46
claimed assertion of privilege, but a constant reference to a letter, a letter that, in and of itself, was not from the former President directing him not to testify. There has been no legal action by the former President to intervene in this proceeding.
Given that his colleagues in the Justice Department in higher positions of authority have testified and his refusal even to answer questions about his statements about January 6th made to the press, those refusals at least strike this member of the committee as not in good faith, and I yield back.
Yeah. Any other Members? Yes? Mrs. Luria.
Mrs. Luria. I just wanted to add for the record that, you know, although he referred to the letter numerous times and refused to answer the vast majority of questions, I felt that he negated his claim to privilege by actually—his universal claim to privilege for every question by actually answering a select question about the abuse of the gmail account.
So, although he claimed overall privilege, he did negate that on his own by answering a single question, and so that—I just wanted to place that that was my impression on the record.
Uh-huh. All right. Any other members of the committee?
Yeah. And I'll say that this record will remain open and that we are just going to—the deposition will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair, so the record will not be closed, but does anyone else have anything now to add? No?
I think I made my points about the state of engagement with Mr. Clark. The select committee reached out to him through counsel back in August. We repeatedly sought his voluntary cooperation, and it wasn't until he indicated he would not agree to a date for a voluntary cooperation that we moved to issue him a subpoena
He changed counsel very late, only about a week ago. Mr. MacDougald was
