mr. donahue, the answer to select committee questions for hours about the very same topics we would like to address. many others have done the same. there is nothing a stringer about congress seeking the testimony of a former executive branch official. the white house chief of staff is cooperating with our investigation. i have considered your clocks objections and rejected him. he was provided the opportunity to return to the deposition and he refused to do so. around 8:00 last evening, mr. clark's attorney read 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 pacific basis for that search. he offers no facts that would allow the committee to consider it. mr. clark had the opportunity to assert this privilege in response to questions we intended to ask him in the november 5 deposition. he declined to do so. he walked out. this is a last-ditch attempt to delay the committee proceedings. however, for the minute privilege, even though mr.

mr. donahue, the -- and they answered the select committees questions for hours about the very same topics we would like to address. many others have done the same. there is nothing extraordinary [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] himself in this process. he offers no pacific basis for that search. he offers no facts that would allow the committee to consider it. mr. clark had the opportunity to assert this privilege in response to questions we intended to ask him in the november 5 deposition. he declined to do so. he walked out. this is a last-ditch attempt to delay the committee proceedings. however, for the minute privilege, even though mr. clark previously had the opportunity to make these names on the record, the select committee will provide him another chance to do so. i have informed mr. clark attorney that i am willing to convene another deposition if mr. clark with assert that provision on a question by question basis. that is what the law requires someone to assert the privilege

mr. donahue, who were on the phone with trump receiving orders to declare the election corrupt, meadows was running the clark operation at d.o.j., it would appear. >> meadows was doing everything. and, you know, nicolle, i think this is a moment where we need to step back and make sure people understand who mark meadows was at this time. you worked in the white house. you understand the role of the chief of staff. the chief of staff is the agent in charge the president's wishes. it is his job to do what the president wants him to do. and so what you are really seeing here in all these documents, that jump didn't want the military to respond to the capitol. trump told people to go to the capitol and fight. trump was trying to get people to overturn the election. and mark meadows was carrying out his wishes. and the idea that he is going to talk about this stuff in his book and he's going to give these documents to the committee, but then he's going to rest on some kind of privilege? privilege is waived. he -- as the committee said, he's talking to everybody about it but the committee. he's g

mr. donahue from the rosen/trump conversation where trump says according to the verbate notes, just declare election corrupt, me and my allies will do the rest. they just wanted a designation. they new the d.o.j. wouldn't couldn't announce fraud and get evidence. because they knew they couldn't find any. rudy giuliani was getting laughed out of every court he walked into. he was "snl." "snl" was the reality. what do you think about where they are and what they will be able to do when as liz cheney said they have weeks and weeks of public hearings? >> i think that we haven't been able to see -- and it's really different from the impeachment hearings is that here you have a set of real insiders in that white house. and we don't know what snippets of conversations people heard. we don't know how they were engaged in the -- around the white house. and all of that is going to come out in these public hearings. so this is why i think it's really important. and i view this as very different. although i thought the impeachment hearings were serious and important, this is different because we have i

mr. donahue, who were the stewards of the justice department on january 6th. bill barr left. here. they left it with these two. they testified before the senate judiciary committee even before testifying before the 1/6 committee. they've done both. but maya, to your point, this opinion came out about 35 minutes ago. i've been on the air the whole time but it's just been flagged for me how this ends and i want to read this to our viewers who frankly have gotten farther than i have. the opinion ends like this. for all the foregoing reasons, and as harry and others already described, they go through the extraordinary nature of the events, the branches, the role of this committee and the current president's privilege being what trumps any ex-president's claims to it and they write this. for all the foregoing reasons, former president trump has not shown that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. we do not come to that conclusion lightly. the confidentiality of presidential communications is critical to the effective functioning of the presidency for the reasons that former

mr. clark as acting attorney general. acting attorney general rosen and acting deputy attorney general donahue have provided evidence regardingnce that others who worked with mr. 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 kinzing

mr. clark, the acting head of the department's civil division who became one of the stop the steal movement's most ardent supporters. then after christmas, perry called donahue to share his voter fraud dossier which focused on unfounded election fraud claims in pennsylvania. pennsylvania counted their votes at least three times. there was no fraud there. that's where rudy suffered some of -- hard to figure out what's most humiliating when you're talking about rudy, but some of his most humiliating rebukes were from the suits he brought in pennsylvania. there was no fraud in pennsylvania. what is the sort of legal lens on a member of congress introducing someone who was a stated in public advocate for firing the top of the justice department officials because they wouldn't carry out donald trump's will to fabricate fraud in georgia and pennsylvania and other places. what would garland look at if he were going to look at that behavior? >> it would probably be the career prosecutors in the u.s. attorney's office in d.c., and they would look at some conspiracy charge. if you look at the memo that jeff rosen when he was the deputy attorney general issued over the