jeff clark did show up. but he still didn't testify. he refused to answer any questions at all while he was there. we can see that because the committee released the transcript. it really is 50 pages like, sort of eye crossing pages of him and his lawyer refusing over and over again to answer any question. and he's not asserting individually some specific source of privilege that gives him an excuse to refuse to answer each individual question. he won't say, in fact, why he's refusing. he makes these blanket gestures in the direction of privilege, but he doesn't actually claim any individual privilege. he just refuses to answer all questions. and after this goes on for pages and pages and pages, in what's supposed to be the middle of the proceedings, he and his lawyer just get up and walk out. here is a little section of it. i will say for maybe the fifth or sixth time, we're not going to engage in legal argument at this point. if you want to engage in legal argument in letters or court filings, we'res happy to do th, but we're not goin

clark's lawyer, we're done. jeff clark. yeah. clarng's lawyer. we're done for the day. >> congressman rascon. well, i just want to follow up on this question about attorney client privilege. who is the attorney and who is the client covered by the attorney client privrmg here? clark's lawyer, it's asked and answered. congressman rascon, well forgive me, but who is the attorney and who is the client in the attorney client privilege asserted in your letter. >> clark's lawyer we're happy to engage in that dialogue of in corps with committee council but we are not doing it in this deposition, congressman. congressman rascon, wow, okay. i yield back whereupon he yields back to the chief counsel for the investigation, the top lawyer for the investigation. who then says, quote, okay, well, i can tell you that we're not going to conclude this deposition. but then sure enough jeff clark and his lawyer decide they are concluding the deposition, get up and walk out. and so we can now see from what happened we he came in and refused to provide them any testi

jeff clark, that previously low profile former justice department official, he has refused to comply with subpoenas in this investigation, just like trump adviser steve bannon has. bannon, as you know, has already been hit with criminal federal charges for rejecting those subpoenas. well, tonight, just before we got on the air, the january 6th investigation released its formal report on jeff clark rejecting their subpoenas. they're going to vote on this report tomorrow at the end of the day, if passed as prologue, the vote will probably be overwhelming if not unanimous, jeff clark should be referred to the u.s. justice department for potential prosecution, just as they referred steve bannon for potential prosecution and doj ultimately followed up and brought that indictment. here's part of what the report says about why jeff clark got subpoenaed by the investigation in the first place. quote, according to documents and testimony gathered by the select committee, in the weeks leading up to the january 6th attack on the capitol, jeff clark participated in efforts to delegitimize the re

jeff clark, that previously low profile former justice department official, he has refused to comply with subpoenas in this investigation, just like trump adviser steve bannon has. bannon, as you know, has already been hit with criminal federal charges for rejecting those subpoenas. well, tonight, just before we got on the air, the january 6th investigation released its formal report on jeff clark rejecting their subpoenas. they're going to vote on this report tomorrow at the end of the day, if passed as prologue, the vote will probably be overwhelming if not unanimous, jeff clark should be referred to the u.s. justice department for potential prosecution, just as they referred steve bannon for potential prosecution and doj ultimately followed up and brought that indictment. here's part of what the report says about why jeff clark got subpoenaed by the investigation in the first place. quote, according to documents and testimony gathered wi the select committee, in the weeks leading up to the january 6th attack on the capitol, jeff clark participated in efforts to delegitimize the re

one described as working with jeff clark at the justice department on his part of the scheme. another described as telling mr. meadows he was sorry that january 6th didn't work out. this does seem like new information about the involvement of members of congress. is that true? >> that's exactly right. it was a blockbuster night for the house select committee investigating the january 6th insurrection. and i think two things really stood out to me that were notable. one that mark meadows is clearly at the center and heart of this investigation. he is someone who was there firsthand in those hours from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the white house with president trump. has a first-person account and has already provided almost 9,000 pages of what i believe chairman thompson said worth of information to the committee of which they presented some of those findings, little bits and pieces tonight. then, secondly, the role that other lawmakers played as you noted. we've known all along certain members were in touch with president trump and that they were also involved with a lot of the

