Seriously have outlined 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 York Times reported, the president had ordered don 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 counsel, but mcgahn refused. 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. The president said that mcgahn leaked to the media to make himself look good. We know from the special counsels report that what the president told porter was not true. The report proves that the president did ask mcgahn to fire the special counsel over and over again and mcgahn refused. Thats pretty bad but it gets worse. According to the special counsels report, the president then directed porter to tell mcgahn 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 mcgahn if 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, but mcgahn stood firm and refused to assist the president s misconduct. This should ring a bell. Its like that threat the president asked you, mr. Lewandowski, to deliver to Jeff Sessions. Now the president is attempting to bully his witnesses and directed you, 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. It is part of a pattern by the 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. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, did you have that little speech prepared before the hearing went downhill. It is not a parliamentary inquiry and the answer is no. 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. This gentleman is a private consultant was very consultant contract explicitly states he is not an 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 circumstance. 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. He is a private consultant. He should not be able to allow staff questioning of this witness. If your staff has questions, i 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. Nadler staff questioning rule on theared to 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 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 legal 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 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 asked 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. Mr. Chairman, lets continue this for a second because this is an important point. To the point of order. Mr. Chairman, 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. You may want it to be, 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 chairwoman 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 already had today 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 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, why 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 changes that were adopted by the committee . Regular order. Jordan isear what mr. Saying because mr. Collins is talking. Consultant and their relative to the ability of staff to ask a question . You changed the rules last weekend this week, you are not going to change not going to follow the rules you changed. Rulenadler im going to to the point of order. Gentleman made his point of order. They are not a member of the committee. I am prepared to rule on it. Have ascertained that the staff member has not been solicited for its information. Did not ask your staff director, i asked ours. I yield back. Stated alreadys by you. Rep. Nadler 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. On the question of approving the moving of tabling. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Miss jackson lee votes aye. Mr. Cohen mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swallwell. 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 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. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Ms. Lesko. Mr. Rehsenthaler. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steubie. 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 has designated 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 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 where a consultant 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. 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 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. Liu 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. Miss mcbath 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. 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. Thank you, mr. Chairman. It 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, did we contemplate what . Independent contractors, visavis, employees and staff being a part of the distinction. When the rule was changed last week. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the advice i received from the top staffers and the house of the house Administration 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. My question is they will not approve a contract. Are the regular duties of Committee Staff . That is not pertinent to this proceeding. This was signed off by the committee itself. 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 will leave 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. With all due respect. 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 didnt do anything and the campaign didnt 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 Intelligence Committee. You take the fifth when you are in trouble. You did not do anything, you said you 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 voluntarily appeared 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 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 troub