From the American People. Is robthose witnesses porter, former white house staff secretary served by a subpoena from the secretary august 26. Rob porter was prominently featured in Robert Muellers report with a detailed description of efforts to obstruct justice. The report describes the president directing them White House Counsel Don Mcgahn to fire the special counsel and then ordering him to lie about it. The committee has many questions but the president is not wants asking those questions. The president directed mr. Porter not to they saw bogus claim of immunity. Mr. Dearborn is not here today either for the same reason. Sphere of what we and the American People could learn from their testimony. Their absence will not stop the oversight. On january 25, 2018, the New York Times reported the president had ordered mcgahn to have the department of justice fire the special counsel. The president went on tv and denied the story. The president pressured mcgahn to put out a statement denying fire theen asked to special counsel but mcgahn refused and to the attorney told the president s attorney at the times story was accurate in reporting that the president wanted the special counsel removed. Did not draft the issue. The president told porter the article was bullshit. Leakedsident said mcgahn to the media to make himself look good. We know what the president told porter was not true of the report proves the president did ask mcgahn fire the special counsel over and over again p or mcgahn refused. That is pretty bad but it gets worse. According to the report, the president then directed porter to tell mcgahn to create a record to make clear the president never again to rest to fire the special counsel. The president asked porter to tell mcgahn to create a false record to hide the president s conduct. Desperateent was so to hide his misconduct that he even told porter to threaten mcgahn if he did not create the written denial. The president said, if you doesnt write a letter, then maybe i will have to get rid of him. Porter delivered that threat but mcgahn stood firm. This should ring a bell. It is like the threat the president asked you. Now the president is attempting to bully witnesses and directed questions. Answer our we will not let this coverup stand. That is why we are pursuing this impeachment investigation. Obstruction of congress, ignoring congressional subpoenas, is a serious offense. Next and learned this, the third article of impeachment against nixon explained that he was violating his constitutional duty by blocking evidence under duly authorized 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. Chairman nadler thank you. Mr. Lindo ski, your behavior in this hearing has been completely unacceptable. That is part of a pattern by the white house desperate for the American People not to hear the truth. I have been asked several times whether the committee will hold you in contempt. That is certainly under consideration. But there is a more troubling level of contempt in display here today, and that is President Trumps role in your refusal to answer the questions. You have shown the American Public in real time that the Trump Administration will 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. Well 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. One parliamentary inquiry . Chairman nadler the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Did you have that speech prepared before this hearing went downhill . Chairman nadler that is not a parliamentary inquiry, and the answer is no. [laughter] chairman nadler pursuant to the resolution to investigate of investigative procedures, and pursuant to notice, we will now proceed to staff questioning. The majority has designated barry burke to conduct his questioning. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Chairman nadler gentlemen will state his point of order. It is limited to one hour of questioning by this committee. You are talking too fast. I cannot understand you. This gentleman is a private consultant. His contract explicitly states he is not an envoy of this committee. Not a Government Employee the congressional handbook says contractors contractor to work for Standing Committees are exquisitely not employees of the committee. Any attempts to suggest that someone can simultaneously be on employee of the committee and not be an employee of the committee or Committee Staff defies logic. The majority use of private sector consultants to question the witness represent a violation of the rules. It would constitute an unprecedented privatization of impeachment. I have the Employment Contract year of the gentleman, of barry burke, and i also have the letter i have the staff rolls, in which he is not listed as a consultant. Point of order, he should not be allowed to question this witness. I believe last week, if your staff has questions, i will withdraw the point of order. But neither of them is a lot to ask questions under this rule. Ms. Lofgrens committee is here, and we have Committee Staff. Chairman nadler i am prepared to rule on the point of order. For the purposes of stiff questioning under the resolution adopted the committee on september 12, 2019, 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 go responsibilities as any house employee. Second come at retention of consultants is consistent with drier practice. Commitment with prior practice. They have assisted with significant investigations, including impeachment investigations, for example, david shippers, the consultant to the majority, and add below all to the minority, during the clinton impeachment investigations. Commitment consultants have questioned witness before. The republican majority of this committee hired consultants to assist with their investigation into former secretary of state clintons emails, and irregularly asked questions during transcribed interviews and other matters connected to that investigation. They are here exquisitely to assist the committee on oversight with investigative functions, which is the purpose of this hearing. Accordingly, i overrule the point of order. Let us continue this for a second0. 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 though have already discussed. Undoubtedly, you had a big misunderstanding of just a few minutes ago. We are not in an impeachment inquiry. 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. 