one described as working with jeff clark at the justice department on his part of the scheme. another described as telling mr. meadows he was sorry that january 6th didn't work out. this does seem like new information about the involvement of members of congress. is that true? >> that's exactly right. it was a blockbuster night for the house select committee investigating the january 6th insurrection. and i think two things really stood out to me that were notable. one that mark meadows is clearly at the center and heart of this investigation. he is someone who was there first hand in those hours from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the white house with president trump. has a first-person account and has already provided almost 9,000 pages of what i believe chairman thompson said worth of information to the committee of which they presented some of those findings, little bits and pieces tonight. then secondly, the role that other lawmakers played as you noted. we've known all along certain members were in touch with president trump and that they were also involved with a lot of the

then it was justice department official named, jeff clark. who donald trump reportedly wanted to install as attorney general so that the u.s. justice department could help bring this effort to -- the overturn results of the election results. he says he intends to plead the fifth in the investigation. which of course, had us wondering, why he feels to need to plead the fifth. if you feel see maybe in some legal jeopardy here. some of what he was involved with was not only benedict arnold-esque, but also criminal. listen to what congresswoman liz cheney had to say about that. >> in the weeks before january six, president trump's appointee at the justice department, informed and repeatedly said, that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence. and that the election was not in fact stone. president trump intended to appoint jeffrey clark as attorney general. in part, so that mr. clark could alter the department of justice's conclusion regarding the election. mr. clark has informed this committee that he anticipate

and as such, they may already have a pretty good idea as to who jeff clark was collaborating with. inside and outside the government on his alleged effort to use the power of the u.s. justice department to keep trump in power after he lost. but in this formal report that was just released a couple of hours ago, tonight, the fact that the investigation is willing to go out formally and say that among the people they believe he collaborated with were multiple members of congress, well that's news. we will see what we learn tomorrow when they are expected to vote to send mr. clark's case to the justice department for criminal prosecution. i hope that the criminal justice department will decide whether or not they're going to bring formal criminal proceedings against somebody who very recently was a senior official at that same department. that meeting tomorrow where the january six investigation is going to take the vote as to whether or not they're going to refer clock for prosecution, that meeting is going to be open to the public. so we will see what we can glean from that, we will

clark t on jeff clark's alleged part of the plot. remember, jeff clark's alleged part of the plot was that the justice department would be used to induce various states to falsify their election results. jeff clark himself has pled the fifth. as liz cheney described last night and again today in exactly the same language, he pled the fifth in anticipation of prosecution along these -- in anticipation of prosecution on these matters. well, according to the investigation a member of congress was working with him on that.at and the investigation knows who that member of congress is but they haven't told us yet. they say they will, but they haven't told us yet.be h the prospect that these sort of crosshairs, potential criminal liability is in line here when it comes to the former president, and the prospect that members of congress were implicated in what happened on january 6th, the prospect that we're getting to the part where those members of congress may at least be subpoenaed, those members of congress may have possible prosecution

clark on jeff clark's alleged part of the plot. remember, jeff clark's alleged part of the plot was that the justice department would be used to induce various states to falsify their election results. jeff clark himself has pled the fifth. as liz cheney described last night and again today in exactly the same language, he pled the fifth in anticipation of prosecution along these -- in anticipation of prosecution on these matters. well-s according to the investigation a member of congress was working with him on that. and the investigation knows who that member of congress is but they haven't told us yet. they say they will, but they haven't told us yet. the prospect that these sort of crosshairs, potential criminal liability is in line here when it comes to the former president, and the prospect that members of congress were implicated in what happened on january 6th, the prospect that we're getting to the part where those members of congress may at least be subpoenaed, those members of congress may have possible prosecution loomi

it was a very controversial document from jeff clark, something obviously the committee has shown great interest in talking to mr. clark about. it would put the justice department -- essentially put its gravitas and authority behind the effort they need to tell state officials they need to change the results. it appears from a discussion in the recently deposition that there was white house meta data on that letter to georgia officials suggesting that the letter to those georgia officials might have originated in the white house, that this might not be just a jeff clark problem. it might be a trump/white house problem. is that your understanding of that situation? are those the implications of that meta data? do we have this the right way around? >> i think that you do on the basis of what the committee has disclosed about the questions we posed to mr. clark, that there was meta data indicating a white house role of some kind or communication through the white house of some kind. this is exactly why we need these witnesses to testify so we can understand what part of this plot to overtu

