jeffrey clarke refusing to answer questions for 90 minutes. we want to welcome our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room". >> we're standing by a house infrastructure vote promised by house speaker nancy pelosi tonight after weeks and weeks of false starts and infighting. final passage of the bipartisan bill would be a huge and hard-fought victory for president biden. but there is still uncertainty hanging over the vote and there is more work to do on the other -- the broader piece of the biden agenda. our senior white house correspondent phil mattingly and our congressional correspondent, jessica dean, are working this break historic for us. jessica, things have been moving very fast. give us the very latest on speaker pelosi's plan to actually hold an infrastructure vote tonight, despite serious objections from progressives in her own party. >> reporter: that's exactly right, wolf. this was supposed to be the day when there was going to be a vote both on the infrastructure bil

it appears jeffrey clark's time is up on wednesday. the committee plans to vote on wednesday on whether or not to recommend a committee referral tore congress. katie is an msnbc contributor. jeffrey clark is someone no one has really heard about before. to the extent there was a mastermind of a clown car dumpster fire insurrection attempt, he was it. he's important for them to hear from. what happens now? >> sure, so they're going to vote to hold him in contempt and it will go to the justice department. it's very likely the justice department will look at the case, and much like in the situation with steve bannon, they will choose to charge him with contempt. they'll take him to the grand jury, and if the grand jury indicts, he'll be charged. there is really no reason not to. the justice department has had former officials who worked with jeff clark already testify before the committees, both the senate and the house, all the things they would want to talk to him about. almost all of them are covered already by former officials and it'

former trump doj official, jeffrey clark. committee says he refuses to answer questions about the attempts to use the doj to push the big lie. according to a senate judiciary reported, clark was instrumental in that effort. a contemporary referral would make him the second person after steve bannon to potentially face criminal charges for defying congressional investigators. one member of the house leadership says that the committee has no choice but to move against witnesses who themselves refused to cooperate. >> we have to

they got jeffrey clark in room today, which they haven't been able to do with others. the urgency of this committee cranked up a lot after the election this week, a double-digit turn toward republicans for the 2020 election. the reason is, if the midterm landscaped looks anything like it did this week, rep will take control of the house. one of the first things they're likely to to do is shut down this investigation, so they functionally have a year to get this done, before they face a serious risk of rpg dissolving this investigation. >> sahil kapur, thank you. betsy woodson-swann, thank you. >>> another matter, the debate ready to get going in the house on the build back better act, the $1.75 trillion climbed and social spending bill. as we told you, you saw it break, live on the air, you watched the sausage go ahead made. nancy pelosi is moving ahead. congressman allred told us it is his understanding that those moderates you now on board. president biden pointed to the better than expected jobs report as a reason to get this done, as a reason to pass these bills, a

jeffrey clark showed up before the select committee and refused to answer questions. how important is it for the committee to try and hold him accountable with contempt? >> wolf, i think it is incredibly important that the committee pursue every avenue to hold these witnesses accountable. each time, they spend a very powerful message to other witnesses also currently under subpoena. we know there are many witnesses who have received subpoenas. we saw several come out last week to a couple notable witnesses. they have to move forward with the referrals if they have any hope of others considering this seriously and deciding to cooperate. >> we are waiting to see what steps the committee will take on former white house chief of staff mark meadows. how complicated could it be to pursue contempt knowing meadows may have some legitimate claim of executive privilege, serving as white house chief of staff at the time? >> there is no question a potential prosecution against mark meadows would be more difficult or complicated than the pending prosecution of steve bannon and eve

want to get your take on jeffrey clark as whitney was laying out for us. what do you think the chances are we see some real movement there and what are you anticipating? >> so it is really interesting because jeffrey clark came in to testify, which normally would cut against bringing charges against him, because he complied. now, look, it is pretty clear that he wasn't particularly helpful when he showed up. he was there for about an hour and left after not answering many questions. so i think they could certainly proceed on moving forward with charges on him. it will be interesting to see, number one, what they document on wednesday after their hearing they'll be meeting to talk about this and if they put out a report saying how unhelpful was jeffrey clark. it is quite significant that the senior justice department official was asked to come in and seemed to really not be helpful here. >> goodness. and big hard questions to be answered. elliott williams, thanks so much. >>> up next, republican congresswoman lauren boebert doubling down on her anti-muslim

welcome back, walk us through jeffrey clark's role in all of this. how significant of a witness is he in this investigation? what exactly happened? because he showed up, but he didn't answer any questions. >> reporter: that's right, jeffrey clark showed up yesterday for a deposition we think at o'neal office building and he was there to answer questions posed by the select committee. we understand that he at least showed up so as not to immediately face the same fate as steve bannon who was held in contempt for not showing up at all, and in that sense was trying to give it the gesture of, you know, cooperation in some sense. but you know, jeffrey clark was this guy at the trump doj who was instrumental in helping or trying to advance trump's effort to subvert the election. you know, he was the one who kind of co-oped the acting attorney general and the doj to subvert the election and pressure states and lawmakers to return to trump to office. >> look, yeah, he showed up, but it's my understanding he brought a 12-page letter from his attorney, so basi

