Corey Lewandowski testifies at impeachment hearing before Congress

[0:00] Did you ever? Okay. You did not hold any position in the government whatsoever, did you? [0:05] Correct. [0:06] Now, sitting behind you are counsel for the White House, correct? [0:10] That's my understanding. [0:11] You understand those lawyers actually work for the president at the White House? [0:15] I believe that's accurate. [0:17] Nevertheless, the president's lawyers have told you not to answer any question by this committee [0:20] other than what has already been disclosed in the special counsel's report. Is that correct? [0:27] Congressman, I'd have to read from the letter that the White House provided the committee, [0:29] if that would help clarify. Would you like me to do that, Congressman? [0:33] No, I'd like you to answer the question. [0:35] Have you been directed? [0:36] Congressman, I've never spoken to any members of the White House counsel's office other than saying [0:40] hello about 15 seconds ago. [0:42] But you were directed by letter. [0:44] Congressman, I was provided a letter that I believe this committee was assigned. [0:47] It says, as explained below, Mr. Lewandowski's conversation with the president and with senior [0:52] advisors to the president are protected from disclosure by long-standing, long-settled principles [0:58] protecting executive branch confidentiality interests, and as a result, the White House is directing [1:03] Mr. Lewandowski not to provide information about such communications beyond the information [1:08] provided in the portion of the report. [1:09] Well, take that as a yes. And the basis for their direction is a claim of executive privilege. [1:15] Is that correct? [1:17] I can read it again, Congressman. [1:18] The answer is you're not answering the question. We've already established that you were never [1:22] employed by the White House or the executive branch. That is correct. [1:25] I have never been employed by the executive branch. [1:27] Sir, did you ask the White House counsels to be here? [1:30] Congressman, as I just reiterated, I've never spoken to anyone in the White House counsel's [1:33] office. [1:34] The answer is no. Was it your idea for you not to answer questions based on a claim of executive [1:38] privilege? [1:40] I can reiterate I didn't ask. I've never had a conversation with someone from the White House [1:43] counsel's office regarding this matter. [1:45] So it was your idea not to answer? [1:47] I have never had a conversation with someone from the White House counsel's office regarding [1:49] this matter. [1:49] Was it your idea not to answer these questions on the basis of executive privilege? Yes or no? [1:53] Congressman, I can only go by the letter that was provided. It was not my idea to provide [1:56] this letter. [1:57] Not your idea. Did you ever suggest to the president or anyone else that you thought [2:01] your communications with him were official White House communications? [2:05] Congressman, the White House has directed I not disclose the substance of any discussions [2:09] with the president or his advisors to protect executive branch confidentiality. And I recognize [2:13] this is not my privilege, but I am respecting the White House's decision. [2:17] Let me ask you some questions about your relationship with the president after he assumed office. [2:21] How many times has the president asked you to meet him in the White House? [2:26] The White House has directed I not disclose the substance of any discussion. [2:29] How many times did you meet with the president alone in the White House in 2017? [2:32] I don't know the answer to that. [2:34] How many times did he direct you to deliver a message to a member of his cabinet? [2:37] The White House has directed I not disclose the substance of any discussions with the [2:41] president. [2:41] Did he ever discuss with you any concerns that he may have committed a criminal offense? [2:45] The White House has directed not disclose the substance of any discussions with the [2:49] president or his advisors to protect executive branch confidentiality. I recognize this is not [2:54] my privilege. [2:55] Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. Pursuant to Clause 2J2A of Rule 11, that the gentleman [3:00] is out of order, he has exceeded the time limit under the five-minute rule. [3:03] I will enforce the time limit under the five-minute rule. [3:05] I challenge the ruling of the chair. [3:08] The ruling of the chair is challenged. All those in favor of overriding the rule of the [3:13] chair will say aye. Opposed, no. No. Roll call. [3:16] All those have it. Roll call is asked. The clerk will call. Where's the clerk? [3:19] We can make this a lot easier, too. We can. I mean, this clerk will call the roll. [3:23] Just stop and got your question in place. [3:30] Oh, I had one paragraph to go. [3:33] Would you stop during the time? You had some? [3:37] Yes. Mr. Nadler? [3:43] The question is, will the ruling of the chair be overruled? My vote is no. [3:51] Mr. Nadler votes no. [3:53] Mr. Lofgren? [3:55] Ms. Jackson Lee? [3:58] Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. [4:00] Mr. Cohen? [4:02] No. [4:03] Mr. Cohen votes no. [4:04] Mr. Johnson of Georgia? [4:06] Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no. [4:09] Mr. Deutsch? [4:10] No. [4:11] Mr. Deutsch votes no. [4:12] Ms. Bass? [4:14] No. [4:15] Ms. Bass votes no. [4:16] Same one. [4:17] Mr. Richmond? [4:19] Mr. Jeffries? [4:20] No. [4:20] Mr. Jeffries votes no. [4:22] Mr. Cicilline? [4:23] No. [4:24] Mr. Cicilline votes no. [4:26] Mr. Swalwell? [4:27] No. [4:27] Mr. Swalwell votes no. [4:29] Mr. Liu? [4:31] No. [4:33] Mr. Liu votes no. [4:34] Mr. Raskin? [4:35] No. [4:35] Mr. Raskin votes no. [4:37] Ms. Jayapal? [4:38] No. [4:38] Ms. Jayapal votes no. [4:40] Ms. Demings? [4:41] Ms. Demings votes no. [4:42] Mr. Correa? [4:43] Mr. Correa votes no. [4:46] Ms. Scanlon? [4:47] Ms. Scanlon votes no. [4:48] Ms. Garcia? [4:50] No. [4:51] Ms. Garcia votes no. [4:53] Mr. Neguse? [4:54] No. [4:55] Mr. Neguse votes no. [4:56] Ms. McBath? [4:58] Mr. Stanton? [4:59] No. [5:00] Mr. Stanton votes no. [5:01] Ms. Dean? [5:02] No. [5:03] Ms. Dean votes no. [5:04] Ms. McCarcel Powell? [5:05] Ms. Escobar? [5:06] Mr. Collins? [5:08] Mr. Collins votes aye. [5:11] Mr. Sensenbrenner? [5:12] Mr. Shabbat? [5:13] Mr. Shabbat votes aye. [5:15] Mr. Gohmert? [5:16] Mr. Jordan? [5:18] Yes. [5:19] Mr. Jordan votes yes. [5:20] Mr. Buck? [5:22] Mr. Radcliffe? [5:23] Mr. Radcliffe votes yes. [5:24] Ms. Roby? [5:25] Mr. Gates? [5:27] Aye. [5:28] Mr. Gates votes aye. [5:29] Mr. Johnson of Louisiana? [5:30] Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye. [5:33] Mr. Biggs? [5:34] Aye. [5:36] Mr. Biggs votes aye. [5:37] Mr. McClintock? [5:38] Aye. [5:39] Mr. McClintock votes aye. [5:40] Ms. Lesko? [5:41] Ms. Lesko votes aye. [5:43] Mr. Reschenthaler? [5:44] Mr. Klein? [5:45] Aye. [5:46] Mr. Klein votes aye. [5:47] Mr. Armstrong? [5:48] Mr. Armstrong votes yes. [5:51] Mr. Steubbe. [5:52] Mr. Steubbe, votes yes. [5:54] Has everyone voted who wishes to vote? [5:59] Madam Clerk? [6:05] Mr. Buck, you are not recorded. [6:07] Mr. Buck votes yes. [6:09] Is anyone else? [6:10] The clerk will report. [6:12] Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 19 noes. [6:29] Mr. Chairman? [6:30] Yeah. [6:31] Ms. Chairman. [6:32] Point of order. [6:33] Ms. Chairman, since the chairman's her food. [6:34] Say, the chairman has refused. [6:35] The gentleman is not recognized. [6:36] The point of order is sustained. [6:40] Mr. Chairman. [6:41] I am very troubled that the White House contenciel is sitting behind you. [6:43] Council sitting behind you are preventing you from answering these very basic questions [6:46] that go to the heart of the president's conduct we are investigating. [6:49] Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. [6:51] Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. [6:52] You will wait for your motion until I finish this. [6:54] Point of order, then. [6:55] Point of order has got to be recognized. [6:57] Not in the middle of... [6:58] Yes, it does. [7:02] The motion is to... [7:03] Since the chairman is not following the House rules, I move to adjourn. [7:06] Motion is to adjourn. [7:08] Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. [7:10] Motion to adjourn. [7:11] Point of parliamentary inquiry. [7:12] If the Republicans on this committee are successful in this motion to adjourn, [7:16] does that mean there will be no hearing and the American people will not hear from Mr. Lewandowski [7:20] about his efforts to obstruct justice? [7:22] Yes, that's exactly what it means. [7:23] It also could read... [7:25] They could read the three times the previous... [7:26] I have a point of parliamentary inquiry. [7:28] The motion is not debatable. [7:30] As many as are in favor of the motion to adjourn... [7:32] I have a motion of parliamentary inquiry. [7:33] As many are in favor... [7:34] So Mr. Cicilline gets recognized for his inquiry, but I don't get recognized... [7:37] Motion is not debatable. [7:38] As many as are in favor of the motion to adjourn, say aye. [7:42] Opposed, no. [7:43] No. [7:44] In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. [7:46] Roll call is requested. [7:51] The question is on the motion to adjourn. [7:53] The clerk will call the roll. [7:54] Mr. Nadler. [7:55] No. [7:56] Mr. Nadler votes no. [7:57] Ms. Lofgren. [7:58] Ms. Jackson Lee. [7:59] No. [8:00] Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. [8:01] Mr. Cohen. [8:02] Mr. Cohen votes no. [8:03] Mr. Johnson of Georgia. [8:05] Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no. [8:07] Mr. Deutsch. [8:08] Mr. Deutsch votes no. [8:09] Ms. Bass. [8:11] Ms. Bass votes no. [8:12] Mr. Richmond. [8:13] Mr. Jeffries. [8:15] Mr. Jeffries votes no. [8:16] Mr. Cicilline. [8:17] No. [8:17] Mr. Cicilline votes no. [8:19] Mr. Swalwell. [8:20] No. [8:20] Mr. Swalwell votes no. [8:21] Mr. Liu. [8:23] Mr. Liu votes no. [8:24] Mr. Raskin. [8:26] Mr. Raskin votes no. [8:27] Ms. Jayapal. [8:29] Ms. Jayapal votes no. [8:30] Ms. Demings. [8:31] Ms. Demings votes no. [8:33] Mr. Correa. [8:34] Mr. Correa votes no. [8:35] Ms. Scanlon? Ms. Scanlon votes no. Ms. Garcia? No. Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Neguse? Mr. Neguse votes no. Ms. McBath? Mr. Stanton? No. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean? No. Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell? Ms. Escobar? Mr. Collins? Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? Mr. Shabbat? Mr. Shabbat votes aye. Mr. Gohmert? Mr. Jordan? Mr. Jordan votes aye. Mr. Buck? Mr. [9:11] Radcliffe? Mr. Radcliffe votes yes. Ms. Roby? Mr. Gates? Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana? Aye. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. McClintock? Mr. McClintock votes aye. Ms. Lesko? Aye. Ms. Lesko votes aye. Mr. Rushenthaler? Mr. Kline? Aye. Mr. Kline votes aye. Mr. Armstrong? Aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stubbe? Yes. Mr. Stubbe votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 19 noes. [10:07] The motion to adjourn is not adopted. And I will finish what I was saying. I am very troubled that the White House counsel sitting behind you are preventing you from answering these very basic questions that go to the heart of the president's conduct we are investigating. Not only are we not a government employee, but these questions are about the president's efforts to interfere with a criminal investigation of himself and have nothing to do with official government business. This is clearly just part of the president's continued attempt to cover up his actions. He is obstructing our congressional investigation by preventing [10:37] you from telling the American people the truth about his misconduct. He will not succeed. And we will not be deterred. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for his opening for his questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This past few minutes was totally avoidable and also very frustrating. And since it is also now raised from our perspective, the question of the privileges of the rules of the house, which could be discussed on the floor and probably will be, and possibly just the blatant running over of house rules. [11:08] Right. So at this point, Mr. Landowski, you have testified before Congress multiple times over the past couple of years, correct? Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong. You've already testified twice before the House Intel Committee, correct? Yes. How long was those sessions? I think the first session was about seven hours and the second session was maybe four hours. You've also testified before Senate Intel, correct? Yes. About how long was that? It was about eight hours. You've also testified before the special counsel's office, correct? Yes. How many times? [11:42] Two separate occasions. And for about how long on that? Probably 15 to 16 hours. Okay. And those were voluntarily, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. So there was really, and you were agreed to come here voluntarily as well, correct, today? I did. There was no need for basically a flawed subpoena to be issued, do you, correct? Correct. And I want to note that our staff and many of our members have read the full FBI summary of your testimony because everyone in this committee has access to your special counsel interview summary for months. [12:14] Have you had the opportunity to review the FBI summaries in preparation for today? No, sir. Okay. Which goes to the point out why he won't be able to remember so many details outside of what is specifically written in the Mueller report, and that's something that needs to be made aware of. Were you given any guidelines by the Democrats on the topics or subjects of your questions today? [12:33] Not to the best of my recollection. [12:34] Yeah, because that, you know, that is a problem we seem to have here is basically what we're to say is overbroad subpoenas around here. There's, I mean, we could have talked today about your favorite football team. I'm not sure. Patriots. Patriots. So you're pretty happy right now, right? Tom's a winner. [12:49] Again, the problem we have here is we don't follow procedure because if it gets in the way of a good story, we don't like it around here. So we'll do whatever we want, including broke house rules to do that as we go forward. [13:00] In any of the times that you've had today, especially not being questioned, you have stated in your opening statement that you plan to answer as best you possibly can. Is that correct? [13:10] Yes, sir. [13:10] But you also, at a certain point in time, realize that being, having testified so many times in these various issues that we have, that there are certain things, you know, is, does that concern you having to keep coming back and back again without having proper reference if somebody was to, as you said earlier, I want to know the reference in which you're speaking to. Would that be a problem to you? [13:28] Well, sir, I think my memory, obviously, to events which transpired more than two years ago is clearer the first time I testified to it because it was a year and a half ago on many occasions or longer. [13:38] So if I can have a specific reference to something, I'd be happy to have that. [13:42] So it's not dilatory from your opinion. You're just wanting to make sure that you give an accurate response, seeing how you've also already testified on these issues many times before, correct? [13:49] Yes, sir. [13:50] So to imply otherwise is basically, you know, in many ways taking a shot at your testimony here, correct? [13:57] It is. [13:57] Okay. [13:59] When you worked on the Trump campaign, and you said this earlier, I just want it to be stated again because we've had these hearings here and the Judiciary Committee didn't seem to take, but we'll try again. [14:07] Did you engage in collusion, coordination, or conspiracy with the Russians? [14:10] Never. [14:11] Did you observe anyone else doing that? [14:13] No, sir. [14:13] Okay. [14:14] When we look at what's going on here today, I think the concern that we have, and many of us on this side, is we have a narrative that's failed. [14:24] The failed narrative has continued. [14:25] You're being asked to come in here and do something that you've done many times over that this whole committee has seen exactly what you're looking for. [14:32] If you're following the premise of what the chairman says that the majority is looking for, is that they're finding a reason to try and impeach the president. [14:38] And I've already said, they have found, 17 of them at least have publicly said they found a reason, which really don't have to, you know, any further, but they can't get the more on the floor to do this. [14:47] So this is dragging this out. [14:48] So, Mr. Lewandowski, I would encourage you, you know, to answer the question as fully as you said you would do. [14:52] You voluntarily come here, even though we decided to throw a flawed subpoena at you, and the others as well. [14:58] And I think as we go forward here, we'll see how this actually moves forward. [15:01] But this is concerning to me, Mr. Chairman. [15:03] I'm going to take this for the moment. [15:06] It's okay to try and get your stuff out. [15:07] It's okay to be frustrated. [15:08] But it's also not okay to overrun House rules. [15:11] The five-minute rule is a House rule. [15:12] It's not a committee rule, and it's not for interpretation by the chairman, whatever he feels like. [15:16] It wouldn't be if I was a chairman or you're the chairman. [15:18] That's not debatable. [15:21] And you may not have got your last question in, but we've already discussed, and we're going to have a lot more discussion here in a little while on staff questioning. [15:26] But there's plenty of time to get that last little question that you didn't get asked to somebody else. [15:31] But is it worth breaking the House rules? [15:33] And I know some in the audience don't care, and some of the majority don't care. [15:35] But at the end of the day, you're accusing a president of very high issues that we've got to look at. [15:44] You're accusing him and dragging it through in this committee for eight months we're doing this. [15:48] So I think following procedures is something that you actually have to look at, [15:51] because your idea is not really good. [15:54] Point of order, Mr. Chairman, the time has expired. [15:58] I mean, if he wishes. [16:01] He doesn't wish. [16:14] Good morning, Mr. Lewandowski. [16:16] I'm questioning you right now. [16:18] Thank you. [16:19] The president asked you, who had no role at all in the White House, to deliver that message to Attorney General Sessions. [16:27] The president could have just picked up the phone himself at any time and called the Attorney General. [16:32] The president also had a full staff of executive employees right down the hall. [16:38] So this made me wonder if the president thought what he was doing was legal, [16:43] why didn't he just pick up the phone and call the Attorney General Sessions, [16:48] or why not ask any member of his staff who worked right down the hall to deliver a message? [16:53] It is clear to me that the reason he went to you, Mr. Lewandowski, is because everyone said no. [17:01] So I want to ask you about that. [17:03] Two days before meeting you, the president had called White House Counsel McGahn at home on a Saturday [17:10] to fire the special counsel, saying, and you can see that on the screen, [17:16] Mueller has to go. [17:17] Call me back when you do it. [17:19] Plain and simple. [17:21] But McGahn refused. [17:23] When the president asked you to deliver that message, [17:26] did he, the president, tell you that two days before your meeting, [17:30] his White House Counsel had refused to fire the special counsel? [17:35] Volume 1186 is where you'll find that language. [17:41] Volume 2. [17:41] Volume 2. [17:42] When the president asked you, did you hear the question? [17:45] I'm sorry, could you repeat the question, Congressman? [17:47] When the president asked you to deliver that message, [17:48] did he, the president, tell you that two days before your meeting, [17:52] his White House Counsel had refused to fire the special counsel? [17:56] The White House has directed me that I not disclose the substance of any conversations with the president. [18:00] You are not allowed to answer whether the president told you [18:03] he called his counsel at home on Saturday to remove, on a Saturday, [18:08] to remove the special counsel, and his counsel said no. [18:10] The president had also personally called Sessions at home and asked him to unrecuse himself [18:16] and oversee the special counsel's investigation, and Sessions said no. [18:21] When the president asked you to deliver his message to Sessions, [18:24] did the president tell you that Sessions had already said no? [18:28] Volume 2, page 107. [18:30] Again, Congresswoman, I recognize that the privilege is not mine, [18:33] but I've been asked by the White House to... [18:35] Congresswoman, I'd be happy to answer your question, [18:37] or you can just have a conversation by yourself, [18:39] but if you'd like to ask me a question, I'll be happy to answer it. [18:41] I'm going to continue. [18:42] The reason is because... [18:42] Well, then don't ask me a question if you don't want to hear my answer. [18:44] I'm reclaiming my time. [18:44] This is a House Judiciary, not a House Party. [18:47] So if you ask me a question, give me the opportunity to answer your question. [18:50] In the final campaign, the special counsel's investigating, [18:52] I'd like my time restored, please, of his interruption. [19:01] So he was a witness to the special counsel's investigation. [19:04] For that reason, Sessions said publicly [19:06] that federal law prohibited his involvement [19:08] in the special counsel's investigation. [19:11] Here's a quote from the report from volume 2, pages 49 to 50, [19:14] which is on the screen. [19:15] You can read that. [19:17] Yes or no, did the president tell you that the attorney general [19:20] was legally not allowed to take any part [19:22] in the special counsel's investigation [19:24] when he asked you to deliver him a note [19:27] about that very investigation? [19:28] Did the president tell you that? [19:32] What you've just read on the screen, Congresswoman. [19:37] You need to look at the screen. [19:41] Yes or no, read the screen. [19:44] You're welcome to read it, Congresswoman. [19:46] You're welcome to be stalling, and I'm not going to stall. [19:49] You either answer the question, yes or no. [19:51] Congresswoman, I'll take the same privileges [19:52] that you've asked other members. [19:53] Did the president tell you that nobody at the White House [19:55] was supposed to even contact the attorney general [19:57] about the investigation? [19:59] That you can answer, yes or no. [20:01] I will not disclose any conversations [20:02] I've had with the president, Congresswoman. [20:04] Again, you are obviously here to block [20:07] any reasonable inquiry into the truth [20:09] or not of this administration. [20:11] The White House counsel, quote, [20:12] shortly after Sessions announced his recusal, [20:15] directed that Sessions should not be contacted [20:17] about the special counsel's investigation. [20:20] In fact, the White House counsel's internal notes state [20:23] no contact with Sessions [20:26] and no communication serious about instruction. [20:29] Can you read that? I just said it. [20:31] Can you read that? Did you hear me? [20:34] Yes. Is there a question? [20:35] Yes. Did the president tell you [20:36] his White House counsel told him [20:38] no contact with Sessions [20:40] because of serious concerns of obstruction [20:42] when he asked you to deliver a message to Sessions? [20:46] I am respecting the executive branch's privilege [20:48] of confidentiality, and I will recognize that this time. [20:51] Let me just say that you knew, [20:54] did you know the president was putting you at risk [20:56] when he asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general? [20:59] I want to be very clear. [21:00] The president knew what he was doing was wrong [21:02] because everyone else had already said no. [21:05] He called his White House counsel [21:06] to fire the special counsel. [21:08] McGahn said no. [21:09] He called the attorney general [21:10] to ask him to unrecuse himself [21:12] from the special counsel's investigation. [21:15] Sessions said no. [21:16] His White House counsel said [21:17] there should be no contact with Sessions [21:19] because of his recusal. [21:21] So what does the president do? [21:23] He calls you in to do what everyone else wouldn't do. [21:26] He calls you in to do his dirty work in secret [21:28] because he knew it was wrong. [21:31] Well, we will expose the truth. [21:33] The president can't hide behind you any longer. [21:36] And you should be here to be telling the truth, [21:38] because the truth will set you free [21:42] and the American people. [21:43] I yield back. [21:44] The time of the gentlelady has expired. [21:45] The witness may answer the question. [21:48] I don't believe there was a question, Congressman. [21:49] Very well. [21:50] Yes, there was. [21:51] Could you repeat the question? [21:52] I didn't hear it. [21:53] I'd be happy to repeat the question. [21:54] It's just a rant. [21:54] I can't repeat the question. [21:55] I'll be hard to repeat the question. [21:56] The gentlelady's time has expired. [21:58] The gentleman from... [21:59] Did you know the attorney general had recused... [22:02] The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized. [22:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [22:06] Mr. Lewandowski, thank