i heard jeff clark is getting put in on monday. that's amazing. it will make a lot of patriots happy and i'm personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear and i could call you a friend. >> as i said, unless you just want to look the other way. and then there is a text from an unnamed lawmaker the day after the election, the very next day as a matter of fact putting forth a quote aggressive strategy to overturn the election. >> on november 4th, a member of this body wrote to meadows here is an aggressive strategy, one day after the election. why can't the states of georgia, north carolina, pennsylvania and other republican controlled state houses declare this as b.s. where conflicts and election not called that night and just send their own electors to vote. and have it go to the scotus. >> that's the new stuff we're learning tonight. everything that we are learning tonight is on top of what we learned about how the fox propaganda networks laura ingram, brian kilmeade, sean hannity begged mark meadows to get the then pres

document from jeff clark something that obviously the committee has shown great interest in talking to mr. clark about it would put the justice department -- its gravitas authority behind an effort to tell state officials that they need to change the results. it appears from a discussion in that deposition that there was white house metadata on that letter to georgia officials, suggesting that the letter to those georgia officials might have originated in the white house, that this might not just be a jeff clark problem, it might be a trump white house problem. is that your understanding of that situation, are those in the implications of that metadata, do we have this the right way around? >> i think that you do, on the basis of what the committee has disclosed about questions we posed to mr. clark, that there was metadata indicating a white house role of some kind, or communications with the white house of some kind. this is exactly why we need -- these witnesses to testify so we can understand what part to overturn the election was white house involved, what part was the presiden

it was a very controversial document from jeff clark, something obviously the committee has shown great interest, talking to mr. clark about. it would put the justice department, put its gravitas and authority behind the effort they need to tell state officials they need to change the results. it appears from a discussion in the recently deposition that there was white house meta data on that letter to georgia officials suggesting that the letter to those georgia officials might have originated in the white house, that this might not be just a jeff clark problem, it might be a trump white house problem. is that your understanding of that situation. are those the implications of that meta data? do we have this the right way around? >> i think that you do on the basis of what the committee has disclosed about the questions we posed to mr. clark, that there was meta data indicating a white house role of some kind or communication through the white house of some kind. this is exactly why we need these witnesses to testify so we can understand what part of this plot to overturn the election

this was the text, "i heard jeff clark is getting put in on monday. that is amazing. it will make a lot of patriots happy and i am personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear and i can call you a friend." he is talking to mark meadows. what about these anonymous texts which are believed to be commerce members and will congress members get implicated and it is, helping with the insurrection as their fellow congressmembers were being targeted and police were being physically attacked? >> this is a really tricky question because this doesn't just border on constitutional issues in the u.s. who is going to go after sitting congressmember, right? are they going to be able to police themselves? we have shown this throughout the past few months -- gambling believe in two republicans, adam kinzinger and liz cheney, who have decided to go along with investigating what happened on january 6. what is going to happen when the closest people to mark meadows are revealed with the role they potentially played in those days? i don't know that fellow members will hold the

jeff clark himself has pled the fifth. as liz cheney described last night, and again today, in exactly the same language. he pled the fifth. in anticipation for prosecution along these prosecutions. well according to the investigation, a member of congress was working with him on that. and the investigation knows with that member of congress is, but they have until this. yet they said they will. they haven't told us yet. the prospect that the sort of crosshairs, potential, criminal liability is in line here when it comes to the former president. and the prospect that the members of congress who are implicated on what happened on january six, that we are getting to the part where those members of congress made least the subpoenaed, that those members may have possible across the queue shun looming around them as members of congress. that is maybe why things feel so nuts right now in washington. it turns out, this january six investigation is getting somewhere. some were apparently serious. and that makes this a very stressf

this was the text, "i heard jeff clark is getting put in on monday. that is amazing. it will make a lot of patriots happy and i am personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear and i can call you a friend." he is talking to mark meadows. what about these anonymous texts which are believed to be commerce members and will congress members get implicated and it is, helping with the insurrection as their fellow congressmembers were being targeted and police were being physically attacked? >> this is a really tricky question because this doesn't just border on constitutional issues in the u.s. who is going to go after sitting congressmember, right? are they going to be able to police themselves? we have shown this throughout the past few months -- gambling believe two republicans, adam kinzinger and liz cheney, who have decided to go along with investigating what happened on january 6. what is going to happen when the closest people to mark meadows are revealed with the role they potentially played in those days? i don't know that fellow members will hold them a

nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clarke. this committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that january 6 never happens again. mr. meadows is in contempt, he must testify and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. here we go again. for the first time in history, democrats have complete control over a select committee. i hope the american people are paying close attention. i hope they see what happens when democrats get total power. they abuse it. they intimidate. they threaten. and they harass. and they try to put their political opponents in jail. in a matter of weeks the committee has passed three criminal contempt citations. mr. banks: today we vote on holding mark meadows in contempt of congress. on september 23, 2021

nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clarke. this committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that january 6 never happens again. mr. meadows is in contempt, he must testify and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. here we go again. for the first time in history, democrats have complete control over a select committee. i hope the american people are paying close attention. i hope they see what happens when democrats get total power. they abuse it. they intimidate. they threaten. and they harass. and they try to put their political opponents in jail. in a matter of weeks the committee has passed three criminal contempt citations. mr. banks: today we vote on holding mark meadows in contempt of congress. on september 23, 2021

bluntly, does this decision imply that jeff clark and his attorneys believe there was some kind of criminal activity committed by the president or people around him, mr. clark, on the matters that you want to question him about? >> well, it could very well mean that. obviously, he is aware that something went on that is illegal. rather than be responsible and answer, he is pleading the fifth. the question is, did you participate in these illegal activities in the white house. as you know, he recommended a process by which the elections could be manipulated in certain states. well, that's clearly illegal, but we need to hear from him whether or not he said it. we have reason to believe he did. but if he's of the opinion that if i come before the committee and acknowledge that, then i have contributed to the january 6th insurrection in part simply because i made a recommendation that ultimately led states to believe they could overturn the election. look at what went on in arizona. look what tried to go on in michigan. look at georgia. we had the secretary of state in georgia basically say th

i heard jeff clark is getting put in on monday. that's amazing. it will make a lot of patriots happy and i'm personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear and i could call you a friend. >> as i said, unless you just want to look the other way. and then there is a text from an unnamed lawmaker the day after the election, the very next day as a matter of fact putting forth a quote aggressive strategy to overturn the election. >> on november 4th, a member of this body wrote to meadows here is an aggressive strategy, one day after the election. why can't the states of georgia, north carolina, pennsylvania and other republican controlled state houses declare this as b.s. where conflicts and election not called that night and just send their own electors to vote. >> that's the new stuff we're learning tonight. everything that we are learning tonight is on top of what we learned about how the fox propaganda networks laura ingraham, brian kilmeade, sean hannity begged mark meadows to get the then president to put a stop to the violence. even hi

bluntly, does this decision imply that jeff clark and his attorneys believe there was some kind of criminal activity committed by that president or people around him? mister clerk, on the matters that you want to question him about? >> it could very well mean that. but obviously, he is aware that something went on. that's illegal. and rather than be responsible and answer, he's pleading the fifth. the question is, did you participate in these illegal activities in the white house, as you know. he recommended a process by which the elections could be manipulated in certain states. well, that's clearly illegal. but we need to hear from him whether or not he said it. we have reasonably reason to believe he did. but if he is of the opinion that if i come before the committee and acknowledge that, then i have contributed to the january 6th insurrection. in part, simply because i made a recommendation that ultimately led states to believe that they could overturn the election. look at what went on in arizona. look what tried to go on in michigan. look at georgia. we have the secretary of state in

is it likely that alex jones, jeff clark and bernie carrick participate in any of those hearings? i don't know. but they already have gone out there and suggested that at least in some way, they're willing to talk publicly. it's going to be interesting. >> betsy, good to see you as always. thank you for joining us. betsy woodruff swann is a natural correspondent with politico. >> joining me now is the democratic congresswoman from california, judy chu, the chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, and most importantly for the purpose of today's discussion, she is the sponsor of the women's health protection act. it's a very important bill that seeks to codify roe v. wade. it was passed by the house earlier this year. congresswoman chu, thank you for joining us this morning. i cannot underscore enough, because i think there are lots of americans, myself included, who learn more about abortion in this country by the day. and a lot of americans who would be surprised that their only protection for abortion is the supreme court. and once that goes away, if that goes aw

bluntly, does this decision imply that jeff clark and his attorneys believe there was some kind of criminal activity committed by the president or people around him, mr. clark, on the matters that you want to question him about? >> well, it could very well mean that. obviously, he is aware that something went on that is illegal. rather than be responsible and answer, he is pleading the fifth. the question is, did you participate in these illegal activities in the white house as you know he recommended a process by which the elections could be manipulated in certain states. that is clearly illegal. but we need to hear from him whether or not he said it. we have reason to believe he did. but if he is of the opinion that if i come before the committee and acknowledge that, then i have contributed to the january 6th insurrection in part simply because i made a recommendation that ultimately led states to believe they could overturn the election. look at what went on in arizona. look what tried to go on in michigan. look at georgia. we had the secretary of state in georgia basically say the pres

jeff clark is on the chopping block at the moment. because that former doj official, one of the only department of justice officials under donald trump who was willing to push the lie that georgia's election was corrupted. the only one willing to press the georgia governor to reconvene the legislature secretly so as to stop the certification of biden's election. that individual is being voted on by the committee tomorrow, for contempt. he will be second only held in contempt after steve bannon. and presumably that is a lot that is going on with mark meadows. he wants to do the right legal dance to show he is engaging. he is not just completely blocking the committee. he does not want that pink slip of contempt either. >> hey, paul, what is to stop a mark meadows from claiming privilege on some questions and just answering them? taking the fifth on other questions and just not answering them? and the can gets kicked down the road further. >> nothing to stop that. that is likely what will happen. the threat of criminal content seems to

clark. he is the former doj official said to have been involved in trump's effort to overturn the election. clark has already appeared before the committee but refused to answer any questions. the committee is also awaiting a decision from an appeals court on its request for trump's white house documents from january 6th. that court heard today from trump's lawyers about his claim of executive privilege and why he should be allowed to keep those documents secret from that day. nbc news reporting the judges seemed skeptical of trump's claim. a good many lawyers who were listening in agreement. the committee argues those documents are essential for a final report on what led to the insurrection. >> ultimately, our goal here is to produce a document, to gather as much information as possible, both through witness interviews and in those documents from the national archives, that will help tell the story of january 5th and january 6th and the rallies leading to the insurrection and the assault o

jeff clark, before he pled the fifth, he showed up and went in and said it's privilege of various kinds. and they were, like, we're going to ask you a question and you can assert what specific privilege you think applies that excuses you from answering. he's like, no, you can't ask me questions. it's just privileged. like he has a cloak of invisibility by calling it privilege. it's not the way it works. you actually have to engage with what's being asked of you, and all these guys think they got a get out of jail free card because they're in trump's orbit. ultimately that will be fwiftd time and diligence. >> the good news for the investigation is they are getting a lot of information and a lot of cooperation from really key players. and so they're going to be able to build a case, probably a case that won't include testimony from bannon or mark meadows or some of these people who actually see profit in the delay for themselves. mark meadows has a book to sell, so what's wrong with him spending a year fighting this thing in court and helping his book in whatever ways it can? >> yeah. i

nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clarke. this committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that january 6 never happens again. mr. meadows is in contempt, he must testify and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. here we go again. for the first time in history, democrats have complete control over a select committee. i hope the american people are paying close attention. i hope they see what happens when democrats get total power. they abuse it. they intimidate. they threaten. and they harass. and they try to put their political opponents in jail. in a matter of weeks the committee has passed three criminal contempt citations. mr. banks: today we vote on holding mark meadows in contempt of congress. on september 23, 2021

official jeff lee clark in contempt. that's next. stay with us. stay with us mobile app so you can quickly check the markets? yeah, actually i'm taking one last look at my dashboard before we board. excellent. and you have thinkorswim mobile- -so i can finish analyzing the risk on this position. you two are all set. have a great flight. thanks. we'll see ya. ah, they're getting so smart. choose the app that fits your investing style. ♪♪ ♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪ did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin. ♪ libeat new chapter.iberty. liberty. ♪ its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. nurse mar

