to drop it. it is not worth it. >> i understand that. but is it your testimony that based on the text that you wrote linking the investigations and the 2016 election on july 25th to the white house meeting, you're saying that by this point in august with this back and forth that you were unaware this public statement was a condition for the white house meeting? >> i wouldn't have called it a condition. it's a nuance i guess. but i viewed it as very helpful if we could get this done and it would help improve the perception that president trump and others had and then we would get the date for a meeting. if we didn't have a statement, i wasn't giving up and thinking that oh, well then we'll never get a meeting. >> let's go to the next day where there is another text exchange. and at the top you could read the first text there. >> yes. it says hi, andre. good talking. following the text with insert at the end for the two key items we'll work on official request. >> and then you'll see the highlighted portion of the next