for people to understand than obstruction of justice. they are trying to see what will work best as they have this critical phase in the next couple of weeks and months to decide whether to move forward with full impeachment hearings, which most democrats think the deadline for that is the end of the year. ferris covers congress for politico. trump's former campaign manager corey lewandowski went before the house judiciary committee to muelleruestions about report. fromincludes questions attorneys hired by the committee democrats. hearing and those

seriously have outlined evidence of obstruction of justice. the president did not just attempt to obstruct the special counsel's 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 mueller's 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 doesn't 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 won't 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 counsel's 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. that's pretty bad but it gets worse. according to the special counsel's 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. it's 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 cover-up 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 majority's use of private sector consultants to question witnesses is an egregious violation of house rose under any circumstance. under the circumstances of the current so-called 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 committee's budget, the work at the chairman's 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 clinton's 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, let's 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 doesn't 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: i'm 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 deming's 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 no's. 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 state's 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 today's 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. mcursel-powell 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, vis-a-vis, 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 committee's rules. if this counsel does not like it you don't 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 harm's 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 didn't do anything and the campaign didn't 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. >> isn't 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 counsel's 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 don't 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 had 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 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. i have asked and answered your question. >> have you ever been untruthful about being asked to answer questions of the special counselor? 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] >> 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 and i have testified in front of the city just in front of the senate committee. i was there at the beginning of the campaign. >> have they asked? mr. lewandowski: not yet.

>> they have not subpoenaed? mr. lewandowski: not yet. [end of video clip] >> was that truthful what you said on march 25th, 2018 that the special counsel had not asked to speak to you at that date? mr. lewandowski: i don't 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 had been asked to give answers to the special counsel when you had. you were untruthful about that. isn't that true? mr. lewandowski: are we talking about this discussion with the media? or being 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. >> did you lie, sir, in television interviews denying that you had been asked to give answers to the special counsel? mr. lewandowski: i don't 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 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 sought your interview? >> i don't know. >> did you live because you do not want the world to find out you would be exposed 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? mr. lewandowski: 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 them back here, those 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 don't ever a member the president ever asking me to get involved with jeff sessions or the department of justice. [end of video clip] >> that was you saying on msnbc, you don't 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 with the media. they are just as dishonest as anyone 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 too, please. >> i will play it one more time. [video clip] mr. lewandowski: i don't 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. isn't 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 that you discussed and you said was accurately reported in the report one 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 much fresher when i did 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 don't believe there is any reason to consult with your counsel. the question is, are you a truth teller? mr. lewandowski: i am a truth teller every time i stand before congress and a committee of jurisdiction and raise my hand and swear to god under oath. >> when you said the president told you to never get involved -- mr. lewandowski: i have no obligation to 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. >> 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. isn't 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 date of that interview is february 22, 2019. let me ask you a question. mr. lewandowski: what was the inaccuracy earlier? >> 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 counsel to investigation? mr. lewandowski: i don't recall that particular day, so i cannot answer that. >> can you offer any explanation for why you would buy 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. >> so you cannot give me any explanation except you are concerned that you or the president could be criminally exposed based on what you attempted to do on his behalf, is that correct? mr. lewandowski: if you would like me to take a desk, 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 do not recall. >> a few minutes ago you said you are truthful when you take

an oath. as you did earlier today about this committee. 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 want to meet at the department of justice because he did not want a public log of his visit. 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 don't deny that is an accurate representation. >> i did not quite follow, you did not want a public log of your visit because you wanted to

have a casual dinner with the special counsel. that is why you didn't want a record of your visit. is that your testimony today? mr. lewandowski: no sir. are you clarifying the question? >> you agree that the law creates a record of you with the attorney general? do you agree you admitted you did not want a record of your visit and that is one of the reasons why you did not go to the department of justice, because you did not want a public log of your visit? mr. lewandowski: i have never been to the department of justice and i don't want to find out what happens at the department of justice based on what has happened to other people. >> you said you did not go because you do not want a public log of your visit. mr. lewandowski: are you asking me to same question i just answered? stipulated to the fact that what is in them all a report about a public log is accurate to the best of my recollection. >> that is because you do not want a public record, correct?