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 stuff 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. It puts us in jeopardy because if it is win at all costs, mr. Chairman, then we have got 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 the sultans in their Employment Contracts . Chairman nadler it is not a point of order. Mr. Chairman, let me ask about this. Did the role change last week that the rule change last week, one week ago that you voted on and we voted against, didnt mention the word consultants in the rule . Changes adopted by the committee . Chairman, regular order. Chairman nadler i cannot hear what mr. Jordan is saying because his counsel is talking to you. Rep. Jordan the resolution adopted last week, with the word consultant mentioned when it came to the ability after after ask questions . Chairman nadler it was not. Rep. Jordan so you changed the rules last week and this week, he will not follow the rules you changed . Chairman nadler i am going to rule on the point of order. It is not in order to have debate on a point of order. The gentleman made his 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 look on it. May find the point of personal. Privilege since my name has been invoked, the committee has not been solicited for his information. I did not ask the staff director. Because i yield back. 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. So we will not debate whether it is. Chairman nadler it is not. Is it an investigation or an impeachment inquiry . Which is might. Chairman nadler that is not relevant. This 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 rolled on it, you wish to appeal the ruling, yes or no . Yes. I moved to table the appeal. Chairman nadler this ruling of the chair is appealed. It is a sad day for this committee. Chairman nadler . Chairman nadler the gentlelady moves to table the appeal. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] 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. Swallwell. Mr. Votes ayelieu. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Miss jayapal votes aye. Miss demings votes aye. Mr. Corea votes aye. Miss scanlan votes aye. Miss garcia votes aye. Mr. Neguse votes aye. Ms. Mcbath. Mr. Stanton aye. Misdeed votes aye. Miss parcel powell votes aye. Miss escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chavis. Mr. Gomert. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Radcliffe. Miss robie. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Ms. Lesko. Mr. Rehsenthaler. Mr. Votes noklein. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steubie. [indiscernible] mr. Cohen votes aye. Chairman nadler has everyone voted who wishes to vote . Ok. 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 . Chairman nadler the gentleman will states parliamentary inquiry. You mentioned earlier that there were consultants used to question witnesses. So i will just ask as 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 . Esther jordan . Rep. Jordan was todays witness, when he was subpoenaed, was he notified. Chairman nadler that is not a parliamentary inquiry either. It is a procedural, unimportant procedural question. Mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler mr. Burke is recognized for 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, i move to adjourn. Motion to adjourn is not debatable. Chairman nadler the clark will call the role. Will call the roll. Clerk mr. Nadler . Chairman nadler no. Clerk mr. Lofgren votes no. Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Votes no. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Wallwell. Mr. Lieu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Miss deming votes no. Mr. Corea votes no. Miss scanlan votes no. Miss garcia votes no. Mr. Neguse votes no. Missmcbath votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Mcurselpowell votes no. Miss escobar votes no. Mr. Collins [indiscernible] motion to adjourn. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chavis. Mr. Gomert. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Buck. Mr. Radcliffe. Ms. Robie. Mr. Gates. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes yes. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Ms. Lesko. Mr. Rpsenthaler. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steubie. Mr. Gates, you are not recorded. Mr. Gates votes aye. Clerk mr. Chairman, there are eight ayes and 20 nos. Point of parliamentary inquiry. Chairman nadler who has a point of parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will state his point of for the mentor inquiry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Migrate relates to the rule we change last week where we mentioned staff conducting questioning it has been expanded to include consultants today. We contemplated the distinction between independent contractors such as a consultant. Chairman nadler sorry, disney quantum did we contemplate what . Independent contractors, visavis, employees and staff being a part of the distinction. When the rule was change last week. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the advice i received from the top staffers and the house of the of mr. Zhang committee is that staff can be comprised of house of the Administrative Committee is that staff can be comprised of contractors. Staff and employee are not equivalent terms. I yield back. Point of order, mr. Chairman. The advice i have received from the top staffers in the house Administration Committee is that staff can be comprised of employees, interns, detail ease, fellows, contractors, etc. I was under the impression that is not pertinent to this proceeding. I am happy to go through it, but this was signed off by the committee itself that met all of our requirements. The time is mr. Burks. 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, the seem to be unauthorized questions. I believe it to mr. Lewandowski to decide. It is my view that he should not answer. We are not interested in your views. We have a hearing to conduct. 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 this counsel does not like it you dont interpret our rules. These are unauthorized questions. 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 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 Intelligence Committee. You take the fifth when you are in trouble. You did not do anything, you said he would testify. It was the fifth before that committee with regards 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 you a. In front of the special counsel when you were called to provide answers to the special counsel, you asserted your right 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 refuse 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 questio