jeffrey clark worked for the executive branch but quite a bit removed in the white house. so merrick garland will have a decision here. it is one thing to charge someone in the executive branch. there is an interesting distinction there, perhaps. >> do you think merrick garland will move forward very quickly? >> i think he has to. i think he already has set the sort of playbook by the way he went about the bannon case. so i would look for a decision within a couple of weeks at most. >> eli honig and carrie cordero, thank you. i'll be back here tomorrow at 1:00. the news continues right now with alisyn and victor. >>> hello, i'm victor blackwell, good to be with you. >> and i'm alisyn camerota. the world is waiting for answers about omicron. we know very little other than it was detected in south africa. it is a highly mutated variant that appears to spread easily and could have some vaccine resistance. but scientists say it will be a few more weeks before there is data to confirm that. >> this variant is a cause for concern, not a cause for panic. and we'll fight this vari

this next time, it's going to be jeffrey clark. he is the justice department official who, with trump reportedly cooked up a plan to try and use the power of the justice department to block the election result from being counted. on top of the charges, already, pending for bending and the charges it looks like are about to be reprimanded for jeffrey clark. congressman adam schiff, is part of the investigation said this week that members will, also this week, consider a criminal contempt referral for trump white house chief of staff, mark meadows. who, like jeffrey clark and steve bannon has refused to cooperate with the investigation. joining us now is pete, democratic of california, he's a member of the january six investigation. congressman, a pleasure to have you here, thanks for making time. >> thanks for having me. >> so we've got these oral arguments at the d.c. circuit court, how important are president trump's white house records to the investigation, there is no way to know how the courts are going to handle this from here

what do you think this select committee -- why are they going after jeffrey clark? we know officials who worked with him at the doj like jeffrey rosen have already been talking to the committee. so what are they after here, john? >> well, they do know a good bit about what he did and apparently why he did it. he expressed himself in a letter very clearly as to how he wanted the states to impose their own will on electors. it was an outrageous plan that he tried to get his superiors at the -- or colleagues, i should say really, at the department of justice to sign on to. i think because he dealt directly with the white house, the committee would like to fill that gap and know exactly what he was doing and with whom at the white house and get that into the picture. we don't have that information now, and he's probably the only person that can really supply it. >> john harwood, members of the select committee are telling cnn that they'll likely make a decision this week on what to do about mark meadows. what are you hearing about this? he played a key role leading up t

what do you think the select committee is going -- why are they going after jeffrey clark? we know officials who worked with him at the doj like jeffrey rosen have already been talking to the committee. so what are they after here, john? >> well, they do know a good bit about what he did and apparently why he did it. he expressed himself in a letter very clearly as to how he wanted the states to impose their own will on electors. it was an outrageous plan that he tried to get his superiors or colleagues really at the department of justice to sign on to. i think what because he dealt directly with the white house the committee would like to fill that gap and know exactly what he was doing and with whom at the white house and get that into the picture. we don't have that information now and he's probably the only person that can really supply it. >> john harwood, members of the select committee are telling cnn they'll likely make a decision this week on what to do about mark meadows. what are you hearing about this? he played a key role leading up to the january 6th but his s

jeffrey clark has denied he plotted to oust the attorney general. he wouldn't sit down for a voluntary interview, but he was subpoenaed by the house investigating committee. so today clark appeared before the committee, and appeared before the panel for less than two hours. his attorney provided a letter saying mr. clark will abide by a future judicial decision, but for now he must decline to testify. clark's complete failure to cooperate today is unacceptable. we need the information that he is withholding and we are willing to take strong measures to hold him to his obligation. we have a national correspondent of politico who has been reporting on his deposition and she joins me now. betsy, do you have any sense of how the deposition itself went after the letter? >> that's right, the deposition clearly went quite badly. clark was in that room with his lawyer for no longer than 90 minutes. we know clark and his lawyer delivered this letter that i obtained to members of the committee and we can say with a high degree of confidence that committee inv

jeffrey clark. he refuses to answer questioning about the attempts to use the doj to push the big lie. a senate judiciary report, clark was instrumental in that effort. a contempt referral would make him the second person after steve bannon to potentially face criminal charges for defying congressional investigators. one member of the house leadership says the committee has no choice but to move against witnesses. who themselves refuse to cooperate. >> you have to use every tool we can to get to the truth. there has to be a consequence. to the failure to follow the law. >> the committee has yet to announce action against former trump chief of staff. for that matter. mark meadows who failed to comply. however one of the two republicans serving on the panel predicts he may not have to wait long to find out where the members stand. >> i expect there is going to be movement particularly on mark meadows that we'll know about shortly. in the next day or two. or so. this committee is going to get to answer

