CT Blue

I have set myself the task of reading and digesting each of the newly released transcripts from the January 6th committee. We’re I a betting man I would bet that I’ll never complete the task, but one never knows.

It’s my understanding that the released transcripts are a subset of all the transcripts from the committee depositions. I’m not sure about the selection criteria employed to determine the early releases, but I’m guessing at least one consideration is to illustrate the extent of criminality in which Trump and his cohorts were engaged.

Each transcript’s title is prefaced by a number such as 20211105, meaning that the deposition in question was taken on November 5, 2021, so I’m taking them in chronological order based on the titles.

First up is Jeffrey Clark. For reasons that will become apparent, Mr. Clark had occasion to return to the committee, but I shall cover his second appearance (if I ever do) as it comes up chronologically.

Clark, you will recall, is the guy Trump wanted to elevate to acting attorney general as he had indicated a willingness to commit treason in Trump’s behalf, a plot frustrated by the threat from a host of Justice Department folks that they would all resign in protest.

I’ll begin by noting that once again I am stunned by the sheer audacity of the lawyers that have become involved in these cases. Clark was apparently noticed for his deposition for a week prior to the date it was held (November 5, 2021), but the committee gave him a week’s continuance because he had just gotten a new lawyer, a fellow named Harry MacDougald.

Minutes prior to the deposition, MacDougald gave the committee a letter in which he explained that Clark simply could not answer any of their questions because any question they might ask would involve some sort of privilege. Among the questions raised by the committee in response to this rather startling assertion:

• What specific privilege are you citing in response to, for instance, Congressman’s Schiff’s query about the aspects of your January 6th involvement that Clark divulged to a reporter but about which he refused to testify to the committee?
• What specific privilege prevented him from responding to a question from Liz Cheney asking him when he first met Congressman Scott Perry?
• Why are you refusing to answer specific questions and delineate the specific privilege upon which you are relying?
• Why are you claiming a privilege that your superiors at the Justice Department never asserted.
• Why are you refusing to answer questions about which it is clear that there is no conceivable privilege?

The list goes on. Suffice to say that he refused to answer a single substantive question or to explain the legal grounds for failing to do so, constantly relying on the letter that his lawyer had delivered to the committee minutes before the hearing, a letter that the committee had not had time to review.

When the committee proposed to take a recess to review the letter, Clark, who was under subpoena, declared his intention to simply walk out and not come back when they reconvened, a threat on which he made good. In the world where Republicans are not the subject of subpoenas, such a move would likely land the scofflaw in jail.

The committee’s counsel (his or her name is redacted) sums up the gist of it:

Mr. MacDougald, with all due respect, Mr. Clark has been subpoenaed to appear before this committee. It is a legal obligation, on a date certain, to answer questions. That does not include a legal obligation by the committee to negotiate, or to set forth in advance particular subject matters. It’s a legal obligation to show up and answer questions, or to assert a privilege in response to specific questions. My understanding is that despite that legal obligation and an offer to through the questions and assert a privilege point by point, he’s refusing to answer any such questions. I just want to make clear that is his position.

So, apparently, at least as I interpret it, Clark rather desperately wanted to avoid taking the fifth, and his lawyer came up with a ton of bullshit to help him avoid doing just that.

From a practical if not legal point of view, the entire exercise amounted to an implied admission, given the nature of the January 6th committee, that he had been involved in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Addendum: I just took a quick look at his second deposition, and my surmise was correct. He took the fifth to every question, including some to which it appeared to be clearly inapplicable, such as whether he was working for the Justice Department on January 6th.

Extra added attraction: Back in the day, when the genius was president, I would add a few paragraphs a day to a diary I keep on my Ipad about his latest doings. I thought it might be a good idea for this series (if it continues) to cull some snippets from the “On this Day” feature, just to remind us what these people were trying to inflict upon us. Here’s one from four years ago today. A bit of criminality, and a bit of childishness. Vintage Trump:

On the Trump front, he has demanded that Mattis leave by the 1st of January, rather than the end of February date that Mattis had put in his resignation letter. Apparently, he learned from television that the resignation letter was a not very thinly veiled attack on him, inasmuch as it pretty much alleges that he is acting as a Russian agent.

He probably didn’t read the letter when it was tendered, and, if he did, was not smart enough to read between the lines.

Next episode may be a few days from now, if ever. There’s a holiday coming up.