you for appearing this afternoon [22:10] to testify before this committee. [22:12] I understand that you've spent many hours [22:15] testifying voluntarily before Congress [22:18] over the last few years. [22:20] Isn't that correct? [22:20] It is. [22:22] And have you had to hire and retain counsel [22:24] to represent you for all the investigations [22:27] that you've had to endure simply because you served [22:31] as the president's campaign manager? [22:34] Yes, sir. [22:34] That's unfortunate because you didn't solicit [22:40] or receive assistance from the Russians, did you? [22:43] No, sir. [22:44] Are you an agent working on behalf [22:47] of the Russian government? [22:49] No, sir. [22:49] As a close friend and advisor of the president, [22:54] you don't believe that the president [22:55] is working on behalf of the Russians, do you? [22:59] Absolutely not. [23:01] And to your knowledge, there is no effort [23:03] on the part of the president [23:04] to intentionally obstruct justice, is there? [23:08] No, sir. [23:08] Thank you. [23:10] Thank you. [23:10] And yet again, coming here to tell this committee [23:14] what we, special counsel Mueller and the American public, [23:18] already know that President Trump did not collude [23:21] with the Russians, nor did he obstruct justice. [23:24] That's not to say that the Russians weren't trying to interfere [23:29] and influence our 2016 presidential elections. [23:33] It's clear that they were, by sending fake texts [23:37] and operating fake Facebook pages and holding fake rallies, [23:42] all in an effort to try to influence the outcome of the election. [23:46] Democrats want to ignore all of the real evidence [23:49] of Russian interference and hold this fake impeachment [23:53] because it happened under a different president's watch. [23:57] This all happened under President Obama's watch, [24:00] isn't that correct? [24:01] Yes, sir. [24:02] And it was the Obama administration [24:04] that failed to protect us [24:07] from the Russian interference and influence in our election. [24:11] Isn't that also true? [24:12] Yes. [24:12] President Trump wasn't president. [24:14] He wasn't the one that failed to protect the country. [24:17] If anybody failed, it was the Obama administration. [24:19] Is that right? [24:20] Yes, it is. [24:22] I've said it before, and I'll say it again. [24:25] We're wasting valuable committee time [24:27] engaging in this impeachment investigation. [24:30] The fact of the matter is, [24:32] one thing this committee could be doing [24:34] is to question Inspector General Horowitz [24:36] concerning the bias against the president [24:39] at the origins of the Russian investigation. [24:43] We could be questioning Horowitz about his recent report, [24:46] how then-FBI Director Comey mishandled department memos. [24:52] This committee has such a rich history, [24:54] his jurisdiction over a whole lot of very significant things. [24:59] We're spending our time on this fake impeachment, [25:02] but we could be focused on something that really matters [25:05] like immigration, asylum. [25:08] We have hundreds of thousands of people [25:10] that have entered our southern border. [25:13] Generally, they're brought up either individually [25:16] or in groups, caravans, [25:18] usually oftentimes connected with cartels. [25:21] Cartels make a lot of money when they come up here. [25:23] They're told the magic words, come across the border. [25:27] They say that they're in fear [25:28] and come right into our country, [25:31] and we put them on a bus or on a plane [25:34] and they're sent to communities all across the country. [25:36] That's something this committee should be working [25:39] in a bipartisan manner to do something about. [25:41] Opioids. [25:42] We had about 70,000 Americans [25:43] who lost their lives to opioids last year. [25:47] That's something in the jurisdiction of this committee, [25:50] yet we do virtually nothing about it in this committee. [25:52] A balanced budget amendment is something [25:54] I've introduced in this Congress. [25:56] We've got a $22 trillion debt hanging over our head, [25:58] yet we do nothing in this committee [26:00] about attempting to actually pass something [26:03] that would make us balance the budget every year, [26:06] like all our states have to do. [26:09] So finally, I just want to thank you again, Mr. Lewandowski, [26:12] for appearing at today's hearing. [26:15] Perhaps your testimony today will finally convince Democrats [26:18] that there are much more important things [26:21] that this committee could be spending our time on. [26:23] rather than continuing to pursue this fake impeachment, [26:28] a faux impeachment. [26:30] The bottom line is they don't have the votes [26:31] in the House to move forward, [26:34] or the House to vote for this committee [26:37] to open up an impeachment inquiry. [26:39] They don't have the votes. [26:41] Some of the Democrats want to vote for it. [26:43] Some of the Democrats would vote against it, [26:45] but they don't have the votes. [26:46] So what they do is they spend valuable committee time [26:49] that we could be spending on other important things [26:52] on this fake, faux impeachment. [26:56] And it's a shame, [26:57] because this committee could be doing so much more [27:00] on behalf of the American people. [27:02] With that, I yield back. [27:05] Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry? [27:07] Who states a point of parliamentary inquiry? [27:09] The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry. [27:11] Mr. Chairman, [27:12] the witness just answered a long line of questions [27:14] from the gentleman from Ohio [27:16] about whether Donald Trump had colluded with the Russians [27:19] and about the origins of the Mueller investigation and so on, [27:21] but he never testified as to any of those things [27:24] before special counsel Mueller. [27:26] Can he now continue to invoke this White House rationale [27:30] that he's confined to the Four Corners of the Mueller report [27:33] when he's gone way beyond it [27:34] in his responses to the questioning [27:36] from the gentleman from Ohio? [27:39] The, regardless of whether he went beyond [27:44] the Four Corners of the Mueller report [27:46] and the answers that he gave to the last, [27:48] to the last questioner, [27:51] regardless of that, [27:52] and I'm glad to hear he favors the patriots, [27:55] even though that's not in the Mueller report, [27:56] but regardless of the long series of answers [27:58] that he gave irrelevant [28:00] that weren't in the Mueller report, [28:02] the claim of privilege made by the witness is improper [28:05] for the reasons set forth in our letter today [28:09] to the White House and to the Witnesses' Council. [28:12] That said, [28:13] I will take the claim of privilege under advisement. [28:16] Mr. Chairman, [28:17] parliamentary inquiry. [28:18] The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. [28:19] Did you actually answer his parliamentary inquiry? [28:21] Because it was a statement, [28:22] not a parliamentary inquiry. [28:23] You just sort of skipped on the executive privilege here. [28:25] At least he acknowledged that it was not a parliamentary inquiry. [28:30] The gentleman stated the parliamentary inquiry. [28:34] He did not. [28:34] That was a statement. [28:36] I answered his parliamentary inquiry. [28:39] The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. [28:42] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [28:43] Mr. Leandowski, [28:44] it's been made clear here [28:45] you were not an employee [28:46] and you admitted at the White House. [28:47] You had no W-2, [28:49] you had no card, [28:50] you had nothing. [28:51] You were not an employee. [28:53] And you weren't a policeman at one time. [28:55] So you know something about the law [28:56] and about following the law. [28:58] Didn't you think it was a little strange [28:59] that the president would sit down with you [29:01] one-on-one and ask you to do something [29:02] that you knew was against the law? [29:05] Did that strike you as strange? [29:08] I disagree with the premise of your question, Congressman. [29:10] You weren't a policeman? [29:12] I didn't think the president asked me [29:13] to do anything illegal. [29:15] You didn't think it would have been illegal [29:16] for you to ask Mr. Sessions [29:19] to drop the investigation [29:20] and to just go on to future presidents [29:22] and omit everything with this president [29:24] and go olly olly in free? [29:25] We're going to start with the next one [29:27] about colluding with Russia? [29:28] You didn't think that was illegal [29:29] to obstruct justice? [29:33] Congressman, the president [29:34] just asked me if I didn't think it was illegal. [29:37] Obviously, you've never been a judge [29:38] and won't be one. [29:40] All these people I asked you, [29:41] they gave you dictation. [29:42] He dictated to you a message [29:44] to give Sessions. [29:45] Had you ever been a secretary [29:47] for the president before [29:48] and taken dictation or shorthand? [29:49] Many times. [29:50] Oh, we got your qualifications now. [29:53] You were a secretary. [29:53] Could it, could, [29:56] but he asked you [29:57] outside of White House channels [29:58] and that's what Mueller wrote, [29:59] that this was outside [30:00] of White House channels. [30:01] Could it have been he asked you [30:02] to get the message to Sessions [30:04] because he thought [30:05] you would do whatever he asked, [30:07] even if it was illegal or immoral, [30:08] just like your former boss, Bob Nay, [30:10] who said you were an implementer. [30:12] News reports called you [30:13] the president's, quote, enforcer. [30:15] USA Today said Lewandowski's background [30:18] as largely as a Trump guy [30:19] and not so much as a strategist, [30:21] not a campaign manager, [30:23] but as a right-hand man, [30:24] a body man, and an enforcer. [30:26] And Esquire went further [30:27] and said the one-time campaign manager [30:29] for Donald Trump [30:30] has the traits of an enforcer [30:32] and the conflict resolution skills [30:34] to match. [30:36] And you have, you've even described yourself [30:39] in your book, [30:40] Let Trump Be Trump. [30:41] You said we were fine [30:43] with whatever role [30:43] the president wanted us to play. [30:45] In Donald Trump's army, [30:46] there were only loyal soldiers. [30:48] There were no more loyal soldiers. [30:50] Your previous boss, Bob Nay, [30:52] was convicted of corruption [30:53] and lying to authorities [30:54] in the Jack Abraham scandal. [30:56] You were fired from Americans [30:58] for prosperity [30:58] after being accused of fraud, [31:00] voter fraud. [31:01] You are now involved in this. [31:03] Either you were willing [31:04] to break the law for politics [31:05] and Mr. Trump, [31:06] or you're some kind of a Forrest Gump [31:08] relating to corruption. [31:09] So maybe, let me ask you this, [31:11] did the president pick you, [31:12] his enforcer? [31:13] He thought you would play [31:14] whatever role he wanted [31:15] because it was illegal? [31:16] Is that possibly why he chose you [31:18] to take this message to Sessions? [31:20] That'd be a question [31:20] for the president, Congressman. [31:22] Well, Donald Trump [31:23] was right, though. [31:25] First, the White House counsel, [31:27] Don McGahn, refused to fire [31:29] the special counsel. [31:30] Mr. McGahn showed principle [31:31] and character [31:32] and refused to do what he knew [31:34] would be an illegal act. [31:36] Then Attorney General Sessions, [31:37] who had recused himself, [31:39] was asked to unrecuse himself. [31:40] But Attorney General Sessions [31:42] also did the right thing. [31:44] And he said, [31:44] I'm not going to unrecuse myself [31:45] because I'd have a conflict, [31:47] because I was involved [31:48] in the campaign [31:49] and knew some things, [31:50] can't do it. [31:51] Then the White House counsel [31:52] advised the president [31:53] not even to contact Sessions. [31:57] But you, his loyal soldier, [31:58] would do it. [31:59] You were different [31:59] than Sessions and McGahn. [32:01] Trump could depend on you. [32:02] You did not ask any questions. [32:04] You were a loyal soldier. [32:05] You just wrote down the message [32:06] and agreed to deliver it. [32:08] That's what he thought. [32:08] You took the dictation, [32:09] you gave it to Hope Hicks. [32:11] You asked her to type it up for you, [32:13] not that you couldn't [32:13] have done it yourself, I'm sure, [32:15] and then asked somebody else [32:17] to deliver the message to Sessions [32:18] when you decided not to. [32:20] Donald Trump talked to you [32:21] outside normal channels [32:22] so there'd be no record [32:24] of anything that he asked you to do [32:25] to obstruct justice. [32:27] Nothing to do with that at all. [32:28] The president knew [32:29] what he was doing was wrong. [32:31] Mr. Sessions knew [32:31] what he was doing was wrong. [32:33] Mr. McGahn knew [32:33] what he was doing was wrong. [32:35] You seemed to be the only person [32:36] that didn't think it was wrong. [32:38] But Mr. Trump was wrong, [32:40] because at the last minute, [32:41] you got cold feet. [32:43] You chickened out. [32:44] The president's trust was misplaced. [32:46] You decided not to do [32:47] what you told the president [32:48] you were going to do, [32:49] and you handed it off [32:50] to somebody else. [32:52] Did you realize at some point [32:53] that Mr. Nay, your former boss, [32:55] got involved in criminal problems [32:57] and went to prison, [32:58] and maybe you were going [32:59] to be the next one? [33:00] Did that cross your mind? [33:01] Did you ever think about [33:02] Bob Nay's situation [33:03] and going to prison? [33:05] Congressman Nay, [33:06] Congressman Silvercler, [33:06] clear, went to jail [33:07] many years after I left [33:08] his employment. [33:09] I'm sure you're going to clarify [33:10] that for the record. [33:12] And you were his employee, [33:13] and you had great respect for him, [33:14] but you learned from that. [33:16] I'm asking, [33:16] did you learn from his experience [33:18] and realize that what you were asked [33:19] to do was illegal, [33:21] and you didn't want to follow [33:22] the same trail as Bob Nay [33:23] and end up in prison? [33:25] I wasn't asked to do anything [33:26] illegal, Congressman. [33:27] Well, the public will determine that. [33:31] This has been more obstruction [33:32] of Congress by this administration, [33:34] and you followed their instructions, [33:35] and you're doing just exactly [33:37] what they thought you'd do. [33:38] You are a loyal soldier, [33:40] except you didn't follow [33:41] Trump's instructions. [33:42] You chickened out at the last minute. [33:44] You got cold feet. [33:44] I yield back the balance [33:45] of my time. [33:47] The gentleman yields back. [33:48] The gentleman from Ohio. [33:50] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [33:51] Mr. Lewandowski, [33:52] you ran President Trump's campaign [33:54] between January 2015 [33:55] and June 2016. [33:57] Is that right? [33:57] Yes. [33:58] You were at the helm [33:59] of the campaign [34:00] when President Trump [34:02] secured the Republican nomination. [34:04] Yes. [34:06] Pretty good campaign you ran. [34:07] Thank you. [34:09] I mean, you beat, what, [34:10] 17, 18 different opponents, [34:12] senators, governors, [34:13] some good senators. [34:14] Of course, you had [34:16] a pretty good candidate. [34:18] The best. [34:19] Pretty good candidate [34:20] who I think has done [34:20] a great job as president [34:21] of the United States. [34:22] After you left the campaign, [34:23] I think you left in June of 2016, [34:25] after you left the head [34:26] of the campaign, [34:27] were you still involved [34:28] with the campaign [34:28] throughout the rest [34:30] of the election, [34:31] all the way up [34:31] through November 8, 2016? [34:33] Yes. [34:33] In that entire time. [34:34] So you were part [34:35] of the campaign operation [34:36] at some level or another [34:37] from January 2015 [34:39] to November 8, 2016. [34:41] During that entire time, [34:43] do you guys ever work [34:44] with Russia to impact the election? [34:46] No. [34:47] And you know what's interesting, [34:47] Mr. Lewandowski? [34:49] When Jim Comey was asked [34:50] that same question, [34:51] sitting at that same table, [34:53] he gave the same answer. [34:55] When Bob Mueller was asked [34:56] that same question, [34:57] sitting at that same table, [34:59] he gave the same answer. [35:01] Falsely accused, [35:02] the president is falsely accused [35:03] of colluding with a foreign state [35:04] to impact the election. [35:06] Jim Comey, [35:07] when we deposed him [35:07] at that very table, [35:09] said after 10 months [35:10] of investigation, [35:11] we didn't have a thing. [35:13] Bob Mueller gets named [35:14] special counsel. [35:15] He wastes $30 million [35:16] of taxpayer money, [35:17] 22-month investigation. [35:19] He sits at that table [35:20] just a few weeks ago [35:21] and gives the same darn answer. [35:24] But these guys over here, [35:25] they don't care. [35:27] They don't care. [35:27] They don't want to get [35:28] to what Mr. Chavez said. [35:29] They don't want to figure out [35:30] how the false accusation happened. [35:32] They just want to drag people [35:33] in front of this committee [35:34] and keep trying to find [35:35] some way they can go [35:36] after the president. [35:38] Let's go back to the process [35:39] that the ranking member raised. [35:41] Did you testify [35:43] in front of the Senate [35:44] Intel Committee in 2017? [35:46] Yes. [35:47] Did you testify [35:47] in front of the House [35:48] Intelligence Committee [35:49] in 2017? [35:51] Yes. [35:52] And you went before [35:53] the special counsel [35:54] and answered his questions [35:55] in 2018. [35:56] Is that right? [35:57] It is. [35:58] And you did that [35:59] all voluntarily? [36:00] Yes. [36:01] No subpoena? [36:02] No, sir. [36:03] You said, [36:03] I'm willing to comply, [36:04] give answers, [36:05] answer all the questions [36:06] you got? [36:07] Yes. [36:07] I think in your opening statement [36:08] you said 20-something. [36:09] How many hours did you set [36:11] in front of those various committees? [36:12] More than 20. [36:13] More than 20 hours. [36:15] And for this committee, [36:16] did you get a letter [36:17] from this committee [36:18] back in March [36:19] asking you to comply [36:20] with certain documented requests [36:22] that Chairman Nadler [36:23] wanted to have? [36:24] I believe so, yes. [36:26] And you and your legal team [36:26] complied with that? [36:28] Yes, sir. [36:28] And then on June 24th [36:29] you got another letter, [36:30] is that right? [36:31] Yes. [36:32] June 24th of this year [36:33] you got another letter [36:34] asking you to do an interview, [36:35] a transcribed interview [36:36] in front of the committee. [36:41] And your lawyer [36:41] contacted Chairman Nadler [36:43] and said, [36:44] we'd be happy to do that. [36:44] Is that right? [36:45] Yes. [36:47] Say, give us some dates, [36:48] we'll come in, [36:48] we'll be happy to sit [36:49] for an interview. [36:50] That's right. [36:51] What happened next? [36:53] Next, about five weeks ago, [36:55] the committee issued a subpoena [36:56] for my appearance. [36:58] So you're willing [36:58] to come voluntarily [36:59] just like you did [37:00] with Senate Intel, [37:01] House Intel, [37:01] just like you did [37:02] for Bob Mueller, [37:03] for the special counsel, [37:04] 20-some hours. [37:05] You're willing to do that all. [37:06] You complied with [37:06] when they asked you [37:07] for certain documents [37:08] and then when they want you [37:09] to come in for an interview, [37:10] you said, all right, [37:10] sure, we'll do it. [37:11] They hit you with a subpoena. [37:13] Correct. [37:13] And then they start [37:14] calling you names, [37:15] saying, close up that book, [37:17] answer the question, [37:18] start treating you this way. [37:19] Kind of interesting. [37:21] They're the ones [37:21] who started it. [37:22] They're the ones [37:22] who slapped you [37:23] with a subpoena [37:23] when you were willing [37:24] to come here voluntarily. [37:25] I was. [37:26] And then they question [37:28] what demeanor [37:29] you bring here today. [37:29] I mean, [37:30] first they changed [37:33] the rules last week [37:34] in the middle of the Congress, [37:37] changed the rules [37:38] of the committee [37:39] in the middle of the game, [37:39] and then today [37:40] they're not even [37:40] going to follow the rules [37:41] because the rules [37:43] they changed last week [37:44] talk about staff [37:44] asking questions [37:45] after members are done. [37:47] We got this whole issue [37:48] with consultants. [37:49] So this, [37:51] maybe we would be [37:52] better served [37:53] if we did exactly [37:55] what Mr. Chabot said. [37:57] Maybe we would be [37:58] better served [37:58] as the House Judiciary Committee [38:00] if we actually focused [38:01] on how this whole [38:03] false accusation [38:04] started in the first place. [38:05] What do you think, [38:05] Mr. Lewandowski? [38:06] I think it'd be [38:07] a great idea. [38:08] Great idea. [38:08] Maybe the American people [38:09] would be better served [38:10] than spending more time [38:12] investigating something [38:13] that's already had [38:14] 32 months of investigation [38:15] from both Jim Comey [38:17] and the FBI [38:17] and Bob Mueller [38:18] and the special counsel. [38:19] Maybe we would do that. [38:20] And you know [38:20] a great place to start? [38:22] Great place to start, [38:23] Mr. Chairman. [38:24] I asked you about this [38:25] one week ago today. [38:26] Great place to start [38:27] would be [38:28] the Inspector General's report [38:30] that was issued [38:31] just three weeks ago. [38:32] The scathing report [38:33] about Jim Comey. [38:35] That'd be a nice place [38:36] to start. [38:37] But when I asked the chairman [38:38] when we might have [38:39] an opportunity [38:39] to question Mr. Horowitz, [38:41] he said, [38:42] I don't know. [38:43] I haven't thought about that. [38:45] Of course you haven't [38:45] thought about that. [38:47] Too busy trying [38:47] to impeach the president. [38:49] Too busy slapping subpoenas [38:50] on Corey Lewandowski. [38:51] Of course you haven't [38:52] thought about that. [38:53] That's what the committee [38:53] should be focused on. [38:55] I yield back. [38:57] Gentleman yields back. [38:58] The gentleman from Georgia. [39:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [39:02] Mr. Lewandowski, [39:03] you are about like a fish [39:06] being cleaned with a spoon. [39:08] It's very hard [39:09] to get an answer out of you. [39:11] But let me ask you this, sir. [39:13] Based on the president's [39:16] past statements, [39:17] everybody knows [39:18] that the president [39:19] does not like for anybody [39:20] to take notes [39:22] when he's talking. [39:24] In fact, he asked lawyers [39:25] not to take official notes. [39:27] And you're aware of that, correct? [39:31] I'm aware of the public account, sir. [39:33] All right. [39:33] Fair enough. [39:34] But when the president [39:35] met with you [39:36] in the Oval Office [39:38] one-on-one [39:38] on June 19, 2017 [39:40] to dictate a message [39:42] to Attorney General [39:43] Jeff Sessions, [39:45] he told you to, quote, [39:47] write this down. [39:48] Isn't that correct? [39:51] That's accurate. [39:52] And it was just you [39:54] and the president [39:55] in that meeting, correct? [39:57] It was. [39:58] And you knew [39:59] that you needed [40:01] to write down [40:01] as fast as possible [40:03] what the president [40:04] was telling you [40:05] so that you could make sure [40:06] to capture the content [40:07] of what he was telling you [40:08] correctly, correct? [40:11] I don't know [40:12] the speed of writing [40:13] was a criteria, [40:14] but I tried to capture it [40:15] to the best of my ability, [40:15] Congressman. [40:16] Thank you, sir. [40:17] And he dictated [40:19] to you exactly [40:20] what he wanted you [40:21] to put into the mouth [40:23] of Attorney General [40:24] Jeff Sessions, correct? [40:29] I believe he asked me [40:30] to deliver a message [40:32] for Jeff to consider [40:35] delivering himself. [40:36] And it was a message [40:37] that he intended [40:38] for Jeff, meaning Jeff Sessions, [40:40] to deliver out loud [40:42] and publicly. [40:43] He wanted the public [40:44] to know what he was saying, [40:47] but he wanted Jeff [40:48] to say it, correct? [40:48] I believe the Mueller report [40:51] accurately depicts that. [40:53] And Mr. Lewandowski, [40:55] we've projected on the screen [40:58] the message that the president [41:00] dictated to you [41:01] that he wanted you [41:03] to deliver to the Attorney General. [41:05] It's on the screen, [41:06] and I'd like for you [41:07] to read the first two sentences [41:09] if you would entertain that. [41:14] Oh, as Director Mueller stated [41:16] when asked to read from the report, [41:17] and I quote, [41:18] I would be happy [41:19] to have you read it, Congressman. [41:20] Look on the... [41:21] Well, would you prefer [41:22] for me to read it instead of you? [41:24] Please. [41:24] Okay. [41:25] It says, [41:26] I know that I recused myself [41:27] from certain things [41:29] having to do with specific areas, [41:31] but our POTUS [41:32] is being treated very unfairly. [41:35] That's what he told you [41:36] to write down, [41:36] and that's what you wrote down. [41:38] And I'll continue. [41:39] He