i don't know that it's not going to happen in jeffrey clark's case either. i think steve bannon played it in a way that almost compelled the justice department, upon getting the referral, to bring the criminal charge. >> if there is suspicion of criminal activity by steve bannon, why can the fbi not just seize his email and see if there are any records? i guess that's the question i have because if they don't think that there's actually -- if there's possible criminal activity, then what is this all for? >> we don't know what documents they have. so, yeah, the documents that the committee is seeking from steve bannon are things that steve bannon has in his possession, presumably, electronic and otherwise. but the committee has the power, as i understand it, to subpoena third parties and that includes documents relating to email records. >> but i'm talking about -- not the committee but the fbi. >> yeah, no, sure. the fbi certainly -- i don't know what the fbi is doing in that regard. the fbi is seeking and has sought and received thousands and thousands of p

you bring up jeffrey clark and mark meadows. the committee will meet tomorrow. and when we saw that that was the advisory sent out, we thought it was going to be about mark meadows. because it was clear that because he didn't appear for his deposition, they are actively talking about what they will do in terms of a consequence for that. but we also know that jeffrey clark did appear for his deposition, but didn't answer any of the questions posed to him. so a different way of not cooperating with the committee. it is clear that they want to show that there are consequences to not cooperating but you're right, it is not necessarily showing that the people who are at the top of this food chain are going to be a littling any differently. both mark meadows and jeffrey clark are saying that these are executive privilege conversations and that is why all of this will end up mired in the courts which is not what the committee wants because need to move as quickly as possible. >> this has just been an advertisement for steve bannon's radio show. pete, i want your read o

donald trump did not take a position that jeffrey clark couldn't testify. to the extent that donald trump wants to argue that there's executive privilege, the weakest privilege there is, applies against a legitimate congressional inquiry, empowered by the constitution to do these kinds of hearings, it would at minimum require that donald trump himself to say, i don't want you to talk, and he didn't. in fact, said, i'm going to let justice department officials talk. >> he did. yeah. so, just quickly, maya, tell me the difference between clark and steve bannon. we know steve bannon obviously held in criminal contempt. that process now still ongoing. clark, obviously, different, because he actually did show up. >> clark showed up, but he refused to answer questions. so, congress is within its power to also ask the u.s. attorney for d.c. to also prosecute mr. clark. the only real difference is that mr. clark can say, well, i didn't work for the government. bannon couldn't even say that in terms of the questions he was going to be asked. he wasn't even a governm

but we also learned that one of those people, former trump department of justice official, jeffrey clark, he's not cooperating. and that could be a problem from the committee moving forward. i want to go straight to sahil kapur in washington, also with us. former u.s. attorney, harry litman. sahil, when can we expect these subpoenas and more importantly, any members of congress expected to get them? >> stephanie, the subpoenas are expected to drop today and tomorrow. that's according to the chairman of the committee, bennie thompson, who i spoke to on friday night. in terms of members of congress, it is unclear that they will be part of this round of subpoena. there was a suggestion that they weren't quite there yet. but we can safely say that persons of interest to this committee include members of congress who spoke at that so-called stop the steal rally that led directly to the attack on the capitol, as well as members of congress, who have spoken privately or who spoke privately to former president trump that day. those individuals relate directly to the mandate of this committee. we

official jeffrey clark. that could make him the second person after steve bannon to potentially face criminal charge force defying a congressional subpoena. committee members also say they expect to take up the same vote this week for former trump white house chief of staff mr. mark meadows. joining our conversation betsy woodruff swan, and miles and claire are still around. betsy, this would be to referrals for contempt of congress this week, jeffrey clark and mark meadows. >> we haven't heard confirmation from the official committee spokesperson about what the plans for the next couple days regarding meadows are. we know for sure clark is teed up to be referred over to the justice department for prosecution. i will believe the meadows referral will happen when it happens 678 sometimes different members have said things that the time line that the committee is operating under that haven't always proven to be totally accurate. of course it is possible we will get news about med knows the next day or so. agai

former trump doj official jeffrey clark under fire. clark delivered a 12-page letter from his attorney defending his refusal to testify on the grounds of executive and attorney/client privilege relating to former president trump. shortly after, the panel's chairman rejected his claim staying committee needs the information he's withholding and will, quote, take strong measures to hold him accountable to meet his obligation. thompson added clark has a short time to cooperate fully. joining me now is betsy woodruff swan. i want to read some of your reporting on jeffrey clark. clark's letter is unusual and surprising to make the case that clark cannot testify to the january 6th committee cites a separate letter in which trump's lawyer specifically said the former president would not try to block clark's congressional testimony. despite trump's effort to assert privilege to bar his white house records, a move that a federal judge seemed highly inclined to reject, he has not done so in clark's case. is clark just doing this, betsy, using th