mr. lewandowski: i believe i have said my quote is, i 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 is something i said. i do not think i would have spoken about myself in the third party. >> you also said you did not want the attorney general to have an advantage over you. is that correct? mr. lewandowski: i think that is also an accurate representation, but i would have to be made aware of where that is. >> on page 92 it is quoted right in front of you. i ask you again, if you do not think you were doing anything

and were being brought into pressure and bully the attorney general, why did you not want him to have an advantage over you? >> we are friends and have been friends. seeing him in a social environment where we can down and have a meal at his house, my house or a restaurant to have a conversation, was something i thought was better for the both of us. >> that has nothing to do with the question. you were trying to assert leverage as the president wanted you to give him message about what he should say about the special counsel's investigation. let me show you fox interview you did in april of 2019. [video clip] mr. lewandowski: i never delivered any document to jeff sessions. i never had any conversation with attorney general sessions. i have spoken with him on dozens of occasions but never did i ask

him to interfere with the mueller investigation are ask them to do anything other than what was completely legal. which was to continue to do his job. >> you said you never delivered a message to jeff sessions. that's what you said in there, you were asked to deliver that message. isn't that correct? mr. lewandowski: i believe it is accurate as comprised in the report, but the meeting never transpired. >> you knew if you delivered that message that told the attorney general to limit the investigation to exclude the president, that would not be legal.

mr. lewandowski: i did not have the privilege to go to harvard law school, i am not an attorney. i do not have the privilege of going to harvard law school. i never assumed that and never thought about at the time and have not thought about it now. what else have i thought about, mr. burke? what else have i thought about? >> point of order, mr. chairman. the witness does not get to ask questions, he gets to answer. >> let me ask you, sir. you were asked about why you did not deliver the message. over a month after the president asked you to deliver the message, you did not deliver it because he met with the president a month later on july 17. mr. lewandowski: i believe that is what the report says. >> you even went to washington to meet with the president. why did you not deliver the

message that the president asked you to deliver unless you did not deliver it because you knew it was improper to deliver? mr. lewandowski: it was not a priority. >> for who? mr. lewandowski: for me. >> it was a priority for the president, isn't that right? didn't the president tell you it was a priority? did he ask you at your second meeting, did you deliver the message yet to the attorney general? mr. lewandowski: i cannot disclose any discussion that is not in the mueller report. webpages that on? >> do you remember the president asking you that? did the president ask you -- do you remember testifying you said the president said of mr. sessions will not meet with you, deliver the message and you should tell him he is fired. do you recall testifying to that? mr. lewandowski: if there is a reference to the mueller report, i ask you to point it to me.

>> if it wasn't a priority, why did you enlist mr. dearborn to deliver the message. mr. lewandowski: i cannot speak to private conversation i would have had with mr. dearborn. >> the fact that you did it is already disclosed. why? why did you do it? mr. lewandowski: can i answer now? >> please. mr. lewandowski: i have known mr. dearborn as a chief of staff was my primary point of contact during the trunk campaign. -- trump campaign. i also knew that mr. dearborn had continued, like i did to have a long-standing relationship with jeff. if i was not going to be seeing jeff, i figured rick would be able to deliver that message. >> did you try to see mr. sessions again? did you call him to see if he would meet with you?

you knew what the president said was wrong and you did not want to get in trouble, that's why you did not do it. mr. lewandowski: i have asked an answer that question, i am not a lawyer. he was asking me to do something unlawful at the time and that's the case. >> didn't mr. dearborn tell you he delivered the message? mr. lewandowski: i don't recall that conversation. >> mr. dearborn told you he had handled the situation but had not followed through. do you recall that, sir? mr. lewandowski: i don't know if i recall that. >> let me ask you why the president thought you might be prepared to deliver a message that everyone in the administration he has has to deliver. in my correct that in a few weeks when he met with the president in june, 2017, you had a conversation with the senior staff about joining the administration in a very senior role.

mr. lewandowski: the question is what? >> you had discussions with the senior staff about joining the administration in a senior role. mr. lewandowski: i cannot speak to conversations i may or may not have had with senior staff members of the administration to preserve the privilege they have invoked. >> if it is such a sacred privilege you would not disclose private communications because that would be wrong? is that what you are saying? mr. lewandowski: no, i cannot disclose anything i have had with the president to protect confidentiality. that is not my privilege, but i'm respecting the decision of the white house. >> didn't you publish a book in which you disclose these very conversations you had with senior white house officials.

mr. lewandowski: which book, i have written two new york times bestsellers in the course of a year. >> i am asking about the bestseller, "let trump be trump." >> point of order, mr. chairman. i request that they order the witness to answer the question. mr. lewandowski: i said it's available to bookstores. >> let me show you some things you wrote in your book. you met at the white house in late may of 2017. i do recall meeting with mr. trump in the oval office in late may of 2017. >> here is what you wrote. that was after his first trip abroad as president. mr. lewandowski: i don't know his travel schedule as well as you do, but it's possible.