said, [41:40] he shouldn't have [41:41] a special prosecutor counsel [41:43] because he hasn't done [41:44] anything wrong. [41:46] Now, that's what he wanted you [41:48] to deliver to Attorney General [41:50] Jeff Sessions, correct? [41:53] I believe that's [41:53] an accurate representation. [41:54] And he wanted you [41:55] to deliver it to Jeff [41:57] so that Jeff could say it [41:58] to the people, right? [42:00] I believe so. [42:02] And you felt kind of squeamish, [42:04] like that fish [42:05] that you are trying to be right now, [42:08] being scaled. [42:09] You felt a little squeamish [42:10] about delivering that message, correct? [42:13] No, sir. [42:14] Well, why didn't you... [42:16] Why did it take you so long [42:18] and you never even delivered it? [42:21] Correct. [42:21] I never delivered the message. [42:22] Yeah, you chickened out. [42:23] I went on vacation. [42:25] You went on vacation. [42:27] And so you put the message [42:30] in the safe, [42:31] in your safe, [42:32] in your home [42:32] for safekeeping, correct? [42:35] Before you went on vacation. [42:37] I took my kids to the beach, [42:38] Congressman. [42:39] That was more of a priority. [42:40] And President Trump [42:41] was hounding you about [42:42] when are you going to deliver [42:43] that message, correct? [42:45] Completely inaccurate, Congressman. [42:47] Well, he asked you about it [42:48] a few times, didn't he? [42:50] No, he did not. [42:51] He never asked you [42:53] whether or not [42:53] you had delivered that message? [42:55] Not on multiple occasions, no. [42:57] One occasion, okay? [42:59] He did mention it [43:00] on one occasion to you. [43:02] I don't know [43:02] if that's in the report, sir, or not. [43:03] And you told him that, [43:05] yeah, I'm going to get around to it. [43:06] I'm going to deliver it, correct? [43:09] I'd have to see the reference [43:10] to the Mueller report [43:11] where that is, sir. [43:12] It's in the report. [43:13] And everybody's... [43:13] You direct me to the book [43:14] and page so I can review that? [43:15] I don't need to waste [43:16] any time with that. [43:17] But let me tell you something. [43:19] The next three sentences [43:21] after those first two, [43:24] would you read those, please? [43:26] You're welcome to, Congressman. [43:27] Okay. [43:27] He said he shouldn't have [43:29] a special prosecutor or counsel [43:32] because he hasn't done anything wrong. [43:35] I was on the campaign with him [43:37] for nine months. [43:38] There were no Russians involved with him. [43:41] I know it for a fact [43:42] because I was dead. [43:43] Now, the president wanted [43:45] attorney general to say that, [43:47] but you didn't deliver the message. [43:49] And you knew that [43:51] attorney general Sessions [43:54] had recused himself at that time. [43:56] And since he had recused himself, [43:58] you knew that it would have been [44:00] against the law for him to comment [44:03] in any way on that investigation. [44:06] Isn't that right? [44:07] I did not know that. [44:08] You did not know that. [44:10] You did not know that. [44:12] Correct. [44:12] The time of the gentleman has expired. [44:14] The gentleman from Colorado. [44:16] Thank you for putting up with [44:25] the harassment that you're [44:27] putting up with right now. [44:29] According to the Alliance [44:30] for Securing Democracy, [44:32] Russia interfered in the elections [44:33] of Belarus, Bulgaria, [44:36] Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, [44:39] Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, [44:41] Georgia, Germany, Hungary, [44:42] Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, [44:44] Macedonia, Moldova, [44:46] Montenegro, Norway, Poland, [44:47] Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, [44:49] United Kingdom, Ukraine, [44:50] and the United States. [44:53] They specifically targeted [44:54] the Scottish independence vote, [44:56] the Brexit vote, [44:58] and Angela Merkel. [45:00] Despite knowledge of these kinds [45:02] of election threats, [45:03] the Obama administration [45:04] sat idly by. [45:06] Instead of warning the Trump campaign, [45:09] Loretta Lynch's DOJ [45:10] and James Comey's FBI [45:11] used secret surveillance [45:13] to spy on members [45:14] of the Trump campaign, [45:16] all while allowing election [45:17] interference to occur. [45:19] Why isn't this hearing focused [45:21] on holding DOJ and FBI leadership [45:23] accountable for this kind [45:24] of terrible malfeasance [45:25] and lack of judgment? [45:28] What was Putin's ultimate goal? [45:30] Clint Watts, a former FBI agent [45:31] and counterterrorism specialist, [45:33] said it is to attack [45:34] and undermine democracy. [45:36] He said the goal [45:37] is to leave voters feeling [45:38] as if, quote, [45:39] either the institutions are corrupt [45:41] or you can't trust the vote, [45:43] end of quote. [45:44] This is the kind of classic [45:46] disinformation campaign [45:47] that the KGB runs. [45:48] And as we all know, [45:49] Vladimir Putin was a former leader [45:51] of the KGB. [45:53] In 2016, Putin's goal [45:55] could have been very simple. [45:56] Divide the American electorate, [45:57] sow seeds of distrust, [45:59] make it impossible [46:00] for whoever won our election [46:02] to govern. [46:03] With America weakened at home, [46:05] we would be weakened [46:05] on the international stage. [46:07] Putin wins with a weakened America, [46:09] regardless of who won the election. [46:11] This is the kind of approach [46:13] that has been used [46:13] by the communists in Russia [46:15] for nearly a century. [46:16] After overthrowing Russian czar [46:17] Nicholas II in 1917, [46:20] Vladimir Putin, [46:21] Vladimir Lenin, [46:21] I'm sorry, [46:22] different Vladimir, [46:23] and the communists [46:24] utilized Western journalists [46:26] as propaganda tools [46:27] to defend communism. [46:28] New York Times journalist [46:29] John Reed, for example, [46:30] defended the Bolsheviks [46:31] advocating against [46:33] American intervention. [46:34] Lenin used even the term [46:36] useful idiots [46:37] to describe how leftist-leaning, [46:40] communist-sympathizing [46:42] Americans could be easily tricked [46:44] and used to help the Russians. [46:47] For the past three years, [46:48] Democrats have focused [46:49] on undermining [46:50] America's president [46:51] instead of working [46:52] with President Trump [46:53] and Republicans in Congress [46:55] to harden our election defenses. [46:57] I think there would be [46:58] broad bipartisan support [46:59] that we need [47:01] to prevent future election meddling. [47:04] The Mueller report [47:04] makes clear [47:05] that President Trump [47:06] wanted to focus [47:07] on protecting our democracy [47:08] from future attacks. [47:10] So I have one question, [47:11] Mr. Lewandowski. [47:12] It's clear [47:13] that Putin attacked America [47:15] with the goal [47:16] of dividing the American people [47:17] and today's hearing [47:18] is being held [47:19] for the sole purpose [47:20] of attacking America's president, [47:22] which will weaken our country [47:23] on the international stage. [47:26] Do you believe [47:27] that Vladimir Putin [47:29] is sitting in his office [47:30] right now in the Kremlin [47:31] laughing at what those [47:33] on the other side [47:34] of the aisle are doing [47:35] and believing [47:37] that those on the other side [47:39] of the aisle [47:40] are useful idiots [47:41] helping... [47:41] Objection. [47:43] I have a point of order. [47:48] The gentlelady will state [47:49] her point of order. [47:51] I have a point of order. [47:52] According to the rules [47:54] and the rules of this committee [47:55] and the House rules, [47:57] we cannot attribute [47:59] derogatory names [48:01] to our colleagues [48:01] or motives to our colleagues. [48:03] And I believe the gentleman [48:05] said those on the other side [48:06] of the aisle are idiots. [48:08] This is a very sacred [48:10] and somber responsibility. [48:11] I've taken an oath of office, [48:13] my good friend, [48:14] just like you did. [48:15] I am concerned [48:16] about the Constitution [48:17] just as you are. [48:18] And I would not engage [48:20] in any behavior [48:22] that could be described [48:23] as idiot. [48:24] Never in my life [48:25] or my colleagues [48:26] have we ever discussed [48:27] behaving like idiots. [48:29] Mr. Chairman, [48:30] that is an inappropriate [48:31] terminology [48:32] and description [48:33] of the members [48:34] of this House [48:35] or Republicans [48:36] or Democrats, [48:37] no matter what position [48:38] they are. [48:39] I will overrule [48:42] the point of order. [48:44] The rules of the quorum [48:47] refer to motive. [48:49] Calling someone an idiot [48:50] is not flattering, [48:51] but it does not go to motive. [48:53] And I believe [48:54] we should have [48:54] the most robust debate. [48:57] I believe we should respect [48:58] each other. [48:59] But I don't think [49:01] we should... [49:02] But I don't think [49:04] that goes to motive. [49:05] And accordingly, [49:06] I'm going to overrule [49:06] the point of order. [49:09] General, proceed. [49:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [49:11] Actually, I didn't call [49:12] anybody an idiot. [49:13] I said useful idiot. [49:14] Useful idiot. [49:15] And secondly, [49:16] I asked the witness [49:18] whether he believed [49:19] that as part [49:20] of Vladimir Putin's strategy, [49:23] Vladimir Putin [49:24] was being aided [49:25] by useful idiots [49:27] in America. [49:29] Your answer, sir. [49:31] You know, Congressman, [49:32] I can't be sure [49:33] to the motives [49:34] of Vladimir Putin [49:35] or the Russians [49:35] who want to interfere [49:36] with our election process [49:37] in 2016, [49:38] but I can be certain [49:39] of one thing. [49:41] Donald Trump [49:41] was a private citizen [49:42] at the time. [49:43] And he had no more [49:44] responsibility or authority [49:45] to secure the integrity [49:47] of the 2016 election cycle [49:49] than I did. [49:50] That responsibility fell [49:51] to the intelligence community [49:52] and the Obama-Biden [49:53] administration. [49:54] They clearly failed. [49:55] Never did they contact [49:56] under my tenure [49:57] me to inform me [49:59] or anyone at the campaign [50:00] at the time [50:01] of any potential hacking [50:02] which may have been transpiring. [50:04] Never did they contact us [50:06] to alert us [50:07] of any potential [50:08] security violations [50:09] as it related [50:10] to the election. [50:11] And so I think [50:11] Mr. Comey, [50:14] Mr. Brennan, [50:15] and Mr. Clapper [50:16] ultimately own [50:17] the responsibilities [50:18] of the head [50:18] of the intelligence community [50:19] to understand [50:20] why they did not [50:21] do a better job [50:22] of protecting [50:22] the American electorate [50:23] in 2016 [50:24] to ensure we didn't [50:25] have foreign interference. [50:27] And Mr. Lewandowski, [50:28] had they contacted you, [50:31] what would have been [50:32] your response [50:32] in terms of notifying [50:34] others on the election [50:35] in terms of their [50:36] dealing with Russians? [50:38] We would have worked [50:39] with them. [50:39] I would have recommended [50:40] working through council [50:41] to work with them [50:42] to notify them [50:42] of any potential contacts, [50:44] which I don't ever [50:45] recall having. [50:45] But if we would have had any, [50:47] I would have made sure [50:47] we notified the appropriate [50:48] authorities immediately. [50:49] Thank you. [50:50] Are you back? [50:51] The gentleman yields back. [50:52] The gentleman from Florida. [50:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [50:55] Mr. Lewandowski, [50:56] I just wanted to follow up [50:57] on Mr. Johnson. [50:59] The Mueller report, [51:00] volume two, page 90, [51:01] says one month later, [51:03] this is a month after [51:03] your June 19th meeting, [51:04] presumably after [51:05] your return from vacation, [51:06] the president met again [51:07] with Lewandowski, [51:08] followed up on the request [51:09] to have Sessions limit [51:10] the scope of the Russia [51:11] investigation. [51:12] Just to clarify [51:13] that he did do that. [51:14] But I want to go back [51:15] to that meeting on June 19th. [51:17] The president asked you [51:18] to write down, [51:18] word for word, [51:19] a script that he wanted [51:20] the Attorney General [51:21] of the United States [51:22] to deliver. [51:22] Isn't that correct? [51:25] I'm sorry, [51:26] can you just give me [51:26] the reference again, [51:27] Congressman? [51:27] Well, let me do this. [51:29] Previously, you testified, [51:31] because it's reported [51:31] in the Mueller report, [51:33] that the president [51:34] asked Lewandowski [51:34] to deliver a message [51:35] to Sessions [51:36] and write this down. [51:37] This is page 91. [51:38] This was the first time [51:39] the president asked him [51:40] to take dictation. [51:41] You wrote as fast as possible. [51:43] The notes that you took [51:43] at that meeting [51:44] are on the screen. [51:48] If you could, [51:50] I don't know [51:50] that the notes are. [51:51] I'm going to read [51:52] the section of the notes [51:54] that you took [51:55] that were, again, [51:57] this is what you were [51:58] asked to deliver [51:59] to the Attorney General [52:00] of the United States [52:00] to announce in public. [52:02] I know I recused myself [52:03] from certain things [52:04] having to do [52:05] with specific areas, [52:05] but our POTUS [52:06] is being treated [52:07] very unfairly. [52:09] He shouldn't have [52:10] a special prosecutor [52:11] counsel because [52:12] he hasn't done [52:13] anything wrong. [52:14] I was on the campaign [52:15] with him for nine months. [52:16] There were no Russians [52:17] involved with him, [52:17] I know for a fact, [52:18] because I was there. [52:19] He didn't do anything wrong [52:21] except run the greatest [52:22] campaign in American history. [52:24] That's from page 91. [52:26] That's, again, [52:28] that's what President Trump [52:29] wanted the Attorney General [52:30] to say in public [52:31] about the special counsel's [52:32] investigation. [52:33] Is that right? [52:34] I believe that's [52:35] an accurate representation. [52:36] So this is in June of 2017. [52:39] You said that you didn't know [52:41] about, you didn't know [52:42] about the Attorney General [52:45] being barred from participating, [52:48] speaking out [52:49] about the Russia investigation. [52:51] The public didn't know [52:52] about all these attempts [52:53] to influence the investigation [52:54] at that time. [52:55] But what we did know, [52:56] what everyone knew, [52:57] Mr. Lewandowski, [52:59] was that the President's [53:00] campaign was under investigation [53:01] and they knew the Attorney General [53:02] couldn't touch it [53:03] because he was a major part [53:05] of the campaign. [53:06] He advised on national security matters. [53:08] And back in March, [53:10] he had recused himself. [53:12] He had recused himself [53:13] from anything having to do [53:15] with the investigation. [53:16] You weren't aware of that [53:17] at all, [53:19] that what he did in March [53:20] and the fact that he had [53:20] recused himself? [53:21] I was aware of the [53:23] Attorney General's recusal. [53:25] And so when the President [53:27] asked you to deliver a speech [53:30] that he wanted, [53:31] the Attorney General, [53:33] who could not participate [53:34] in the investigation, [53:36] couldn't talk about anything [53:37] having to do with the investigation, [53:38] he recused himself. [53:39] When the President asked you [53:41] to deliver that word-for-word [53:44] speech for him, [53:45] there was no inconsistency [53:47] with that and the fact [53:48] that the Attorney General [53:49] had recused himself, [53:50] you knew that he had, [53:51] and you knew that he couldn't [53:52] participate in any way. [53:54] I'm not an attorney, Congressman. [53:56] I'm not asking you [53:56] as an attorney. [53:57] I am, but that's not [53:58] why I'm asking you. [53:59] I'm just asking you [53:59] if you knew that he had [54:01] recused himself. [54:02] You did, right? [54:03] I'm aware of the public reports [54:04] that Jeff Sessions [54:05] recused himself from the investigation. [54:06] And by recusing himself, [54:07] you're aware of the public reports [54:09] and what was in his recusal statement [54:11] on March 2nd of 2017 [54:13] that he wasn't going to participate [54:14] in any existing or future investigations [54:17] of any matters relating [54:19] to the campaign for President. [54:20] You knew that was out there. [54:22] So when the President asked you [54:23] to specifically go in there [54:25] and ask him to deliver a speech, [54:27] which was contrary to that, [54:28] forget about being a lawyer. [54:29] Did it strike you as off in any way? [54:32] Were you concerned in any way? [54:35] No, sir. [54:35] Was it the right decision [54:36] for Sessions to recuse himself? [54:39] Well, I can't comment [54:40] on Jeff Sessions' [54:42] decision-making process. [54:43] So here's what he did. [54:47] The script says, [54:49] a group of people [54:50] want to subvert the Constitution. [54:51] I'm going to meet [54:52] with the special prosecutor [54:53] to explain this is very unfair [54:55] and let the special prosecutor [54:56] move forward [54:57] with investigating election bailing [54:59] for future elections [55:01] so that nothing can happen [55:02] in future elections. [55:04] The President, you'll agree, [55:05] was trying to force [55:06] the investigation to focus [55:08] only on the future [55:09] so it didn't focus on him. [55:10] Isn't that right, Mr. Lewandowski? [55:11] I don't agree to that. [55:13] That's not what, [55:14] when you look only in the future [55:15] and you're not allowed [55:17] to look at the one investigation [55:18] into the President, [55:19] that's not how you interpret that? [55:21] You interpret it differently? [55:22] I think that could be [55:23] your interpretation. [55:24] It is, I think it's [55:25] an obvious interpretation. [55:26] If we had more time, [55:27] I'd ask what yours is, [55:29] but I'll just close with this. [55:30] A month, he asked you to do this, [55:32] he brought you in [55:34] to talk to the Attorney General [55:35] because the President [55:36] was terrified, Mr. Lewandowski. [55:39] A month before your meeting, [55:40] the special counsel [55:41] was appointed [55:42] and the President said, [55:43] oh my God, this is terrible. [55:45] He wanted you to pressure [55:47] the Attorney General, [55:48] someone who wasn't even allowed [55:49] to talk about the investigation [55:51] to block him from looking [55:52] at his own conduct. [55:54] Mr. Lewandowski, [55:55] that's abuse of power. [55:57] And as we go on [55:58] through this investigation, [55:59] I hope you'll be able [56:00] to further elaborate [56:01] on how you could have seen this [56:03] in any other light [56:05] than the obvious way [56:06] the President attempted [56:07] to abuse his power. [56:08] Attorney General, this time has expired. [56:09] The witness may answer the question. [56:12] Thank you. [56:14] The gentleman from Texas, [56:17] Mr. Radcliffe. [56:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [56:21] Mr. Lewandowski, [56:23] welcome to what my colleagues [56:24] on the other side of the aisle [56:26] have alternatively described [56:29] and argued over the past week [56:31] as an impeachment inquiry, [56:33] an impeachment investigation, [56:34] an impeachment probe, [56:36] and an impeachment proceeding. [56:38] Now, if you're confused which one, [56:40] I assure you, you're not alone. [56:42] A lot of the folks [56:43] that are watching today [56:44] might be confused [56:45] because they might be thinking [56:46] that impeachment proceedings [56:48] are supposed to be initiated [56:49] after a vote [56:51] by the full House of Representatives. [56:54] And they'd be right. [56:55] But you see, the Democrats, [56:57] now the party of impeachment, [56:58] tried that three times [57:00] and failed miserably three times. [57:02] Twice before the Mueller report [57:04] and then once again [57:06] after the Mueller report. [57:07] So last week, [57:08] the party of impeachment, [57:10] which is in charge of this committee, [57:12] changed our rules [57:13] so that they could get to impeachment [57:15] in a different way. [57:16] And, Mr. Lewandowski, [57:17] you're lucky. [57:17] You're the first witness [57:19] for the party of impeachment's [57:20] new impeachment procedure. [57:22] I feel very lucky. [57:23] Thank you. [57:23] You should. [57:25] Now, I know that you've testified [57:26] before the House, [57:28] before the Senate, [57:29] and before the special counsel. [57:30] But in fairness, Mr. Lewandowski, [57:32] that's when my colleagues [57:33] on the other side of the aisle [57:34] were promising the American people [57:36] that there was going to be [57:37] impeachment by collusion [57:38] or impeachment by conspiracy, [57:40] which, of course, didn't exist. [57:42] And the special counsel [57:43] said it didn't exist. [57:44] So then they had to shift and say, [57:46] well, now it's going to be [57:48] impeachment by obstruction of justice. [57:50] Remember that they promised. [57:51] They promised that [57:52] special counsel Mueller [57:53] was going to breathe life [57:55] into impeachment [57:56] by obstruction of justice. [57:57] But instead, [57:58] he put it to death. [57:59] I don't know if you remember, [58:00] but I asked him, [58:01] can you give me an example [58:03] other than Donald Trump [58:04] where the Justice Department [58:06] determined that an investigated person [58:08] was not exonerated [58:10] because their innocence [58:11] was not conclusively determined? [58:13] And his answer was, [58:14] I cannot. [58:15] Do you remember that? [58:16] So, as it turns out, [58:18] all 200, nearly 200 pages [58:20] of the Mueller report [58:21] and the analysis of, [58:24] in volume two, [58:25] of obstruction of justice [58:26] was done under a legal standard [58:29] and legal burden of proof [58:31] that is not recognized [58:32] and ever been used before [58:34] in American jurisprudence. [58:35] But the party of impeachment [58:36] are going to gloss over that today. [58:38] They're also going to gloss over [58:39] the fact that the inspector general [58:42] criminally referred the FBI director [58:45] who leaked the information [58:47] to get the special counsel [58:48] in the first place [58:49] and the same inspector general [58:51] who found that facts establishing [58:57] that that same FBI director [58:58] was in fact targeting Donald Trump [59:00] at the same time [59:01] in an investigation [59:02] where he said [59:03] he wasn't investigating Donald Trump. [59:05] Now, you might think [59:06] that this committee [59:07] would be interesting [59:08] in hearing from that inspector general [59:10] for the first time [59:11] rather than hearing from you [59:14] for the fourth time. [59:15] But maybe you can be helpful [59:16] because the party of impeachment, [59:19] they don't care, Mr. Lewandowski, [59:20] what kind of impeachment [59:22] you can deliver for them. [59:23] There are 135 Democrats [59:25] and socialists [59:26] in the House of Representatives [59:28] that have publicly come out [59:29] for impeachment. [59:30] They're in agreement [59:30] the president needs to be impeached. [59:32] The problem is [59:32] they've come up with [59:33] more than a dozen different reasons [59:35] that they're arguing about [59:36] are the basis for that impeachment. [59:38] We've talked about impeachment [59:39] by collusion. [59:40] We've talked about impeachment [59:41] by conspiracy. [59:42] We've talked about impeachment [59:43] by obstruction of justice. [59:44] Let's cover a few more. [59:46] Impeachment under the emoluments clause. [59:48] Did the first and only president [59:51] rich enough [59:52] to largely self-fund [59:54] a successful presidential campaign [59:56] ever admit to you [59:57] that he secretly ran [59:58] for president to get rich? [1:00:00] No, sir. [1:00:01] Okay. [1:00:01] He's already very rich. [1:00:03] Did, do you have any information [1:00:06] or evidence, Mr. Lewandowski, [1:00:08] about crimes the president committed [1:00:11] for ignoring congressional subpoenas [1:00:14] as a basis of impeachment? [1:00:17] I do not. [1:00:17] How about dangling pardons? [1:00:20] Do you know if the president, [1:00:21] did he ever admit or say to you [1:00:22] that he would pardon anybody [1:00:24] in law enforcement [1:00:25] who was trying to enforce [1:00:28] or protect our territorial borders? [1:00:31] At the request of the White House, [1:00:33] I can't discuss private conversations [1:00:35] that may or may not occur [1:00:36] with the president. [1:00:37] Okay. [1:00:37] Well, how about this one? [1:00:38] How about impeachment [1:00:39] by using a Sharpie [1:00:40] on a hurricane weather map? [1:00:41] Did the president ever admit [1:00:43] or say to you [1:00:44] that he intentionally committed [1:00:46] an impeachable high crime [1:00:47] by magic marker, [1:00:49] as some of my Democratic colleagues [1:00:50] are contending? [1:00:51] Again, Congressman, [1:00:53] I can't discuss any private conversation [1:00:54] I may have had with the president. [1:00:55] I'm sorry. [1:00:56] You're frankly not being helpful at all, [1:00:58] Mr. Lewandowski. [1:00:59] Maybe you don't understand [1:01:01] that the party of impeachment, [1:01:02] they're not picky at all. [1:01:04] They don't even care [1:01:05] if you don't have impeachment. [1:01:07] If