next time it will be jeffrey clark. he's the justice department official who with trump reportedly cooked up a plan to try to use the powers of the justice department to block the election results from being counted. on top of the charges already pending for bannon and the charges it looks like that aren to be recommended for mr. clark, adam schiff said they'll consider a criminal contempt referral for former white house chief of staff mark meadows who has also refused to cooperate with the investigation. joining us now congressman aguilar. appreciate you making time. >> thanks for having me. >> how important are trump's white house records important to the investigation? there's no-noing how the courts are going to handle this, particularly if it goes to the supreme court. would it be a critical factor for your investigation if ultimately you weren't able to get these trump white house records? we've said all along we want to tell the full and complete story, and in order to do that we're going to need documents and in

privilege with respect to jeffrey clark. and jeffrey clark's superiors up to and including the acting attorney general jeffrey rosen did not invoke privilege, have testified before this very committee. so it's a stalling tactic because he and the others know that there's another election in about 12 months and that election could go badly for the democrats and on the day after the new house is sworn in this whole investigation gets shut down. so they know there's a clock and they're trying to run out the clock. >> let's talk more about steve bannon, john. because preet brought him up. it's been two weeks since the house referred steve bannon to the doj for criminal complaint after ignoring the select committee subpoena. so what is attorney general garland doing? why haven't we heard his decision yet on what he's going to do about this? >> well, the only thing i can think of, don, is they may be waiting to hear what the judge's ruling is on trump's effort to invoke executive privilege. you know, that wouldn't be a very good r

>> yeah, jeffrey clark's another attorney who has not covered himself in glory. the question of how long is really now up to the january 6th committee and congress. jeffrey clark went in there and raised completely bogus exceptions. he refused to answer questions. he said executive privilege, even though donald trump has already said in writing i am not invoking executive trij. clark tried to claim attorney/client privilege. they don't represent the president, they represent the m american people. hold him in contempt, have the whole house hold him in contempt and send it over to the justice department where it will be up to merrick garland to decide whether to bring criminal charges. >> they were so sure of what they were doing at the time and they have absolute confidence in all their arguments. i don't understand why they wouldn't want to go up to congress and give us the evidence, show us the proof. let me turn to something else, the case of 18-year-old kyle rittenhouse. he's on trial for killing two people and wounding another during riots in kenosha, wiscon

there is another trump ally jeffrey clark who has refused to comply with the subpoena, he is a justice department lawyer and he has cited attorney client privilege is, and he did show up in person and gave them a letter. there are three main people here that have refused to comply while 150 have been talking to the committee. >> luke broad water has been covering, this thank you very much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> daniel goldman served as majority counsel in donald trump's first impeachment, he was assisting the u.s. attorney of new york and he joins me now. dan, how big a deal is this and what happens next? >> well it's a great deal, because rarely as you pointed out has something like this charged, this is a very influential person in trump world as you just heard from some of those rantings in his podcast today. it is a big deal, in many ways it is a big deal because merrick garland is drawing the line in the sand saying i won't be so afraid of partisan political brush back or blow back, i am going to reinstate the rule of law and that is what was missing in the trump a

former trump doj official, jeffrey clark. committee says he refuses to answer questions about the attempts to use the doj to push the big lie. according to a senate judiciary reported, clark was instrumental in that effort. a contemporary referral would make him the second person after steve bannon to potentially face criminal charges for defying congressional investigators. one member of the house leadership says that the committee has no choice but to move against witnesses who themselves refused to cooperate. >> we have to use every tool we can to get to the truth, there has to be a consequence. a failure to follow the law. >> the committee has yet to announce any action against former chief of staff, former member of congress for that member, mark meadows. who has also failed to comply. however, one of the two republican services for dixie may not have to wait long to find out where these members then. >> i expect that there's going to be movement particularly that we're going to know about shortly in the next day or so t

take jeffrey clark. the former senior doj official to validate the twice impeached ex-president's lies about the election results. making him someone who congressional investigators want to hear from. he did show up for his scheduled deposition before the house select committee but did not offer up helpful information. the panel says he refused to answer questions during the deposition. instead, clark delivered a letter from his attorney defending his refusal to testify citing potential executive privilege. the select committee is threatening to take strong measures against clark, his shaky defense is working for now. it prevented him from being held being accountable. almost none of the ex-president's cronies have been dealing with the consequences. some republicans who did not bow to the ex-president's pressure campaign. you probably forgot this chapter because 96,000 other things have happened since. before january 6th, georgia and other key swing states were in the middle of certifying the election r

jeffrey clark has taken a ludicrous position on privilege. the house committee will have to decide what steps they are willing to take to enforce it and they are waiting on doj on a decision of whether or not bannon will be prosecuted. the clark case is of a different character. what they have to do is negotiate his privilege and insist that he testify. >> when you call this argument -- is there anyone that believes it is valid or is it all just about slowing down the process? >> it is really about delay. for one thing, former president trump hasn't asserted the privilege here and in fact he permitted the acting attorney general, jeff rosen, who would have been mr. clark's boss to testify. it is really tough to maintain that there is any sort of a privilege. clark talked about attorney client privilege but he wasn't president trump's lawyer or alone in the room giving legal advice. so clark really gives every appearance of someone that just does not want to talk to the committee and forces us to contemplate the question what is it he is tryin

