but now, this conviction, or this series of convictions now puts the bite back in the dog. because, when you are facing some jail time, suddenly people started to take your request, more seriously. now that people like congressman jim jordan of ohio, who himself, you recall, was roundly criticized for not, shall we say, prioritizing congressional subpoenas aimed at him, now he is in leadership. will we see the floodgates begin to open? and subpoenas about everything from the highly consequential, to the trivial, all now, having the weight of the threat of what disease convictions can bring now behind him. will it then mean greater transparency, more accountability on the issues that matter to you, or will it be about retaliation. joining me now to discuss, california congresswoman barbara lee running for the senate seat that will be left vacant when senator dianne feinstein retires next year. thank you so much for joining. i have to ask, because this has been on my mind all day long, thinking about this conviction. the subpoena, now, is back. it has some teeth again. but as you know, republicans have the house majority, and they have not been shy, to date, about talking about things that they intend to use against, perhaps, democrats. this is now an opportunity for some kind of -- maybe not -for-tat, but okay, subpoenas mean something ? we will use them. what is your thought? >> nice being with you. my thought on this, first of all, navarro and others have really chosen to side with the insurrectionist, and they are getting justice, at this point period secondly, we have to know, and recognize, that the maga extremist republicans are not doing their job for the american people. they are not delivering, they are not making life better for everyone, they are not addressing inflation or the cost of living, they are not addressing affordable healthcare or housing. so, they're not understanding what is taking place, and i believe and i said from day one, that donald trump is running a criminal enterprise out of the white house, and that is what these mega- extremists republicans can do what they have to or want to do based on their own agenda, but we have a system of justice in this country, that we are seeing play out, now, and of course, the wheels of justice are sometimes slow, but that is what is happening and what is important. >> you know who agrees with you? the fulton county da, fani willis, who has touched him and 18 other codefendants with counts under rico, the criminal enterprise statutes talking about what happened leading up to january 6, and of course, overturning or attending to overturn, the results in fto county, in georgia, that same da a scathing letter to your fellow person in congress, jim jordan, saying, quote, your job description, as a legislature, does not include criminal law enforcement, nor does it include supervising a specific criminal trial because you believe your goal is to collect partisan political objectives. people have been very critical of her, in donald trump on behalf of communities, issuing subpoenas and trying to have an investigation, does this open up a kind of pandora's box? this is now fair game and she might have to respond? >> what they are doing, jordan, and all these maga extremist republicans, they are trying to cover up what took place, quite frankly, and they are going to do whatever they are going to do, but what is important is to recognize that jordan and these republicans are trying to blur the lines in terms of our democracy,, in terms of our three branches of government, they are interfering, and activities, and complaints, that they don't have jurisdiction over, and so they are just trying to protect donald trump, they are a part of his clan, they are a part of his called, and in fact, the public's understanding this, more and more and more. i think we are seeing the system of justice working. >> the public is starting to weigh in more and mo, it shows that sleep quarters of americans say they are seriously concerned that president biden'age might affect his mental competence, his ability to serve out another full term, you are also vying to fill a seat in the senate now which will be left vacant, by someone under the spotlight for quite some time, i made health declines and some concerns, do you see the concern applicable to president biden? >> president biden, and the biden/harris administration, has delivered for the people, and i think that what is important is to look at the experience, and what has been done over the last few years, since the biden harris administers and has been in office. past the inflation reduction act, the transportation bill, the c.h.i.p.s. bill, creating 1 million good paying jobs, coming forward with areas that had not been even discussed as it relates to the climate crisis. so, we have to look at what the president has done, we have to evaluate what he has done and what he is going to do, and remember, experience counts. he has delivered to the american people, they will evaluate and grade him based on their lives, and how their lives are getting better, we have not completely addressed inflation, but we are moving in the direction, of people, and the cost of living becoming a heck of a lot better, not for all, but getting better, and so we have to keep on this course. >> i don't want to gloss over something you said, and it's something i hope the audience has not missed, because frankly, the nuance of it is becoming more and more apparent in political talking points on the other side of the aisle. you said the biden/harris administration. one of the things that has been set by at least one republican hopeful, governor nikki haley, former ambassador to the u.n. which is was taken as a crude and crass notion, that she thought somehow because of his age, president joe biden would not be able to survive his term, and that the statements now being made is that a vote for president biden is really a vote for vice president harris. you are from california, she was in the senate there, she was the attorney general there, you are quite familiar with her work, obviously. she has taken a lot of criticism about her position as the vice president, a lot of criticism about her trajectory becoming the president of the united states, having run before, unsuccessfully. why do you think that she is being targeted, in particular, as the talking point of what a vote for biden would mean? >> well, the biden/harris administration has done a phenomenal job delivering for the american people. vice president kamala harris is a woman