vimarsana.com

Manager Corey Lewandowski was. Sked about the interactions on judiciary will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call recesses at any time. We welcome everyone to todays hearing on president ial obstruction of president ial obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Before we begin i remind our Committee Members that we should refrain from making inappropriate personal references to protected parties, namely the president , Vice President , members of the senate, members of the house. This would include accusations of dishonesty, criminality, treason, or other unethical or imoper motives. The Critical Issues we are addressing today which go to the very core of our constitutional democracy, understandably bring out strong passions in us as they do in the American People. I hope that in what should but i hope that in what should be a spirited discussion of these issues today well stay focused on the issues and take care of to the keep our comments from being directed personally toward the president. I will now recognize myself for n Opening Statement. Todays hearing entitled president ial obstruction of justice and abuse of power. This hearing is the first one designated under t procedures adopted last week in connection with our investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. We subpoenaed three witnesses for this hear, Rick Dearborn, rob porter and corey lewandoski. Unfortunately we learned last night that the white house is blocking the first two from even showing up and tightly limiting the third. The white house has no authority, legal or authorize, to give these orders. We had wanted these three individuals to testify before the committee and the American People because they are critical witnesses to the incidents of obstruction of justice laid out in the Mueller Report. At least five of those episodes, evidence laid out in special counsels report established that all the elements of obstruction of justice were met. Today, despite the roadblocks the white house has thrown up, well focus on one of the most concerning of those five episodes. It is theredent ordering the attorney general through mr. Lewandoski to stop the special counsels investigation into the president and his campaign. As the report detailed, mr. Dearborn was enlisted as part of that effort as well. Mr. Porter has other Critical Evidence regarding obstruction. As our hearings with the special counsel and other experts established, anybody else involved in these episodes of obstruction would have been charged with a crime. Anyone else. Let that sink in. The president knows this. The white house is intent on preventing the American People from hearing the details. So it is no surprise that the white house blacked two of our witnesses, mr. Porter and mr. Dearborn from showing up at all today. On behalf of the president , the white house, and the department f justice advancing this esame spurious legal doctrine they did when this committee called on the most obstruction most important obstruction witness to testify, former white House Counsel don mcgann. They claim porter and dearborn are absolutely immune from testifying before congress. Theres no such thing. The only court tover consider this purported absolute immunity doctrine totally rejected it. That is why we have begun to court in the mcgann case to set it asi what is happening today is more troubling than mcganns failure to appear. Because even if we apply d. O. J. s own made up rules of absolute immunity, i question how mr. Dearborn fits under those rules. According to d. O. J. Opinions, absolute immunity applies to, quote, the president s immediate advisors who serve as the president s lter ego, close quote. To extend this already dubious doctrine to someone like mr. Dearborn who is far more remove fled president than mr. Mcfwan is a dangerous stretch. I think we should call this what it is. An absolute coverup by the white house. Mr. Lewandoski is here and has Vital Information about on instruction of justice. The white house wants to limit our and your ability to hear it all. Mr. Lewandoski was called alone, oneonone, into the oval office on june 19, 2017, and again on july 19, 2017, and the president did something i find startling. He dictated a speech to mr. Lewandoski, a speech not for mr. Lewandoski but for attorney general sessions to deliver, thentern sessions. He secretly told mr. Lewandoski to put the following words in the a. G. s mouth, quote, i am going to meet with the special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so nothing can happen in future elections. Page 91 of the Mueller Report. Limiting the investigation to future investigations would have ended the investigation of the president s conduct. The evidence found by the special counsel met all the elements of obstruction of justice. Mr. Lewandoski was nervous about this tchand from his former boss as he should have it. It raises serious kess about criminal conduct. To be fored bien from doing anything about the Mueller Investigation, he was not allowed to curtail it. Mr. Lewandoski tried to surreptitiously meet with the a. G. And then tried to pass the our investigation also extends beyond the Mueller Report, looking at abuse of power more broadly. We will not be gone to buy the cover of. We intend to secure accountability for any wrongdoing because no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, mr. Collins, for his Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for introducing this hearing which is now as you said them under the new rules. Alongrules were here all and yes, here we go again. Say they are, because we like the packaging. I have never seen so many enjoying the packaging, because they cannot sell the product. They just keep packaging it differently. We had mr. Mueller here. There are impeachable offenses, as the chairman said, clearly in , but here iseport the problem. 17 members of the Judiciary Committee has said the president should be impeached, so why are we still investigating it . The problem is, you do not have the votes. You do not have the numbers. Even if you got it out of this committee, you do not have it on the floor. That is your problem. We are going to drag this committee through oversight hearings, talking about things that have been talked about ad nauseam, and we will say what it really is and really is not, and all of the things we are going to try to implied that this president should not be president. You know, it is really interesting. We just heard a moment ago that it was said that they made it rules at doj, they were not made up rules when the Obama Administration use them. Were they made up rules then . Just asking, for a friend. You know, this is amazing. We come into the situation, the chairman also said that while we are doing this and stopping committees for searching into issues like the immigration issue and foreign influence, i just want to remind everybody here watching and everybody here to see the show today and also to remind the majority that they have complete jurisdiction over immigration. We have complete and total jurisdiction over immigration, for the most part. If you want to fix the border you do not want to do that. You like having the press here. You like the cameras, because it makes it appear that something is happening that is not, but the real thing that is coming out is that the American People are starting to get it. They are starting to get it that if you are howling at the wind, you are not doing anything. You try to make them think you are, but youre not. You want to bring administrators in there and yell at them because you do not like what is happening, and i agree, we need to fix it. Bring your bill. Bring my bill, but quit talking about it. We talked about foreign influence in the Mueller Report, but where is the bill . Where is the bill . We do not do anything about it. We like to talk about it, because we like to make the president look bad, because that is the implication we are given. Also do not want real information in this committee either. If we did, we would work like the Intel Committee. We would have that before. We would work with witnesses to get them to come in. Mr. Lewandowski i believe said he would come in without a subpoena, but we subpoenaed him earlier, and i was told earlier this year from the chairman that a subpoena is the start of dialogue. Who cares what we are just the Judiciary Committee. This is the problem we are having. This committee does not want to interview don mcgahn behind closed doors. They do not try to actually get information. That is what real oversight is. Real oversight is trying to get information, but we do not do that. I understand it is tough, making a promise and not keeping it. I understand. All of us in this room can relate to a time when we made a promise, and we could not keep it. Our majority made a promise. We will impeach him. We will investigate him. Inmost of them, it happened november 2016, because they could not believe that donald won, and they still cannot believe it today. Not doing oversight, this is certainly not being fair, but we certainly like to issue subpoenas. We are sitting setting a world record. 40 times faster. But we do not want any answers because we are not willing to engage in dialogue to get answers. At juste this is more wanting to get at it, because it is not like mr. Lewandowski has stayed silent on this issue. He has testified before the Senate Select committee on intelligence and others, and now, he has also voluntarily testified before the special special counsel Robert Mueller. It is new because it is another time to rehash an old story. This is when abc and nbc, at the broadcast booth, they bring out their new shows. Not the rerun season. We should get to something new. One last thing before we get the show going. The Judiciary Committee is the Judiciary Committee for a reason. It is because we oversee the court system. For any person who has actually been here, an attorney in this room, who has appeared before a judge, a judge is a stickler for rules. Some will laugh, and some will not care, but for some of us, it does matter. The subpoena today for mr. Lewandowski and others said 10 00 a. M. This morning. This just shows you how poorly designed this entire impeachment charade is we are doing. The subpoena is not done properly. It compels for 10 00 this morning. It says the hearing is at 1 00, not 10 00. Proper notice. That is a simple subpoena issue. This is the Judiciary Committee. No offense, but natural resources, i could understand if they get it wrong, or transportation. I do not understand how judiciary gets this wrong. The chairman wants to hold people in contempt for not showing up, but try to get this to hold up in court, because there is no clarification of and what time do you appear at court . When you feel like it . No, when it says. Unless the officer of the court says differently. Here is issue, well, we can do this and other things. We are we issuing subpoenas for a new date and a new time and hold a new hearing. There is probably a date in october summer we have not filled up, but here we go. Mr. Chairman, there is so much we could actually do together. There is so much, but as long as we do not have time, we will continue with rerun season, i dont know why we do this except maybe it is a deficiency. I dont know. Because we just like the show, and the show is going to get even more as it goes today, because the new rules are in efct. Oh, wait, the new rules are in effect, and i have one more of those that we will talk about later when we get to some other questions later. With that, i yield back. Mr. Rman nagler thank you, collins. Todays witness, corey , President Trump president ial campaign. Degreeived a bachelors from Political Science from the university of massachusetts and a masters degree in Political Science from American University and also attended the naval war college. Of refusedputy chief to appear today despite duly issued subpoenas from this committee. As i discussed in my Opening Statement, i strongly disagree with the white house assertion of absolute immunity as to mr. Dearborn and mr. Porter. We are considering all options to enforce these subpoenas. We welcome mr. Lewandowski and thank him for per dissipating and todays hearing. If you will please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. Under swear or affirm penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you god . Let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. Please note that the written statement will be entered into the record it entirely. I ask you that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within that five minutes, there is a light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude. When the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. Mr. Lewandowski, you may begin. Mr. Lewandowski chairman nadler, Ranking Members, and members of the committee, good afternoon. I want to start by expressing that i hope that today will be a hope for the committee and the American People. For the record, as you know, i have already testified before congress at three separate occasions. I sat with the special counsel, and there also, my answers were given freely. In one form or another, i have answered questions for well over 20 hours, so now here i am before the house Judiciary Committee to answer the same questions again. Just last week, this committee, over the objections of the minority, overwhelmingly change the rules, which is very unfair. However, in a spirit of cooperation, i will go forward today. I want to discuss what brought us to this point, my story of joining the Trump Campaign, working through his historic election, and continuing to have the privilege to be part of the greatest Political Movement in our nations history. I present this summary in an effort of truth and transparency to the American People, the very same reason and rationale that this committee offers as a reason for this hearing. Growing up in a bluecollar, singleparent family in massachusetts, i learned the value of hard work, and that work ethic helped put me through college and graduate school. It helped me become a congressional staffer and ultimately a certified peace officer in the state of New Hampshire. However, the world of politics was always a passion, and in january 2015, donald j. Trump, then a private citizen, asked me to help them to explore a possible run for the president. It was an honor and privilege to play such a small part. The campaign started as a small group of individuals helping mr. Trump to make the decision in june 2015 to ride down the golden escalator and seek the republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. For more than a year, i served as Campaign Manager for then candidate President Trump. The operation succeeded in helping him capture the republican nomination. My job was simple. Provide mr. Trump with my best advice, spend his money like it was my own, and give him the support he needed to win. I also set a longterm objectives and managed daytoday decisions. I had the privilege, and it was a privilege, of helping transform the Trump Campaign from a dedicated but small makeshift organization to a historical and unprecedented political juggernaut, and i am proud to say, mr. Trump won 38 caucuses and received more votes than any candidate in the history of the republican party, all while being outspent most of the way. His Historic Campaign up secure mr. Trump secure the republican nomination and ultimately the presidency of the United States. However, since election day, there was bad actors at the fbi and the Intelligence Committee or members from the house majority, that there was efforts of collusion, the American People continue to be sold a false narrative with the purpose of undermining the legitimacy of the 2016 election results, but no matter the size, campaigns are not the most efficient organizations, and while you run in single congressional districts, best imagine what it is like to run a National Campaign that spans all 50 states of the union. Bring my time as Campaign Manager, there were competing efforts for his time. Many were dismissed out of hand. Others were passed on to staffers to be handled. I also received hundreds of thousands of emails, some days with as many as 1000 emails, and unlike Hillary Clinton, i do not think i ever deleted any of those. Many of them were responded to with oneword answers were given to staffers for followup, but throughout it all and to the best of my recollection, i do not ever recall having any conversations with foreign entities, let alone any who are helping to manipulate the outcome of an election. As i have said public limen teetimes, anyone who attempt to illegally impact the outcome of an election should spend the rest of their life in jail, and let me stress this fact. During the 2016 election cycle, mr. Trump held no elected position. He was not a government official. Rather, the Obamabiden Administration and the Intelligence Community, overseen by james comey, jim clapper, and others, had the responsibility to assure the integrity of the 2016 election. I will eat it to others to determine how successful they were and doing their jobs. Regardless, as the special counsel has determined, there was no conspiracy or collusion between the Trump Campaign and any Foreign Governments either on my watch or afterwards. Not surprisingly, after the mother report was made public, interest in the fake after the molar report was made public the Mueller Report was made public, interest in the fake outcomes spikes. It is clear the investigation was populated by many trump haters who had their own agenda to take down a duly elected president of the United States. As for actual collusion or conspiracy, there was none. What there has been, however, was harassment of this president from the day he won. Served nation we better if elected officials like yourselves would combat the true crises facing the country as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this hearing. Instead of focusing on petty and personal politics, solving the challenges of this generation. Imagine how many people we could help or how money lobs we could save . Earlier, or how many jobs we could save . As i stated earlier, i have spoken with the special counsel for hours. Ill continue to be forthright and cooperative, and i will be as sincere in my answers as this committee is in its questions. Thank you forr your testimony. We will now proceed under the fiveminute rule. Pursuant to the chairmans september 12, 2019 resolution of investigative procedures, pursuant to notice, this will be followed by one hour a staff questioning, equally divided by majority and minority. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Mr. Lewandowski, we received a letter from the white house just yesterday that they will not let you answer any questions beyond what you told the special counsel and was publicly released. The white house instruction to you is based on a bogus claim of executive privilege, even though you do not work a single day for the administration let alone in the executive branch. My colleagues are going to get into the specific events and details, but i am especially concerned about the president s efforts to prevent the American People from learning the truth about what he has done, and i want to ask you questions relative to that issue. From june 19 that you met alone in the oval office with the president . Mr. Lewandowski is there a book and page number you can reference me to . I simply asked you if it was correct that on june 19, 20 17, you met alone in the oval office the president . Mr. Lewandowski can you read that . I do not have that in front of me. Thinkan nadler i do not i have to. Did you meet with him on that date . You do not have a copy . This true lewandowski i do not have a copy. Request thatan, i this clock be stopped why this is sorted out. Chairman nadler ok. Mr. Lewandowski i am sorry what page is it . Page 90, number two. Mr. Lewandowski i would like to have a reference so i can follow along with what youre asking. You do not have a recollection of whether you met with the president on that date . Mr. Lewandowski i am just trying to find in the molar report where it says. Where on page 90 is it, sir . Tomr. Chairman, you have start the clock. Chairman nadler no, i do not. He is filibustering a. These are actual questions. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for a witness to refuse to answer a question and instead demand that we reference and point him . Sk that the molar report m closed andort be that he be directed to answer. Point of order, when will the clock start . Second line. Er point of order. The witness a point of order overrides that, mr. Chairman, and you know that. The gentleman has stated a point of order. The clock should start. Andannot be held while you while you and your counsel go over it. Chairman nadler the gentleman is correct, and the clock will start, and the witness will answer the question wiout further delay. Mr. Lewandowski yes, i see that in the report. You were asked to deliver a message to sessions, who was then the attorney general of the United States . I asked you a question, sir. Lewandowski i am looking. Chariman nadler you do not have an independent idea . Mr. Lewandowski i am instructed to answer questions relating to the Mueller Report only, so i am trying. Chariman nadler to were you a white house employee at that time . Mr. Lewandowski no, congressman. Chariman nadler ok. You did not hold any position in the government whatsoever, did you . Mr. Lewandowski correct. Chariman nadler now, sitting behind you is counsel for the white house, is that correct . Mr. Lewandowski that is my understanding. Chariman nadler nevertheless, the president s lawyers have told you not to answer any questions about his committee other than what has been disclosed in the special counsels report. Is that correct . Mr. Lewandowski i have to read from the letter if that will help clarify. Would you like me to do that . Chariman nadler no, i would like you to answer the question. This true lewandowski i have never spoken to any members of the Office Rather other than saying hello about 50 minutes ago. I just provided a letter that says as explained below, mr. Lewandowskis conversation with the president and with Senior Advisors are protected by disclosure by longstanding, longstanding principles, and as a result, the white house is directing mr. Lewandowski not to provide information about such communication beyond the information provided in the report. Chariman nadler we will take that as a yes. Claime basis of that is a of executive privilege. Is that correct . Mr. Lewandowski i can read it again. Chariman nadler youre not answering the question. You have never been employed by the executive branch. Mr. Lewandowski i have never been employed by the executive branch. Foriman nadler did you ask white House Counsel to be here . The answer is no. Was it your idea to not answer the questions based on executive privilege . Mr. Lewandowski i have never had an answer with the white House Counsels office. Chariman nadler so it was your idea . Mr. Lewandowski i have never had a conversation chariman nadler have you ever had a mr. Lewandowski i can only go by the letter. Chariman nadler not your idea. Did you ever say you thought your conversations with him were official white house commute occasions . Mr. Lewandowski the white house has asked me to protect executive confidentiality, and i recognize this is not my privilege, but i am respecting the white house decision. Chariman nadler let me ask you some questions with about the president after he assumed office. How many times did you meet him at the white house . Mr. Lewandowski the white house has asked me not to disclose the substance i do not know the answer to that. Chariman nadler how many times did he ask you to deliver a message to a member of the canet . Mr. Lewandowski the white house has directed me to not chariman nadler a criminal offense . Mr. Lewandowski the white house has directed me to protect executive branch confidentiality. I recognize this is not my privilege. Toa point of order, pursuant clause two, the gentleman is out of order. Chariman nadler i will enforce the time limit under the five minute rule. I challenge the ruling of the chair. Chariman nadler the ruling is challenged. All of those in favor of overriding at, say aye. Where is the clerk . The clerk will call the role. Roll. I had one paragraph to go. Mr. Ndal nadler. Chariman nadler the question is is the ruling of the chair be overruled, my vote is no . Roll]ading the ms. Jackson lee votes no. Votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Deutsch votes no. Missed bath . Miss bath votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Jeffrey . Mr. Jeffrey votes no. Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swallow well votes no. Votes no. Awell [reading roll] mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Escobar . Mr. Collins . Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Gohmert . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Radcliffe . Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes. Mr. Gates . Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of the louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs . Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Vee votes yes. Chariman nadler has everyone voted who wishes to vote . Madame clerk . You are not recorded. He votes yes. Chariman nadler anyone else . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 19 nos. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. If a gentleman has refused chariman nadler the gentleman is not recognized. Im very troubled that the white you from answering basic questions. I have a motion. Finishwill wait until i this. Point of order. Point of order has got to be recognized. Not in the middle of yes it does. I moved to adjourn. Motion is to adjourn. Point of parliamentary inquiry. If the republicans are successful, does that mean there will be no hearing and the American People will not hear from mr. Lewandowski about his efforts to obstruct justice . That is exact we what it means. I have a point of parliamentary inquiry. The motion is not debatable. I have a motion of parliamentary inquiry. Not debatable. Who favor the motion to adjourn, say i. The nose habit. Call the role. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Khan votes no. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Deutsch votes no. Ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Jeffries votes no. Well votes no. Well votes no. Ms. Demings votes no. Mr. Caray votes now. