weighty matter and the committee will soberly assess whether that privilege has been properly invoked. but clark may not make that assertion as a generic matter committee vice chair liz cheney added this on the committee s commitment to pierce the obstructionist blockade by the expresident and his allies. mr. character is not excused from testifying simply because president trump is trying to hide behind inapplicable claims of executive privilege. president trump continues to make the same false claims about a solen election with which he has misled millions of americans. these are the same claims he knows provoked violence in the past. he has recently suggested that he wants to debate members of
public hearings setting out for the american people in vivid color exactly what happened, every minute of the day, on january 6th, here at the capitol and at the white house and what led to that violent attack. so, luke, 250 people have voluntarily come before the committee. we keep pretty close tabs on the deadlines. so we can make some assumptions about who that includes. only people who were super close to the president and his campaign and the events of 1/6 have been subpoenaed. so you have to assume some very inside players already testified. what is your sense of that exchange? and why did it take place? yes, so i think that one thing that congressman raskin was trying to do with that conversation is to illustrate how out of step jeffrey clark is with so many other witnesses who were connected to the entire january 6th operation. for instance, we know that
perhaps the highest ranking person in the trump white house other than the president himself. that sends also a message to anyone else who is thinking about standing in defiance of the committee that there is another way, and there is an example of not doing that. we know dan scavino s schedule, cache patel s schedule to come in. they are getting many of their most soughtafter witnesses to come in and testify. i think the reason they want jeffrey clark so badly is because he was so intimately involved in spreading some of these false claims, including he made an inquiry into this weather china could hack voting machines through thermometers. he wanted a letter to georgia state officials to encourage them to put forward an alternative slate of electors to elect president trump instead of president biden, who won the state. and i think they are interested in whether he knew and whether
this conversation from the rules committee where congressman raskin was questioning chair monday thompson and vice chair cheney about sort of where they are on the path forward. let s listen to that. how many witnesses have been interviewed by the january 6th committee and its staff lawyers? how many have come before it? at this point, about 250. 250 people have voluntarily come before the committee or answered affirm definitely to a subpoena; is that right? that s correct. okay. so all the attention is going to a handful of cases of people who are in absolute glorious violation of the law according to the committee, like steve bannon or in this case, jeffrey clark, but the vast majority of the people are cooperating; is that right? that s correct stho we anticipate next year we will be ukt canning multiple weeks of
in the wake of significant developments overnight in their probe inside the inner sanctum of ump from s campaign to overturn the january 6th results, the committee voting to recommend contempt charges again jeffrey clark involved in a pressure campaign to oust his boss jeffrey rosen that was part of a bid to overturn georgia s election results. as questions were circulating when a contempt vote might be put before the house a last-minute offer from clark came to the committee. it is an offer members of the committee are approaching with a degree of skepticism, adam schiff said last night this move could merely amount to more obstruction. he said this, quote, at the 1th hour, clark has agreed to appear before our committee once again, this time to assert a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. if clark makes the assertion that answering particular questions about the scheme to overturn the election would tend to incriminate him that is a