of color. she is a woman, the first time that we have had a woman serving as vice president. often times, people don't know how to even deal with this. and it is really a shame, a disgrace. and so, she is doing her job, when, you know, the clinton administration was in, the clinton/gore administration, when the bush/cheney administration was there, we talk about the bush/cheney administrator and. we are talking about the biden/harris administration and the confidence they have made and what they will do in the future to make life better for everyone. >> being judged differently as a black woman with a platform? i have no idea what you're talking about congresswoman. is that something i should be familiar with in some way shape or form? i hope you realize i am winking and nodding at you right now. thank you so much for joining us this evening. >> nice being with you, thank you. i want to bring in david schon, everyone. steve bannon's lawyer, and then president trump's defense lawyer . remember, in his second impeachment trial, david, it is good to see you tonight. thank you for joining me. i have to ask you about what i have been thinking about all day. i know the news has been covering the fact that there was this guilty verdict about navarro being in contempt of congress, i am thinking about the future, of course, what this will mean for congress, for subpoena power, and what it means for a host of issues. you are probably thinking about it, because your client, steve bannon, have similar charges against him, and convictions, he is now appealing. when you heard about navarro and this guilty verdict, what went through your head? >> his eviction was a foregone conclusion once the judge ruled on the issues of law in the case similarly to the rulings in bannon's case, although, a major difference in navarro's case is that the judge found mr. navarro never really proved that executive privilege has been invoked and in our case there was no question about that. it was invoked by the president's lawyer, justin clark, and then just before the trial president trump confirmed he had invoked executive privilege which was admitted to the jury. you are right, there are many similar issues. in steve bannon's case, one thing that must be pointed out, is maybe this gives mr. navarro some hope, the judge in steve bannon's case who ruled against him on the legal issues also let him out on bail and made a specific finding i have never seen before in this case, the trial judge found it is likely that the bannon conviction would be reversed, that the legal issues he ruled on, while his hands were bound by the court of appeals decision, could not comport with the modern definition of willfully, or the traditional devilish definition of willfully. you think there is a problem with the law and the conviction will be reversed. >> when you look at that issue, of course, all of these matters on appeal, it is no doubt that navarro's case will also be appealed. he thinks, all the way to the supreme court. is your interpretation of executive privilege different than what navarro was talking about? navarro claimed that trump instructed him to invoke the privilege. the judge found there was no evidence of that. it is a different argument, but, the novelty of what you are describing, remind me, what do you mean that there is something likely to be appealed? is it the fact that there was contempt of congress? because, he did not comply with a congressional subpoena. what would be the likelihood of being overturned? >> there are a number of extraordinary constitutional issues i think the big want to focus on is the definition of willfully. this statute requires that you prove the defendant willfully defaulted on the subpoena. however, this statute is unique in the way the dc circuit has construed it in the 1961 case, they said it is not relevant what your reason is for not showing up, unless it's an accident or mistake it doesn't matterer. if you relied on executive privilege or in this case, relied not only on executive privilege but his lawyer gave testimony in this case through affidavit declarations, he instructed bannon it was not his privilege to wave, he was not permitted as a matter of law to testify or to comply with a subpoena anyway, but it was not his choice, bannon hired the lawyer relied on the lawyer. the judge said, i understand that but you cannot rely on advice of counsel, because that is used to knock out whether it was willfully. the law does not care whether it was willful or not. you had a subpoena, you did not comply, therefore, you are guilty. then, the judge says, i think this case was wrongly decided. that is not what we mean. the supreme court says in 2015, 2019, 2022, that willfully means an attempt to do something the law forbids. you must have a guilty conscience of mind. bannon understood here, the only way to comply with the law was not to comply with the subpoena, and he said to the committee, let's go to court. if a judge orders me to comply, i will comply. sorry, i cut you off. >> no no, i want to have the conversation. i'm glad to hearar your insight you are talking about bannon, i do want to distinguish what is happening with navarro. a lot of the arguments you are raising in support of bannon, some will be raised by count counsel for navarro, but there is the distinction between what trump has said and what courts have ruled. for the layman, listening, the big majority of the population, when you hear willful, you think, well, you were told to do something, did you choose to not do it or what? and if you didn't have the evidence to support that you were instructed, that you had the privilege behind you on some reasonable basis and you did not comply, is that not willful enough? that will be a hurdle for navarro. he also spoke about that on the courthouse steps. but taking a step back, david, you think about the big picture for all of this, right? some of the people now who will be using the congressional subpoena power, themselves questioned the validity of congressional subpoenas, and had themselves undermined the gravitas assigned to it. is that going to impact, do you think, the ability of future people to be subpoenaed and cited? >> i think you have put your finger on an important issue. not surprisingly, that i think a lot of people ought to be asking. maybe because you are asking it, they will. i think that is right. we have this retaliation. nobody is tougher than representatively, and she spoke about this a few minutes ago. i think that is right. on the other hand, you know, you have a