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Gomer, mr. Jordan, mr. Radcliffe votes yes. Gates mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Aye. Cclintock votes dollar . N mr. Klein votes aye. There are 12 ayes and 19 nos. I am troubled the white House Counsel sitting behind you are preventing you from answering very basic west and that go to the heart of the president s conduct we are investigating. These questions are about the president s efforts to interfere with a criminal investigation and have nothing to do with official government business. This is clearly part of the president s efforts to cover up his actions. Investigation. Ng he will not succeed. We will not be deterred. I now recognizehe geneman from georgia for his questions. The past few minutes were avoidable and frustrating. Possibly just a blatant running over of house rules. My concern is ethics violations. This has got to be run at different way. Point, you have testify before congress multiple times the past couple years, correct . Correct me if im wrong. You have testified twice before the house Intel Committee, correct . Yes. How long were those sessions . The first session was about seven hours and the second was maybe four. You have testify before senate intel, correct . Yes. About eight hours. You also testified before the special counsel, correct . Yes. Two separate occasions. For how long . Probably 15 to 16 hours. Those were voluntarily, correct . Yes sir. You agreed to come here today voluntarily . I did. For are was no reason subpoena to be issued, correct . Correct. Our staff and members have read the summary of your testimony. Everyone has access to your special counsel interview summary for months. Have you had the opportunity to review . No, sir. Is wilnot be able to remember so many details outside the report. Were you given guidelines on the topics or subjects of your questions today . Not to best omy recollection. Rep collins that is a problem we seem to have here. Over broad subpoenas. We could have talked today about your favorite football team. The patriots. Rep collins you are happy right now, right . The problem we have right here is we do not follow procedure. We dont like it around here. We will do whatever we want, including break house rules to do that. In any of the times you have had today, you have set in your Opening Statement you intend to answer as best you can, correct . You also realized having testified so many times in this, there are certain things does that concern you, having to keep coming back and back again without having proper reference proper reference you are speaking to . Would that be a problem . To eventsry obviously that transpired more than two years ago was clearer the first time i testified because it was a year and a half ago. If i can have a specific reference to something, i would be happy to have that. Rep. Collins you want to make sure you give an accurate response and you have testified on these issues many times, correct . X yes, sir. Apply otherwise is taking a shot at your testimony here, correct . It is. Rep. Collins when you worked on the Trump Campaign, you said this earlier, i want it stated again. Did you engage in collusion, coordination, or conspiracy with the russians . Never. Rep. Collins did you observe anyone else he no, sir. Rep. Collins the concern we have is we have a narrative to sell. You are being asked to do something you have done many times, this whole committee has seen what you are looking for. If you are following the premise of what the chairman says the majority is looking for, they are finding a reason to try to impeach the president. Theyhave found 17 cannot get on the floor to do this. I would encourage you to answer the question as fully as you said you would do, you voluntarily come here even though we decided to throw a florida subpoena at you. You. Awed subpoena at this is troubling to me, mr. Chairman. Buts ok to be frustrated, it is not ok to run over house rules. It is not open to interpretation of the chairman. It would not be if i was the chairman or if you are. That is not debatable. We have already discussed and we are going to have a lot more discussion. There is plenty of time to get that last question you did not ask to somebody else. Is it worth breaking the house rules . At the end of the day, you are accusing the president of very high issues that we have to look at. You are dragging it through this committee for eight months. Following procedures is something you actually have to not at because your idea is point of order, time has expired. He may if he wishes. He does not. Good morning, mr. Lewandowski. You, who had asked no role in the white house, to deliver a message to attorney general sessions. The president could have picked up the phone himself at any time and called the attorney general. The president also had a full staff of executive employees right down the hall. This made me wonder. If the president thought what he was doing was legal, why didnt he pick up the phone and call the attorney general . Why not ask any member of his staff who worked right down the hall to deliver a message . It is clear to me the reason he went to you, mr. Lewandowski, is because everyone said no. Im going to ask you about that. Two days before meeting you, the president had called white House Counsel mcgann at home on a saturday to fire the special counsel, saying, you can see on the screen, Robert Mueller has to go. Call me back when you do it. Plain and simple. But don mcgahn refused. When the president ask you to deliver that message, did the president tell you two days before your meeting his white House Counsel had refused to fire the special counsel . Volume 1186 is where you can find that language. Vome two. Did you hear the question . Can you repeat the question . Rep. Jackson lee to the president tell you two days before your meeting his what has counsel had refused to fire the special counsel . The white house has directed me that i not disclose the substance of any conversations with the president. Rep. Jackson lee you are not allowed to answer whether the president told you he called his counselor at home on saturday to remove the special counsel and his counsel said no . The president had also personally called Jeff Sessions at home and asked him to unrecuse himself and oversee the special counsels investigation, and session said no. When the president asked you to deliver his message, did the president tell you sessions had already said no . Volume two, page 107 . I recognize the privilege is not mine, asked by the white tose i would be happy answer your question or you can have a conversation by yourself. Rep. Jackson lee i want to continue. Then dont ask. Rep. Jackson lee this is a hashed house judiciary, not a house party. I would like my time restored from his interruption, please. The gentlelady controls the time. Rep. Jackson lee so he was a witness. For that reason, session said publicly federal law prohibited his involvement in the special counsels investigation. Here is a quote from the report, volume two, pages 49 to 50 onscreen. Yes or no. Did the president tell you the attorney general was legally not allowed to take any part in the special counsels investigation when he asked you to deliver him a note about that very investigation . What you have just read is not on the screen. You need to look at the screen. Yes or no . Read the screen. You are welcome to read it congresswoman. Rep. Jackson lee you are welcome to be stalling and im not going to stall. Yes or no . Did the president tell you nobody at the white house was supposed to contact the attorney general about the investigation . You can answer yes or no. I will not disclose any conversation i have had. Rep. Jackson lee you are here to block any reasonable inquiry into the truth or not of this administration. Shortly after sessions announced his recusal, directed that sessions should not be contacted about the special counsel investigation. The white House Counsels internal note states no contact with sessions and no communication serious about obstruction. Can you read that . I just said it. Can you read that . Did you hear me . Yes, is there president . Is there a question . Rep. Jackson lee did the white house tell you no contact with the attorney general when he asked you to deliver a message to sessions . I am respecting the executive branch privilege and confidentiality. Rep. Jackson lee 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 . I want to be very clear. The president knew what he was doing was wrong because everyone had already said no. He called his what has counsel to fire the special counsel. Don mcgahn said no. He called the attorney general to ask him to unrecuse himself. Session said no. His what has counsel said there should be no contact with sessions because of his recusal. What does the president to . He calls you to do what everyone else would not do. He called you to do his dirty work in secret because he knew it was wrong. Time. Rep. Jackson lee we will expose the truth. Time. Rep. Jackson lee to be telling the truth time of the gentle lady rep. Jackson lee i yelled back. Yield back. Rep. Nadler the gentleladys time has expired. Ohio isleman from recognized. Mr. Lewandowski, thank you for appearing this afternoon to testify before this committee. I understand you have spent many hours testifying, voluntarily before congress over the last few years. Is that correct . It is. Have you had to hire and retain counsel to represent you for all the investigations you have had to endure simply because you served as the president s Campaign Manager . Yes, sir. Rep. Chabot that is unfortunate, because you did not solicit or receive assistance from the russians, did you . No, sir. An agentot are you working on behalf of the russian government . No, sir. Rep. Chabot as a close friend and adviser of the president , you dont believe the president is working on behalf of the russians, do you . Absolutely not. To your knowledge, there is no effort on the part of the president to intentionally obstruct justice, is there . No, sir. , coming here to tell this committee what we, special counsel mueller, and the American Public already know. The president did not collude with the russians. Nor did he obstruct justice. That is not to say the russians and not trying to interfere influence our election. It is clear that they were by sending fake texts and operating fake facebook pages and holding fake rallies in an effort to out influence the outcome of the election. Democrats want to ignore the real evidence of russian interference and hold this fake impeachment because it happened a different president s watch. Isnt that correct . Yes, sir. It was the Obama Administration that failed to protect us from russian interference. As an petru . Yes isnt that true. Yes. Rep. Chabot if anybody failed, it was the Obama Administration. Yes. Rep. Chabot we are wasting valuable Committee Time engaging in this impeachment investigation. The fact of the matter is one thing this committee could be doing is question Inspector General horwitz concerning the bias against the president at the origins of the Russian Investigation. We could be questioning horwitz about his recent report how then fbi director combing mishandled director comey mishandled memos. Had committee has jurisdiction over significant things. We are spending our time on this fake impeachment, but we could be focused on something that matters like immigration, asylum. We have hundreds of thousands of people that have entered our southern border, generally brought up either individually or in caravans, usually connected with cartels, cartels make a lot of money when they come up here. They are told the magic words. They come across the border, they say they are in fear. Plane,them on a bus or a they are sent to communities across the country. That is something this committee should be working in a bipartisan matter to do something about. Opioids. We have 70,000 americans who have lost their lives to opioids last year. That is something in the jurisdiction of this committee. We do virtually nothing about it. The balanced budget amendment, something i have been introducing. We have a 22 trillion debt over our heads, yet we do nothing about attempting to pass something that would make us balance the budget every year like all states have to do. Finally, i want to thank you again, mr. Lewandowski, for appearing today. Perhaps your testimony will finally convince democrats that there are much more important things this committee could be spending our time on. Rather than continuing to pursue fauxfake impeachment, a impeachment. They dont have the votes to move forward. Vote to open up and impeachment inquiry. They dont have the votes. Some democrats want to vote for it. Some democrats would vote against it. They dont have the votes. What they do is spend valuable Committee Time we could be spending on other important this fake impeachment. It is a shame. This committee could be doing so much more on behalf of the American People. I yield back. Point of parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry. The witness has answered questions from the gentleman from ohio about whether donald trump colluded with the russians and about the origins of the mother investigation and so on, but he never testify to any of those things before special counsel mueller. Can he now continue to invoke this white house rationale he has confined to the four corners of the Mueller Report when he has gone way beyond it in his responses to questioning from the gentleman from ohio . Rep. Nadler regardless of whether he went beyond the Mueller Report in the answers he gave to the last question are questioner, and im glad to hear he favors the patriots, regardless of long series of 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. I will take the claim under advisement. Parliamentary inquiry. Did you answer his parliamentary inquiry . It was a statement, not an inquiry. Noteast acknowledge it was parliamentary inquiry. Rep. Nadler the gentleman who stated the parliamentary inquiry it was a statement. Rep. Nadler i answered his parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman from tennessee is recognized. Has been made clear you were not an employee of the white house. You had no w2, no card, nothing. You were not employed. You were a policeman at one time, so you know something about following the law. Didnt you think it was strange the president would sit down with you oneonone and ask you to do something that you knew was against the law . Did that strike u. S. Strange . Strike you as strange . I disagree with the premise. I did not think the president did anything illegal. Rep. Cohen you did nothing it would have been illegal to ask mr. Sessions to drop the investigation . We are going to start with the next point about colluding with russia . You didnt think that was illegal to obstruct justice . The president did not ask me to do anything illegal. Rep. Cohen obviously you have never been a judge and will not be one. He dictated to you a message to give sessions. Have you ever been a secretary for the president before . Many times. Rep. Cohen we have your qualifications. You were a secretary. He asks you outside of white house channels and thats what Robert Mueller wrote, outside of white house channels. You becausehe asked he knew he would do whatever he asked even if it was illegal or immoral, just like your former boss . News reports called you the president s enforcer. Usa today said lewandowskis background is as the trump guy, not a Campaign Manager, but a body man and enforcer. The onetime Campaign Manager for donald trump has the strength of and enforcer and the conflict resolution skills to match. You have even described yourself in your book, let trump be trump, you said we were fine with whatever role the president wanted us to play. In Donald Trumps army there were only loyal soldiers. Your previous boss was convicted of corruption and lying to authorities. You were fired from american prosperity after being sued over fraud. Either you were willing to break the law or you are some kind of a forrest gump relating to corruption. Let me tell you this. The president pick you because he thought you would play whatever role he wanted . Is that why he chose you to take this message . That would be a question for the president. Rep. Cohen donald trump was right though. First the white House Counsel, don mcgahn refused to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mccann should principal and refused to do what he knew would be illegal. Attorney general sessions who had recused himself was asked to unrecused himself. Attorney general sessions also did the right thing. He said im not going to because i have a conflict. Counsel white house advised the president not even to contact sessions. But you, his loyal soldier, would do it. You were different than sessions mcgahn. N began dictation, you asked her to type it up for you, nothing you couldnt have done it yourself, and asked somebody else to deliver the message to sessions when you decided not to. Be no record of anything he ask you to do. The president knew what he was doing was wrong. Mr. Sessions new. Mr. Mcghan new. You seem to be the only person who did not think it was wrong. But mr. Trump was wrong. 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 someone else. Did you realize at some point mr. That your former boss got involved in criminal problems and went to prison and maybe you were going to be next to . Did that cross your mind . The congressman went to jail many years after i left his employment. You were his employee. You learn from that. Im asking, did you learn from his experience and realize what you were asked to do was illegal and he did not want to follow the same trail and end up in prison the echo in prison he . I was not asked to do anything illegal. You have follow their instructions. You are doing what they thought you would do. You are a loyal soldier. You chickened out at the last minute. You got cold feet. I yield the balance of my time. Rep. Nadler the gentleman from ohio. Trumpspresident campaign between january 2015 and 2016, is that right . Yes. You were at the helm of the campaign when President Trump secure the nomination. Yes. Good campaign you ran. Thank you. You beat 18 different opponents. Senators, governors. Of course, you had a good candidate. The best. Rep. Jordan a candidate who has done a great job as president. After you left the campaign in june 2016, were you still involved throughout the rest of the election up to november 8, 2016 yes. Rep. Jordan you were part of the Campaign Operation from january 2015 to november 8, 2016. During that time, did you ever work with russia to impact the election . No. Rep. Jordan you know what is interesting echo when james comey was asked the same question sitting at that same table, he gave the same answer. When Robert Mueller was asked that question on that same table , he gave the same answer. President ed the the president is falsely accused of colluding with a foreign state. Comey said after 10 months of investigation, we did not have a thing. Robert mueller gets name special counsel. He wastes 30 billion of taxpayer money. He sits at that table. A few weeks ago, he gives the same answer. The guys over here dont care. They dont care. They dont want to figure out how the false accusation happened. They just want to drag people in front of this committee and find some way they can go after the president. Lets go back to the prospect the Ranking Member raised. Did you testify in front of the Senate Intel Committee . Yes. Rep. Jordan the house Intelligence Committee in 2017 . Yes. Rep. Jordan you went before the special cel is that right . Yes. Rep. Jordan all voluntarily . Yes. Rep. Jordan no subpoena . No. Rep. Jordan i think in your Opening Statement you said how many hours . More than 20. Rep. Jordan more than 20 hours. Did you get a letter from this Committee Asking you to comply with certain document requests that chairman nadler wanted . I believe so. Rep. Jordan you and your legal team complied . Yes sir. Rep. Jordan june 24 you got another letter. Yes. Rep. Jordan asking you to do a transcribed interview in front of the committee. Your lawyer contacted chairman nadler and said we would be happy to do that. Is that right . Yes. Rep. Jordan we will be happy to sit for an interview. Thats right. Rep. Jordan what happens next . Five weeks ago, the committee issued a subpoena for my appearance. You were willing to come voluntarily like you did with intel, bob mueller, special withel , you complied documents, then when they wanted an interview, you said you would do it, they hit you with a subpoena. Correct. Rep. Jordan then they start treating you this way. Kind of interesting. They are the ones who started it. They slaps you with the subpoena when you were willing to come here voluntarily. I was. The demeanor you bring here first a change the rules in the middle of congress, change the rules of the committee in the middle of the game, and they are not going to follow the rules because the rules they change last week about asking questions when members are done we have this whole issue. Servede would be better if we did exactly what mr. Chabot said. Maybe we would be better served if we focused on how this false accusation started in the first place. What do you think . I think it would be a great idea. Rep. Jordan maybe the American People would be better served spending more time investigating something that has already had 32 months of investigation that involved jim comey and the fbi and bob mueller. A great place to start you know a great place to start . A great place to start would be the Inspector Generals report that was issued just three weeks ago, the scathing report about jim comey. That would be a nice place to start. But when i asked the chairman when we might have an opportunity to question mr. Horwitz, he said, i dont know, i havent thought about that. Of course you havent thought about that. Too busy trying to impeach the president. Too busy slapping subpoenas on Corey Lewandowski. I yield back. The gentleman from georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewandowski, you are about thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewandowski, you are about like a fish being cleaned with a spoon. Its 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 hes talking. In fact, he aske telling you so you could make sure to capture the content of what he was telling you correctly, correct . I dont know if speed of writing was a criteria, but i tried to capture it to the best of my ability. 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, weve projected on the screen the message that the president dictated to you that he wanted you to deliver to the attorney general. Its on the screen and id like for you to read the first two sentences, if you would entertain that. As director mueller stated when asked to read from the report and i quote no, no, no. Look on the would you prefer for me to read it instead of you . Please. Ok. It says i know that i recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas, but our potus is being treated very unfairly. Thats what he told you to write down. And thats what you wrote down. I went on vacation. You went on vacation. And so you put the message in your safe in your home for safekeeping, correct . Before you went on vacation . I took my kids to the beach, that was more of a priority. And President Trump was hounding you about when are you going to deliver that message, correct . Completely inaccurate, congressman. Well, he asked you about it a few times, didnt he . No he did not. He never asked you whether or not you had delivered that message . Not on multiple occasions, no. One occasion, ok . You did mention on one occasion to you. I dont know if thats in the report, sir, or not. And you told him, im going to get around to it, im going to deliver it, correct . I would have to see the reference to the Mueller Report, where that is. Its in the report. Direct me to the book and page. I dont 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. Youre welcome to. He said he shouldnt have a special prosecutor or counsel because he hasnt done anything wrong. I was on the campaign with him for nine months. There were 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 didnt deliver the message and 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, isnt that right . I did not know that. You did not know that . You did not know that . Correct. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from colorado. Thank you for putting up the harassment that youre putting up with right now. According to the alliance for securing democracy, russia interfered in the elections of belarus, finland, france, georgia, germany, norway, poland, portugal, spain, turkey, united kingdom, ukraine, and the United States. They specifically targeted the Scottish Independence vote, the brexit vote, and angela merkel. Despite knowledge of these kinds of election threats, the Obama Administration sat idly by. Instead of warning the Trump Campaign, the doj and fbi used secret surveillance to spy on members of the Trump Campaign all while allowing election interference to occur. Why isnt this election focused on holding doj and fbi leadership accountable for this terrible malfeasance and lack of judgment . What was putins ultimate goal . A former fbi agent said it is to attack and undermine democracy. He said the goal is to leave voters feeling as if, quote, either the institutions are corrupt or you cant trust the vote. This is the kind of classic Disinformation Campaign the kgb runs, and as we all know, Vladimir Putin was a former leader of the kgb. In 2016, putins goal could have been very simple, sow seeds of distrust, make it impossible for whoever won to govern. With america weakened at home, we would be weakened on the international stage. Putin wins regardless of who won the election. This is the kind of approach that has been used in the communists in russia for over a century. After overthrowing a russian czar, Vladimir Lenin and the communists utilized western journalists as propaganda tools. A New York Times journalist defended the bolsheviks, advocating against american intervention. Lenin used the term useful idiots to describe how leftist leaning, communist sympathizing people could be used to help the russians. For the past three years, democrats have focused on undermining americas president instead of working with President Trump and republicans in congress 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. Its clear that putin attacked america with the goal of dividing the American People and todays hearing is being held for the sole purpose of attacking americas president , which will weaken our country on the international 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. She will state her point of order. I have a point of order. According to the rules, and the rules of this committee 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 onbility. Ive taken an oath of office, my good friend, just like you did. Im concerned about the constitution just as you are. And i would not engage in any behavior that could be described as idiot. Never in my life have we ever discussed behaving by idiots. Mr. Chairman, thats an inappropriate terminology and description of the members of this house or republicans or democrats, no matter what they are. I will, i will overrule the point of order. The rules of decorum refer to motive, calling someone an idiot is not flattering but it does not go to motive. And i believe we should have the most robust debate. I believe we should respect each other. But i dont think we should but, i dont think that goes to motive and im going to overall the point of order. The gentleman will proceed. Thank you. Actually i didnt call anybody an idiot. I said useful idiot. And secondly, i asked the witness whether he believed that as part of Vladimir Putins strategy, Vladimir Putin was being aided by useful idiots in america. Your answer, sir . I cant be sure to the motives of Vladimir Putin or the russians who want to interfere with our election process in 2016. 