so jeff relative clark, there was that scheme. i describe it in detail in "betrayal" that happened january 2nd when clark was set to become the new acting general. trump planned to put him in place and to go forward with the plans. the only reason it didn't happen, john, is because the entire senior leadership of the justice department besides clark said they would resignen masse if he went forward with this. but he is the key person in pushing the scheme, use the power of the justice department to overturn the election results. >> and there is also a text telling meadows to check his signal, an encrypted app, another messaging app. if you think what we are seeing is damning and revealing, imagine what the signal would show. >> yeah. the signal messages we will probably never see. they are probably already long gone. certainly there's that. and also, brianna, consider this. the messages that have been turned over here by meadows are all from his personal cell phones. so this is his -- he had two different gmail accounts we now kno

clark. clark was trying to sign off on a letter making fabricating claims of widespread irregularities in the election all to get states like georgia not to certify joe biden's win. they have evidence from witnesses that he was texting white house officials, including then chief of staff mark meadows. they were making conspiracy theories about voting machines and which lacks evidence. so they have asked him to voluntarily provide documents and to speak to the committee. congressman perry has refused, and that's where they are right now. they're trying to figure out what happens next. >> is it tricky to subpoena someone of your own body, someone from the house, when you're a house committee? has that ever been done before? >> there is no modern precedent that experts are aware of for this, katy, and that's why there is a sense the committee wants to tread carefully on this. there is no precedent at all. what the committee does will certainly set the table for future congresses and their abili

it is first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment as you talked about jeff clark. benny thompson wants to presume guilty rather than and is sent as requires. undoubtedly records that included attorney-client privilege communications. they are just shredding the entire constitution and claiming it is us that doesn't support the constitution paired it's rather extraordinary. but tucker, i guess we shouldn't be surprised. this group that wants to advance a soviet communist style agenda, we shouldn't be surprised that they are using soviet style and tactics to do it. >> tucker: where is the white army here? where are the people -- obviously we can't comply with this, you can't allow -- the country does not belong to dick cheney's daughter, it belongs to americans purdue cannot allow them to eliminate our civil liberties. but our congressional republicans defend a new? they're about to win a big election. who is saying no, we're not going along with this? >> hopefully there will be some congressional republicans, but this is one of the problems with this committee. the

it is first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment as you talked about jeff clark. benny thompson wants to presume guilty rather than innocent. undoubtedly records that included attorney-client privilege communications. they are just shredding the entire constitution and claiming it iss us that doesn't support the constitution paired it's rather extraordinary. but tucker, i guess we shouldn't be surprised. this group that wants to advance a soviet communist style agenda, we shouldn't be surprised that they are using soviet style and tactics tour do it. >> tucker: where is the white army here? where are the people -- obviously we can't comply with this, you can't allow -- the country does not belong to dick cheney's daughter, it belongs to americans purdue cannot allow them to eliminate our civil liberties. but our congressional republicans defend a new? they're about to win a big election.th who is saying no, we're not going along with this? >> hopefully there will be some congressional republicans, but this is one of the problems with this committee. the authorizin

trump justice department official jeff clark is also pleading the fifth in this investigation. trump lawyer john eastman is also pleading the fifth in this investigation. roger stone will plead the fifth tomorrow. the january 6th investigation tonight sent a new subpoena to a man named phil waldren. we might remember this video clip. we discussed him in detail at the top of last night's show. he is the man that claimed credit for compiling the absolutely bananas, here's how to do a coup 38-page powerpoint presentation that somehow founding its way to trump's white house counsel and ultimately found its way to the january 6th investigation. that document said the election results should be thrown out and falsified, reversed, by a simple process. trump should declare a national security emergency. the national guard should be federalized, and they should be sent out to seize ballots all over the country. this is the guy who said the mastermind of the election fraud was the brother of the vice president of venezuela. okay. also china. also there was a server in germany and some u.

