You, right now, have no idea exactly what it is I intend to ask Mr. Clark because I haven't had a chance yet. We haven't had any negotiations. We haven't had any sort of proffer or exchange of information. So it's important, in the view of the select committee, to establish for Mr. Clark, for the Department of Justice, for potential court to evaluate the claim, to put on the record what the scope of our area of inquiry is of Mr. Clark. And, again, I understand that he's not going to provide—is unlikely to provide any answers to those questions, and that is his right at this time to assert that privilege.
But, to the extent we are going to challenge the privilege, Mr. MacDougald, we need a record that would form the basis of that challenge.
Mr. MacDougald. One second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. MacDougald. The concern that I have, , is that, at some point, this devolves into badgering the witness. And I would be surprised if the committee undertook litigation against Mr. Clark concerning the scope of the executive privilege while the Trump v. Thompson case is ongoing. That would be highly duplicative, wasteful of resources. And most of those privilege questions can be answered by that case.
And so, with respect to topics, you know, the assertion of privilege, it's—you know, my client is in a bind. He's under subpoena. And, yet, the President that he worked for has asserted executive privilege. Okay? He cannot testify under those circumstances, period.
And so we've got a court proceeding underway that's going to resolve the scope of that. And the prudent thing is to let that play out. And, like I said, in the meantime, if the committee would like to significantly narrow the scope of the inquiry, we're certainly