jeffrey clark is his name. he not only pushed election fraud theories that were completely untrue. a senate judiciary committee report by democrats says that clark was part of trump's attempt to use the justice department's power to unconstitutionally force states to trash already certified election results. cnn's ryan nobles reports, clark today refused to answer any questions. >> reporter: for weeks the january 6th select committee has been trying to talk to this man. >> good morning. i'm jeff clark. the head of the civil division. >> reporter: jeffrey clark, a former trump-era department of justice official was seen in this exclusive video friday morning entering a house office building to answer questions from the committee. the meeting did not last long. committee chairman benny thompson said clark did not answer any questions. >> my understanding is he did not cooperate. and we'll look forward after our meeting this afternoon as to the next steps. i have, as chair, the ability to rule on some of the issues that were raised. >> reporter: one of those steps could be a criminal

is that what happened today with jeffrey clark, and why is he so significant? >> he's significant, alisyn, because he was the one inside pushing for false information, pushing to tell georgia that they didn't have to certify and really trying to orchestrate a coup on the part of the justice department to help donald trump steal the president and remain in power. it sounds like he's experting executive privilege. the former president trump decided not to exert executive privilege. it does sound like that is what clark is claiming. he can't be claiming attorney/client privilege, he as part of doj is not the president's lawyer for the purposes. it sounds like he's purposing the executive privilege claim. many others have been pushing and trying to not testify with the committee. >> and of course, jeffrey clark is the person who drafted that letter that he wanted doj to send to the georgia state legislature to delay the certification of the vote and we've learned that the criminal probe that's happening down there, led by the d.a. willis, that every kind of increme

clark in contempt. >> that's right, aaron, jeffrey clark is a former trump administration department of justice official who was really instrumental in the justice department, trying to get them and other agencies to overturn the election results of 2020. he was a critical player for the former president. and he appeared before the committee a few weeks ago behind closed doors but failed to cooperate. and so now the committee is finally acting. they are going to vote wednesday night to refer criminal contempt charges regarding jeffrey clark. if that vote passes, which it is expected to, it would go to the full house, which would also have to vote, before it's sent to the justice department. we've already seen this play out with steve bannon, who is awaiting trial as we speak for those charges, aaron. >> leigh ann, let's turn to the legislative agenda in congress. what are we hearing from lawmakers about these deadlines out there and their ability to get all this work done? >> yeah, there's a lot of deadlines coming up, making it a very busy work period in december. let's start with g

the committee warns jeffrey clark he must cooperate with the investigation or it will move aggressively against him. chairman benny thompson if clark doesn't cooperate they will take strong measures to hold him accountable to meet his obligation. my understanding was he was appearing before the committee on friday. can you tell us what happened? >> well, you know, it was executive session so i can't go into all the details, but i will -- i was in the meeting and he is required to answer questions. if he has some privilege that he wishes to assert, he is required to assert it question by question. he refused to do that. and ultimately he and his team walked out. that is unacceptable. we are doing a followup with him explaining that it is unacceptable and giving him a very short period of time to come to his senses and comply. i hope he does. >> steve bannon of course did clark one better by never even bothering to show up and today the attorney general of the united states held a press conference for an announcement on some prosecutions of a ransom ware attack and was asked a question ab

that list now includes the former justice department official jeffrey clark, this man, sort of. yesterday clark appeared for a deposition, but in a statement released after ward, chairman thompson remarked mr. clark's complete failure to cooperate is unacceptable. the disgraced former president himself donald trump and his team have been trying to block the january 6th committee from obtaining more than 750 pages of documents from the national archives, but on thursday they argued their case before a federal judge in d.c. who seemed skeptical of the trump team's request to withhold records from the committee. even as the january 6th committee makes progress, the defense has not stopped. they just look different than january 6th. seven republicans who were at the january 6th rally just got elected to office on tuesday. these seven republicans will soon be part of local politics across new jersey, pennsylvania, connecticut and idaho and they all traveled to d.c. under the false premise that the 2020 election was stolen. peddlers of the big lie have been reckless with our democracy

but the jeffrey clark part of this i think is really important. he was a senior justice department official, headed 9 civil division. had nothing to do with election fraud. or ballot, you know, vote counting anywhere. wasn't his per view let started pressing acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen, to tell the states, georgia and other states, you guys shouldn't say you're not going to certify the election, and different electors meaning trump electors, and state there was corruption. he was doing this in league with trump. so -- >> yeah. >> to get that full story out there, they need his testimony. and the idea that he can hide behind executive privilege, that trump himself has not invoked. you know about this being a lawyer. i mean, trump put out a statement saying he wouldn't block jeffrey clark's -- interview with the committee. but yet here clark saying there may be executive privilege. a bogus legal argument. highly, highly important for us to know what went on there. and the committee only has a year to do this. in case anything happens mid-