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 responsibility fell to the Intelligence Community and the Obama Biden Administration and they clearly failed. Never did they contact under my tenure me to inform me or anyone at 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. And so i think mr. Comey, mr. Brennan, and mr. Clapper ultimately own the responsibilities 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 didnt have foreign interference. , had they lewandowski 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 have worked with them. I would have recommended working through counsel to work with them to notify them of any potential contact, which i dont recall having. But if we would have had any, i would have made sure we notified the appropriate authorities immediately. Thank you, i yield back. The gentleman from florida. Thank you. Mr. Lewandowski, i just want to follow up on mr. Johnson. The Mueller Report says one month later, a month after your june 19 meeting presumably after you returned from vacation, the president met again with mr. Lewandowski and followed up. Just to clarify that he did do that, but i want to go back to that meeting on june 19. The president asked you to write down word for word a script that he wanted the attorney general of United States to deliver. Isnt that correct . I am sorry, can you give me the reference again . Well, let me do this, previously you testified, because its reported in the Mueller Report, that the president asked mr. Lewandowski to deliver a message to sessions and write this down. This is page 91. This is the first time that the president asked him to take dictation. You wrote as fast as possible. The notes that you took at that meeting are on the screen. If you could, i dont know that the notes are. Im going to read the section of the notes that you took that were, again, this is what you were asked to deliver to the attorney general of the United States to announce in public. I know i recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas, but our potus is being treated very unfairly. He shouldnt have a special prosecutor or counsel because he hasnt done anything wrong. I on the campaign with him for nine months. There were no russians involved with him, i know for a fact because i was there. He didnt do anything wrong except run the greatest campaign in american history. That is from page 91. Thats, again, thats what President Trump wanted the attorney general to say in public about the special counsels investigation. Is that right . I believe thats an accurate representation. So this is in june of 2017. You said that you didnt know about, you didnt know about the attorney general being barred from participating, speaking out about the russia investigation. The public didnt know about all these attempts to influence the investigation at that time. What we did know, what everyone knew, mr. Lewandowski, was that the president s campaign was under investigation and they knew the attorney general couldnt touch it because he was a major part of the campaign. He advised on National Security matters, and back in march, he had recused himself from anything having to do with the investigation. You didnt, you werent aware of that at all, that what he did in march and the fact that he had recused himself . I was aware of the attorney generals recusal. And so when the president asked you to deliver a speech that he wanted the attorney general, who could not participant in the investigation, could not talk about anything 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 couldnt participate in any way. Im not an attorney general, congressman. Thats not what im asking. Im asking you if you knew that he had recused himself. You did, right . Im aware of the public reports. And youre aware of the public reports and his statement that he wasnt 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 there 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 away . Were you concerned in any away . No, sir. Was it the right decision for sessions to recuse himself . I cant comment on Jeff Sessions decisionmaking process. So, heres what he did. The script says, a group of people want to subvert the constitution. Im going to meet with the special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections. So that nothing can happen in future elections. The president you will agree was trying to force the investigation to focus only on the future so i didnt focus on him, isnt that right . I dont agree to that. When you look only in the future and youre not allowed to look at the one investigation into the president , thats not how you interpret that . You interpret it differently . That could be your interpretation. It is an obvious interpretation. If i had more time i would ask what yours is. But ill close with this. A month he asked you to do this, he brought you in to talk to the attorney general because the president was terrified, mr. Lewandowski. A month before your meeting, the special counsel was appointed and the president said, oh, my god, this is terrible. He wanted you to pressure the attorney general, someone who wasnt even allowed to talk about the investigation, to block him from looking at his own conduct. Mr. Lewandowski, thats abuse of power and as we go on through this investigation, i hope youll be able to further elaborate on how you could have seen this in any other light than the obvious way the president attempted to abuse his power. I yield back. Time expired. The witness may answer the question. Thank you. The gentleman from texas. The gentleman from texas, mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Lewandowski, welcome to what my colleagues on the other side of the aislve described and argued over the past week as an impeachment inquiry, probe, and an impeachment proceeding. Now, if youre confused which one, i assure you youre not alone. A lot of the folks who are watching today, they might be confused. They might think impeachment proceedings might have to happen after a vote from the full house of representatives. And they would be right. 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 rules so that they could get to impeachment in a different way, and mr. Lewandowski, youre lucky, youre the first witness for the party of impeachments new impeachment procedure. I feel very lucky, thank you. You should. Now i know youve testified before the house, before the senate, and before the special counsel, but in fairness, thats 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 didnt exist and the special counsel said i didnt exist. And then they had to shift and say its going to be impeachment by obstruction of justice. Remember they promised that special counsel mueller was going to breathe life into impeachment by obstruction of justice, but instead he put it to death. I dont 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, and his answer was i cannot. Do you remember that . As it turned out, 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. But the party of impeachment, were going to gloss over that today. Theyre going to gloss over the fact that the Inspector General criminally referred the fbi director who leaked the information to get the special counsel in the first place and the same Inspector General who found that facts establishing that that same fbi director was in fact targeting donald trump at the same time in an investigation where he said he wasnt investigating donald trump. Now, you might think that this committee would be interested 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 dont care, mr. Lewandowski, what kind of impeachment you can deliver for them. There are 135 democrats and socialists in the house of representatives that have publicly come out for impeachment. Theyre in agreement the president needs to be impeached. The problem is, theyve come up with more than a dozen Different Reasons that is the bases of that impeachment, impeachment by collusion, impeachment by conspiracy, impeachment by obstruction of justice, lets cover a few more. Did the first and only president rich enough to largely selffund a successful president ial campaign ever admit to you that he secretly ran for president to get rich . No, sir. Hes already very rich. Do you have any information or evidence, mr. Lewandowski, 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 cant discuss private conversations that may or may not have occurred with the president. How about using a sharpie on a hurricane weather map. Did the president ever admit or say to you that he intentionally committed an impeachable, highcrime by magic marker as some of my democratic colleagues are contending . Again, i cant discuss any private conversation i may have had with the president. Youre not being helpful at all mr. Lewandowski. The party of impeachment are not picky at all. You got anything on dond trump, how about on Justice Kavanaugh . Because now this morning they say they want to impeach Justice Kavanaugh. Do you have anything that supports impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh . Hes a good man. Listen, i know youre disappointed that youve only been here four times. But dont think there wont be another opportunity. This committee has become the search party for impeachment and theyre going to bring back anybody as much as they have to to find something, anything to keep this impeachment hoax alive. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. 15 seconds over time. The gentlelady from california. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Lewandowski, i want to followup from my colleague mr. Deutsch. It was clear the president was desperate for you to deliver the message to mr. Sessions. 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 delivered that message to limit the investigation to the future, is that correct . Could you reference me to that in the report . Yes, volume two, page 92. Is that correct . While you are looking i am going to move on. The president is telling you how to convince sessions to do it. Its page 92, first paragraph. To tell sessions that hed be the most popular guy in the country if he did what the president ordered. And the president picked you for a reason because he knew that you had the traits of an enforcer and described yourself as his, quote, loyal soldier. This was no exception. Did you find it now . I have it here. Ok. So, the attorney general that he would be the most popular guy in the country if he delivered that message, do you see that on page 92 . I do. Is that correct . I believe its accurate. You told the president you understood what he wanted to do. Is that correct . Same page. And you did understand what the president wanted. 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 the oval office, you didnt schedule an official meeting with sessions, instead you called the attorney general at home, correct . If thats whats 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 it would make it harder to persuade sessions to do what you wanted, so you wanted to meet with him in person, correct . If thats what the report states, yes. The attorney general works at the department of justice, but you told the special counsel that you didnt want to meet in the department of justice because you knew that if you went into a government building, theres a public log of the visit and you told the special counsel that you did not want quote, a public log of your visit, isnt that right . Thats accurate. So why is that . Why didnt you want to leave a paper trail for your visit . Jeff and i are friends socially. And i wanted to have the opportunity to have a meal with jeff and relay the conversation which the president asked me to ask jeff to consider giving. So if that was the case, why was there a problem with you having to do it in secret, essentially . I mean, it was a very Important Message you were delivering from the president and it was a message that could certainly be viewed as completely inappropriate considering you were not even an employee of the white house. Youre a private citizen. Youre delivering a message to the attorney general to limit the investigation. So if you didnt think you were doing anything wrong, then why would it matter that there was a public log . I wanted to have the opportunity to speak with jeff in a more relaxed atmosphere and have a meal with him to have the conversation. Well, you said another reason for not meeting at the doj was because you, quote, did not want sessions to have an advantage over you by meeting on session turf. Is that right . Thats right. I wanted to have a private conversation in a more relaxed atmosphere. Again, if this was an appropriatmessage to deliver and if it was just about that, why would it matter whos turf it was on . Why couldnt you go to his office . You are his friend. Why couldnt 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 sessions knew it was wrong and sessions cancelled his meeting with you. If you guys were good friends, why he have bothered to cancel it . Did he call you up to rereschedule it . That would a question for Jeff Sessions. After you testified, you testified earlier after the inauguration you didnt communicate with the attorney general, your good friend. Isnt 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 still refused to meet with you. Mr. Lewandowski its clear that sessions knew what we all know sitting here today, that what you were doing was wrong. He wanted nothing to do with your secret messages because 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 the meeting on your turf to persuade the attorney general to protect the general president into investigation. You cannot protect him anymore. And im grad the misconduct can be brought to public attention so the president can be held accountable. The gentleladys timeas expired. The witness has requested a short recess. The committee will resume in five minutes. The committee stands in recess. The committee will reconvene. The gentleman from florida, mr. Gates is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well the Mueller Report was supposed to be the end all, be all, the ground grounds swell of support for impeachment. Ensuring the public would want to tar and feather the president. Run him out of rail. Grief the American People of the president they duly elected that didnt turn out to be the case then it was all about the attorney general coming in bill barr would point out the inconsistenty as flaws in the analysis. That didnt happen because the marmgt wanted to insist that their unelected staff ask questions of the attorney general of the United States. But no they said well go to court. Well win. Well forepersons bill barr and don mcgahn to testify. Theyre not winning in court. Theyre not here. Its a joke. For the last four months the path the the marmt has taken us on has rambled from disorganized to just downright dizzying. In june Speaker Pelosi i had said the House Democratic caucus was im quoting not even close to an impeachment inquire that to cnn. In july house Judiciary Committee jerry nadler said, quote, an impeachment inquiry is when you consider only impeachment. Thats not what were doing. Were investigating all of this. But then in august in a cnn interview nadler said, this is formal impeachment proceeding. Then in september when asked if the democrats are nijd in an impeachment inquiry, the house jarjt leader answered, no. It was the gentlelady from washington who said just recently miss jieple. We have been in the midst of a impeachment investigation to politico but in the the same sore mr. Himself from connecticut said no we are not in an impeachment investigation. Then the gentleman from new york. Gregory meeks said when asked if the house was investigating impeach, he said, well be process maybe there is we dont know whether impeachment investigation investigation has begun. It just didsing eying. Last week the jordin chairman jerry nadler said who what were doing very clear. Its been very clear. It continuing tobs clear the speaker backed us at every point along the way. This process has been about as clear as joe bidens last answer to Race Relations that involved turning on the record player. We content know where we are or what were doing. Now mr. Down doukz i am not allowed by house rules to impugn the motivesive of my colleagues or speculate as to what might be dmting this businesses bizarre circumstance but those rules dont apply do you have a thought we why we engage in the char aid overwhelmly opposed by the American People and fundamentally misunderstood by my democrat colleagues . You know, congressman i think they hate this president more than they love their country. Mr. Lewandowski, mr. Lewandowski, you were the Campaign Manager for the president s campaign when the Obama Biden Administration was notified that there might be efforts by the russians to interfere with our election. Isnt that right . Yes. And can you describe 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 Obamabiden Administration. Members of the Intelligence Committee or the fbi to our campaign when i was present or during my tenure as a Campaign Manager. Thats just baffling to me. I mean our democracy is so preshz. We have to cherish and protect it. And yet when the Obamabiden Administration knew that there might be nefarious efforts to interfere or cooperate or any way disturb our democracy they didnt say anything to you. Now as you sit here today watching the facts unfold, do you have any any rationale as to why maybe the clapper, brennan, comby ob obama, biden team didnt want to give the the Trump Campaign about o a fir defensive briefing about the threats we were facing. Its unfathomable they didnt contact the Major Political nominee for president of the United States and inform them of potential threats against the election process in 2016. And we can be finding that out now. I could we could have the people before our committee to figure out what happened that didnt allow us to get the answers. One final question for you mr. Lewandowski as an Inspector General employed by the United States government ever accused you of breaking the law. No. But they have 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 credibility and efforts of over 35,000 fbi agents and the brave people fighting for our country. Its a shame that youre here mr. Lewandowski. Jim comey should be sitting in the chair answering questions about why he did so much damage to the fbi and our country, chewing not giving you the briefing that you were entitled to. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from new york. Thank you, mr. Nadler. About before i begin let me remind plu lewandowski this is not a republican primary campaign. You are not on the campaign trail yet. This is the house Judiciary Committee. Act like you know the difference. Youve never worked for the Trump White House in any official capacity, correct . Thats right. But you do speak with President Trump with some regularity, true. Inch thats a fair statement. In fact during the summer of 2017 according to testimony to the special counsel you were summoned to the white house by president on teeft at least two ongdss, correct. I dont believe the report says that, congressman. Well you met with the president oneonone on june 19th 2017 and then again july 19th, 2017, correct. Yes, i believe thats accurate. Okay lets try to get some clarity on what exactly you do for donald trump since youre not a government employee. You it staed during the 2016 Republican National convention that i got the reputation as a tough guy. Thats my reputation. Do you recall making that statement mr. Lewandowski . I dont. Okay. Its in the Public Record. Your job is Donald Trumps political enforcer, correct. No, i dont believe so. Let me ask you the question another way are you the hitman, bagman, lookout or all of the bo. I think im the good looking man, actually. President trump told you on june 19th, 2017, to personally deliver a message to attorney general sessions that would have end the criminal investigate investigation to the Trump Campaign, correct. I dont believe thats what the Mueller Report states, no. President trump wanted attorney general sessions to limit the special counsels investigation to future incidents of election foreign interference, true . Which page is that on, congressman. Thats in the Public Record, in this hearing in the Mueller Report. Now the white house has a legal protocol for president ial statements under the president ial records act they must preserve all memos letters emails, papers like the note he dictated. You wrote down the president s message which you stored in a safe in your home. Isnt that correct . Yes, it is. Okay. You told the peshl counsel that was your standard procedure with sensitive items, correct . Where is that referenced sensitive zbliemts volume two, page 92. Just reference that one second. You dont have to reference it. The president asked you to. You say page 90. The president asked you to reclaiming my time, the president asked you to record a message from him on june 19th, because he wanted to hide his message from eventual disclosure. Isnt that right . No. Okay. But you never delivered the message to Jeff Sessions after that june 19th meeting, true . Thats accurate. Instead you testified that you went on vacation, correct. I did. How long was your vacation, mr. Lewandowski . Oh it was lengthy, at least two weeks. At least two weeks. But you were summoned against to the white house on july 19th, 30 days after the original june 19th meeting, true. I believe thats accurate. You with werent on vacation the entire time, correct. I didnt say i was on vacation the entire time. I was on vacation two weeks, congressman. But you still failed to deliver the message appear had nothing to do at least in part to the socalled vacation. Now the july 19th meeting occurred just a few days after new information came to life about russian operatives meeting with highlechl Trump Campaign officials. When you were summoned to the white house after the july 19th meeting by that time you still hadnt delivered the message to Jeff Sessions. You said to the president you would do it soon according to volume 2, page 93, correct. If thats what the report says, thats accurate. Okay. President trump also asked you to deliver a message to attorney general sessions that you didnt do with what was requested he would be fired, correct, volume 2, page 93 . I think thats what was reported, yes. Okay, President Trump wanted you to intimidate attorney general sessions. Youd have to ask President Trump that. You stated earlier that President Trump asked you to take down dictation, quote, many times. Is that correct . It is. But on page 91, volume 2 of the Mueller Report states the quote the president asked lewandowski to delivered a message to exceptions and said, write this down. Close quote. The first time the president asked lewandowski to take direct dictation, the first time. Those are not my words those are the investigators words. Did you lie about it to mueller or lying to us. I didnt lie. Youre not really here to tell the truth, you are here to participate in a continuing coverup, russia interfered with this action and sweeping and systematic fashion. The Trump Campaigned remgd the assistance at the highest level there was squint acts of obstruction of judges investigation wrekts to the. The American People. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I think it was 19 seconds over to help you, mr. Chairman. The gentleman from louisiana mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewandowski, my colleague mr. Jefferiys started the last line of questioning with a sort of an admonition to you. He said this is the house Judiciary Committee and not a Political Forum and it would be nice if you recognize that. I think it would be nice if all the members of the committee would recognize that. Because thats the reason that this is this has turned into such a fares. Its been said so many times today, this medicated is so important to the country has one of the broadest jurisdictions so many Critical Issues facing the country. You referenced some of this in the Opening Statement. And i among many cleeks are ready to get to work for the American People but were here today. Hasnt been any gork rks there is a lot of disappointed people operatives around the country really hoping for fireworks. But were not sacrificed taufl. I have a couple of questions for clarification for the record. But first, is there anything been said today or any question youve backup asked or something you would like to compensate on 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 counsels office . Not to the best of my knowledge. Do you have any more 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 counsels office . I dont believe i have any new information. In your prior testimony to the special counsel, is it true that you answered every question asked of you truthfully and to the best of your ability and your recollection . To the best of my recollection i did answer truthfully, yes. A couple of things just for further clarification, we are afraid some of the record will be obscured today. These will be quick rapid fire. Do you agree there is no evidence that the president intended to obstruct justice. I do. Do you agree the president has been harassed politically sense the since the day he took office. Yes i do. Do you agree that the president s supporters have received vastly durcht treatment than the supporters of Hillary Clinton. Unequivocally. You called in a witch hunt i wonder if youd like to elaborate on that any further. I think i think that this fake russia collusion narrative is the greatest crime committed against the American People in our generation if not ever. This is a president who was duly elected by the American People and mentals of certain bodies refuse to accept the 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 fs office and people would be in jail. But when you support Hillary Clinton and barack obama its a different set of rules. I think the American People find it unfair and theres been no accountability at the highest levels of gov government for the pfizer abuse frans pierd pierg. The fieing in vital of the Fourth Amendment or the lives ruined because they wanted to support a candidate for president of the United States and its shameful. We do as well. Thats a pretty good recitation some some of issues keeping us up at night. Part of the think were concerned about is the American Peoples distrust now of institutions. When people begin to doubt that the rule of law actually replies equally, that justice really is blind in this country, that we reach somewhat of a Tipping Point its did you have to put that gee back in the bottle. I know the republicans and kefbts on the macare concerned will the eroding faith in institutions. I commend you for your wanting to take the fire food. And your story being selfmade and im concerned about young people who may have a disincentive to get into politics and is everybody this their country because of the abuse they have suffered yield to mr. Jorden i thank the gentleman. You know why you didnt get a defensive briefing from the fbi . I do not. I got a good idea. I think they were trying to trap the president. Page 17 of the Inspector Generals report points this out. January 6, 2017, they go up to the trump tower whep its president elect trump and trying to set him up about a pending investigation. All the while mr. Comey has been telling the president , youre not under investigation. Of course they didnt give you as defensive briefing during the campaign or even up until that date because they were trying to is set him up. But we cant ask about that. Because mr. Nadler hasnt even thought when he is going to bring mr. Horowitz in to ask our questions hed rather subpoena you even though youre willing to come voluntary thats the problem thank you for vaelding i yield. I yield back mr. Kmarm. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman rhode island. In between the first meeting on second meet meeting with the president on july 19ing you went on vacation and during that time there was public are the rowing about the trump tower meeting, correct, this is on page 92. If its in the report i believe it to be accurate. July 19th when the president for a second time asked you to deliver the meng to sessions you said i quote wsh the message would be delivered soon, page 93, correct . Page 93. But you didnt you didnt call Jeff Sessions didnt try to meet with him. The president asked you twice in the oval office to deliver a secret message to the attorney general of the United States and 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 the campaign it you ever ignore or disobey directions from President Trump. I didnt believe it to be an order. Aflt 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. Well you said im 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 cant comment on the private conversationsky read the statement the white house trekted i not disclose the substance of any discussion was the president or his advisers to protect the executive branch confidentiallety. Do stoent skaul me on the questions. Would you like me to answer the request he. Rather than bin you are here with the president of the United States. In the oval office. He is directing you to deliver a message to the chief law and Law Enforcement officers in the United States which you understood would effectively end 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 93 you immediately follow in the meeting with the president you gave dearborn the message, the president abt dictated to be delivered to sessions. I believe thats what the report says. You didnt tell the president you had already asked dearborn to deliver the message. You just said it would be delivered soon. On page 92, correct . Its on page 92. You didnt want to tell the president that you were passing off his message to someone else . Did you you knew he wanted you it someone he described as his enforcer, a loyal soldier to do it because the president trusted you, isnt that right. Thats a question for the president , sir. Then why didnt you deliver the message to mr. Dearborn to Jeff Sessions directly. Why did you give it to mr. Dearborn to do. I think ive testified i was out of town. For two weeks. Thats right. I dont live in town. Unlike you sir i dont live in town. During your second meekt the oval office the president told you if sessions wolbert meet you to it testimony him he was fiertd. Did you ever threaten the attorney general that if he didnt meet with you he would be fired . No. Did you tell mr. Dearborn to tell sessions that he would be fired if he didnt take this meeting as the president directed. Congressman the white house what is skresed i not disclose the content any the discussion with the president or advisers to protect confidentiallety. You didnt deliver it because you know it was wrong, isnt that correct . No. Well the the president wasnt woor you ignored the directive to tell Jeff Sessions he was fired if he didnt meet with you was he. What was the question. Ill move on to prove to the attorney general that the threat was real four days later on july 22nd, the president directed priebus to to get session foss resign immediately. No. Know that. This evidence as a whole strongly suggesting that the president was reinforcing to sessions that his job was on the line at the same time the the president believed you were delivering the mental to enthe investigation into the 2016 campaign. All of this made everyone very uncomfortable. Including mr. Dearborn which is a at page 93. And he told you that he was uncomfortable being a messenger to sessions be with correct . No. Well, were you aware when you asked Rick Dearborn to deliver this message to the attorney general on behalf of of the president of the United States it created the same legal kulpability for you as if you delivered the mental to yourself . Are you aware of this. Congressman, the president deduct didnt ask me to do anything lefl and never asked me to keep a secret. Are you aware when you asked mr. Dearborn to deliver the eng to end the eggs investigation and focus on future investigations you thought you were protecting yourself but you were in fact committing a crime. Rick dearborn snu delivering the message it was wrong. You knew it was wrong. Thats why being asked to deliver it you passed it to him had and never followed up. Fwes what, i also think its very, very wrong. Nask i think the president private citizen to scare the attorney general is obstruction of justice plain and simple. I yield back. The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may answer the question. I dont believe there was a question. Very well. The gentleman from gentleman from arizona is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewandowski, thank you for being here today. Youve come voluntarily. Youve heard slanderous i cant aed on you had people refer you to as a gutted fish a, a chicken. People implied you are here to lie. Thats unfortunate. And its its beneath this committee, quite frankly. Here ostensibly thet tell me to hear the truth our here to tell the truth correct mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir. Youve told the truth reemtedly. I see a list of 302s when you were talking to the fbi, right. Y he. Zblier and those 302s they didnt record that. Those are afterward, after notes, right. I believe thats right. You gave testimony to the Intel Committees of both houses, right . I did, yes. Yeah and so here you sit here today, and you gave testimony to and you gave interviews i think roughly 20 hours of 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. Ive never read the report but i think thats accurate. Youre not unwise to have read the report. Nobodys read the report. I read the report. Weve been looking for you. Your name is all over this report. Oddly enough when you were asked by a member of the other side to look at volume 2, page 86 and they wanted you to testify to it, you might be surprised your name is not mentioned on that page. Do you know that . Youre in the even mentioned there. They were asking you questions to comment about things where your name is not there. Did you know that . Knows. That same person asked to you talk about page 49 and 50, volume 2. Guess whose names dont appear there, yours . Did you know that. No i didnt. Its odd isnt it that they would be asking you to comment on pages that you werent even there. So lets lets a little bit more about some of what members of congress have done. Theyve spent two years claiming without evidence that then didnt o candidate drufrt and the trump kban colluded with russia as a emin of the campaign you responded today. How do you respond . Would you like to expand on that again today. During my tenure at the campaign, congressman as i said in my Opening Statement never do i believe i had any interaction with any Foreign Agents. Foreign agencies or Foreign Governments attempting to impact the outcome of the election. Ive said publicly if nib did impact attempt to impact the election in a legal manner i hope they spendhe rest of heir lives in jail. We flo that on january 2019 on the Chris Matthews show a member of this committee was asked do you believe the president right now ha has been an apgt of the raasch russians. That was me. That member said yes. Chris matthews sfold up and said agent like in the 1940s for a foreign power that individual responded he is working on behalf of russians yb we. Still believe that. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from mr. Arizona has the time. Arizona has the time. Id like id like ten seconds added back. He has ten seconds in any event. So as at a close friend personally and adviser of the president member of the Trump Campaign how do you respond to that accusation bay a member of the committee made months and months ago even before the Mueller Report came out and said there was no collusion or coordination . You know, congressman i find it beneath the dignity of the president of the United States to accuse somebody of that while i didnt support president obama when he was the president , didnt vote for him i still wanted my country success so i wanted him successful. En and i think the faceless, baseless accusations against our president and are unfounded and unwarranted i want to cover the last little bit of this. We here today lots of questions about a 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, wasnt it . I believe it was, yes. Did the president ask you to stop mr. Mueller or to encourage mr. Sessions to stop the Mueller Investigation at any point . President congressman, i cant speak to or disclose the substance of discussion was the president or advisers to protect the branch confidentiallety. Appreciate that. In. I will tell you in going through the report there is no indicia 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 is expired, mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california. Mr. Lewandowski im putting a slide up and its the words that President Trump dictated to you on jug 19. Can you read what you wrote down . Im happy to have you read it congressman. Why dont you want to read it mr. Lewandowski. I think afford me the same privilege you afraided director mueller. Would you like to read it. No youre welcome to read it. Are you ashamed of the words you wrote down . President swal valuele im happy when i wrote you ared welcome to read. Are are you ashamed of anything. Why dont you read the words. Congressman, ive asked and answered your question. Mr. Lewandowski why wont you read the words. If you had youd like to read the words youre welcome to. You were ashamed to read them out loud and you didnt deliver the words to the person the president asked you to did you have a consciousness of guilt . I have nothing to be guilty of congressman. You still feel godly today. Congressman youre welcome to read the words if you like. I wonder why you cant. I have the capacity to congressman ill give you privilege. You said the president did nothing wrong why cant you read the words right now . Why cant you read them aloud. Tell me why you hold me a different asked than preach previous witnesses mo sat here. I want to give you one more opportunity to clear up something you said earlier per. You said nauchlt 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 parts not accurate . Id ask the stop the clock while he confers with his lawyer. The clock will be stopped for five seconds. Could i see the page and Reference Number on that, congressman. Sure, page 9, line 7 and 8 i will read to you thchs the first time the president asked lewandowski to take dictation. Are you saying that is not accurate. Im saying those arent buy words, congressman. Im schooling you was that the first time the president ed ask you to take digtation. Ive testified its not the first time. This part would be inaccurate. Im saying i have taken by dictation by the candidate and the independent the past. Have you ever put any words the president asked you write down before in a safe or was this thes firps time you had done that. I believe its my Standard Operating Procedure when taking notes, congressman. Every note you take of the president you put a safe . S how big is the safe sfl its a big safe. There is a lot of guns in there. Is the first time you put a secret message from the president he wanted you to deliver to someone else in a safe. I dont believe there is anything secret about the message. Pip i was never told to keep the message secret. Is this the tiers time you put a message from the president in a safe. Not to the the best of my recollection. I want to go back to the day later after the president asked you to deliver the message he was interviewed by the New York Times. In the next slide shows that he said sessions should have never rekusz the himself if he was going to rekuz himself he should have told me before he took the job, i would have picked someone else. Thats not what the president said to you during that meeting oneonone with in the oval office is that right. The white house has directed that i not disclose the substance of any discussions with the president or his advisers to protect exclusive branch confidentiallety. Id like to stop the clock for a parliamentary choir yao. Gentleman will state the inquiry the clock will be stopped. I had like to request a ruling on the witnesss refusal to answer. Mr. Lewandowski, when you refuse to answer these questions you are obstructing the work of our committee. You are also proving our point for the American People to see. The president is intent on obstructing our legitimate oversight. You are aiding him in that obstruction. And i will remind that you article iii much the impeachment president nixon was based on obstruction of congress. You are instructed to answer the question. The clock will start again. Mr. Chairman. Parliamentary choir yao. The clock will stop again. The gentleman will state the inquiry. Is it correct and i can reap repeat or you can let me see the sheet that reference you maid to nicken was after a formal inquiry put to the house and broad about a bought your name is different i wanted to point out strugt to the record i yield back. I have a parliament yes inquire joo zpl first of all not a parliamentary inquiry didnt ask anything. Judge zbra will the sfat the inquire judge. Did you threaten to kbech mr. Lewandowski, a private citizen . No. And the plain import of of what i said was that he is violating the law by refusing to answer the questions. The president is violating the law by instructing him and others not to answer the questions. And article iii of the nixon impeachment was based on this kind of obstruction of congress by president nixon. One further inquiry mr. Chairman. The jae gentleman will state the inquiry. Does that mean then pursuant to your statement that this is an official impeachment that were in. I have stated repeatedly that this committee is and we amended our rules to empower the chairman to designate specific aerg hearings i with i did for this hearing is pursuant to finding out to determine whether we should vote articles of giannecchiniment against the president thats what this is. Thank you. The gentleman from california za will continue. Mr. Lewandowski ill ask you again, this whats kplad displayed on the side is not what the president told you in the oneonone meeting, is that correct . Are you refusing to answer mr. Lewandowski . No, congressman as ive explained in a letter from the white house dated september 16th, 2019. Mr. Luna. From my attorney. Mr. Lewandowskis conversation was the president and with Senior Advisers to the president protected from disclosure. Can we stop the clock for the instructive. Int po of order and id ask the clock be stopped. Clob will be stopped. Id ask. Excuse me the gentleman will state the point of order. Point of order mr. Chairman is this witness continuing to obstruction obstruct the work of the committee by refusing to answer questions. He has been ordered to do so by you i ask that you judge him in contempt in the proceedings. Pinpoint of order thats not a proper parliamentary inquire. It was a point of order. I will take that under advisement. Thank you, mr. Kmarm. The gentleman will continue. Are you refusing to answer yes or no. Congressman im anticipate to answer the question let me have the privilege to do so. As explained below mr. Lewandowskis conversations with the president and with Senior Advisers to the president are protected from disclosure by long set of principles protecting executive branch confidentiality as a result the white house has directing mr. Lewandowski not to provide information about such communications about the information provided in the portions of the other than the portions of the row already disclosured to the committee the gentleman ha has the time not the witness. Im asking if youre not g going to answer just say a refusal to answer we dont need to be read the instructions from the white house. Im moving on. In that New York Times interview hours after the president s spoke to you, he never said in fact i just enlisted mr. Lewandowski to deliver a secret message to 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 to the New York Times. Mr. Lewandowski would you agree that delivering a secret message in the way in president did as a former Law Enforcement officer hass who has investigated gangs and moblike behavior that this is consistent with that . I take exception to your premise of the question. It was a secret message. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back, the jae from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well mr. Lewandowski welcome to the Judiciary Committee. You know, you and the president are accused by the majority of a coverup of foreign collusion, but the mueller team of partisans, try though they did couldnt find evidence of collusion. Since you stand accused of this crime im kind of curious, how do you cover up a crime that never happened . Its a great question, kmsz, i dont know the answer. Youve been watching the crux of the majoritys case 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. Well i think the president is clear the president was being treated unfairly and he had done nothing wrong. Yes yet its 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. Its the power to nullify the constitutional election of the president 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. Certainly does to me too. For more than three years now our nation mab torn apart by this monstersous lie that the president of the United States was a willing agent of a hostile foreign power. Id like to ask you where do you think this whole lie of russian collusion started . You know, congressman i dont have the facts on it. But i think when Inspector General horowitz has the privilege of coming and testifying he will testify this this began at the highest levels of the government and was perpetrated through the Intelligence Committee ch community to come up with a narrative of kwie Hillary Clinton lost the campaign as as opposed to the real narrative of why donald trump won the campaign. In actually began before the election. Do you believe the u. S. Government through its justice appear intelligence agencies deliberately interfered with the 2016 president ial election . I believe there are members of the Intelligence Community who have been referred for criminal referral for perjury and other crimes, should be held accountable for using badges and guns to influence the election, spy on american citizens in a clear violation of the 4th amendment and falsifying fisa applications for the explicit purpose of trying to prevent of an individual from being ekt eyed president of the United States. If were serious about protecting the american political process from unwarranted interference, either by Foreign Governments or by our own government, where should we be looking . I would recommend Inspector General horowitz, u. S. Attorney dlam in the midof investigation finance if i were a chairman or maybe some day in the upper chairman will bring before us james clab clapper come yn and brenty o in ask the questions under oath that seemed to ee lieu them. We have subbed suggested to the majority that we need to do that but so far the requests have fallen on deaf ears. But here is the picture as more information comes to light. We have a phoney dossier produced by the Clinton Campaign and disinformation channelled to George Papadopoulos through Joseph Mifsud who turns out has a long history of involvement with intelligence agencies including cia. Used to justify a sham investigation. The investigation was then leaked to the the press to give credence to the false narrative. Is that what you see taking shape with the evidence thats slowly coming out. I think thats exactly right. Pap and you look at the role that bruce orr and nellie oorr has the fusion gps. They at least notified the fisher the lack of credibility of Christopher Steele and of the information he provided. Just give us pause that sum such a small number of individuals at the fbi had the power to set in motion to prevent a person from being elected president of the United States with no evidence what so far. I think the importance of this cant be be overstated. We entrust the most stretching powers the government possesses to the agencies, hitler lir the power to ruin lives, s you, incarcerated you, to launch predawn raids on your home. The abuse of the powers for political purposes would be a direct threat to the most fundamental freedoms we have as americans and fundamental institutions of ou democracy. I should think that that would be of some passing interest to every member of the committee. Yield back. Earlier in your testimony i the love of country which the members of the medicate i dont question your love of the country. You made a stunning concession which is you had not read the Mueller Report. That explains a lot about your testimony. Im thinking maybe you dont know what the special counsel actually found. Im going to tell you. Volume 1 of the Mueller Report found that the russians attacked american elections in a sweeping and systematic manner. It also found that the Trump Campaign knew about the attack, gave internal polling dat to russias planned a Campaign Strategy around the attack. Its no Robert Muellers testimony under oath in frocht of the Intel Committee as well as this committee. The reason we are today is because volume 2 finds that the president tried to obstruct that investigation into the russian attack on at least ten instances, five of which Robert Mueller found there was substantial evidence. Im putting up a slide about what the special counsel found about this particular incident in which you are involved. He found substantial evidence gnat president s effort to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsel investigation to future election sbrerchs was sbrent intended to prevent future investigation and skrutly of the president and his conduct. Thats why we are here today. I think its important to look at the time line to understand how this all unfolds. You previously testified that on march 2017 that you were aware that attorney general sessions recused himself, did that march 2017. Im putting up a slide about what the white House Counsel office directed about communications with sessions. It said that sessions should not be contacted, no contact with sessions and no serious concerns about that instruction. Did you ever get that instruction from anyone not to contact sessions at all . No. Okay, thank you. A few months later the media reports that the obstruction investigation Russian Investigation turns obstruction investigation to the president himself and when donald trump learns about this, he goes nuts. Is that correct . I dont know that to be accurate. The president launched over ten tweets very shortly thereafter, calling the investigation a witch hunt. Thats correct, isnt it . I dont know that to be accurate. He did. So 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 fire Robert Mueller . No. Few days after that, the president calls you into his office, you admitted that he dictated a message to give to Jeff Sessions. You said you didnt give it to Jeff Sessions because you went on vacation. The attorney general canceled that meeting, correct . The attorney general canceled the meeting that you tried to give the note to. Where is that reference in the report, congressman . Page 92. Ill give you the courtesy, ill read it for you. Lewandowski called sessions. Sessions had it canceled due to a lastminute conflict. Do you remember that . I believe thats accurate. A little later on july 8th, the media writes additional negative information about the president s campaign, including that his Senior Advisers and his son met with russian operatives who had dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of russia and its governments support for mr. Trump. Donald trump 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 doesnt meet with you. Do you recall that conversation . I took that as a joke. You took that as a joke . After that, the president goes on tv and he says, sessions should never have recused himself and he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he tookt job and i would have pecked somebody else. Do you think the president was joking about that on tv . I dont know whet he was or not. When the president met with you alone, to ask whether you delivered the note to sessions, did you think that was a joke . I cant discuss a private conversation with the president. Its in the note, sir. Okay. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from arizona . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Lewandowski for being here today voluntarily. First we have the steele doss r dossier, which turned out to be a false report funded by the Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National committee and apparently was used to spy on the Trump Campaign and initiate the special counsel investigation. Then for two years, weve heard from democrats on tv, heard it over and over again from some on this committee that they had proof, proof that the president had colluded with russia. Guess what, the Mueller Report comes out and they lied. It was totally false. There was no collusion, no conspiracy. Then my democratic colleagues had to switch gears because they knew that one failed. They said its obstruction of justice. They brought in Robert Mueller, tried to question him, did everything they could. That one flopped. Here we are today, hauling you in. Who knows who theyll haul in next. Theyre trying anything and everything. And, you know, i just dont know when its going to end. I want to read a quote from on april 19th, 2019, shortly after the release of the Mueller Report, emmitt 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, im scared for our country. Im scared when i read this Mueller Report, whats 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 were the greatest, freest country in the world is paramount to everything that we do. Although 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 ensuring the safety and security of our democracy. 