There have been a number of cases just in the last few years that have fleshed this out and made clear that in this country

We don't send anyone to prison if they believed that they were doing something that complied with the law.

In other words, what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas said in 2019, where Congress wants

to require proof that a criminal defendant knew his conduct was illegal, it specifies that the violation must be willful.

In the context of this statute, a misdemeanor contempt of Congress different from every single other statute in our

jurisprudence, the court found that willful, in 1961, the court found that

willful, willfully makes the fault, just means did you get a subpoena and did you comply with it.

That's not what willful means as a matter of law in the criminal context.

And here the case is complicated because former president Trump invoked executive privilege

and reaffirmed that before the trial started that he had invoked executive privilege.

This case raises a dynamic separation of powers issue. We know from years and decades of case law

that the president and a former president has the authority to invoke

executive privilege. It's his prerogative, his or her prerogative, one day may be her

prerogative, but it's his prerogative to invoke and it's presumptively valid when invoked.

It's not for Congress to determine whether it was an appropriate

invocation or otherwise and Congress cannot be the arbiter of how to respond to that.

Okay, thanks. I've got great lawyers and we're going to go all the way the Supreme

Court, if you have to,

but I want to say something specifically about the Justice Department.

Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, the entire Justice Department.

They're not going to shut up Trump, they're not going to shut up Navarro, they're not going to shut abandon and they they're not going to shut up Bannin and they're certainly not

going to shut up MAGA. If you look right here, you're reporters, in the two and a half

...