or follow the jeffrey-clark model that you mentioned. go in, but not necessarily give the committee what it wants. >> so, norm, i mean, look, the big threat the committee used to try to get people to talk is the threat of criminal contempt. okay. that's all they have to really force this but they are waiting on the justice department to decide whether or not to charge steve bannon. now, they have been waiting two and a half weeks. doj has not made any decision. you just heard attorney general garland refusing to -- to comment on it. are you frustrated, norm? does the doj need to make this decision fast? do you read anything into this, why is this taking two and a half weeks? >> erin, i've represented individuals who have been investigated by doj. of course, worked on the hill in the impeachment where we were subpoenaing people. it takes time. doj may very well have convened or put this before a grand jury. you need to present the information to the grand jury. so, no, we've just had a new u.s. attorney in the district of columbia who is

given the explanation we heard from jeffrey clark to the committee, i cannot and will not participate until this decision of executive privilege is decided. i'm going to come to you with the obvious question, any since what we heard from jeffrey clark a few days ago? >> maybe a notch more legitimacy than steve bannon because these were people who held positions and were giving advice. here is the deal, victor. the executive privilege exists to protect the core functions of the president, the office of the presidency, the official things that a president does, head of state, national security, these kinds of things. preventing the peaceful transfer of power is not a core function of the presidency. so beyond whether they qualify for the executive privilege as a threshold matter, the substance here is really potentially criminal activity, illegal activity which i can't imagine the privilege would cover regardless. this has been ground in attempt to delay the inevitable in my opinion. >> john, let's talk about what may be in the documents that we might see tomorrow if the appeals court d

sources telling cnn the former justice department official jeffrey clark is expected to appear tomorrow for an interview with the committee. clark was subpoenaed after failing to voluntarily cooperate. he was one of the doj official who is pushed the former president's big lie of bogus election fraud claims. i talked about that just this morning with georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. it was at our citizen by cnn. remember when the then-president told raffensperger this? >> so, look, all i want to do is this -- i just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state. >> he just came right out and said, this is what i need. these are the votes i need. go get them. spoiler alert, though, they didn't. now raffensperger tells me why the big lie is alive and well even now a year later. 8 in 10 -- even still, 8 in 10 republicans believe in the big lie. that is what the polling shows. why is that, secretary? do you have an explanation for that? >> no. i do know that last year we were combatting rumors on a daily basis, which i document in my book.

. >>> today the january 6th house committee is expected to interview jeffrey clark. the former justice department official who is integral to helping then president trump in his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election. committee chair congressman bennie thompson said he's also signed about 20 new subpoenas, those could go out as soon as today. joining me now to discuss, paul rosensweg from the department of homeland security and former senior council for the whitewater investigation. good to have you with us this morning. if you were there and questioning jeffrey clark, what would you be asking him specifically? >> i think the most important questions to ask mr. clark would revolve around his specific interactions with others at the department of justice and at the white house. both the president, the vice president, the white house counsel, the acting attorney general jeff rosen. the details of what he tried to do are still obscure, certainly within the department of justice. we have a good paper record. but hearing his version of what he was attem

jeffrey clark stone walled the committee showing up for an interview but refusing to answer questions. clark would be the second person to face contempt charges for defying the committee after steve bannon was indicted. bannon himself hoping to be the ring master of his own media circus trying to convince a judge in the to bar him from publicly sharing documents he vo receives from the doj before his trial. the gop is just loading up the clown car of their never ending circus. almost makes you think they're trying to distract you from something. so like i said, the president of the united states joe biden is calling this new variant a cause for concern, not a cause for pan ni -- panic. we're going to get answers to the unanswered questions coming up. >> you have to get your vaccine. you have to get the shot. you have to get the booster. sooner or later, we're going to see cases of this new variant here in the united states. with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪ when you have nausea, ♪ ♪ heartburn, ingestion, upset stoma

sources telling cnn the former justice department official jeffrey clark is expected to appear tomorrow for an interview with the committee. clark was subpoenaed after failing to voluntarily cooperate. he was one of the doj official who pushed the form er president's big lie of bogus election fraud claims. i talked about that just this morning with georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. it was at our citizen by cnn. remember when the then-president told raffensperger this? >> so, look, all i want to do is this -- i just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state. >> he just came right out and said, this is what i need. these are the votes i need. go get them. spoiler alert, though, they didn't. now raffensperger tells me why the big lie is alive and well even now a year later. 8 in 10 -- even still, 8 in 10 republicans believe in the big lie. that is what the polling shows. why is that, secretary? do you have an explanation for that? >> no. i do know that last year we were combatting rumors on a daily basis, which i document in my book. w

