Even before a mob of pro-Trump extremists stormed the United States Capitol in a deadly failed insurrection, January 6 of last year was to be a monumental day. For those who didn't fall for Trump's conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, it marked the end of a long, bitter campaign and increasingly unhinged lame duck period. The newly-sworn in 117th Congress, led by then-Vice President Mike Pence, would convene for a joint congressional session to count the certified electoral votes and nationally acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden's victory. The uninterrupted American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power would remain unblemished.

For Trump and his allies, it was the final opportunity to steal the presidency.

After court cases, audits, and pressure on election officials failed to secure Trump a second term, the administration hatched a new plan. Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, reportedly led Republicans in a number of swing states to baselessly declare themselves electors and send forged electoral certificates for Trump to the National Archives. As Trump lawyer John Eastman laid out in an infamous memo, Pence could then claim there were dueling slates of electors and therefore, those states' votes would be thrown out and new electors appointed by their GOP-controlled state legislatures who would appoint pro-Trump electors.

Thankfully, Pence—despite a public pressure campaign by Trump—didn't comply with the deranged plot. After news of his refusal broke, pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol and called for Pence's execution.

In the year since, Trump's scheme has led Congress to launch bipartisan efforts clarifying the Electoral Count Act, erasing any room for doubt that the Vice President cannot unilaterally decide the results of a presidential election.

But these reform efforts have now led Trump to lie that he was right all along. He continues to insist the Vice President can singularly cancel millions of votes, writing in a statement this past week:

"Mike Pence said he had no authority other than to send the votes forward to the Old Crow, Mitch McConnell. If so, why are the Dems and RINOs fighting so hard to make it impossible for a VP to do so in the future?"

So the obvious question is, if Trump and his allies think a Vice President can declare the winner, would they acquiesce to current Vice President Kamala Harris declaring a Biden victory after the 2024 election, even if the Democrats lose?

Trump's former trade advisor Peter Navarro, who has admitted to helping orchestrate the electoral scheme, was the unlucky Trump sycophant tasked with answering that question in a recent interview with MSNBC's Ari Melber.

Watch below.

When asked if the call would ultimately belong to Vice President Harris, regardless of the results, Navarro responded:

"See, you misconstrue the whole Green Bay Sweep plan. It's not for the Vice President to determine who wins, okay? The only thing that Pence had the authority to do is go back to the states and let the states look at the votes. It's the states in our Constitution who have the right to decide who won an election in the states."

The states had decided. Multiple times. First on election day, then again after audits of a substantial portion of those ballots, then again when the legitimate electors cast and certified their electoral ballots.

But under Navarro's plan, the electoral votes would be sent back to swing states that Trump lost but which had Republican-controlled legislatures. The state legislatures would steal the election by appointing pro-Trump electors, despite the will of the state's voters.

Melber continued to press Navarro on this plot, asking:

"Under your contention, Vice President Harris could take any states that her side lost and selectively send those back. That's your current contention?"

Navarro continued to stammer, but refused to deliver a yes or no answer.

The exchange got social media users talking.

People think they knew Navarro's real answer.

Oof.