as the chairman indicated, in the last hour, mr. clark attorney told us mr. clark would be willing to appear at another deposition and that he plans to assert his fifth amendment rights. if mr. clark believes answering questions about his discussions with president trump and others in november and december of 2020 and january of 2021 could incriminate him and therefore wishes to invoke privilege on that basis, the committee would consider that. we will not finalize this contempt process if mr. clark genuinely cures -- it is important to note that mr. clark is not excused from testifying simply because president trump is trying to hide behind inapplicable claims of executive privilege. mr. clark is refusing to answer austin's that are not conceivably subject to any executive or any other privilege. let me make a larger point. president trump continues to make the same claims about a stolen election with which he has misled millions of americans. these are the same claims he knows provoked violence in the past. he recently suggested he wants to debate embers of

it appears mr. clark was central to that effort. the campaign of political pressure and maneuvering failed but the assault on the rule of law did not end. it escalated. it resulted in a violent attack on the seat of our democracy. what the inner circle could not achieve was a mob of writers. to do our duty as members of this committee, as members of this body and legislators charged with finding truth about an attack on our democracy and swearing to support and defend the constitution, we put miss clark on our witness list. as someone who wasn't direct contact with the former president in the days leading up to the -- to january 6, he has information we believe is relevant to our investigation. when he on like hundreds of others refused to cooperate with our investigation voluntarily, we subpoenaed him on october 13 and when he appeared for a deposition on november 5 instead of answering her questions, his lawyer presented the committee with a dozen pages of excuses for defying the law and refusing to comply with our subpoena. we he

mr. clark's former superiors at the justice department didn't hide. mr. rosen, mr. donoghue. they answered the select committee's questions for hours about the very same topics we'd like to address with mr. clark. many others have done the same. and there's nothing extraordinary about congress seeking the testimony of a former-executive branch official. even the former-white house chief of staff is now cooperating with our investigation. as permitted by house rules, i considered mr. clark's objections and rejected them. the select committee provided him the opportunity to return to the deposition and he refused to do so. i want to note that around 8:00 last evening, mr. clark's attorney sent a letter to the committee. another, in a long series of long letters, stating that mr. clark now intends to assert his fifth amendment privilege against incriminating himself in this process. he offers no specific basis for that assertion. he offers no fact that would allow the committee to consider it. of course, mr. clark had the opportunity to assert this priv privilege and any other i

clark and mr. eastman are now fearing enough for their own -- fearful enough that they're invoking their fifth amendment rights? >> well, it could well be. it's worth reading what the fifth amendment actually says. no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. well, it looks like mr. clark and now mr. eastman think that there's going to be or could well be a criminal prosecution based on their actions, so they're in a position to know more than i am what they did, and i think it's a very troubling and quite possibly criminal. >> if there were -- was evidence either of state crimes, obviously interfering with or intimidating election officials is i believe a crime in every state. certainly it's a federal crime as well when it comes to federal elections. if your committee turns up sound voluminous uncontested evidence that such crimes were committed, what would the process be? obviously you guys can't bring it yourself. >> it's speculation to some extent. we're a

we have been negotiating since october with mr. clark. we are doing everything we can to show that we are not partisan, that this committee is just trying to get to the facts. as you said, we voted unanimously tonight to hold him in contempt. i will go before the rules committee in the morning to proffer a rule to go to the floor. we'll hold that in abeyance until saturday. so this will be mr. clark's last chance to come. he can come and assert himself. but, you know, if you say you haven't done anything wrong but on the other hand you want to assert the fifth amendment in terms of self-prosecution, it's saying that you have something to hide. so we're going to give him an opportunity to do it. a lot of other people have come before the committee, they have done what's right, they have talked to us, and we thank them for it. our charge is to get to the facts. mr. clark, through his attorney, has been deliberately avoiding us. this is his last chance to chan if he wants to assert it, rachel, he can do it. but it will be under oath. he is s