bennie thompson is weighing criminal context charges for the ex-trump era man jeffrey clark. it may seem like progress is moving at a snail's pace for the committee's investigation, there's actually fresh evidence indicating that things are moving faster than we might think. the ranking republican member on the committee, liz cheney, says, quote, members of the house panel investigating the january 6th attack on the capitol have interviewed more than 150 people so far. joining me now is betsy woodrough swan. good morning. what are you hearing about what's happening next on this committee? >> what we are keeping an eye out for is whether or not thompson issues a subpoena of john eastman, who you described earlier, who is a key figure here. of course, one other key plot that we saw unfold last week was jeff clark, who you showed on screen, saying that he would refuse to cooperate. clark showed up for an interview. but according to thompson wouldn't answer any questions. in fact, i obtained a letter that clark and his lawyer have delivered to the committee trying to make a bit o

. >> this is for the former top department of justice official jeffrey clark who defied his subpoena. clark pushed to pursue unfounded claims of voter fraud in the weeks after the 2020 election. harry litman is a former u.s. attorney, legal affairs columnist for the "l.a. times," welcome back, and for people at home, this is the official who drafted that letter to be sent to georgia officials to hold off the certification of the vote there. we're seeing a pattern here. should this be the pattern that goes for jeffrey clark, for the others who have been subpoenaed, including the former white house chief of staff? >> so it's not clear, victor. i think it's note worthy he's their second test case and not mark meadows, and the big difference, there's a couple. but the biggest difference between him and mark meadows, they already have the information that he would possess. they have it because his colleagues at the doj, richard donahue, and jeffrey rosen have voluntarily provided it. they don't have meadows' information, and remember, meadows was sort of trump's shadow, and maybe partner i

gearing up for a major move, preparing to hold jeffrey clark in criminal contempt. that is big. he was a senior justice department official trying to help trump overturn results, refusing to answer questions claiming a type of privilege. he's not a lawyer for the president and the committee's view is he has no right to that. congressman schiff says soon they will make contempt decisions about charges. >> two weeks ago you said that the january 6th committee would move very quickly to refer former white house chief of staffmark meadows for criminal contempt charges after he defied a subpoena. is that still likely going to happen, and if so, when? >> i think we will probably make a decision this week. we are moving with anyone who obstructs the committee and that was certainly the case with mr. bannon and it will be the case with mr. meadows, mr. clark for any others. >> schiff's reference there shows that he means business, because the committee has exercised its powers to a degree that has upended bannon's life. the justice department accuses bannon of making frivolous claims no

jeffrey clark stonewalled the committee showing up for an interview but refusing to answer questions. clark would be the second person to face contempt charges for defying the committee after steve bannon was indicted. bannon himself hoping to be the ring master of his own media circus trying to convince a judge in the to bar him from publicly sharing documents he receives from the doj before his trial. in the face of all that, the gop is just loading up the clown car of their never ending circus. almost makes you think they're trying to distract you from something. so like i said, the president of united states, joe biden, is calling this new variant a cause for concern, not a cause for panic. we're going to get answers to the unanswered questions coming up. >> you have to get your vaccine. you have to get the shot. you have to get the booster. sooner or later, we're going to see cases of this new variant here in the united states. america! after the past year-ish, everyone deserves something new! so at&t is giving everyone our best deals on every iphone - including the iphone 13 pro

next is jeffrey clark, the official with whom trump cooked up a plan to use the power of justice department to block the election results from being counted. on top of the charges for ban been the charges about to be recommended for clark, congressman schiff said members will also this week -- a criminal referral for mark meadows who like jeffly clrk and steve bannon also refused to cooperate with the investigation. joining us now is pete aguilar, democrat of californiaing a member of the january 6th investigation. pleasure to have you here. thanks for making time. >> thanks for having me. >>, so we've got these oral arguments tomorrow at the d.c. circuit court. how important are president trump's white house records to the investigation? there's no way to know how the courts are going handle this from here on out, particularly if this goes to the supreme court. would it be a critical factor for your investigation if ultimately you weren't able to get the trump white house records? >> we've said all along we want to tell the full and complete story, and in order to do that we're going to ne

this time it's jeffrey clark. you might remember clark. he rose into trump's good graces by pushing false election fraud claims and trying to weaponize the justice department to help trump undermine the 2020 election. ryan nobles joins us now. clark did appear for an interview with the committee, unlike steve bannon. so why is the committee moving forward with this vote to hold him in criminal contempt of congress? >> it's what happened behind those closed doors when clark appeared for the deposition. he basically didn't answer any questions. he told the committee he didn't have to citing executive privilege and attorney/client privilege because of his relationship with the former president donald trump. but the committee just isn't buying it. they believe that clark has no privilege protections and that he needs to answer their questions and provide the documents that they are looking for. that's why they are taking this step of referring him for criminal contempt to the justice department. the committee is set to meet on wednesday. they'

