>> i thought it was a very, very sad letter. he was supposed to basically what he had done, reverend, is that he had botched our efforts to get information from a witness, ms. lerner, who had taken the fifth. and that letter was supposed to be a response to my allegations -- not my allegations, but the allegations of two experts who said that he had wrongfully adjourned -- when he adjourned the meeting as he did, he failed to do certain things with regard to ms. lerner's rights. so he was really supposed to be answering my contentions, but instead he went off on some tangent that is just made no sense to me. >> now, when the house democrats stood yesterday on the floor and