Mr. Schiff. Well, Mr. Clark, it's not in the letter.
And is it your position, counsel, that somehow Mr. Clark can assert executive privilege over statements he gave to the press on behalf of the former President?
Mr. MacDougald. We made reference to that in the letter, Congressman, in the context of inviting the committee to narrow the scope. We're happy to have that discussion, but it needs to occur in writing so that we know where we stand.
Mr. Schiff. My question is—
Mr. MacDougald. This is an important matter for Mr. Clark, and I'm advising him—I'm trying to protect him, and I'm—we're going to do that based on a scope that is set forth in writing that we can analyze and decide whether we're going to object to it or not.
Mr. Schiff. My—
Mr. MacDougald. We don't have that, and I'm not going to let him answer those questions.
Mr. Schiff. Counsel, you would agree, would you not, that statements your client made to the press are not covered by any conceivable privilege? Can we agree on that?
Mr. MacDougald. Hypothetically.
Mr. Schiff. Are you objecting, nonetheless, to his answering questions about what he told the press about January 6th that were not included in an article?
Mr. MacDougald. I am objecting to the way the committee is proceeding with respect to Mr. Clark. You have a very broad-scape subpoena that has not been narrowed, and we have invited the committee to narrow the scope and expressed a willingness to testify more narrowly about January 6th.
We're not going to do that on the fly. We'll have a dialogue with the committee as counsel, and we will proceed in an orderly manner to resolve that scope issue. But