jeff clark is the person with whom president trump cooked up a scheme by which the justice department would try to induce georgia and reportedly several other states to flip the results of the t election. mr. clark reportedly drew up

jeff clark is the person with whom president trump apparently cooked up a scheme by which the justice department would try

jeff lee clark did so earlier this week. john eastman is the lartest as reported by friends at politico. it is an eyebrow raising move here. as chairman thompson laid out earlier this week in the contempt report that we had on capitol hill, it could be a way for these witnesses, these people that the committee are interested in asking questions about their involvements as it rets to the january 6th insurrection as a means of simply delaying the inevitable, which is being held in criminal contempt. or it means they could be looking for a way to provide the committee with new information so long as they get immunity. jamie raskin told us that it is quite possible that jeffrey clark who has one more opportunity to appear before the committee community -- they could grant him immunity use which means in a question-by-question basis jeff ree clark, the former d.o.j. official who worked with the former president in his capacity at the department of justice could decide, if he decides to plead the fifth for a specific question then

it's the people inside the government, people like jeff clark, a senior person at the department of justice, people like john eastman, a previously respected lawyer. these are people that were inside the establishment producing arguments, producing legal rationales for what was essentially a coup d'etat. there were members of congress who said we're so sorry that yesterday didn't succeed. what i see as the real on going threat here is the fact that we still have a former president of the united states promoting these lies to the extent that 60%, 60% of republicans believe that the current president is illegitimate. mark meadows is the guy who knows about that stuff, and we need to know all the ins and outs of what is still an ongoing threat to our democracy. >> it's interesting that meadows has now stopped cooperating with the select committee, but certainly hasn't been shy on his appearances on fox and other conservative news met works. watch this. >> what we found is each and every time there was an overreach on the part of the committee -- i can assure you there's nothing criminal about

clark. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6th was without precedent. there has been no stronger case in our nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. this body must investigate the facts in detail, and we are entitled to ask mr. meadows about the nonprivileged materials he has produced to us. madam speaker, i am sure you will hear my colleagues this afternoon say that there are privileged issues here that must be resolved before we can move forward. any argument that the courts need to resolve, privilege issues first, is a pretext. we will question mr. meadows about emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim. mr. meadows' role in the raffensperger call cannot be privileged, nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clark. this committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that january 6th never happens again. mr. meadows is in contemp

i heard jeff clark is getting put in on monday. that's amazing. it will make a lot of patriots happy and i personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear, and i can call you a friend. >> the referring to those text messages sent to mark meadows, released last night by the committee investigating the insurrection. fox news host, the president son, don jr., but also for members of congress. yesterday, the chair of the committee said that they were going to name names. >> unnamed lawmakers are in -- or talked about tex-mex it is to mark meadows saying they were sorry that it didn't work out. who were they? >> well, they were revealed to us in the information that we received from mr. meadows but, i can't give you the names. >> are those names going to come out yet? >> they will come out. >> right, now the committee remains tightlipped about which of their colleagues were in contact with the white house during the attack on the capitol. >> the committee knows a lot of details and communication, but at this point, i don't think that that is r

nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clark. we must get to the objective truth and ensure that january 6th never happens again. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back. >> thank you very much. thank you both for your testimony and for the work you are doing. maybe former chief of staff meadows should talk to former congressman meadows. when he was serving here, he complained about subpoenas being ignored, information being hidden and congress being stonewalled. when it came to other people facing a congressional subpoena, he said, and i quote, they may be able to ignore congress, but they won't be able to ignore the american people, end quote. i don't know what changed when he moved in working from one branch of the government to the next, maybe he's just afraid of donald trump. there's no two systems of justice in this country. no one is above the law. i -- i -- again, the more and more we reflect on what happened on that terrible day, the more and more i am stunned by the stonewalling of people close

jeff clark pleading the fifth. presumably a lot of them will do that now. it doesn't half of you think they're going to plead the fifth hoping to stretch this out long enough that this ends up getting to 2024 and maybe trump gets back in and he pardons them? >> oh, sure. >> the thing we have learned is that they can delay this as long as they can. that's the way trump has defeated litigation his entire life. they are hoping for trump to be able to rescue them, the same way he rescued people like roger stone before. but also, they can do anything about subpoenas that go to third parties. so part of the freak out here is the phone companies have received the subpoenas. they're not interesting in delaying, defying, and breaking the law. so, they've handed over the information. that's something these guys can't control. and i think that's why so many of them are squealing right now. >> what we saw tonight is yet another wild, invented interpretation of the fifth amendment process. roger stone's lawyer is saying and, we're going to get to this later in the hour,

clark in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the investigation. we also told you he plans to take the fifth amendment when deposed in the committee. in the rules committee they said they will hold off on making that referral to the justice department or not until after clark has his deposition and opportunity to plead the fifth this weekend. we'll tell you one other thing, though, happened at that meeting that was not expected. also announced by liz cheney at that meeting, she said at that meeting, quote, we anticipate next year we'll be conducting multiple weeks of public hearings, setting up for the america people in vivid color exactly what happened. multiple weeks of public hearings in the january 6th investigation next year. multiple weeks. really? 2022 is getting more interesting already. watch this space. pace >>> all right. that is going to do it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" is up next. ♪♪ >>> president biden announces new action against covid as cases of the new variant begin to spread across the u.s.