movement in congress that has some magnitude. do you remember when the magnitude -- january 6th committee was convened, mccarthy and these others were violating protocol, they had no ranking member but they convened a group called blag that endorsed what happened and filed an amicus brief that the rules were followed. i suspect that mccarthy in the majority, they filed a minority brief back then will say we will reconvene and say no, the committee wasn't popular epperly convened. there was no ranking minority member, they violated this rule and that rule, i thought we would see that kind of retaliation. they haven't yet, but if he meant what he said, he has to do that now. i don't know where it ends. >> you might have just given them some bright ideas. if only, they had something to talk about besides subpoenas. if only there was a government shutdown looming at the end of the month. i guess that is a different matter for congress entirely. nice to talk to you. >> thanks very much. coming up next, everyone, there is breaking news. what is rudy giuliani tonight i to try to pay his legal bills, and what does it have to do nig with the former president named donald trump? ght? am i? ya! the queen sleep number c2 smart bed is now only $999. plus free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now only at sleep number. (female announcer) attention! medicare has expanded dexcom coverage -for people with diabetes. -if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom g7 is the single most important thing you can do. it eliminates painful fingersticks, helps lower a1c, and is covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. my a1c was stuck. (female announcer) dexcom g7 sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful fingersticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady. and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. after using the dexcom g7, my a1c has never been lower. i lead line dancing three times a week, and i'm just living a great life now. (woman) it's so easy to use. dexcom g7 has given me confidence and control that everything i need is right there on my phone. (female announcer) now, millions more are covered by medicare. take advantage of the expanded coverage by calling today. breaking news tonight, everyone, donald trump is hosting a fundraiser for rudy giuliani. real and just how deep in debt to the one-time trump attorney is, now, here to discuss, is contributing writer for politico, and sarah matthews, trumps white house deputy press secretary. the to see both of you, today. let me begin here with the headline, trump is headlining an event, i think it cost about $100,000 per plate, but he is $1 million in debt. this is significant that he is even headlining it, right? and, second, how is he supposed to climb out of this particular debt? >> he is facing so many issues, rudy, in terms of these cases. you look at the georgia case where he has also been indicted, you look at the doj case, they are also pursuing, and then he also has the defamation case, where ruby freeman and shay moss, the election workers in georgia have won that case, and it has not yet been determined i believe what he will have to pay for that defamation case, but, he is facing a lot of financial burden, here. and, i think that trump knows that rudy giuliani is a central figure in this and it he were to flip it would be very harmful for him. so, he is trying to keep rudy giuliani in his good graces, keep him on his side, saying what he wants him to say, and he does that by helping him pay my financial fees for these legal burdens he is facing. >> what do they say, keep your friends close and enemies closer? it is getting less attractive, perhaps, and enticing to be an ally for trump in these matters, first, but also, there are now codefendants in the case where we are seeing a bit of a shift. if you think about the accountability we are looking at, taking a step back, i will put up a list for people to get an idet what we are lkg about here. this is the fallout, everyone. you have theseeoe being named, you have conviction, i would note enrica terrio is one, 22 years prison. redo giuliani, as you mentioned, the 707 80 million dollars that foxes had to pay. are you starting to see, does this tell you that he is having an easier left, now, as the cases go on? these are no longer test cases really come in the same way, they might be proof of concept. >> yes, i think all these things represent positive steps towards accountability under the law. surrounding, obviously, the events of the 2020 election and efforts to overturn the election. the other thing that we know, as lawyers, is that these things take a lot of time, and they can travel very strange paths. it is important, i think, to put these things in context, right? navarro and bannon prosecutions, benin is still out on bail pending appeal. navarro may well find himself in the same position. both of them are hoping that trump will get re-elected and potentially pardoned them. that is very much in the realm of possibility. giuliani is liable for civil damages, but that is not a criminal case. criminal cases are still going on. and you know, how much giuliani may have to pay those people may remain to be seen. so, this is all very much a story ongoing, and probably will be going on for years. but, these are definitely positive steps. >> speaking of navarro, sarah, his role as a white house adviser, obviously, when you think about the role he played, take us behind the scenes a little bit, was he an omnipresent figure? was he around a great deal? did he really have the ear of the president, to think that he would have that executive glitch benefit, and get the president to support him here? >> yeah, peter navarro's title at the white house was that he was the trade adviser. but, honestly, he stuck his nose in just about anything he could. he had a strong hand in our coded response. he also had a strong hand in trying to overturn the 2020 election results. so, not necessarily a part of his job description, but he definitely tried to influence other matters outside of that. >> he was welcome to do that as well? >> i don't know if he was always necessarily welcome, but he was known to argenta meetings and make himself a presence in these things and try to be a part of the discussion. he was someone who was a long time loyalist and supporter of trump, he was a diehard maga person, and he was with trump from the beginning, and obviously, is still with him to this day. i think it is a little interesting, to me, that he cho