>> multiple times during his trip abroad, the boss talked about bringing us in to restore order to the west wing. is that what you wrote? you recall that before you met with the president, his chief of staff and senior advisor describe what kind of role you were being considered for. do you remember that? mr. lewandowski: i cannot discuss private conversation with the senior staff. >> i know you cannot discuss it, but you can write about it. mr. lewandowski: you should buy the book, it's very good. >> corey lewandowski, this is the plans they shared with you. oversee political operations, presidential appointments in the rnc as well as handling of russian meddling in the 2016 election. he would be on the same level as advisor.senior is it true what they said about

you joining the position and playing that role? mr. lewandowski: the book is accurate. >> if we could go it you met with the president and the president said you do not want to do it right now, because of the place is not working in the next 45 weeks, i am firing them. is that correct? mr. lewandowski: i believe the book is accurate. >> you thought this was an incredible opportunity, as he wrote to play in the world series? like a kid in little league. mr. lewandowski: having the privilege to speak to the president of the united states and not attending harvard and graduating from do, yes a pretty amazing opportunity. >> you knew for donald trump as president, you wrote, loyalty is the currency of the realm, and nothing hurts and deeper than when someone he trusts is disloyal. >> i believe that is 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 that you were being considered for senior

position on the same level as jared kushner. you also knew how the president of values loyalty. that was weeks before you met with the president. mr. lewandowski: you also read the rest of the paragraph which said we don't want you to commit at the time because if it does not work out i will fire everybody. >> he said now that he is dangling the position of the most senior level for you, isn't that correct? he knew everyone in his government who he asked to deliver would not do it, isn't that correct?

mr. lewandowski: no sir. >> let me ask you about the role you would have. if we could show you another quote you wrote about how this role was described, part of your duties, if we could go to the next slide. reince priebus said corey will come in and run the russia investigation. is it true that you were being told you were considered to come in to run the investigation of russia's influence of the 2016 presidential campaign just weeks before you were asked to tell the attorney general to limit the special counsel's investigation to future elections. is it true you are being told to come in and run the rush investigation? mr. lewandowski: that is true, that is what mr. priebus wanted.

>> what did you understand your role would be? that the president wanted to bring in his former campaign manager to run the investigation of whether russia influence the 2016 campaign, and did something improper with the trump campaign. you were brought in to run the very investigation of the 2016 campaign and russian interference that you had previously been involved in. isn't that correct, sir? mr. lewandowski: not to the best of my knowledge. >> it was not raised with you that you would be considered to run the russia investigation? mr. lewandowski: that was mr. priebus idea. >> and mr. bannon? mr. lewandowski: i don't know of mr. bannon was involved. >> and the president discussed with you how much you want you to join the administration prior to that meeting as he was on his trip. isn't that what you said? mr. lewandowski: i did not speak to him while he was overseas.

>> that is what you wrote, on his way back. mr. lewandowski: i don't believe i said i spoke to the president while he traveled back from overseas. >> did he raise with you joining the administration before that? mr. lewandowski: i have spoken to the president and president-elect multiple times about opportunities, but i cannot that cultural's conversations. >> you already did in your book, he said those conversations happened and were true. mr. lewandowski: i said that was mr. priebus is idea. >> you also wrote that multiple times during his trips abroad and during his plane rides home, he talked about bringing in to restore order to the white house. mr. lewandowski: if that is what the book says. i don't have it in front of me. i would like to see that so i can verify the validity of it. >> let's put the slide back up. we will not take the time. we saw the slight earlier. let me ask you a question, and you knew that the special counsel report found systematic

interference by russians in the election, correct? mr. lewandowski: i would like to restate i never read the special counsel's report. >> do you take the report lightly? do you think it is not a serious matter what the special counsel did? mr. lewandowski: you are putting words in my mouth. never have i staeted that. >> you know you were mentioned in their 129 times, correct? mr. lewandowski: is that accurate? >> do you know? mr. lewandowski: i do not know, do you? >> when you appeared at an event to autograph copies of the special counsel report and you said you cannot sign every page because you were mentioned in it so much? mr. lewandowski: i th ink that misrepresentation. >> did you go to an event where you signed copies of the special counsel report? mr. lewandowski: i did, but i never read the report. >> do you make light of the special counsel's finding of russia's role in trying to interfere with the 2016 election? mr. lewandowski: i am outraged at your characterizations of my statements. never have i said that, never have a called into the question

the mueller report, or alluded the fact that i wanted to see the russians interfere. my testimony has been the opposite of that. for you to say that is what my statement is about is grossly out of line. >> let me show you something in the mullah report you agree to sign at an event. if we could go to the next slide, please. you don't have any reason to refute the findings? mr. lewandowski: i have not read the report. >> let me go to the next slide. the special counsel concluded that taken together, the president campaigned in the purpose of the message was to tell the attorney general to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections. you have every basis to dispute that about your conduct?

mr. lewandowski: i have answered the question. chairman nadler: gentlemen will answer the question. mr. lewandowski: i have stated to the best of my knowledge most of the information in the mueller report is accurate. chairman nadler: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the minority will designate a staff member to conduct its question during the allotted time for staff. >> i am staff. chairman nadler: you are not staff. >> yes i am. chairman nadler: you are not staff. >> interns, i am staff. chairman nadler: you are not staff, you are a member. justice, we are not permitting any memory of the majority to go beyond the five minute rule.

i will not permit half an hour now for a minority members under the five minute rule. if you have a staff member, you will designate him or her, that is what the rules call for. and if not, we will adjourn. >> mr. chairman, with everything rolling, you are going to deny a member of congress, the ranking member of this committee, this time. i know you have willing accomplices in the majority, that's fine, because you have the most votes. are we really coming to this point, mr. chairman? 30 minutes. chairman nadler: the rules of the committee provide for members of the house, or members of the committee to question witnesses under the five-minute rule. we have done that. the rule is committed by the procedures adopted last week. the majority and the minority each 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 a moment, i am thinking about my designation. but you will hopefully give me a moment. chairman nadler: the house will stand in recess for one minute as the gentleman considers his appointments. >> i did not ask for the recess. chairman nadler: you wanted a minute. >> i set i am thinking about it as i talk to you. i can make a guy walk across my intern and they are staff. you said intern, they are not paid. this is amazing. i will take my minute and i may take three minutes.

chairman nadler: just so everybody is clear, we are in a one minute recess. >> mr. chairman i wonder if you could indulge a question out of curiosity.

[indiscernible]

chairman nadler: committee will reconvene. the staff member will allow for the allotted time for staff. >> after deliberation and looking at this, i cannot go along with the chairman's sham and the majority's sham. this is not an impeachment inquiry, this is not something that should have happened. i refuse to go along with the chairman's full impeachment

process. so we are not going to designate. we will continue to litigate this. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? chairman nadler: we thank our witness for participating. >> mr. chairman? can you hear me? can you hear me now? i just want to be sure i understand the rules for inquiry? parliamentary inquiry. chairman nadler: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. talk into the microphone. say again? >> as duly elected members of this committee, and as elected members of house of representatives, each of us is limited to five minutes.

an unelected consultant is allotted 30 minutes an open hearing, is this correct? chairman nadler: rules of the committee provide that members of the committee have five minutes for the question. it also provides half an hour per witness and 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 hired consults? chairman nadler: that is not a parliamentary inquiry. this completes the questioning of mr. lewandowski for today. i will take the matters under advisement and we will recess the hearing subject to the call of the chair until a later date. we now stand in recess.

>> mr. chairman, we will be submitting a letter to the chair with a couple of areas of clarification when the hearing is done. [indiscernible]

>> to get on the entire hearing online. here is a look at our live coverage monday. , president trump's remarks at a religious freedom event at the u.n. , a discussion on first amendment rights when it comes to social media. public health officials from major cities discuss how they address the ongoing measles outbreak. and the u.s. senate gavels in at 3:00 p.m. next, a portion of the

hearing on the recent hong kong the future of relations between the u.s. and hong kong. the commission on china heard from scholars and activists from the region. you can watch the entire hearing on our website. . we must be thinking about how do we and i use for lack of a better word engage ith