we have been negotiating since october with mr. clark. we're doing everything we can to show that we're not partisan. that this committee is just trying to get to the facts. as you said, we voted unanimously, tonight, to hold him in contempt. i will go before the rules committee in the morning to propose a rule to go to the floor. we'll call that in advance until saturday. so, this will be mr. clark's last chance to come. he can come and assert himself. but you know, if you say you haven't done anything wrong, but on the other hand you want to assert the fifth amendment in terms of so the prosecution. it says that you have something to hide. so, we're going to give him an opportunity to do it. a lot of other people have come before the committee. they've done what's right. they talk to us. and we thank them for it. our churches to get to the facts. mr. clark, through his attorney, has been deliberately avoiding us. this is his last chance to come, if he wants to assert it, rachel. he can do it. but it will be under oath and he is still su

clark and mr. eastman are now fearing enough for their own -- fearful enough that they are invoking their fifth amendment rights. >> well it could well be. you know, it's worth reading what the fifth amendment actually says. no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. well, it looks like mr. clark and now mr. eastman think that there is going to be or could well be a criminal prosecution based on their actions. so they're in a position to know more than i am what they did. and i think it's a very troubling and quite possibly criminal. >> if there were -- was evidence either of state crimes, obviously interfering with or intimidating election officials i believe it's a criminal in every state. certainly a crime in federal elections. if your committee turns up sound, voluminous uncontested evidence that such crimes were committed, what would the process be? obviously you guys can't bring a prosecution. would it go through prosecute of a formal referral to the ju

we have been negotiating since october with mr. clark. we are doing everything we can to show that we are not partisan, that this committee is just trying to get to the facts. as you said, we voted unanimously tonight to hold him in contempt. i will go before the rules committee in the morning to proffer a rule to go to the floor. we'll hold that in abeyance until saturday. so this will be mr. clark's last chance to come. he can come and assert himself. but, you know, if you say you haven't done anything wrong but on the other hand you want to assert the fifth amendment in terms of self-prosecution, it's saying that you have something to hide. so we're going to give him an opportunity to do it. a lot of other people have come before the committee, they have done what's right, they have talked to us, and we thank them for it. our charge is to get to the facts. mr. clark, through his attorney, has been deliberately avoiding us. this is his last chance to come. if he wants to assert it, rachel, he can do it. but it will be under oath. he is

. >> we have just learned that mr. clark has agreed to appear again to continue his deposition. however, we will proceed tonight with considering the contempt request as this is just the first step of the contempt process. >> the republican vice chair of the committee liz cheney said this. >> if mr. clark believes that answering questions about his discussions with president trump and others in november and december of 2020 and january of 2021 could inkrem nate him, and he therefore wishes to invoke privilege on that basis the committee would certainly consider that. we will not finalize this contempt process if mr. clark genuinely cures his failure to comply with the subpoena this saturday. it is important to note, however, that mr. clark is not excused from testifying simply because president trump is trying to hide behind inapplicable claims of executive privilege. >> the committee then vote unanimously to refer jeffrey clark to the justice department for prosecution of criminal contempt of congress. congressman adam schiff a member of the committee issued this statement. at

for weeks, we try to get to mr. clark come before the committee. ultimately, we were forced to subpoena him. we then brought him before the committee. he refused to answer pertinent questions. and he gave a wide ranging set of excuses. assertions of different reported privileges, not the fifth amendment however. which didn't seem to have good faith basis. and it wasn't good to merely show up and say i'm not to answer the questions, without being willing to state, what is the particular privileged privilege are serving. for example, i asked him about a conversation he had with a report about january 6th. there was no conceivable privilege covering a conversation he had with the press, but he still refused to answer questions about it. now he is asserting at the 11th hour, when he was going to be held in contempt, a fifth amendment privilege. now, that fifth amendment, doesn't apply if what he's really trying to do is not protect himself from incrimination, protect donald crump trump from incrimination. in terms of how the committee will ascertain wh

let's talk about mr. clark. they voted to hold him in contempt tonight while also agreeing to bring him back and hear him out, i believe on saturday, at a session where he may take the fifth. opinions seem split on whether this shows weakness or wisdom. where do you come down? >> i think it's wisdom, brian. but i think they have to proceed cautiously. a fifth amendment privilege is different than the executive privilege that we saw with steve bannon. but there are certainly indications that jeffery clark is kind of playing games here. as the chairman pointed out, jeffery clark did not assert the fifth amendment right when he testified before the committee at least appeared for a deposition on november 5th. and so if this isn't a stall tactic, i think this vote keeps the heat on him, forces him to show up and go through question by question the issues on what he going to plead the fifth amendment. >> and, peter, back to your beat. hard as it is to believe, life in this white house and for this administration has

if the house were to take up the resolution, mr. clark would become the second person to face potential prosecution in relation to the january 6 investigation.

clark now intends to assert his fifth amendment privilege, even though mr. clark previously had the opportunity to make these claims on the record, the select committee will provide him another chance to do so. >> we will not finalize this contempt process, if mr. clark genuinely -- failure to comply with their subpoena the saturday. >> meanwhile, former trump chief of staff mark meadows today revealed how he plans to handle his upcoming appearance before that same committee. meadows has been resisting, asserting that he was following trump's claim of executive privilege, while yesterday the panel said he started complying with a subpoena for records and plan to testify, but comments are meadows today raised questions about just how much cooperating he plans to do. >> the president has made a very clear that he is claiming executive privilege, not because he has anything to hide. i'm going to be honoring his executive privilege. it is not something i have the ability to weigh, even with my interview that potential is coming up with the house, we will be talk

if you are listening at home mr. meadows, mr. bannon, mr. clark, i want you to know this. history will be written about these times. about the work this committee has undertaken. in history will not look on any of you as martyrs. history will not look upon you as a victim. history will not dwell on your long list of privilege claims for your legal sleight-of-hand. history will record that in a critical moment in our democracy, most people were on the side of finding the truth or providing accountability, strengthening our system for future generations. in history will also record in this critical moment that some people hid behind excuses and went to great lengths to avoid answering questions and explaining what they had done and what they knew. i predict that history won't be kind to those people. what is especially jarring about the referral we are considering tonight is that mr. meadows was a member of this body for more than seven years. he was a leading voice in certain corners. he was the ranking member of the oversight and reform committee. it is not hard to locate

clarke. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6th was without precedence. there has been no stronger case in our nation's history for congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. this investigation is not like other congressional inquiinquir the constitution, the rule of law which are at the heart of what makes america great are at stake. we can't be having incomplete answers or truth, and conceal president trump's what happened. we have to be nonpartisan and get to the objective truth to assure that january 6th never happens again. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. pursuant to notice i now call up the report on resolution recommending that the house of representatives find marks randall meadows in contempt of congress refusing to reply by the subpoenas by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capital. the report was circulated in advance and the advance copies were available. clerk shall submit the reports. >> recommending tha

trump intended to appoint jeffrey clark as attorney general, in part so that mr. clark could alter the department of justice's conclusions regarding the election. mr. clark has now informed the committee has he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters, and he intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. as mr. meadows t texts reveal, he was texting with a member of congress, a colleague of ours, who was working with mr. clark. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6th was without precedence. there has been no stronger case in our nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. we must investigate the facts in detail and we are entitled to ask mr. meadows about the non-privileged materials 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 emails and texts he has given us without any privilege cl

if you're listening at home, mr. meadows, mr. bannon, mr. clark, i want you to know this. history will be written about these times about the work this committee has under taken and history will not look upon any of you as martyrs. history will look upon you as a victim. history will not dwell on your long list of privilege claims or legal slight of hand. history will record that in a critical moment in our democracy, most people are on the side of finding the truth, of providing accountability, of strengthening our system for future generations and history will also record in this critical moment some people would not, that some people hid behind excuses, went to great lengths to avoid answering questions and explaining what they had done and what they knew. i predict that history won't be kind to those people. what's especially jarring about the referral we are considering tonight is that mr. meadows was a member of this body for more than seven years. he was a leading voice in certain corners even briefly the ranking member of the oversight and reform committee. it's no

clark. mr. meadows has no basis to refused to testify regarding those communications. >> clark has informed the committee he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to this matter. and meadows text reveals that he communicated multiple times with a member of congress who was working with jeff clark. so, we learned through meadows's production through the committee, that jeff clark was working with the seeding member of congress at the time. mark meadows documents show which member of congress that is that was working with jeff clark on the scheme for which mr. clark was so anticipating potential prosecution. so now we are getting down to brass techs here. this is news tonight from the january six investigation. news, not just that they are referring mark meadows for contempt, but what his production has revealed to them thus far. members of the committee did vote to unanimous vote in contempt. the full house is expected to hold tomorrow to hold meadows in contempt of congress. if they

clark. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. >> clark has informed the committee he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and meadows' texts reveal he communicated multiple times with a member of congress who was working with jeff clark. so we learn through meadows' production to the committee that he was, jeff clark was working with a sitting member of congress on that at the time. mark meadows' documents apparently show which member of congress that is who was working with jeff clark on this scheme for which mr. clark is now anticipating potential criminal prosecution. so now we're getting down to brass tacks here. this is news tonight from the january 6th investigation. news not just that they are referring meadows for contempt but what his production has revealed to them thus far. members of the committee did vote to unanimously hold him in contempt. the full house is expected to vote tomorrow on whether to hold meadows in

and if you are listening at home, mr. meadows, mr. bannon, mr. clarke, i want you to know this. history will be written about these times, about the work this committee has undertaken, and history will not look upon any of you as martyrs. history will not look upon you as a victim. history will not gil dwell on your list of privileged claims or your legal slight of hand. history will record that in a critical moment, in our democracy, most people were on the side of finding the truth or providing accountability, of strengthening our system for future generations. and history will also record in this critical moment that some people would not, some people hid behind excuses, went to great lengths to avoid answering questions and explaining what they had done and what they knew. i predict that history won't be kind to those people. what's especially jarring about the referral we are considering tonight is that mr. meadows was a member of this body for more than seven years. he was a leading voice in certain corners even briefly the ranking member of the oversight and reform commit

mr. clark still has that opportunity. and i hope he takes advantage of it. >> surprising development tonight as the committee investigating january 6 met to dole out its second contempt of congress citation. committee chairman bennie thompson took the step of offering former department justice official jeffrey clark another chance to sit for a deposition. he has been in for one. at his last appearance, clark's attorney told the committee he would not answer questions, would not produce any documents. the committee still voted to hold clark in contempt. that passing unanimously. a vote by the full house could come within days if clark spurns the committee again. stephanie murphy is a member of the select committee investigating the attack who voted for the contempt referral. she joins me now. maybe you can explain the scenario. what happened when he came the first time, the decision to vote for contempt and what the latest developments are now. >> sure. thanks for having me, chris. the first time that mr. clark appeared be

illuminating the impetus for mr. clark in the first place including with whom he was collaborated both inside and outside the government to advance these efforts. again, the january 6th investigation, we know as of an interview on this show last night, they have had more than 250 people in the witness chair already. 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 efforts 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 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, serving members of congress, 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. that will put the justice department in the positi

clarke. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6 was without precedence. 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're entitled to ask mr. meadows about the nonprivileged materials he has produced to us. madam speaker, i'm sure you'll hear my colleagues this afternoon say that there are privilege 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. whether he question mr. meadows about emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim. mr. meadows' role in the rapness berger call cannot be privileged. 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 re

clarke. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6 was without precedence. 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're entitled to ask mr. meadows about the nonprivileged materials he has produced to us. madam speaker, i'm sure you'll hear my colleagues this afternoon say that there are privilege 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. whether he question mr. meadows about emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim. mr. meadows' role in the rapness berger call cannot be privileged. 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 re

mr. clarke. your daughter is a very good kisser. when you crave the uncomfortable. try spicy pringles scorchin'. the snapshot app from progressive rewards you for driving safe and driving less. okay, what message did you hear this time? safe drivers can save using snapshot? -what's snapshot? -what the commercial was about. -i tune commercials out. -me too. they're always like blah, blah blah. tell me about it. i'm going to a silent retreat next weekend. my niece got kicked out of one of those. -for talking? -grand larceny. how about we get back to the savings? [ everyone agreeing ] everyone has two chapters in their lives. before their first big mac and after their first big mac. trust me, they saved the best chapter for last. ♪ ba da ba ba ba. ♪ (vo) for fourteen years, subaru and our retailers have been sharing the love with those who need it most. trust me, they saved the best chapter for last. now subaru is the largest automotive donor to make-a-wish and meals on wheels. and the largest corporate donor to the aspca and national park foundation. get a new sub

order today, get it today at target. [ music ends ] mr. clarke. your daughter is a very good kisser. when you crave the uncomfortable. try spicy pringles scorchin'. (vo) for fourteen years, subaru and our retailers have been sharing the love with those who need it most. now subaru is the largest automotive donor to make-a-wish and meals on wheels. and the largest corporate donor to the aspca and national park foundation. get a new subaru during the share the love event and subaru will donate two hundred and fifty dollars to charity. ♪ [ cheers and applause >> seth: please give it up for the fantastic 8g band right over there. [ cheers and applause sitting in on drums this week, he is a veteran broadway drummer and session musician whose recorded with icons like john legend and rihanna. he's also an orchestral member in the broadway production of "karate kid" set to open this spring be sure to check out his sophomore album, "solo duo toot," available now jon epcar is here, everybody [ cheers and applause welcome back to the show, jon. great to se

we have just learned that mr. clark has agreed to appear again to continue his deposition. however, we will proceed tonight with considering the contempt request as this is just the first step of the contempt process. >> he has recently suggested that he wants to debate members of this committee. this committee's investigation into the violent assault on our capitol on january 6th is not a game. any communication mrs. trump has with this committee will be under oath. and if he persists lying then, he'll be under the laws of this great nation and subject to penalties for every false word he speaks. >> the rules committee will consider the contempt charge today, but the full house vote awaits the outcome of saturday's deposition. joining us now, a member of the committee, congresswoman deborah ross. we're so glad to see you this morning. tell us what happens next. we know the committee is waying the fallout deposition from clark. that's going to be saturday. if he shows up this weekend and takes the fifth amendment for every question, let's say, would that change the recommen

clark could alter the department of justice's conclusions regarding the election. mr. clark has informed this committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters. and intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. as mr. meadows' nonprivileged texts reveal, meadows communicated multiple times with a member of congress who was working with mr. clark.f mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. >> clark has informed the committee he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters, and meadows' texts reveal he communicated multiple times with a member of congress who was t working with jeff clark. so we learn through meadows' production to the committee that he was -- that jeff clark was working with a sitting member of congress on that at the time. mark meadows' documents apparently show which member of congress that is who was workint with jeff clark on this scheme for which mr. clark is now anticipating potential criminal prosecuti

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 contempt. he must testify, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. a

nor with mr. clark. we must get to the truth and ensure january 6th never happened 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 gentlewoman reserves is balance of her time. gentleman from indiana. >> thank you, madame 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, threaten and harass and they try to put their political opponents in jail. in a matter of weeks, the committee has passed three contempt citations. today, we vote on holding mark meadows in contempt of congress. on september 23, 2021, the committee served meadows is subpoena for a sweeping set of documents and a deposition. in october, president trump instructed mr. meadows to maintain his executive privilege in any response to that subpoena. mr. meadows told the select committee he would give them a

clark could alter the department of justice' conclusions regarding the election. mr. clark has now informed the committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters, and he intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. as mr. meadows' non-privileged texts reveal, he was communicating multiple times with a member of congress, a currently-serving colleague of ours, who was working with mr. 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

mr. clark will handle the other issues. in assessing subject matter jurisdiction, this court asked us to prepare to answer two questions today. the first is whether this court and the district court have jurisdiction notwithstanding the limitations on the presidential records act. the second is whether the court's jurisdiction over the remedies sought by the appellant remains in light of the jurisdictional limitations. the answer to both questions is yes. congress adopted the presidential records act to provide for government ownership of presidential records. in doing so, there were several concerns that they took into consideration. the first, one of those was executive privilege. the necessity for a former president to maintain the confidences of the records created during his term of office. the second was the need of the archivist to do the job without opening the floodgates of foia litigation during the initial period of processing the presidential records. in fact, the system, the presidential records act, created a

they also say they have reason to believe that mr. clark had conversations with others in the federal government including members of congress. that to me is intriguing. your thoughts on his potential to wind up actually incarcerated. what do you think happens now? >> yeah, he clearly has important information, but, frankly, even more importantly, he has a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. there was reporting that donald trump was ep listing the department of justice officials to do his nefarious bidding in trying to corruptly overturn the election's results. remember, there was that famous meeting where it was reported that president trump said, look, i know there was no fraud, just say there was and leave the rest to me and my allies in congress. what did jeffrey clark do? then a d.o.j. official he went back to the department of justice. he draft asked circulated a letter to the georgia state election officials giving them a blueprint to corruptly overturn the election's results. that makes jeffrey clark absolutely a

, as mr. clark pressed his department of justice superiors to use agency authorities to challenge election results. we have received evidence from multiple witnesses that you had an important role in the efforts to install mr. clark as acting attorney general. perry responded this morning saying, quote, i decline this entity's request and will continue to fight the failures of the radical left." tonight the committee is indicating a firm response to perry's resistance. we will talk about it in a moment with adam schiff. it is a sign of how serious it is getting. as "the new york times" reported last night the committee is considering recommending that donald trump himself face criminal charges. adam schiff of california is a member of the house select committee. he also is the lead impeachment manager in donald trump's first impeachment and he joins me now. congressman, first let's talk about congressman scott perry. obviously this is interesting, and i feel like almost uncharted waters. i'm t

we have just learned that mr. clark has agreed to appear again to continue his deposition. however, we will proceed tonight considering the contempt request as this is just the first step of the contempt process. we just want the facts, and we need witnesses to cooperate with illegal operation and provide us with the information about what led to the january 6th attack. mr. clark's deal has that opportunity and i hope he takes advantage of it. >> surprising development tonight is a committee investigating january six meant to dull out its second contempt of congress citation. as committee chairman, benny thompson, just took the extraordinary step of offering former department of justice official, jeffrey clark, another chance to sit for a deposition. he has already been in for one but at his last appearance, almost a month ago, clark's attorney told the committee he would not answer questions. would not produce any documents. so the committee still voted to hold clark in contempt. that bill passing unanimously. and a vote by the full house could come within days if clark sp

. >> i want to underscore how isolated mr. clark is. the select committee has heard from more than 250 witnesses. they include two of mr. clark's supervisors at the justice department. a former white house chief of staff is even cooperating with our probe. >> clark has already told the committee he intends to take the fifth when he appears for his deposition this weekend. that's where we are. and with that, let's bring in our starting line on this thursday night. jackie al mainny, political reporter for the "washington post," author of the paper's early morning newsletter, the early 202, jonathan karl, "new york times" best seller two weeks runner now, and frank figliuzzi, fbi assistant for counterintelligence. he's the author of the book "the fbi way" and host of the podcast "the bureau." welcome you all. jackie you get to go first with this question. our congress kicks the can down the road amid attempts to hold it up over mask mandates. what does this auger for what else they're supposed to get done between now and the end of the yea

clark were aware of these plans. congressman perry introduced jeffrey clark to donald trump according to a report released in october by the senate judiciary committee. the committee chairman bennie thompson, his letter to congressman perry also states, we are also aware that you have multiple text and other communications with president trump's former chief of staff regarding mr. clark and we also have evidence indicating that in that time frame you sent communications to the former chief of staff using the encrypted signal app. yesterday republican member of the select committee congressman adam kinzinger said this about his republican colleagues. >> do you think that some of your republican colleagues bear direct responsibility for that riot? >> it's possible. i'm not ready to kind of go to that point yet because i want to let the facts dictate it. but i will tell you, yes. there are more texts out there we haven't released. >> congressman kinzinger was asked about the possibility of a subpoena for donald trump's

acting attorney general, as mr. clark pressed's department of justice superiors to use agency authorities to challenge election results. we have received evidence from multiple witnesses, that you had an important role in the efforts to install mr. clark's acting attorney general. perry responded this morning saying quote, i declined this entities request, and will continue to fight the failures, of the radical capitol left. tonight the committee is indicating a firm response to perry's resistant, to talk about that in one moment with a committee member adam schiff. it's just another sign of how serious this investigation is getting. remember, as the new york times reported last, night the committee is recommending, donald trump himself face federal criminal charges. adam schiff of california, is a member of the house select committee, he's also the lead impeachment manager donald trump's first impeachment. he joins me now. congressman, let's talk about congressman scott perry. obviously this is interesting. and i f

. >> i want to underscore how isolated mr. clark's. the select committee has heard from more than 250 witnesses, they include two of mr. clark supervisors and justice department, a former white house chief of staff is even cooperating with our probe. >> clark has already told the committee he intends to take the fifth when he appears for his deposition this weekend. that is where we are, and with that, let's bring in our starting line on this thursday night. jacqueline alemany early morning newsletter the jonathan karl chief washington correspondent for abc news also happens to be the author of betrayal, the final act of the trump show new york times bestseller two breaks running now. and frank figliuzzi former fbi assistant for counter intelligence, he is the author of the book the fbi way, and the host of the podcast the bureau. good evening, and welcome to you all. jacqui, you get to go first tonight with this question. as congress kicks the can down the road amid attempts to hold it up over mask mandates, what does this offer, what

regarding mr. clark. and we also have evidence indicating that in that timeframe, use and communications to the former chief of, staff using the encrypted signal app. yesterday, republican member of the select committee, congressman adam king zinger, said this about his republican colleagues. >> do you think, that some of your republican colleagues, bear direct responsibility, for that riot? >> it's possible, i'm not ready to kind of go to that point. yeah i want to let the facts dictate it. but i will tell you, after there are more text we have not released. >> congressman king zinger was asked about the possibility of a subpoena, for donald trump's testimony. >> nobody, a member of congress, former president, nobody in america is above the law. so a subpoena for former president trump, i know the committee is not made a decision. but do you think that will happen? >> here's what i'll say. if we need, it yes. nobody should be above the law, we recognize we can get the information without him at this poin

clark could alter the department of justice conclusions regarding the election. mr. clark has a -- has advised this and intends to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. as mr. meadows nonprivileged reveal, meadows communicated multiple times with the member of congress who was working with mr. clark. this meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6 is without precedent. there has been no stronger case in our nations history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. this investigation is not like any congressional inquiries. our constitution, the structure of our institutions and a rule of law, which are a part of what makes america great area -- are great -- makes america great are at stake. we cannot surrender to president trump's efforts to hide what happened. we will persistent, professional and nonpartisan. and we will get to the objective truth to ensure that the january 6 never happens again. host: liz cheney who serves on that committee investi

the select committee believes that mr. clark had conversations with others in the federal government, including members of congress, regarding efforts to delegitimize, disrupt, or overturn the election ruls in the weeks leading up to january 6th. the select committee seeks documents and testimony from mr. clark to get a complete understanding of the attempts to delegitimize the election and with whom he was collaborated both inside and outside the government to advance these efforts. again, the january 6th investigation, we know as of an interview on this show last night, they have had more than 250 people in the witness chair already. 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 efforts 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 hours ago tonight, the fact that the investigation is willing to go out formally and say that a