress to hold former— not uncommon for congress to hold former of— not uncommon for congress to hold former of the administration in contempt, even current members in contempt _ contempt, even current members in contempt it— contempt, even current members in contempt. it is uncommon for the actual— contempt. it is uncommon for the actualjustice department to go forward — actualjustice department to go forward with these prosecutions. just in _ forward with these prosecutions. just in 2012, the republican congress held every quarter of the attorney— congress held every quarter of the attorney general to barack obama, in contempt _ attorney general to barack obama, in contempt for not turning over documentsjosh mcnary contempt for not turning over documents josh mcnary colder. under this current _ documents josh mcnary colder. under this current standard, peter would only be _ this current standard, peter would only be found guilty of contempt of congress — only be found guilty of contempt of congress. we are going down a dangerous route by as fleeting things. — dangerous route by as fleeting things, and, sure, peter is an easy target, _ things, and, sure, peter is an easy target, he — things, and, sure, peter is an easy target, he is— things, and, sure, peter is an easy target, he is a full which makes an easier— target, he is a full which makes an easier target, target, he is a full which makes an easiertarget, but target, he is a full which makes an easier target, but this route isn't very dangerous because it is not uncommon— very dangerous because it is not uncommon for a partisan congress to hold another partisan number in contempt, — hold another partisan number in contempt, and now we are down a path where _ contempt, and now we are down a path where they— contempt, and now we are down a path where they have to prosecute because the evidence is overwhelming. that's not good _ the evidence is overwhelming. that's not good for— the evidence is overwhelming. that's not good for our system of government.— not good for our system of covernment. , . ., ., , ., government. interesting. what do you make of it? it — government. interesting. what do you make of it? it is _ government. interesting. what do you make of it? it is tempting _ government. interesting. what do you make of it? it is tempting to - government. interesting. what do you make of it? it is tempting to sit - government. interesting. what do you make of it? it is tempting to sit it - make of it? it is tempting to sit it in the uk and _ make of it? it is tempting to sit it in the uk and think— make of it? it is tempting to sit it in the uk and think of it, - make of it? it is tempting to sit it in the uk and think of it, not - make of it? it is tempting to sit it in the uk and think of it, not my. in the uk and think of it, not my circus, and if that was a former la speaking in his defence and calling him a full... as i understand, stephen has also been found guilty of contempt i am not sure he is the test case things is and bryan can can correct me, but it is important that government officials are there for their people. they don't have a right to ask privacy. they make decisions. with public money for the public. they are accountable to the people and i think, i don't understand all of the legalities of this, it is not the system i am familiar with, this, it is not the system i am familiarwith, but this, it is not the system i am familiar with, but it seems to me that he seems to have forgotten that. �* , ., �* , that he seems to have forgotten that. �* ,~ 2 ., ., that. bryan, let's go to the wider issue, that. bryan, let's go to the wider issue. let's _ that. bryan, let's go to the wider issue, let's leave _ that. bryan, let's go to the wider issue, let's leave peter- that. bryan, let's go to the wider issue, let's leave peter navarro l that. bryan, let's go to the wider. issue, let's leave peter navarro and that appeal. donald trump's court cases, variously, where are we with them and what is happening in the court of us public opinion? i them and what is happening in the court of us public opinion?- court of us public opinion? i think the president _ court of us public opinion? i think the president has _ court of us public opinion? i think the president has three _ court of us public opinion? i think the president has three federal i the president has three federal cases. — the president has three federal cases, two federal cases actually, and a _ cases, two federal cases actually, and a two — cases, two federal cases actually, and a two state cases. just today he asked _ and a two state cases. just today he asked for— and a two state cases. just today he asked for the landing case to be moved — asked for the landing case to be moved over to the federal side, he has got _ moved over to the federal side, he has got some merit. i think every lawyer— has got some merit. i think every lawyer on— has got some merit. i think every lawyer on both sides believe there's some _ lawyer on both sides believe there's some merit— lawyer on both sides believe there's some merit to it, but we'll see if it is successful. if he moves over to the _ it is successful. if he moves over to the federal side, you have three federal— to the federal side, you have three federal cases and one state case. i think— federal cases and one state case. i think it _ federal cases and one state case. i think it is — federal cases and one state case. i think it is easier for president trump — think it is easier for president trump to— think it is easier for president trump to move into the federal side, the jury— trump to move into the federal side, the jury pool — trump to move into the federal side, the jury pool becomes exponentially more favourable to him. jury his peers _ more favourable to him. jury his peers is — more favourable to him. jury his peers is not _ more favourable to him. jury his peers is not a community in atlanta, it is broader— peers is not a community in atlanta, it is broader communities, but this is going _ it is broader communities, but this is going to — it is broader communities, but this is going to go on for a while, but something interesting