Corey Lewandowski testifies at impeachment hearing before congress, live stream


>>NO, CONGRESSMAN. >>YOU DID NOT HOLD ANY POSITION IN GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER, DID YOU? >>CORRECT. >>SITTING BEHIND YOU ARE COUNSEL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, CORRECT? >>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >>YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE LAWYERS ACTUALLY WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE? >>I BELIEVE THAT’S ACCURATE. >>NEVERTHELESS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS TOLD YOU NOT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION BY THE COMMITTEE OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT. IS THAT CORRECT? >>CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE TO READ FROM THE LETTER THAT THE WHITE HOUSE PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE IF THAT WOULD HELP CLARIFY. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT? >>I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER. >>CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE OTHER THAN SAYING “HELLO” ABOUT 15 SECONDS AGO. >>YOU WERE DIRECTED BY LETTER >>I HAVE WAS PROVIDED A LETTER I BELIEVE THIS COMMITTEE WAS ASSIGNED. IT SAYS MR. LEWANDOWSKI’S CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR ADVISORS ARE PROTECTED BY DISCLOSURE — AND AS A RESULT THE WHITE HOUSE IS DIRECTING MR. LEWANDOWSKI NOT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT COMMUNICATION BEYOND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PORTIONS OF THE REPORT. >>I WILL TAKE THAT AS A YES. THE BASIS FOR THE DIRECTION IS A CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I CAN READ IT AGAIN. >>THE ANSWER IS YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED YOU WERE NEVER EMPLOYED BY WHITE HOUSE, EXECUTIVE BRANCH >>I HAVE NEVER BEEN EMPLOYED BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH. >>DID YOU ASK THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO BE HERE? >>I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN. >>THE ANSWER IS NO. >>I HAVE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. >>SO IT WAS YOUR IDEA? >>I HAVE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE. >>WAS IT YOUR IDEA? >>I CAN ONLY GO BY THE LETTER. >>THAT YOU THOUGHT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM WERE OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS >>THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED I NOT DISCLOSE SUBSTANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT OR ADVISORS TO PROTECT EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY. I RECOGNIZE IT IS NOT MY PRIVILEGE BUT I AM RESPECTING THE DECISION. >>HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO MEET HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >>THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED I NOT DISCLOSE THE DISCUSSION >>HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET ALONE WITH THE PRESIDENT? >>I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >>HOW MANY TIMES DID HE — >>THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED I NOT DISCLOSE THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT. >>DID HE EXPECT ANY CONCERNS THAT HE MAY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. >>WITH THE PRESIDENT OR ADVISORS TO PROTECT EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY. I RECOGNIZE THIS IS NOT MY PRIVILEGE. >>CAN I MAKE A POINT OF ORDER? THE GENTLEMAN IS OUT OF ORDER AND HAS PROCEEDED THE TIME LIMIT UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE >>THE RULING OF THE CHAIR IS CHALLENGED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF OVER RIDING THE RULE OF THE CHAIR. >>AYES >>OPPOSED, NO. >>NO >>WE CAN MAKE THIS A LOT EASIER. THE CLERK WILL CALL ROLE.>>MR. NADLER. >>WILL THE QUESTION IS WILL RULING OF THE CHAIR BE OVERRULED. MY VOTE IS NO. >>MR. NADLER VOTES NO. >>LAUGHLIN, JACKSON LEE >>MR. JACKSON LEE VOTES NO. MR. COHEN VOTES NO. MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES NO. MR. DOICH VOTES NO. MS. BASS VOTES NO. MR. RICHMOND. MR. JEFFERYS >>NO >>MR. CICILINI VOTES NO. MR. SOILEAU VOTES NO. MR. LOU VOTES NO. MR. RAS KIN VOTES NO. MR. JIAPAW VOTES NO. MISS DIMMINGS VOTES NO. MISS SCAN LYNN VOTES NO. MISS GARCIA VOTES NO. MR. NAGOOSE VOTES NO. MR. STANTON VOTES NO. MISS DEAN VOTES NO. MISS MRS. COLLINS VOTES AYES. MR. SHAVIT VOTES AYES. MR. JORDAN VOTES YES. MR. BUCK, MR. RATCLIFF. MR. RATCLIFF VOTES YES. MR. GATES VOTES AYES. MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA, AYES. MR. BIGS VOTES AYES. AYES. >>AYES >>MR. CLINE VOTES AYES. MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES YES. MR. STUBBY VOTES YES. >>IS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE?>>YOU ARE NOT RECORDED. MR. BUCK VOTES YES. >>ANYONE ELSE? >>THE CLERK WILL REPORT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 13 AYES AND 19 NO’S.>>MRS. CHAIRMAN — >>GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >>I WILL BE. >>THE POINT OF ORDER IS SUSTAINED. I AM TROUBLED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BEHIND YOU ARE PREVENTING YOU FROM ANSWERING BASIC QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT. >>I HAVE A MOTION >>YOU WILL WAIT FOR YOUR MOTION UNTIL I FINISH. >>POINT OF ORDER THEN. >>POINT OF ORDER HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED. >>NOT IN THE MIDDLE. >>YES IT DOES. >>THE CHAIRMAN IS NOT FOLLOWING HOUSE RULES. MOVE TO ADJOURN. >>MOTION TO ADJOURN. >>POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY. >>IF REPUBLICANS ARE SUCCESSFUL IN THE MOTION TO ADJOURN DOES THAT MEAN THERE WILL BE NO HEARING AND AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR. LEWANDOWSKI ABOUT EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE? >>YES >>ALSO THEY CAN READ THE THREE TIMES HE HAS PREVIOUSLY DONE IT >>POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >>THE MOTION IS NOT — AS MANY ARE IN FAVOR >>SO HE GETS RECOGNIZED FOR HIS INQUIRY BUT I DON’T. >>THE NO’S HAVE IT IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR. ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED. THE QUESTION IS ON MOTION TO ADJOURN. [ CALLING ROLL ] >>THERE ARE 12 AYES AND 19 NO’S. >>MOTION TO ADJOURN IS TO THE ADOPTED. I WILL FINISH WHAT I WAS SAYING. I AM TROUBLED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BEHIND YOU ARE PREVENTING FROM ANSWERING BASIC QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT WE ARE INVESTIGATING. NOT ONLY WERE YOU NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BUT THE QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HIMSELF AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS. THIS IS CLEARLY JUST PART OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONTINUED ATTEMPT TO COVER HIS ACTIONS. HE IS OBSTRUCTING CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION BY PREVENTING YOU FROM TELLING AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS MISCONDUCT. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA FOR HIS QUESTIONS.>>WHICH COULD BE DISCUSSED ON THE FLOOR AND PROBABLY WILL BE AND POSSIBLY JUST A BLATANT RUNNING OVER OF HOUSE RULES. MY CONCERN IS ETHICS VIOLATIONS. THIS HAS GOT TO BE RUN IN A DIFFERENT WAY. AT THIS POINT MR. LEWANDOWSKI YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS MULTI PA THE TIMES OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS. CORRECT? >>YES >>CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TWICE BEFORE THE HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE, CORRECT? >>YES >>HOW LONG WERE THE SESSIONS? >>I THINK THE FIRST SESSION WAS ABOUT SEVEN HOURS AND THE SECOND SESSION WAS MAYBE FOUR HOURS. >>YOU HAVE ALSO TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF SENATE INTEL, CORRECT? >>YES >>ABOUT HOW LONG? >>ABOUT EIGHT HOURS. >>YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, CORRECT? >>YES >>HOW MANY TIMES? >>TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS. >>FOR ABOUT HOW LONG? >>PROBABLY 15 TO 16 HOURS. >>AND THOSE WERE VOLUNTARILY, CORRECT? >>YES, SIR. >>SO YOU AGREED TO COME HERE VOLUNTARILY TODAY? >>I DID >>THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A FLAWED SUBPOENA TO BE ISSUED. >>CORRECT. >>I WANT TO KNOW DID OUR STAFF AND MANY MEMBERS HAVE READ FBI SUMMARY OF YOUR TESTIMONY BECAUSE EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR INTERVIEW SUMMARY FOR MONTHS, HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY? >>NO, SIR. >>THIS GOES TO THE POINT OF WHY HE WON’T BE ABLE TO REMEMBER SO MANY DETAILS OUTSIDE OF WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY IN THE MUELLER REPORT. THAT’S SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE OF. WERE YOU GIVEN GUIDELINES BY DEMOCRATS ON TOPICS OR SUBJECTS OF YOUR QUESTIONS TODAY? >>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. >>THAT IS A PROBLEM WE SEEM TO HAVE. OVER BROAD SUBPOENAS AROUND HERE. WE CAN TALK TODAY ABOUT YOUR FAVORITE FOOTBALL TEAM. >>PATRIOTS >>YOU ARE PRETTY HAPPY RIGHT NOW. >>TOM IS A WINNER. >>THE PROBLEM IS WE DON’T FOLLOW PROCEDURE BECAUSE IF IT GETS IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY, WE DON’T LIKE IT. IN ANY OF THE TIMES THAT YOU HAVE HAD TODAY AND ESPECIALLY NOT BEING QUESTIONED YOU HAVE STATED YOU PLAN TO ANSWER AS BEST YOU POSSIBLY CAN. >>YES, SIR >>YOU ALSO REALIZE THAT HAVING TESTIFIED SO MANY TIMES IN THIS VARIOUS ISSUES THAT WE HAVE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS, DOES THAT CONCERN YOU HAVING TO KEEP COMING BACK AND BACK AGAIN WITHOUT PROPER REFERENCE IF SOMEBODY WAS TO AS YOU SAID EARLY, I WANT TO KNOW THE REFERENCE. WOULD THAT BE A PROBLEM? >>I THINK MY MEMORY OF EVENTS TO YEARS AGO WAS CLEARER WHEN I TESTIFIED BECAUSE IT WAS A YEAR AND A HALF AGO ON MANY OCCASIONS OR LONGER. IF I CAN HAVE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE OF SOMETHING >>SO YOU WANT TO BE SURE YOU GIVE AN ACCURATE RESPONSE. YOU HAVE TESTIFIED ON THESE ISSUES MANY TIMES BEFORE >>YES, SIR >>TO IMPLY OTHERWISE IS BASICALLY IN MANY WAYS TAKING A SHOT AT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE. >>IT IS. >>WHEN YOU WORKED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, YOU SAID THIS EARLIER, I JUST WANT IT STATED AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THESE AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DIDN’T SEEM TO TAKE BUT WE WILL TRY AGAIN. DID YOU ENGAGE IN CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, COERCION WITH THE RUSSIANS? >>NEVER >>I THINK THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE AND MANY OF US, IS WE HAVE A NARRATIVE THAT’S FAILED. THE FAIL OF NARRATIVE IS CONTINUED. YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE MANY TIMES THAT THE WHOLE COMMITTEE HAS SEEN. IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING PREMISE OF WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SAID THE MAJORITY IS LOOKING FOR IS THEY’RE TRYING TO FIND A REASON TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THEY HAVE FOUND 17 AT LEAST. THEY DON’T HAVE TO GO FURTHER BUT THEY CAN’T GET MORE ON THE FLOOR TO DO THIS. THIS IS DRAGGING THIS OUT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ANSWER FULLY AS YOU SAID. YOU HAVE VOLUNTARILY COME EVEN THOUGH WE DECIDED TO THROW A FLAWED SUBPOENA AT YOU AND THE OTHERS AS WELL. I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD WE’LL SEE HOW THIS MOVES FORWARD. THIS IS CONCERNING TO ME. I WILL TAKE THIS FOR THE MOMENT. IT’S OKAY TO BE FRUSTRATED. IT’S ALSO NOT OKAY TO OVER RUN HOUSE RULES. THE FIVE MINUTE RULE IS A HOUSE RULE. IT IS NOT UP FOR INTERPRETATION WHEN HE FEELS LIKE. THAT’S NOT DEBATABLE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN YOUR LAST QUESTION BUT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT AND WE WILL HAVE A LOT MORE DISCUSSION ON STAFF QUESTIONING BUT THERE IS PLENTY TIME TO GET THAT LAST QUESTION YOU DIDN’T GET ASKED TO ANYBODY ELSE. IS IT WORTH BREAKING THE HOUSE RULES? I KNOW SOME DON’T CARE. AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU ARE ACCUSING A PRESIDENT OF VERY HIGH ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. YOU ARE DRAGGING IT THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE FOR EIGHT MONTHS. I THINK FOLLOWING PROCEDURES IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BECAUSE YOUR IDEA IS NOT — >>POINT >>GOOD MORNING, MR. LEWANDOWSKI. I’M QUESTIONING YOU RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU WHO HAD NO ROLE AT ALL IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO DELIVER THAT MESSAGE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE JUST PICKED UP THE PHONE HIMSELF AT ANY TIME AND CALL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAD A FULL STAFF OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES RIGHT DOWN THE HALL, SO THIS MADE ME WONDER IF THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS LEGAL, WHY DIDN’T HE JUST PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, OR WHY NOT ASK ANY MEMBER OF HIS STAFF WHO WORKED RIGHT DOWN THE HALL TO DELIVER A MESSAGE. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE REASON HE WENT TO YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, IS BECAUSE EVERYONE SAID NO. SO I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT. TWO DAYS BEFORE MEETING YOU, THE PRESIDENT HAD CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BEGAN AT HOME ON A SATURDAY TO FIRE PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL SAYING THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN MUELLER HAS TO GO. CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DOING, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. BUT MCGANN REFUSED. WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER THAT MESSAGE, DID HE, THE PRESIDENT, TELL YOU THAT TWO DAYS BEFORE YOUR MEETING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAD REFUSED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. VOLUME 86 IS WHERE YOU WILL FIND THAT LANGUAGE. WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU, DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION QUESTIONING. >>COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >>THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER THAT MESSAGE. DID HE TELL YOU THAT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? >>THE WHITE HOUSE HAD DIRECTED ME. DID I NOT DISCLOSE THE — >>YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU HE CALLED HIS COUNSEL AT HOME ON SATURDAY TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND COUNSEL SAID NO. THE PRESIDENT HAD ALSO PERSONALLY CALLED SESSIONS AT HOME AND ASKED HIM TO UN- RECUSE HIMSELF AND OVERSEE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION AND SESSIONS SAID NO. WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER HIS MESSAGE TO SESSIONS, DID THE PRESIDENT TELL YOU THAT SESSIONS HAD ALREADY SAID NO? VOLUME TWO, PAGE 107. >>AGAIN, CONGRESSWOMAN, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE PRIVILEGE IS NOT MINE. I’D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, OR YOU CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION BY YOURSELF, BUT IF YOU’D LIKE TO ASK ME A QUESTION, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER IT. THEN DON’T ASK ME A QUESTION. >>THIS IS A HOUSE JUDICIARY, NOT A HOUSE PARTY. >>GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >>I’D LIKE MY TIME RESTORED, PLEASE, OF HIS INTERRUPTION. SO HE WAS A WITNESS TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. FOR THAT REASON, SESSIONS AND SAID PUBLICLY THAT FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITED HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE REPORT FROM VOLUME TWO, PAGE 49 THROUGH 50, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN. YOU CAN READ THAT. YES OR NO, DID THE PRESIDENT TELL YOU THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ANY PART IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO DELIVER HIM A NOTE ABOUT THAT VERY INVESTIGATION? DID THE PRESIDENT TELL YOU THAT? >>WHAT YOU HAVE JUST READ ON THE SCREEN. >>YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN. >>THERE IT IS. >>YES OR NO. READ THE SCREEN. >>YOU ARE WELCOME TO READ IT, CONGRESSWOMAN. >>YOU ARE WELCOME TO BE STOLEN, AND I AM NOT GOING TO STALL. YOU EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO. ú>>I WILL TAKE THE PRIVILEGES YOU’VE HAD TWO OTHER MEMBERS. >>NOBODY AT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS EVEN SUPPOSED TO CONTACT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION. THAT YOU CAN ANSWER YES OR NO. >>I WILL NOT DISCLOSE ANY CONVERSATION I’VE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT. >>AGAIN, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY HERE TO BLOCK ANY REGIONAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH OR NOT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SHORTLY AFTER SESSIONS ANNOUNCED HIS RECUSAL DIRECTED THAT SESSIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONTACTED ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. IN FACT, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL INTERNAL NOTES STATE, NO CONTACT WITH SESSIONS AND NO COMMUNICATIONS SERIOUS ABOUT INSTRUCTION. CAN YOU READ THAT? I JUST SAID IT. CAN YOU READ THAT? DID YOU HEAR ME? >>IS THERE A QUESTION? >>TO THE PRESIDENT TELL YOU HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOLD HIM NO CONTACT WITH SESSIONS BECAUSE OF SERIOUS CONCERNS OF OBSTRUCTION. WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO SESSIONS. >>I AM RESPECTING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY, AND I WILL RECOGNIZE THAT AT THIS TIME. >>LET ME JUST SAY THAT YOU KNEW. DID YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT WAS PUTTING YOU AT RISK WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. THE PRESIDENT KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE HAD ALREADY SAID NO. HE CALLED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. MCGANN SAID NO. HE CALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ASK HIM TO UN- RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. SESSIONS SAID NO. HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID THERE SHOULD BE NO CONTACT WITH SESSIONS BECAUSE OF HIS RECUSAL. SO WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT DO? HE CALLS YOU INTO DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE WOULDN’T DO. HE CALLS YOU INTO DO HIS DIRTY WORK IN SECRET BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG. WELL, WE WILL EXPOSE THE TRUTH. THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BEHIND YOU ANY LONGER. HE SHOULD BE HERE TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >>THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>I DON’T BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN. >>YES, THERE WAS. >>COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REPEAT. >>IT WAS JUST A RANT. >>THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. >>DID YOU KNOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL — >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS RECOGNIZED. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, THANK YOU FOR APPEARING THIS AFTERNOON AND TESTIFYING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS TESTIFYING VOLUNTARILY BEFORE CONGRESS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>IT IS. >>AND IT HAVE YOU HAD TO HIRE AND RETAIN COUNSEL TO REPRESENT YOU FOR ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU’VE HAD TO ENDURE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER? >>YES, SIR. >>THAT’S UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T SOLICIT OR RECEIVE ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIANS, DID YOU? >>NO, SIR. >>ARE YOU AN AGENT WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT? >>NO, SIR. >>AS A CLOSE FRIEND AND ADVISOR OF THE PRESIDENT, YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIANS, DO YOU? >>ABSOLUTELY NOT. >>AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT TO INTENTIONALLY OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, IS THERE QUESTION MIKE. >>NO, SIR. >>THANK YOU. YET AGAIN, COMING HERE TO TELL THIS COMMITTEE WHAT WE, SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ALREADY KNOW, THE PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS, NOR DID HE OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. THAT’S NOT TO SAY THAT THE RUSSIANS WEREN’T TRYING TO INTERFERE AND INFLUENCE OUR 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. IT’S CLEAR THAT THEY WERE BY SENDING FAKE TEXTS AND OPERATING FAKE FACEBOOK PAGES AND HOLDING FAKE RALLIES ALL IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. DEMOCRATS WANT TO IGNORE ALL OF THE REAL EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND HOLD THIS FAKE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE IT HAPPENED UNDER A DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS WATCH. THIS ALL HAPPENED UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S WATCH. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>YES, SIR. >>AND IT WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT FAILED TO PROTECT US FROM THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND INFLUENCE IN OUR ELECTION, ISN’T THAT ALSO TRUE? >>YES. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP WASN’T PRESIDENT. HE WASN’T THE ONE THAT FAILED TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY. IF ANYBODY FAILED, IT WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES, IT IS. WE MET I SAID IT BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. WE ARE BASING — WASTING VALUABLE COMMITTEE TIME AND WASTING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS ONE THING THIS COMMITTEE COULD BE DOING IS TO QUESTION INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ CONCERNING THE BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AT THE ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. WE COUL BE QUESTIONING HORWITZ ABOUT HIS RECENT REPORT HOW THEN FBI DIRECTOR COLBY MISHANDLED DEPARTMENT MEMOS. THIS COMMITTEE HAS SUCH A RICH HISTORY. HIS JURISDICTION OVER A WHOLE LOT OF VERY SIGNIFICANT THINGS. WE ARE SPENDING OUR TIME ON THIS FAKE IMPEACHMENT, BUT WE COULD BE FOCUSED ON SOMETHING THAT REALLY MATTERS LIKE IMMIGRATION. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE ENTERED OUR SOUTHERN BORDER. GENERALLY, THEY ARE BROUGHT UP EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR IN GROUPS, CARAVANS, USUALLY OFTENTIMES CONNECTED WITH CARTELS. CARTELS MAKE A LOT OF MONEY WHEN THEY COME UP HERE. THEY ARE TOLD THE MAGIC WORDS. COME ACROSS THE BORDER. THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE IN FEAR, AND COME RIGHT INTO OUR COUNTRY. WE PUT THEM ON A BUS OR ON A PLANE AND THERE IT ARE SENT TO COMMUNITIES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THAT SOMETHING THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD BE WORKING IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT. OPIOIDS. WE HAVE ABOUT 70000 AMERICANS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES TO OPIOIDS LAST YEAR. THAT SOMETHING IN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMITTEE, YET WE DO VIRTUALLY NOTHING ABOUT IT IN THIS COMMITTEE. BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. THAT’S SOMETHING I’VE INTRODUCED. WE’VE GOT A $22 TRILLION DEBT HANGING OVER OUR HEAD. IF WE DO NOTHING IN THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT ATTEMPTING TO ACTUALLY PASS SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE US BALANCE A BUDGET EVERY YEAR LIKE ALL OUR STATES HAVE TO DO, SO FINALLY I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU, AGAIN, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, FOR APPEARING AT TODAY’S HEARING. PERHAPS YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY WILL FINALLY CONVINCE DEMOCRATS THAT THERE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT THIS COMMITTEE COULD BE SPENDING OUR TIME ON RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO PURSUE THIS FAKE IMPEACHMENT, A FULL IMPEACHMENT . THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY DON’T HAVE MOVE ALL VOTES TO MOVE FORWARD TO OPEN UP AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES. SOME OF THE DEMOCRAT WANT TO VOTE FOR IT, SOME OF THE DEMOCRATS WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES. SO WHAT THEY DO IS THEY SPEND VALUABLE COMMITTEE TIME THAT WE COULD BE SPENDING ON OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS ON THIS FAKE IMPEACHMENT. AND IT’S A SHAME. BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE COULD BE DOING SO MUCH MORE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WITH THAT,. >>WHO STATES THE POINT OF PARLIAMENT? >>MR. CHAIRMAN, THE WITNESS IS TO ANSWER A LONG LINE OF QUESTIONS FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO ABOUT WHETHER DONALD TRUMP HAD COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS AND ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND SO ON, BUT HE NEVER TESTIFIED AS TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS BEFORE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER. CAN HE NOW CONTINUE TO INVOKE THIS WHITE HOUSE RATIONALE THAT HE’S CONFINED TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE MUELLER REPORT WHEN HE’S GONE WAY BEYOND IT IN HIS RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONING FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO? >>REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE WENT BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE MUELLER REPORT IN THE ANSWERS THAT HE GAVE TO THE LAST QUESTION ARE, REGARDLESS OF THAT, AND I’M GLAD TO HEAR HE FAVORS THE PATRIOTS, EVEN THOUGH THAT’S NOT IN THE MUELLER REPORT, BUT REGARDLESS OF THE LONG SERIES OF ADVANCES THAT HE GAVE, THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE MADE BY THE WITNESS IS IMPROPER FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER TODAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND TO THE WITNESS’ COUNSEL. THAT SAID, I WILL TAKE THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE UNDER ADVISEMENT. >>MR. CHAIRMAN. >>THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE — >>PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. IT WAS A STATEMENT, NOT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. YOU JUST SORT OF SKIPPED ONTO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HERE. >>I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS NOT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >>THE GENTLEMAN STATED THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >>HE DID NOT. IT WAS A STATEMENT. >>I ANSWERED HIS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE IS RECOGNIZED. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR YOU ARE NOT AN EMPLOYEE. YOU HAD NO W-2. YOU HAD NO CARD. YOU HAD NOTHING. YOU ARE NOT AN EMPLOYEE, AND YOU WERE A POLICEMAN AT ONE TIME, SO YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE LAW AND ABOUT FOLLOWING THE LAW. DIDN’T YOU THINK IT WAS A LITTLE STRANGE THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD SIT DOWN WITH YOU ONE-ON-ONE AND ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU KNEW WAS AGAINST THE LAW CUSTOMER DID THAT STRIKE YOU A STRANGE? >>I DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF YOUR CHRISTIAN. >>YOU WEREN’T A POLICEMAN? >>I DIDN’T THINK THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. >>YOU DIDN’T THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO ASK MR. SESSIONS TO DROP THE INVESTIGATION AND TO JUST GO ON TO FUTURE PRESIDENTS AND OMIT EVERYTHING WITH THIS PRESIDENT AND WE ARE GOING TO START WITH THE NEXT ONE ABOUT COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA, YOU DIDN’T THINK THAT WAS ILLEGAL TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE QUESTION MIKE. >>THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME NOTHING ILLEGAL. >>OBVIOUSLY, YOU’VE NEVER BEEN A JUDGE AND WON’T BE ONE. ALL THESE PEOPLE ASK YOU, THEY GAVE YOU DICTATION. HE DICTATED TO YOU A MESSAGE TO GIVE SESSIONS. HAD YOU EVER BEEN A SECRETARY FOR THE PRESIDENT FOR AND TAKING DICTATION OR SHORTHAND? >>MANY TIMES. >>WE GOT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS NOW. YOU WERE A SECRETARY. COULD HE ASK YOU OUTSIDE OF WHITE HOUSE CHANNELS, AND THAT’S WHAT MUELLER WROTE, THAT THIS WAS OUTSIDE OF WHITE HOUSE CHANNELS, COULD HE HAVE ASKED YOU TO GET THE MESSAGE TO SESSIONS, BECAUSE HE THOUGHT YOU WOULD DO WHATEVER HE ASKED, EVEN IF IT WAS ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL LIKE YOUR FORMER BOSS WHO SAID YOU WERE AN IMPLEMENTER. HE THOUGHT YOU WOULD PLAY WHATEVER ROLE HE WANTED BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL. IS THAT POSSIBLY WHY HE CHOSE YOU TO TAKE THIS MESSAGE TO SESSIONS? >>THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESSMAN. >>WELL, DONALD TRUMP WAS RIGHT THOUGH. FIRST, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON MCGANN, REFUSED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. MR. MCCANN SHOWED PRINCIPLE IN CHARACTER AND REFUSED TO DO WHAT HE KNEW WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL ACT. THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WHO RECUSED HIMSELF WAS ASKED TO ON RECUSED HIMSELF, BUT ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS ALSO DID THE RIGHT THING, AND HE SAID, I’M NOT GOING TO ON RECUSED MYSELF BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT, BECAUSE I WAS INVOLVED IN A CAMPAIGN AND NEW SOMETHINGS. THEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ADVISED THE PRESIDENT NOT EVEN TO CONTACT SESSIONS, BUT YOU HIS LOYAL SOLDIER WOULD DO IT. YOU WERE DIFFERENT. TRUMP COULD DEPEND ON YOU. YOU DID NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS. YU ARE A LOYAL SOLDIER. YOU JUST WROTE ON THE MESSAGE AND AGREED TO DELIVER IT. YOU TOOK THE DICTATION. YOU ASKED HER TO TYPE IT UP FOR YOU, NOT THAT YOU COULDN’T HAVE DONE IT YOURSELF, I’M SURE, AND THEN ASKED SOMEBODY ELSE TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE TO SESSIONS WHEN YOU DECIDED NOT TO. DONALD TRUMP TALK TO OUTSIDE NORMAL CHANNELS SO THERE WOULD BE NO RECORD OF ANYTHING THAT HE ASKED YOU TO DO TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT AT ALL FOR THE PRESIDENT KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG. MR. SESSIONS KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG. MR. MCGANN KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WRONG. YOU SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO DIDN’T THINK IT WAS WRONG. MR. TRUMP WAS WRONG, BECAUSE AT THE LAST MINUTE YOU GOT COLD FEET. YOU CHICKENED OUT. THE PRESIDENT’S TRUST WAS MISPLACED. YOU DECIDED NOT TO DO WHAT YOU TOLD THE PRESIDENT YOU WERE GOING TO DO, AND YOU HANDED IT OFF TO SOMEBODY ELSE. DID YOU REALIZE AT SOME POINT THAT YOUR FORMER BOSS GOT INVOLVED IN THE CRIMINAL PROBLEMS AND WENT TO PRISON AND MAYBE YOU WERE GOING TO BE THE NEXT ONE? DID THAT CROSS YOUR MIND? DID YOU EVER THINK ABOUT GOING TO PRISON? >>SO WE ARE CLEAR, HE WENT TO JAIL MANY YEARS AFTER I LEFT HIS EMPLOYMENT. I’M SURE YOU CAN CLARIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD. >>AND YOU WERE HIS EMPLOYEE AND YOU HAD GREAT RESPECT FOR HIM, BUT YOU LEARN FROM THAT. I’M ASKING, DID YOU LEARN FROM HIS EXPERIENCE AND REALIZED WHAT YOU ARE ASKED TO DO WAS ILLEGAL AND YOU DIDN’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE SAME TRAIL AND AN UP IN PRISON? >>I WASN’T ASKED TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, CONGRESSMAN. >>THE PUBLIC WILL DETERMINE THAT. THIS HAS BEEN MORE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND YOU FOLLOWED THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, AND YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY THOUGHTYOU DO. YOU ARE A LOYAL SOLDIER, EXCEPT YOU DIDN’T FOLLOW TRUMP’S INSTRUCTIONS. YOU CHICKENED OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE AND GOT COLD FEET. A YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU RAN PRESIDENTS TRUMP CAN SPAIN BETWEEN JANUARY 2015 AND JUNE 2016, IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES. >>YOU WERE AT THE HELM OF THE CAMPAIGN WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SECURED THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. >>YES. >>PRETTY GOOD CAMPAIGN HE RAN. >>THANK YOU. >>I MEAN, YOU BEAT 17, 18 DIFFERENT OPPONENTS, SENATORS, GOVERNORS, SOME GOOD SENDERS. OF COURSE, YOU HAD A PRETTY GOOD CANDIDATE. >>THE BEST. >>PRETTY GOOD CANDIDATE WHO I THINK HAS DONE A GREAT JOB AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AFTER YOU LEFT THE CAMPAIGN, I THINK YOU LEFT IN JUNE. AFTER YOU LEFT, WERE YOU STILL INVOLVED WITH THE CAMPAIGN THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE ELECTION ALL THE WAY THROUGH NOVEMBER 8, 2016? >>YES. A MAC SO YOU ARE PART OF THE CAMPAIGN OPERATION AT SOME LEVEL OR ANOTHER FROM JANUARY 2015 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2016. DURING THAT ENTIRE TIME, DID YOU EVER WORK WITH RUSSIA TO IMPACT THE ELECTION? >>NO. >>YOU KNOW IT’S INTERESTING, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WHEN JIM CALL ME WAS ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION SITTING AT THE SAME TABLE, HE GAVE THE SAME ANSWER. WHEN BOB MUELLER WAS ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION SITTING AT THAT SAME TABLE, HE GAVE THE SAME ANSWER. FALSELY ACCUSED BY THE PRESIDENT IS FALSELY ACCUSED OF COLLUDING WITH THE FOREIGN STATE TO IMPACT THE ELECTION. WHEN WE DEPOSE HIM AT THAT VERY TABLE, JIM CALMLY SAID AT 10 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION WITH THAT WE DIDN’T HAVE A THING. BOB MUELLER GETS NAMED SPECIAL COUNSEL. HE WASTES $30 MILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY. HE SITS AT THAT TABLE JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO AND GIVES THE SAME DARN ANSWER. BUT THESE GUYS OVER HERE, THEY DON’T CARE. THEY DON’T CARE. THEY DON’T WANT TO GET TO WHAT HE SAID. THEY DON’T WANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE ACCUSATION úHAPPE THEY JUST WANT TO DRAG PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND KEEP TRYING TO FIND SOME WAY THEY CAN GO AFTER THE PRESIDENT. LET’S GO BACK TO THE PROCESS THAT THE RANKING MEMBER RAISED. DID YOU TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE IN 2017? >>YES. >>DID YOU TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN 2017? >>YES. >>AND YOU WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND ANSWERED HIS QUESTIONS AND 2018, IS THAT RIGHT? >>IT IS. >>AND YOU DID THAT ALL VOLUNTARILY? >>YES. >>NO SUBPOENA? >>NO, SIR. >>I’M WILLING TO COMPLY, ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU’VE GOT. >>YES. >>I THINK IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID 20 SOME — HOW MANY HOURS QUESTION MIKE. >>MORE THAN 20. >>MORE THAN 20 HOURS. AND FOR THIS COMMITTEE, DID YOU GET A LETTER FROM THIS COMMITTEE BACK IN MARCH ASKING YOU TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN DOCUMENT REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN NOT WANTED TO HAVE? >>I BELIEVE SO, YES. >>AND YOU AND YOUR LEGAL TEAM COMPLIED? >>YES, SIR. >>JUNE 24th YOU GOT ANOTHER LETTER. >>YES. >>ASKING YOU TO DO AN INTERVIEW, A TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE. YOUR LAWYER CONTACTED THE CHAIRMAN AND SAID, WE’D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES. >>GIVE US SOME DATES, WE WILL COME IN AND BE HAPPY TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? >>NEXT, ABOUT FIVE WEEKS AGO THE COMMITTEE ISSUED A SUBPOENA FOR MY APPEARANCE. >>SO YOU ARE WILLINGTO COME VOLUNTARILY JUST LIKE YOU DID FOR BOB MUELLER FOR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, 20 SOME HOURS. YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT ALL. YOU COMPLIED WHEN THEY ASK YOU FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. THEY HIT YOU WITH A SUBPOENA. >>CORRECT. >>THEN YOU START BEING CALLED NAMES. THEY START TREATING YOU THIS WAY, KIND OF INTERESTING. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT STARTED IT. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SLAP YOU WITH THE SUBPOENA WHEN YOU ARE WILLING TO COME VOLUNTARILY. >>I WAS. >>THAN THE QUESTION, THE DEMEANOR YOU BRING TODAY, I MEAN, FIRST THEY CHANGE THE RULES LAST WEEK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONGRESS, CHANGE THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, AND TODAY THEY ARE NOT EVEN GOING TO FOLLOW THE RULES BECAUSE THE RULES THAT CHANGE LAST WEEK TALKED ABOUT STAFF ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER MEMBERS WERE DONE. WE GOT THIS WHOLE ISSUE WITH CONSULTANTS. MAYBE WE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IF WE DID EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. MAYBE WE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED AS A HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IF WE ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON HOW THIS WHOLE FALSE ACCUSATION STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>I THINK IT BE A GREAT IDEA. >>MAY BE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED THAN SPENDING MORE TIME INVESTIGATING SOMETHING THAT HAS HAD 32 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION FROM BOTH THE FBI AND BOB MUELLER AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. MAYBE WE WOULD DO THAT. YOU KNOW A GREAT PLACE TO START? A GREAT PLACE TO START, MR. CHAIRMAN. ASK YOU ABOUT THIS ONE WEEK AGO TODAY. GREAT PLACE TO START WOULD BE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED JUST THREE WEEKS AGO, THE SCATHING REPORT ABOUT JIM CALL ME. THAT WOULD BE A NICE PLACE TO START, BUT WHEN I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN WHEN WE MIGHT HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION HIM, HE SAID, I DON’T KNOW, I HAVEN’T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. OF COURSE, YOU HAVEN’T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. TOO BUSY TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. TOO BUSY SIPHONING SUBPOENAS ON COREY LEWANDOWSKI. OF COURSE, YOU HAVEN’T THOUGHT ABOUT IT. THAT’S WHAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON. I YIELD BACK. >>GENTLEMEN YIELD BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU ARE ABOUT LIKE A FISH BEING CLEANED WITH A SPOON. IT’S VERY HARD TO GET AN ANSWER OUT OF YOU. BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR, BASED ON THE PRESIDENT’S PAST STATEMENTS, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT LIKE FOR ANYBODY TO TAKE NOTES WHEN HE’S TALKING. IN FACT, HE ASKS LAWYERS NOT TO TAKE OFFICIAL NOTES, AND YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT, CORRECT? >>I’M AWARE OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNT, SIR. >>ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. WHEN THE PRESIDENT MET WITH YOU IN THE OVAL OFFICE ONE-ON-ONE ON JUNE 19, 2017 TO DICTATE A MESSAGE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS, HE TOLD YOU TO WRITE THIS DOWN. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S ACCURATE. >>AND IT WAS JUST YOU AND THE PRESIDENT IN THAT MEETING, CORRECT? >>IT WAS. >>AND YOU KNEW THAT YOU NEEDED TO WRITE DOWN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WITH THE PRESIDENT WAS TELLING YOU SO THAT YOU COULD MAKE SURE TO CAPTURE THE CONTENT OF WHAT HE WAS TELLING YOU CORRECTLY, CORRECT? >>I DON’T KNOW THE SPEED OF WRITING WAS A CRITERIA, BUT I TRIED TO CAPTURE IT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, CONGRESSMAN. >>THANK YOU, SIR. AND HE DICTATED TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO PUT INTO THE MOUTH OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS, CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE HE ASKED ME TO DELIVER A MESSAGE FOR JEFF TO CONSIDER DELIVERING HIMSELF. >>AND IT WAS A MESSAGE THAT HE INTENDED FOR JEFF, MEANING JEFF SESSIONS, TO DELIVER OUT LOUD AND PUBLICLY. HE WANTED THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT HE WAS SAYING, BUT HE WANTED JEFF TO SAY IT, CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE THE MUELLER REPORT ACCURATELY DEPICTS THAT. >>AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WE HAVE PROJECTED ON THE SCREEN THE MESSAGE THAT THE PRESIDENT DICTATED TO YOU THAT HE WANTED TO DELIVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. I’D LIKE FOR YOU TO READ THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES, IF YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT. >>AS DIRECTOR MUELLER STATED, WHEN ASKED — >>NO, NO, NO. I WOULD BE HAPPY FOR YOU TO READ IT. >>WOULD YOU PREFER FOR ME TO READ IT INSTEAD OF YOU? >>PLEASE. >>IT SAYS, I KNOW THAT I’VE RECUSE MYSELF FROM CERTAIN THINGS HAVING TO DO A SPECIFIC AREAS, BUT OUR POTUS IS BEING TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY. THAT’S WHAT HE TOLD YOU TO WRITE DOWN AND THAT’S WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN. AND I WILL CONTINUE. HE SAID, HE SHOULDN’T HAVE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR COUNSEL BECAUSE HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG. NOW, THAT’S WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO DELIVER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS, CORRECT QUESTION MIKE. >>I BELIEVE THAT’S AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION. >>AND HE WANTED YOU TO DELIVER IT TO JEFF SO THAT JEFF COULD SAY IT TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE SO. >>AND YOU FELT KIND OF SQUEAMISH LIKE THAT FISH THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO BE RIGHT NOW. YOU FELT A LITTLE SQUEAMISH ABOUT DELIVERING THAT MESSAGE, CORRECT? >>NO, SIR. >>WELL, WHY DIDN’T YOU — WHY DID IT TAKE TO YOU SO LONG AND YOU NEVER EVEN DELIVERED IT. >>CORRECT, I NEVER DELIVERED THE MESSAGE. >>YOU CHICKENED OUT. >>I WENT ON VACATION. >>YOU WENT ON VACATION, AND SO YOU PUT THE MESSAGE IN THE SAFE IN YOUR HOME FOR SAFEKEEPING, CORRECT? BEFORE YOU WENT ON VACATION. >>I TOOK MY KIDS TO THE BEACH, CONGRESSMAN. THAT WAS MORE OF A PRIORITY. >>AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS HOUNDING YOU ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE GOING TO DELIVER THAT MESSAGE, CORRECT? IN A COMPLETELY INACCURATE, CONGRESSMAN. >>WELL, HE ASKED YOU ABOUT IT A FEW TIMES, DIDN’T HE? >>NO, HE DID NOT. >>HE NEVER ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD DELIVERED THAT MESSAGE? >>NOT ON MANY OCCASIONS. >>HE DID MENTION IT ON ONE LOCATION TO YOU. >>I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S IN THE REPORT OR NOT. >>YOU TOLD HIM, I’M GOING TO GET AROUND TO IT, I’M GOING TO DELIVER IT. CORRECT? >>I HAVE TWO SEE THE REFERENCE TO THE MUELLER REPORT. >>IT’S IN THE REPORT. >>CAN YOU DIRECT ME TO THE BOOK AND PAGE? >>I DON’T NEED TO WASTE ANY TIME WITH THAT, BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. THE NEXT THREE SENTENCES AFTER THOSE FIRST TWO, WOULD YOU READ THOSE, PLEASE QUESTION MIKE. >>YOU ARE WELCOME TO. >>HE SAID, HE SHOULDN’T HAVE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OR COUNSEL BECAUSE HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG. I WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN WITH HIM FOR NINE MONTHS. THERE WAS NO RUSSIANS INVOLVED WITH HIM. I KNOW IT FOR A FACT BECAUSE I WAS THERE. NOW, THE PRESIDENT WANTED ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SAY THAT, BUT YOU DIDN’T DELIVER THE MESSAGE. YOU KNEW THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS HAD RECUSED HIMSELF AT THAT TIME, AND SINCE HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF, YOU KNEW THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST THE LAW FOR HIM TO COMMENT IN ANY WAY ON THAT INVESTIGATION, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >>YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. >>CORRECT. >>THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.>>THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH THE HARASSMENT THAT YOU’RE PUTTING UP WITH RIGHT NOW. ACCORDING TO THE ALLIANCE FOR SECURING DEMOCRACY, RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE ELECTIONS OF BELARUS, BULGARIA, CANADA, CYPRUS, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, MACEDONIA, MOLDOVA, MONTENEGRO, PORTUGAL, SPAIN, SWEDEN, TURKEY, UNITED KINGDOM, UKRAINE, AND THE UNITED STATES. THEY SPECIFICALLY TARGETED THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE VOTE AND ANGELA MERKEL. DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF THESE KINDS OF ELECTIONS REX, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAT IDLY BY. INSTEAD OF WARNING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE DOJ AND JAMES COMEY’S FBI USED SECRET SURVEILLANCE TO SPY ON MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ALL WHILE ALLOWING ELECTION INTERFERENCE TO OCCUR. WHY ISN’T THIS HEARING FOCUSED ON HOLDING DOJ AND FBI LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS KIND OF TERRIBLE LACK OF JUDGMENT? WHAT WAS PUTIN’S ULTIMATE GOAL? THE FORMER FBI AGENT AND COUNTERTERRORISM SPECIALIST SAYS IT IS TO ATTACK AND UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY. HE SAID THE GOAL IS TO LEAVE VOTERS FEELING AS THOUGH EITHER THE INSTITUTIONS ARE CORRUPT OR YOU CAN’T TRUST THE VOTE. THIS IS THE KIND OF CLASSIC DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN THAT THE KGB RUNS. AS WE ALL KNOW, VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS A FORMER LEADER OF THE KGB. IN 2016, PUTIN’S GOAL COULD HAVE BEEN VERY SIMPLE. DIVIDE THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE SOW SEEDS OF DISTRESS AND MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR WHOEVER WON OUR ELECTION TO GOVERN. WITH AMERICA WEEKEND AT HOME, WE WOULD BE WEAKENED ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE. PUTIN WINS WITH A WEEKEND AMERICA REGARDLESS OF WHO WON THE ELECTION. THIS IS THE KIND OF APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN USED BY THE COMMUNIST IN RUSSIA FOR NEARLY A CENTURY, AFTER OVERTHROWING 1917, VLADIMIR AND THE COMMUNIST UTILIZE WESTERN JOURNALISTS AS PROPAGANDA TOOLS TO DEFEND COMMUNISM. JOHN READ, FOR EXAMPLE, DEFENDED ADVOCATING AGAINST AMERICAN INTERVENTION. LENIN USED EVEN THE TERM USEFUL IDIOTS TO DESCRIBE HOW LEFTIST LEANING COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZING AMERICANS COULD BE EASILY TRICKED AND USED TO HELP THE RUSSIANS. FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, DEMOCRATS HAVE FOCUSED ON UNDERMINING AMERICA’S PRESIDENT, INSTEAD OF WORKING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP TO HARDEN OUR ELECTION DEFENSES. I THINK THERE WOULD BE BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT WE NEED TO PREVENT FUTURE ELECTION MEDDLING. THE MUELLER REPORT MAKES CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO FOCUS ON PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY FROM FUTURE ATTACKS, SO I HAVE ONE QUESTION, MR. LEWANDOWSKI. IT’S CLEAR THAT PUTIN ATTACKED AMERICA WITH THE GOAL OF DIVIDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND TODAY’S HEARING IS BEING HELD FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ATTACKING AMERICA’S PRESIDENT, WHICH WILL WEAKEN OUR COUNTRY UNDER THE NATIONAL STAGE. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN IS SITTING IN HIS OFFICE RIGHT NOW IN THE KREMLIN LAUGHING AT WHAT THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE DOING AND BELIEVING THAT THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE USEFUL IDIOTS HELPING — >>OBJECTION. I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >>ESTATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. >>I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER POINTING TO THE RULES, AND THE HOUSE RULES. WE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE DEROGATORY NAMES TO OUR COLLEAGUES OR MOTIVES TO OUR COLLEAGUES, AND I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN SAID THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE IDIOTS. THIS IS A VERY SACRED AND SOMBER RESPONSIBILITY. I HAVE TAKEN AN OATH OF OFFICE. MY GOOD FRIEND, JUST LIKE YOU DID. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION JUST AS YOU ARE, AND I WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN ANY BEHAVIOR THAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AS. NEVER IN MY LIFE OR MY COLLEAGUES HAVE WE EVER DISCUSSED BEHAVING LIKE IDIOTS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE TERMINOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE OR REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS NO MATTER WHAT POSITION THEY ARE. >>I WILL OVERRULE THE POINT OF ORDER. THE RULES REFER TO MOTIVE, CALLING SOMEONE AN IS NOT FLATTERING, BUT IT DOES NOT GO TO MOTIVE. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE THE MOST ROBUST DEBATE. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD RESPECT EACH OTHER, BUT I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD — BUT I DON’T THINK THAT GOES TO MOTIVE, AND ACCORDINGLY I’M GOING TO OVERRULE THE POINT OF ORDER. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ACTUALLY, I DIDN’T CALL ANYBODY AN. I SAID USEFUL. SECONDLY, I ASKED THE WITNESS WHETHER HE BELIEVED THAT AS PART OF VLADIMIR PUTIN STRATEGY, VLADIMIRPUTIN WAS BEING AIDED BY USEFUL IDIOTS IN AMERICA. YOUR ANSWER, SIR? >>CONGRESSMAN, I CAN’T BE SURE TO THE MOTIVES OF VLADIMIR PUTIN AND THE RUSSIANS WANTING TO INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTION PROCESS, BUT I CAN BE CERTAIN OF ONE THING. DONALD TRUMP IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AT THE TIME, AND HE HAD NO MORE RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY TO SECURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE THAN I DID. THAT RESPONSE ABILITY FELL TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND THE OBAMA-BAD BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. THEY CLEARLY FAILED. NEVER DID THEY CONTACT ME TO INFORM ME OR ANYONE OF THE CAMPAIGN AT THE TIME OF ANY POTENTIAL HACKING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSPIRING. NEVER DID THEY CONTACT US TO ALERT US OF ANY POTENTIAL SECURITY VIOLATIONS AS IT RELATED TO THE ELECTION, SO I THANK MR. COMEY, MR. BRENNAN, AND MR. KLAPPER, ULTIMATELY, TO OWN THE RESPONSE ABILITIES AHEAD OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID NOT DO A BETTER JOB OF PROTECTING THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE IN 2016 TO ENSURE WE DIDN’T HAVE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, HAD THEY CONTACTED YOU, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR RESPONSE IN TERMS OF NOTIFYING OTHERS ON THE ELECTION IN TERMS OF THEIR DEALING WITH RUSSIANS? >>WE WOULD’VE WORKED WITH THEM. I WOULD’VE RECOMMEND WORKING TO NOTIFY THEM OF ANY POTENTIAL CONTACTS WHICH I DON’T EVER RECALL HAVING, BUT IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD ANY, I WOULD HAVE MADE SURE WE NOTIFIED THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES IMMEDIATELY. >>THANK YOU. I YELLED BACK. >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >>MR. LANDAU SEE, I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW-UP ON MR. JOHNSON. THE MUELLER REPORT, VOLUME TWO, PAGE 90, SAYS ONE MONTH LATER, THE PRESIDENT MET AGAIN AND FOLLOWED UP ON THE REQUEST TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE RUSH INVESTIGATION. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT HE DID DO THAT, BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO JUNE 19. THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO WRITE DOWN WORD FOR WORD A SCRIPT THAT HE WANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVER. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>I’M SORRY, CAN YOU GIVE ME THE REFERENCE AGAIN, CONGRESSMAN? >>LET ME DO THIS. PREVIOUSLY, YOU TESTIFIED, BECAUSE IT’S REPORTED IN THE MUELLER REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED LAU AND TOUSSIE TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO SESSIONS AND WRITE THE STONE. THIS IS PAGE 91. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO TAKE VACATION. HE WROTE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. THE NOTES THAT YOU TOOK AT THAT MEETING ARE ON THE SCREEN. IF YOU COULD — I DON’T KNOW THAT THE NOTES ARE. I’M GOING TO READ THE SECTION OF THE NOTES THAT YOU TOOK. AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKED TO DELIVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO ANNOUNCE IN PUBLIC. I KNOW I RECUSE MYSELF FROM CERTAIN THINGS HAVING TO DO WITH SPECIFIC AREAS, BUT OUR POTUS IS BEING TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY. HE SHOULDN’T HAVE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR COUNSEL, BECAUSE HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG. I WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN WITH HIM FOR NINE MONTHS. THERE WAS NO RUSSIANS INVOLVED WITH HIM. I KNOW FOR A FACT BECAUSE I WAS THERE. HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG, EXCEPT RUN THE GREATEST CAMPAIGN IN AMERICAN HISTORY. THAT’S FROM PAGE 91. AGAIN, THAT’S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SAY IN PUBLIC ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. >>I BELIEVE THAT’S AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION. >>SO THIS IS IN JUNE OF 2017. YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT — YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BEING BARRED FROM PARTICIPATING, SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THE RUSH INVESTIGATION. THE PUBLIC DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT ALL THESE ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE THE INVESTIATION AT THAT TIME, BUT WHAT WE DID KNOW, WHAT EVERYONE KNEW, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION, AND THEY KNEW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULDN’T TOUCH IT, BECAUSE HE WAS A MAJOR PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. HE ADVISED HER NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS, AND BACK IN MARCH HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF. HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF FROM ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE INVESTIGATION. YOU WEREN’T AWARE OF THAT AT ALL, WHAT HE DID IN MARCH AND THE FACT THAT HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF. >>I WAS AWARE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RECUSAL. >>SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER A SPEECH THAT HE WANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION, COULDN’T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE INVESTIGATION, HE RECUSED HIMSELF, WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER THAT WORD-FOR-WORD SPEECH FOR HIM THAT THERE WAS NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THAT AND THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD RECUSED HIMSELF, YOU KNEW THAT HE HAD, AND YOU KNEW HE COULDN’T PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY. >>I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY. >>ARE NOT ASKING YOU AS AN ATTORNEY. I’M JUST ASKING IF YOU KNEW THAT HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF. YOU DID, RIGHT? >>I’M AWARE OF THE PUBLIC REPORTS THAT JEFF SESSIONS RECUSED HIMSELF. >>AND YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PUBLIC REPORTS AND WHAT WAS IN HIS RECUSAL STATEMENT ON MARCH 2nd 2019 THAT HE WASN’T GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY EXISTING OR FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS OF ANY MATTERS RELATING TO THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT. YOU KNEW THAT WAS OUT THERE. SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO SPECIFICALLY GO IN AND ASK HIM TO DELIVER A SPEECH WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THAT, FORGET ABOUT BEING A LAWYER. DID IT STRIKE YOU AS OFF IN ANY WAY OR WERE YOU CONCERNED IN ANY WAY? >>NO, SIR. >>WAS AT THE RIGHT DECISION FOR SESSIONS TO RECUSE HIMSELF? >>I CAN’T COMMENT ON JEFF SESSIONS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. >>SO HERE IS WHAT HE DID. THE SCRIPT SAYS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WANT TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION. I’M GOING TO MEET WITH A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO EXPLAIN THIS IS VERY UNFAIR AND LET THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MILLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS SO THAT NOTHING CAN HAPPEN IN FUTURE ELECTIONS. YOU’LL AGREE THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO FORCE THE INVESTIGATION TO FOCUS ONLY ON THE FUTURE SO IT DIDN’T FOCUS ON HIM. ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>I DON’T AGREE WITH THAT. >>THAT’S NOT WHEN YOU LOOK ONLY IN THE FUTURE AND YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THE ONE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT, THAT’S NOT HOW YOU INTERPRET THAT? YOU INTERPRET IT DIFFERENTLY? >>I THINK THAT COULD BE YOUR INTERPRETATION. >>I THINK IT’S AN OBVIOUS INTERPRETATION. IF WE HAD MORE TIME, I WOULD ASK WHAT YOURS IS, BUT I WILL JUST CLOSE WITH THIS. HE BROUGHT YOU INTO TALK TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS TERRIFIED, MR. LANDAU SEE. A MONTH BEFORE YOUR MEETING, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, THIS IS TERRIBLE. HE WANTED YOU TO PRESSURE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SOMEONE WHO WASN’T EVEN ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION TO BLOCK HIM FROM LOOKING AT HIS OWN CONDUCT. MR. LANDAU SEE, THAT’S ABUSE OF POWER, AND AS WE GO ON THROUGH THIS INVESTIGATION, I HOPE YOU’LL BE ABLE TO FURTHER ELABORATE ON HOW YOU COULD HAVE SEEN THIS IN ANY OTHER LIGHT THAN THE OBVIOUS WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO ABUSE HIS POWER. >>THE TIME IS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>THANK YOU. >>GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS. MR. RADCLIFFE. >>WELCOME TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE ALTERNATIVELY DESCRIBED AND ARGUED OVER THE PAST WEEK AS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, AN IMPEACHMENT PROBE, AND AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. NOW, IF YOU ARE CONFUSED WHICH ONE, I WILL ASSURE YOU YOU ARE NOT ALONE. A LOT OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE WATCHING TODAY MIGHT BE CONFUSED BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE THINKING THAT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INITIATED AFTER A VOTE BY THE FULL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THEY’D BE RIGHT, BUT YOU SEE THE DEMOCRATS, NOW THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT TRIED THAT THREE TIMES AND FAILED MISERABLY THREE TIMES. TWICE BEFORE THE MUELLER REPORT AND THEN, ONCE AGAIN, AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT. SO LAST WEEK THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT, WHICH IS IN CHARGE OF THIS COMMITTEE, CHANGED OUR RULE SO THAT THEY COULD GET TO IMPEACHMENT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU’RE LUCKY YOU’RE THE FIRST WITNESS FOR THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT’S NEW IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE. >>I FEEL VERY LUCKY. THANK YOU. >>YOU SHOULD. >>I KNOW THAT YOU’VE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE, BEFORE THE SENATE, AND BEFORE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, BUT IN FAIRNESS, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, THAT’S WHEN MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WERE PROMISING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHMENT BY COLLUSION OR IMPEACHMENT BY CONSPIRACY, WHICH, OF COURSE, DIDN’T EXIST IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THEN THEY HAD TO SHIFT AND SAY THEM AND NOW IT’S GOING TO BE IMPEACHMENT BY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. REMEMBER THAT THEY PROMISED. THEY PROMISE TO THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS GOING TO BREATHE LIFE INTO IMPEACHMENT BY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT INSTEAD HE PUT IT TO DEATH. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, BUT I ASKED HIM, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT AN INVESTIGATED PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED. HIS ANSWER WAS, I CANNOT. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? SO AS IT TURNS OUT, ALL 200, NEARLY 200 PAGES OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE ANALYSIS OF IN VOLUME TWO OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS DONE UNDER A LEGAL STANDARD AND LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF THAT IS NOT RECOGNIZED AND EVER BEEN USED BEFORE IN AMERICAN PROOF. AS A PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT, WE ARE GOING TO GLOSS OVER THAT TODAY. THEY WILL ALSO GLOSS OVER THE FACT THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CRIMINALLY REFERRED TO THE FBI DIRECTOR, WHO LEAKED THE INFORMATION, TO GET THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE SAME INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO FOUND THAT THE FACTS ESTABLISHING THAT THAT SAME FBI DIRECTOR WAS, IN FACT, TARGETING DONALD TRUMP AT THE SAME TIME IN AN INVESTIGATION WHERE HE SAID HE WASN’T INVESTIGATING DONALD TRUMP. NOW, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE INTERESTING IN HEARING FROM THAT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE FIRST TIME RATHER THAN HEARING FROM YOU FOR THE FOURTH TIME. BUT MAYBE YOU CAN BE HELPFUL, BECAUSE THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY DON’T CARE, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WHAT KIND OF IMPEACHMENT YOU CAN DELIVER FOR THEM. 135 DEMOCRATS AND SOCIALISTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAVE PUBLIC AND, FOR AN IMPEACHMENT. THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. THEY’VE COME UP WITH MORE THAN A DOZEN DIFFERENT REASONS THAT THEY ARE ARGUING ARE ABOUT THE BASIS FOR THAT IMPEACHMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BY COLLUSION. WE TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BY CONSPIRACY. WE TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LET’S COVER A FEW MORE. DID THE FIRST AND ONLY PRESIDENT RICH ENOUGH TO LARGELY SELF-FUNDED A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN EVER ADMIT TO YOU THAT HE SECRETLY RAN FOR PRESIDENT TO GET RICH? >>NO, SIR. HE’S ALREADY VERY RICH. >>OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE, MR. LANDAU SEE, ABOUT CRIMES THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED FOR IGNORING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AS A BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT? >>I DO NOT. >>HOW ABOUT DANGLING PARDONS? DID THE PRESIDENT EVER ADMIT OR SAY TO YOU THAT HE WOULD PARDON ANYBODY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO WAS TRYING TO ENFORCE OR PROTECT OUR TERRITORIAL BORDERS. >>AT THE REQUEST OF THE WHITE HOUSE, I CAN’T DISCUSS PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED. >>HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? IMPEACHMENT BY USING A SHARPIE ON A HURRICANE WEATHER MAP. THE PRESIDENT EVER ADMIT OR SAY TO YOU HE INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME BY MAGIC MARKER, AS SOME OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE CONTENDING QUESTION MIKE. >>AGAIN, I CAN’T DISCUSS ANY PRIVATE CONVERSATION I MAY HAVE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT. >>I’M SORRY, YOU ARE, FRANKLY, NOT BEING HELPFUL AT ALL, MR. LEWANDOWSKI. MAYBE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY ARE NOT PICKY AT ALL. THEY DON’T EVEN CARE IF YOU DON’T HAVE IMPEACHMENT — IF YOU GOT ANYTHING ON DONALD TRUMP, HOW ABOUT ON JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH? HAVE YOU GOT ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT OF JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH? >>IS A GOOD MAN. >>LISTEN, I KNOW YOU ARE DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU’VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOUR TIMES, BUT DON’T YOU THINK THERE ISN’T GOING TO BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE HAS BECOME THE SEARCH PARTY FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND THEY ARE GOING TO BRING BACK ANYBODY AS MUCH AS THEY HAVE TO DO FIND SOMETHING, ANYTHING TO KEEP THIS IMPEACHMENT HOPES ALIVE. I YIELD BACK. >>GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 15 SECONDS OVER TIME. THE GENTLE LADY FROM CALIFORNIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I WANT TO FOLLOW-UP FOR MY COLLEAGUE HERE. IT’S CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DESPERATE FOR YOU TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE TO SESSIONS. EVERYONE ELSE HAD SAID NO, AND HE WENT TO GREAT LAKES TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU BE EFFECTIVE IN DELIVERING IT. AFTER THE PRESIDENT DICTATED THE MESSAGE, HE TOLD YOU TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT HE WOULD BE THE MOST POPULAR GUY IN THE COUNTRY IF HE DELIVER THAT MESSAGE TO LIMIT THE INVESTIGATION TO THE FUTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>COULD YOU REFERENCE ME TO THAT IN THE REPORT, PLEASE? >>IT’S IN VOLUME TWO, PAGE 92. SO IS THAT CORRECT? >>I LIKE TO REFERENCE THAT. >>WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING, I LIKE TO MOVE ON. SO THE PRESIDENT IS TELLING YOU HOW TO CONVINCE SESSIONS TO DO IT. PAGE 92, FIRST PARAGRAPH. TO TELL SESSIONS HE BE THE MOST POPULAR GUY IN THE COUNTRY IF HE DID WITH THE PRESIDENT ORDERED FOR THE PRESIDENT PICKED YOU FOR A REASON BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT YOU HAD THE TRAITS OF AN ENFORCER AND DESCRIBED YOURSELF AS HIS LOYAL SEARCHER. THIS WAS NO EXCEPTION. DID YOU FIND IT NOW? >>I HAVE IT HERE. >>ME TOO. OKAY. SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT HE WOULD BE THE MOST POPULAR GUY IN THE COUNTRY IF HE DELIVER THAT MESSAGE. DO YOU SEE THAT ON PAGE 92? >>I DO. >>IS THAT CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE IT’S ACCURATE. >>AND YOU TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WANTED SESSIONS TO DO, IS THAT WHAT YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? SAME PAGE. AND YOU DID UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED BUT HE KNEW NOT TO CREATE A TRAIL. SO LOOKING AT THE SLIDE, LEWANDOWSKI WANTED TO PASS THE MESSAGE TO SESSIONS IN PERSON RATHER THAN ON THE PHONE. WHERE IS THAT? AFTER YOU LEFT TO THE OVAL OFFICE, YOU DIDN’T SCHEDULE AN OFFICIAL MEETING WITH SESSIONS. INSTEAD, YOU CALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT HOME, CORRECT? >>IF THAT’S WHAT’S IN THE REPORT. >>YOU TOLD SESSIONS YOU WANTED TO MEET IN PERSON RATHER THAN ON THE PHONE. YOU COULD HAVE JUST READ THE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OVER THE PHONE, BUT YOU KNEW THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO PERSUADE SESSIONS TO DO WHAT YOU WANTED, SO YOU WANTED TO MEET WITH HIM IN PERSON, CORRECT? >>IF THAT’S WHAT THE REPORT STATES, YES. >>SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WORKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUT YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT YOU DIDN’T WANT TO MEET IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT IF HE WANTED — IF YOU WENT INTO A PUBLIC BUILDING THERE IS A PUBLIC LAW OF THE VISIT AND YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO A PUBLIC LOG OF YOUR VISIT, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S ACCURATE. >>SO WHY IS THAT? WHY DIDN’T YOU WANT TO LEAVE A PAPER TRAIL FOR YOUR VISIT QUESTION MIKE. >>JEFF AND I ARE FRIENDS SOCIALLY. I WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A MEETING WITH JEFF AND RELAYED THE CONVERSATION, WHICH THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO ASK JEFF TO CONSIDER GIVING. >>SO IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN WHY WAS THERE A PROBLEM WITH YOU HAVING TO DO IT IN SECRET, BUT YOU SPIRITUALLY? I MEAN, IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE YOU WERE DELIVERING FROM THE PRESIDENT, IT WAS A MESSAGE THAT COULD, CERTAINLY, BE VIEWED AS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THAT YOU WERE NOT EVEN AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WHITE HOUSE. YOUR PRIVATE CITIZEN. YOU ARE DELIVERING A MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. TO LIMIT THE INVESTIGATIONS. IF YOU DIDN’T THINK YOU WERE DOING ANYTHING WRONG, WHY DID IT MATTER QUESTION MIKE. >>I WANTED TO MEET WITH HIM TO HAVE A CONVERSATION IN A MORE RELAXED ATMOSPHERE. >>YOU SAID THAT ANOTHER REASON FOR NOT MEETING AT THE G8 DOJ WAS BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT SESSIONS TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER YOU BY MEETING ON SESSIONS TURF, IS THAT RIGHT QUESTION WERE. >>THAT’S RIGHT. I WANTED TO HAVE A PRIVATE CONVERSATION IN A MORE RELAXED ATMOSPHERE. >>AGAIN, IF THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE MESSAGE TO DELIVER, AND IF IT WAS JUST ABOUT THAT, WHY WOULD IT MATTER WHO TURF IT WAS ON? WHY COULDN’T YOU GO TO IF’S OFFICE? YOU ARE HIS FRIEND. WHY COULDN’T YOU GO TO HIS OFFICE AND MEET WITH HIM THERE? >>I SUPPOSE I COULD HAVE, BUT I WANTED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH JEFF, AS WE HAVE HAD SO MANY OCCASIONS BEFORE THAT — >>EXACTLY. >>NEVER INSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >>I BELIEVE THAT SESSIONS KNEW IT WAS WRONG AND THAT SESSIONS CANCELED HIS MEETING WITH YOU, IF YOU GUYS WERE GOOD FRIENDS, WHY WOULD HE HAVE BOTHERED TO CANCEL? DID HE CALL YOU UP TO RESCHEDULE IT? >>THAT BE A QUESTION FOR JEFF SESSIONS. >>AND YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT AFTER THE INAUGURATION YOU DIDN’T COMMUNICATE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFTEN YOUR GOOD FRIEND THAT YOU HAVE DINNER WITH, SO WHEN YOU HAD A MESSAGE TO DELIVER, ISN’T IT FAIR TO SAY THAT SESSIONS KNEW YOU WERE CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT AND THAT MESSAGE WAS FROM HIM. >>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WAS IN JEFF SESSIONS MIND. >>TO BE CLEAR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL KNEW IT WAS A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HE STILL REFUSED TO MEET WITH YOU. IT’S CLEAR TO ME THAT SESSIONS KNEW WHAT WE ALL KNOW SITTING HERE TODAY, THAT WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS WRONG. HE KNEW IT WAS ENTIRELY IMPROPER FOR A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO GO BEHIND THE BACKS OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND SECRETLY MEET WITH HIM SOMEWHERE WITHOUT ANY RECORD OF YOUR MEETING ON YOUR TURF TO TRY TO PERSUADE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT. WELL, YOU CAN’T PROTECT HIM ANYMORE. I’M GLAD THAT THIS MISCONDUCT CAN FINALLY BE BROUGHT TO PUBLIC ATTENTION SO THE PRESIDENT CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. >>THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS HAS REQUESTED A SHORT RECESS. THE COMMITTEE WILL RESUME IN FIVE MINUTES. THE COMMITTEE STANDS IN RECESS.>>WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER CORY LEWANDOWSKI TESTIFYING. HE IS THE FIRST WITNESS TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC IMPEACHMENT PROBE THERE. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK. WE WILL HAVE MORE ANALYSIS ON THIS AND CONTINUE TO MONITOR THIS AND COVER IT AND BRING IT TO YOU LIVE.>>HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO MEET HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE?>>THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED TO NOT DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE — >>HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT ALONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2017 QUESTION MIKE. >>I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >>HOW MANY TIMES HE DID HE COULDN’T DIRECT YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE — >>WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED — >>DID HE EVER DISCUSSED ANY SERMONS HE MAY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE? >>THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED NOT TO DISCLOSE ANY SUBSTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND ADVISORS TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY. I RECOGNIZE THIS IS NOT MY PRIVILEGE. >>THAT WAS FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. THIS HEARING IS IN A SHORT RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES, AND IT SET TO RESUME. WHEN IT DOES, WE WILL TAKE YOU THERE LIVE. FOR NOW, I WANT TO BRING IN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT NANCY COURT’S WHO JOINS US BY PHONE. NANCY, AT THE BEGINNING, A GREAT DEAL OF BACK-AND-FORTH AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD TAKE PLACE. >>THAT’S RIGHT. IT REPUBLICANS WERE FOR STALLING MECHANISMS. DEMOCRATS ACCUSED LAU ENDOW SKI OF TRYING TO STALL. HE WAS ASKING THEM TO LIFT NOT JUST A PAGE FROM THE MUELLER REPORT, BUT THE PARAGRAPH ON THAT PAGE FOR ALL OF THE EARLY QUESTIONS THEY WERE ASKING HIM. THINGS HAVE SORT OF SETTLED DOWN SINCE THEN, AND HE IS GIVING THEM A SOMEWHAT SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS AS THEY WALK HIM THROUGH THE MUELLER REPORT, AND AT HIS EXCHANGES WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT DELIVERING THIS MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED HIM TO GIVE, BASICALLY, TELLING SESSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT WANTED SESSIONS TO SAY, EVEN THOUGH SESSIONS HAD BEEN RECUSED, HAD RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. JUST TO MAKE SURE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE CAMPAIGN. ALLOWING TOUSSIE WAS ASKED REPEATEDLY IF THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE MESSAGE SHE WAS ASKED TO GIVE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, BOTH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MESSAGE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT HE, SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE WHITE HOUSE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS ASKED TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE. HE REPEATEDLY SAID HE DIDN’T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT MESSAGE. HE DIDN’T THINK IT WAS ILLEGAL, BUT THAT DOESN’T SQUARE WITH THE FACT THAT HE IS SOMEONE THAT WE KNOW WAS VERY LOYAL TO THE PRESIDENT NEVER DELIVERED THE MESSAGE. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU ARE QUITE LOYAL TO THE PRESIDENT AND HE TELLS YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE AND YOU DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT MESSAGE, ONE WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD DELIVER IT RIGHT AWAY. BUT HE DIDN’T, SO DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED TO SAY THAT HE WAS A CHICKEN, THAT HE GOT COLD FEET AT THE END OF THE DAY. HE SAID, THAT’S NOT IT, BUT WE DO KNOW FROM THE MUELLER REPORT THAT HE EVENTUALLY ASKED WHITE HOUSE AIDE TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE INSTEAD. DEARBORN SAID HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT AND NEVER DID. >>WE KNOW THERE IS A DIVIDE WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO EVEN CONTINUE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES. AT THIS POINT, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE STRATEGIZING? WHAT DO THEY HOPE TO GET FROM LEWANDOWSKI OVER THE COURSE OF THIS AFTERNOON? >>WHAT’S UNIQUE IS THAT HE IS REALLY THE FIRST MAJOR PLAYER WHO IS FEATURED IN THE REPORT WHO IS COMING TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DIRECTLY ABOUT HIS ROLE IN INCIDENTS THAT WERE DETAILED BY THE MUELLER REPORT. IN FACT, HE TOOK NOTES IN HIS MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT SAID, WRITE THIS DOWN WORD FOR WORD. THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO HAVE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS WILL STAY IN THE SPEECH. HE RESERVED THOSE NOTES, AND THOSE NOTES ARE IN THE MUELLER REPORT. HE REFUSES TO READ THEM ALOUD HIMSELF. DEMOCRATS THINK IT’S VERY WORTHWHILE TO GET HIM ON THE RECORD SQUIRMING ABOUT WHY IT IS HE WAS ASKED TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE, WHY HE DOESN’T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING IMPROPER ABOUT IT, WHY HE DIDN’T DELIVER IT. THEY THINK THAT THAT SORT OF BRINGS THE MUELLER REPORT TO LIFE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. . >>>TRYING TO PROBE IN ANY WAY IT CAN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE INCIDENTS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE MUELLER REPORT. >>WHILE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS THE POWER TO PROBE, REPUBLICANS RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT WHERE THIS IS HEADED. I WANTED TO PLAY A BITE WITH YOU. >>LAST READ THE REPORT FOR AUDIO BOOK THAT IS WHOA WE HAVE BECOME. WE HAD MR. MUELLER HERE. WE HAD A LONG DAY OF IT. JUDGING BY ALL ACCOUNTS, IT DIDN’T GO REAL WELL, BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM. 17 OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE SAID THAT THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHED, SO WHY ARE WE STILL INVESTIGATING IT? THE PROBLEM IS YOU DON’T HAVE THE VOTES. YOU DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS. EVEN IF YOU GOT IT OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE, YOU DON’T HAVE IT ON THE FLOOR. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. >>YOU DON’T HAVE THE VOTES, NANCY. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF HIS STATEMENT THERE? >>I THINK THE DEMOCRATS THAT IS WHY YOU HOLD HEARINGS LIKE THIS ONE SO YOU CAN CONVINCE YOUR COLLEAGUES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN MAKING REPEATEDLY IN THIS HEARING, AND IT IS TRUE, THAT LIEU LEWANDOWSKI HAS TESTIFIED MONUMENT APPROXIMATELY TIMES, AND HE DID IT VOLUNTARILY. HE ALSO SPOKE TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE REPUBLICANS SAY THIS IS A STUNT, THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT LEWANDOWSKI HASN’T ANSWERED THAT WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO COME BEFORE CONGRESS A FOURTH TIME. NOW, THE OTHER TIMES WERE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND THERE IS CERTAINLY SOME PERFORMANCE VALUE FOR DEMOCRATS TO GET HIM TO REPEAT THE THINGS HE HAS ALREADY SAID IN PUBLIC, BUT THE REPUBLICANS SAY HE IS A WITNESS WHO HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE. HE AGREED TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, BUT THEN SUDDENLY WAS SLAPPED WITH A SUBPOENA AFTER HE HAD ALREADY AGREED TO APPEAR, SO THEY SAY THAT HE IS ESSENTIALLY BEING TREATED LIKE A HUE PLAN PINATA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEING UNFAIR TO THIS REASONS. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED TO GET OTHER WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD, IN FACT, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TWO OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO TESTIFY TODAY, DEARBORN AND PORTER, AND THEY WERE STOPPED FROM APPEARING, SO LEWANDOWSKI WHO WAS NEVER A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL HIMSELF IS SORT OF ALL ALONE UP THERE. >>HE IS THE FIRST WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN THIS HOUSE DEMOCRATIC IMBEACHMENT PROBE. DO YOU EXPECT OTHER PEOPLE TO FOLLOW, POTENTIALLY, NANCY? WHY IS HE HEADED? >>HE WAS A UNIQUE CATEGORY BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL. OTHER INDIVIDUAL WHOSE PLAYED THE KEY ROLES IN THE INCIDENTS LAID OUT IN THE MUELLER REPORT ARE CURRENT OR FORMER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, HOPE HICKS, RICK DEARBORN, DON MCGAHN, THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, THEY ALL HAVE SOME COVER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHICH IS SAYING, AND THE DEMOCRATS ARGUE THIS IS BOGUS, THAT THEY DON’T HAVE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT DOJ J. IS CALLING ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE STRENUOUSLY ARGUED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T EXIST, THAT IS BEING MADE UP FOR THIS PURPOSE, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT SHOWING UP EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE, AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO MILK THIS HEARING FOR ALL IT IS WORTH BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW WHEN IT IS THEY WILL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO GRILL SOMEONE WHO HAD THE SAME KIND OF ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT THAT COREY LEWANDOWSKI HAD AND YET WAS NOT SOMEONE WHO WORKED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND, THEREFORE, CAN BE PREVENTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE FROM TESTIFYING. >>I WANT TO BRING STEVE DORSEY INTO THIS CONVERSATION. HE IS AN EXECUTIVE EDITOR AND CORRESPONDENT FOR CBS NEWS RADIO. STEVE, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT NANCY WAS MENTIONING, THE TWO WHITE HOUSE AIDES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE BUT ARE NOT BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD THEM NOT TO SHOW UP. WALK US THROUGH WHAT NAIR REASONING IS. >>THEIR WHOLE REASONING IS THE PRESIDENT PREVENTED THEM FROM TESTIFYING USING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO SHIELD THEM AND WE GOT A STATEMENT NOT TOO LONG AGO FROM THE LAWYER FROM ROB PORTER, ONE OF THE TWO MEN THAT DID NOT SHOW UP TO THIS HEARING ALONGSIDE COREY LEWANDOWSKI. HE SAYS THAT MR. PORTER IS UNDER CONFLICTING AND VICTORY DIRECTIVES FROM TWO CO-CALL BRANCHES, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO APPEAR AT TODAY’S HEARING, AND HE SAYS HE HAS COMMUNICATED TO HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN THAT WHEN THIS CONFLICT IS RESOLVED, HE WILL PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE TESTIMONY. >>AND WE’RE STANDING BY. WE SEE COREY LEWANDOWSKI JUST FEET AWAY FROM TAKING HIS SEAT THERE. STEVE HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANY SORT OF REACTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ON WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN SO FAR FROM THIS TESTIMONY? >>SO FAR THE WHITE HOUSE HASN’T PUBLICLY WEIGHED IN ON THE PERFORMANCE OF COREY LEWANDOWSKI, BUT IT IS CLEAR THEY HAVE BEEN SATISFY SOD FAR WITH HOW THE PRESIDENT’S CLOSEST AIDES HAVE BEEN PERFORMING? THESE TYPES OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. IT IS NOT LIKELY WE’ R. EEL HEAR ANY STATEMENT DIFFERENT FROM THAT. >>WE ARE WATCHING TODAY THE TESTIMONY WITHIN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOU SEE THE CHAIRMAN THERE, JERRY UNDERSTAND LEER, ABOUT TO TAKE HIS SEAT, LOOKING AROUND. COREY LEWANDOWSKI, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER HAS BEEN TESTIFYING THIS AFTERNOON, AND THAT TESTIMONY IS EXPECTED TO RESUME. IT IS AT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT THIS POINT. NANCY, I SEE UNDERSTAND LEER TAKING HIS SEAT. I MIGHT HAVE TO INTERRUPT. AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS, THIS WAS A BIT OF A LESSON IN HOW MOTIONS AND POINT OF ORDERS, I WONDER IF FOLKS IN CLASSES ACROSS AMERICA MIGHT REPLAY THIS TO EXPLAIN HOW THESE HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED. >>RIGHT. AND COREY LEWANDOWSKI IS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEONE WHO CAN GIVE AS GOOD AS IT GETS. HE WAS QUITE COMBATIVE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CONTENTIOUS HEARINGS ON THE CAPITOL HILL AND THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND EVEN THIS ONE BECAUSE HE CAME LOADED FOR BEAR AND HE WAS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT ANY EASIER FOR DEMOCRATS, AND WHAT IS SO INTERESTING ABOUT THIS HEARING AND WHY THEY’RE SO EAGER TO DISCREDIT IT IS IS BECAUSE OF THE RULE CHANGE THAT WENT INTO E INNOCENT LAST WEEK, THE STAFF MEMBER FORCE THE COMMITTEE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GRILL LEWANDOWSKI FOR AN HOUR AFTER ALL OF THE LAWMAKERS HAVE THEIR CHANCE SO THAT WILL BE A PRETTY UNUSUAL IS A FLAIR OWE. IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE A DEPOSITION. YOU DON’T HAVE LAWMAKERS GRAND STANDING, YOU HAVE LAWYERS BASICALLY ASKING HIM VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN HAVE ONE LAWYER FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, FOR INSTANCE, JUST ASKING HIM VERY DETAILED QUESTIONS FOR A STRAIGHT HALF HOUR, AND NO OPPORTUNITY R HIM TO FILIBUSTER AND KIND OF EAT UP THE TIME FOR ONE LAWMAKER BEFORE YOU MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE EAGER TO AVOID. IT IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T MAKE FOR A GREAT APPEARANCE ON THEIR SIDE BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE WHO IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT IS BEING GRILLED, PICKED APART BY LAWYERS, BUT THEY’RE IN THE MINORITY AND THERE IS REALLY NOTHING THEY COULD DO TO PREVENT IT. >>WHY DID THEY DECIDE TO MAKE THAT RULE CHANGE, NANCY, LAST WEEK? >>ONE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS THAT DEMOCRATS HAD IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT ALL OF THESE HEARINGS TAKE PLACE, EVERY LAWMAKER ONLY GETS FIVE MINUTES OR THE — AND THERE ARE 42 ON IN COMMITTEE AND THEY WANT TO GET INTO THE NIITTY GRITTY, THEY WANT TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS WITH SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND IT IS JUST HARD TO GET A FLOW GOING WHEN YOU’RE SWITCHING SIDES BACK AND FORTH FROM DEMOCRAT TO REPUBLICAN EVERY FIVE MINUTES. WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARGUE IS MOST OF THE MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE LAWYERS THEMSELVES, THEY’RE PROSECUTORS, AND THEY SAY THEY SHOULD BE EQUIPPED TO ASK THE QUESTIONS. THEY DON’T NEED STAFFERS TO DO IT FOR THEM. >>NANCY, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THIS BACKGROUND ON THIS AS WELL. I WANT TO TAKE YOUR BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH JERRY UNDERSTAND LEER. >>DEDRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THE — DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THE PRESIDENT THEY CUE DIELY ELECTED THAT DIDN’T TURN OUT TO BE THE CASE, SO IT WAS ALL ABOUT INGING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN, BILL BARR, AND HE WAS GOING TO OUT THE INCONSISTENCIES AND FLAWS IN THE ANALYSIS, BUT THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO INCEST THAT THE UNELECTED STAFF ASK QUESTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. NO, WE’LL GO TO COURT! WE’LL WIN AND FORCE BILL BARR AND MCGAHN TO TESTIFY. THEY’RE NOT WINNING IN COURT. THEY’RE NOT HERE. IT IS A JOKE. THE LAST FOUR MONTHS THE PATH THE MAJORITY HAS TAKEN US ON HAS RAMBLED FROM DISORGANIZED TO DOWN RIGHT DIZZYING. IN JUNE, SPEAKER PELOSI SAID THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS WAS, AND I’M QUOTING, NOT EVEN CLOSE TO ANNE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THAT WAS TO CNN. IN JULY, JERRY UNDERSTAND LEER SAID, QUOTE, IT IS WHEN YOU CONSIDER ONLY IMPEACHMENT, THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE DOING. WE’RE INVESTIGATING ALL OF THIS, BUT IN AUGUST IN A CNN INTERVIEW, HE SAID N IS A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. >>AND ANOTHER, NO. IT WHAT THE GENTLE READ FROM WASHINGTON WHO SAID RECENTLY WE HAVE WITHIN IN THE MIDST OF AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, SHE SAID THAT TO POLITICO AND IN THE VERY SAME STORY, THE GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT, MR. HINES, SAID NO, WE’RE NOT AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. AND THEN THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK, MR. PEEK MEEKS SAID WHEN ASKED IF THE HOUSE WAS INVESTIGATING IMPEACHMENT, WELL, MAYBE WE DON’T KNOW IF AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION HAS BEGUN. IT IS DIZZYING. LAST WEEK IT WAS THE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER WHO SAID WHAT WE’RE DOING IS VERY CLEAR. IT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR. IT CONTINUES TO BE VERY CLEAR. THE SPEAKER HAS BACKED US AT EVERY POINT ALONG THE WAY. THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN ABOUT AS CLEAR AS JOE BIDEN’S LAST ANSWER TO RACE RELATIONS THAT INVOLVED TURNING ON THE RECORD PLAYER. WE DON’T KNOW WHERE WE ARE OR WHAT WE’RE DOING. NOW, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I’M NOT ALLOWED BY HOUSE RULES TO IMPUGN THE MOW FIVES OF MY COLLEAGUES OR SPECULATE AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE ANIMATING THIS BIZARRE CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT THOSE RULES DON’T APPLY TO YOU, SO MR. LEWANDOWSKI, DO YOU HAVE A THOUGHT AS TO WHY WE CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN A CHARADE THAT IS OVERWHELMING OPPOSED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUE ? >>CONGRESSMAN, I THINK THEY HATE THIS PRESIDENT MORE THAN THEY LOVE THEIR COUNTRY. >>>>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU WERE THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN WHEN THE OBAMA-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS NOTIFIED THAT THERE MIGHT BE EFFORTS BY THE RUSSIANS TO INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTION, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>YES. >>AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US THE BRIEFING YOU GOT AS THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER TO ENSURE THAT OUR SYSTEM WAS RESILIENT AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY WAS PROTECTED? >>THERE WAS NO BRIEFING PROVIDED BY ANYBODY FROM THE OBAMA-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OR THE FBI TO OUR CAMPAIGN WHEN I WAS PRESENT OR DURING MY TENURE AS A CAMPAIGN MANAGER. >>THAT IS JUST BAFFLING TO ME. OUR DEMOCRACY IS SO PRECIOUS. WE HAVE TO CHERISH IT, PROTECT IT AND YET WHEN THE OBAMA-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION KNEW THERE MIGHT BE NEFARIOUS EFFORTS TO INTERFERE OR IN ANY WAY DISTURB OUR DEMOCRACY THEY DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING TO YOU. NOW, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY HAVING WATCHED THESE FACTS UNFOLD, DO YOU HAVE ANY RATIONALE AS TO WHY MAYBE THE CLAPPER, BRENNAN, COMEY, OBAMA- BIDEN TEAM DIDN’T WANT TO GIVE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN A FAIR BRIEFING ABOUT THE THREATS WE WERE FACING? >>IT IS ACTUALLY UNFATHOMABLE TO ME THAT THEY DIDN’T CONTACT THE MAJOR POLITICAL NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AROUND INFORM THEM OF POTENTIAL THREATS AGAINST THE ELECTION PROCESS IN 2016. >>AND WE COULD BE FINDING THAT OUT NOW. WE COULD HAVE THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE FIGURE OUT WHAT IN THE WORLD HAPPENED THAT DIDN’T ALLOW US TO GET THOSE ANSWERS. ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, AS AN INSPECTOR GENERAL EMPLOY BODY BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EVER ACCUSED OF YOU BREAKING THE LAW? >>NO. >>NO. BUT THEY HAVE DONE THAT WITH JAMES COMEY YET THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COMMITTEE WILL NOT BRING JAMES COMEY BEFORE EVEN THOUGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID HIS WORK IMPAIRED THE EFFORTS OF OVER 35,000 FBI ATS AND THE BRAVE PEOPLE FIGHTING FOR THEIR COUNTRY. IT IS A SHAME THAT YOU’RE HERE. JIM COMEY SHOULD BE SITTING IN THAT CHAIR. HE SHOULD BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS AS TO WHY HE DID SO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE FBI FBI AND OUR COUNTRY. I YIELD BACK. >>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK. >>BEFORE I BEGIN, LET ME REMIND YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, THAT THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CAMPAIGN. YOU ARE NOT ON THE COMPARE TRAIL YET. THIS IS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, ACT LIKE YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY, CORRECT? >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>BUT YOU DO SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH SOME REGULARITY, TRUE? >>I THINK IT IS A FAIR STATEMENT. >>AND I THINK DURING THE SUMMER OF 2017, YOU WERE SUMMONED TO THE WHITE HOUSE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS, FLIGHT. >>I DON’T BELIEVE IT SAYS THAT. >>YOU MET WITH HIM ONE-ON-ONE AND THEN AGAIN ON JULY 19, 2017, CORRECT? >>YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE. >>OKAY. LET’S TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY ON WHAT EXACTLY YOU DO FOR DONALD TRUMP SINCE YOU’RE NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. YOU STATED DURING THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION THAT I GOT THE REPUTATION AS A TOUGH GUY. THAT IS MY REPUTATION. DO YOU RECALL MAKING THAT STATEMENT, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>I DON’T. >>OKAY. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. >>YOUR JOB IS TO BE DONALD TRUMP’S ENFORCER, IS THAT CORRECT? >>NO, I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >>ARE YOU THE HIT MAN, THE BAGMAN, THE LOOK-OUT OR ALL OF THE ABOVE? >>I THINK I’M THE GOOD-LOOKING MAN ACTUALLY. >>OKAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU ON JUNE 19th, 2017 TO PERSONALLY DELIVER A MESSAGE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS THAT WOULD HAVE ENDED THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >>I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE MUELLER REPORT STATESNO. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS TO LIMIT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE INCIDENTS OF ELECTION FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, TRUE? >>WHICH PAGE IS THAT ON, CONGRESSMAN? >>THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. IT IS IN THIS HEARING, IT IS IN THE HOWELLER REPORT. NOW, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A LEGAL PROTOCOL FOR PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENTS. UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, THEY MUST PRESERVE ALL MEMOS, LETTERS, E-MAILS, PAPERS, LIKE THE NOTE HE DICTATED TO YOU SO YOU WROTE COUNSEL THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE WHICH YOU THEN STORED IN A SAFE IN YOUR HOME, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES, IT IS. >>OKAY. YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT THAT WAS YOUR STANDARD PROCEDURE WITH SENSITIVE ITEMS, CORRECT? WHERE IS THAT REFERENCES IN THE REPORT? >>VOLUME 2, PAGE 92. >>LET ME REFERENCE THAT. >>YOU SAID PAGE — >>THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO RECORD A MESSAGE FROM HIM ON JUNE 19th BECAUSE HE WANTED TO HIDE HIS MESSAGE FROM EVENTUAL DISCLOSURE, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>NO. >>OKAY. >>BUT YOU NEVER DELIVERED THE MESSAGE TO JEFF SESSIONS AFTER THAT JUNE 19th MEETING, TRUE? >>THAT IS ACCURATE. >>INSTEAD, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WENT ON VACATION, CORRECT? >>I DID. >>HOW LONG WAS YOUR VACATION, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>IT WAS LENGTHY, I THINK AT LEAST TWO WEEKS. >>AT LEAST TWO WEEKS, BUT YOU WERE SUN MONOD AGAIN TO THE WHITE HOUSE — SUMMONED AGAIN TO THE WHITE HOUSE 30 DAYS AFTER THE ORIGINAL MEETING, TRUE? >>I BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE. >>SO YOU WEREN’T ON VACATION THE ENTIRE TIME? >>I DIDN’T SAY I WAS ON VACATION THE ENTIRE TIME. I SAID I WAS ON VACATION FOR TWO WEEKS, CONGRESSMAN. >>BUT YOU STILL FAILED TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO AT LEAST NPART, TO YOUR SO-CALLED VACATION. THE JULY 19th MEETING OCCURRED JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER NEW INFORMATION CAME TO LIGHT ABOUT A RUSSIA OPERATIVE MEETING WITH HIGH LEVEL CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS. WHEN YOU WERE SUMMONED TO THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER THAT JULY 19th MEETING, BY THAT TIME YOU STILL HAD NOT DELIVERED THE MESSAGE TO JEFF SESSIONS. YOU SAID TO THE PRESIDENT YOU WOULD DO IT SOON, ACCORDING TO VOLUME TWO, PAGE 93, CORRECT? >>IF THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS, THAT IS ACCURATE. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO ASKED YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS THAT IF HE DIDN’T DO WHAT WAS REQUESTED, HE WOULD BE FIRED, CORRECT? >>VOLUME TWO, PAGE 93? >>I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS REPORTED, YES. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED YOU TO INTIMIDATE ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, CORRECT? >>YOU’D HAVE TO ASK PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT. >>OKAY. >>YOU STATED EARLIER TODAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED YOU TO TAKE DOWN DICTATE, QUOTE, MANY TIMES, IS THAT CORRECT? >>IT IS. >>BUT ON PAGE 91, VOLUME TWO OF THE MUELLER REPORT IT STATES, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT THEN ASKED LEWANDOWSKI TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO SESSIONS AN SAID, QUOTE, WRITE THIS DOWN, CLOSED QUOTE. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED LEWANDOWSKI TO TAKE DIRECT DIG DATION. THE FIRST TIME — DICTATION. THE FIRST TIME. >>THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS. >>ARE YOU LYING TO BOB MUELLER OR ARE YOU LYING TO NEWS. >>I DID NOT LIE. >>YOU ARE NOT HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH. YOU HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN A COVERING COVER-UP. RUSSIA INTERFERED WITH THIS ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC FASHION. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED THAT ASSISTANCE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. THERE WERE SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH. >>CHAIRMAN? >>YIELDS BACK. >>19 SECONDS OVER TO HELP YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA, MR. JOHNSON. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, MY COLLEAGUE, MR. JEFFRIES JUST STARTED THAT LAST LINE OF QUESTIONING WITH AN SORT OF ADD MONOUS, THIS IS THE HOUSE INJURE INJURE COMMITTEE AND NOT A POLITICAL FORUM AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU RECOGNIZED THAT AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE THAT ALL OF THE MEMBERS RECOGNIZE THAT. THAT IS WHY IT HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A FARCE. IT HAS BEEN SAID SO MANY TIMES TODAY. THIS COMMITTEE IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTRY, SO MANY CRITICAL ISSUES, YOU REFERENCED THIS, AND I AMONG MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE READY TO GET DO THAT WORK, BUT WE’RE HERE TODAY. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY FIREWORKS, OH, THERE ARE A LOT OF DISAPPOINTED PEOPLE AROUND, OPERATIVES AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO ARE REALLY HOPING THERE WOULD BE FIREWORKS, BUT WE’RE NOT SURPRISED AT ALL. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD, BUT FIST, IS THERE ANY QUESTION YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT OR SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FURTHER COMMENT OBJECT JUST TO CLARIFY THE RECORD? >>NO, SIR. >>ALL RIGHT. IN QUESTIONING TODAY, IS THE MAJORITY INVESTIGATING ANY NEW ALLEGATION OR ISSUE OR FACT NOT ALREADY INVESTIGATED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE INTEL COMMITTEES OR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE? >>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. >>AND DO YOU HAVE ANYMORE INFORMATION ON ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO EITHER COLLUSION OR OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU CAN OFFER TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY SHARED WITH CONGRESS OR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE? >>I DON’T BELIEVE I HAVEFULLY NEW INFORMATION — I DON’T BELIEVE I HAVE ANY INFORMATION. >>IS IT TRUE YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION? >>TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. >>WE’RE AFRAID THAT SOME OF THIS RECORD WILL BE OBSCURED TODAY. THESE WILL BE QUICK RAPID FIRE. YOU AGREE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO OBSTRUCTION JUSTICE? >>I DO. >>DO YOU AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HARASSED POLITICALLY SINCE THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE? >>YES, I DO. >>DO YOU AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPORTERS HAVE RECEIVED VASTLY DIFFERENT TREATMENT THAN THE SUPPORTERS OF HILLARY CLINTON? >>UNEQUIVOCALLY. >>YOU HAVE CALLED THIS A WITCH HUNT AND I WONDER IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE ON THAT ANY FURTHER? >>I THINK THAT THIS FAKE RUSSIA COLLUSION NARRATIVE IS THE GREATEST CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR GENERATION, IF NOT EVER. THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DULY ELECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BODIES REFUSE TO ACCEPT THOSE ELECTION RESULTS. IF THIS WERE DONE BY A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT TO A DIFFERENT PARTY, THE SAME WAY IT WAS DONE TO DONALD TRUMP, THAT PERSON WOULD ALREADY BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE AND PEOPLE WOULD BE IN JAIL, BUT WHEN YOU SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA, THERE IS A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIND IT VERY UNFAIR, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PFISER ABUSE APPLICATIONS, THE SPYING ON AMERICANS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR THE LIVES THAT WERE RUINED BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY WANTED TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND I THINK IT IS SHAMEFUL. >>WE DO AS WELL, AND THAT IS A PRETTY GOOD RESUSCITATION OF SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE KEEPING US UP AT NIGHT. PART OF THE THING THAT WE’RE GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S DISTRUST NOW OF OUR INSTITUTIONS. WHEN PEOPLE BEGIN TO DOUBT THAT THE RULE OF LAW ACTUALLY APPLIES EQUALLY, THAT JUSTICE REALLY IS BLIND IN THIS COUNTRY, WE REACH SOMEWHAT OF A TIPPING POINT. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT THAT GENIE BACK INTO THE BOTTLE. WE’RE CONCERNED, I KNOW THE REPUBLICANS AND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ERODING FAITH IN OUR INSTITUTIONS. I AM THANKFUL THAT YOU HAVE COME TO TAKE THE HOSTILE FIRE. I COMMEND YOU FOR THAT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I’M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT IS YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS WHO MAY HAVE A DISINCENTIVE TO GET INTO POLITICS AN SERVE THEIR COUNTRY IN THIS WAY BECAUSE OF THIS ABUSE THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED. YIELD TO MR. JORDAN. >>I THANK YOU THE GENTLEMAN FOR — THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU DIDN’T GET A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING FROM THE FBI? >>I DO NOT. >>I HAVE A GOOD IDEA. I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO TRAP THE PRESIDENT. PAGE 17 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT POINTS THIS OUT, JANUARY 6, 2017, THEY GO UP TO THE TRUMP TOWER WHEN IT IS PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP AND THEY’RE TRYING TO SET HIM UP ABOUT A PENDING INVESTIGATION. ALL THE WHILE MR. COMEY HAS BEEN TELLING THE PRESIDENT YOU’RE NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION. OF COURSE THEY DIDN’T GIVE YOU A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING DURING THE COMBINE R OR EVEN UP UNTIL THAT DATE BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO SET HIM UP! BUT WE CAN’T ASK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE MR. NADLER HASN’T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN HE IS GOING TO BRING MR. HORWITZ IN TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. HE WOULD RATHER SUBPOENAO YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE WILLING TO COME VOLUNTARILY. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR HIS GOOD LINE OF QUESTIONING AND I YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU. >>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN BETWEEN YOUR FIRST MEETING ON JUNE 19th AND YOUR SECOND MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ONJULY 19th — ON JULY 19th YOU WENT ON VACATION AND THERE WAS ALSO A REPORT ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING. >>IF IT IS IN THE REPORT, I BELIEVE IT TO BE ACCURATE. >>AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT FOR A SECOND TIME ASK DWROWD DELIVER THE MESSAGE FOR A SECOND TIME, THE MESSAGE WOULD BE DELIVERED SOON, PAGE 93. CORRECT? SO THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TWICE IN THE OH L VALUE OFFICE TO DELIVER A SECRET MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, A MESSAGE THAT YOU QUICKLY WROTE DOWN WORD FOR WORD AT THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTION, CORRECT? SIR? >>I BELIEVE I WROTE IT DOWN. >>AND WHEN YOU WORKED FOR THE PRESIDENT DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, DID YOU EVER IGNORE, DISOBEY DIRECTIONS FROM CANDIDATE TRUMP? >>I DIDN’T BELIEVE IT TO BE AN ORDER. >>ALTHOUGH YOU WERE NOT WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT IN ANY CAPACITY, YOU WANTED TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE GOING TO FOLLOW HIS ORDERS, CORRECT? >>NO. >>YOU SAID I’M GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT. >>IS THAT REFERENCED IN THE REPORT? >>DID YOU TELL THE PRESIDENT YOU WERE GOING TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE? >>I CAN’T COMMENT ON PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. >>I’M SORRY? >>I CAN READ YOU THE IMPACT STATEMENT AGAIN IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED THAT I NOT DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE TO PROTECT EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY. >>YOU’RE NOT GOING TO STONE WALL ME. >>AND WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? >>THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE OVAL OFFICE, HE IS DIRECTING YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY ENDED THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN, SO YOU TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT THE MESSAGE WOULD BE DELIVERED SOON. BUT THEN, THIS IS ON PAGE 92, YOU IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, YOU GAVE DEARBORN THE MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT HAD DICTATED TO BE GIVEN TO SESSIONS, CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. >>AND YOU DIDN’T TELL THE PRESIDENT THAT YOU HAD ALREADY ASKED DEARBORN TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE, YOU JUST SAID IT WOULD BE DELIVERED SOON. THIS IS ON PAGE 92, CORRECT? IT IS ON PAGE 92. YOU DIDN’T WANT TO TELL THE PRESIDENT THAT YOU WERE PASSING OFF HIS MESSAGE TO SOMEONE ELSE, DID YOU? YOU KNEW HE WANTED YOU, SOMEONE HE HAD DESCRIBED AS HIS ENFORCER, A LOYAL SOLDIER TO DO IT, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TRYSTED YOU, ISN’T THAT RIGHT — TRUSTED YOU, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS A QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT, SIR. >>WHY DIDN’T YOU DELIVER THE MESSAGE TO JEFF SESSIONS DIRECTLY? WHY DID YOU GIVE IT TO MR. DEARBORN TO DO? >>I THINK I HAVE TESTIFIED I WAS OUT OF TOWN? >>FOR TWO WEEKS. >>I DON’T LIVE IN TOWN. UNLIKE YOU, SIR, I DON’T LIVE IN TOWN. >>THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU IF SESSIONS WOULDN’T MEET WITH YOU TO TELL HIM HE WAS FIRED, DID YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, EVER THREATEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IF HE DIDN’T MEET WITH YOU HE WOULD BE FIRED? >>NO. >>DID YOU TELL MR. DEARBORN TO TELL SESSIONS THAT HE WOULD BE FIRED IF HE DIDN’T TAKE THIS MITING AS THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED? >>CONGRESSMAN, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED THAT I NOT DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OR HIS AT VIDSORS TO POTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY. >>THE REASON YOU DIDN’T IS BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT WAS WRONG, ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>NO. >>THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT AWARE THAT YOU IGNORED HIS DIRECTIVE TO TELL JEFF SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED IF HE DIDN’T MEET WITH HIM? >>WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >>I’LL MOVE ON TO PROVE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE THREAT WAS REAL, FOUR DAYS LATER, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED PREE BUS, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF, TO OBTAIN SESSIONS’ RESIGNATION. DID YOU KNOW THAT? >>NO. >>AND THIS EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS REINFORCING TO SESSIONS THAT HIS JOB WAS ON THE LINE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED YOU WERE DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO END THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. AND ALL OF THIS MADE EVERYONE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, INCLUDING MR. DEARBORN, WHICH IS ON PAGE 92 3, AND HEED TO — PAGE 93 AND HE TOLD YOU HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE BEING THE MEGSEN GEAR TO SESSION — MESSENGER TO SESSIONS, CORRECT? >>NO. >>WERE YOU AWARE WHEN YOU ASKED RICK DEARBORN TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OBJECT BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF — ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT CREATED THE SAME LEGAL CULPAABILITY FOR YOU? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >>CONGRESSMAN? THE PRESIDENT HAS ASKED ME TO NOT KEEP ANYTHING A SECRET. >>ARE YOU AWARE WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED MR. DEARBORN TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE AND FOCUS ON FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE PROTECTING YOURSELF, BUT YOU WERE, IN FACT, COMMITTING A CRIME. RICK DEARBORN KNEW DELIVERING THE MESSAGE WAS WRONG AND THAT IS WHY BEING ASKED TO DELIVER IT YOU PASSED IT OFF TO HIM AND YOU NEVER FOLLOWED UP. AND GUESS WHAT? I ALSO THINK IT IS VERY, VERY WRONG, IN FACT, I THINK THE PRESIDENT ASKING A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO TRY TO SCARE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL INTO ENDING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. >>I CREED BACK. >>THE — I YIELD BACK. >>THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>I DON’T BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUESTION. >>VERY WELL. THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA IS RECOGNIZED. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY YOU COME VOLUNTARILY. YOU HAVE HEARD SLANDEROUS ATTACKS ON YOU, HAVE PEEP REFER TO YOU AS A GUTTED FISH, YOU HAVE HAD PEOPLE REFER TO YOU AS A CHICKEN, YOU HAVE HAD PEOPLE IMPLY THAT YOU’RE HERE TO LIE. THAT IS UNFORTUNATE. AND IT IS BENEATH THIS COMMITTEE QUITE FRANKLY. WE’RE HERE, OSTENSIBLY, THEY WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH. YOU’RE HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH TODAY, RIGHT LLEWANDOWSKI? >>YES, SIR. >>AND, IN FACT, YOU HAVE GIVEN LOTS OF TESTIMONY. YOU HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH REPEATEDLY. I SEE A LIST OF 302S WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO THE FBI, RIGHT? >>YES, SIR. >>AND THOSE 302S, THEY DIDN’T RECORD THAT. THOSE ARE AFTER NOTES, RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE THAT IS RIGHT. >>AND YOU GAVE TESTIMONY TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES OF BOTH HOUSES, RIGHT? >>I DID, YES. >>AND SO HERE YOU SIT HERE TODAY, AND YOU GAVE TESTIMONY TO — AND YOU GAVE INTERVIEWS, I THINK ROUGHLY 20 HOURS WORTH OF INTERVIEW TEWS THE MUELLER TEAM — INTERVIEWS TO THE MUELLER TEAM, RIGHT? >>YES, SIR. >>AND IF WE LOOK AT THIS MUELLER REPORT, WE SEE YOUR NAME IN VARIOUS PLACES THROUGHOUT THE MUELLER REPORT, RIGHT? FAIR ENOUGH? >>I HAVE NEVER READ THE REPORT, BUT I THINK THAT IS ACCURATE, SIR. >>YOU’RE NOT UNWISE TO NOT HAVE READ THE REPORT. >>NOBODY HAS ACTUALLY READ THE REPORT, BUT THAT IS OKAY. >>I HAVE. >>YOU’RE THE ONE. >>AND YOUR NAME IS ALL OVER THIS REPORT. ODDLY ENOUGH WHEN YOU WERE ASKED BY A MEMBER OF THE OTHER SIDE TO LOOK AT VOLUME TWO, PAGE 86, AND THEY WANTED YOU TO TESTIFY TO IT, YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED. YOUR NAME IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THAT PAGE, DID YOU KNOW THAT? YOU’RE NOT EVEN MENTIONED. THEY WERE ASKING YOU QUESTIONS TO COMMENT ABOUT THING AND YOUR NAME IS NOT EVEN THERE. DID YOU KNOW THAT? >>NO, SIR. >>THAT SAME PERSON THAT ASKED YOU TO TALK ABOUT PAGE 49 AND 50, VOLUME TWO, GUESS WHO’S NAME DOES NOT APPEAR THERE, YOURS. DID YOU KNOW THAT? >>NO, I DID NOT. >>IT IS ODD, ISN’T IT, THAT THEY WOULD BE ASKING YOU TO COMMENT ON PAGES THAT YOU WERE NOT EVEN THERE. SO LET’S TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT SOME OF WHAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE DONE. THEY HAVE SPENT TWO YEARS CLAIMING WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CO-LEWDED WITH RUSSIA — COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA. HOW DO YOU RESPOND? WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON THAT TODAY. >>DURING MY TENURE WITH THE CAMPAIGN, CONGRESSMAN, AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, NEVER DID I BELIEVE I HAD ANY ACT WITH FOREIGN AT SIGHS OR GOVERNMENTS WHO WERE ATTEMPTING TO IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. I SAID PUBLICLY IF ANYONE DID, I HOPE THEY SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES IN JAIL. >>AND SO WE KNOW THAT ON JANUARY 2019, ON “THE CHRIS MAST YOUS SHOW,” A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE WAS ASKED DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS AN AGENT OF THE RUSSIANS. >>THAT WAS ME. >>THAT MEMBER SAID YES. AND CHRIS MATTHEWS FOLLOWED IT UP AND SAID AN AGENT LIKE IN THE 1940S WORKING FOR A PORN POWER? THAT INDIVIDUAL RESPONDED HE IS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIANS, YES. >>I STILL BELIEVE. >>MR. CHAIRMAN? >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM — ARIZONA HAS THE TIME. >>I WOULD LIKE 10 SECONDS ADDED BACK ON. >>10 SECONDS IN ANY EVENT. >>SO AS A CLOSE FRIEND, PERSONAL ADVISE OR OF THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT ACCUSATION BY THE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE MADE MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO EVEN BEFORE THE MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT AND SAID THERE WAS NO COLLUSION COORDINATION? >>CONGRESSMAN, I FIND IT BENEATH THE DIGNITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACCUSE SOMEBODY OF THAT AND WHILE I DIDN’T SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA WHEN HE WAS THE PRESIDENT, AND I DIDN’T VOTE FOR HIM, I STILL WANTED MY COUNTRY TO BE SUCCESSFUL SO I WANTED HIM TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND I THINK THE FACELESS, BASELESS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST OUR PRESIDENT ARE UNFOUNDED AND UNWARRANTED. >>I WANT TO COVER THE LAST LITTLE BIT OF THIS. WE HEAR TODAY THAT LOTS OF UESTIONS ABOUT AN MEETING YOU HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT REGARDING JEFF SESSIONS AND SOME NOTE THAT WAS DICTATED TO YOU. THAT WAS AFTER SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER WAS APPOINTED, WASN’T IT? >>I BELIEVE IT WAS, YES. >>AND DID THE PRESIDENT ASK YOU TO STOP MR. MUELLER OR TO ENCOURAGE MR. SESSIONS TO STOP THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AT ANY POINT? >>CONGRESSMAN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO OR DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT OR HIS ADVISORS TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY. >>I APPRECIATE THAT, AND IN GOING THROUGH THIS REPORT I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT EVER ASKED THAT YOU OR MR. SESSIONS STOP THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. IN FACT, THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WENT ON UNIMPEDED. THOUSANDS OF INTERVIEWS, MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS, AND WITH THAT MY TIME HAS EXPIRED, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I’M GOING TO PUT A SLIDE UP, AND IT IS THE WORDS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DICTATED TO YOU ON JULY 19 X YOU READ WHAT YOU — 19. CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN? >>I’M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT CONGRESSMAN. >>WELL, WHY DON’T YOU WANT TO READ IT, MR. LEWANDOWSKI. >>I THINK YOU SHOULD AFFORD ME THE SAME PRIVILEGE YOU AFFORDED MR. MULE SUMMER. >>WOULD YOU — MUELLER. >>WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ ISN’T IT? >>ARE YOU ASHAMED OF THE WORDS YOU WROTE DOWN? >>ARE YOU ASHAMED TO READ IT OUT LOUD. >>I AM NOT ASHAMED OF ANYTHING IN MY LIFE. >>CONFERENCINGMAN, I HAVE ASKED AND ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. >>WHY WON’T YOU READ THE WORDS ALLOWED. >>IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ THE WORDS, YOU’RE WELCOME TO. >>YOU WERE ASHAMED TO READ THEM OUT LOUD AND YOU DIDN’T DELIVER THOSE WORDS TO THE PERSON THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO. DID YOU HAVE A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT? >>I HAVE NOTHING TO FEEL GUILTY OF. >>YOU’RE WELCOME TO READ THE WORDS IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >>I AM JUST WONDER YELLOW JACKET WHY YOU CAN’T? >>WHY CAN’T YOU READ THOSE WORDS RIGHT NOW? >>FELL ME WHY YOU HOLD ME TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN THE PREVIOUS WITNESSES WHO SAT HERE? >>I WANT TO GIVE YOU ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER. YOU’VE SAID A NUMBER OF TIMES IT WAS IN THE MULE — IF IT WAS IN THE MUELLER REPORT IT WAS ACCURATE EXCEPT AS IT RELATES TO YOU STATING THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME THE PRESIDENT EVER ASKED YOU TO WRITE SOMETHING DOWN. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT PART IS NOT ACCURATE? I WOULD ASK THE CLOCK BE STOPPED WHILE HE CONFERS WITH HIS LAWYER. >>THE CLOCK WILL BE STOPPED FOR FIVE SECONDS. >>COULD I SEE THE PAGE? >>SURE. PAGE 91 LINES SEVEN AND EIGHT. I WILL READ IT TO YOU. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED LEWANDOWSKI TO TAKE DICTATION. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT IS NOT ACCURATE? >>I’M SAYING THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS, CONGRESSMAN. >>I AM ASKING IS THAT THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO TAKE DICTATION? >>SO THIS PART WOULD NOT BE 5:00 SENATE. >>I HAVE TAKEN DICTATION BY THE CANDIDATE AND THE PRESIDENT IN THE PAST. >>HAVE YOU EVER PUT ANY WORDS THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO WRITE DOWN BEFORE IN A SAFE OR WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD DONE THAT? >>I BELIEVE IT IS MY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE WHEN TAKING I DON’T THINK NOTES, CONGRESSMAN. >>SO EVERY NOTE YOU TAKE OF THE PRESIDENT YOU PUT IN A SAFE? HOW BIG IS THAT SAFE? >>IT IS A BIG SAFE, CONGRESSMAN. THERE ARE A LOT OF GUNS IN THERE. >>IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE EVER PUT A SECRET MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WANTED YOU TO DELIVER TO SOMEONE ELSE IN THE SAFE? >>I WAS NEVER TOLD TO KEEP THE MESSAGE SECRET. >>IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER PUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU DELIVER TO SOMEONE ELSE IN THE SAFE? >>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. >>I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT DAY LATER AFTER THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE. HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” AND THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THAT HE SAID SESSIONS SHOULD HAVE NEVER RECUSED HIMSELF. AND IF HE WAS GOING TO RECUSE HIMSELF, HE SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME BEFORE HE TOOK THE JOB. I WOULD HAVE PICKED SOMEONE ELSE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE. SAID TO YOU DURING THAT MEETING ONE-ON-ONE IN THE OVAL OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THE WHITE HOUSE WAS DIRECTED THAT I NOT DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND ADVISORS TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY. >>I WOULD LIKE TO STOP THE CLOCK FOR A PORALMENTRY INQUIRY. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A RULING ON THE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO ANSWER. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WHEN YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, YOU ARE OBSTRUCTING THE WORK OF OUR COMMITTEE, AND YOU ARE ALSO PROVING OUR POINT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE. THE PRESIDENT IS INTENT ON OBSTRUCTS OUR LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT. YOU ARE AIDING HIM IN THAT OBSTRUCTION AND I WILL REMIND YOU THAT ARTICLE 3 OF THE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON WAS BASED ON OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE CLOCK WILL START AGAIN. >>MR. CHAIRMAN? >>IS IT CORRECT AND I CAN REPEAT THAT THAT REFERENCE THAT YOU MADE TO NIXON WAS AFTER A FORMAL INQUIRY WAS PUT TO THE HOUSE AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TRUTH FOR THE RECORD. >>AND I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>THAT WAS NOT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. HE DIDN’T EVEN ASK ANYTHING. THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, DID YOU JUST THREATEN TO IMPEACH MR. LEWANDOWSKI, A PRIVATE CITIZEN? >>NO, THE PLAIN IMPORT OF WHAT I SAID WAS THAT HE IS VIOLATING THE LAW BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. THE PRESIDENT IS VIOLATING THE LAW BY INSTRUCTING HIM AND OTHERS NOT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, AND ARTICLE THREE OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT WAS BASED ON THIS KIND OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BY PRESIDENT THINGSON. >>ONE FURTHER — NIXON. >>ONE FURTHER INQUIRY? >>THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE. >>DOES THAT MEAN THEN, PURSUANT TO YOUR INQUIRY, THAT THIS IS AN OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >>I HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THIS COMMITTEE ASK, AND WE AMENDED OUR RULES TO EMPOWER THE CHAIRMAN TO DESIGNATE SPECIFIC HEARINGS WHICH I DID IS PURSUANT TO FINDING OUT TO DETERMINING WHETHER WE SHOULD VOTE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS. >>THANK YOU. >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA WILL CONTINUE. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I’LL ASK YOU AGAIN, THIS — WHAT IS DISPLAYED ON THE SLIDE IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU IN THAT ONE-ON-ONE MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? >>ARE YOU REFUSING TO ANSWER, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN A LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 AND MY ATTORNEY. >>THAT LETTER — >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI’S CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENIOR ADVISORS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE — >>CAN WE STOP THE CLOCK FOR THIS OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. >>AND CLOCK WILL BE STOPPED. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I’D ASK — >>EXCUSE ME. >>THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER. >>MY POINT OF ORDER IS THIS WITNESS CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE BY REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS HE HAS BEEN ORDERED TO DO SO WE YOU. I ASK THAT YOU JUDGE HIM CONTEMPT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. >>THAT IS NOT PROPER PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >>IT WAS A POINT OF ORDER. >>EXCUSE ME. I ARE TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE. >>ARE YOU REFUSING TO ANSWER, YES OR NO? >>CONGRESSMAN, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SO LET ME HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO DO SO. AS EXPLAINED BELOW, MR. LEWANDOWSKI’S CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY A LONG SET OF PRINCIPLES PROTECTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY — >>THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER. >>AS A RESULT, THE WHITE HOUSE IS DIRECTING MR. LEWANDOWSKI NOT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT SUCH CONVERSATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED — >>STOP. >>THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE COMMITTEE. >>THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME. NOT THE WITNESS. >>AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I AM JUST ASKING IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER, JUST SAY IT IS A REFUSAL TO ANSWER. WE DON’T NEED TO BE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. >>SO I’M GOING TO MOVE ON. IN THAT “NEW YORK TIMES” INTERVIEW HOURS AFTER THE PRESIDENT SPOKE TO YOU, HE NEVER SAID, IN FACT, I JUST ENLISTED MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO DELIVER A SECRET MESSAGE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HIM TO DIRECT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO LIMIT THE INVESTIGATION. HE SAID TO YOU SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT SAY JUST HOURS PUBLICLY, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE SAID. >>MR. LIERCH DOW SKI, WOULD YOU AGREE — LEWANDOWSKI WIDE YOU AGREE AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAS PROBABLY INVESTIGATED GANGS AND MOB-LIKE BEHAVIOR THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT? >>I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR PREMISE OF THE QUESTION IT WAS SECRET MESSAGE. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELL, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WELCOME TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND YOU AND THE PRESIDENT ARE ACCUSED BY THE MAJORITY OF A COVER-UP OF CORN COLLUSION, BUT THE — FOREIGN COLLUSION BUT THE MUELLER TEAM, TRY AS THEY KID, COULDN’T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION, AND I AM JUST KIND OF CURIOUS HOW DO YOU COVER UP A CRIME THAT NEVER HAPPENED? >>THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN. I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER. >>YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE CRUX OF THE MAJORITY’S CASE. IT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO SUGGEST TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT HE SHOULD SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY AND HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE ACCUSATION AGAINST YOU? >>IT SEEMS TO BE, YES, SIR. >>AND WELL, I THINK THE RECORD IS PRETTY CLEAR THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY AND HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, YET IT IS UPON THIS PRETEXT THE DEMOCRATS FEEL JUSTIFIED TO INVOKE IMPEACHMENT, THE SOLEMN POWER RESERVED TO THE CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. AND IT IS THE POWER TO NULLIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION OF THE UNITED STATES, A DECISION MADE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE AN ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS CASE TO YOU? >>IT DOES. >>IT CERTAINLY DOES TO ME TOO. AND FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS NOW OUR NATION HAS BEEN TORN APART BY THIS MONOVOSS LIE THAT THE — MONSTROUS LIE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS A WILLING AGENT OF A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER. I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS WHOLE LIE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION STARTED? >>YOU KNOW, CONGRESSMAN, I DON’T HAVE THE FACTS ON IT, BUT I THINK WHEN INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ HAS THE PRIVILEGE OF COMING HERE AND TESTIFYING, TESTIFY THAT THIS BEGAN AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND WAS PERPETRATED THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO COME UP WITH A NARRATIVE OF WHY HIT HILT LOST THE CAMPAIGN AS OPPOSED TO THE REAL NARRATIVE OF WHY DONALD TRUMP WON THE CAMPAIGN. >>THIS ACTUALLY BEGAN BEFORE THE ELECTION DO YOU BELIEVE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THROUGH ITS JUSTICE AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES DELIBERATELY INTERFEREDITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >>I BELIEVE THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL FOR PERSONRY AND OTHER — PERSONAL REAND OTHER CRIPE — PERJURY AND OTHER CRIPES AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, SPY ON AMERICAN CITIZENS IN A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND FALSE FLYING APPLICATION FORCE THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF TRYING TO PREVENT AN INDIVIDUAL OF BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >>IF WE’RE SERIOUS ABOUT PRESENTING THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, WHERE SHOULD WE BE LOOKING? >>I WOULD RECOMMEND INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ, U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM WHO IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION. IF IT WERE ME AND I WERE THE CHAIRMAN, WE WOULD BRING BEFORE US JASON COMEY, CLAPPER AND HAVE THEM ANSWER THE QUESTIONS UNDER OATH THAT SEEMS TO ELUDE THEN SO MANY TIMES WHEN THEY SIT BEFORE THESE COMMITTEES. >>BY THE BUY, WE HAVE SUGGESTED TO THE MAJORITY WE NEED TO DO PRECISELY AWE OF THAT AND SO FAR ALL OF THOSE REQUESTS HAVE FALLEN ON DEAF EARS. HERE IS THE PICTURE THAT SEEPS TO SLOWLY TAKE SHAPE. WE HAVE A PHONY DOSSIER PRODUCE BID THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION CHANNELED TO GOOD MORNING PAPADOPOULOS THROUGH ANOTHER WHO TUBS OUT HAS A — TURNS OUT HAS A LONG HISTORY WITH INVOLVEMENT WITH WESTERN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE CIA THAT WAS THEN USED TO JUSTIFY A SHAM INVESTIGATION. THAT INVESTIGATION WAS THEN LEAKED TO THE PRESS TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THIS FALSE NARRATIVE. AND IS THAT WHAT YOU SEE TAKING SHAPE HERE WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT IS SLOWLY COMING OUT? >>I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT, AND YOU LOOK AT THE REAL THAT BRUCE ORAND HIS WIFE PLAYED AT FUSION GPS, THE CULPABILITY THAT THEY AND THE FACT THAT THEY NOTIFIED THE FBI OF THE LACK OF CREDIBILITY OF CHRIS STEEL AND ANY INFORMATION HE WAS PROVIDING SHOULD GIVE US GREAT PAUSE THAT SUCH A SMALL GROUP OF THE FBI THAT PROVIDED CROSSFIRE HURRICANE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET IN MOTION A PLAN TO PREVENT A PERSON FROM BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. >>I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CANNOT BE OVER STATED. WE ENTRUST THE MOST TERRIFYING POWERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT POSSESSES TO THESE AGENCIES, LITERALLY THE POWER TO RUIN LIVES, TO SPY ON YOU, TO INCARCERATE YOU, TO LAUNCH PREDAWN RAIDS ON YOUR HOME, THE ABUSE OF THESE POWERS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES WOULD BE A DIRECT THREAT TO THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS THAT WE HAVE AS AMERICANS AND THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL INSTITUTIONS OF OUR DEMOCRACY. I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE OF PASSING INTEREST TO EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. I CREED BACK. >>TIME. >>– I YIELD BACK. >>TIME. >>GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI, EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU QUESTIONED THE LOVE THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE FOR THE COUNTRY, AND I SERVED IN ACTIVE DUTY OF THE OUR MY TEAR. I AM NOT GOING TO QUESTION MY LOVE OF THE COUNTRY. I AM NOT GOING TO QUESTION YOURS. WE’RE AWE AMERICANS. EARLIER YOU HAD MADE A PRETTY STUNNING CONCESSION THAT YOU HAD NOT READ THE MUELLER REPORT THAT EXPLAIN AS LOT ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY, AND I’M THINKING MAYBE YOU DON’T SNOW WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ACTUALLY FOUND. SO I’M GOING TO TELL YOU. VOLUME ONE OF THE MUELLER REPORT FOUND THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC MANNER. IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN KNEW ABOUT THE ATTACK, THAT THEY GAVE INTERN POLLING DATA TO THE RUSSIANS, THAT THEY PLANNED THEIR CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AROUND THIS ATTACK. IT IS NOT JUST IN THE MUELLER REPORT. IT IS ALSO IN ROBERT MUELLER’S TESTIMONY UNDER OATH IN FRONT OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THIS COMMITTEE. AND THE REASON WE’RE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE VOLUME TWO FINDS THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO OBSTRUCT THAT INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN ATTACK ON AT LEAST 10 INSTANCES, FIVE OF WHICH ROBERT MUELLER FOUND THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SO I’M GOING TO PUT UP A SLIDE ABOUT WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOUND ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT IN WHICH YOU’RE INVOLVED. HE FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S EVIDENT TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE ELECTION INTERFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER JUT NEE OF THE PRESIDENT’S — SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN’S CONDUCT, AND THAT IS WHY WE’RE HERE AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE TIMELINE. YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED MARCH 2017 THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS RECUSED HIMSELF. HE DID THAT IN MARCH 2017. I’M GOING TO PUT UP A SLIDE ABOUT WHAT THE COURTHOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE HAD DIRECTED ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION WITH SESSIONS. IT SAID NO CAN’T WITH SESSIONS AND — NO CONTACT WITH SESSIONS. DID YOU EVER GET THAT INSTRUCTION FROM ANYONE NOT TO CONTACT SESSIONS AT ALL? >>THE CLOCK IS STOPPED. >>NO. >>OKAY. >>THANK YOU. >>AND A FEW MONTHS LATER ON JUNE 14, 2017, THE MEDIA REPORTS THAT THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION, ACTUALLY, THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION TURNS INTO AN OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, AND THEN WHEN DONALD TRUMP LEARNS ABOUT THIS, HE GOES NUTS, ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>I DON’T KNOW THAT TO BE ACCURATE. >>THE PRESIDENT LAUNCHED OVER 10 TWEETS VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER CALLING THE INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, IS THAT CORRECT? >>I DON’T KNOW THAT TO BE ACCURATE. >>HE DID. THEN HE CALLS DON MCGAHN AT HOME AND SAYS THAT MUELLER HAS TO GO. CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT. WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT, THAT HE CALLED DON MCGAHN AT HOME TO TELL HIM TO FIRE MULE SUMMER. >>NO. >>TWO DAY AFTERS THAT PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT CALLS YOU INTO HIS OFFICE. HE DICTATED A MESSAGE FOR YOU TO CARRY TO JEFF SESSIONS, AND YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN’T GIVE IT TO JEFF SESSIONS BECAUSE YOU WENT ON VACATION. THE MUELLER REPORT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANCELED THAT MEETING. THAT IS CORRECT, ISN’T IT? IN FACT, CANCELED THE MEETING THAT YOU TRIED TO GIVE THE NOTE TO? >>I DON’T — WHERE IS THAT REFERENCED IN THE REPORT, CONGRESSMAN? >>SURE. PAGE 92. I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE COURTESY. I’M GOING TO READ IT FOR YOU. IT SAYS LEWANDOWSKI CALLED AND SESSIONS HAD TO CANCEL DUE DO A LAST-MINUTE CONFLICT. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >>I BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE. >>AND THEN A LITTLE BIT LATER ON JULY 8th, THE MEDIA WRITES ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE INFORMATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN INCLUDING THAT HIS SENIOR ADVISORS AND HIS SON MET WITH RUSSIAN OPERATIVE WHOSE HAD DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON AS PART OF RUSSIA’S SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND DONALD TRUMP THEN CALLS YOU BACK INTO HIS OFFICE AGAIN ALONE FOR A MEETING, AND THIS TIME HE TELLS YOU THAT SESSIONS IS GOING TO BE FIRED IF HE DOESN’T MEET WITH YOU, DO YOU RECALL THAT CONVERSATION? >>I TOOK THAT AS A JOKE. >>OKAY. YOU TOOK THAT AS JOKE. AFTER THAT, THE PRESIDENT GOES ON TV AND HE SAYS SESSIONS SHOULD HAVE NEVER RECUSED HIMSELF, AND IF HE WAS GOING TO RECUSE HIMSELF, HE SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME BEFORE HE TOOK THE JOB AND I WOULD HAVE PICKED SOMEBODY ELSE DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS JOKING WHEN HE SAID THAT ON TV? >>I DON’T KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT WAS JOKING OR NOT. WHEN THE PRESIDENT MET WITH YOU ALONE TO ASK IF YOU DELIVERED THE NOTE TO SESSIONS, DO YOU BELIEVE ANY OF THAT WAS A JOKE? >>I CAN’T DISCUSS A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. IT IS IN THE REPORT, SIR. >>OKAY. >>I YIELD BACK. >>AND THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLE LADY FROM ARIZONA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI FOR BEING HERE TODAY. VOLUNTARILY. YOU KNOW, FIRST WE HAD THE STEEL DOSSIER WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE A FALSE OPPOSITION REPORT FUNDED BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND APPARENTLY IT WAS USED TO SPY ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND INITIATE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION, AND THEN FOR TWO YEARS WE HAVE HEARD FROM DEMOCRATS ON TV. I HEARD IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM SOME ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT THEY HAD PROOF, PROOF THAT THEIR PRESIDENT HAD CO-LEWDED WITH RUSH — COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND GUESS WHAT? THE MUELLER REPORT COMES OUT AND THEY LIED. IT WAS TOTALLY FALSE. THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, NO CONSPIRACY, AND SO THEN MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAD TO SWITCH GEARS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT ONE FAILED, SO THEY SAID, OH, NOW IT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SO THEY BROUGHT IN ROBERT MUELLER AND THEY TRIED TO QUESTION HIM. THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD. AND THAT ONE FLOPPED, TOO. AND SO NOW HERE WE ARE TODAY. THEY’RE HAULING YOU IN AND WHO KNOWS WHO THEY’RE GOING TO HAUL IN NEXT. THEY’RE TRYING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON’T KNOW WHEN IT IS GOING TO END. I WANT TO READ A QUOTE FROM ON APRIL 19, 2019, SHORTLY AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, EMMETT FLOOD, SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, WROTE ABOUT THE ABUSES BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES. HE SAID IN THE PARTISAN COMMOTION SURROUNDING THE RELEASED REPORT, IT WOULD BE WELL TO REMEMBER THAT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO THE PRESIDENT CAN BE DONE TO ANY ONE OF US. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT? >>I DO. >>AND, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I AM SCARED FOR OUR COUNTRY. I AM SCARED WHEN I READ THIS MUELLER REPORT, WHEN I READ WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON WITH A FALSE DOSSIER THAT WAS APPARENTLY USED TO SPY ON AMERICANS, AND IF THAT CAN BE DONE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS CAN BE DONE TO ANYONE. AND SO I ASK YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL GO TO ANY LENGTH TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION? >>CONGRESSWOMAN, I BELIEVE IN THIS DEMOCRACY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND I LOVE THIS COUNTRY, AND I THINK PARTISAN POLITICS IS SO IMPORTANT, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE’RE THE GREATEST FREEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS PARA MOUNT TO EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, AND WHILE WE MAY DISAGREE IN THIS COMMITTEE AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS PRESIDENT TREATED EXCEPTIONALLY UNFAIRLY, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ALL BELIEVE THAT A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION IS THE BEST WAY AND THE BEST METHOD FOR INSURING THE SAFE AND SECURITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY. AND DO I HAVE CONCERNS BASED ON THE 2016 ELECTION? SEEING THE ABUSES OF A SMALL MINORITY THAT HAVE IMPACTED SO MANY? YOU BET I DO. AM I CONCERNED THAT AS OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN GROW UP WE LOOK BACK AT THIS TIME IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY AND WE SAY THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, NOT TO A REPUBLICAN AND NEVER TO A DEMOCRAT? YOU BET I DO. BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY PARTISAN POLITICS ASIDE, AND TO THE POINT, WE ALL LOVE OUR COUNTRY. WE MAY HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, BUT SEE SOMEONE NOT ELECTED PROPERLY OR THE INTERFERENCE OF FOREIGN AGENTS OR INDIVIDUALS IN THIS COUNTRY TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. THIS COUNTRY IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR PLANET AND WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT AND SOMETIMES, MAYBE JUST SOMETIMES, BIPARTISAN POLITIC CANS TAKE A BACK SEAT TO DOING WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY. >>THANK YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. JORDAN. >>I THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING AND THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR THE WELL STATED ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION. >>AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI, ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN THAT YOU RAN AND WERE INVOLVED WITH, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER PAGE. WE HAVE HEARD FROM MISS MCCLINTOCK AND MR. PAPADOPOULOS, IT WAS DONE OVERSEAS WITH FOREIGNERS. FBI SPICE ON A MAJOR PARTY’S NOMINEE SPIES ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WERE YOU AS THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER EVER NOTIFIED OR WAS ANYONE AT THE CAMPAIGN EVER NOTIFY SHAD THAT WAS GOING — NOTIFIED THAT THAT WAS GOING ON WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING? >>NO, SIR. >>I YIELD BACK. >>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS RECOGNIZED. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, SOME OF OUR GOP COLLEAGUES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT OUR TIME WOULD BE BETTER SPENT PROTECTING THE 2020 ELECTIONS, SO WE JUST PRESUME THAT WE FORGOT ABOUT THE PASSING OF THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES $600 MILLION TO MODERNIZE AND SECURE OUR ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE, MANDATES THE USE OF VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS AND POST ELECTION RISK LIMITING AUDITS AND BANS INTERNET ACCESS BILITYD AND KENTTIVEITY FOR DEVICES ON WHICH BALL — CONNECTIVITY FOR DEVICES WHICH BALLOTS ARE MARKED. PERHAPS THEY FORGOT ABOUT IT BECAUSE ALL VOTED AGAINST IT EXCEPT FOR ONE IN THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS VOTED TO SUPPORT IT. WE’RE STILL HOPING THAT MITCH MCCONNELL DECIDES TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE. WHO ARE THE USEFUL IDIOT ? I SUPPOSE WE CAN HAVE AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. YOU STOLED US ABOUT SOME OF THE THING USE WANT TO INVESTIGATE ABOUT THE DEEP STATE WHEN YOU BECOME A U.S. SENATOR. LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT YOUR UPCOMING SERVICE AS A SENATOR. WILL YOU ACCEPT THIS VIEW OF THE SO-CALLED CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST FOR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN INVOKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM COLLECTING TESTIMONY FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS, WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT IN YOUR SERVICE IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO THE SENATE? >>I APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIDENCE MY ABILITY TO WIN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND I AM SURE THE PEOPLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE HAVE THAT SAME CONFIDENCE OF ME. >>YOUR REPUTATION TO ANSWER. >>I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT IS NOT MY PRIVILEGE TO WAIVE, CONGRESSMAN, IT IS THE EXEC FIVE OFFICE EAR PRIVILEGE. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. >>I AM. ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE WHITE HOUSE HAS TOLD YOU THAT THEY ARE INVOKING THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON >>>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU DIDN’T WORK FOR TRUMP, DID YOU? YOU NEVER WORKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >>I NEVER WORKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE. >>SO YOU WERE A PRIVATE CITIZEN DURING THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY? >>YES. >>THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TODAY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT SEEKING INFORMATION WITH THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES ARE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. THIS IS A SURREAL NEW EXTREME. LET’S MAKE THIS CLEAR. THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING YOUR ADVICE OR YOU WERE HELPING HIM DISCHARGE HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES? FIRST OF ALL, I WANT THIS ON THE RECORD. WHEN YOU WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE IN JUNE AND JULY OF 2017 TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT, YOU WERE NOT A WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE, WERE YOU? >>NO. >>YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND THERE WERE NO OTHER WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEES PRESENT FOR THAT MEETING, NO ASSISTANT OR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE THAT’S ACCURATE. >>WHILE YOU CLAIM YOU WERE ADVISING HIM, THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T SEEM TO BE SEEKING YOUR ADVICE AT ALL. YOU NEVER TESTIFIED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ONCE ASKED FOR YOUR ADVICE. THIS IS WHAT YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ON PAGE 91, DURING THE JUNE 19 MEETING, LEWANDOWSKI RECALLED THAT AFTER SOME SMALL TALK, THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP SESSIONS AND CRITICIZED HIS RECUSAL FROM THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION, SAYING SESSIONS WAS WEAK. THE PRESIDENT ASKED LEWANDOWSKI TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO SESSIONS AND SAID, WRITE THIS DOWN. SO, I’M ASSUMING YOU TOLD THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR DISCUSSION WHEN YOU TESTIFIED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THERE’S NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT HIM ASKING YOUR ADVICE ON ANYTHING, IS THERE? >>THERE’S NOTHING IN THE REPORT THAT SAYS THAT. >>AND YOU WERE NOT HELPING HIM PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES IN OFFICE, WERE YOU? >>I CAN’T DISCUSS MY PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. >>I’M GOING BASED ON WHAT’S UP ON THE SCREEN. DID YOU HELP HIM WITH DUTIES OF OFFICE AT THAT POINT? >>AGAIN, I CAN’T DISCUSS WHAT’S OUTSIDE THE REPORT. >>NO ONE HAS TOLD US WHAT DUTY YOU WERE PERFORMING IF YOU WERE PERFORMING ONE OR WHAT PUBLIC POLICY YOU WERE ADVISING ON. WE DON’T SEE HIM ASKING YOU ADVICE ABOUT ANYTHING. DID HE ASK YOUR ADVICE ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY? THAT’S THE ONLY CONTEXT I KNOW ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BUT THAT’S NOT BEING WAVED AROUND. ONE CAN ONLY REGARD WITH AMAZEMENT THE LOGIC OF THIS ARGUMENT: THE PRESIDENT TWEETS OUT THAT FOX NEWS ANCHORS ADVISE HIM. >>THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >>THAT’S A QUESTION YOU SHOULD DIRECT TO THE WHITE HOUSE. >>TIME IS EXPIRED. GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND TESTIFYING THREE OTHER TIMES WILLINGLY, AGAIN HERE VOLUNTARILY. I DOUBT THE OTHERS HAD AS MUCH POLITICAL THEATER AS THIS ONE HAS HAD. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY. THIS HEARING IS YET ANOTHER GRAND DISPLAY OF POLITICAL THEATER THAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THIS COMMITTEE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. THE MAJORITY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON SOUND CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT, IN PARTICULAR THE IG REPORT ABOUT ABUSE IN THE FBI, AND WE SHOULD BE HAVING A HEARING SOON WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IN FRONT OF US TO QUESTION. ALL WE HAVE SEEN FOR MONTHS IS DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO KEEP THIS IMPEACH AT ALL COSTS NARRATIVE ALIVE. I DON’T KNOW IF WHAT THEY ARE CALLING IT TODAY, AN INVESTIGATION OR PROCEEDING OR HEARING. WHATEVER GOOGLE THROWS AT THEM, THAT’S WHAT WE’RE AT. IT’S EMBARRASSING AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO HAVE YOU HERE TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS. THE MAJORITY IS PROPPING UP THIS MUELLER REPORT LIKE A BAD REMAKE OF WEEKEND AT BERNIE’S. IT’S IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT, IT’S DEAD AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT EXCEPT THE CHAIRMAN AND SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE PARTY CONFERENCE. WE SHOULD BE HEARING FROM THE IG REPORT ABOUT THE FBI ABUSE. WE ARE NOW HEARING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S MOOD WHEN HE’S TALKING TO YOU IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THERE WAS COLLUSION WITH RUSSIAN BUT NOT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTIONS BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, NOT THE ONE STILL STANDING BY THE BELIEF PROVEN FALSE BY VOLUME ONE OF THE REPORT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT, BUT THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA WHO WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER. YOU HAVE HEARD OF THE STEELE DOSSIER, CORRECT? >>YES, SIR. >>IT WAS AN OPPOSITION RESEARCH DOCUMENT PAID FOR BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DNC. HAVE YOU MET CHRISTOPHER STEELE? >>I HAVE NOT. >>YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH WITH WHO HE IS? >>I AM. >>HE WAS HIRED BY FUSION GPS TO PRODUCE THE STEELE DOSSIER. HAVE YOU HEARD OF FUSION GPS? >>YES, I HAVE. >>MR. MUELLER DIDN’T KNOW. DO YOU KNOW WHO HIRED HIM TO PRODUCE THIS DOSSIER? >>I BELIEVE IT WAS A LAW FIRM. >>DO YOU KNOW WHO CHRISTOPHER STEELE’S SOURCES WERE FOR THE INFORMATION PUT IN THE DOSSIER? >>I COULDN’T SPEAK TO IT DIRECTLY, SIR. >>THEY WERE RUSSIAN SOURCES, CORRECT? >>THAT’S THE PUBLIC REPORT, YES. >>THE FBI AND ITS LEADERS DID NOT VERIFY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE DOSSIER ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, DID THEY? >>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >>MOST OF IT HAS PROVEN TO BE FALSE AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY RELIED ON IT TO GET TO SPY ON THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >>YES. >>THIS WAS ALL LAID BARE, VOLUME ONE INDICATING THERE WAS NO COLLUSIN BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT MUELLER REPORT THAT WE ARE STILL PROPPING UP AND HASHING OVER WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER WEEK, YOU WROTE AN OP-ED ABOUT ON MARCH 29th WHEN YOU CLARIFIED THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS COMPREHENSIVE AND FOUND NO WRONG DOING BY THE PRESIDENT OR ITS ADVISORS. BUT IT WAS USED IN MARCH AND STILL BEING USED BY CONSPIRACY- MINDED DEMOCRATS AND HOSTILE MEDIA FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL PURPOSES, THWARTING THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION AND PURSUING FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS. DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT IT IS BEING MISUSED IN THAT WAY TODAY? >>I DO BELIEVE IT, SIR. >>IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED? >>NO, SIR. >>WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >>GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WE ARE SEEING A PATTERN OF THE PRESIDENT DOING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO HIDE HIS MISCONDUCT FROM CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO GET YOU TO DELIVER A SECRET MESSAGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALL IN AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FROM EXPOSING THE PRESIDENT’S OWN MISCONDUCT. AS SOON AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL PUBLISHED HIS REPORT, AND THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT WAS EXPOSED, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER THAT UP TOO. ISN’T IT TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT TRY TODDIES CREDIT YOUR AND OTHER WITNESS’ TESTIMONY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE PUBLISHED REPORT? >>NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >>DO YOU FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT ON TWITTER, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK. I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN’T, BUT I’LL FIX THAT. >>EXCELLENT. YOU HAVE PROBABLY SEEN HIS TWEETS. I’LL PUT UP THE SLIDE FOR YOU: STATEMENTS ARE MADE ABOUT ME BY CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE CRAZY MUELLER REPORT, IN ITSELF WRITTEN BY 18 ANGRY DEMOCRAT TRUMP HATERS WHICH ARE FABRICATED AND TOTALLY UNTRUE. THAT WAS APRIL 19th, 2018. THAT’S THE PRESIDENT SAYING THAT ALL THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY WITNESSES IN THE INVESTIGATION, ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE UNTRUE. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU WERE A WITNESS IN THE INVESTIGATION. YOU SAT FOR INTERVIEWS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AS PART OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT? >>I DID, YES. >>AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT INCLUDED STATEMENTS YOU MADE TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DURING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. DID YOU LIE AT ANY POINT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DURING THOSE INTERVIEWS? >>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, NO. >>SO YOU DIDN’T LIE TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, DID YOU, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, NO. >>SOTHE PRESIDENT IS WRONG THAT THE REPORT IS FABRICATED AND TOTALLY UNTRUE. THAT’S THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO DISCREDIT ALL THE WITNESSES WHO SAID HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, ISN’T THAT CORRECT, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>THAT’S A QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT. >>WHICH IS IT? DID YOU LIE OR IS THE PRESIDENT WRONG WHEN HE SAYS ALL THE STATEMENTS IN THE REPORT ARE FABRICATED? >>I BELIEVE IT SAYS CERTAIN PEOPLE, STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT ME BY CERTAIN PEOPLE. IT DOESN’T SAY ALL, UNLESS I’M MISREADING IT. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, DID YOU LIE TO THE PRESIDENT AND IS THE PRESIDENT CORRECT THAT EVERYTHING IN THE REPORT IS FABRICATED? >>I WON’T COMMENT ON PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS BUT I DON’T APPRECIATE THE INSINUATION THAT I LIED ABOUT ANYTHING. I’VE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT MY TRUTHFULNESS TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. >>I APPRECIATE THAT. >>I HAVE NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE LIED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. >>THIS IS MY TIME. YOU’RE A WITNESS BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, PLEASE ACT LIKE IT. THIS IS MY TIME. I CONTROL IT. THE PRESIDENT ALSO SAID, WATCH OUT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT TAKE SO- CALLED NOTES WHEN THE NOTES NEVER EXISTED UNTIL NEEDED, REFERRING TO THE MUELLER REPORT REFERENCING PEOPLE TAKING NOTES OF MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT, NOTES THAT DOCUMENTED THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU HAD NOTES FROM YOUR MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT BEFORE, CORRECT? >>YES. >>YOU WERE DICTATED THOSE NOTES BY THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE THAT’S IN THE REPORT. >>AND YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A MESSAGE TO YOU AND SAID, WRITE THIS DOWN. VOLUME TWO, PAGE 91. YOU GAVE THOSE NOTES TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THE WAY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CONDUCTED THEIR INVESTIGATION OR WHAT INFORMATION THEY HAVE. >>DID YOU GIVE NOTES TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? IT’S ABOUT WHETHER YOU GAVE NOTES TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. >>THAT’S A QUESTION FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER. >>THOSE ARE YOUR NOTES, DICTATED TO YOU AND WRITTEN DOWN BY YOU. >>I COMPLY WITH ALL QUESTIONS. >>YOU’RE REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >>I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS. >>SO YOU GAVE THE NOTES TO SPECIAL COUNSEL? >>I’VE ASKED AND ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. >>DID YOU MAKE UP THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU TO WRITE DOWN THAT NOTE, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>I CAN’T SPEAK TO A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >>DID YOU LIE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TELLING YOU TO WRITE DOWN THE NOTE? >>I BELIEVE WHAT IS IN THE REPORT IS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. >>SO TO BE CLEAR, YOU GAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL NOTES FROM YOUR MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT THAT ARE NOT FABRICATED AND TOTALLY UNTRUE, AS PER THE PRESIDENT’S TWEET. WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID ALL THOSE NOTES NEVER EXISTED UNTIL NEEDED, HIS QUOTE, THAT’S ANOTHER INOF THE PRESIDENT RIGHT TO DISCREDIT ANYONE WHO TRIED TO DOCUMENT HIS MISCONDUCT. NOW HE’S GOING FURTHER, ISN’T HE? YOU HAVE SAID PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE AND THAT YOU WOULD ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. HERE’S WHAT YOU SAID: >>I NEVER ASKED FOR A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING WHATSOEVER. I SAT THERE FOR 12 HOURS AND BEFORE I LEFT, AFTER THE LAST FOUR HOURS, I SAID, I’LL SIT HERE ANOTHER FOUR HOURS TO ANSWER EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS TODAY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I WILL ANSWER EVERY ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. THERE’S NO REASON TO SUBPOENA ME BECAUSE I’LL VOLUNTEER. I’LL ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. >>BUT THE WHITE HOUSE IS DIRECTING YOU NOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, A TREMENDOUSLY SHAMEFUL THING, MR. LEWANDOWSKI. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO MOW THE TRUTH AND I THINK THEY DESERVE TO HAVE YOU ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. >>THE TIME IS EXPIRED. GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE TRUTH IF THEY HAVE READ THE MUELLER REPORT AND COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS. SIR, YOU AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE SO, YES. >>AND MULTIPLE TIMES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO TESTIFY VOLUNTARILY BEFORE NUMEROUS CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, YOU HAVE COMPLIED IN THAT QUESTION, NOT EVEN NEEDING TO BE SUBPOENAED? >>TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. >>AND AFTER 22 MONTH, 500 SUBPOENAS, 500 SEARCH WARRANTS, THE MUELLER REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA; IS THAT CORRECT? >>I HAVEN’T READ THE REPORT BUT I BELIEVE THAT’S THE FINAL CONCLUSION. >>SO NOW THAT WE’VE ESTABLISHED THAT THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF DOESN’T FIND ANY COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA, THIS WHOLE CONTENTION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT FIRING OR NOT FIRING OR DIRECTING PEOPLE TO FIRE SOMEONE, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING — AND IT’S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE, BUT IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHOUT CAUSE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER? >>LET ME PREFACE THAT BY SAYING I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT HAS BROAD AUTHORITY OVER THOSE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND HAS BROAD LATITUDE TO HIRE AND FIRE AT HIS DISCRETION. >>ALSO UNDER THAT AUTHORITY, HE COULD FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER AT ANY TIME? >>AGAIN, I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THAT COULD BE A VERY REALISTIC INTERPRETATION, YES. >>HE COULD HAVE ALSO HAD MR. MUELLER FIRED DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION IF HE WANTED TO UNDER HIS POWERS IN ARTICLE 2? >>AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT I BELIEVE SO, YES. >>GIVEN ALL THAT, HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO EXERCISE ANY OF THAT AUTHORITY, AND ALLOWED FOR THE CAMPAIGN AND MEMBERS LIKE YOURSELVES TO COORDINATE WITH THEM AND COOPERATE WITH THEM. NOW THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A 22 MONTH INVESTIGATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SOLD A LIE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION, NOW WE’RE GOING TO TRY AND REHASH THIS NARRATIVE AMONGST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT’S BEEN INVESTIGATED BY INVESTIGATORS, LAWYERS, FBI AGENTS FOR 22 MONTHS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF MY CAUCUS. IF NOT, I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIR. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO LOVE THIS COUNTRY. I SPENT 27 YEARS HERE AND WITNESSES WERE TELLING HALF TRUTHS UP TO THOSE WHO WERE OUTRIGHT LIARS. TODAY I DO HAVE TO WONDER HOW MANY UNTRUTHS, HOW MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS NEGLECTING THEIR DUTIES AND THEIR OATH, AND HOW MANY WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS DOES IT TAKE TO PROTECT ONE INNOCENT PRESIDENT? YOU STARTED OFF WITH YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TALKING ABOUT BEING A CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICER IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, CORRECT? >>YES. >>DO YOU BELIEVE THAT POLICE OFFICERS HAVE A VERY TOUGH JOB? >>I DO. >>BUT EVEN WITH ALL OF THE STUFF THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH, NOT ONLY ENFORCING THE LAW AND PATROLLING THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND JUST WORKING HORRIBLE HOURS, WITH ALL THAT STUFF, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEN THEY ENGAGE IN WRONG DOING, THAT THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? >>I DO. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU SAID THAT IF ANYONE WERE TRYING TO COORDINATE WITH RUSSIA, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW; IS THAT CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE I SAID IF ANYBODY ATTEMPTED TO IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION ILLEGALLY, THEY SHOULD SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIFE IN JAIL. I THINK ANYBODY WHO’S ATTEMPTING TO IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION ILLEGALY, WHETHER IT’S RUSSIA OR ANOTHER FOREIGN ENTITY, SHOULD SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIFE IN JAIL. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I BELIEVE THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT CONCLUDING THAT RUSSIA’S GOVERNMENT INTERFERING IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS IN A SWEEPING FASHION. >>I BELIEVE RUSSIA ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION, YES. >>OVER 100 CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIAN NATIONALS OR THOSE ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. ARE THOSE ADVISING THEN- INDICATE TRUMP. THE REPORT FOCUSED THAT THOSE CONTACTS INCLUDED OFFERS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE CAMPAIGN, INVITATIONS FOR CANDIDATE TRUMP AND PUTIN TO MEET IN PERSON. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU SAID YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS; IS THAT CORRECT? >>I DON’T BELIEVE I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ANY RUSSIAN OR RUSSIAN CONTACT. >>YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THEM OFFERING ASSISTANCE TO THE CAMPAIGN AT ALL? >>I DON’T BELIEVE. >>YOU SAID, I NEVER SPOKE TO A RUSSIAN OR CONTACTED A RUSSIAN OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIANS. I NEVER SPOKE TO THEM AND I WAS THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER. DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT? >>I THINK THAT’S ACCURATE. >>AND YOU SAID QUOTE, YOU HAD SOLE CONTROL OVER THE CAMPAIGN OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF. I SAT NEXT TO CANDIDATE TRUMP FOR THOUSANDS OF HOURS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. IS THAT CLOSE TO WHAT YOU REMEMBER SAYING? >>IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE TIME FRAME OF THE CAMPAIGN WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT. >>WHEN YOU SERVED AS CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? >>YES, THERE WERE MULTIPLE PERIODS OF TIME FROM — >>WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU HAD SOLE CONTROL OVER THE CAMPAIGN OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF? >>NOT THE DAY I WAS FIRED, I DIDN’T HAVE SOLE CONTROL. >>REQUIRE TO THAT DAY. >>AGAIN, NOT LEADING UP TO THAT DAY. >>THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING — I’M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU AND ANSWER. IF YOU DON’T LIKE MY ANSWER, I CAN REPHRASE IT. NO, I DON’T THINK I HAD SOLE CONTROL OF THE CAMPAIGN THE DAY PRECEDING MY FIRING OR THE DAY I WAS FIRED. IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME — >>LET’S FORGET THE FIRING. THE FIRST MONTH YOU WERE THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAD SOLE CONTROL OVER THE CAMPAIGN OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF? >>ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JUNE OF 2015? >>YOU TALKED TO CANDIDATE TRUMP ON A REGULAR BASIS; IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>OUT OF BEING THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER, BEING VERY CLOSE TO THE CANDIDATE, THE CAMPAIGN HAS OVER 100 CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND YOU DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>DID YOU EVER ASK THE PRESIDENT IF HE KNEW ABOUT HIS CAMPAIGN’S CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AFTER THE REPORTS CAME OUT THAT THERE WERE OVER 100 CONTACTS? DID YOU EVER ASK HIM AFTER THE REPORTS CAME OUT? >>I’M, ASK WHO? >>DID YOU ASK TRUMP IF HE EVER HAD — DID HE KNOW THE CAMPAIGN HAD REGULAR CONTACT WITH RUSSIANS AFTER THE REPORT CAME OUT? AFTER YOU HEARD THAT REPORT, THOSE REPORTS — >>YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER. >>I COULDN’T DISCLOSE A PRIVATE CONVERSATION I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT. >>THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR. >>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. I’M SORRY, THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS. CALIFORNIA? >>GEORGIA. >>THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT BOAT OF US SHARE A DEEP LOVE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND A DISTASTE FOR ANY FOREIGN AGENTS THAT WANT TO INTERFERE WITH DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS? >>I AM. >>YOU AGREE HE WAS A FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AS OF APRIL 27, 2016? >>TO THE CAMPAIGN, CONGRESSMAN. >>TO THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >>YES. >>AS YOU KNOW, GEORGE PLED GUILTY TO FELONY CRIMES INCLUDING LYING TO INVESTIGATORS. WE’VE GOT HIS INDICTMENT UP ON THE SCREEN. ONE OF THE THINGS HE PLED GUILTY TO WAS LYING ABOUT HOW OFTEN HE WAS COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA WHEN HE WAS ADVISOR TO THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >>I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S WHAT HE PLED GUILTY TO, SIR. >>I’M QUOTING THE MUELLER REPORT NOW. THROUGHOUT APRIL 16, PAPADOPOULOS CONTINUED TO CORRESPOND AND MEET WITH RUSSIANS AND SEEK RUSSIAN CONTACTS. OF COURSE THAT’S UP ON VOLUME ONE, PAGE 87. THE REPORT ALSO DOCUMENTS PAPADOPOULOS TRYING TO SCHEDULE THEN-CANDIDATE TRUMP TO TRAVEL TO RUSSIA TO MEET WITH PUTIN; IS THAT CORRECT? >>I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S IN THE REPORT, SIR. >>THE REPORT ALSO DOCUMENTS E- MAILS DISCUSSING THIS POTENTIAL RUSSIAN TRIP AND I’LL SHOW THEM TO YOU IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM, CORRECT? PUT THOSE UP PLEASE. APRIL 27th, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR PAPADOPOULOS SENT YOU AND E- MAIL TELLING YOU THAT HE HAD QUOTE, BEEN RECEIVING A LOT OF CALLS OVER THE LAST MONTHS ABOUT PUTIN WANTING TO HOST TRUMP AND THE TEAM WHEN THE TIME WAS RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT? >>IF THAT’S WHAT’S IN THE REPORT. >>VOLUME ONE, PAGE 89. >>OKAY, FIRST I’VE SEEN IT. >>JUNE 1st, PAPADOPOULOS FORWARDED YOU AN E-MAIL FROM A RUSSIAN OFFICIAL ASKING ABOUT A MEETING IN MOSCOW, ASKING IF THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. IS THAT ACCURATE? >>I DON’T KNOW. >>VOLUME ONE, PAGE 89. SLIDE, PLEASE. >>I SEE THE REPORT, SIR. >>OKAY. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THIS WAS JUST NOT ABOUT YOU RECEIVING INFORMATION BY COORDINATING POTENTIAL MEETINGS WITH RUSSIA, BUT ACTUALLY YOU RESPONDED TO PAPADOPOULOS, TELLING HIM TO CONNECT WITH SAM CLOVIS BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE THE RUNNING POINT MAN; IS THAT CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE THAT TO BE ACCURATE. >>OKAY. DID YOU TELL PAPADOPOULOS TO STOP COMMUNICATION WITH RUSSIANS? >>I DON’T BELIEVE I DID. >>OKAY. YOU ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED THAT COMMUNICATION BY REFERRING HIM TO A RUNNING POINT MAN. >>NO, CONGRESSMAN. WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO WITH CONTACT FROM MR. PAPADOPOULOS, WHO I HAD VERY LIMITED INTERACTION WITH, WAS TO PUT HIM IN TOUCH WITH A STAFF PERSON WHO COULD HAVE A MORE ARTICULATE AND THOROUGH CONVERSATION. I RAN THE DAY-TO-DAY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CAMPAIGN, BUT A THOUSAND E-MAILS A DAY DIDN’T ALLOW ME THE PRIVILEGE TO RESPOND IN DETAIL TO EACH OF THEM. >>CANDIDATE TRUMP SAID YOU WERE COMMUNICATING 12 TO 14 HOURS A DAY, IS THAT CORRECT? >>I’M NOT SURE IF THAT’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, SIR. >>HE DID. DID YOU MENTION TO CANDIDATE TRUMP THESE COMMUNICATIONS THE RUSSIANS WERE HAVING WITH THE CAMPAIGN?>>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. >>DID YOU REPORT THESE INSTANCES TO THE FBI? >>I DID NOT. >>DID YOU BRING IT TO ANYBODY’S ATTENTION? >>I THINK JUST MR. CLOVIS BECAUSE I DIDN’T SEE THAT OUTREACH TO ME AS AN OFFER TO INTERFERE WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. >>WHAT DID YOU SEE IT AS? >>OUTREACH FROM A POTENTIAL FOREIGN AGENT TO A POLICY ADVISOR, AND THAT’S WHY I ASKED HIM TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. CLOVIS. >>FOR THE SAFETY, WOULDN’T YOU CALL THE FBI AND SAY, THESE GUYS ARE CALLING US, PLEASE CHECK IT OUT? >>I THINK IN SIGHT, THAT’S SOMETHING MR. CLOVIS PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE. >>YOU HAVE RUSSIANS HACKING OUR ELECTIONS, CAMPAIGN ADVISORS TALKING ABOUT RUSSIANS INTERESTED IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE CAMPAIGN. >>I DON’T BELIEVE I EVER HAD A COMMUNICATION WITH A RUSSIAN TRYING TO OFFER HELP WITH THE CAMPAIGN. >>TIME HAS EXPIRED. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT’S ALWAYS CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS THE FACT THAT CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT SHARED WITH A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE THE CAMPAIGN’S STRATEGY FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN MID-WESTERN STATES. THAT’S VOLUME ONE, PAGES 6 AND 7, AND THAT HE SHARED WITH THE RUSSIAN OPERATIVE INTERNAL POLLING DATA ON THE CAMPAIGN. DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE MR. MANAFORT WAS SHARING POLLING DATA OR THE MIDWEST STRATEGY WITH THESE RUSSIAN OPERATIVES? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT? >>I DID NOT. >>SO ALTHOUGH IT’S BEEN REPORTED YOU CONTINUED TO ADVISE THE CAMPAIGN, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING YOU WERE AWARE OF? >>CORRECT, I WAS NOT AWARE. >>I’M JUST INTERESTED. YOU KNOW, ALL OF US HERE, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. WE HAVE RUN FOR OFFICE AND KNOW A LITTLE BIT HOW TO DO THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE ALL KNOW IS THAT PERSONAL POLLING DATA IS GENERALLY SOMETHING YOU DON’T SHARE BROADLY. YOU USE IT TO BASE YOUR CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? AS GENERAL RULE? >>I THINK IT’S A GOOD GENERAL RULE, YES, MA’AM. >>SO I’M MYSTIFIED WHY THE MANAGER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WOULD CHOOSE THE ONE THING THAT WOULD ALLOW THE RUSSIANS, WHO WE ALREADY KNOW FROM OTHER EVIDENCE, WERE TRYING TO INFLUENCE THIS CAMPAIGN, INFORMATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GUIDE THEIR EFFORTS. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO WHY THAT WOULD HAPPEN? >>I DON’T KNOW WHY MR. MANAFORT WOULD SHARE THAT INFORMATION. >>SEEMS TO ME, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE RUSSIANS ASKED FOR IT? >>I DON’T KNOW. >>IT SEEMS TO ME THAT OF ALL THE THINGS IN THE REPORT, AND THERE ARE MANY TROUBLING THINGS, THAT THE RUSSIANS, IT’S CLEAR THEY WERE TRYING TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENT. PUTIN HAS SAID THAT PUBLICLY SINCE THEN. THEY RECEIVED FROM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER THE POLLING STRATEGY TO WIN IN THE MIDWEST WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES, NOT ONCE BUT REPEATEDLY. AT THE SAME TIME THERE WERE OVER 100 CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIANS AND THE CAMPAIGN. CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WOULD RAISE ANXIETY, THOSE FACTS? >>MR. MANAFORT WAS NEVER THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER. >>ARE YOU SAYING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN? >>NO, I’M SAYING HE WAS NOT THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER. JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. >>CHAIRMAN, MANAGER, A PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. I JUST THINK WHEN YOU ADD IT UP, WHO WOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS? CAN YOU TELL US WHO WE CAN CALL TO GET THE FACTS OF THIS INFORMATION? >>WE KNOW WHERE MR. MANAFORT IS, AND HE’S AVAILABLE FOR QUESTION I THINK, IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR HIM. MR. GATES POTENTIALLY? >>HE MAY KNOW ABOUT WHO INITIATED, WHETHER THE RUSSIANS WERE ASKING FOR THE POLLING DATA OR WHETHER IT WAS THE IDEA OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ITSELF TO PROVIDE THE POLLING DATA? >>YES. >>DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS ADVISED OF THE DETAILS OF THIS CAMPAIGN? >>I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS ADVISED OF THE MINUTIA OF THE DETAILS, AS MOST CANDIDATES PROBABLY ARE NOT. >>WHAT LEVEL OF INFORMATION WAS THE PRESIDENT GENERALLY PROVIDING? WOULD IT BE — YOU KNOW, WE’VE GOT A STRATEGY TO WIN THE MIDWEST, OR WE’RE JUST HOPING FOR THE BEST. WHAT WOULD BE THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION THE PRESIDENT AS A CANDIDATE WOULD RECEIVE? >>I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO MY TEEN YOUR THERE AND THE INFORMATION TENURE THERE AND WHAT I WOULD PROVIDE. I WOULD SHARE WITH HIM THE ITINERARY AND MEDIA OPPORTUNITIES, IF HE WANTED TO BE ON A SPECIFIC TELEVISION SHOW. THEN MESSAGE POINTS OF WHAT WE MAY WANT TO BE DISCUSSING DURING THAT TENURE, TIME OF THE CAMPAIGN, PARTICULARLY IF WE’RE GOING TO BE IN A PRIMARY. >>I WOULD ASSUME LIKE ALL OTHER CAMPAIGNS THAT THE MESSAGING WAS INFORMED BY THE POLLING DATA? >>JUST AS POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WE DIDN’T DO ANY POLLING DATA FOR THE FIRST 15 MONTHS OF THE CAMPAIGN. >>MY CHAIRMAN IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. >>THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >>THANK YOU. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS RAISED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD A PATTERN OF WITNESS TAMPERING CONDUCT. LET’S LOOK AT SOME FACTS. ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WAS A WITNESS IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE ON TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN, RIGHT? >>IF THAT’S NOT REPORT. I DON’T KNOW THAT TO BE ACCURATE. >>WELL, THAT’S WHY SESSIONS RECUSED HIMSELF. SO YOU HAVE CONFIRMED TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A MESSAGE TO YOU TO GIVE TO SESSIONS ABOUT RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN? >>IN GENERAL, YES. >>AND THE PRESIDENT SCRIPTED WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY IN A PUBLIC SPEECH AS IF IT WERE SESSIONS’ OWN WORDS. >>THAT ISN’T THE ONLY TIME THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO INFLUENCE WITNESS TESTIMONY. I THINK WE HAVE A SLIDE. I SEE YOU HAVE FOUND YOUR COPY OF THE MUELLER REPORT. IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG, IT’S VOLUME TWO, PAGE 123. THE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED WITH AIDES WHETHER AND IN WHAT WAY MANAFORT MAY BE COOPERATING WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION, AND WHETHER MANAFORT KNEW INFORMATION THAT COULD BE HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT. SPECIAL COUNSEL CONCLUDED THAT EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARDS MANAFORT INDICATES THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO SCOURGE MANAFORT FROM COOPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT. DID HE EVER TRY TO SCOURGE YOU TO COOPERATE? >>I’VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD TO TELL THE TRUTH. >>SO YOU’RE NOT GOING TO TELL US TODAY WHETHER OR NOT HE ENCOURAGED YOU NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? >>I’VE NEVER BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DO ANYTHING BUT TELL THE TRUTH. >>NOW, CONGRESSMAN RAT CLIFF ASKED WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THE THE PRESIDENT DANGLING PARDONS TO MANAFORT AND GATES AND FLYNN AND COHEN. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL SUGGESTED THAT PARDONS MAY BE FORTHCOMING FOR THOSE FOLKS. ONE OF THE REASONS YOU’RE HERE TODAY IS THAT THE MUELLER REPORT IDENTIFIED YOU AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS TO SHUT DOWN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATION OF SWEEPING INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. HAS THE PRESIDENT EVER OFFERED YOU A PARDON? >>AGAIN, THE PRESIDENT HAS DIRECTED NOT TO DISCLOSE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT. MA’AM, IT’S NOT MY PRIVILEGE TO DISRESPECT THE WHITE HOUSE. >>THANK YOU. ON THE SAME DAY YOU WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR HERE, THE PRESIDENT INDICATED THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT YOUR SENATE CAMPAIGN, DIDN’T HE? >>I’M NOT SURE. >>OKAY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW FOR THE RECORD, WHEN MR. LEWANDOWSKI ASKED FOR THE COMMITTEE TO GIVE HIM A BREAK A LITTLE WHILE AGO, HE TOOK THE TIME DURING THAT RECESS TO LAUNCH HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN WEBSITE WITH A TWEET. I THINK THAT FACT SAYS AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT THE WITNESS’ MOTIVATION TO APPEAR HERE TODAY, AND I’VE HEARD ENOUGH. I YIELD BACK. >>GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT, I THINK EARLIER YOU SAID THAT DEMOCRATS IN THIS COMMITTEE, PERHAPS THE DEMOCRATS HATE THIS PRESIDENT MORE THAN THEY LOVE THEIR COUNTRY. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. YOU’RE LOOKING AT SOMEONE THAT LOVES HER COUNTRY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY AS A JUDGE, I’VE TAKEN AN OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS COUNTRY. I TAKE THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE SERIOUSLY AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU AS A FORMER PEACE OFFICER WOULD DO THE SAME AND SHOW MORE RESPECT TO THIS COMMITTEE. HAVING SAID THAT, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, YOU AGREED THAT IF ANYONE TRIES TO MEDDLE WITH THE ELECTIONS, THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL, RIGHT? >>I DO. >>THERE’S A CLIP OF YOU SAYING THAT. >>NOW, IF OTHER PEOPLE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE REALM OF WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES WERE, WERE TRYING TO COORDINATE TO IMPACT THE OUTCARBON MONOXIDE OF THE ELECTION, AND IF THEY DID THAT, I HOPE THEY GO TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. OUR DEMOCRACY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO PLAY WITH. >>I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. JULY 2016, WHEN YOU WERE COMMUNICATING WITH TRUMP, YOU STATED JULY 27th. >>RUSSIA, IF YOU’RE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU’RE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE MISSING. >>SO MR. LEWANDOWSKI, LET’S BE CLEAR. IN THAT SPEECH, THE PRESIDENT WAS SUGGESTING PUBLICLY TO THE WHOLE WORLD THAT RUSSIA SHOULD HACK HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS. AFTER HIS STATEMENT, RUSSIA DID IMPACT HIS OPPONENT’S E-MAILS AS HE ASKED THEM TO. WHEN WIKILEAKS RELEASED THOSE E- MAILS, MR. TRUMP TWEETED HOW GREAT IT WAS. HE SAID IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2016, THIS JUST CAME OUT, WIKILEAKS, I LOVE WIKILEAKS. HE SAID THAT IN PENNSYLVANIA 2016 OCTOBER. THIS WIKILEAKS IS LIKE A TREASURE-TROVE. HE SAID THAT IN OCTOBER 2016. HE SAID IN OHIO, BOY, I LOVE READING THOSE WIKILEAKS. I BELIEVE ALL THOSE QUOS WERE THERE FOR YOU TO SEE. AGAIN, LET’S BE CLEAR. THIS IS THEN-CANDIDATE TRUMP TWEETING CONGRATULATIONS TO RUSSIA AND WIKILEAKS FOR STEALING DOCUMENTS FROM U.S. CITIZENS. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF IT COULD GET WORSE, IT DIFFICULT MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS HAVE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT MR. TRUMP IN FACT KNEW ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THESE STOLEN E-MAILS PRIOR TO THE RELEASE. QUOTE, WHEN THE WITNESS TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT TRUMP SOUGHT INFORMATION ACT FUTURE WIKILEAKS RELEASES. THAT’S IN THE MUELLER REPORT, VOLUME TWO, PAGE 77. DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER GATES TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT HE QUOTE, WAS WITH TRUMP ON A TRIP TO AN AIRPORT, AND YOU CAN’T READ WHAT’S REDACTED, AND SHORTLY AFTER THE CALL ENDED, TOLD GATES THAT MORE RELEASES OF DAMAGING INFORMATION WOULD BE COMING. HE KNEW IT. HE SAID IT WOULD BE COMING. THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE. THAT’S VOLUME TWO, PAGE 18. THE SCREEN IS UP. IN FACT, THE WHITE HOUSE REDACTED SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT AND YOU SAW THOSE REDACTIONS ON YOUR SCREEN, SO THERE COULD ACTUALLY BE MORE IN THOSE REDACTIONS. THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT QUOTE, MR. TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS. THIS IS SHOWING US WHAT THE TESTIMONY REFLECTS. ROGER STONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES FOR HIS CONDUCT DURING THE CAMPAIGN, AND HIS INDICTMENT ALSO SAYS, QUOTE, STONE WAS CONTACTED BY SENIOR TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND TOLD TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE RELEASES. THAT’S IN THE INDICTMENT. I HAVE A COPY HERE IF YOU WISH TO SEE IT. AGAIN, TO BE CLEAR, ROGER STONE HAS KNOWN THE PRESIDENT FOR YEARS. THEN YOU SAY, QUOTE, ROGER STONE’S HISTORY WITH DONALD TRUMP GOES BACK 20 YEARS. HE’S BEEN SOMETHING WHO’S KNOWN AND WORKED WITH MR. TRUMP LONG BEFORE WE EVER STARTED A CAMPAIGN. THE FACT IS THAT HE STOLE MATERIALS, ENCOURAGED THE HACKING, AND DON’T YOU THINK THAT’S DOING WHAT YOU SAID NO ONE SHOULD DO, AND IF THEY DO THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES? >>I STANDBY MY STATEMENT THAT ANYBODY WHO ATTEMPTED TO IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. >>I JUST REITERATED THAT STATEMENT. >>I DIDN’T SAY THAT, MA’AM. >>SEEMS TO ME EVEN THIS PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF SOMEONE INTERFERES WITH OUR ELECTION, THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL, INCLUDING THIS PRESIDENT IF NECESSARY. YIELD BACK. >>GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO SOMETHING, AN EXCHANGE YOU HAD. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE MESSAGE YOU WERE ASKED TO DELIVER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND AS YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TODAY AND INFORMED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AS WELL DURING THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S INVESTIGATION, YOU STORED THE NOTES IN A SAFE, RIGHT? YOU’LL SEE ON THE SLIDE THERE, QUOTE FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT. YOU DESCRIBED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AS THE STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR SENSITIVE ITEMS. THAT WAS YOUR PROCEDURE, NOT NORMAL PROTOCOL FOR OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS. MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN A WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE, SO I’LL REMIND YOU THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A LEGALPROTOCOL TO FOLLOW FOR OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. THIS SCREEN IS A MEMO FROM THIS WHITE HOUSE, DONALD TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE, ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. THE PRESIDENT IS WELL INFORMED ABOUT THE RECORD REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. AS YOU’LL SEE HERE, THE WHITE HOUSE MUST PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ALL LETTERS, NOTES, E- MAILS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT, JUST LIKE THE NOTE HE DICTATED TO YOU. OF COURSE THOSE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SEPTEMBER IN A SECRET SAFE IN HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER’S HOUSE. SO IT’S CLEAR I THINK TO FOLKS WHO READ THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT THAT THAT IS WHY THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU. HE WANTED THIS TO BE HIDDEN. IN FACT, YOU TOOK IT OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND STORED IT IN YOUR PERSONAL SAFE. I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM THIS: IN YOUR EXCHANGE WITH MR. SWALWELL, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NOTES YOU DICTATED FROM THE PRESIDENT. IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT, IT’S CLEAR ON PAGE 91, LAST SENTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THAT WHEN YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT, THIS WAS QUOTE, THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT ASKED LEWANDOWSKI TO TAKE DICTATION, AND LEWANDOWSKI WROTE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE TO BE SURE HE CAPTURED THE CONTENT CORRECTLY. THAT SENTENCE CITES YOUR INTERVIEW WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. IN YOUR EXCHANGE WITH MR. SWALWELL, YOU CONTRADICTED TO THAT. I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT DISCREPANCY. WAS THIS IN FACT THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD BEEN ASKED BY THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE DICTATION? >>TO BE CLEAR, THE WORDS IN THIS REPORT ARE NOT MY WORDS. THAT’S A REPRESENTATION OF MY CONVERSATION WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. I HAVE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO WRITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION DOWN AND DELIVER THAT. >>HAVE YOU TURNED OVER THOSE NOTES TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR? >>I’VE COMPLIED WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. >>I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. I’LL ASK AGAIN, DID YOU TURN OVER ANY OTHER NOTES DICTATED TO YOU BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OUTSIDE THIS NOTE REFERENCED IN THE REPORT? >>I’VE COMPLIED WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL. >>THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION. IT’S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU’RE SAYING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S STATEMENT IN THIS REPORT IS INCORRECT. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THIS COMMITTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ASCERTAIN THE OTHER NOTES YOU HAVE DESCRIBED. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE MESSAGE THAT WAS DELIVERED TO YOU BY THE PRESIDENT TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IF HE DID NOT MEET WITH YOU, YOU SHOULD TELL HIM HE WAS FIRED. THAT’S VOLUME TWO, PAGE 93. YOU’RE AWARE OF THIS SLIDE HERE THAT YOU CAN SEE, I KNOW THAT YOU’RE AWARE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS A CABINET LEVEL POSITION, CORRECT? >>YES, I’M AWARE OF THAT. >>AND HE’S THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES. YOU KNEW THAT YOU COULDN’T FIRE IN ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECT? >>YEAH, I CAN’T FIRE ANYBODY. >>AND AS YOU TOLD MR. PRIEBUS, YOU TOLD THE CHIEF OF STAFF AT THAT TIME, WHAT CAN I DO? I’M NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ADMINISTRATION. I’M A NOBODY. IF THAT’S THE CASE, IT AGAIN IS CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO READS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT THAT THE REASON THE PRESIDENT WAS DELIVERING THIS MESSAGE TO YOU WAS SO YOU COULD SCARE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTO COMPLYING WITH A DIRECTIVE HE’D GIVEN YOU. HE ENLISTED YOU TO DICTATE A SECRET MESSAGE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEN TELLS YOU TO TELL THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IF HE WON’T MEET WITH YOU, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THAT HE WOULD BE FIRED. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE KNOW IT’S BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T WANT ANYONE INVESTIGATING HIM. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT SUPPORTS THAT. I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED. SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES WITH RESPECT TO HIS CONCLUSION AND THIS EXCHANGE. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >>GENTLELADY FROM GEORGIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. LEWANDOWSKI, I WANT TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT. WE KNOW THIS IS A SERIOUS CRIME AND YOU EVEN SAID SO, AND I AGREE WITH YOU. THIS RESULTED IN CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS OF MORE THAN A DOZEN DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING GUILTY PLEAS AND INDICTMENTS OF TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS. THESE GUILTY PLEAS INCLUDE CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND LYING AND MISREPRESENTING STATEMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS AS WELL AS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST 13 RUSSIAN NATIONALS AND THREE RUSSIAN ENTITIES, PRIMARILY FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >>I BELIEVE THAT’S WHAT THAT SAYS, YES. >>YOU HAVE SAID TODAY THAT ANYONE, WHETHER IT’S A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL OR RUSSIAN ENTITIES, ANYONE WHO ATTACKS OUR ELECTIONS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT TO THE LAW, CORRECT? >>YES. >>I DO TOO. TO BE CLEAR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL UNCOVERED SERIOUS CRIMES BY OVER A DOZEN INDIVIDUALS INCLUDING RUSSIAN NATIONALS FOR CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. I’M A REPRESENTATIVE OF GEORGIA AND I’M VERY CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING OUR ELECTIONS. TARGETED FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY THE RUSSIANS. UNSEALED INDICTMENTS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT SHOW RUSSIAN OPERATIVES VISITED WEBSITES FOR COBB AND FULTON COUNTIES, BOTH WITHIN MY OWN DISTRICT, LOOKING FOR VULNERABILITIES THAT THEY COULD EXPLOIT. YOU HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES, QUOTE, TRYING TO COORDINATE TO IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, IF THEY DID THAT, I HOPE THEY GO TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OUR DEMOCRACY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO PLAY WITH. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS AND YOU HAVE CONTINUED TO STANDBY THAT. I AGREE, OUR DEMOCRACY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO PLAY WITH. I’M GLAD THAT WE’RE INVESTIGATING. I’M GLAD THAT WE ARE HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE ANYONE WHO WOULD ATTEMPT OUR ELECTIONS. THAT’S WHY SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION WAS SO IMPORTANT TO EXPOSE THOSE TTACKING OUR ELECTIONS IN GEORGIA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD NEVER DIVIDE US AMONG PARTISAN LINES. SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROTECTING OUR 2020 ELECTIONS AT ALL COSTS. EVERY AMERICAN DESERVES THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND WE MUST PROTECT THAT RIGHT AT ALL COSTS, BECAUSE DEMOCRACY IS, AS YOU HAVE SAID TODAY, TOO IMPORTANT TO PLAY WITH. I WILL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO THANK MR. LEWANDOWSKI FOR BEING HERE. MR. MICHAEL COHEN, HE COMMUNICATED REGULARLY WITH THE PRESIDENT DURING THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >>YES. >>I WANT TO READ FROM HIS FEDERAL INDICTMENT, STATING, COHEN ASKED INDIVIDUAL ONE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUAL ONE TRAVELING TO RUSSIA IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOSCOW PROJECT AND ASKED A SENIOR OFFICIAL ABOUT POTENTIAL BUSINESS TRAVEL TO RUSSIA. THE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL HE’S REFERENCING IS YOURSELF; IS THAT CORRECT? >>COULD BE. >>HE TESTIFIED NOVEMBER 27th, AND IT’S ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU. HE TESTIFIED THAT SENIOR ADVISOR WAS YOURSELF. I’LL SKIP TO THE END. ASKED WHO WAS THE CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL, COHEN RESPONDED, QUOTE, COREY LEWANDOWSKI. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HE SAID TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT HE DISCUSSED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THE SUBJECT OF TRAVELING TO RUSSIA DURING THE CAMPAIGN. AND TRUMP QUOTE, INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO TRAVEL TO RUSSIA. MR. COHEN THEN TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS THAT TRUMP WAS INDIVIDUAL ONE. IT’S ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S WHAT MR. COHEN TESTIFIED TO. >>HE ASKED INDIVIDUAL ONE, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A SENIOR OFFICIAL ABOUT TRAVELING TO RUSSIA. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE MY FIVE MINUTES AT THIS TIME. >>DURING YOUR TIME AS CAMPAIGN MANAGER, YOU COMMUNICATED REGULARLY WITH THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >>WITH THEN-CANDIDATE TRUMP, YES, SIR. >>YOU SAT NEXT TO HIM FOR THOUSANDS OF HOURS WHILE YOU WERE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN. DURING YOUR TIME AS CAMPAIGN MANAGER, DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION ACT HIS TEAM HAVING CONTACT WITH RUSSIANS? >>NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, NO. >>THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT INCLUDES E-MAILS SENT BY GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS ASKING ABOUT TRAVELING TO RUSSIA, AND MR. TRUMP ASKED YOU ABOUT TRAVELING TO RUSSIA. CARTER PAGE E-MAILS YOU ABOUT TRUMP SPEAKING IN RUSSIA. IN YOUR THOUSANDS OF HOURS SPEAKING WITH THE PRESIDENT, YOU NEVER MENTIONED ANY OF THESE PEOPLE E-MAILING YOU, ASKING ABOUT TRUMP TRAVELING TO RUSSIA? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY? >>I DON’T RECALL HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH MR. TRUMP ABOUT TRAVELING TO RUSSIA. >>WHAT ABOUT AFTER THE ELECTION? DID YOU EVER DISCUSS THAT? >>AGAIN, AT THE ADVICE OF WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, I CAN’T ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE PRIVILEGED. >>AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI WAS NEVER A WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE. I’M GOING TO ASK AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE ASSERTION? >>STATE THE INQUIRY. >>IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE? >>THIS IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT, FOR THE REASONS I STATED BEFORE. CERTAINLY THERE’S NO CONCEIVABLE TIME PERIOD BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS PRESIDENT. >>THE WHITE HOUSE IS DIRECTING YOU NOT TO ANSWER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT HIS CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA JUST AFTER RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS? I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW AND ARE FRUSTRATED TODAY. WHAT IN FACT ARE YOU HIDING? IN MR. COHEN’S INDICTMENT, IT NAMED MR. TRUMP ACT KNOWING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ELECTION. >>TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. TRUMP ABOUT ANY CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA. >>THE PRESIDENT A NAMED AS INDIVIDUAL ONE IN A CRIMINAL CASE BY HIS FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY. YOU’RE ASKING US TO BELIEVE YOU NEVER SUCCEED THIS FACT WITH THE PRESIDENT IN YOUR THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF CONVERSATIONS? >>TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON’T RECALL HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH CANDIDATE TRUMP ABOUT ANY INTERACTION WITH RUSSIA. >>MR. COHEN’S INDICTMENT ALSO SAYS MR. TRUMP DIRECTED CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO GO TO INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM FROM TELLING NEGATIVE STORIES ABOUT CANDIDATE TRUMP. DURING THE FALL OF 2016 AT THE TIME OF THESE PAYMENTS, DID YOU EVER DISCUSS WITH CANDIDATE TRUMP THESE PAYMENTS? >>TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, I NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE PAYMENTS. >>WHAT ABOUT AFTERTRUMP WAS ELECTED? DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT THOSE PAYMENTS? >>THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED I NOT DISCLOSE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADVISORS TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PRIVILEGE. >>YOU’RE BEING TOLD YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIS PERSONAL LAWYER TO MAKE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS? >>I’M GOING AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE. IT’S NOT HIP PRIVILEGE TO MY PRIVILEGE TO WAIVE. >>IT’S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT — >>I BELIEVE THE NIXON CASE ESTABLISHED THE IRONCLAD PRINCIPLE THAT DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE PATH ARE NOT PRIVILEGED, SO THERE’S NO PRIVILEGE IN WHETHER YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES. >>MR. LEWANDOWSKI, IT’S CLEAR TO ME THE PRESIDENT, THE CAMPAIGN AND YOURSELF DID NOT WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW ABOUT ANY CAMPAIGN CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN. YOU LIED TO COVER IT UP, LIED WHEN YOU SAID YOU KNEW QUOTE, NOTHING ABOUT RUSSIA. MULTIPLE CAMPAIGN MEMBERS WERE COMMUNICATING WITH YOU ABOUT TRAVELING TO RUSSIA AND MEETING WITH RUSSIANS AND EVEN TRUMP POSSIBLY GOING TO RUSSIAN. THERE’S DOCUMENTATION WITH YOUR DENIALS AND THIS COMMITTEE WILL NOT LET ANYONE HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ANY LONGER. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. >>POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>GENTLEMAN STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, THE REFUSAL BY MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT PAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL LAWYER TO THOSE PAYMENTS, OR WHETHER HE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT INTERACTIONS WITH RUSSIA ARE NOT PROTECTED. I WOULD ASK AS THE CHAIRMAN, RECONSIDER WHETHER TO HOLD MR. LEWANDOWSKI IN CONTEMPT AS HE GOES FORWARD FROM THIS HEARING. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECTED MR. LEWANDOWSKI NOT TO DISCUSS THE SUBSTANCE OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IS HERE. IF THE CHAIRMAN WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM WHETHER THEY ASSERT THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT RUSSIA OR PERSONAL PAYMENTS ARE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, THEY CAN BE ASKED. OTHERWISE, CERTAINLY AS YOU CONSIDER AND WEIGH WHETHER TO HOLD MR. LEWANDOWSKI IN CONTEMPT — >>IT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE THAT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTIONS ARE NOT OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE BUSINESS. >>YOU CAN CONTINUE WATCHING IT ON OUR WEBSITE AND WE’LL HAVE MORE COVERAGE IN A FEW MINUTES. >>>BUT FIRST THERE’S NEW EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS IRAN WAS BEHIND THE ATTACK ON SAUDI OIL FACILITIES. DAVID MARTIN IS AT THE PENTAGON WITH NEW DETAILS, WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED? >>REPORTER: A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED SINCE THE ATTACK. U.S. EXPERTS ARE NOW ON THE GROUND IN SAUDI ARABIA AND HAVE EXAMINED THE WRECKAGE OF THESE WEAPONS THAT WERE FIRED AT THE SAUDI OIL FACILITY, AND THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF DRONE AND THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF CRUISE MISSILE THAT WERE FIRED AND DETERMINED THAT THESE WEAPONS ARE OF IRANIAN MANUFACTURE. ON TOP OF THAT, OTHER ANALYSTS HAVE TRACED THE TRACK OF THOSE MISSILES AND DRONES BACKWARDS IN TIME TO THEIR POINT OF ORIGIN WHICH WAS IN SOUTHWEST IRAN WHICH IS LOCATED AT JUST THE NORTHERN HEAD. >>ALL RIGHT, DAVID MARTIN AT THE PENTAGON FOR US, DAVID THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT NEW INFORMATION.

Danny Hutson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *