MSNBC’s Ari Melber distorts legal challenge to 2020 election as a ‘coup’ in wild clash with Peter Navarro

CHECK OUT and for holiday gifts and awesome snarky swag!


Former Trump administration official Peter Navarro was forced to fact-check a so-called “journalist” Tuesday when the so-called “journalist,” a contributor for MSNBC no less, completely distorted the definition of a coup.

During an appearance on host Ari Melber’s daily MSNBC program, Navarro was pressed about the 2020 presidential election, which he continues to insist was stolen.

Melber specifically drew his attention to a Jan. 6th clip of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon talking about a so-called “Green Bay sweep” plan to keep former President Donald Trump in office after the 2020 presidential election.

“What was the plan, and who was in on it besides you Bannon and Trump?” he asked.

Navarro initially responded by justifying the “sweep.”

“I went over tens of thousands of pages of documents and proved that the election was in all likelihood stolen through fraud and election irregularities,” he said.

“That’s false. That’s false,” Melber replied.

“You can say that’s false. That’s fine,” Navarro shot back.

This continued for awhile longer til Melber returned the focus of the discussion to his original question: “What was the plan itself, and who was in on it?”

With the justification out of the way, Navarro this time detailed the plan, which it turns out was a constitutionally valid, six-pronged plan to simply challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“The plan was simply this: We had over 100 congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill ready to implement the sweep. The sweep was simply that. We were gonna challenge the results of the election in the six battleground states. They were Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada,” he said.

“And basically these were the places where we believed that if the votes were sent back those battleground 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.”

Notice how he said nothing about forcing a change in votes. Instead the plan he described centered on trying to convince the relevant authorities to “look[] at” the votes again, in the hopes that they’d find enough evidence to convince state legislators to decertify the election.

“That would throw the election to the House of Representatives. And I would say to you here, Ari, that all of this, again, was in the lanes, legally. It was prescribed by the Constitution. There is a provision to go – rather than through the Electoral College – to the House of Representatives,” Navarro continued.

“And all this required was peace and calm on Capitol Hill, and at 1 pm., Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz and [Paul] Gosar, a representative started the Green Bay Sweep beautifully, challenging the results of Arizona.”

In other words, the “sweep” was foiled by the Jan. 6th rioters, whose violent actions interrupted what had thus far been a completely valid process. But this point flew over Melber’s head.

“Do you realize you are describing a coup?” the host said in response to Navarro’s explanation.

Navarro rightly responded in a fact-check, “No. I totally reject many of your premises there.”

And he was correct. Cambridge Dictionary defines a coup as “a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army.”

There was nothing illegal or violent about challenging the results of the 2020 election via constitutionally available means. And there would have been nothing illegal or violent had the relevant authorities indeed found enough examples of fraud to convince state legislators to decertify the 2020 presidential elecetion.

Moreover, if there was anything illegal about challenging election results, a host of Democrats would be in prison right now:

Later during the discussion, Navarro rightly noted that the legal challenges that were ultimately made were “rejected on process, not fact.”

Both in late 2020 and early 2021, a number of courts, including the Supreme Court, refused to review any of the alleged evidence.

“All we wanted was for them to look at what I found. Look, the difference between me and everyone else in the debate is I did the homework. I’m the guy who had thousands of pages of documents, did the analysis,” he said.

“I went in with an idea trying to figure out what happened, and what happened was a very elaborate thing. If you look at the Molly Ball cover story, if you read that, they admit they stole it. Come on, Ari!”

The Molly Ball piece was the stunning report in Time magazine that described the shady actions that Democrats and their allies in media and big tech had taken to effectively subvert the 2020 election.

The piece spoke of a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes” involving a “shadow campaign” formed to “oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.” It was spearheaded by a “cabal of powerful people” working together to “control the flow of information.”

In other words, Democrats worked with their allies to silence dissenting ideas and reports, including otherwise legitimate, factually accurate reports on the wrongdoings of then-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden’s crack-smoking son, Hunter.

Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles