The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riots at the Capitol will meet Wednesday night to consider a contempt referral against former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
hide captions
switch captions
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riots at the Capitol will meet Wednesday night to consider a contempt referral against former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
The Democratic-led House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riots at the US Capitol will vote Wednesday night on a criminal referral for a former Justice Department official who promised to pursue false election fraud allegations.
Former official, Jeffrey Clark, appeared with his attorney before the panel in early November, but said he was immune from answering their questions because of different arguments about legal privilege.
After that meeting, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson said he dismissed Clark’s claims.
“He has a very short period of time to review and cooperate fully. We need the information he is withholding and we are ready to take strong measures to hold him accountable. to meet his obligations,” Thompson, D-Miss, said at the time.
Clark refused to answer questions about former President Donald Trump and efforts to get the Department of Justice to investigate false claims about the 2020 election, according to a deposition transcripts third release. The committee also noted that Clark’s former DOJ supervisors appeared before the panel.
Clark and his attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clark is an important character in a Recent Senate report details Trump’s efforts to enlist the Justice Department in an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
The report said Clark proposed sending a letter to Georgia legislators and others to push for a delay in the confirmation of the election results and recommended a press conference announcing the DOJ was investigating the reports. forced voter fraud, despite the lack of evidence.
If the criminal referral is approved by Wednesday night, it would mark the second such case for the commission. The first is for former Trump strategist Steve Bannon. House approved at the end of October, and he was early indicted of the Department of Justice. He is insist not guilty of contempt for the charges of Congress.
“We’ve been clear and consistent throughout: Willfully resisting the committee has consequences,” said California Democratic Representative Pete Aguilar, a member of the panel. “We showed it to Mr Clark, we showed it to Mr Bannon and we don’t mind doing it.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said if the committee votes on the recommender, the entire chamber will take the measure this week.
Why did the committee go down this path with Clark
Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark is seen in a file photo.
Yuri Gripas / AP
hide captions
switch captions
Yuri Gripas / AP
Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark is seen in a file photo.
Yuri Gripas / AP
On Tuesday night, the console went live more than a dozen exhibits in his disdain for Clark, including The first scoreboard is released to the public that shows his attorney declined to respond on behalf of his client because of executive privilege.
Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, repeatedly told the panel that his client would assert executive privilege and other immunities over his testimony and documents.
“We do not intend to answer any questions or release any documents today,” MacDougald told the panel at their November 5 meeting.
MacDougald went on to say that Clark can also claim immunity through law enforcement and attorney-client privilege, as well as other legal shields.
“Mr. Clark finds himself in the position of having worked for a president who has asserted executive privilege,” MacDougald said. “And so, as his attorney, I cannot allow him to take the risk of guessing where that line will be drawn. And so, right now, we’re on the special side. executive.”
Some legal analysts said that because of his refusal to answer panel questions, Clark faced challenges in claiming his privilege.
Jonathan Shaub, a law professor at the University of Kentucky and a former attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, noted that the Justice Department has Authorised Clark to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Clark ultimately refused to voluntarily be interviewed in that case).
Clark was a member of the Justice Department on January 6, not the White House, where executive privilege claims could protect presidential advisers. It’s also unclear whether Trump directly told Clark not to cooperate with the panel on January 6 as he did Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and other advisors, Shaub said.
MacDougald claimed that Trump directed Clark not to cooperate in a letter, which was attached to series of disclaimers shared with the board of directors. However, the committee disagreed, arguing that Trump did in fact give the green light to Clark’s testimony in it same letter dated August 2 – sent on behalf of Trump by attorney and former Republican Representative of Georgia Doug Collins.
MacDougald also confirmed that he and his client received a July letter from the Department of Justice indicates that executive privilege does not apply to his claims of immunity.
Norm Eisen, a former House impeachment attorney, noted that by at least Clark’s refusal to testify in person, he had bought himself more time with the disdainful introduction than Bannon. But in the end, that’s still not enough.
Eisen said: “Now, Clark to his credit has come out. “When you show up – unless you have a legitimate reason not to answer questions – you have to answer questions. And he doesn’t.”
Eisen noted that Clark was also on the same boat as the Meadows.
The committee has weigh pursue criminal contempt referrals against Meadows. But on Tuesday, Thompson, chairman of the committee, speak Meadows has collaborated, create logs and set to appear for a deposition.
But Thompson also noted that Meadows’ compliance will be reevaluated after he is removed from office.
Eisen argued that Meadows, like Clark, faced similar questions about whether he was granted immunity without a court order, or an original order made, which would may prevent such cooperation.
“The point is, can you take the law yourself? Can you give yourself a preliminary order? You can act as if you have a court order that says, ‘I don’t need to answer these questions. that question “no?” Eisen said. “And in the end, you can’t.”