clark wanted to send out is just absolutely key. and the fact we're only learning about this metadata now signals in many ways when it comes to lifting up the hood on the car and there's still a lot more information that is to be. >> jill, speaking of lifting the hood up on the car, let's talk about jeffrey clark and former trump attorney john eastman. clark was scheduled to be deposed today but asked for a postponement due to a medical condition. i want to know how you see this as a former prosecutor. >> well, they do have the right to plead the fifth. as a former prosecutor, of course, i recognize that constitutional right. and i also know that a jury would be instructed not to take into account and make any conclusions from that. i also know as a human being, as a u.s. citizen that people do reach a conclusion. and the conclusion is that they know they're guilty of a crime, that they could say something used as evidence against them. and if they didn't have something to say that would be used against them they wouldn't need to ta

clark wanted to send out is just absolutely key. and the fact that we're only learning about this meta data now signals that in many ways when it comes to lifting up the hood on the car and looking at what happened after january 6th, there is a still more information to be had. >> let's talk about jeffrey clark and former trump attorney john easeman. clark was supposed to be deposed today bd postponed. clark is indicating he will do the same. they have the right to do that, of course. but i want to know how you see this as a former prosecutor. >> well, they do have the right to plead the fifth. as a former prosecutor, of course i recognize that constitutional right, and i also know that a jury would be instructed not to take into account and make any conclusions from that. but i also know, as a human being, as a u.s. citizen, that people do reach a conclusion. and the conclusion is that they know they're guilty of a crime, that they could say something that could be used as evidence against them. and if they didn't have something to

trump justice department jeff clark is pleading the 5th. roger stone says he too is going to plead the 5th. conspiracy theorist alex jones says he, too, is going to plead the 5th. trump himself has to decide if he's going to plead the 5th in the new york attorney general's civil investigation of his rah business which is unfolding in parallel with a criminal investigation of his business which has already resulted in felony charges against his core business and his chief financial officer. you going to plead the 5th? it seems to be kind of a trend. in march of 1973, nixon had been reelected 1972. sworn in january of 1973. watergate was not erased by him running for reelection, he hoped it would be. watergate got way way way more serious for nixon in the early months of his second term. in march of 1973 as watergate was starting to crash down around richard nixon, this was around the time his chief of staff h.r. alderman that nixon finally seemed to understand the seriousness of watergate could mean, how much trouble he could be in if the wa

clark in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the investigation. he plans to take the fifth amendment when deposed in the committee. in the rules committee they said they will hold off on making that referral to the justice department or not until after clark has his deposition and opportunity to plead the fifth this weekend. we'll tell you one other thing, though, happened add that meeting not expected. also announced by liz cheney at that meeting. she said at that event, quote, we anticipate next year we'll be conducting multiple weeks of public hearings setting up for the american people in vivid color exactly what happened. multiple weeks of public hearings in the january 6th investigation next year. multiple weeks. really? 2022 is getting more interesting already. watch this space. already. watch this space every day in business brings something new. so get the flexibility of the new mobile service designed for your small business. introducing comcast business mobile. you get the most reliable network with nationwide 5g included. and you can g

clark. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6th was without precedent. there has been no stronger case in our nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president trump. we must investigate the facts in detail and we are entitled to ask mr. meadows about the non-privileged materials that he has produced to us. any argument that the courts need to resolve privilege issues first is a pretext. we need to question him about e-mails and texts he has given us without any privilege claim. his role in the raffensperger call cannot be privileged, nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clark. we must get to the objective truth and injury that january 6th never happens again. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back. >> well, thank you very much. and thank you, both, for your testimony and for the work you're doing. you know, maybe former chief of staf