you got anything on Donald Trump, [1:01:09] how about on Justice Kavanaugh? [1:01:10] Because this morning, [1:01:11] now they say they want to impeach [1:01:12] Justice Kavanaugh. [1:01:13] Have you got anything [1:01:14] that supports impeachment [1:01:15] of Justice Kavanaugh? [1:01:17] He's a good man. [1:01:18] Well, listen, [1:01:18] I know you're disappointed [1:01:21] that you've only been here four times. [1:01:22] But don't you think [1:01:23] that there isn't going to be [1:01:24] another opportunity? [1:01:25] Because this committee [1:01:26] has become the search party [1:01:27] for impeachment, [1:01:28] and they're going to bring back anybody [1:01:30] as much as they have to [1:01:32] to find something, [1:01:33] anything to keep [1:01:34] this impeachment hoax alive. [1:01:36] I yield back. [1:01:39] Gentleman yields back [1:01:40] 15 seconds over time. [1:01:42] The gentlelady from California. [1:01:45] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:01:47] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:01:48] I want to follow up [1:01:49] from my colleague here, [1:01:50] Mr. Deutsch. [1:01:52] It's clear that the president [1:01:53] was desperate for you [1:01:55] to deliver the message to Sessions. [1:01:57] Everyone else had said no, [1:01:58] and he went to great lengths [1:01:59] to make sure that you'd be effective [1:02:01] in delivering it. [1:02:03] After the president dictated the message, [1:02:04] he told you to tell the attorney general [1:02:06] that he would be the most popular guy [1:02:09] in the country [1:02:09] if he delivered that message [1:02:11] to limit the investigation [1:02:12] to the future. [1:02:13] Is that correct? [1:02:14] Could you reference me to that [1:02:17] in the report, please? [1:02:17] Yes, it's in volume 2, page 92. [1:02:21] So is that correct? [1:02:22] I'd like to reference that. [1:02:23] Okay, well, while you're looking, [1:02:24] I'm going to move on. [1:02:24] So the president is telling you [1:02:26] how to convince Sessions to do it. [1:02:28] It's page 92, first paragraph. [1:02:31] To tell Sessions [1:02:32] that he'd be the most popular guy [1:02:33] in the country [1:02:34] if he did what the president ordered. [1:02:36] And the president picked you [1:02:37] for a reason, [1:02:38] because he knew that you had [1:02:39] the traits of an enforcer [1:02:41] and described yourself [1:02:42] as his, quote, loyal soldier. [1:02:44] This was no exception. [1:02:46] Did you find it now? [1:02:47] I have it here, Congressman. [1:02:48] Okay, so the attorney general [1:02:52] that he would be [1:02:53] the most popular guy [1:02:54] in the country [1:02:54] if he delivered that message. [1:02:56] Do you see that on page 92? [1:02:58] I do. [1:02:58] So is that correct? [1:03:00] I believe it's accurate. [1:03:01] And you told the president [1:03:04] that you understood [1:03:05] what he wanted Sessions to do. [1:03:07] Is that what you told [1:03:08] the special counsel? [1:03:09] Same page. [1:03:14] And you did understand [1:03:15] what the president wanted. [1:03:16] He knew not to create a trail. [1:03:20] So looking at the slide, [1:03:23] Lewandowski wanted to pass [1:03:26] the message to Sessions [1:03:27] in person rather than [1:03:29] on the phone. [1:03:30] Where is that? [1:03:33] After you left the Oval Office, [1:03:34] you didn't schedule [1:03:35] an official meeting with Sessions. [1:03:38] Instead, you called [1:03:38] the attorney general [1:03:39] at home, correct? [1:03:42] If that's what's in the report. [1:03:46] You told Sessions [1:03:47] you wanted to meet [1:03:48] in person rather than [1:03:49] on the phone. [1:03:50] You could have just read [1:03:51] the message from the president [1:03:52] over the phone, [1:03:53] but you knew that [1:03:53] it would make it harder [1:03:54] to persuade Sessions [1:03:56] to do what you wanted. [1:03:57] So you wanted to meet [1:03:58] with him in person, correct? [1:04:01] If that's what the report states, yes. [1:04:03] So the attorney general [1:04:04] works at the Department of Justice, [1:04:06] but you told the special counsel [1:04:07] that you didn't want to meet [1:04:09] in the Department of Justice [1:04:11] because you knew [1:04:12] that if you went into [1:04:13] a government building [1:04:14] that there's a public log [1:04:15] of the visit [1:04:15] and you specifically told [1:04:17] the special counsel [1:04:18] that you did not want [1:04:19] to quote a public log [1:04:21] of your visit. [1:04:23] Isn't that right? [1:04:25] That's accurate. [1:04:26] So why is that? [1:04:27] Why didn't you want [1:04:27] to leave a paper trail [1:04:29] for your visit? [1:04:30] Well, Jeff and I [1:04:30] have friends socially [1:04:31] and I want to have [1:04:32] the opportunity to have [1:04:33] a meal with Jeff [1:04:34] and relay the conversation [1:04:35] which the president asked me [1:04:37] to ask Jeff to consider giving. [1:04:40] So if that was the case, [1:04:42] then why was there a problem [1:04:44] with you having to do it [1:04:46] in secret, essentially? [1:04:48] I mean, it was a very important [1:04:49] message you were delivering [1:04:51] from the president [1:04:51] and it was a message [1:04:52] that could certainly be viewed [1:04:55] as completely inappropriate [1:04:57] considering that you were not [1:04:59] even an employee [1:05:00] of the White House. [1:05:02] You're a private citizen. [1:05:03] You're delivering a message [1:05:04] to the attorney general [1:05:05] to limit the investigation. [1:05:08] So if you didn't think [1:05:09] you were doing anything wrong, [1:05:10] then why would it matter [1:05:12] that there was a public log? [1:05:14] I want to have the opportunity [1:05:15] to speak with Jeff [1:05:15] in a more relaxed atmosphere [1:05:17] and have a meal with him [1:05:18] to have the conversation. [1:05:19] Well, you said that [1:05:21] another reason for not meeting [1:05:22] at the DOJ [1:05:23] was because you, quote, [1:05:25] did not want Sessions [1:05:26] to have an advantage over you [1:05:28] by meeting on Sessions turf. [1:05:30] Is that right? [1:05:31] That's right. [1:05:31] I want to have a private conversation [1:05:33] in a more relaxed atmosphere. [1:05:35] So, again, [1:05:36] if this was an appropriate message [1:05:38] to deliver [1:05:39] and if it was just about that, [1:05:40] why would it matter [1:05:41] whose turf it was on? [1:05:42] Why couldn't you go to his office? [1:05:43] You're his friend. [1:05:44] Why couldn't you go to his office [1:05:46] and meet with him there? [1:05:47] I suppose I could have, [1:05:49] but I chose to have a... [1:05:50] I wanted to have a discussion [1:05:51] with Jeff [1:05:52] as we have had [1:05:53] so many occasions before that. [1:05:55] Exactly. [1:05:56] I mean, I... [1:05:57] Never inside the Department of Justice. [1:05:58] I believe that Sessions [1:05:59] knew that it was wrong [1:06:00] and that Sessions [1:06:01] canceled his meeting with you. [1:06:03] If you guys were good friends, [1:06:05] why would he have bothered [1:06:06] to cancel it? [1:06:07] Did he call you up [1:06:07] to reschedule it? [1:06:09] That'd be a question [1:06:10] for Jeff Sessions. [1:06:11] Well, after you testified, [1:06:13] and you testified earlier [1:06:14] that after the inauguration [1:06:15] you didn't communicate [1:06:17] with the Attorney General [1:06:18] often, [1:06:18] your good friend [1:06:19] that you have dinner with. [1:06:20] So when you said [1:06:21] that you had a message [1:06:22] to deliver, [1:06:22] isn't it fair to say [1:06:23] that Sessions knew [1:06:24] you were calling [1:06:26] on behalf of the President [1:06:27] and that that message [1:06:27] was from him? [1:06:29] I have no idea [1:06:30] what was in Jeff Sessions' mind. [1:06:31] Well, to be clear, [1:06:32] the Attorney General [1:06:33] knew it was a message [1:06:34] from the President [1:06:35] and he still refused [1:06:36] to meet with you. [1:06:37] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:06:38] it's clear to me [1:06:38] that Sessions knew [1:06:39] what we all know [1:06:40] sitting here today, [1:06:41] that what you were doing [1:06:42] was wrong. [1:06:43] He wanted nothing to do [1:06:44] with your secret messages [1:06:45] because he knew [1:06:46] it was entirely improper [1:06:47] for a private citizen [1:06:49] to go behind the back [1:06:50] of the White House Council [1:06:51] and secretly meet with him [1:06:53] somewhere without any record [1:06:55] of your meeting [1:06:55] on your turf [1:06:56] to try to persuade [1:06:58] the Attorney General [1:06:58] to protect the President [1:06:59] from investigation [1:07:01] into his own misconduct. [1:07:02] Well, you know, [1:07:03] you can't protect him anymore [1:07:04] and I'm glad [1:07:05] that this misconduct [1:07:06] can finally be brought [1:07:07] to public attention [1:07:08] so that the President [1:07:09] can be held accountable. [1:07:10] The gentle ladies, [1:07:11] time has expired. [1:07:12] The witness has requested [1:07:14] a short recess. [1:07:15] The committee will resume [1:07:17] in five minutes. [1:07:18] The committee stands in recess. [1:07:19] Well, you've been listening [1:07:30] in to President Trump's [1:07:31] former campaign manager, [1:07:32] Corey Lewandowski, [1:07:33] testifying. [1:07:34] He is actually [1:07:35] the first witness [1:07:36] to testify [1:07:37] before the Democratic [1:07:38] impeachment probe there [1:07:39] you see on Capitol Hill. [1:07:40] We're going to take [1:07:41] a short break. [1:07:42] We're going to have [1:07:42] more analysis on this [1:07:43] and we will continue [1:07:43] to monitor this [1:07:44] and cover it [1:07:45] and bring it to you live. [1:11:10] How many times [1:11:10] has the President asked you [1:11:11] to meet him [1:11:12] in the White House? [1:11:15] The White House [1:11:15] is directed [1:11:16] to not disclose [1:11:16] the substance [1:11:17] of any discussion. [1:11:18] How many times [1:11:18] did you meet [1:11:18] with the President [1:11:19] alone in the White House [1:11:20] in 2017? [1:11:21] I don't know [1:11:21] the answer to that. [1:11:22] How many times [1:11:23] did he direct you [1:11:24] to deliver a message [1:11:24] to a member [1:11:25] of his Cabinet? [1:11:26] The White House [1:11:27] is directed [1:11:27] to not disclose [1:11:28] the substance [1:11:28] of any discussions [1:11:29] with the President. [1:11:30] Did he ever discuss [1:11:31] with you any concerns [1:11:32] that he may have [1:11:32] committed a criminal offense? [1:11:34] The White House [1:11:35] is directed [1:11:35] to not disclose [1:11:36] the substance [1:11:36] of any discussions [1:11:37] with the President [1:11:38] or his advisors [1:11:38] to protect [1:11:39] executive branch [1:11:40] confidentiality. [1:11:41] I recognize [1:11:42] this is not my privilege. [1:11:44] Well, that was [1:11:45] former Trump campaign [1:11:46] manager, [1:11:46] Corey Lewandowski, [1:11:47] refusing to answer [1:11:48] questions about [1:11:49] his conversations [1:11:50] with President Trump. [1:11:51] This hearing [1:11:51] is in a short recess [1:11:53] for five minutes [1:11:54] and it's set to resume. [1:11:55] And when it does, [1:11:55] we're going to take you there live. [1:11:56] But for now, [1:11:57] I want to bring in CBS News [1:11:58] Chief Congressional Correspondent [1:11:59] Nancy Cordes, [1:12:00] who joins us by phone. [1:12:02] Nancy, at the beginning, [1:12:03] a great deal of back and forth [1:12:04] as to whether or not [1:12:05] this hearing [1:12:06] would even take place. [1:12:07] That's right. [1:12:08] And Republicans [1:12:09] were looking for [1:12:10] stalling mechanisms. [1:12:11] Democrats accused [1:12:12] Lewandowski [1:12:12] of trying to stall. [1:12:14] He was asking them [1:12:15] to list not just [1:12:17] the page [1:12:17] from the Mueller report, [1:12:18] but the paragraph [1:12:19] on that page [1:12:20] for all the early questions [1:12:22] they were asking him. [1:12:23] But things have sort of [1:12:24] settled down [1:12:24] since then, Rena, [1:12:25] and he is giving them [1:12:27] somewhat substantive answers [1:12:29] as they walk him [1:12:30] through the Mueller report [1:12:31] and his exchanges [1:12:34] with the president [1:12:35] about delivering this message [1:12:38] to the attorney general [1:12:39] that the president [1:12:40] had asked him to give, [1:12:41] basically telling Sessions [1:12:43] what the president [1:12:44] wanted Sessions to say, [1:12:45] even though Sessions [1:12:46] had been recused [1:12:47] and recused himself [1:12:49] from the Mueller investigation, [1:12:51] basically telling Sessions [1:12:52] that the president [1:12:53] wanted him to dial back [1:12:55] the investigation [1:12:56] and make sure [1:12:57] that it had nothing to do [1:12:58] with the president [1:12:59] or his campaign. [1:13:01] Lewandowski [1:13:02] was asked repeatedly [1:13:03] whether he thought [1:13:04] that there was anything wrong [1:13:05] with the message [1:13:07] that he was asked [1:13:08] to give [1:13:08] to attorney general Sessions, [1:13:10] both the substance [1:13:11] of the message [1:13:11] and also the fact [1:13:13] that he, [1:13:14] someone who was not employed [1:13:15] by the White House, [1:13:16] was the one [1:13:17] who was asked [1:13:18] to deliver the message. [1:13:19] And Lewandowski [1:13:19] repeatedly said [1:13:20] he didn't think [1:13:22] that there was anything [1:13:22] wrong with that message. [1:13:23] He didn't think [1:13:23] that it was improper. [1:13:24] He didn't think [1:13:25] that it was illegal. [1:13:26] But that doesn't exactly [1:13:27] square with the fact [1:13:28] that Lewandowski, [1:13:29] who is someone [1:13:30] that we know [1:13:30] is very loyal [1:13:32] to the president, [1:13:33] never delivered the message [1:13:34] for some reason. [1:13:36] He says it's because [1:13:36] he went on vacation, [1:13:38] but obviously [1:13:38] if you're quite loyal [1:13:39] to the president [1:13:40] and he tells you [1:13:41] to deliver a message [1:13:42] and you don't have [1:13:44] any problem [1:13:44] with that message, [1:13:45] one would think [1:13:45] that you would [1:13:46] deliver it right away. [1:13:47] But he didn't. [1:13:48] And so Democrats [1:13:49] have tried to say [1:13:50] that he was a chicken, [1:13:51] that he got cold feet [1:13:52] at the end of the day. [1:13:53] He said, [1:13:54] no, no, that's not it. [1:13:55] But we do know [1:13:56] from the Mueller report [1:13:57] that he eventually asked [1:13:58] a White House aide, [1:14:00] Rick Dearborn, [1:14:01] to deliver the message. [1:14:02] Instead, [1:14:02] Dearborn said [1:14:03] he was uncomfortable [1:14:04] with it and never did it. [1:14:05] So, Nancy, [1:14:06] we know there's a divide [1:14:07] within the Democratic Party [1:14:08] as to whether or not [1:14:09] to even continue forward [1:14:10] on impeachment inquiries. [1:14:13] At this point, [1:14:14] what do you believe [1:14:15] that Democrats [1:14:16] are strategizing? [1:14:17] What do they hope [1:14:17] to get from Lewandowski [1:14:19] over the next, [1:14:20] over the course [1:14:20] of this afternoon? [1:14:22] Well, what's so unique [1:14:23] about Lewandowski [1:14:24] is that he is really [1:14:25] the first major player [1:14:27] who's featured [1:14:28] in the Mueller report [1:14:30] who's coming to testify [1:14:31] before the House [1:14:33] Judiciary Committee [1:14:34] directly about his role [1:14:37] in incidents [1:14:38] that were detailed [1:14:39] by the Mueller report. [1:14:40] And, in fact, [1:14:41] he took notes [1:14:42] in his meeting [1:14:42] with the president. [1:14:43] The president said, [1:14:44] write this down, [1:14:44] word for word. [1:14:45] This is what I want you [1:14:47] to have the Attorney General, [1:14:49] Jeff Sessions, [1:14:50] say in a speech. [1:14:51] And Lewandowski [1:14:51] not only took those notes, [1:14:53] but he preserved them. [1:14:54] And those notes [1:14:55] are now in the Mueller report. [1:14:57] And they've been reading [1:14:57] the notes back [1:14:58] to Lewandowski repeatedly [1:15:00] in this hearing [1:15:01] because he refuses [1:15:02] to read them aloud himself. [1:15:03] And so Democrats [1:15:05] think it's very worthwhile [1:15:06] to get him [1:15:07] on the record [1:15:08] squirming, frankly, [1:15:10] about why it is [1:15:11] that he was asked [1:15:12] to deliver this message, [1:15:13] why he doesn't think [1:15:14] there was anything [1:15:15] improper about it, [1:15:16] why he didn't deliver it. [1:15:18] They think that [1:15:19] that sort of brings [1:15:20] the Mueller report [1:15:21] to life [1:15:21] for the American people. [1:15:23] And while there may be [1:15:24] some dispute [1:15:25] among Democrats [1:15:25] about the timing [1:15:27] and robustness [1:15:28] of an impeachment inquiry, [1:15:31] there really isn't [1:15:32] much dispute [1:15:33] among Democrats [1:15:34] about the fact [1:15:35] that some kind [1:15:36] of obstruction [1:15:37] of justice [1:15:37] may have taken place [1:15:39] surrounding [1:15:40] the Mueller investigation. [1:15:42] And they all support [1:15:43] the Judiciary Committee [1:15:45] trying to probe [1:15:46] in any way it can [1:15:47] the circumstances [1:15:48] that led to [1:15:50] the incidents [1:15:51] that are laid out [1:15:52] in the Mueller report. [1:15:53] And while the Judiciary Committee [1:15:54] has the power [1:15:55] and the ability [1:15:55] to probe, [1:15:56] Republicans were raising [1:15:57] one big concern [1:15:58] about where this is all headed. [1:15:59] I want to play for you [1:16:00] a bite from [1:16:01] just a short time ago. [1:16:02] It's become, [1:16:04] let's read the Mueller report [1:16:05] for audiobook. [1:16:06] That's what we've become. [1:16:08] We had Mr. Mueller here. [1:16:10] Had a long day of it. [1:16:12] Judging by all accounts, [1:16:13] it didn't go real well. [1:16:16] But here's the problem. [1:16:17] 17 of the members [1:16:20] of the Judiciary Committee [1:16:20] have said [1:16:21] that they think [1:16:22] the president ought [1:16:22] to be impeached. [1:16:24] So why are we still [1:16:25] investigating it? [1:16:26] 17, you get some more. [1:16:27] The problem is [1:16:28] you don't have the votes. [1:16:30] You don't have the numbers. [1:16:31] Even if you got it [1:16:32] out of this committee, [1:16:32] you don't have it on the floor. [1:16:33] That's your problem. [1:16:34] You don't have the votes, Nancy. [1:16:37] What do you make [1:16:38] of his statement there? [1:16:40] Well, I think the Democrats [1:16:41] would argue that [1:16:42] that's why you hold hearings [1:16:43] just like this one, [1:16:44] so that you can get the votes. [1:16:46] You can convince your colleagues [1:16:47] and convince the American people. [1:16:50] But the argument [1:16:51] that Republicans [1:16:52] have been making [1:16:53] repeatedly in this hearing, [1:16:54] and it's true, [1:16:55] is that Corey Lewandowski [1:16:56] has now testified [1:16:57] before Congress [1:16:59] multiple times, [1:17:00] and he did it voluntarily. [1:17:02] He also spoke [1:17:03] to the special counsel. [1:17:05] And so Republicans say [1:17:06] this is a stunt, [1:17:08] that there is no question [1:17:09] that Lewandowski [1:17:10] hasn't answered [1:17:12] that would require him [1:17:14] to come before Congress [1:17:15] a fourth time. [1:17:16] Now, those other times [1:17:17] were behind closed doors, [1:17:19] and there's certainly [1:17:19] some performance values [1:17:22] for Democrats [1:17:22] to get him to repeat [1:17:25] the things he's already said [1:17:27] in public. [1:17:29] But Republicans say, [1:17:30] you know, [1:17:30] he's a witness [1:17:32] who has been cooperative. [1:17:33] He agreed to come [1:17:35] before this committee, [1:17:36] but then suddenly [1:17:37] was slapped with a subpoena [1:17:38] after he had already [1:17:40] agreed to appear. [1:17:41] So they say [1:17:42] that he is essentially [1:17:44] being treated [1:17:44] like a human pinata, [1:17:46] and that the Democrats [1:17:48] are being quite unfair [1:17:50] to this witness. [1:17:51] Democrats have tried [1:17:52] to get other witnesses [1:17:53] to come forward. [1:17:54] In fact, [1:17:54] there were supposed [1:17:55] to be two other [1:17:56] former White House officials [1:17:57] who were going [1:17:58] to testify today, [1:18:00] Rick Dearborn [1:18:01] and Rob Porter. [1:18:02] The White House [1:18:03] prevented both of them [1:18:04] from appearing. [1:18:05] And so Lewin Dusty, [1:18:07] who was never [1:18:08] a White House official [1:18:08] himself, [1:18:09] is sort of all alone [1:18:11] up there. [1:18:11] And as you mentioned, [1:18:12] he's the first witness [1:18:13] to testify in this House [1:18:14] Democratic impeachment probe. [1:18:16] Do you expect [1:18:16] other people, Nancy, [1:18:18] to follow potentially? [1:18:20] Where do you see [1:18:20] this headed? [1:18:22] Well, he's in kind [1:18:22] of a unique category, [1:18:24] Rena, [1:18:24] because he was not [1:18:25] a White House official. [1:18:27] Other individuals [1:18:28] who played key roles [1:18:30] in the incidents laid out [1:18:31] in the Mueller report [1:18:32] are current [1:18:34] or former White House [1:18:35] officials. [1:18:36] Hope Hicks, [1:18:37] Rob Porter, [1:18:38] Rick Dearborn, [1:18:39] Don McGahn, [1:18:40] the former White House [1:18:41] counsel. [1:18:41] They all have some cover [1:18:44] from the White House [1:18:45] and from the Department [1:18:46] of Justice, [1:18:47] which is saying, [1:18:48] and Democrats argue [1:18:49] that this is bogus, [1:18:50] that they don't have [1:18:52] to testify [1:18:52] because they have [1:18:53] something that DOJ [1:18:55] is calling absolute immunity. [1:18:59] Democrats have very [1:19:00] strenuously argued [1:19:01] that this is something [1:19:02] that doesn't actually exist, [1:19:04] that is being made up [1:19:05] for this purpose. [1:19:06] But nevertheless, [1:19:07] those individuals [1:19:08] are not showing up [1:19:09] even though they've been [1:19:10] superior. [1:19:11] So Democrats are going [1:19:12] to milk this hearing [1:19:13] for all it's worth [1:19:14] because they don't know [1:19:15] when it is [1:19:16] that they'll have [1:19:16] another opportunity [1:19:17] to grill someone [1:19:18] who had the same kind [1:19:21] of success [1:19:23] to the president [1:19:25] that Corey Lewandowski [1:19:26] had and yet [1:19:27] was not someone [1:19:28] who worked for the White House [1:19:29] and therefore can be prevented [1:19:31] by the White House [1:19:32] from testifying. [1:19:33] Nancy, if you could hang with us, [1:19:34] I want to also bring in [1:19:35] Steve Dorsey [1:19:36] into this conversation. [1:19:37] He joins us by phone. [1:19:37] He's an executive editor [1:19:38] and correspondent [1:19:39] for CBS News Radio. [1:19:41] So, Steve, [1:19:42] I want to talk a little bit more [1:19:43] about what Nancy was mentioning, [1:19:44] you know, [1:19:44] the two White House aides [1:19:45] that were supposed to be here [1:19:47] but are not [1:19:47] because the White House [1:19:48] told them not to show up. [1:19:50] Walk us through [1:19:50] what their reasoning is. [1:19:52] Yeah, well, [1:19:53] their whole reasoning [1:19:54] is that the president [1:19:55] prevented them [1:19:56] from testifying [1:19:58] using executive privilege [1:20:00] to shield them. [1:20:02] And we got a statement [1:20:03] not too long ago [1:20:04] from the lawyer [1:20:05] for Rob Porter, [1:20:06] one of the two men [1:20:06] that did not show up [1:20:08] to this hearing [1:20:09] alongside Corey Lewandowski. [1:20:14] He says that [1:20:15] Mr. Porter [1:20:15] is currently [1:20:16] under conflicting [1:20:17] and contradictory directives [1:20:19] from two co-equal branches, [1:20:21] Congress [1:20:21] and the president [1:20:23] who has instructed him [1:20:24] not to appear [1:20:24] at today's hearing. [1:20:27] And he says [1:20:28] he's communicated [1:20:29] to House Judiciary Committee [1:20:30] Chairman Jerry Nadler [1:20:31] that when this conflict [1:20:34] is resolved, [1:20:35] he will provide [1:20:36] the appropriate testimony. [1:20:38] We're standing by. [1:20:39] We see Corey Lewandowski [1:20:40] just feet away [1:20:41] from taking his seat there. [1:20:43] I do want to ask you, [1:20:44] though, Steve, [1:20:44] have you gotten us [1:20:45] any sort of reaction [1:20:46] from the White House [1:20:47] on what they've seen [1:20:48] so far from this testimony? [1:20:49] Well, so far, [1:20:52] the White House [1:20:52] hasn't publicly weighed in [1:20:55] on the performance [1:20:56] of Corey Lewandowski, [1:20:58] but it's clear [1:20:59] that they've been satisfied [1:21:00] so far [1:21:01] with how the president's [1:21:03] closest aides [1:21:04] have been performing [1:21:05] in these types [1:21:08] of congressional hearings, [1:21:09] and it's not likely [1:21:10] we'll hear any statement [1:21:12] from that. [1:21:13] Yeah. [1:21:14] As you're joining us now, [1:21:16] we are standing by. [1:21:17] We are watching today [1:21:18] the testimony [1:21:19] within the House Judiciary Committee. [1:21:22] You see Chairman there, [1:21:22] Jerry Nadler, [1:21:23] about to take his seat [1:21:25] looking around. [1:21:26] Corey Lewandowski, [1:21:27] President Trump's [1:21:28] former campaign manager, [1:21:30] was testifying, [1:21:30] has been testifying [1:21:31] this afternoon, [1:21:32] and that testimony [1:21:33] is expected to resume. [1:21:35] It's at a five-minute break [1:21:36] at this point. [1:21:37] Nancy, I see Nadler [1:21:38] taking his