jeffrey clark appeared before the committee several weeks ago, but in that appearance he cooperated zero. and so he has publicly presented himself, but he hasn't given them anything that they want. and so it looks like that's the path. of course anything can change. you know, this is a question for pete, that actually our team was talking about. what sort of legal ramifications does he have for his bar license should it go down this path. we didn't know if that was going to be something that would discourage him from doing that. but it seems like the vote will take place tomorrow night in the house and it will go -- or in the committee and then it will go to the full house, chuck. >> pete williams, leigh ann caldwell, two separate parts of the january 6 story. thank you both. we'll be seeing a lot of pete, by the way, tomorrow. the supreme court hears oral arguments over mississippi's abortion law. the future of roe v. wade perhaps hangs in the balance. msnbc will take you inside the courtroom for the rare opportunity to hear the justices ask questions live. we'll have coverage, audio co

we are going to talk about steve bannon, and maybe jeffrey clark in a moment but the committee has been doing, to my understanding, a lot of work in parallel to what obstacles are being thrown up by those individuals. >> that's right. we are just plowing ahead, quite a few people have stepped forward, voluntarily to tell us what they know. a few people want to do that but felt like they had to have a subpoena to explain why they were appeasing -- appearing. as some of been more resistant. and in each case, we tend to get the information that we need to get to the bottom of everything. how it was plan, with the intent was, and so forth. >> let's talk about one of the people that was subpoenaed, jeffrey clark, a key player in this. if folks don't remember, he was the number three in department of justice he reportedly plotted directly where president trump to place the acting attorney general so as to the department to take over this role and perhaps other jade, the election is tainted and you should consider constitutional remedies to donald trump this was reporting from the washington p

there is no legal defense to jeffrey clark and actually i don't think anybody heard of him until after the january 3rd meeting that he had at the department of justice when his name started coming out as someone who was trying to overturn the election, and i am one of those who believes very much that we need to have accountability and that without it, these horrible things will keep happening. if richard nixon had been indicted after he left the presidency or even while he was president -- but that's a different issue -- maybe donald trump would have learned a lesson and he wouldn't have done the things he has done. so let's get busy, and buzz words sell. what you're taking about is messaging by the democrats and the republicans have buzz words that the voters don't understand but they make it sound like, well, it's bad. ask a voter what is crt. well, i don't know, but it's bad. and that's not the case. democrats are trying to explain things in a way that is meaningful, but it's not communicating. i feel like donny deutsche trying to craft a message that needs to be crafted, so let's

that was of course jeffrey clark on friday. he came into the room, and told them he wasn't answering any questions and left. so we'll have to see especially because this group is so closely tied with the former president, just how cooperative they will be in answering these subpoenas. that of course an open question as the committee continues to press the group of subpoena targets they have already issued to, including steve bannon, who right now is facing a criminal contempt referral that is in front of the department of justice right now. but this is significant news, six names, very closely associated with the former president have been subpoenaed by the january 6th committee, the committee looking for information about the role they played in the events leading up to the violence and chaos here on january 6th. victor and alisyn. >> ryan, some of these names were expected, as you said, john eastman, of course writing the memo, bill stepien because of his connection to the campaign. we know they are backers of the big lie, he

. >>> new tonight, the chairman of the january 6th committee with a warning for witness jeffrey clark. after he refused to answer questions during his testimony today. clark is the former-justice department official who tried to help then-president trump overturn the 2020 election. and he spent about 90 minutes with the committee. chairman bennie thompson saying tonight, quote, he has a very short time to reconsider and cooperate fully. paula reid is outfront. and, paula, what more are we learning about clark's stonewalling tonight? >> good evening, erin, well this did not go according to plan sources familiar with his appearance say clark presented lawmakers with a letter from his attorney saying he will not cooperate until a court declares that his interactions with trump are not protected by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. now, cn n has obtained that letter where trump is asking a federal court to block lawmakers from accessing more than 700 pages of white house documents related to january 6th. now, just yesterday, a federal judge heard arguments in that case, an

jeffrey clark, a former justice department official under the trump administration did not comply last week with the committee and the committee has also threatened the same referral with him as well. they haven't acted yet. we're hoping to learn more as the day progresses, but it's becoming clear that these top former trump administration officials are refusing to cooperate with the january 6th select committee. >> and chuck, pick up on that great point that leigh ann makes. this is really a pattern for former trump officials. so legally, what are you expecting to happen next? and what resource does the committee have to bring these people in? >> well, leigh ann is right. it is a pattern. the committee actually has relatively little recourse. let's be clear. congress cannot prosecute anyone for anything ever. what it can do is make a referral to the department of justice. only the justice department has that executive branch authority to bring prosecutions. and everybody who has so far refused to comply with the subpoena, so as leigh ann mentioned, jeffrey clark, steve bannon and appa