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 on this time in our nations history and say that should never have been allowed, not to a republican and never to a democrat . You bet i do. But at the end of the day, partisan politics aside, and to mr. Lieus point, we all love our country. We may have disagreements but i dont think anybody wants to see someone not elected properly or the interference of Foreign Agents or individuals in this country to negatively impact the outcome of an 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, partisan politics can take a backseat to doing whats right for our country. Thank you, mr. Lewandowski. I yield the balance of my time to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentle lady for yielding and thank the gentleman for his wellworded answer to the last question. With the campaign that you ran and were involved with, George Papadopoulos and carter paige, mr. Papadop ochoulos was done overseas with foreigners. Major partys nominee for the highest office in the land spice on two american citizens. Were you, as the Campaign Manager, ever notified or was anyone at the campaign ever notified that that was going on when it was happening . No, sir. I yield back. Thank you. 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 work on protecting the 2020 elections. We must assume that they just have completely forgotten about the passing on june 27th, 2019, the securing americas federal elections act, which authorizes 600 million to modernize and secure our election infrastructure, mandates the use of verified paper ballots and risk limiting audits and bans alcoholsability on devices for which ballots are marked or counted. Perhaps they forgot about it because all of them voted against it except one republican and the entire Democratic Caucus voted to support it. Were still hoping Mitch Mcconnell decides to take up that legislation. So who are the useful identiiot . I suppose we could have a conversation about that later. Mr. Lewandowski, you said some things about what you want to investigate about the deep state when you become a u. S. Senator. About your Upcoming Service as a senator, would you accept this view of socalled confidentiality interest, 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 elected to the senate . Congressman, i appreciate your confidence of my ability to win in New Hampshire and im sure many people in New Hampshire have that same confidence in me. Im going on your representation today. I appreciate that. Thank you. That being said, its not my privilege to waive, congressman. Its the executive offices prifl and im not an attorney. I am one. Let me ask you a question. Are you representing that the white house has told you that they are invoking executive prifl on behalf today . I dont believe its an executive privilege and we submitted a letter for clarification. Its not my privilege to waive. I dont think its anyones prifl to waive because i dont think it exists, mr. Lewando lewandowski. Its imaginary like the tooth fairy. My children are watching. Thank you for that. I hope the president isnt on then. You never worked in the white house . No, sir. You were a private citizen when you were with the president in the circumstances were discussing today . Yes i am. The white house says you shouldnt have to answer any questions because discharge of his duties are highly kfls, pushing white house obstructionism to a surreal, new extreme. Lets make this keer. I see no evidence at all that the president was seeking your advice or that you were helping him discharge his official duties. First of all, i want to make sure this is on the record. When you went to the white house in june and july 2017 to be with the president , you were not a white house employee, were you . I was not a white house employee. You have never been a white house employee. Thats correct. And there have been no other white house employees present for that meeting. I believe thats accurate. And while you claim that you were advising him during those meetings, the president didnt seem to be seeking your advice at all. Nfblingt, you never testified to the special counsel that President Trump once asked for your advice. Here is what you tol the special counsel about your meeting on page 91, volume 2. Put it up on the slide if you would. Lewandowski recalled after some small talk the president brought up sessions and criticized his recusal. The president told lewandowski that sessions was weak and if he had known about the likelihood of recusal, he would not have appointed sessions. Then the president asked lewandowski to send a message and write this town. I assume you told the truth and the whole truth when you spoke to the special counsel. Theres nothing in there about him asking your advice, is othing in the report, no. You werent helping him perform his official duties in office, were you . I cant discuss my private conversations. Just based on whats up on the screen. Did you he him implement any duties of his office at that point . I cant discuss the substance of the discussion outside of the report. No one told us what duty you were performing, if you were performing one or what Public Policy you were advising on. All of america is reading the same text. We dont see him asking your advice about anything. Did he ask your advice about National Security, for example, the only context i know about an executive privilege. Now it seems as if thats not even being waved around. One can only regard with amazement the logic of this argument. The president tweets out various fox news advise him. Is he covered by this privilege to . The gentlemans time is expired. The witness may aebs the question. That is a question you should address to the white house. The gentleman from virginia may inquiry. Willingly for you to be here, voluntarily, i doubt the others have as much political theater as this one has had. I appreciate you being here today. This hearing is yet another grand display of political theater weve seen from this committee over the last several months. The mantle should be focused on sound congressional oversight, in particular ig report about abuse in the fbi. We should be having a hearing with the Inspector General but desperate attempts to keep this impeachment at all costs narrative alive. I dont know what theyre calling it today. Is it an inquiry, an investigation, a proceeding . Whatever word that google thesaurus throws back at them when they type it in, thats where were at. Its embarrassing, as a member of the judicial committee, to have you here to have to go through this. But the majority is propping up this Mueller Report like a bad remake of weekend at bernies. Its impeachment based on the Mueller Report is dead and everybody seems to know it except the chairman and several members of the party conference, the mantle. We should be hearing from the ig report about the fbi abuse. We are now hearing about the president s mood when hes talking to you in the oval office. There was collusion with russia, but not by President Trump. I want to go back to questions by the gentleman from florida. Not the gentleman from florida who is Still Standing by the belief, proven false by volume i of the Mueller Report that President Trump is a russian agent but gentleman from california who is asking you about the steele dossier. Youve heard of the steele dossier, correct . Yes, sir. Opposition Research Document created by Christopher Steele, paid for by the Clinton Campaign and dnc. Have you ever met Christopher Steele . Ive not. But youre familiar with who he is . I am. Hired by a firm called fusion gps to produce the steele dossier. Have you heard of gps . Yes i have. Thats one more than we had from mr. Mueller because he didnt know what fusion gps. Do you know who hired fusion gps to produce the steele dossier . I believe a law firm, perkins. And do you know who Christopher Steeles sources were . I couldnt speak directly to it. Russian sources, correct . Thats the report, yes. And they did not reveal the truth about donald trump, did they . Thats my understanding. Most of it has proven to be false, relied on it to get a fisa application to spy on the Trump Campaign, correct . I believe so, yes. And all of this should have been laid bare but volume 1 clearly indicated there was no collusion 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 oped about on march 29th when you clarified that you thought the report was comprehensive. You clarified that it found no wrongdoing by the president or his advisers but that it is being used was being used back in march and still being used by conspiracyminded democrats and hostile media for their own political purposes, thwarting the president s reelection. Do you stand by that op ed and still believe its being misused in that way today . I do believe it, sir. Is there anything else you would like to add to the questions that have been answered or asked . No, sir. With that, i yield back. The gentle lady from washington . Thank you. Mr. Lewandowski, were seeing a pattern of the president doing anything and everything to hide his misconduct from congress and from the American People. 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 miscontact was exposed, the president tried to cover that up, too. Isnt it true that the president has repeatedly tried to discredit your and other witnesses testimony . Not to my nonl. Do you follow the president on twitter, mr. Lewandowski . Thats a good question. I may be the only one who doesnt but ill fix that immediately. Im sorry. Didnt the president say and ill put up a slide for you. Certain statements are made about me written by 18 angry democratic trump haters fabricated and totally untrue from april 19th, 2019. Thats 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 intervis as part of the federal investigation, is that correct . I did sit, yes. Special counsels report includes statements you made to the special counsel during the investigation duchlt lie at any point during those interviews . Not to the best of my recollection. So those are not, quote, fabricated and totally untrue . You didnt lie to the special counsel, did you, mr. Lewandowski . Not to the best of my nonl. Thats just the president trying to discredit all of the witnesses who said that he obstructed justice. Isnt that correct, mr. Lewandowski . Thats a question for the president. Which is it . Did you lie, mr. Lewandowski or is the president wrong when he said all the statements are fabr fabricated. I believe it says statements made about me by certain people. It doesnt say all unless im misreading it. Mr. Lewandowski, did you lie to the president and the president correct that everything in the report is fabricated . I wont comment on private conversations but i dont appreciate the insinuation that i lied about anything. Ive answered it multiple times. Ive answered your question multiple times about my truthfulness to the committee and special counsels office. I appreciate that. To my nonl ive not lied to the special counsel. You are not yet in the senate. You are a witness to the judicial committee. Please act like it. This is my time. I control it. Watch out for the people that take socalled notes when the notes never existed until needed, referring to the Mueller Report, referencingople taking notes of meetings with the president , notes that documented the president s obstruction. Mr. Lewandowski, you had notes of your meeting with the president. You testified to that before us, correct . Yes. You were dictated those notes by the president , correct . I believe thats in the report. You told the special counsel the president dictated a message to you and said write this down. Volume 2, page 91. You gave those notes to the special counsel. Correct . I cant speak to the way the special counsel conducted their information. Did you give the notes to the special counsel . This is not how it conducted its investigation. Its about whether you gave the notes to the special counsel. Thats a question for special counsel. They were your notes, in your safe, dictated to you and written down by you. Did you give them to the special counsel . I complied with all legal and lawful requests by the special counsel. Refusing to answer questions i just answered, i complied with all requests. So you gave the notes to the special counsel. I asked and answered your question. Did you make up that the president told you to write down that note . I cant speak to the private conversation i had with the president of the United States. Did you lie about the president telling you to write down the note . Its not a private conversation. I believe what is in the report is an accurate description. You gave the special counsel notes of the meeting with the president that are not fabricated and totally untrue. When the president said all those notes never existed until needed, that was his quote, thats another instance of the president trying to discredit anyone who tried to document his misconduct. Now the president is going further, isnt he . You said previously that you have nothing to hide and you would answer all questions. Here is what you said. Can i play that clip . I never asked whatsoever i sat there for 12 hours. Before i left after the last four hours i said i will sit here for another four hours to answer every single one of your questions to the house Intelligence Committee. Before we leave today i want to be very clear. I will sit and answer every one of your questions. Theres no reason to subpoena me. Im willing to volunteer. Ill be happy to answer their questions because i have nothing to hide. Its interesting, mr. Lewandowski. The president obviously has something to hide because the white house is telling you not to answer the question in front of the judicial committee. Thats a shameful thing. The American People deserve to know the truth. I think they deserve to have you answer our yes sfwlt time of the gentle lady is expired. The gentleman from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The American People know the truth, if theyve read the Mueller Report and have come to their own conclusions. Sir, and you the Trump Campaign fully cooperated with the Mueller Investigation. Is that correct . I believe so, yes. And multiple times that youve been asked to testify voluntarily before numerous different congressional committees, youve complied in that request, even voluntarily, not needing subpoenaed . To the best of my knowledge, yes. After 18 lawyers 5rks 00 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, the Mueller Report concluded that there was no evidence that the Trump Campaign colluded with russia. Is that correct . I havent read the report. I believe thats the final conclusion. Now that weve established that the Mueller Report itself doesnt find that theres any collusion between the Trump Campaign and russia, this whole contention about the president firing, not firing, directing people to fire, is it your understanding you may not be able to answer this because its outside the scope. Is it your understanding in article ii of the constitution that the president could fire the attorney general without cause, for any reason whatsoever . Let me preface it by saying im not an attorney but its my understanding that the president has Broad Authority over members who serve in the executive brarchl and has broad latitude to hire and fire at his discretion. Also under that constitutional authority, obligated to him under article ii, he could fire the fbi director without reason, for any reason whatsoever at any time . Again im not an attorney, but that could be a very realistic interpretation of the article ii powers provided by the president in the constitution, yes. He could have also had mr. Mueller fired during the course of the investigation if he wanted to under his powers of article ii . I think that would be a question for attorney general or white House Counsel but i think that would be his prerogative if he so chose, yes. He didnt choose to exercise any of that authority . In fact, he allowed for the campaign and members like yourselves to coordinate with them, cooperate with them and until now that weve gone through 22month investigation where the American People have been sold a lie of russian collusion, now were just going to try to rehash this narrative amongst the American People despite the fact that it has been investigating by investigators, lawyers, fbi agents for 22 months. I would be happy to yield to any other members of my congress that would like to yield. If not i yield back to the chair. Thank you for your time. The gentle lady from florida . Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewandowski, for the record i do love this country. I spent 27 years enforcing the law and now i have the honor of writing of the law. When special counsel visited us and in his testimony he talked about a spectrum of witnesses who were either telling half truths 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 . Mr. Lewandowski, during your Opening Statement you talked about being a Certified Police officer in New Hampshire. Is that 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 patroling their communityies, bt just working horrible hours im sure you know about that. With all of that stuff, do you believe that laforcemt officers, when they engage in wrongdoing, that they should be held accountable . I do. Mr. Lewandowski, you said if anyone was wr trying to coordinate with russia, they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Is that correct . I believe congresswoman i said if anybody attempted to impact the outcome of the election illegally, they should spend the rest of their lives in jail. Do you believe that a person who coordinated with russia should not be held to the full extent of the law . Whether its with russia or any other foreign entity should spend the rest of their life in jail. Mr. Lewandowski, i know you know and ill give you the benefit of the doubt that you care about the special counsels report concluding that russia interfered in the 2016 president ial election in a sweeping and systematic fashion. Do you believe that . I believe they attempted to influence the election, yes. Over 100 contacts between russian nationals or those acting on their behalf and the Trump Campaign, or those advising then candidate trump. The report focused that those contacts with russia 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 dont believe i had any conversation with any russian or russian contact. You knew nothing about them offering assistance to the campaign at all . I dont believe i have. You said that i never spoke to a russian, i never contacted a russian. I never coordinated with a russian. I dont know anything about russia, okay . I never spoke to them. And i was the Campaign Manager. Do you remember saying something similar to that . I think its an accurate statement. You also said, and i quote, you had sole control over the campaign other thant candidate himself. I sat next to candidate trump for thousands of hours during the period of time. Would that be pretty close to what you remember saying . It would depend on the timeframe of the campaign were speaking about. When you served as Campaign Manager. Right. There were multiple periods of time from would you say that you had sole control over the campaign other than the candidate himself . Not on the day i was fired, i didnt have sole control. Prior to that day. There is nothing funny about there is absolutely nothing funny about this whole thing. You asked me a question. If you dont like my answer i can rephrase it. No, i dont think i had sole control the day preceding my firing, multiple days before that. Lets forget the firing. The first month that you were the Campaign Manager, would you say that you had sole control over the campaign other than the candidate himself . Are you talking about in june of 2015. You talked to then candidate trump pretty much on a regular basis, right . You established that you talked to him on a regular basis. Is that correct . Yes. And being the Campaign Manager, being very close to the candidate, the campaign has over 100 contacts with russia and you didnt know anything about that . Thats correct, best of my knowledge. Did you ever ask the president if he knew about his campaigns contacts with russia after the reports came out, that there were over 100 contacts . Did you ever ask him after that report, those reports come out . Im sorry, did i ask who, congresswoman . I missed that. Did you ask trump if he had ever had did he know that the campaign had regular contact with russians after the report came out . After you heard that report, those reports, did you ever ask . The gentle ladys time expired. I cannot disclose a personal conversation i may or may not have had with the president. Thank you, madam chair. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Im sorry, the gentleman from texas. California. From nevada. Georgia. Thank you, madam chair. Mr. Lewandowski, im glad to hear that we both share a love for this country and distaste for any Foreign Agents that may want to interfere with democracy in this country. Are you familiar with George Papadopoulos . I am. Do you agree he was a Foreign Policy adviser in april 2016 . To the campaign, congressman. To the campaign, correct . To the campaign, yes. Lying to federal investigators, he pled guilty. Weve got his indictment up on the screen. One of those things he pled guilty to was lying about how often he was communicating with russians, with russia, when he was an adviser to the campaign. Correct . I dont know if thats what he pled guilty to your honor, sir. In fact, im quoting the Mueller Report now. Throughout april 2016, papadopoulos continued to correspond with and meet with russians and seek russian contacts. Thats volume one, page 87. The report says papadopoulos tried to schedule then candidate trump to travel to russia to meet with putin. Is that correct . I dont know whats in the report, sir. The report also documents emails discussing this potential russian trip and ill show them to you in case youve not read them, correct . You can put those up, please. On april 27th, the Trump Campaign Foreign Policy adviser papadopoulos sent you, circumstances an email telling you he had been receiving a lot of calls over the last months about putin wanting to host trump and the team when the time was right. You know about that . If thats whats in the report. Volume one, page 89. Okay. Its the first ive seen it. On june 1st, papadopoulos forwarded another email to you, asking you if that was something you wanted to move forward with. Is that accurate or not . I dont know. Volume 1, page 89. Slide, please. I see the report, sir. Okay. So, i would say this was not just about you receiving information butb 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 communications with russians . I dont believe i did. Okay. You actually encouraged that communication, correct, by referring him to a running point man, which is mr. Clovis, yes . No. Congressman, what i was attempting to do with contact from mr. Papadopoulos who i had very limited sbrks with, was to put him in touch with a staff person who could have a more articulate and thorough conversation. It wasnt while i ran the daytoday responsibility of the campaign, 1,000 emails a day did not allow me the privilege to respond in detail to each of them. Candidate trump said you and he were communicating then 12 to 14 hours a day. Is that correct . Im not sure. F thats what the president said, sir. He did. Did you at all mention to canned kate trump these xhupgss that russians were having to the campaign . Not to the best of my recollection. Did you communicate to the family about the Communications Going on . Not to the best of my recollection. You and i both have a distaste for Foreign Agents affecting our democratic process. Did you report these incidents to the fbi . I did not. Did you bring it up to anybodys attention . I think just mr. Clovis. I did not see that outreach to me as an offer to interfere with the outcome of the election. What did you see it as . I saw out reach from a potential Foreign Agent to a policy adviser and thats why i asked him to get in touch with mr. Clovis. For the safety just to be on the safe side wouldnt you call the fbi and say these guys are calling us, please check it out . In hindsight its something that mr. Clovis probably should have done. Russians are hacking our elections. Your Campaign Adviser is talking to another Campaign Adviser about russians interested in communicating with the campaign. Congressman, i dont believe i ever had a communication of any russians trying to offer, interfere in the outcome of the election. You did have knowledge of people in your campaign communicating with russians. The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may answer the question. Yes, sir, thank you. The gentle lady from california . Thank you, mr. Chairman. One of the things that has always caught my attention was the fact that Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort shared with a russian operative, mr. Klemnick the campaigns this is a quote from the report, strategy for winning democratic votes in mid western states, volume 1, pages 6 and 7 and he then shared with the russian operative internal polling at a tima. Did you have any information that mr. Manafort was sharing this polling data with russian operatives . I did not. You continued to advise the Campaign Even after you left and had an enduring presence, thats not something you were aware of . Correct. Im just interested all of us here, both republicans and democrats have something in common. We run for office and we know a little bit how to do that. One of the things that i think we all know is that internal polling data generally is something that you dont share broadly. You use it to base your campaign. Wouldnt you say thats correct, as a general rule . I think thats a good general rule, yes, maam. So im 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, this internal polling data. Do you have any insight into why that would happen . I dont know why mr. Manafort would share that information. It seems to me that do you know whether the russians asked for it . I dont know. Dont know. It seems to me that of all the things in the report, and there are many troubling things, that the russians and its clear that they were trying to elect donald trump president. Actually, putin said that publicly since then. They received from the trump Campaign Manager the internal polling data and the 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. Cant you understand that would raise some anxiety, those facts . Point of clarification, mr. Manafort was never the Campaign Manager. Are you saying he was not involved in the campaign . No. Im 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 think when you add it up, who would know about this other than mr. Manafort . Who else would we need to call that would have the facts of this information . We know where mr. Manafort is and is currently available for questioning if youre looking for him. In addition to him, who mr. Gates potentially. Mr. Gates might know who initiated whether it was the russians asking for the polling data or whether it was the idea of the Trump Campaign to provide that . Yes. Do you think the president was advised of the daytday details of his campaign . I dont thiching the president was