seat. [1:21:39] I might have to interrupt [1:21:40] in a second, [1:21:40] but, boy, [1:21:41] at the beginning of this, [1:21:43] this was a bit of a lesson [1:21:44] in how motions [1:21:46] and point of orders. [1:21:47] I wonder if folks [1:21:49] in classes across America [1:21:50] might replay this [1:21:51] to explain how [1:21:52] these hearings [1:21:53] are conducted. [1:21:55] Right, [1:21:55] and Corey Lewandowski [1:21:56] is known to be [1:21:57] someone who can give [1:21:59] as good as he gets. [1:22:00] He was quite combative [1:22:01] on the campaign trail, [1:22:02] and that's something [1:22:03] that Democrats [1:22:04] knew going in, [1:22:05] and so, you know, [1:22:07] we've seen a lot [1:22:07] of contentious hearings [1:22:08] here on Capitol Hill [1:22:10] and in the House [1:22:10] Judiciary Committee, [1:22:11] and this was [1:22:12] even more contentious [1:22:13] because he came [1:22:14] loaded for bear [1:22:15] and he wasn't going [1:22:15] to make it any easier [1:22:16] for Democrats [1:22:17] than it needed to be. [1:22:20] You know, [1:22:20] what's going to be [1:22:21] so interesting [1:22:21] about this hearing [1:22:22] and why Republicans [1:22:23] are so eager [1:22:23] to sort of discredit it [1:22:25] from the outset [1:22:25] is that because [1:22:27] of the rule change [1:22:28] that went into effect [1:22:29] last week [1:22:29] in the House Judiciary Committee, [1:22:30] they voted on it, [1:22:32] staff members [1:22:33] for the committee [1:22:34] will actually have [1:22:35] the opportunity [1:22:35] to grill Lewandowski [1:22:37] for an hour [1:22:38] after all the lawmakers [1:22:40] have had their chance. [1:22:41] So that'll be [1:22:42] a pretty unusual scenario. [1:22:44] It almost seems [1:22:44] like a deposition. [1:22:45] You don't have lawmakers [1:22:46] grandstanding asking [1:22:48] their five minutes [1:22:48] worth of questions. [1:22:49] You have lawyers [1:22:50] basically asking him [1:22:51] very specific questions, [1:22:53] and you could have [1:22:54] one lawyer [1:22:55] from the Democratic side, [1:22:56] for instance, [1:22:56] just asking him [1:22:57] very detailed questions [1:22:58] for a straight half hour. [1:23:00] No opportunity [1:23:02] for him to filibuster [1:23:04] and kind of eat up [1:23:04] the time for one lawmaker [1:23:05] before you move [1:23:06] on to the next. [1:23:07] And that's, you know, [1:23:08] something that [1:23:09] the Republicans [1:23:10] were eager to avoid. [1:23:12] It's something [1:23:13] that doesn't make, [1:23:14] you know, [1:23:15] for a great appearance [1:23:16] on their side [1:23:17] because it looks like [1:23:19] someone who's [1:23:20] very close to the president [1:23:21] is being grilled, [1:23:22] picked apart by lawyers, [1:23:23] but they're in the minority, [1:23:25] and so there was really [1:23:26] nothing that they could [1:23:26] do to prevent it. [1:23:28] And why did they decide [1:23:28] to make that rule change, [1:23:30] Nancy, last week? [1:23:32] Because one of the frustrations [1:23:33] that Democrats have [1:23:35] is that because of the way [1:23:37] that all of these hearings [1:23:38] take place, [1:23:40] every lawmaker [1:23:41] only gets five minutes. [1:23:42] There are 42 lawmakers [1:23:43] on this committee, [1:23:44] and they want to get [1:23:46] into the nitty-gritty. [1:23:48] They want to get into [1:23:48] specifics with some [1:23:49] of these individuals, [1:23:51] and it's just hard [1:23:52] to get a flow going [1:23:54] when you're switching sides [1:23:56] back and forth [1:23:57] from Democrat [1:23:57] to Republican [1:23:58] every five minutes. [1:23:59] But what Republicans argue [1:24:01] is that, look, [1:24:02] most of the members [1:24:03] on this committee [1:24:03] are lawyers themselves. [1:24:05] They're prosecutors, [1:24:06] and they say that [1:24:07] they should be equipped [1:24:08] to ask the questions. [1:24:09] They don't need staffers [1:24:10] to do it for them. [1:24:11] Nancy, thank you so much [1:24:12] for giving us that background [1:24:13] on this as well. [1:24:14] I want to take you back [1:24:15] to the House Judiciary Committee [1:24:16] with Chairman Jerry Nadler. [1:24:17] ...would want to tar [1:24:19] and feather the president, [1:24:20] run him out of Washington [1:24:21] on a rail, [1:24:22] deprive the American people [1:24:23] of the president [1:24:24] that they duly elected. [1:24:26] Well, that didn't turn out [1:24:26] to be the case. [1:24:28] So then, it was all about [1:24:29] bringing the attorney general in, [1:24:31] Bill Barr. [1:24:32] He was certainly going to [1:24:33] point out the inconsistencies [1:24:34] and flaws in the analysis. [1:24:36] Well, that didn't happen [1:24:37] because the majority [1:24:39] wanted to insist [1:24:40] that their unelected staff [1:24:41] ask questions [1:24:42] to the attorney general [1:24:43] in the United States. [1:24:44] But no, they said, [1:24:45] we'll go to court. [1:24:46] We'll win. [1:24:46] And we'll force Bill Barr [1:24:48] and Don McGahn [1:24:48] to come and testify. [1:24:49] They're not winning in court. [1:24:51] They're not here. [1:24:52] It's a joke. [1:24:53] For the last four months, [1:24:55] the path the majority [1:24:56] has taken us on [1:24:57] has rambled [1:24:59] from disorganized [1:25:01] to just downright dizzying. [1:25:03] In June, [1:25:04] Speaker Pelosi said [1:25:05] the House Democratic Caucus [1:25:06] was, and I'm quoting, [1:25:08] not even close [1:25:09] to an impeachment inquiry. [1:25:11] That was to CNN. [1:25:12] In July, [1:25:13] House Judiciary Committee [1:25:14] Chairman Jerry Nadler [1:25:15] said, quote, [1:25:16] an impeachment inquiry [1:25:18] is when you consider [1:25:18] only impeachment. [1:25:20] That's not what we're doing. [1:25:21] We're investigating [1:25:22] all of this. [1:25:23] But then in August, [1:25:24] in a CNN interview, [1:25:26] Nadler said, [1:25:27] this is a formal [1:25:28] impeachment proceeding. [1:25:30] Then in September, [1:25:31] when asked if the Democrats [1:25:33] are engaged [1:25:33] in an impeachment inquiry, [1:25:35] the House Majority Leader, [1:25:36] Steny Hoyard, [1:25:37] answered, no. [1:25:41] It was the gentle lady [1:25:42] from Washington [1:25:42] who said just recently, [1:25:44] Ms. Jayapal, [1:25:45] we have been in the midst [1:25:47] of an impeachment investigation. [1:25:49] She said that to Politico. [1:25:51] But then in the very same story, [1:25:52] the gentleman from Connecticut, [1:25:54] Mr. Himes, [1:25:55] said, no, [1:25:56] we're not in an impeachment investigation. [1:25:59] Then the gentleman from New York, [1:26:00] Mr. Gregory Meeks, [1:26:01] said, [1:26:03] when asked if the House [1:26:04] was investigating impeachment, [1:26:05] he said, [1:26:06] well, maybe there's, [1:26:08] we don't know [1:26:09] whether an impeachment investigation [1:26:10] has begun. [1:26:11] It's just dizzying. [1:26:13] Last week, [1:26:14] it was the Judiciary Chairman, [1:26:16] Jerry Nadler, [1:26:17] who said, [1:26:18] what we're doing [1:26:18] is very clear. [1:26:20] It's been very clear. [1:26:21] It continues to be very clear. [1:26:23] The Speaker has backed us [1:26:25] at every point [1:26:26] along the way. [1:26:28] This process [1:26:28] has been about as clear [1:26:30] as Joe Biden's [1:26:31] last answer [1:26:32] to race relations [1:26:33] that involved [1:26:33] turning on the record player. [1:26:35] We don't know [1:26:36] where we are [1:26:37] or what we're doing. [1:26:38] Now, Mr. Lewandowski, [1:26:39] I am not allowed [1:26:40] by House rules [1:26:40] to impugn the motives [1:26:42] of my colleagues [1:26:43] or to speculate [1:26:44] as to what might be [1:26:45] animating [1:26:46] this bizarre circumstance. [1:26:48] But those rules [1:26:49] don't apply to you. [1:26:50] So, Mr. Lewandowski, [1:26:51] do you have a thought [1:26:51] as to why we continue [1:26:53] to engage in a charade [1:26:54] that is overwhelmingly [1:26:55] opposed by the American people [1:26:57] and fundamentally misunderstood [1:26:59] by my Democrat colleagues? [1:27:02] You know, Congressman, [1:27:03] I think they hate this president [1:27:04] more than they love their country. [1:27:13] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:27:14] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:27:17] you were the campaign manager [1:27:19] for the president's campaign [1:27:20] when the Obama-Biden administration [1:27:22] was notified [1:27:24] that there might be efforts [1:27:25] by the Russians [1:27:25] to interfere with our election. [1:27:27] Isn't that right? [1:27:28] Yes. [1:27:29] And can you describe for us [1:27:31] the briefing you got [1:27:33] as the campaign manager [1:27:35] to ensure that [1:27:36] our system was resilient [1:27:37] and American democracy [1:27:39] was protected? [1:27:40] There was no briefing [1:27:41] provided by anybody [1:27:43] from the Obama-Biden administration, [1:27:47] members of the intelligence community, [1:27:48] or the FBI to our campaign [1:27:50] when I was present [1:27:52] or during my tenure [1:27:53] as a campaign manager. [1:27:55] I mean, that's just baffling to me. [1:27:56] I mean, our democracy is so precious. [1:27:58] We have to cherish it. [1:28:00] We have to protect it. [1:28:01] And yet, when the Obama-Biden administration [1:28:04] knew that there might be [1:28:05] nefarious efforts [1:28:06] to interfere or co-opt [1:28:09] or in any way disturb our democracy, [1:28:12] they didn't say anything to you. [1:28:13] Now, as you sit here today, [1:28:15] having watched these facts unfold, [1:28:17] do you have any rationale [1:28:21] as to why maybe the Clapper, [1:28:24] Brennan, Comey, Obama-Biden team [1:28:27] didn't want to give the Trump campaign [1:28:29] a fair defensive briefing [1:28:31] about the threats that we were facing? [1:28:33] It's actually unfathomable to me [1:28:35] that they didn't contact [1:28:36] the major political nominee [1:28:39] for president of the United States [1:28:42] and inform them of potential threats [1:28:44] against the election process in 2016. [1:28:47] And we could be finding that out now. [1:28:50] I mean, we could have those people [1:28:52] before our committee to figure out [1:28:53] what in the world happened [1:28:54] that didn't allow us to get those answers. [1:28:56] One final question for you, Mr. Lewandowski. [1:28:58] Has an inspector general [1:28:59] employed by the United States government [1:29:01] ever accused you of breaking the law? [1:29:04] No. [1:29:04] No, but they have done that with James Comey. [1:29:07] And yet, the leadership of this committee [1:29:09] will not bring James Comey before, [1:29:11] even though the inspector general [1:29:12] said that his work impaired the credibility [1:29:15] and efforts of over 35,000 FBI agents [1:29:18] and the brave people fighting for our country. [1:29:20] It's a shame that you're here, Mr. Lewandowski. [1:29:22] Jim Comey should be sitting in that chair. [1:29:24] He should be answering questions [1:29:25] about why he did so much damage [1:29:27] to the FBI in our country, [1:29:29] including not giving you the briefing [1:29:31] that you are entitled to. [1:29:32] I yield back. [1:29:33] The gentleman yields back. [1:29:35] The gentleman from New York. [1:29:41] Thank you, Mr. Nadler. [1:29:42] Before I begin, let me remind you, [1:29:44] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:29:44] that this is not a Republican primary campaign. [1:29:48] You are not on the campaign trail yet. [1:29:50] This is the House Judiciary Committee. [1:29:53] Act like you know the difference. [1:29:56] You've never worked for the Trump White House [1:29:58] in any official capacity, correct? [1:30:01] That's right. [1:30:02] But you do speak with President Trump [1:30:03] with some regularity, true? [1:30:07] I think that's a fair statement. [1:30:08] In fact, during the summer of 2017, [1:30:11] according to testimony to the special counsel, [1:30:13] you were summoned to the White House [1:30:14] by President Trump on at least two occasions, correct? [1:30:19] I don't believe the report says that, Congressman. [1:30:21] Okay, well, you met with the president [1:30:22] one-on-one on June 19, 2017, [1:30:25] and then again on July 19, 2017, correct? [1:30:31] Yes, I believe that's accurate. [1:30:32] Okay, let's try to get some clarity [1:30:34] on what exactly you do for Donald Trump [1:30:36] since you're not a government employee. [1:30:39] You stated during the 2016 Republican National Convention [1:30:42] that I got the reputation as a tough guy. [1:30:47] That's my reputation. [1:30:48] Do you recall making that statement, Mr. Lewandowski? [1:30:51] I don't. [1:30:53] Okay. [1:30:54] It's in the public record. [1:30:55] Your job is to be Donald Trump's political enforcer, correct? [1:30:59] No, I don't believe so. [1:31:00] Let me ask the question another way. [1:31:01] Are you the hit man, the bag man, [1:31:04] the lookout, or all of the above? [1:31:07] I think I'm the good-looking man, actually. [1:31:09] Okay. [1:31:11] President Trump told you on June 19, 2017, [1:31:14] to personally deliver a message [1:31:16] to Attorney General Sessions [1:31:17] that would have ended the criminal investigation [1:31:20] into the Trump campaign, correct? [1:31:21] I don't believe that's what the Mueller report states, no. [1:31:25] President Trump wanted Attorney General Sessions [1:31:27] to limit the special counsel's investigation [1:31:30] to future incidents of election foreign interference. [1:31:34] True? [1:31:36] Which page is that on, Congressman? [1:31:38] That's in the public record. [1:31:39] It's in this hearing. [1:31:40] It's in the Mueller report. [1:31:42] Now, the White House has a legal protocol [1:31:44] for presidential statements. [1:31:46] Under the Presidential Records Act, [1:31:47] they must preserve all memos, letters, emails, papers, [1:31:51] like the note he dictated to you. [1:31:54] So you wrote down the president's message, [1:31:56] which you then stored in a safe in your home. [1:31:59] Is that correct? [1:32:01] Yes, it is. [1:32:02] Okay. [1:32:02] You told the special counsel [1:32:03] that was your standard procedure [1:32:04] with sensitive items, correct? [1:32:11] Where is that reference in the report [1:32:12] to use sensitive items? [1:32:13] Volume 2, page 92. [1:32:15] A matter of course, correct? [1:32:16] Just reference that. [1:32:16] One second, Congressman. [1:32:17] You don't have to reference it. [1:32:19] The president asked you to... [1:32:20] Did you say page 90, Congressman? [1:32:21] The president asked you to reclaiming my time. [1:32:25] The president asked you to record a message [1:32:27] from him on June 19 [1:32:28] because he wanted to hide his message [1:32:31] from eventual disclosure. [1:32:33] Isn't that right? [1:32:36] No. [1:32:37] Okay. [1:32:37] But you never delivered the message [1:32:39] to Jeff Sessions after that June 19th meeting, true? [1:32:44] That's accurate. [1:32:45] Instead, you testified that you went on vacation, correct? [1:32:48] I did. [1:32:49] How long was your vacation, Mr. Lewandowski? [1:32:52] Oh, it was lengthy. [1:32:53] I think at least two weeks. [1:32:54] At least two weeks. [1:32:55] But you were summoned again to the White House [1:32:58] on July 19th, [1:33:01] 30 days after the original June 19th meeting, true? [1:33:04] I believe that's accurate, yes. [1:33:06] So you weren't on vacation the entire time, correct? [1:33:09] Oh, I didn't say I was on vacation the entire time. [1:33:11] I was on vacation for two weeks, Congressman. [1:33:13] Right. [1:33:13] But you still failed to deliver the message, [1:33:15] and it had nothing to do, at least in part, [1:33:17] to your so-called vacation. [1:33:20] Now, the July 19th meeting occurred just a few days [1:33:23] after new information came to light [1:33:25] about Russian operatives meeting [1:33:27] with high-level Trump campaign officials. [1:33:29] When you're summoned to the White House [1:33:31] after that July 19th meeting, [1:33:33] by that time, [1:33:34] you still hadn't delivered the message [1:33:36] to Jeff Sessions. [1:33:38] You said to the president you would do it soon, [1:33:40] according to Volume 2, page 93, correct? [1:33:43] If that's what the report says, that's accurate. [1:33:45] Okay. [1:33:46] President Trump also asked you [1:33:48] to deliver a message to Attorney General Sessions [1:33:50] that if he didn't do what was requested, [1:33:52] he would be fired, correct? [1:33:54] Volume 2, page 93. [1:33:57] I think that's what was reported, yes. [1:33:59] Okay, President Trump wanted you [1:34:00] to intimidate Attorney General Sessions, correct? [1:34:04] Well, you'd have to ask President Trump that. [1:34:05] Okay. [1:34:06] Now, you stated earlier today [1:34:07] that President Trump asked you [1:34:08] to take down dictation, quote, [1:34:10] many times. [1:34:11] Is that correct? [1:34:13] It is. [1:34:14] But on page 91, Volume 2 of the Mueller report, [1:34:16] it states, quote, [1:34:17] the president then asked Lewandowski [1:34:19] to deliver a message to Sessions [1:34:20] and said, quote, [1:34:22] write this down, close quote. [1:34:23] This was the first time the president [1:34:25] had asked Lewandowski to take direct dictation. [1:34:30] The first time. [1:34:31] Those are not my words, Congressman. [1:34:32] Those are the investigators' words. [1:34:33] Right. [1:34:34] Did you lie to Bob Mueller [1:34:35] or are you lying to us? [1:34:36] I didn't lie. [1:34:37] Okay. [1:34:38] You're not really here to tell the truth. [1:34:41] You are here to participate [1:34:42] in a continuing cover-up. [1:34:44] Russia interfered with this election [1:34:46] in sweeping and systematic fashion. [1:34:48] The Trump campaign welcomed that assistance [1:34:50] at the highest level. [1:34:52] There were subsequent acts [1:34:53] of obstruction of justice [1:34:54] with respect to the investigation. [1:34:56] The American people deserve to know the truth. [1:34:59] Mr. Chairman. [1:35:00] The gentleman yields back. [1:35:02] The gentleman... [1:35:02] I think I was 19 seconds over [1:35:04] to help you, Mr. Chairman. [1:35:06] The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson. [1:35:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:35:11] Ms. Lewandowski, [1:35:12] my colleague Mr. Jeffries [1:35:13] just started that last line [1:35:14] of questioning [1:35:15] with a sort of an admonition to you. [1:35:18] He said, [1:35:18] this is the House Judiciary Committee [1:35:19] and not a political forum [1:35:20] and it would be nice [1:35:22] if you recognized that. [1:35:23] I think it'd be nice [1:35:24] if all the members of this committee [1:35:25] would recognize that [1:35:26] because that's the reason [1:35:28] that this has turned into such a farce. [1:35:30] It's been said so many times today, [1:35:32] this committee is so important to the country. [1:35:34] It has one of the broadest jurisdictions [1:35:36] over so many critical issues [1:35:38] that are facing the country. [1:35:39] You referenced some of this [1:35:40] in your opening statement [1:35:41] and I, among many of my colleagues, [1:35:43] are ready to get to that work [1:35:44] for the American people, [1:35:44] but we're here today. [1:35:46] There hasn't been any fireworks. [1:35:47] Oh, there's a lot of disappointed people [1:35:49] around operatives around the country [1:35:50] who are really hoping [1:35:52] that there'd be fireworks, [1:35:53] but we're not surprised at all. [1:35:54] I have a couple of questions [1:35:55] just for clarification for the record, [1:35:57] but first, [1:35:58] is there anything that's been said here, [1:36:00] any question that you've been asked about [1:36:02] or something that you would like [1:36:03] to provide further comment on [1:36:04] just to clarify the record? [1:36:06] No, sir. [1:36:07] All right. [1:36:08] In questioning today, [1:36:10] is the majority investigating [1:36:12] any new allegation or issue or fact [1:36:15] not already investigated [1:36:16] by the House and Senate Intel Committees [1:36:18] or the Special Counsel's Office? [1:36:22] Not to the best of my knowledge. [1:36:23] Do you have any more information [1:36:26] on any other matter [1:36:27] related to either collusion [1:36:29] or obstruction [1:36:30] that you can offer to this committee [1:36:31] that you have not already shared [1:36:33] with Congress [1:36:33] or the Special Counsel's Office? [1:36:36] I don't believe I have any new information. [1:36:38] In your prior testimony [1:36:39] to the Special Counsel, [1:36:40] is it true that you answered [1:36:41] every question asked of you truthfully [1:36:44] and to the best of your ability [1:36:45] and your recollection? [1:36:47] To the best of my recollection, [1:36:48] I did answer truthfully, yes. [1:36:50] A couple of things [1:36:51] just for further clarification. [1:36:54] We're afraid that some of this record [1:36:56] will be obscured today. [1:36:57] So let me just, [1:36:58] these would just be quick rapid fire. [1:37:00] Do you agree there is no evidence [1:37:02] the president intended to obstruct justice? [1:37:04] I do. [1:37:05] Do you agree that the president [1:37:06] has been harassed politically [1:37:08] since the day he took office? [1:37:09] Yes, I do. [1:37:11] Do you agree that the president's supporters [1:37:12] have received vastly different treatment [1:37:14] than the supporters of Hillary Clinton? [1:37:17] Unequivocally. [1:37:18] You've called this a witch hunt [1:37:19] and I wonder if you'd like [1:37:20] to elaborate on that any further. [1:37:24] I think that this fake [1:37:26] Russia collusion narrative [1:37:27] is the greatest crime committed [1:37:29] against the American people [1:37:30] in our generation, if not ever. [1:37:33] This is a president who was duly elected [1:37:35] by the American people [1:37:36] and members of certain bodies [1:37:38] refuse to accept those election results. [1:37:41] If this were done [1:37:42] by a different president [1:37:44] to a different party, [1:37:46] the same way it was done [1:37:47] to Donald Trump, [1:37:49] that person would already be [1:37:50] thrown out of office [1:37:50] and people would be in jail. [1:37:51] But when you support Hillary Clinton [1:37:53] and Barack Obama, [1:37:55] there's a different set of rules. [1:37:56] I think the American people [1:37:57] find it very unfair [1:37:58] and there's been no accountability [1:38:00] at the highest levels [1:38:01] of the government [1:38:02] for the Pfizer abuse applications [1:38:03] which transpired, [1:38:05] the spying on Americans [1:38:06] clearly in violation [1:38:07] of the Fourth Amendment [1:38:08] or the lives that were ruined [1:38:09] because they simply wanted [1:38:11] to support a candidate [1:38:12] for president of the United States [1:38:13] and I think it's shameful. [1:38:15] We do as well [1:38:15] and that's a pretty good recitation [1:38:17] of some of the issues [1:38:18] that are keeping us up at night. [1:38:19] Part of the thing [1:38:20] that we're greatly concerned about [1:38:21] is the American people's [1:38:23] distrust now of our institutions. [1:38:25] When people begin to doubt [1:38:27] that the rule of law [1:38:28] actually applies equally, [1:38:29] that justice really is blind [1:38:31] in this country, [1:38:32] that we reach somewhat [1:38:33] of a tipping point. [1:38:34] It's very difficult [1:38:35] to put that genie back [1:38:36] in the bottle [1:38:36] and we're concerned, [1:38:38] I know the Republicans [1:38:38] and the conservatives [1:38:39] on this committee [1:38:40] are deeply concerned [1:38:41] about the eroding faith [1:38:43] in our institutions. [1:38:44] I'm thankful [1:38:44] that you've come [1:38:45] to take the hostile fire today. [1:38:47] I commend you for that. [1:38:48] I commend you for your story [1:38:49] being self-made [1:38:50] and one of the things [1:38:51] I'm also concerned about [1:38:52] is young people [1:38:53] who are watching this [1:38:54] who may have a disincentive [1:38:56] to get into politics [1:38:57] and to serve their country [1:38:58] in this way [1:38:58] because of this abuse [1:38:59] that they've suffered. [1:39:01] Yield to Mr. Jordan. [1:39:02] I thank the gentleman [1:39:02] for yielding. [1:39:03] Real quick, Mr. Lewandowski, [1:39:04] you know why you didn't get [1:39:06] a defensive briefing [1:39:07] from the FBI? [1:39:08] I do not. [1:39:09] I got a good idea. [1:39:11] I think they were trying [1:39:11] to trap the president. [1:39:13] Page 17 [1:39:14] of the inspector general's report [1:39:16] points this out. [1:39:19] January 6, 2017, [1:39:21] they go up to the Trump Tower [1:39:23] when it's president-elect Trump [1:39:24] and they're trying to set him up [1:39:26] about a pending investigation. [1:39:28] All the while, [1:39:29] Mr. Comey's been telling [1:39:30] the president, [1:39:31] you're not under investigation. [1:39:33] Of course, [1:39:33] they didn't give you [1:39:34] a defensive briefing [1:39:34] during the campaign [1:39:35] or even when up until that date [1:39:37] because they were trying [1:39:38] to set him up. [1:39:40] But we can't ask about that [1:39:41] because Mr. Nadler [1:39:43] hasn't even thought about [1:39:44] when he's going to bring [1:39:45] Mr. Horowitz in [1:39:46] to answer our questions. [1:39:48] He'd rather subpoena you [1:39:49] even though you're willing [1:39:50] to come voluntarily. [1:39:52] That's the problem. [1:39:53] I thank the gentleman [1:39:54] for his good line of question. [1:39:55] Thank you for yielding. [1:39:55] I yield back. [1:39:56] Thank you, gentleman from