advised of the minutia of the daytoday details of the campaign, as probably most candidates are not advised of the daytoday minutia. What level was the president generally provided . Would it be weve got a strategy to win the midwest or were hoping for the best . What would be the level of information generally that the president as a candidate would receive . I can only speak it my tenure there about the information i would have shared. Basically i would have shared his travel calendar for the next day or week, so he would understand where we were traveling to. I would share with him Media Opportunities if he wanted to be on a specific Television Show and messaging points of what we may want to be discussing during that tenure time of the campaign, particularly if were going to be in a primary. I would assume, like all other campaigns that the messaging was informed by the polling data that you had . As a point of clarification, congresswoman, we didnt do any poll willing data for the approximately first 15 months of the campaign. My time has expired. I yield back. Gentle lady from pennsylvania . Thank you. Mr. Lewandowski, one of the Major Concerns raised by the special counsels report is that the president has had a pattern of witness tampering duct. So, lets look at some facts. We know that attorney general sessions was a witness in the special counsels investigation because of his role on trumps campaign, right . If thats in the report. I dont know that to be accurate. Thats why sessions recused himself. So youve confirmed today that the president dictated a message for you to give to attorney general sessions about what he should say about russian contacts with the Trump Campaign. Correct . In general, thats accurate, yes. You told the special counsel that the president scripted what he wanted sessions to say in a public speech as if it were sessions own words about his knowledge of the russian contacts with the campaign. Right . That seems to be an accurate representation. Now that isnt the only time that the president tried to influence witness testimony, according to the special counsels report. White House Counsel don mcgahn told the special counsel i see youve found your copy of the Mueller Report so if you want to follow alongts volume 2, page 1, 2, 3. The president discussed with aides whether and in what way former Campaign Chairman, manager, whatever he is, manafort, might be cooperating with the special counsels investigation and whether manafort knew any information that would be harmful to the president. The special counsel concluded that again we have another quote, volume 2, page 132, evidence concerning the president s conduct toward manafort indicates that the president intended to encourage manafort to not cooperate with the government. Did the president ever try to discourage you from cooperating with special counsel, mr. Lewandowski . I cant speak to any private conversation i may or may not have had with the president other than it say i have always been told to tell the truth. Ooich never been instructed to do anything but tell the truth. Congressman radcliff asked what you knew about the president dangling pardons to his employees, you mentioned manafort, gates, flynn and cohen. The president suggested there might be pardons forthcoming for those folks. One of the reasons youre here today is that the Mueller Report identified you as a participant in the president s attempts to limit or shut down the department of justices investigation of russias sweeping interference in our 2016 election. Has the president ever offered you a pardon . Again, the white house has directed to not disclose any substan substance. The weve seen the letter. Youre not going to answer whether the president has offered you a pardon . Maam, its not my privilege. Im reclaim willing my time. Thank you. The president did indicate that hes going to support your Senate Campaign. Didnt he . Im not sure. Okay. Well, i just want to know for the record when mr. Le with wandowski asked for the committee to give him a little break an hour and a half, two hours ago, he took the time during that recess to launch his Senate Campaign website with a tweet. And i think that fact says an awful lot about the witness motivation to appear here today and ive heard enough. I yield back. The gentle lady from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I do want to clarify for the record that i think earlier you said that democrats in this committee, perhaps democrats hate this president more than they love their country. That simply is not true. Youre looking at someone that loves her country and, more importantly, as a judge i took an oath of office more than once to uphold t constitution and laws of this country. I take the work of this committee very seriously and i would hope that you, as a former peace officer, would do the same and show more respect to this committee and the work that were undertaking. Having said that, mr. Lewandowski, do you agree that if anyone tries to meddle with u. S. Elections, they should go to jail, right . I do. Theres a clip of you saying that. If other people who were operating outside the realm of what their responsibilities were, were trying to coordinate to materially impact the outcome of an election, and 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. I agree with at statement. I know on july 27, 2016, when you were still regularly communicating with candidate trump, publicly called for russia to find missing Clinton Emails stating july 27th russia, if youre listening, i hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So plrks lewandowski, lets be very clear. In that speech the president was suggesting publicly to the whole world that russia should hack Hillary Clintons emails. And it got even worse. After his statement, russia did hack his opponents emails, as he asked them to. And when wikileaks released those emails, mr. Trump tweeted how great it was. He said at Campaign Appearances in october and november of 2016, this just came out. Wikileaks, i love wikileaks. He said that in pennsylvania 2016 of october this wikileaks is like a treasure trove. He said that in october of 2016. He said in ohio, boy, love reading those wikileaks. And i believe all those quotes were there for the whole for you to see. So, again, lets be clear. This is then candidate trump tweeting congratulations to russia and wikileaks for stealing documents from u. S. Citizens and i think, you know, if it could get worse, it did. Multiple individuals have testified under oath that mr. Trump, in fact, knew about the release of these stolen emails prior to their release. Im going to read you the quotes. Witnesses have testified under oath that, quote, trump privately sought information about future wikileak releases, in the Mueller Report, volume 2, page 77. The slide is up for you to see. Deputy Campaign Manager rick gates told the special counsel that he, quote, was with trump on an airport. You cant read too much of it because its redacted. Shortly after the trump ended trump told gates more releases of damaging information would be coming. He knew t he said it will be coming, which turned out to be true. Thats in volume 2 of page 18. The screen is up, the shot is up there. So, in fact, the white house redacted some of the information in the report. You saw those redaxs on your screen. There could actually be more in those redaxs. The president s personal Attorney Michael Cohen testified under oath that, quote, mr. Trump knew from roger stone in advance about the wikileaks. Youve got the slide there showing us exactly what the testimony reflects. Roger stone has been charged with serious federal crimes for his conduct during the campaign. In his indictment it also says, quote, stone was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquiry about future releases of organization wikileaks. Stone thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by wikileaks. Roger stone has known the president for years. Theyve been longtime friends. Didnt you say, quote and here is the screen shot from cnn. Roger stones history with donald trump goes back 20 years. He has been someone who has known mr. Trump and worked with him through business dealings long before we ever started a political campaign. The fact is that he stole materials, encouraged the hacking. Dont you think thats doing what you said no one should do and, if they do, that they should go to jail for the rest of their lives . I stand by my statement that anybody who attempted to materially impact the outcome of an election should go to jail for the rest of their lives. Do you believe the president should go to jail for what i just reiterated in my statement . I didnt say that, maam. It seems to me that even this president needs to be held accountable because no one is above the law. I agree with you that if someone does interfere with our elections, they should go to jail, including this president , if necessary. Gentle lady yields back . Yield back. Gentleman from colorado. Mr. Lewanwski, i would like to get back to an exchange you had with mr. Cicilline and mr. Jeffries. We talked about the message that the president asked to you deliver to then attorney general Jeff Sessions. As you testified today and you informed the special counsel as well during the special prosecutors investigation you, quote, stored the notes in a safe, right . As youll see on the slide there, quoting directly from special counsels report which you described special counsel as the standard procedure for sensitive items. But that was your standard procedure. That is not normal protocol for official white house documents. My colleague mentioned this earlier. Since youre not a white house employee, have not been as you testified, i would remind you again that the white house has a legal protocol to follow for official documents. On this next slide, this screen is a memo from this white house, Donald Trumps white house, about the president ial records act. So the president is well informed about the record requirements for our commander in chief. As youll see on this slide under the pra, the white house must preserve and maintain all memos, letters, notes, emails and written communications from the president just like the note he dictated to you. Of course, those notes are not supposed to be kept in a secret safe in his former Campaign Managers house. And so its clear, i think, to folks who read special counsels report that is why the president asked you he wanted this message to be hidden and knew you wouldnt keep a record. In fact, you took it out of the white house after miss hicks typed it up 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 a bit about the notes that you dictated from the president and in the special counsels report, it makes clear on page 91, the last sentence of the second paragraph, that when you met with the president , this was, quote, the first time the president had asked lewandowski to take dictation and lewandowski wrote as fast as possible to capture the content correctly. That sentence cites your interview with the special counsel. In exchange with mr. Swalwell you contradicted that. So i am trying to figure out that discrepancy. Was this, in fact, the first time that you had been asked by the president to take dictation . To be clear the words written in this report are not my words. Thats the representation of the summary of my conversation with the special counsel i can say i have on numerous occasions been directed by the president to write specific information down and deliver that. So, to that end, mr. Lewandowski, have you turned over those notes . Were those notes turned over to the special counsel . Ive complied with all requirements of the specialcom. I appreciate you saying that. Did you turn over any other notes that have been dictated to you by the president to the special prosecutor outside of this note thats referenced in the report . Ive complied with all requirements. The record will reflect you wont answer that particular question. I think thats an important one for this committee to the get to the bottom to. Ultimately, what you are saying is that the special counsels statement in this report is incorrect and if that is the case, this committee has an obligation to ascertain the contents of those other notes youve described. I just want to go back to the message delivered to you by the president to tell the attorney general that if he did not meet with you, you should tell him that he was fired. Thats in volume 2, page 93. Youre aware of this slide that will pop up here. You can see it in front of you. I know that youre aware that the attorney general is a cabinetlevel position. Correct . Yes, im aware of that. He is, in fact, the head of the department of justice, the chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States. You knew that you couldnt fire the attorney general, correct . Yeah, i cant fire anybody. And as you told mr. Priebus, as the next slide attests you told the chief of staff at that time, what can i do . Im not an employee of the administration. Im a nobody. So if thats the case, it is again pretty clear to anyone who reads the special counsels report that the reason the president was delivering this message to you was so that you could scare the attorney general into complying with the directive that he had given you. He enlisted you to dictate a secret message, which you store in your personal safe at home for the attorney general. Then he tells you to tell the chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States that if he wont meet with you, a private citizen, that he would be fired. At the end of the day, we know its because the president didnt want anyone investigating him. Special counsels report certainly supports that. And i will leave the last slide as i see my time is expired. Special counsels words speak for themselves in this exchange. With that, i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewandowski, i want to pause here for a moment. We heard facts about Foreign Government attacking our elections. We heard about that quite a bit this afternoon. We know thats a serious crime. Youve said so and i definitelily agree with you. It resulted in criminal indictments of more than a dozen defendants. That included guilty pleas, indictments of top trump official Campaign Officials. And these guilty pleas include multiple charges of conspiracy against the United States and ts to the department of ng justice officials. But it also included indictments of criminal charges against 13 individual russian nationals and three russian entities, primarily for conspiracy to defraud the United States. Is that correct, mr. Lewandowski . I believe thats what that says, yes. Thank you. You agree, and youve actually said so today, that anyone, whether its Trump Campaign official or russian individuals and entities, anyone who attacks our elections should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Correct . I do agree with that. Thank you. I agree, too. To be very clear, the special couel uncovered serious crimes by over a dozen individuals, including russian nationals for conspiracy against the United States. Im a representative of georgia, and im very concerned with protecting our elections. Georgia has actually actively been targeted for election for interference by the russians. Unsealed indietmen unsealed indictments, and both of those reside within my own district. Looking for vulnerabilities that they might be able to exploit, and you have said not once, but several times, and i quote, trying to coordinate to materially impact the outcome of the election that 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. Mr. Lou and you on ski, those are your woods. You continue to stand by that and as i said earlier, i agree. Our democracy is simply too important to play with so im glad that we are investigating and i am glad that we are Holding Accountable anyone who would attack our elections and thats why special counsel muellers investigation was so important to expose people attacking our lechs in georgia and throughout the country and 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 and every american deserves the right to vote and we must protect that right at all cost because democracy is, as you have said today, too important to play with, and i will yield the balance of my time to mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, congresswoman. I want to thank mr. Lewandowski for being here today and answering these questions for many hours, with respect to mr. Michael cohen. He communicated regularly with mr. Trump during the campaign, is that correct . There was regular communication, yes. I want to read from the indictment which states cohen asked individual 1 about the possibility of individual 1 traveling to russia in connection with the moscow project and ask a senior Campaign Official about potential Business Travel to russia. The senior Campaign Official, mr. Cohen references is yourself. Is that correct . Could be. Mr. Cohen testified before the House Oversight committee on february 27th and is on the screen in front of you. He testified specifically that that Senior Adviser was yourself. Ill skip to the end. Congressman asked who was the Campaign Official and mr. Cohen responded, quote, Corey Lewandowski. Now, most importantly, mr. Cohen said to the special counsel that he discussed with candidate trump the subject of traveling to russia during the campaign, and that trump, quote, indicated a willingness to travel to russia, unget. Thats volume one, page 78. Mr. Cohen then testified before congress that trump was individual 1 and thats on the screen in front of you. Thats what mr. Cohen testified to. Looking at the indictment we can fill in the blanks. Mr. Cohen asked individual 1, president bush and a senior Campaign Official, you, about traveling to russia. Mr. Chairman, may i take my regular five minutes at this time . [ inaudible ] thank you very much, mr. Chair. During your time as Campaign Manager you communicated regularly with the president , is that correct . With candidate trump, yes, sir. You sat next to him for, quote, thousands of hours while you were Campaign Chairman. During your time as Campaign Manager, did you ever have a conversation with candidate trump about his Campaign Team having contact with russians . Not to the best of my recollection, no. The special counsels report includes emails from George Papadopoulos sent to you asking about mr. Trump traveling to russia. Mr. Cohen also asked you about traveling to russia per his indictment. Carter page emailed you about russia and in your thousands of hours speaking with the president you never mentioned any of these people emailing you, asking you about trump traveling to russia. Is that your testimony here today . I dont recall ever having a conversation with mr. Trump about traveling to russia. What about after the time that trump was elected . Did you ever discuss with the president his knowledge of his campaigns interactions with russians . Again, at the advice of white House Counsel i cant answer questions that would be privileged and i respect that privilege. Ive asked before, and ill ask again. Is this an appropriate assertion. Is this an appropriate assertion of privilege . This is most certainly not appropriate assertion of privilege for the reasons i stated before. The certainly theres no conceivable privilege for any time period before the president was president. To be clear, the white house is apparently directing you not to answer whether the president knew about his campaign communicated with russia. I think the American People want to know and are frustrated today, what, in fact, are you hiding . In mr. Cohens federal indictment it named mr. Trump as knowing about Campaign Communications with russia. Again, did you ever discuss this fact with mr. Trump . Again, to the best of my knowledge, during our campaign i never had a conversation with mr. Trump about any contacts with russia. The president is name said as individual 1 in a criminal case by his former personal attorney. You are asking us to believe that you never discussed with the president this fact in all of your thousand was hours of conversations. Again, congressman, to the best of my knowledge i dont recall ever having a conversation with candidate trump about any interaction with russia. Mr. Cohens indictment states that candidate trump directed mr. Cohen to make payments with certain individuals beginning in october of 2016 in order to prevent those individuals from telling negative stories about candidate trump. During the fall of 20 skaerngs 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. And what about after the time that mr. Trump was elected . Did you ever have a conversation with him about those payments . The white house has directed that i not disclose any conversations or the substance of those discussions with the president her his advisers to protect executive branch privilege. To be clear, you are being told you are not to answer whether the president told you that he directed his personal lawyer to make illegal payments . Im simply going at the direction of the white house. Its not my privilege to waive, congressman. To be clear, the white house is telling you not to answer whether you discussed potential crimes with the president of the United States . Mr. Lewandowski, it is clear to me that the president would the gentleman yield for a moment . Please. I believe the nixon case established the very iron clad principle that discussions regarding criminal acts are not privileged. So theres no possibility of a privilege with respect to the question of whether you were asked about criminal activities. I yield back. Mr. Lewandowski. It is clear to me that the president , the campaign and yourself did not want the American People to know about any Campaign Contact with russia. You lied to cover it up. You lied when you publicly said you, quote, knew nothing about the campaign with russia. Meeting with russians and each mr. Trump possibly going russia. Theres documentation that contradicts your denials including emails with you, personally. This committee, our committee, will not let anyone, not the president of the United States, not anyone to hide the truth from the American People any longer and no one is above the law. I yield back. Point of order, mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman will 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 about the personal lawyer about knowledge of the campaigns interactions with russia are not protected and i would ask as the chairman reconsiders whether to hold mr. Lewandowski in contempt as he goes forward from this hearing. Its important to note that the white house directing mr. Lewandowski not to discuss the substance of conversations about official government matter, the white House Counsel is here. If the chairman would like to ask them whether they assert that those discussions about russia or personal payments are official government business they can be asked. Otherwise, as you consider and weigh to hold mr. Lewandowski in contempt, you should consider those. It is certainly the case. Im not going to ask white House Counsel. It is certainly the case that conversations about criminal actions are not official white house business, without question, and i will give mr. Lewandowski in light of this ruling the opportunity to answer that question again. Gentlemen . Mr. Chairman, with all due respect im not an attorney. I had to continue at the advice of white House Counsel and you can take the matter up with them and i draw the line of having private conversations with the president of the United States during the transition or his time as president. Ive been candid and open about answering questions about the campaign and i will continue to do so, but at direction of the counsel ive exerted executive privilege of which it is mine to waive. I will simply observe on the record that the white house has claimed privilege with respect to the question of possible criminal activity or instructions about criminal activity by the president of the United States. Inquiry. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. In light of the discussion and the gentleman from florida, was there ever a doubt that we were not trying to hold him were we ever trying not to hold him in contempt . Its not a parliamentary inquiry. The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness has requested a brief recess accordingly. The commit will take a fiveminute recess. The committee stands in recess. Did you tell him you could get a meeting at the time with them president elect trump . Not that i recall, no. Im showing you a slide. Isnt it a fact that just three days later on december 7, weeted . Withdid actually meet president elect trump a few days later, right . Not sure. A source from that meeting said you pledged that you would get trump to fire that companies arch nemesis, Richard Cordry. I think you will see the slide reveals that if they hired you and your firm, avenue. Is that source accurate . Its called fake news. Im sure youve been miscoded. Isnt it true that in a few months later, you called for President Trump to oust cfpb director Richard Cordry . Let me play you that clip now. It is my recommendation to the president of the United States to fire Richard Cordry. Another coincidence that you are pitching what your client wants you to pitch. Coincidence . How is this relevant to the hearing . I will ask the questions. Ok. Mr. Lewandowski, you met with facebook and blackstone representatives to pitch them on have services as well. Am i correct Avenue Services as well. My correct . Am i correct . I dont recall. Did you ever claim access to have access to the president s twitter account. I dont recall account . I didnt say that. Do you recall if you ever had access to the president s twitter account . I dont recall. You dont recall . Mr. Lewandowski your role as the president s enforcer has evaporated. You can protect them no longer. On this 2002030 constitution day, we could not be in a more. Mportant place our constitution is stronger than a president in search of corruption and cover. Idle back. The gender i yelled back. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from florida. Clientsewandowski, my have gone through some unbelievable acts by the president attempting to obstruct an investigation into his conduct and then cover it up. That coverup has extended to preventing witnesses frocoming to talk to this Committee Without any lawful basis of doing so. Let me just to be very clear, we are right now in the United America and we have a president obstructing our congressional investigation into his conduct. This. W why he is doing the president wants to prevent witnesses from testifying to congress and the American People because he wants to hide his misconduct. Weve heard the name Rick Dearborn a lot today, the former deputy chief of staff. Former. Suspend,lady will gentlemen will state his point of view. Theuld just ask gentlelady accusing the president of a crime. She can reword. I am not accusing anyone of anything. Can i continue . Not if you continue in the vein your continuum with. This is not a reality tv show. Not for you either. This is a serious judiciary hearing. Matt continue, mr. Chairman may i continue, mr. Chairman . Continue. Tlelady may on august 26, the committee served a subpoena on Rick Dearborn to appear here today. You testified that you gave him the message dictated to him by the president. We went over that message today. It asks the attorney general to direct the special counsel not to investigate the president but thats not all. Mr. Dearborn was also jeff chief of staff during the campaign. Meetings that were organized by russian organizations. Dearborn himself communicated with russian officials but once again, the president is trying to prevent us from learning the truth about his conduct. Lets be honest here. Mr. Dearborn is not here today because the president is afraid of what he would tell us and the American People. The president directed him not to appear based on a fake claim of absolute immunity. Even though we cannot hear from this important witness about the president s potential obstruction of justice, i will share some of the subjects i would have asked mr. Dearborn if he were here today. Mr. Lewandowski, we heard the president directed you to deliver a message to the attorney general. You asked dearborn to deliver the message dictated to you by the president , correct . Can you remind me what page that is in the Mueller Report. Volume two, page 92 in the middle of the page. Thank you. Under point 2. Following his june meeting with the president i believe thats accurate. You gave dearborn that message and asked him to deliver it . I believe thats accurate, yes. Thank you. What we know is that dearborn did not deliver your secret message. He told the special counsel that been asked to serve as a messenger made dearborn uncomfortable. It definitely raised an eyebrow. Dearborn recalls not wanting to ask where it came from or think further about doing anything with it. As soon as the president learned that dearborn new and told the special counsel how bad it was, hes directed him now not to come in front of this committee to testify. So its no wonder the president wants to prevent dearborn from testifying, because we would be able to ask him why he wanted nothing further to do with the president s conduct, why it was so uncomfortable he did not deliver that message. Dearborn as an actual governmental employee was familiar with the president ial record act. He knew that any official business must be documented, but he did not keep the notes. The president does not want us to know why dearborn did not even want to keep that message. Dearborn also knew the white house policy that any messages to the attorney general or supposed to go to the white House Counsel were supposed to go through the white House Counsel. Called in his private enforcer instead of the white House Counsel. Again, lets make something very clear here today. President of the United States cannot ignore congressional subpoenas. Richard nixon learned this. Is impeachment proceedings had an article of impeachment based on doing exactly that. No president can be allowed to violate his or her constitutional duties, nor can any president be allowed to obstruct a congressional investigation o hide crimesr. We will not sit back and let this president continue to obstruct justice any longer. Let me remind everyone that in this country point of order. No one is above the law. Thank you. I yield back my 10. Time. No longer allow this president to obstruct justice. She cant do that. I will rule that she can do that. We will suspend for a moment. In the interest of time, i will ask the gentlelady if she will withdraw that characterization. Can i say no president can be allowed to obstruct . You certainly can. Ok, and we wont allow any president to continue to obstruct justice. Is that ok . Thank you, representative. You want to say that . Lets say that. Ok. The gentleladys time has expired. The gentlelady from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Todays hearing and those we have held previously have outlined serious evidence of obstruction of justice. The president did not just attempt to obstruct the special counsels investigation, but he is also obstructing our congressional investigation into his conduct. The president has instructed a number of witnesses to ignore our subpoenas in order to hide his wrongdoing from the American People. One of those witnesses is rob porter, the former white house staff secretary, who was served with a subpoena by this committee on august 26. Rob porter was prominently featured in the special counsel Robert Muellers report with a detailed description of efforts to obstruct justice. The report describes the president directing then white House Counsel don mcgahn to fire the special counsel, and then ordering him to lie about it. The committee has many questions for mr. Porter, but the president doesnt want us asking those questions. The president directed mr. Porter not to appear based on a bogus claim of absolute immunity , a pattern by this president to. Cover up his obstruction efforts. Let me be clear, mr. Dearborn is not here today either for the same reason. The president s fear of what we and the American People could learn from their testimony. Their absence wont stop our oversight. I will still go through items i would have covered with mr. Porter. On january 25, 2018, the new thek times reported, president had ordered magan to have the department of Justice Mcgahn to have the department of justice fired the special counsel. Prior to the article, the president pressured don mcgahn to put out a statement denying he was asked to fire the special hn refused. T mcga the president did not drop the issue. He then used rob porter to convince don mcgahn to make a false denial. The president told porter that the article was quote bull shit, that he never tried to terminate the special counsel. Don mcgahn leaked to the media to make himself look good, the president said. We know from the special counsels report that what the president told porter was not true. The report proves that the president did ask don mcgahn to fire the special counsel over and over again and don mcgahn refused. Thats pretty bad but it gets worse. According to the special counsels report, the president then directed porter to tell mcg ahn to create a record to make clear that the president never directed don mcgahn to fire the special counsel. The president asked porter to tell mcgahn to create a false record to hide the president s conduct. The president was so desperate to hide his misconduct that he even told porter to threaten he did not create the written denial. The president said if he does not write a letter, maybe i will have to get rid of him. Porter delivered that threat, andmcgahn stood firm refused to assist the president s misconduct. This should ring a bell. Its like that threat the president asked you to deliver to Jeff Sessions. Now the president is attempting to bully his witnesses and mr. Lewandowski, not to answer our questions under our subpoena. We will not let this coverup stand. That is why we are pursuing this impeachment investigation. Obstruction of congress, ignoring congressional subpoenas is a series offense. Nixon learned this. The third article of impeachment against nixon explained that he was violating his constitutional duty by blocking evidence under duly authorized to subpoenas issued by this committee. Today, the president is doing just that, willfully disobeying subpoenas in order to cover up his conduct. I will now yield the remainder of my time to our chairman. Thank you. Mr. Lewandowski, your behavior in this hearing room has been completely unacceptable. By theart of a pattern white house desperate for the American People not to hear the truth. I have asked several times today whether the committee will hold you in contempt. It is seriously under consideration. There is a far more troubling level of contempt on display here today. The obstruction laid out in the Mueller Report has not stopped. The Trump Administration would do anything and everything in its power to obstruct the work of congress. The president s lawyers are sitting behind you right now to make sure you do not answer us. This committee is focused on the evidence of potential corruption , obstruction, and abuse of power. Exposing misconduct is our top priority. Make no mistake, we will hold President Trump accountable. Inquiry. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, did you have that little speech prepared before this hearing went downhill . It is not a parliamentary inquiry and the answer is no. Pursuan to the resolution for investigative procedures adopted by this Committee Last year, the last week, rather, and pursuant to notice, we will now proceed to staff questioning. The majority has a designated barry burke to conduct its questioning. Point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order. There is up to one hour of questioning permitted. Too fast. This gentleman is a private consultant was very consultant contract explicitly states he is employee of this committee, not a government employee. House at committee will not even a prove a contract for a consultant that will be performing regular duties of staff. The majoritys use of private sector consultants to question witnesses is an egregious violation of house rose under any circumstances. Under the circumstances of the current socalled impeachment inquiry, it would be an unprecedented privatization of impeachment. I have the letter in which you are asking a question and the staff role, in which he is not listed as a staff member. Allowuld not be able to staff questioning of this witness. Questions, i has will withdraw the point of order, but mr. Burke and mr. Norton, neither one is allowed to ask questions under this rule. We have Committee Staff from the house admin who agrees with this interpretation. I am prepared to rule on the point of order. For the purposes of a step questioning on the resolution adopted by the committee, there is no distinction between staff and consultants. First, the chair has discretion to determine who qualifies as staff for the purposes of the resolution. Committee consultants in effect function as staff, they are paid from the committees budget, the work at the chairmans discretion, and they are subject to all the same ethical and do and illegal responsibilities as any house employee. Second, the committees retention of consultants is consistent with prior practice. They have assisted with significant investigations, including impeachment investigations, for example, david shippers, the consultant to the majority, and add below and during the clinton impeachment investigations. Commitment consultants have questioned witness before. Just last congress the republican majority of this committee hired consultants to assist with their investigation into former secretary of state clintons emails, and they regularly ask questions during transcribed interviews and other matters connected to that investigation. Our consultants we retain to assist the committee on oversight with investigative functions, which is the purpose of this hearing. Accordingly, i overrule the point of order. Lets continue this for a second. Chairman nadler you wish to appeal the ruling of the chair . You can be heard on the point of order. Thank you. You are going down an interesting road we already discussed. Undoubtedly, you had a big misunderstanding of just a few minutes ago. We are not in an impeachment inquiry. We are not good you may think it is. If you would like to go to the floor i am sure you will be it would to bring the resolution for an impeachment inquiry. You do not have the votes. But you cannot just make it up on the fly. The chairman of the Administration Committee is here, and we have talked to our Committee Staff. They would not ever agree that a contract employee is a staff member. The folks you just named were after the impeachment inquiry was formed. They were hired for that specific purpose. If you want to continue this, this is a violation of house rules, we are party had the problematic issue of overstepping time, but this one, mr. Chairman, is one that cannot go forward. It is one that you have great Staff Members who are legally staff, by any definition, and no contractor, including the chairman on this committee, can Contract Services to be provided by a consortium, that a regular normal to be provided by a consultant that are normally provided by regular Committee Staff. No matter how you dress it up, it doesnt matter. This is not different. To continue down this path puts your entire line already in question by millions of people. If it is when at all costs, we have a problem. Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the chair. Chairman nadler who seeks to question. Questions are not in order. We are discussing point of order. I have a question on the point of order. Chairman nadler you are recognized. If they are staff, what are they called consultants in their Employment Contracts . Chairman nadler it is not a point of order. Mr. Chairman, let me ask about this. Did the rule change last week, one week ago that you voted on and we voted against, did it mention the word consultants in the rule . Chairman, regular order. Chairman nadler i cannot hear what mr. Jordan is saying because his col is talking too. Rep. Jordan the resolution adopted last week, with the word was the word consultant mentioned when it came to the ability of staff to ask questions. Chairman nadler it was not. Rep. Jordan so you changed the rules last week and this week, you will not follow the rules you changed. Chairman nadler i am going to rule on the point of order. I would like to speak toward the point of order. It is not in order to have debate on a point of order. They are not an employee of the committee. Chairman nadler you have made that point, it is your point of order. I am prepared to rule on it. May find the point of personal. Privilege since my name has been invoked, ive ascertained that the staff director for the house Administration Committee has not been solicited for this information. I did not ask your staff director, i asked hours. Chairman nadler the issue was stated by you, you dont have to repeat it. Be careful going down this road. Be careful, mr. Chairman, be very careful. Chairman nadler we are in an impeachment investigation. But that is whether or not we are is not relevant to this question. It is not relevant to that question. Is it an investigation or an impeachment inquiry . Which is it . Chairman nadler that is not relevant. The committees retention of consultants is consistent with Prior Committee practice. The consultants have been retained to question witnesses at hearings and other proceedings, not only in impeachment hearings. This is consistent with past practice. I overrule the point of order. Mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler the point of order is overruled. Mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler do you wish to vote . No, i want to talk. I want to ask you a question. Chairman nadler regular order [gavel bangs] chairman nadler you raised a point of order, i ruled on it, you wish do you wish to appear the ruling of the chair . Yes. I moved to table the appeal. Chairman nadler this ruling of the chair is appealed. The gentlelady moves to table the appeal. The clerk will call the roll. The clerk will call the roll on the question of tabling the appeal of the chair. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Miss jackson lee votes aye. Mr. Cohen mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye mr. George votes aye. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swlwl. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Miss demings votes aye. Miss scanlan votes aye. Miss garcia votes aye. Miss escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Radcliffe. Miss robie. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Chairman nadler has everyone voted who wishes to vote . The clerk will report no, wait we are still waiting for someone. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler who speaks . We are in the middle of a vote. Ok. Chairman nadler the gentleman from arizona . Has the gentleman from arizona been recorded . Clerk mr. Stanton, you voted aye. Chairman nadler clerk will report. Clerk there are 19 ayes and 18 nos. Chairman nadler the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair is agreed to. The majority have directed mr. Barry burke to proceed with questioning. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary point of inquiry. I have one, too. Chairman nadler the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. You mentioned earlier that there were consultants used to question witnesses. I will ask is a parliamentary inquiry, what were the parliamentary occurrences . Point of order mr. Chairman, that is not a parliamentary inquiry. Chairman nadler the gentleman is correct, that is not a parliamentary inquiry. Who else has a parliamentary inquiry . Mr. Jordan . Rep. Jordan was todays witness, when he was subpoenaed, was he notified that he would be questioned . Chairman nadler that is not a parliamentary inquiry either. I moved to adjourn. The motion to adjourn is in order and not debatable. The clerk will call the role. Clerk mr. Nadler . Chairman nadler no. Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss deming votes no. Mr. Corea votes no. Miss scanlan votes no. Miss garcia votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean votes no. Miss escobar votes no. Motion to adjourn. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Gomert. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Buck. Mr. Radcliffe. Ms. Robie. Mr. Gates. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes yes. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Gates, you are not recorded. Mr. Gates votes aye. The clerk will report. Clerk mr. Chairman, there are eight ayes and 20 nos. The motion to adjourn is not agreed to. Mr. Burke is recognized for 30 minutes. Point of parliamentary inquiry. Chairman nadler who has a point of parliamentary inquiry . The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My query relates to the rule we changed last week where we mentioned staff would be conducting questioning and it has been expanded to include consultants today. My question is did we contemplate the distinction between independent contractors visiblythe consultant employees which is what the staff would be as being part of the distinction when that rule was changed . Point of order, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the advice i received from the top staffers and the house Administration Committee is that staff can be comprised of employees, interns, fellows, contractors, et cetera. Staff and employee are not equivalent terms. I yield back. With the gentlelady yield to question . Are you saying i was under the impression that is not pertinent to this proceeding. I would be happy to go through after the meeting. And met allned off of our requirement. The gentleman have not stated a parliamentary inquiry. The time is mr. Burkes. Mr. Burke is 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, i need about 30 seconds for a formal protest. Chairman nadler you are not a witness and you should not be seated at that table. I understand that. Based upon the debate i just heard, these seem to be unauthorized questions. I know you choose your word carefully. I will leave it to mr. Lewandowski to decide. We are not interested in your views. We have a hearing to conduct. That is his legal counsel. Chairman nadler mr. Lewandowski will answer all questions if he has a legitimate privilege to assert. He may assert the legitimate privilege. Other than that he is under subpoena and will answer all questions. This is being done pursuant of the committees rules. If his counsel does not like it, you cannot interpret our rules, with all due respect. These are unauthorized questions. Burke is recognized for 30 minutes. Mr. Lewandowski, did you ever become concerned that the president had asked you to do something that could expose you to criminal liability . Did you ever become concerned that the president of the United States had asked you to do something that could expose you to criminal liability . Mr. Lewandowski was i concerned that the president asked me to do something . Not to the best of my knowledge. Were you ever concerned that the president had asked you to do something that had put you in harms way . Made you feel that you were in trouble . Mr. Lewandowski i think i have answered that question. I would like to show you a video of an interview you did on fox news. This was in january 16, 2018. [video clip] mr. Lewandowski you take the fifth when you are in trouble. I did not do anything in the campaign did not do anything. I have no reason to take the fifth. I will answer every question. [end of video clip] you were answering that with regard to your appearance for the house intellence committee. You say you take the fifth when you are in trouble. You do not do anything, so you work going to testify you would take the fifth before the committee with regard to questions about the campaign. Were you concerned, sir, that you had done something with regard to delivering, or agreeing to delivering the president s message, therefore you could get in trouble based on what you agreed to do and attempted to do . Mr. Lewandowski i have no concerns. Is it a fact that contrary to your testimony that you voluntarily appeared in front of the special counsel. When you were called to provide answers to the special counsel, you indicated your tent to assert your rights under the fifth amendment not to self incriminate . Is that true . Mr. Lewandowski not to the best of my recollection. Isnt it true that you refused to testify without receiving immunity . Mr. Lewandowski i do not believe that is accurate. I would happy to answer it if it is in the report. It is your testimony under oath that you never received immunity prior to answering questions of the special counsel . Mr. Lewandowski that is a question for special counsel mueller and i will not be answering mechanics of the investigation. My question is did you refuse to answer the special counsels questions without getting a grant of immunity protecting you from having your words used against you in a criminal prosecution . Mr. Lewandowski i have answered your question. Are you denying that you refuse to answer questions and asserted your rights under the fifth amendment not to self incriminate unless the special counsel gave you immunity . Mr. Lewandowski i have answered your question, sir. Do you agree with your statement that you would assert the fifth amendment if you believed you were in trouble . To quote your words to fox news. Mr. Lewandowski i dont think i was under any obligation when speaking to fox news to not engage in hyperbole if i so chose. I was not under oath at any time during that discussion. I have been very forthright today. Is it still your testimony that you made under oath earlier that you appeared voluntarily before the special counsel and not under a grant of immunity . Mr. Lewandowski to the best in my recollection i appeared in front of the special counsel voluntarily. Did you receive immunity . Mr. Lewandowski as director mueller stated when asked about don jr. s communication to the special counsel, his intent and the fifth amendment right, director mueller said, i am not going to answer that. If you want to direct that to director mueller, you are able to do that. Did you receive immunity . I have asked and answered your question. Have you ever been untruthful about being asked to answer questions of the special counsel . Mr. Lewandowski i have been honest to the best of my ability. Let me show you another clip from march 25, 2018. From meet the press. [video clip] have you met with Robert Mueller . I know you have testified before the senate and house, what about the special counsel . Mr. Lewandowski i have said very candidly i would be happy to speak with the special counsel. I have been very open, i volunteered to testify for 12 hours in front of the house committee, i have testified in front of the senate committee. I will make myself available. Have they asked . Mr. Lewandowski not yet. You have not been subpoenaed . Mr. Lewandowski not yet. [end of video clip] was that truthful what you said on National Television on march 25th, 2018 that the special counsel had not asked to speak to you at that date . Mr. Lewandowski i dont know. You know your interview was on april 6, 2018 . Mr. Lewandowski is that accurate . The day of the interview . If that is what the report says that i will take it to be accurate. You made public statements denying you have been asked to give answers to the special counsel when you had. You were untruthful about that. Isnt that true . Mr. Lewandowski are we talking about a discussion with the media or in front of a committee of jurisdiction where had been sworn to testify . I am talking about your public statements to the American Public. Mr. Lewandowski nobody in front of congress has ever lied to the public. I am sorry. Is that an admission you did lie . Did you lie, sir, in Television Interviews denying that you had been asked to give answers to the special counsel . Mr. Lewandowski i dont believe so. So you deny that you ever lied in public statements . Mr. Lewandowski when under oath i have always told the truth, whether before special counsel, whether before the house Judiciary Committee, the house Intelligence Committee on two separate occasions or before the senate Intelligence Committee. Every time i raise my right hand to god i have sworn and told the truth. My question to you is on National Television did you lie , about your relationship and whether they saw your interview . I dont know. Did you live because you do not want the world to find out you would beid exposed to criminal liability and would only appear as the certain issues with the grant of immunity protecting your words from being used against you in a criminal prosecution . Im going to go back to what director mueller stated. He will not answer that question. I am not going to allow you to use me as a backdoor into his methods. If you want to question director mueller about the investigation techniques, you have had the opportunity to do so, but clearly you did not. Take him back here, bring him before the committee, you can ask those questions. This questions are not for me. Prior to the Mueller Report being published and redacted, did you ever misrepresent what you did on behalf of the president . Mr. Lewandowski i cannot think of an instance when that would have occurred. Let me show you an interview you did on may 14 of 2019. Excuse me. I will show it to you from february 22, 2019. May 14, 2019, thank you. [video clip] i dont ever a member the president ever asking me to get involved with Jeff Sessions or the department of justice. [end of video clip] did you hear that . That was you saying on msnbc, you dont ever remember the president ever asking you to get involved with Jeff Sessions or the department of justice in any way, shape, or form. That was not true, was it . Mr. Lewandowski i heard that. And that was not true. Mr. Lewandowski i have no obligation to be honest to the media. They are just as dishonest as anybody else. So you are admitting you were not being truthful in that clip, correct . Mr. Lewandowski my interview can be interpreted anyway you like. Would you like me to play it again . Mr. Lewandowski you are welcome to, please. I will play it one more time. [video clip] mr. Lewandowski i dont ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with Jeff Sessions or the department of justice in any way shape or form. [end of video clip] so it is true in may of 2019 you absolutely remembered when the president asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general of a speech for him to give related to the special counsel investigation. Isnt that correct . Mr. Lewandowski i have to think about it. Are you claiming, sir, that you had been interviewed by the special counsel about those very events in which you discussed and was accurately reported in the report a year earlier. Are you saying you may have forgotten it by the time you were interviewed before the report was publicly released . Mr. Lewandowski my memory was clearly much fresher when actually gave the interview with the special counsel report. Did you testified before this committee that you said you did not remember the president ever asking you to get involved with Jeff Sessions of the department of justice, you were saying you were being truthful . I dont believe there is any reason to consult with your counsel. The question is, are you a truth teller in that interview. Mr. Lewandowski i am a true teller every time i stand before congress and a committee of jurisdiction and raise my hand and swear to god under oath. Is question mr. Lewandowski i have no obligation to have a kindred to have a candid discussion with the media. You are admitting that you were lying there . Mr. Lewandowski i am saying they have been inaccurate on many occasions and perhaps i was inaccurate that time. I want to remind you you are under oath. The reason why you did not admit that the president had asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general about investigations is because you knew it was wrong, and you are concerned about your own exposure, and you did not have immunity. Isnt that correct . Mr. Lewandowski which interview . The one we just watched where you lied about the president asking you to deliver a message. Mr. Lewandowski i did not know i could get immunity from the media outlet. The datof that interview is february 22, 2019. Just to be clear. Let me ask you a question. Mr. Lewandowski what was the inaccuracy earlier . I missed that. Did you say that because you wanted to protect the president . Mr. Lewandowski not to the best of my recollection. Did you deny it because you wanted to protect yourself . Mr. Lewandowski not to the best of my recollection. Why did you lie on National Television about the president giving you a message to the attorney general about the special counsels investigation . Mr. Lewandowski i dont recall that particular day, so i cannot answer that. Can you offer any explanation for why you would lie on tv other than concern about protecting yourself in the president . Mr. Lewandowski i know the chairman asked witnesses not to guess, so i prefer not to guess. You cannot give me on air give me any other explanation then your concern that you were the president could be criminally exposed based on what you attempted to do on his behalf, is that correct . Can you give me any explanation . Mr. Lewandowski if you would like me to take a guess, which the chairman asked previous witnesses that he did not want guessing, i would be happy to take a guess and say i do not recall that particular interview. I am not sure where i was at the time it transpired. I do not remember that particular day and what was transpiring in my life. I would be happy to take that cap yacht. With that said, i do not recall it. Your previouso response that you said said you are truthful when you take an oath. I would like to put up a slide that you are asked about earlier. This is the statement you made to the special counsel that you said was accurate. That is a direct quote from the report on page 92. It says lewandowski did not did not want to meet at the department of justice because he did not want a public log of his visit. You were asked about that. Do you deny that you told the special counsel you did not want a public log with the attorney general . Mr. Lewandowski i have answered that question, but i dont deny that is an accurate representation of what i have told the special counsel. I there an accurate representation of what you said before, which i did not white follow, you did not want a i had no interest in having dinner with special counsel, no, sir. With the tworninge . Are you clarifying the question . I am. Could you repeat it . The reason you didnt want a public law is you wanted a casual dinner with the attorney general, was that your earlier testimony . That seems to be accurate. Having casual dinner isnt why you wanted a public log with the attorney general, does it . It does. You didnt want a public log because you knew what you were doing is wrong. And as they went to a nongovernment employee, you made sure there wasnt a record of it, isnt that right . Nope. Are you correct a log creates a record of the visit with the attorney general . I would agree, yes. You didnt want a record of your visit and one of the reasons why you didnt go to the department of justice because you did not want a public log of your visit, correct . I never been to the department of justice. I really dont want to find out what happens in the department of justice based on what happened to other people involving the department of justice. My question is you didnt go because you didnt want a public log of your visit. Are you asking me the same question i just answered . Up tip i stipulated to the fact what is in the Mueller Report about a public log is accurate to the best of my recollection. Ill be happy to answer it again but its to the best of my recollection. Thats because you didnt want a Public Record of it, correct . I believe my coat is did not want to meet at the department of justice because he did not want a public log. That is a quote that somebody in the special counsel clearly referenced as something ive said though i dont think i would have spoken about myself in the third party. You also said you didnt want the attorney general to have an advantage over you, is that correct . Thats also a accurate representation in the report but need to know where it is. Page 92, quoted in front of you. I ask you if you didnt think you were doing anything wrong and werent being brought in to pressure the attorney general, why did you not want him to have an advantage over you . Jeff and i were friend and have been friends and seeing him in a social environment where we could sit down and have a meal at my house or his house or a washington d. C. Raunt to have a conversation is something the best for the both of us. You didnt want him to have an advantage over you. Thats because you were trying to assert leverage the president wanted you to give him a message what he should say about the special counsel investigation. No, mr. Burke. Sir, let me show you another statement that you made on a fox news interview on april 19, 2019. I never delivered a conversation or had a meeting with Jeff Sessions. Ive spoken to attorney general sessions on dozens of occasions but never did i ask him to interfere with the Mueller Investigation or never did i ask him to do anything other than what was completely legal which was continue to do his job. That was april 19, the day after the redacted Mueller Report came out april 19. Sir, you said you never delivered a message to jeff session is what you said in there, right . You were asked to deliver that message, isnt that correct, sir . I believe thats accurate. As it is comprised in the report, yes. But the meeting never transpired. You said, sir, you never did anything other than what was completely legal and you said that, sir, because you knew if you delivered that message that told the attorney generalo instruct the special counsel to limit the investigation to exclude the president , that woulnot be legal, isnt that correct, sir . Mr. Burke, i didnt have the privilege of going to harvard law school, im not an attorney. What i know is i didnt think at the time the president asked me to deliver a message that anything was illegal about it. I didnt have the privilege to go to harvard law. If youre telling me in your opinion that would have been illegal, thats your opinion. I never assumed that and never thought about it at the time and havent thought about it now. Sir, you did think about it . What else have i thought about, mr. Birk . Let me ask you this question. What else did i ask if you told me that . Point of order. The witness doesnt get to ask questions, he gets to answer them. Let me ask you, sir, you were asked about why you didnt deliver the message. You said you went on vacation two weeks. Over a month after the president directed you to deliver that message to the attorney general sessions, you didnt deliver it, right . Because you met with the president a month later on july 17, is that correct . I believe thats what the report says. So youve been back from vacation two weeks and went to washington to meet with the president , why didnt you deliver the message the president asked you to deliver it unless you didnt deliver it because you knew it was improper to deliver . Mr. Berke, it wasnt a priority. For who . For me. It was a priority for the president , right . Youll have to ask him that. Didnt he ask you the second meeting in july you deliver the message to the attorney general, didnt he ask you that . I cant disclose any conversations that isnt in the Mueller Report. That is in the Mueller Report . Can you refresh my memory. Do you remember the president asking you that . Can you please ask me the page number so i can revie it. You remember saying if mr. Sessions would not meet with you to deliver that message you should tell him hes fired, correct . If theres a reference to the record id like to refresh my memory. Its been a long day. I appreciate that. How about i reference you to scour testimony, you recall testifying to that . Its been a long day. To the best of my knowledge. I asked you to point to the reference in the Mueller Report. If it wasnt a priority to deliver the message, why did you enlist mr. Dearborn to deliver the message for the president . Again, i cant speak to private conversations i would have had with mr. Dearborn at the ask of counsel. Im not asking you about private conversations. The fact you did it is disclosed. Im asking you why. Why did you do it . Can i answer now . Please. Ive known mr. Dearborn since his tenure as chief sessi. He was my primary point of contact for Jeff Sessions during the Trump Campaign and i also knew mr. Dearborn had continued, like i did, to have a longstanding relationship with jeff and if i wasnt going to be seeing jeff, i figured rick would be able to deliver that message. Sir, did you try to see mr. Sessions and did you call after the president told you to do it and see if he would meet with you this time . Not to the please answer the question. Not to the best of my recollection. Sir, is the reason you personally didnt call him, someone you said you were friendly with is because you knew what the president asked you to do was wrong and you sir didnt want to get in trouble and is why you didnt do it. Ive asked and answered that question. Im not a lawyer but didnt think he was asking me to do something unlawful at the time and dont think thats the case now. Sir, didnt mr. Beer born tell you he had handled the situation and delivered the message . I dont recall that conversation but its possible. Let me show you what mr. Dearborn told special counsel, he said he had told you he had handled the situation but not actually followed through. Do you recall that, sir . I dont know i really that conversation with mr. Earborn. Let me ask you why the president thought you might be prepared to deliver a message that everyone in this administration refused to deliver. Am i correct a few weeks before you met with the president in june of 2017 you had a conversation with the senior staff about joining the administration in a very senior role . Im sorry the question was which time frame . A few weeks before you met with the president the first time in june of 2017 and he asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general. The question is what, sir . You had discussions with the president s senior staff about joining the administration in a senior role. I cant speak to conversations i may not have had with senior members of thed a mine strigs. Because its a sacred privilege you would not disclose private conversations because that would be wrong stwharks your it . No, my testimony is the white house asked not to disclose substance of the conversation with the president or advisors to protect confidentiality. I recognize thats not my privilege but respecting the decision of the white house. Didnt you publish a book you disclosed these conversations you had with senior white house official snps which book you reference, ive written two new york bestsellers in a year. Can you refresh my situation. Im asking about let trump be trump. That was a hell of a book, yes, i wrote that book. Point of reference. I ask the witness answer the question. I did. I wrote trump be trump available at fine book stores is my guess. Let me recall some things you wrote in your book. You met at the white house, right, in late may 2017. Do you recall that . I do recall meeting then with mr. Trump in the oval office in late may of 2017, yes, i do. Heres what you wrote, that was just after his first trip abroad as president , correct . I dont know his travel schedule as well as you do but its possible. Let me tell what you you wrote, multiple times in the trip abroad and the plane ride home the boss talked about us bringing us in to restore order to the west wing. Is that what you wrote, sir . It looks like i wrote it. And you recall, sir, before you met with the president his chief of staff, lance preepous and Senior Advisor steve bannon described the role you were being considered for. I cant discuss conversation with senior staff. I answered that several times. I know you cant discuss it but you write about it. You should buy the book, its very good. Lets look at it. Further plans, you wrote, these were the plans mr. Priebus shared with you, will oversee political operations, president ial appointments and the r. N. C. As well as the campaigns handling of russian meddling in the 2016 and he would be at the same level as djere he ed, a Senior Advisor. They were talking about you playing that role . The book is accurate. If you keep going on, you met with the president and the president said he didnt want to do it rye now, meaning when you met with him because if the place isnt workinger with in the next four or five weeks, im firing everyone, is that correct . I believe the book is accurate. You thought it was an Incredible Opportunity as you wrote like a little kid in Little League getting to play in the world series, correct . Thats what you wrote . Yes, having the privilege to be inside the oval office speaking to the president of the United States after growing up poor in massachusetts and not graduating harvard and graduating Phi Beta Kappa from duke is an amazing opportunity. And you knew for donald trump as president or candidate that as you wrote next, loyalty is the currency of the realm and nothing hurts him deeper than when someone he trusts is disloyal, is that correct . I believe thats in the book. When he asked you a few weeks after this meeting to deliver this message as a nongovernment employee to the attorney general, you knew you were being considered for senior position on the same level as jarrett khner and you also knew how the president values loyalty, isnt that correct . No, sir. You deny those conversations happened you just talked about. No, sir. That was weeks before you met with the president , correct, sir . I met with the president late may as the book detailed accurately. You also read the rest of the paragraph where it said we dont want you to come in because if it didnt work out, im going to fire everybody. He said now but was dangling the position of the most senior level for you, isnt that correct . Thats a question for the president of the United States, sir. He would know he dangled it and therefore you would do his bidding in delivering a secretary message to the attorney general who everyone his government asked wouldnt do it. Isnt that correct . No, sir. Let me ask you about this role you were going to have. Because if we can show you another quote you wrote how this role was described, part reince uties as priebus, cory is going to come in and run the Russian Investigation. Is it true, sir, you were being old you were considered to run the investigation of russias influence of the 2016 president ial Campaign Just weeks before you were asked to tell the attorney general to limit the special counsels investigation to future elections, is that true, sir, you were asked to come in and were being considered to come in and run the Russian Investigation, is that a true fact, sir . Its true thats what mr. Breebous wanted, yes. What did you understand your role would be, the president would bring in his former Campaign Manager until june of 2016 to run the investigation whether russia influenced the 2016 cam page and did something improper with the Trump Campaign. Is that your understanding . Thats a question for what mr. Priebus knowledge is. I want to know when the president asked you to deliver the message to the attorney general to sell the special council not to revisit the campaign, you were under sferings yourself to run the very sexual relation of the 2016 campaign of russian sbrenches you previously had been involved in, isnt that correct . Not to the best of my knowledge, no. Sir, it was not raised with you that you would be considered to run the Russian Investigation . That was mr. Priebus idea, not the president s idea. And mr. Bannon, correct . I dont know he was involved. Its possible. The president prior to you meeting had discussed with you how much he wanted you to do join the Administration Prior to that meeting on his way back, isnt that what you said, sir. No, i didnt speak to him overseas. On the way back he raised that conversation, thats what you wrote. I dont believe i said i spoke to the president while he traveled back overseas. Did he raise the point of administration before that, sir . I spoke to the president and president elect multiple times about opportunities but i cant divulge those conversations, im sorry. You already did in your book, sir and you said those conversations happened and true, correct . I tate that was mr. Priebus idea, not the president s idea. We read in the trip abroad and his plane ride home the boss thought about bringing us in to restore order to the white house, didnt you write that . If thats what the book says, i dont have it in front of me. Yes, it does. Id like to see that to verify the validity of it. Lets put the slide back. No, were not taking the time. We saw the slide earlier. Well continue. You were asked about you knew that the special counsel report found systematic interference by russians in the election, correct . Id like to read i never read the special counsels report. You take it lightly and think its not a special matter what the special counsel did . If youre putting words in my mouth those are inaccurate, never have i stated that. You know youre mentioned in there like 129 times, correct . Is that accurate, 129 times, sir. You know how many times . I dont, do you . Isnt it correct last week you were appearing at an event to autograph copies of the special counsels report and you couldnt sign every page because you were mentioned in it so much. No, its a misrepresentation of what someone else said. Did you sign the special report . I do go where book signings are available but i didnt write the report. Do you make light of special counsels finding of russias role in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election . Im outraged at your characterization of my statements. Never have i said that and never have i called in question the validity of the Mueller Report or alluded to the fact i want to see russia interfere with the elections. Matter of fact, my testimony here today have been completely the opposite. So if you intimate thats what my conversation is about the Mueller Report is grossly out of line. Let me show you something you agreed to sign at an event. If we can go to the next slide, please. Sir, you asked about this is the findings, you dont have any reason to dispute the findings mr. Sessions was recused from the investigation and wasnt allowed to participate, do you . I have no idea what the findings of the report were. Ive not read the report as i testified on dozens of occasions here today. Let me go to the next slide. You see where it says you were asked about it, the special counsel concluded that taken together the president has campaigned the purpose of the message was to have you tell the attorney general to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections, do you have any basis to dispute that conclusion by the special counsel in his report, sir, about your conduct . Again, i answered this question. Asked and answered. I would ask you to answer it, sir . The gentleman will answer the question whether he answered it before or not. Ive stated to the best of my knowledge most of the information in the Mueller Report is accurate. The gentlemans time has expired. Without objection, the minority will designate a staff member to conduct its questioning during the allotted time for staff. Thats me. In your adjoining wild information, im staff. You are not staff. But the own definition, intern, im staff. You are not staff, youre a member and just as were not permitting any member of the majority to go over the five minute rule. Im not going to interrupt. Im not going to permit a halfhour now for minority members to go beyond what they have beyond the rule. If you have a staff member youll designate him or her. Thats what the rules call for. And if not, well adjourn. I wish you had designated a staff member, that would have been nice. Mr. Chairman with everything rolling and you rolling, youre going to deny a member of congress, the Ranking Member of this committee this time. And i know you have willing accomplices of the majority, thats fine because you have the most votes, you can do it. Are we really coming to this point, mr. Chairman . 30 minutes. The gentleman will suspend. The rules of the committee provide for members of the house or members of the committee, i should say, for members of the committee to question witnesses under the fiveminute rule. Weve done that. The rules of the committee as amended by the procedures adopted last week permit the majority and the minority each to designate a staff member to examine the witness for 30 minutes. If you wish to designate a staff member, you may do so. A member of the house is not a staff member. Give me just a moment. Im thinking about my designation. You possibly hopefully will give me a moment. The house will stand in recess one minute while the gentleman considers his appointment. Mr. Chairman, i did not ask for recess. You wanted a minute. No, i did not. I said im thinking about it as i talk to you because your definition of staff, anybody walking along this according to his statement, i can make a guy walk across an intern in my staff. You said intern, theyre not paid. Take a picture. This is amazing. Ill take my minute and may take three minutes to figure his out. Just so everybody is clear, were in a oneminute recess. Mr. Chairman, while in that recess, i wonder if youll indulge a question out of curiosity. The committee will reconvene, without objection, the minority will designate the staff member to conduct his questioning during the allotted time for staff. Youre not a staff member. Ftereliberation and looking at this, i cannot go along with the chairmans sham and majority sham in this hearing in designating a staff member. We said all along this is not an impeachment inquirey and shouldnt have happened to start with. I refuse to go along with the chairmans full impeachment process so were keep going. So were not going to designate, well continue to litigate this on other fronts. But this is a shame of the committee today. Very well. Parliamentary inquiry. This completes the questioning of the questioning today. We thank our witness for participating. Mr. Chairman . Can you hear me . Can you hear me now . I recognize you for point of inquiry. I just want to be sure i under the rules correctly. Parliamentary inquiry. For what purpose does the gentleman seek . The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry correctly. Talk into the mike. Five minutes. As duly elected members of this committee and as elected members of the house of representatives, each of us is limited to five minutes. Thats correct. An unelected consultant is allotted 30 minutes in open hearing, is this correct . Thats what the rules the rules of the committee as amended by the Committee Vote last week provide that members of the house of the committee, that is, have five minutes apiece to question witnesses. So members of theous the rules as amended last week also provide half an hour per witness for staff questioning of the witness 30 minutes for the majority and 30 minutes for the minority staff. Those are the rules of the committee. So members of the house are now subordinate to hire consultants, thank you. Its not a parliamentary inquiry. It completes the questioning of mr. Lewandowski for today and thank our witness for participating. Light of his repeated assertions of privilege ill take those matters under advisement and well recess the hearing opportunity to subject to the call of the chair to a later date. 9 house stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. Mr. Chairman, well be submitting a letter to the chair with a couple areas of clarification once the hearing is done. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] heres a look at our live coverage wednesday. On cspan, the house meets at 10 00 a. M. Eastern for general speeches with legislative business at noon. Members will work on legislation that prohibits the enforcement of classes and contracts that require employment consumer antitrust or civil rights disputes to be resolved through arbitration. On cspan 2, the senate is considering executive nominations for the state department and treasury. On cspan 3 at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, theres a hearing on the Mental Health needs of Migrant Children in u. S. Custody. After that, the House Gun Violence Prevention Task force holds a discussion on capitol hill with gun control advocates to highlight the impact of gun violence on children. Thats followed by a News Conference with Tea Party Members discussing gun patrol and Second Amendment rights. s oming up in an hour, s p randall Discusses Oil production facilities and ways to protect the global oil supply. At 8 30 california representative and Gun Violence Prevention Task force chair Mike Thompson talks about congressional efforts to

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.