Ohio. [1:39:57] And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [1:39:59] Gentleman yields back. [1:40:00] The gentleman from Rhode Island. [1:40:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:40:03] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:40:04] in between your first meeting [1:40:06] on June 19th [1:40:06] and your second meeting [1:40:07] with the president [1:40:08] on July 19th, [1:40:09] you went on vacation. [1:40:10] And also during that time [1:40:11] there was public reporting [1:40:12] about the Trump Tower meeting, [1:40:14] correct? [1:40:14] This is on page 92. [1:40:17] If it's in the report, [1:40:17] I believe it to be accurate. [1:40:18] And on July 19th [1:40:19] when the president [1:40:20] for a second time [1:40:21] asked you to deliver [1:40:22] the message to Sessions, [1:40:23] you said, and I quote, [1:40:24] the message would be delivered soon. [1:40:26] Page 93, correct? [1:40:31] Page 93. [1:40:32] But you didn't. [1:40:33] You didn't call Jeff Sessions. [1:40:34] You didn't try to meet with him. [1:40:35] So the president asked you [1:40:36] twice in the Oval Office [1:40:38] to deliver a secret message [1:40:40] to the Attorney General [1:40:41] of the United States, [1:40:42] a message that you quickly [1:40:43] wrote down word for word [1:40:44] at the president's direction, [1:40:46] correct, sir? [1:40:50] I believe I wrote it down. [1:40:52] And when you worked [1:40:52] for the president [1:40:53] during his campaign, [1:40:54] did you ever ignore [1:40:54] or disobey directions [1:40:55] from candidate Trump? [1:40:58] I didn't believe it [1:40:59] to be in order. [1:41:00] Just to be clear, [1:41:01] although you were not working [1:41:02] for the president [1:41:03] in any capacity, [1:41:04] you wanted to give [1:41:05] the president the impression [1:41:06] that you were going [1:41:06] to follow his orders, correct? [1:41:09] No. [1:41:10] Well, you said, [1:41:11] I'm going to take care of it. [1:41:15] Is that referenced [1:41:16] in the report? [1:41:17] Did you tell the president [1:41:18] you were going to deliver [1:41:19] the message? [1:41:20] I can't comment [1:41:20] on private conversation [1:41:21] to preserve executive privilege. [1:41:23] I'm sorry? [1:41:24] I can read you [1:41:25] the exact statement again [1:41:26] if you'd like me to. [1:41:27] I said, [1:41:27] the White House has directed [1:41:28] that I not disclose [1:41:29] the substance of any discussion [1:41:30] with the president [1:41:31] or his advisors [1:41:32] to protect executive [1:41:33] branch confidentiality. [1:41:34] You're not going to stonewall [1:41:35] me and my questioning. [1:41:36] Would you like me [1:41:36] to answer your question? [1:41:37] Your head must have been spinning. [1:41:39] You're here [1:41:40] with the president [1:41:40] of the United States [1:41:41] in the Oval Office. [1:41:43] He's directing you [1:41:44] to deliver a message [1:41:45] to the chief law [1:41:46] enforcement officer [1:41:48] in the United States [1:41:49] which you understood [1:41:50] would effectively end [1:41:52] the ongoing investigation [1:41:53] into this president [1:41:55] and his campaign. [1:41:56] So you told the president [1:41:57] that the message [1:41:57] would be delivered soon. [1:41:59] But then, [1:42:00] this is on page 93, [1:42:01] you immediately following [1:42:03] the meeting with the president, [1:42:04] you gave Dearborn the message [1:42:06] the president had dictated [1:42:07] to be delivered to Sessions. [1:42:08] Correct? [1:42:11] I believe that's [1:42:11] what the report says. [1:42:12] And you didn't tell [1:42:13] the president [1:42:13] that you'd already asked Dearborn [1:42:15] to deliver the message. [1:42:16] You just said [1:42:16] it would be delivered soon. [1:42:18] This is on page 92. [1:42:19] Correct? [1:42:22] It's on page 92. [1:42:24] You didn't want [1:42:25] to tell the president [1:42:26] that you were passing [1:42:27] off his message [1:42:27] to someone else, [1:42:29] did you? [1:42:29] You knew he wanted you, [1:42:31] someone he had described [1:42:32] as his enforcer, [1:42:33] a loyal soldier to do it, [1:42:34] because the president [1:42:35] trusted you. [1:42:36] Isn't that right? [1:42:38] That's a question [1:42:38] for the president, sir. [1:42:39] Then, [1:42:40] well, why didn't you then [1:42:41] deliver the message [1:42:42] to Mr. Dearborn, [1:42:43] to Jeff Sessions directly? [1:42:45] Why did you give it [1:42:45] to Mr. Dearborn to do? [1:42:47] I think I've testified [1:42:48] I was out of town. [1:42:49] For two weeks. [1:42:50] Yes, sir. [1:42:50] I don't live in town, [1:42:51] Congress, unlike you. [1:42:52] Unlike you, sir, [1:42:53] I don't live in town. [1:42:54] During your second meeting [1:42:55] in the Oval Office, [1:42:56] the president told you [1:42:56] that if Sessions [1:42:57] wouldn't meet with you [1:42:58] to tell him he was fired. [1:43:00] Did you, Mr. Lewandowski, [1:43:01] ever threaten [1:43:02] the attorney general [1:43:03] that if he didn't meet [1:43:03] with you, [1:43:04] he would be fired? [1:43:08] No. [1:43:09] Did you tell Mr. Dearborn [1:43:10] to tell Sessions [1:43:11] that he would be fired [1:43:12] if he didn't take this meeting [1:43:13] as the president directed? [1:43:15] Congressman, [1:43:15] the White House [1:43:16] has directed [1:43:16] to not disclose [1:43:17] the substance [1:43:17] of any discussion [1:43:18] with the president [1:43:19] or his advisors [1:43:19] to protect [1:43:20] executive branch confidentiality. [1:43:22] The reason you didn't [1:43:22] tell the president [1:43:23] that was because [1:43:23] you know that it was wrong. [1:43:26] And the president, [1:43:27] isn't that correct? [1:43:29] No. [1:43:30] Well, the president [1:43:30] wasn't aware [1:43:31] that you ignored his directive [1:43:32] to tell Jeff Sessions [1:43:33] he was fired [1:43:34] if he didn't meet with you, [1:43:35] was he? [1:43:36] I'm sorry, [1:43:36] what was the question? [1:43:37] I'll move on. [1:43:38] In fact, [1:43:39] to prove to the attorney general [1:43:40] that the threat was real, [1:43:41] four days later, [1:43:42] on July 22nd, [1:43:43] the president directed [1:43:44] Priebus, [1:43:45] his chief of staff, [1:43:46] to obtain [1:43:47] Sessions' resignation. [1:43:49] That's on the slide [1:43:49] in front of you. [1:43:50] The president told Priebus [1:43:51] that he had to get Sessions [1:43:52] to resign immediately. [1:43:53] Did you know that? [1:43:56] No. [1:43:57] This evidence as a whole [1:43:58] strongly suggests [1:43:59] that the president [1:44:00] was reinforcing to Sessions [1:44:02] that his job was on the line [1:44:03] at the same time [1:44:04] as the president believed [1:44:05] you were delivering the message [1:44:06] to end the investigation [1:44:08] into the 2016 campaign. [1:44:10] All of this made everyone [1:44:11] very uncomfortable, [1:44:12] including Mr. Dearborn, [1:44:13] which is at page 93. [1:44:16] And he told you [1:44:18] that he was uncomfortable [1:44:20] being a messenger to Sessions, [1:44:22] correct? [1:44:23] No. [1:44:26] Well, were you aware [1:44:27] when you asked Rick Dearborn [1:44:29] to deliver this message [1:44:31] to the attorney general [1:44:32] on behalf of the president [1:44:33] of the United States, [1:44:34] it created the same [1:44:36] legal culpability for you [1:44:38] as that you delivered [1:44:40] the message yourself? [1:44:41] Are you aware of that? [1:44:43] Congressman, [1:44:44] the president didn't ask me [1:44:45] anything illegal [1:44:46] and he never asked me [1:44:46] to keep anything a secret. [1:44:47] Are you aware [1:44:48] that when you asked [1:44:49] Mr. Dearborn [1:44:50] to deliver this message [1:44:51] to end the investigation [1:44:53] and just focus [1:44:54] on future investigations, [1:44:55] you thought you were [1:44:56] protecting yourself [1:44:57] but you were in fact [1:44:58] committing a crime? [1:45:00] Rick Dearborn knew [1:45:00] delivering the message [1:45:01] was wrong. [1:45:02] You knew it was wrong. [1:45:03] That's why even after [1:45:04] being asked to deliver it [1:45:05] and saying you'd handle it soon, [1:45:06] you passed it off to him [1:45:07] and you never followed up. [1:45:09] And guess what? [1:45:09] I also think [1:45:10] it's very, very wrong. [1:45:12] In fact, I think [1:45:12] the president asking [1:45:13] a private citizen [1:45:14] to try to scare [1:45:15] his attorney general [1:45:16] into ending the investigation [1:45:17] into the president's conduct [1:45:19] is obstruction of justice [1:45:21] plain and simple. [1:45:23] I yield back. [1:45:24] The gentleman has expired. [1:45:25] The witness may answer [1:45:26] the question. [1:45:30] I don't believe [1:45:30] there was a question. [1:45:32] Very well. [1:45:33] The gentleman from Arizona [1:45:36] is recognized. [1:45:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:45:39] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:45:40] thank you for being here today. [1:45:41] You've come voluntarily. [1:45:42] You've heard slanderous attacks [1:45:45] on you. [1:45:46] You've had people refer [1:45:46] to you as a gutted fish. [1:45:48] You've had people refer [1:45:49] to you as a chicken. [1:45:50] You've had people imply [1:45:52] that you're here to lie. [1:45:54] That's unfortunate. [1:45:56] And it's beneath this committee, [1:45:58] quite frankly. [1:45:59] We're here. [1:46:00] Ostensibly, they tell me [1:46:01] that they want to hear the truth. [1:46:03] You're here to tell the truth today, [1:46:04] right, Mr. Lewandowski? [1:46:06] Yes, sir. [1:46:07] And, in fact, [1:46:08] you've given lots of testimony. [1:46:11] You've told the truth repeatedly. [1:46:12] I see a list of 302s [1:46:15] when you were talking [1:46:16] to the FBI, right? [1:46:18] Yes, sir. [1:46:19] And those 302s, [1:46:22] they didn't record that. [1:46:23] Those are after notes, right? [1:46:25] I believe that's right. [1:46:27] You gave testimony [1:46:27] to the intelligence committees [1:46:31] of both houses, right? [1:46:33] I did, yes. [1:46:34] Yeah. [1:46:35] And so here you sit here today, [1:46:38] and you gave testimony to, [1:46:42] and you gave interviews, [1:46:43] I think roughly 20 hours worth [1:46:45] of interviews to the Mueller team, right? [1:46:48] Yes, sir. [1:46:49] And if we look at this Mueller report, [1:46:52] we see your name in various places [1:46:53] throughout the Mueller report, [1:46:55] right? [1:46:55] Fair enough? [1:46:56] I've never read the report, [1:46:57] but I think that's accurate, sir. [1:46:59] You're not unwise [1:47:00] to not have read the report. [1:47:02] Nobody's actually read the report, [1:47:03] but that's okay. [1:47:03] Yeah, I've read the report. [1:47:04] You're the one. [1:47:05] We've been looking for you. [1:47:06] Yeah, I'm the one. [1:47:07] And your name is all over this report. [1:47:09] But oddly enough, [1:47:10] when you were asked [1:47:11] by a member of the other side [1:47:13] to look at volume 2, page 86, [1:47:16] and they wanted you to testify to it, [1:47:19] you might be surprised. [1:47:21] Your name's not even mentioned on that page. [1:47:22] Did you know that? [1:47:23] You're not even mentioned there. [1:47:25] They were asking you questions [1:47:26] to comment about things [1:47:27] where your name's not even there. [1:47:29] Did you know that? [1:47:30] No, sir. [1:47:31] That same person [1:47:32] then asked you to talk [1:47:33] about page 49 and 50, volume 2. [1:47:35] Guess what? [1:47:36] Guess whose names don't appear there? [1:47:37] Yours. [1:47:38] Did you know that? [1:47:39] No, I did not. [1:47:40] Yeah, it's odd, isn't it? [1:47:41] Odd, isn't it, [1:47:42] that they would be asking you [1:47:43] to comment on pages [1:47:45] that you weren't even there. [1:47:46] So let's talk a little bit more [1:47:48] about some of what members [1:47:50] of Congress have done. [1:47:51] They've spent two years [1:47:53] claiming without evidence [1:47:54] that then-candidate Trump [1:47:56] and the Trump campaign [1:47:56] colluded with Russia. [1:47:58] As a member of the campaign, [1:47:59] you've responded today. [1:48:01] How do you respond? [1:48:02] Would you like to expand [1:48:03] on that again today? [1:48:04] During my tenure [1:48:05] at the campaign, Congressman, [1:48:07] as I said in my opening statement, [1:48:08] never do I believe [1:48:09] I had any interaction [1:48:10] with any foreign agents, [1:48:12] foreign agencies, [1:48:13] or foreign governments [1:48:13] who were attempting [1:48:14] to impact the outcome [1:48:16] of the election. [1:48:17] I've said very publicly, [1:48:18] if anybody did attempt [1:48:19] to impact the outcome [1:48:20] of the election in a legal manner, [1:48:22] I hope they spend [1:48:22] the rest of their lives in jail. [1:48:24] Yeah, and so we know [1:48:26] that on January 2019, [1:48:28] on the Chris Matthews show, [1:48:30] a member of this committee [1:48:31] was asked, [1:48:31] do you believe [1:48:32] the president right now [1:48:33] has been an agent [1:48:33] of the Russians? [1:48:34] That was me. [1:48:35] That member said, [1:48:37] yes. [1:48:38] Chris Matthews followed up [1:48:39] and said, [1:48:40] an agent like in the 1940s [1:48:41] working for a foreign power? [1:48:43] That individual responded, [1:48:45] he's working on behalf [1:48:46] of the Russians, yes. [1:48:47] Still believe that. [1:48:48] And, you know, [1:48:49] Mr. Chairman, [1:48:51] are we, are we... [1:48:52] The gentleman from... [1:48:55] Arizona's got the time. [1:48:56] Arizona has the time. [1:48:57] I'd like my... [1:48:58] I'd like 10 seconds [1:48:59] added back on. [1:49:00] He's going to interrupt. [1:49:01] Five seconds in any event. [1:49:03] So, so, as a close friend, [1:49:05] personal and advisor [1:49:06] of the president, [1:49:07] member of the Trump campaign, [1:49:08] how do you respond [1:49:09] to that accusation [1:49:11] by a member of this committee [1:49:12] made months and months ago, [1:49:15] even before the Mueller report [1:49:17] came out and said [1:49:17] there was no collusion [1:49:18] or coordination? [1:49:22] You know, Congressman, [1:49:22] I find it beneath the dignity [1:49:24] of the president of the United States [1:49:26] to accuse somebody of that. [1:49:27] And while I didn't support [1:49:29] President Obama [1:49:30] when he was the president [1:49:31] and didn't vote for him, [1:49:32] I still wanted my country [1:49:33] to be successful, [1:49:34] so I wanted him to be successful. [1:49:35] And I think those faceless, [1:49:37] faceless accusations [1:49:38] against our president [1:49:39] are unfounded and unwarranted. [1:49:42] So I want to just cover [1:49:43] the last little bit of this. [1:49:44] We hear today, [1:49:46] lots of questions [1:49:48] about a meeting you had [1:49:51] with the president [1:49:52] regarding Jeff Sessions [1:49:54] and some note [1:49:55] that was dictated to you. [1:49:56] That was after [1:49:59] Special Counsel Mueller [1:50:00] was appointed, wasn't it? [1:50:03] I believe it was, yes. [1:50:06] Did the president ask you [1:50:08] to stop Mr. Mueller [1:50:10] or to encourage Mr. Sessions [1:50:13] to stop the Mueller investigation [1:50:15] at any point? [1:50:16] President, Congressman, [1:50:18] I can't speak to [1:50:18] or disclose the substance [1:50:20] of discussions [1:50:20] with the president or his advisors [1:50:21] to protect the executive branch [1:50:23] confidentiality. [1:50:24] I appreciate that, [1:50:25] but I will tell you [1:50:26] in going through this report, [1:50:27] there is no evidence, [1:50:29] no indication [1:50:30] that the president [1:50:30] ever asked [1:50:32] that you or Mr. Sessions [1:50:35] stop the Mueller investigation. [1:50:38] In fact, the Mueller investigation [1:50:39] went on unimpeded. [1:50:41] Thousands of interviews, [1:50:43] millions of documents. [1:50:44] And with that, [1:50:45] my time has expired, [1:50:46] Mr. Chairman. [1:50:48] Gentleman yields back. [1:50:49] The gentleman from California. [1:50:52] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:50:53] I'm going to put a slide up, [1:50:54] and it's the words [1:50:56] that President Trump [1:50:57] dictated to you [1:50:58] on July 19. [1:51:01] Can you read [1:51:02] what you wrote down? [1:51:05] I'm happy to have you [1:51:06] read it, Congressman. [1:51:07] Well, why don't you [1:51:07] want to read it, [1:51:08] Mr. Lewandowski? [1:51:09] I think you should afford me [1:51:10] the same privilege [1:51:10] you afforded Director Mueller. [1:51:12] Would you like to read it? [1:51:14] No, you're welcome to read it. [1:51:15] Are you ashamed [1:51:16] of the words [1:51:16] that you wrote down? [1:51:18] President Swalwell, [1:51:19] I'm very happy [1:51:20] of what I've written, [1:51:21] but you're welcome [1:51:21] to read it if you'd like. [1:51:22] Are you ashamed [1:51:23] to read it out loud? [1:51:25] I'm not ashamed [1:51:25] of anything in my life, [1:51:26] Congressman, are you? [1:51:27] Then why don't you [1:51:27] read the words? [1:51:29] Congressman, [1:51:29] I've asked and answered [1:51:30] your question. [1:51:31] Why won't you read [1:51:32] the words aloud? [1:51:33] I've asked and answered [1:51:34] your question, Congressman. [1:51:35] If you'd like to read [1:51:35] the words, you're welcome to. [1:51:36] Well, you were ashamed [1:51:38] to read them out loud, [1:51:39] and you didn't deliver [1:51:39] those words to the person [1:51:40] the president asked you to. [1:51:42] Did you have a consciousness [1:51:43] of guilt? [1:51:45] I have nothing to be guilty [1:51:46] of, Congressman. [1:51:47] Thank you. [1:51:47] You still feel guilty today, [1:51:48] and that's why you can't [1:51:49] read it out loud? [1:51:50] Congressman, you're welcome [1:51:51] to read the words [1:51:51] if you'd like. [1:51:52] Well, I just wonder [1:51:53] why you can't. [1:51:55] I have the capacity to, [1:51:56] Congressman. [1:51:56] I'll give you the privilege. [1:51:57] You said the president [1:51:58] did nothing wrong. [1:51:59] Why can't you read [1:52:00] those words right now? [1:52:01] Why can't you read them aloud? [1:52:02] Congressman, tell me [1:52:03] why you hold me to a different [1:52:04] standard than previous [1:52:05] witnesses who sat here. [1:52:07] I want to give you [1:52:08] one more opportunity [1:52:09] to clear up something [1:52:10] you said earlier. [1:52:11] You've said a number of times [1:52:12] that it was in the Mueller report [1:52:13] it was accurate, [1:52:15] except as it relates [1:52:17] to you stating [1:52:18] that this was the only time [1:52:20] the president ever asked [1:52:21] you to write something down. [1:52:22] Are you saying that [1:52:22] that part's not accurate? [1:52:26] And I'd ask to stop the clock [1:52:27] while he confers [1:52:27] with his lawyer. [1:52:29] The clock will be stopped [1:52:33] for five seconds. [1:52:34] Could I see the page [1:52:35] and reference number [1:52:35] on that, Congressman? [1:52:36] Sure. [1:52:36] It's page 91, [1:52:37] lines 7 and 8. [1:52:39] I will read it to you. [1:52:40] This was the first time [1:52:41] the president had asked [1:52:42] Lewin-Dowsey to take dictation. [1:52:44] Are you saying that [1:52:44] that is not accurate? [1:52:46] I'm saying those [1:52:47] aren't my words, Congressman. [1:52:48] I'm asking you, [1:52:49] was that the first time [1:52:50] the president asked you [1:52:51] to take dictation? [1:52:52] And I've testified [1:52:53] it's not the first time. [1:52:54] So this part [1:52:54] would be inaccurate? [1:52:56] I'm saying I've taken dictation [1:52:57] by the candidate [1:52:59] and the president in the past. [1:53:01] Have you ever put [1:53:02] any words that the president [1:53:03] asked you to write down [1:53:04] before and is safe? [1:53:05] Or was this the first time [1:53:07] you've done that? [1:53:09] I believe it's my standard [1:53:10] operating procedure [1:53:11] when taking notes, Congressman. [1:53:12] So every note that you take [1:53:14] of the president [1:53:14] you put in a safe? [1:53:17] How big is that safe? [1:53:18] I don't, it's a big safe, [1:53:19] Congressman. [1:53:19] There's a lot of guns in there. [1:53:23] Is this the first time [1:53:24] you've ever put a secret message [1:53:25] from the president [1:53:26] that he wanted you to deliver [1:53:27] to someone else in the safe? [1:53:29] I don't believe [1:53:29] there's anything secret [1:53:30] about the message. [1:53:31] I was never told [1:53:31] to keep the message secret. [1:53:32] Is this the first time [1:53:33] you ever put a message [1:53:34] that the president asked you [1:53:35] to deliver to someone else [1:53:36] in the safe? [1:53:37] Not to the best [1:53:38] of my recollection. [1:53:38] I want to go back to that day [1:53:41] later after the president [1:53:42] asked you to deliver [1:53:43] this message, [1:53:44] he was interviewed [1:53:44] by the New York Times. [1:53:46] And the next slide shows [1:53:47] that he said, [1:53:49] Sessions should have never [1:53:51] recused himself. [1:53:51] And if he was going [1:53:52] to recuse himself, [1:53:53] he should have told me [1:53:54] before he took the job, [1:53:55] I would have picked someone else. [1:54:01] That's not what the president [1:54:02] said to you during that meeting [1:54:04] one-on-one in the Oval Office. [1:54:05] Is that right? [1:54:06] The White House has directed [1:54:07] that I not disclose [1:54:08] the substance of any discussion [1:54:09] with the president's advisors. [1:54:10] to protect executive branch [1:54:12] confidentiality. [1:54:13] I'd like to stop the clock [1:54:14] for a parliamentary inquiry. [1:54:16] The gentleman will state [1:54:17] his parliamentary inquiry. [1:54:18] I would like to... [1:54:19] The clock will be stopped. [1:54:19] Mr. Chairman, [1:54:20] I'd like to request a ruling [1:54:21] on the witness's refusal [1:54:23] to answer. [1:54:26] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:54:27] when you refuse to answer [1:54:29] these questions, [1:54:30] you are obstructing [1:54:31] the work of our committee. [1:54:32] But you are also proving [1:54:34] our point for the American [1:54:34] people to see. [1:54:36] The president is intent [1:54:37] on obstructing [1:54:38] our legitimate oversight. [1:54:40] You are aiding him [1:54:41] in that obstruction. [1:54:42] And I will remind you, [1:54:44] that Article 3 [1:54:45] of the impeachment [1:54:45] against President Nixon [1:54:47] was based on obstruction [1:54:49] of Congress. [1:54:50] You are instructed [1:54:51] to answer the question. [1:54:53] The clock will start again. [1:54:54] Mr. Chairman, [1:54:55] parliamentary inquiry. [1:54:57] The gentleman... [1:54:57] The clock will stop again. [1:54:59] The gentleman will state [1:55:00] his parliamentary inquiry. [1:55:01] Is it correct, [1:55:02] and I can repeat, [1:55:03] or you can let me see [1:55:04] your little sheet there, [1:55:04] that that reference [1:55:06] you made to Nixon [1:55:06] was after a formal inquiry [1:55:08] was put to the House [1:55:08] and then brought back [1:55:09] to the Judiciary Committee. [1:55:10] Your statement's [1:55:11] a little bit different than this. [1:55:12] Just wanted to point out [1:55:12] truth for the record. [1:55:14] I yield back. [1:55:14] I have a parliamentary inquiry, [1:55:16] Mr. Chairman. [1:55:17] First of all, [1:55:17] that was not a parliamentary inquiry. [1:55:19] He didn't even ask anything. [1:55:20] But who seeks... [1:55:22] The gentleman will state [1:55:23] his parliamentary inquiry. [1:55:24] Mr. Chairman, [1:55:25] did you just threaten [1:55:26] to impeach Mr. Lewandowski, [1:55:28] a private citizen? [1:55:30] No. [1:55:31] The plain import of my... [1:55:33] of what I said [1:55:34] was that he is violating the law [1:55:36] by refusing to answer [1:55:37] these questions. [1:55:38] The president is violating [1:55:39] the law by instructing him [1:55:41] and others not to answer [1:55:42] these questions. [1:55:43] And Article 3 [1:55:44] of the Nixon impeachment [1:55:45] was based on [1:55:47] this kind of obstruction [1:55:48] of Congress [1:55:49] by President Nixon. [1:55:51] One further inquiry, [1:55:51] Mr. Chairman? [1:55:52] General will state [1:55:53] his parliamentary inquiry. [1:55:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:55:55] So does that mean then, [1:55:57] pursuant to your statement, [1:55:58] that this is [1:55:59] an official impeachment [1:56:00] that we're in? [1:56:02] I have stated repeatedly [1:56:03] that this committee is... [1:56:06] And we amended our rules [1:56:08] to empower the chairman [1:56:09] to designate specific hearings, [1:56:11] which I did for this hearing, [1:56:12] is pursuant to finding out [1:56:14] to determining [1:56:15] whether we should vote [1:56:16] articles of impeachment [1:56:17] against the president. [1:56:18] That's exactly what this is. [1:56:19] Thank you. [1:56:20] The gentleman from California [1:56:21] will continue. [1:56:24] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:56:24] I'll ask you again. [1:56:27] This... [1:56:28] what's displayed on the slide [1:56:29] is not what the president [1:56:30] told you in that [1:56:31] one-on-one meeting. [1:56:32] Is that correct? [1:56:36] Are you refusing to answer, [1:56:36] Mr. Lewandowski? [1:56:38] No, Congressman. [1:56:39] As I've explained [1:56:39] in a letter from the White House, [1:56:42] dated September 16, 2019, [1:56:44] to my attorney... [1:56:44] Mr. Lewandowski, that letter... [1:56:45] Mr. Lewandowski's conversation [1:56:47] with the president [1:56:47] and with senior advisors [1:56:49] to the president, [1:56:50] protected from disclosure... [1:56:50] We stop the clock again [1:56:51] for this obstruction of behavior. [1:56:54] Mr. Chairman, point of order [1:56:55] and I'd ask the clock be stopped. [1:56:57] The clock will be stopped... [1:56:58] Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that this... [1:56:59] The gentleman... [1:57:00] Oh, excuse me. [1:57:01] The gentleman will state [1:57:01] his point of order. [1:57:02] My point of order is, [1:57:03] Mr. Chairman, [1:57:03] this witness continues [1:57:05] to obstruct the work [1:57:06] of this committee [1:57:06] by refusing to answer questions. [1:57:08] He's been ordered [1:57:09] to do so by you. [1:57:10] I ask that you would judge him [1:57:11] in contempt in these proceedings. [1:57:15] Point of order, [1:57:15] that's not a proper [1:57:16] parliamentary inquiry. [1:57:17] It was a point of order. [1:57:18] It wasn't a parliamentary inquiry. [1:57:20] I will take that [1:57:21] under advisement. [1:57:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:57:23] The gentleman will continue. [1:57:25] Are you refusing to answer, [1:57:26] yes or no? [1:57:28] Congressman, I'm happy [1:57:29] to answer your question, [1:57:30] so let me have [1:57:30] the privilege to do so. [1:57:32] As explained below, [1:57:33] Mr. Lewandowski's [1:57:34] conversations with the president [1:57:35] and with senior advisors [1:57:36] to the president [1:57:37] are protected from disclosure [1:57:38] by long-settled principles [1:57:39] protecting executive branch [1:57:41] confidentiality. [1:57:42] Mr. Chairman, that's not an answer. [1:57:42] As a result, [1:57:44] the White House [1:57:44] is directing Mr. Lewandowski [1:57:46] not to provide information [1:57:48] about such communications [1:57:49] beyond the information [1:57:50] providing the portions [1:57:51] of the report [1:57:51] that have already been [1:57:52] disclosed to the committee. [1:57:53] The gentleman has the time, [1:57:54] not the witness. [1:57:55] And Mr. Lewandowski, [1:57:56] I'm just asking, [1:57:57] if you're not going to answer, [1:57:58] just say it's a refusal to answer. [1:58:00] We don't need to be read [1:58:01] the instructions [1:58:02] from the White House. [1:58:03] So I'm going to move on. [1:58:06] In that New York Times interview [1:58:07] hours after the president [1:58:08] spoke to you, [1:58:09] he never said, [1:58:10] in fact, [1:58:12] I just enlisted Mr. Lewandowski [1:58:13] to deliver a secret message [1:58:15] to the attorney general [1:58:16] for him to direct [1:58:17] the special counsel [1:58:17] to limit the investigation. [1:58:19] He said to you [1:58:20] something that he did not say [1:58:22] just hours publicly. [1:58:24] Is that right? [1:58:25] I have no idea [1:58:26] what he said [1:58:26] to the New York Times. [1:58:27] Mr. Lewandowski, [1:58:28] would you agree [1:58:29] that delivering a secret message [1:58:31] in the way [1:58:31] that this president did [1:58:32] as a former law enforcement officer [1:58:34] who's probably investigated [1:58:35] gangs and mob-like behavior [1:58:37] that this is consistent with that? [1:58:40] I take exception [1:58:40] to your premise [1:58:41] of the question [1:58:42] that was a secret message. [1:58:43] Mr. Chairman, [1:58:45] I yield back. [1:58:46] The gentleman yields back. [1:58:47] The gentleman from California. [1:58:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:58:49] Well, Mr. Lewandowski, [1:58:51] welcome to the Judiciary Committee. [1:58:54] You and the president [1:58:56] are accused [1:58:57] by the majority [1:58:58] of a cover-up [1:59:00] of foreign collusion, [1:59:02] but the Mueller team [1:59:05] of partisans, [1:59:06] try though they did, [1:59:07] couldn't find any evidence [1:59:08] of collusion. [1:59:09] So since you stand accused [1:59:11] of this crime, [1:59:12] I'm just kind of curious, [1:59:13] how do you cover up [1:59:14] a crime [1:59:15] that never happened? [1:59:17] It's a great question, [1:59:18] Congressman. [1:59:18] I don't know the answer. [1:59:20] You've been watching [1:59:21] the crux of the majority's case. [1:59:23] It's that the president [1:59:24] asked you [1:59:25] to suggest [1:59:26] to the attorney general [1:59:27] that he should say [1:59:28] the president's being treated unfairly [1:59:31] and had done nothing wrong. [1:59:33] Is that essentially [1:59:33] the accusation against you? [1:59:36] It seems to be. [1:59:36] Yes, sir. [1:59:37] Well, I think the record's [1:59:38] pretty clear. [1:59:39] The president was being treated unfairly [1:59:41] and he had done nothing wrong. [1:59:43] Yet it's upon this pretext [1:59:45] that the Democrats feel justified [1:59:47] to invoke impeachment. [1:59:50] The solemn power [1:59:51] reserved to the Congress [1:59:52] for treason, bribery, [1:59:54] and other high crimes [1:59:55] and misdemeanors, [1:59:57] that's the power [1:59:57] to nullify [1:59:58] the constitutional election [2:00:00] of the president [2:00:01] of the United States, [2:00:02] a decision made [2:00:03] by the American people. [2:00:05] Does that sound like [2:00:06] an abuse of power [2:00:07] in this case to you? [2:00:09] It does. [2:00:10] It certainly does to me, too. [2:00:12] For more than three years now, [2:00:13] our nation has been torn apart [2:00:15] by this monstrous lie [2:00:17] that the president [2:00:18] of the United States [2:00:19] was a willing agent [2:00:21] of a hostile foreign power. [2:00:24] I'd like to ask you, [2:00:25] where do you think [2:00:25] this whole lie [2:00:26] of Russian collusion started? [2:00:30] You know, Congressman, [2:00:30] I don't have the facts on it, [2:00:31] but I think [2:00:32] when Inspector General Horowitz [2:00:34] has the privilege [2:00:35] of coming here [2:00:35] and testifying, [2:00:37] he'll testify [2:00:37] that this began [2:00:38] at the highest levels [2:00:39] of the government [2:00:39] and was perpetrated [2:00:40] through the intelligence community [2:00:42] to come up with a narrative [2:00:43] of why Hillary Clinton [2:00:45] lost the campaign [2:00:46] as opposed to the real narrative [2:00:47] of why Donald Trump [2:00:48] won the campaign. [2:00:49] Well, this actually began [2:00:50] before the election. [2:00:52] Do you believe [2:00:53] the U.S. government, [2:00:54] through its justice [2:00:55] and intelligence agencies, [2:00:57] deliberately interfered [2:00:59] with the 2016 [2:01:00] presidential election? [2:01:01] I believe there are members [2:01:03] of the intelligence community [2:01:04] who have been referred [2:01:06] for criminal referral [2:01:07] for perjury [2:01:09] and other crimes [2:01:10] should be held accountable [2:01:12] for using their badges [2:01:13] and their guns [2:01:14] to try and influence [2:01:15] the election, [2:01:16] spy on American citizens [2:01:17] in a clear violation [2:01:18] of the Fourth Amendment [2:01:19] and falsifying FISA applications [2:01:21] for the explicit purpose [2:01:22] of trying to prevent [2:01:23] an individual [2:01:24] from being elected [2:01:25] president of the United States. [2:01:27] If we're serious [2:01:28] about protecting [2:01:29] the American political process [2:01:30] from unwarranted interference, [2:01:32] either by foreign governments [2:01:33] or by our own government, [2:01:36] where should we be looking? [2:01:38] I would recommend [2:01:39] Inspector General Horowitz, [2:01:42] U.S. Attorney Durham, [2:01:43] who's in the middle [2:01:43] of an investigation. [2:01:45] I would also, [2:01:46] if it were me [2:01:47] and I were the chairman [2:01:48] or maybe someday [2:01:48] in the upper chamber, [2:01:49] we'll bring before us [2:01:50] James Comey, Clapper, [2:01:52] and Brennan [2:01:53] and have them answer [2:01:54] the questions under oath [2:01:55] that seems to elude them [2:01:56] so many times [2:01:57] when they sit before [2:01:58] these committees. [2:01:59] By the way, [2:01:59] we have suggested [2:02:00] to the majority [2:02:01] that we need to do [2:02:01] precisely that, [2:02:02] and so far, [2:02:03] all of those requests [2:02:04] have fallen on deaf ears. [2:02:06] But here's the picture [2:02:07] that seems to be [2:02:07] slowly taking shape [2:02:09] as more and more [2:02:09] information comes to light. [2:02:11] We have a phony dossier [2:02:12] produced by the Clinton campaign [2:02:14] and we have disinformation [2:02:15] channeled to George Papadopoulos [2:02:18] through Joseph Mifsud, [2:02:19] who it turns out [2:02:20] has a long history [2:02:21] of involvement [2:02:22] with Western intelligence agencies, [2:02:24] including the CIA. [2:02:26] That was then used [2:02:27] to justify a sham investigation. [2:02:30] That investigation [2:02:30] was then leaked [2:02:32] to the press [2:02:32] to give credence [2:02:33] to this false narrative. [2:02:36] Is that what you see [2:02:38] taking shape here [2:02:38] with the evidence [2:02:39] that's slowly coming out? [2:02:41] I think that's exactly right [2:02:42] and you look at the role [2:02:43] that Bruce Ohr [2:02:44] and his wife Nellie Ohr [2:02:45] played at Fusion GPS, [2:02:46] the culpability they have, [2:02:48] the fact that [2:02:48] they at least notified [2:02:50] the FBI [2:02:50] of the lack of credibility [2:02:52] of Christopher Steele [2:02:53] and the information [2:02:54] that he was providing [2:02:55] should give us great pause [2:02:57] that such a small group [2:02:58] of individuals at the FBI [2:02:59] who comprised [2:03:00] crossfire hurricane [2:03:02] had the opportunity [2:03:03] to set in motion [2:03:04] a plan to try [2:03:05] and prevent a person [2:03:06] from being elected [2:03:07] president of the United States [2:03:08] with no evidence whatsoever. [2:03:10] I think the importance [2:03:11] of this cannot be overstated. [2:03:13] We entrust [2:03:13] the most terrifying powers [2:03:15] that the government [2:03:16] possesses to these agencies. [2:03:17] Literally, [2:03:18] the power [2:03:19] to ruin lives, [2:03:20] to spy on you, [2:03:22] to incarcerate you, [2:03:24] to launch pre-dawn raids [2:03:27] on your home. [2:03:28] The abuse of these powers [2:03:29] for political purposes [2:03:31] would be a direct threat [2:03:32] to the most fundamental freedoms [2:03:34] that we have as Americans [2:03:35] and the most fundamental institutions [2:03:37] of our democracy. [2:03:38] I should think [2:03:39] that that would be [2:03:39] of some passing interest [2:03:41] to every member [2:03:42] of this committee. [2:03:44] I'll say, Tom. [2:03:44] Yield back. [2:03:45] All done. [2:03:51] Gentleman yields back. [2:03:53] Who's next? [2:03:55] The gentleman from California. [2:03:57] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [2:03:58] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:03:59] earlier in your testimony, [2:04:01] you questioned the love [2:04:02] that Democrats have [2:04:03] for our country. [2:04:04] I serve an active duty [2:04:05] in the United States military. [2:04:06] Do not question [2:04:07] my love of our country. [2:04:09] I'm not going to question yours. [2:04:11] We are all Americans. [2:04:13] Now, earlier in your testimony, [2:04:14] you had made [2:04:15] a pretty stunning concession, [2:04:16] which is that [2:04:17] you had not read [2:04:17] the Mueller report. [2:04:18] That explains a lot [2:04:20] about your testimony, [2:04:21] and I'm thinking [2:04:21] maybe you don't know [2:04:22] what the special counsel [2:04:23] actually found. [2:04:25] So I'm going to tell you. [2:04:26] Volume one of the Mueller report [2:04:28] found that the Russians [2:04:29] attacked American elections [2:04:30] in a sweeping [2:04:31] and systematic manner. [2:04:34] It also found [2:04:34] that the Trump campaign [2:04:35] knew about the attack, [2:04:37] that they gave [2:04:37] internal polling data [2:04:38] to the Russians, [2:04:39] that they planned [2:04:40] their campaign strategy [2:04:41] around this attack. [2:04:43] It's not just [2:04:43] in the Mueller report. [2:04:44] It's also in Robert Mueller's [2:04:45] testimony under oath [2:04:47] in front of the intel [2:04:48] committee, [2:04:49] as well as this committee. [2:04:52] The reason we are here today [2:04:53] is because volume two [2:04:55] finds that the president [2:04:56] tried to obstruct [2:04:57] that investigation [2:04:58] into the Russian attack [2:04:59] on at least 10 instances, [2:05:01] five of which Robert Mueller [2:05:03] found there was [2:05:03] substantial evidence. [2:05:05] So I'm going to put up [2:05:05] a slide about what [2:05:07] the special counsel found [2:05:09] about this particular incident [2:05:10] in which you're involved. [2:05:12] He found substantial evidence [2:05:13] that the president's effort [2:05:14] to have such an limited scope [2:05:16] of the special counsel's [2:05:17] investigation [2:05:17] to future election interference [2:05:19] was intended to prevent [2:05:20] further investigative scrutiny [2:05:21] of the president's [2:05:22] and his campaign's conduct. [2:05:24] So that's why we're all here today. [2:05:26] And I think it's important [2:05:27] to look at the timeline [2:05:29] to understand how this [2:05:30] all unfolded. [2:05:31] You previously testified [2:05:32] that in March 2017, [2:05:35] that you were aware [2:05:36] that Attorney General [2:05:37] Sessions recused himself. [2:05:38] He did that in March 2017. [2:05:40] I'm going to put up a slide [2:05:41] about what the White House [2:05:42] Counsel's Office [2:05:42] had directed [2:05:43] about communications [2:05:45] with Sessions. [2:05:46] It said that Sessions [2:05:47] should not be contacted, [2:05:49] no contact with Sessions, [2:05:50] and no calm, serious concerns [2:05:51] about that instruction. [2:05:53] Did you ever get that instruction [2:05:55] from anyone [2:05:56] not to contact Sessions at all? [2:06:10] Clock is stuck. [2:06:10] No. [2:06:11] Okay. [2:06:12] Thank you. [2:06:13] A few months later, [2:06:14] on June 14, 2017, [2:06:16] the media reports [2:06:17] that the obstruction investigation, [2:06:19] or actually that the [2:06:20] Russian investigation [2:06:21] turns into obstruction investigation [2:06:22] into the president himself. [2:06:23] And then when Donald Trump [2:06:25] learns about this, [2:06:26] he goes nuts. [2:06:28] Isn't that correct? [2:06:30] I don't know that [2:06:30] to be accurate. [2:06:31] The president launched [2:06:33] over 10 tweets [2:06:35] very shortly thereafter [2:06:36] calling the investigation [2:06:37] a witch hunt. [2:06:38] That's correct, isn't it? [2:06:40] I don't know that [2:06:40] to be accurate. [2:06:41] He did. [2:06:44] All right. [2:06:44] So then he calls [2:06:46] Don McGahn at home [2:06:47] and says that Mueller [2:06:48] has to go. [2:06:50] Call me back when you do it. [2:06:51] Were you aware of that, [2:06:52] that he called Don McGahn [2:06:53] at home to tell him [2:06:54] to fire Mueller? [2:06:55] No. [2:06:56] Okay. [2:06:57] Two days after that phone call, [2:06:59] the president calls you [2:07:00] into his office. [2:07:01] You admitted that he dictated [2:07:03] a message for you [2:07:05] to carry to Jeff Sessions. [2:07:07] You said that you didn't [2:07:08] give it to Jeff Sessions [2:07:09] because you went on vacation. [2:07:11] The Mueller report [2:07:12] actually says that [2:07:13] the attorney general [2:07:13] canceled that meeting. [2:07:15] That's correct, isn't it? [2:07:16] The attorney general, [2:07:17] in fact, [2:07:18] canceled the meeting [2:07:18] that you tried to give [2:07:20] the note to? [2:07:22] I don't... [2:07:23] Where is that reference [2:07:24] in the report, Congressman? [2:07:25] Sure. [2:07:26] It's on page 92. [2:07:27] I'm going to give you [2:07:28] the courtesy. [2:07:29] I'm just going to read it [2:07:29] for you. [2:07:31] It says, [2:07:32] Lewin Dowsie called Sessions [2:07:33] and arranged a meeting [2:07:34] for the following evening [2:07:35] at Lewin Dowsie's office, [2:07:36] but Sessions had to cancel [2:07:37] due to a last-minute conflict. [2:07:39] Do you remember that? [2:07:40] I believe that's accurate. [2:07:41] Okay. [2:07:41] All right. [2:07:42] And then a little bit later [2:07:43] here on July 8th, [2:07:44] the media writes additional [2:07:47] negative information [2:07:47] about the president's campaign, [2:07:49] including that his senior advisors [2:07:51] and his son met with Russian operatives [2:07:53] who had dirt on Hillary Clinton [2:07:55] as part of Russia [2:07:56] and its government's support [2:07:57] for Mr. Trump. [2:07:58] Donald Trump then calls you back [2:08:00] into his office again [2:08:03] alone for a meeting, [2:08:04] and this time, [2:08:06] he tells you that [2:08:07] Sessions is going to be fired [2:08:10] if he doesn't meet with you. [2:08:11] Do you recall that conversation? [2:08:13] I took that as a joke. [2:08:15] Okay, you took that as a joke. [2:08:16] After that, [2:08:22] the president goes on TV [2:08:23] and he says, [2:08:25] Sessions should have never [2:08:26] recused himself, [2:08:27] and if he was going to recuse himself, [2:08:28] he should have told me [2:08:28] before he took the job [2:08:29] and I would have picked somebody else. [2:08:31] Do you think the president [2:08:32] was joking when he said that on TV? [2:08:34] I don't know [2:08:35] if the president's joking or not. [2:08:39] When the president met with you alone [2:08:41] to ask if you delivered [2:08:42] the note to Sessions, [2:08:45] do you believe any of that was a joke? [2:08:49] I can't discuss a private conversation [2:08:50] with the president [2:08:51] that isn't in the report, sir. [2:08:52] Okay. [2:08:58] I yield back. [2:08:59] Gentleman yields back. [2:09:01] The gentlelady from Arizona. [2:09:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [2:09:05] and thank you, Mr. Lewandowski, [2:09:07] for being here today voluntarily. [2:09:10] You know, [2:09:11] first we had the Steele dossier, [2:09:14] which turned out to be [2:09:15] a false opposition report [2:09:17] funded by the Clinton campaign [2:09:20] and the Democrat National Committee, [2:09:22] and apparently was used to spy on the Trump campaign [2:09:28] and initiate the special counsel investigation. [2:09:33] Then for two years, [2:09:35] we've heard from Democrats on TV. [2:09:38] I heard it over and over again [2:09:39] from some on this committee [2:09:41] that they had proof, proof, [2:09:43] that the president had colluded with Russia. [2:09:46] But then guess what? [2:09:49] The Mueller report comes out, [2:09:51] and they lied. [2:09:53] It was totally false. [2:09:55] There was no collusion, [2:09:57] no conspiracy. [2:09:59] So then my Democratic colleagues [2:10:01] had to switch gears [2:10:03] because they knew that one failed. [2:10:04] So they said, [2:10:05] oh, now it's obstruction of justice. [2:10:08] So they brought in Robert Mueller, [2:10:10] and they tried to question him. [2:10:13] They did everything they could. [2:10:14] That one flopped, too. [2:10:17] And so now here we are today. [2:10:19] They're hauling you in, [2:10:20] and who knows who they're going to haul in next. [2:10:22] They're trying everything and anything. [2:10:25] And, you know, [2:10:27] I just don't know when it's going to end. [2:10:30] I want to read a quote [2:10:32] from on April 19, 2019, [2:10:36] shortly after the release of the Mueller report. [2:10:39] Emmett Flood, [2:10:40] special counsel to the president, [2:10:42] wrote about the abuses [2:10:43] by executive branch employees. [2:10:47] He said, [2:10:47] in the partisan commotion [2:10:48] surrounding the release report, [2:10:51] it would be well to remember [2:10:52] that what can be done to the president [2:10:55] can be done to any one of us. [2:10:59] Do you agree with this statement? [2:11:02] I do. [2:11:05] And Mr. Lewandowski, [2:11:07] I have to tell you, [2:11:09] I'm scared for our country. [2:11:11] I'm scared when I read this Mueller report, [2:11:14] when I read what's been going on [2:11:16] with a false dossier [2:11:18] that was apparently used [2:11:20] to spy on Americans. [2:11:23] And if that can be done [2:11:24] to the president of the United States, [2:11:27] this can be done to anyone. [2:11:30] And so I ask you, [2:11:31] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:11:32] do you think that the Democrats [2:11:35] will go to any length [2:11:38] to undermine the president [2:11:40] of the United States [2:11:41] and influence the 2020 election? [2:11:45] You know, Congresswoman, [2:11:45] I believe in this democracy [2:11:46] of the United States, [2:11:47] and I love this country. [2:11:50] And I think while partisan politics [2:11:52] is so important, [2:11:54] I think the fact [2:11:54] that we're the greatest, [2:11:55] freest country in the world [2:11:56] is paramount [2:11:57] to everything that we do. [2:12:00] And while we may disagree [2:12:01] in this committee, [2:12:03] and I believe that this president [2:12:04] has been treated [2:12:04] exceptionally unfairly, [2:12:07] I think at the end of the day, [2:12:10] we all believe [2:12:11] that a free and fair election [2:12:12] is the best way [2:12:13] and the best method [2:12:14] for ensuring the safe [2:12:17] and security of our democracy. [2:12:19] Do I have concerns [2:12:21] based on the 2016 election, [2:12:23] seeing the abuses [2:12:24] of a small minority [2:12:26] that have impacted so many? [2:12:29] You bet I do. [2:12:31] Am I concerned [2:12:31] that as our children [2:12:33] and grandchildren grow up, [2:12:34] we look back on this time [2:12:36] in our nation's history [2:12:36] and we say, [2:12:37] that never should have been allowed, [2:12:39] not to a Republican, [2:12:40] and never to a Democrat? [2:12:42] You bet I do. [2:12:43] But I think at the end of the day, [2:12:46] partisan politics aside, [2:12:49] and to Mr. Liu's point, [2:12:51] we all love our country. [2:12:52] We may have disagreements, [2:12:54] but I don't think anybody [2:12:55] wants to see someone [2:12:57] not elected properly [2:12:59] or the interference [2:13:01] of foreign agents [2:13:02] or individuals in this country [2:13:04] to negatively impact [2:13:05] the outcome of an election [2:13:06] because we are better than that. [2:13:09] This country is the greatest country [2:13:10] in the history of our planet [2:13:11] and we should never forget that. [2:13:13] And sometimes, [2:13:14] maybe just sometimes, [2:13:16] partisan politics [2:13:17] can take a backseat [2:13:18] to doing what's right [2:13:19] for our country. [2:13:21] Thank you, Mr. Lewandowski. [2:13:23] And I yield the balance [2:13:24] of my time to Mr. Jordan. [2:13:25] I thank the gentlelady [2:13:26] for yielding [2:13:27] and thank the gentleman [2:13:28] for his well-stated answer [2:13:29] to the last question. [2:13:31] So, Mr. Lewandowski, [2:13:32] the Obama administration [2:13:33] spied on two American citizens [2:13:35] associated with the campaign [2:13:37] that you ran [2:13:38] and were involved with, [2:13:39] George Papadopoulos [2:13:40] and Carter Page. [2:13:41] We've heard from Mr. McClintock, [2:13:42] Ms. Leskoe, [2:13:43] about Carter Page [2:13:43] and the dossier [2:13:44] and how they did that [2:13:44] with Mr. Papadopoulos. [2:13:46] It was done overseas [2:13:46] with foreigners. [2:13:48] FBI spies on a major party's nominee [2:13:50] for the highest office [2:13:51] in the land spies [2:13:52] on two American citizens. [2:13:54] Just for the record, [2:13:55] were you as the campaign manager [2:13:57] ever notified [2:13:58] or was anyone [2:13:59] at the campaign [2:14:00] ever notified [2:14:01] that that was going on [2:14:03] when it was happening? [2:14:04] No, sir. [2:14:05] Yield back. [2:14:06] Thank you. [2:14:07] Gentleman yields back. [2:14:08] The gentleman [2:14:08] from Maryland is recognized. [2:14:12] Mr. Chairman, [2:14:12] some of our GOP colleagues [2:14:14] have suggested [2:14:14] that our time [2:14:15] would be better spent today [2:14:16] working on protecting [2:14:17] the 2020 elections. [2:14:19] So we must charitably assume [2:14:20] that they've just [2:14:21] completely forgotten [2:14:22] about the House of Representatives [2:14:23] passing on June 27, 2019, [2:14:27] the Securing America's [2:14:28] Federal Elections Act, [2:14:30] which authorizes [2:14:32] $600 million [2:14:32] to modernize [2:14:34] and secure [2:14:34] our election infrastructure, [2:14:36] mandates the use [2:14:37] of voter-verified paper ballots [2:14:39] in post-election [2:14:40] risk-limiting audits [2:14:42] and bans [2:14:42] internet accessibility [2:14:43] and connectivity [2:14:45] for devices [2:14:45] on which ballots [2:14:46] are marked or counted. [2:14:48] Now, perhaps they forgot about it [2:14:49] because all of them [2:14:50] voted against it [2:14:51] except for one Republican [2:14:52] and the entire Democratic caucus [2:14:55] voted to support it. [2:14:56] We are still hoping [2:14:57] that Mitch McConnell [2:14:58] decides to take up [2:15:00] that legislation. [2:15:02] So who are the useful idiots? [2:15:04] I suppose we can have [2:15:05] an interesting conversation [2:15:06] about that later. [2:15:07] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:15:08] you told Mr. McClintock [2:15:10] some of the things [2:15:10] you might want to investigate [2:15:12] about the deep state [2:15:14] when you become a U.S. senator. [2:15:17] Let me ask you something else [2:15:18] about your upcoming service [2:15:20] as a senator. [2:15:21] Will you accept this view [2:15:23] of the so-called [2:15:24] confidentiality interest [2:15:27] executive privilege, [2:15:30] which you have been invoking today, [2:15:32] on behalf of the president's ability [2:15:34] to prevent Congress [2:15:36] from collecting testimony [2:15:37] from private citizens? [2:15:39] Will you accept that [2:15:39] in your service [2:15:40] if you were elected [2:15:41] to the Senate? [2:15:42] You know, Congressman, [2:15:43] I appreciate your confidence [2:15:44] in my ability [2:15:44] to win in New Hampshire, [2:15:45] and I'm sure many people [2:15:46] in New Hampshire [2:15:46] have that same confidence in me. [2:15:49] That being said... [2:15:49] I was just going on [2:15:50] your representation [2:15:50] to the answer to that. [2:15:51] Well, I appreciate that. [2:15:52] Thank you. [2:15:52] But that being said, [2:15:54] it's not my privilege [2:15:56] to waive, Congressman. [2:15:58] It's the executive office's privilege. [2:16:00] And I'm not an attorney. [2:16:01] And so I can't speak to... [2:16:02] I am one. [2:16:02] So let me ask you a question. [2:16:03] Are you representing [2:16:04] that the White House [2:16:04] has told you [2:16:05] that they are invoking [2:16:07] the executive privilege [2:16:08] on your behalf today? [2:16:09] I don't believe [2:16:09] it's an executive privilege, sir. [2:16:11] And again, [2:16:11] I think we've submitted [2:16:12] the letter for your clarification [2:16:14] of what the White House has said. [2:16:15] Well, let me ask you... [2:16:16] But it's not my privilege to waive. [2:16:18] Well, I don't think [2:16:18] it's anyone's privilege to waive [2:16:19] because I don't think it exists, [2:16:21] Mr. Lewandowski. [2:16:22] I think the whole thing [2:16:22] is imaginary. [2:16:24] It's like the tooth fairy. [2:16:26] You didn't work for the president [2:16:28] in the White House. [2:16:29] Thank you, Congressman. [2:16:30] I'm sorry? [2:16:31] My children were watching, [2:16:32] so thank you for that. [2:16:33] Well, I hope the president's [2:16:34] not on then. [2:16:36] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:16:37] you didn't work [2:16:38] for President Trump, did you? [2:16:40] You never worked [2:16:41] in the White House. [2:16:42] I never worked [2:16:43] in the White House, sir. [2:16:43] Okay, so you were [2:16:44] a private citizen [2:16:44] when you met [2:16:45] with the president [2:16:46] in the circumstances [2:16:48] we're discussing today? [2:16:50] Yes, I am. [2:16:50] Okay. [2:16:51] The White House says [2:16:53] you shouldn't have to answer [2:16:54] any questions today [2:16:55] because the president's [2:16:56] communication, [2:16:56] seeking advice [2:16:57] or information [2:16:58] in connection [2:16:58] with the discharge [2:16:59] of his duties [2:16:59] are highly confidential. [2:17:01] And this pushes White House [2:17:04] obstructionism [2:17:04] to a surreal new extreme. [2:17:07] Let's make this clear [2:17:08] because I see no evidence [2:17:10] at all that the president [2:17:11] was seeking your advice [2:17:12] or that you were helping him [2:17:13] discharge his official duties. [2:17:16] First of all, [2:17:17] I just want to make sure [2:17:18] we have this on the record. [2:17:18] When you went to the White House [2:17:19] in June and July of 2017 [2:17:21] to meet the president, [2:17:22] you were not a White House employee, [2:17:23] were you? [2:17:25] I was not a White House employee. [2:17:26] You've never been [2:17:26] a White House employee. [2:17:28] That's correct. [2:17:28] And there were no other [2:17:29] White House employees [2:17:30] present for that meeting. [2:17:31] No secretary, [2:17:32] no staff assistant, [2:17:33] no other executive branch employee. [2:17:34] Is that right? [2:17:36] I believe that's accurate. [2:17:37] Okay. [2:17:38] And while you claim [2:17:40] that you were advising him [2:17:41] during those meetings, [2:17:42] the president didn't seem [2:17:43] to be seeking your advice at all. [2:17:45] In fact, [2:17:45] you never testified [2:17:46] to the special counsel [2:17:47] that President Trump [2:17:49] once asked for your advice. [2:17:51] Here's what you told [2:17:51] the special counsel [2:17:52] about your meeting [2:17:53] on page 91, volume 2. [2:17:55] And please put it up [2:17:55] on the slide if you would. [2:17:57] During the June 19 meeting, [2:17:59] Lewandowski [2:18:00] recalled that after some small talk, [2:18:02] the president brought up Sessions [2:18:03] and criticized his recusal [2:18:05] from the Russia investigation. [2:18:07] The president told Lewandowski [2:18:08] that Sessions was weak [2:18:09] and that if the president [2:18:10] had known about the likelihood [2:18:11] of recusal in advance, [2:18:12] he would not have appointed Sessions. [2:18:14] The president then asked Lewandowski [2:18:16] to deliver a message to Sessions [2:18:18] and said, [2:18:19] write this down. [2:18:20] So I'm assuming you told the truth [2:18:22] and the whole truth [2:18:22] about your discussion [2:18:23] when you testified [2:18:24] to the special counsel. [2:18:26] There's nothing in there [2:18:28] about him asking your advice [2:18:29] on anything, is there? [2:18:30] There's nothing in the report [2:18:32] that says that, Nat. [2:18:33] And you were not helping him [2:18:34] perform his official duties [2:18:36] in office, were you? [2:18:38] I can't discuss [2:18:39] my private conversation. [2:18:40] Well, I'm just going based [2:18:41] on what's up on the screen. [2:18:42] Did you help him [2:18:43] implement any of his duties [2:18:45] of office at that point? [2:18:46] Again, I can't discuss [2:18:47] the substance of the discussion [2:18:48] outside what's in the report. [2:18:49] Well, no one has told us [2:18:53] what duty you were performing [2:18:54] if you were performing one [2:18:55] or what public policy [2:18:57] you were advising on. [2:18:58] All of America's reading [2:18:59] the same text. [2:19:00] We don't see him asking you [2:19:01] for your advice about anything. [2:19:02] Did he ask your advice [2:19:03] about anything? [2:19:04] Did he ask your advice [2:19:05] about national security, [2:19:06] for example, [2:19:07] which is the only context I know [2:19:08] about an executive privilege, [2:19:10] but now it seems as if [2:19:11] that's not even being waved around. [2:19:13] Look, one can only regard [2:19:15] with amazement [2:19:16] the logic of this argument. [2:19:17] The president tweets out [2:19:19] that various Fox News anchors [2:19:20] advise him. [2:19:21] Are they covered [2:19:22] by this privilege, too? [2:19:23] The gentleman's time has expired. [2:19:24] The witness may answer the question. [2:19:26] That'd be a question [2:19:27] that you should direct [2:19:27] to the White House here, sir. [2:19:29] The gentleman's time has expired. [2:19:32] Gentleman from Virginia? [2:19:34] Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klein. [2:19:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:19:37] I want to thank Mr. Lewandowski [2:19:39] for being here today [2:19:40] after testifying three other times. [2:19:43] Willingly for you to be here, [2:19:45] again, voluntarily. [2:19:46] I doubt the others [2:19:48] had as much political theater [2:19:49] as this one has had, [2:19:51] but I appreciate you [2:19:52] being here today. [2:19:53] This hearing is yet another [2:19:55] grand display of political theater [2:19:56] that we have seen [2:19:58] from this committee [2:19:59] over the last several months. [2:20:01] The majority should be focused [2:20:02] on sound congressional oversight, [2:20:04] in particular, [2:20:05] the IG report about abuse [2:20:07] in the FBI, [2:20:09] and we should be having [2:20:10] a hearing here soon [2:20:11] with the inspector general [2:20:12] in front of us to question, [2:20:13] but all we've seen for months [2:20:14] is desperate attempts [2:20:16] to keep this impeach-at-all-costs [2:20:18] narrative alive. [2:20:20] I don't know what [2:20:20] they're calling it today. [2:20:21] Is it an inquiry? [2:20:22] Is it an investigation? [2:20:24] Is it a proceeding? [2:20:25] Whatever word [2:20:26] that Google Thesaurus [2:20:27] throws back at them [2:20:28] when they type it in, [2:20:29] that's what we're at. [2:20:31] It's embarrassing, [2:20:33] as a member of the Judiciary Committee, [2:20:35] to have you here [2:20:36] to have to go through this, [2:20:38] but the majority [2:20:40] is propping up [2:20:41] this Mueller report [2:20:42] like a bad remake [2:20:44] of Weekend at Bernie's, [2:20:46] and its impeachment [2:20:47] based on the Mueller report [2:20:50] is dead, [2:20:51] and everybody seems to know it [2:20:52] except the chairman [2:20:53] and several members [2:20:54] of the party conference, [2:20:55] the majority. [2:20:57] We should be hearing [2:20:57] from the IG report [2:20:58] about the FBI abuse. [2:21:00] We are now hearing [2:21:02] about the president's mood [2:21:04] when he's talking to you [2:21:08] in the Oval Office. [2:21:10] There was collusion [2:21:11] with Russia, [2:21:12] but not by President Trump. [2:21:13] I want to go back [2:21:14] to questions [2:21:14] by the gentleman [2:21:15] from Florida, [2:21:16] not the gentleman [2:21:17] from Florida [2:21:17] who's still standing [2:21:18] by the belief [2:21:19] proven false [2:21:20] by Volume 1 [2:21:21] of the Mueller report [2:21:21] that President Trump [2:21:22] is a Russian agent, [2:21:24] but the gentleman [2:21:25] from Florida, [2:21:26] or gentleman from California [2:21:27] who was asking you [2:21:28] about the Steele dossier. [2:21:31] You've heard [2:21:31] of the Steele dossier, [2:21:32] correct? [2:21:33] Yes, sir. [2:21:34] It was an opposition [2:21:35] research document [2:21:36] created by a man [2:21:36] named Christopher Steele [2:21:37] and paid for [2:21:38] by the Clinton campaign [2:21:39] and the DNC. [2:21:40] Have you ever met [2:21:41] Christopher Steele? [2:21:43] I have not. [2:21:43] But you're familiar [2:21:44] with who he is? [2:21:45] I am. [2:21:46] Christopher Steele [2:21:47] was hired by a firm [2:21:48] called Fusion GPS [2:21:49] to produce the Steele dossier. [2:21:50] Have you heard [2:21:51] of Fusion GPS? [2:21:53] Yes, I have. [2:21:54] That's one more [2:21:54] than we had [2:21:55] from Mr. Mueller [2:21:56] during his testimony [2:21:57] because he didn't know [2:21:58] what Fusion GPS was. [2:22:01] Do you know [2:22:01] who hired Fusion GPS [2:22:03] to produce the Steele dossier? [2:22:04] I believe it was a law firm. [2:22:07] Perkins Coy. [2:22:08] And do you know [2:22:09] who Christopher Steele's sources [2:22:10] were for the information [2:22:11] he put in the dossier? [2:22:13] I don't have. [2:22:14] I couldn't speak to it directly, sir. [2:22:16] But they were Russian sources, correct? [2:22:18] That's the public report, yes. [2:22:20] And the FBI [2:22:21] and intelligence leaders [2:22:22] did not verify [2:22:23] the truthfulness [2:22:23] of the allegations [2:22:24] in the Steele dossier [2:22:25] about Donald Trump, [2:22:26] did they? [2:22:26] That's my understanding, sir. [2:22:28] Even though the information [2:22:29] was never verified [2:22:30] and most of it [2:22:30] has been proven to be false, [2:22:31] the intelligence community [2:22:32] relied on it [2:22:33] to get a FISA application [2:22:34] to spy on the Trump campaign, correct? [2:22:36] I believe that's correct, yes. [2:22:38] And all of this [2:22:39] was laid bare in volume [2:22:40] or should have been laid bare, [2:22:42] but volume one [2:22:43] clearly indicated [2:22:44] that there was no collusion [2:22:46] between the Trump campaign [2:22:47] and the Russian government. [2:22:49] That Mueller report [2:22:51] that we are still propping up [2:22:54] and hashing over week [2:22:56] after week after week, [2:22:57] you wrote an op-ed about [2:22:59] back on March 29th [2:23:00] when you clarified [2:23:03] that you thought [2:23:04] the report was comprehensive, [2:23:06] you clarified that it found [2:23:07] no wrongdoing by the president [2:23:08] or his advisors, [2:23:10] but that it is being used, [2:23:12] it was being used back in March [2:23:13] and it is still being used [2:23:15] by conspiracy-minded Democrats [2:23:18] and a hostile media [2:23:19] for their own political purposes, [2:23:21] thwarting the president's re-election [2:23:22] and pursuing further investigations. [2:23:25] Do you stand by that op-ed [2:23:26] and do you still believe [2:23:27] that it is being misused [2:23:30] in that way today? [2:23:31] I do believe it, sir. [2:23:34] Is there anything else [2:23:35] you'd like to add [2:23:36] to the questions [2:23:38] that have been answered [2:23:38] or asked? [2:23:39] No, sir. [2:23:40] All right. [2:23:41] With that, I yield back. [2:23:43] General yields back. [2:23:44] The gentle lady from Washington. [2:23:46] Thank you. [2:23:47] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:23:48] what we're seeing here [2:23:49] is a pattern of the president [2:23:51] doing anything and everything [2:23:53] to hide his misconduct [2:23:54] from Congress [2:23:55] and from the American people. [2:23:57] The president tried to get you [2:23:58] to deliver a secret message [2:23:59] to the attorney general [2:24:01] all in an attempt [2:24:02] to prevent the special counsel [2:24:04] from exposing [2:24:05] the president's own misconduct. [2:24:07] And as soon as the special counsel [2:24:08] published his report [2:24:10] and the president's misconduct [2:24:12] was exposed, [2:24:13] the president tried [2:24:13] to cover that up too. [2:24:15] Isn't it true [2:24:16] that the president [2:24:16] has repeatedly tried [2:24:18] to discredit your [2:24:20] and other witnesses' testimony [2:24:21] to the special counsel [2:24:22] in the published report? [2:24:25] Not to my knowledge. [2:24:26] You follow the president [2:24:26] on Twitter, Mr. Lewandowski? [2:24:31] That's a good question. [2:24:32] I'd have to check, [2:24:33] but I think it's possible. [2:24:34] I may be the only one [2:24:34] who doesn't, [2:24:35] but I'll fix that immediately. [2:24:36] I'm sorry. [2:24:36] Excellent. [2:24:37] You've probably seen his tweets, [2:24:38] I imagine. [2:24:39] Didn't the president say, [2:24:40] and I'll put up the slide for you, [2:24:42] statements are made about me [2:24:43] by certain people [2:24:44] in the crazy Mueller report, [2:24:46] in itself written [2:24:47] by 18 angry Democrat Trump haters, [2:24:49] which are fabricated [2:24:50] and totally untrue. [2:24:51] That is a Trump tweet [2:24:52] from April 19, 2019. [2:24:55] That's the president saying [2:24:57] that all the statements [2:24:58] given by witnesses [2:24:59] in the investigation, [2:25:00] all those statements [2:25:01] are untrue. [2:25:03] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:25:04] you were a witness [2:25:05] in the investigation. [2:25:06] You sat for interviews [2:25:07] with the special counsel [2:25:08] as part of the federal investigation. [2:25:10] Isn't that correct? [2:25:12] I did sit, yes. [2:25:13] And the special counsel's report [2:25:14] includes statements [2:25:15] that you made [2:25:16] to the special counsel [2:25:17] during the federal investigation. [2:25:19] Did you lie at any point [2:25:21] to the special counsel [2:25:22] during those interviews? [2:25:24] Not to the best [2:25:25] of my recollection, no. [2:25:25] So your statements [2:25:26] to the special counsel [2:25:27] in the Mueller report, [2:25:28] those are not, quote, [2:25:29] fabricated and totally untrue. [2:25:31] You didn't lie [2:25:32] to the special counsel, [2:25:33] did you, Mr. Lewandowski? [2:25:34] Not to the best [2:25:35] of my recollection, no. [2:25:36] So the president is wrong [2:25:37] that the report [2:25:38] is fabricated [2:25:39] and totally untrue. [2:25:40] That's just the president [2:25:41] trying to discredit [2:25:42] all of the witnesses [2:25:44] who said that he obstructed justice. [2:25:46] Isn't that correct, [2:25:46] Mr. Lewandowski? [2:25:47] That's a question [2:25:48] for the president. [2:25:49] Well, which is it? [2:25:50] I mean, did you lie, [2:25:51] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:25:52] or is the president wrong [2:25:53] when he says that all [2:25:54] of the statements [2:25:55] in the report [2:25:56] are fabricated? [2:25:57] I think it believes [2:25:59] it says certain people. [2:26:01] Statements made about me [2:26:02] by certain people. [2:26:03] It doesn't say all, [2:26:04] unless I'm misreading it. [2:26:06] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:26:07] did you lie to the president [2:26:09] and is the president correct [2:26:11] that everything [2:26:11] in the report [2:26:12] is fabricated? [2:26:15] I won't comment [2:26:16] on private conversations, [2:26:17] but I don't appreciate [2:26:18] the insinuation [2:26:19] that I lied about anything. [2:26:20] I've answered it [2:26:21] multiple times. [2:26:21] I've answered your question [2:26:22] multiple times [2:26:23] about my truthfulness [2:26:24] to the committee [2:26:25] and the special counsel's office. [2:26:26] And I appreciate that, [2:26:27] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:26:28] but the president, [2:26:28] not to divulge my knowledge, [2:26:29] lied to the special counsel. [2:26:30] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:26:30] this is my time. [2:26:32] You are not yet [2:26:33] in the Senate. [2:26:34] You are a witness [2:26:35] before the Judiciary Committee. [2:26:36] Please act like it. [2:26:37] This is my time. [2:26:39] I control it. [2:26:40] The president also said, [2:26:41] and please put up this slide, [2:26:43] watch out for the people [2:26:44] that take so-called notes [2:26:46] when the notes [2:26:47] never existed until needed. [2:26:49] Referring to the Mueller report, [2:26:50] referencing people [2:26:51] taking notes of meetings [2:26:52] with the president, [2:26:53] notes that documented [2:26:54] the president's obstruction. [2:26:56] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:26:57] you had notes [2:26:58] from your meeting [2:26:58] with the president. [2:26:59] You've testified [2:26:59] to that before us, correct? [2:27:03] Yes. [2:27:04] You were dictated [2:27:04] those notes by the president, correct? [2:27:08] I believe that's in the report. [2:27:09] And you told the special counsel [2:27:10] the president's dictated [2:27:11] a message to you [2:27:12] and you said, [2:27:13] write this down. [2:27:14] This is volume 291, page 91. [2:27:16] And you gave those notes [2:27:18] to the special counsel, correct? [2:27:20] I can't speak to the way [2:27:22] the special counsel's conducted [2:27:23] their investigation [2:27:23] on what information they have. [2:27:24] Did you give the notes [2:27:25] to the special counsel? [2:27:26] This is not about [2:27:26] how the special counsel [2:27:27] conducted its investigation. [2:27:29] It's about whether you gave [2:27:30] the notes to the special counsel. [2:27:31] That's a question [2:27:32] for special counsel Mueller. [2:27:34] Those were your notes, [2:27:35] Mr. Lewandowski. [2:27:36] They were in your safe. [2:27:37] They were dictated to you [2:27:39] and written down by you. [2:27:40] Did you give them [2:27:41] to the special counsel? [2:27:42] I comply with all legal [2:27:43] and lawful requests [2:27:44] to the special counsel. [2:27:44] Obviously, you are once again [2:27:45] obstructing our investigation [2:27:46] by refusing to answer questions [2:27:48] that- [2:27:48] I've just answered your question. [2:27:49] I say I comply with all requests [2:27:50] by the special counsel. [2:27:51] So you gave the notes [2:27:52] to the special counsel? [2:27:53] I've asked and answered your question. [2:27:54] Did you make up [2:27:55] that the president told you [2:27:56] to write down that note, [2:27:57] Mr. Lewandowski? [2:27:59] I can't speak to private conversation [2:28:01] I might not have had [2:28:02] with the president of the United States. [2:28:03] Did you lie about the president [2:28:05] telling you to write down the note? [2:28:08] That's not a private conversation. [2:28:10] I believe what is in the report [2:28:11] is an accurate description. [2:28:12] Okay. [2:28:13] So to be clear, [2:28:14] you also gave the special counsel notes [2:28:15] from your meeting with the president [2:28:16] that are not fabricated [2:28:18] and totally untrue [2:28:19] as per the president's tweet. [2:28:21] So when the president said [2:28:22] all those notes [2:28:23] never existed until needed, [2:28:25] that was his quote, [2:28:25] That's just another instance [2:28:27] of the president [2:28:28] trying to discredit anyone [2:28:29] who actually tried [2:28:31] to document his misconduct. [2:28:32] Now the president [2:28:33] is going further, isn't he? [2:28:35] You've said previously [2:28:36] that you have nothing to hide [2:28:38] and that you would answer [2:28:39] all questions. [2:28:40] Here's what you said. [2:28:42] Can I play that clip? [2:28:43] I never asked for presidential immunity [2:28:46] whatsoever. [2:28:46] Chris, I sat there for 12 hours [2:28:48] and before I left, [2:28:49] after the last four hours, [2:28:50] I said, [2:28:51] I will sit here for another four hours [2:28:52] to answer every single one [2:28:54] of your questions [2:28:55] to the House Intelligence Committee. [2:28:57] I said, [2:28:57] before we leave today, [2:28:59] I want to be very clear. [2:29:00] I will sit and answer [2:29:01] every one of your questions. [2:29:02] There's no reason to subpoena me [2:29:03] because I'm willing to volunteer [2:29:04] if they want to ask me questions. [2:29:06] I'll be happy to answer their questions [2:29:07] because I have nothing to hide. [2:29:09] It's interesting, Mr. Lewandowski, [2:29:11] because obviously the president [2:29:12] does have something to hide [2:29:14] because the White House [2:29:15] is directing you [2:29:15] not to answer the questions [2:29:17] in front of the Judiciary Committee. [2:29:19] And that is a tremendously [2:29:21] shameful thing, Mr. Lewandowski. [2:29:23] The American people [2:29:24] deserve to know the truth [2:29:25] and I think they deserve [2:29:27] to have you answer our questions. [2:29:29] The time of the gentlelady [2:29:30] has expired. [2:29:32] The gentleman from Florida. [2:29:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:29:37] The American people [2:29:40] know the truth [2:29:41] if they've read the Mueller report [2:29:43] and have come [2:29:44] to their own conclusions. [2:29:47] Sir, you and the Trump campaign [2:29:49] fully cooperated [2:29:51] with the Mueller investigation. [2:29:52] Is that correct? [2:29:54] I believe so, yes. [2:29:55] And multiple times [2:29:57] that you've been asked [2:29:58] to testify voluntarily [2:29:59] before numerous different [2:30:01] congressional committees [2:30:02] you've complied in that request, [2:30:04] even voluntarily, [2:30:05] not even needing to be subpoenaed. [2:30:07] That's right. [2:30:07] To the best of my recollection, [2:30:08] yes. [2:30:09] And after 22 months, [2:30:10] 18 lawyers, [2:30:12] 500 subpoenas, [2:30:13] 500 search warrants, [2:30:15] the Mueller report [2:30:16] concluded that there was [2:30:18] no evidence [2:30:18] that the Trump campaign [2:30:20] colluded with Russia. [2:30:21] Is that correct? [2:30:23] I haven't read the report, [2:30:24] but I believe [2:30:24] that's the final conclusion. [2:30:26] So, this, [2:30:28] now that we've established [2:30:30] that the Mueller report [2:30:31] itself doesn't find [2:30:33] that there's any collusion [2:30:34] between the Trump campaign [2:30:35] and Russia, [2:30:35] this whole contention [2:30:37] about the president [2:30:39] firing or not firing [2:30:40] or directing people to fire, [2:30:42] is it your understanding, [2:30:43] and you may not be able [2:30:44] to answer this [2:30:44] because it's outside the scope, [2:30:45] but is it your understanding [2:30:46] in Article 2 of the Constitution [2:30:48] that the president [2:30:50] could fire the attorney general [2:30:51] without cause [2:30:52] for any reason whatsoever? [2:30:55] Let me preface it [2:30:57] by saying I'm not an attorney, [2:30:58] but it's my understanding [2:30:59] that the president [2:30:59] has broad authority [2:31:00] over members [2:31:01] who serve in the executive branch [2:31:03] and has broad latitude [2:31:05] to hire and fire [2:31:06] at his discretion. [2:31:07] And also, [2:31:08] under that constitutional authority, [2:31:11] obligated to him [2:31:12] under Article 2, [2:31:13] he could fire [2:31:14] the FBI director [2:31:15] without reason, [2:31:17] for any reason whatsoever [2:31:18] at any time. [2:31:20] Again, [2:31:20] I'm not an attorney, [2:31:21] but that could be [2:31:22] a very realistic interpretation [2:31:24] of the Article 2 powers [2:31:25] that have provided [2:31:26] to the president [2:31:26] of the Constitution, yes. [2:31:27] And he could have also [2:31:28] had Mr. Mueller fired [2:31:31] during the course [2:31:32] of the investigation [2:31:33] if he wanted to [2:31:34] under his powers [2:31:34] under Article 2. [2:31:36] Again, [2:31:37] I think that would be [2:31:37] a question for the attorney general [2:31:39] or White House counsel, [2:31:40] but I believe that would be [2:31:41] his prerogative [2:31:41] if he so chose, yes. [2:31:42] So given all that, [2:31:44] he did not choose [2:31:45] to exercise [2:31:46] any of that authority. [2:31:47] In fact, [2:31:48] he allowed for the campaign [2:31:51] and members like yourselves [2:31:52] to coordinate with them, [2:31:53] cooperate with them, [2:31:55] and until now [2:31:56] that we've gone through [2:31:57] a 22-month investigation [2:31:59] where the American people [2:32:00] have been sold a lie [2:32:01] of Russian collusion, [2:32:02] now we're going to just [2:32:03] try to rehash this narrative [2:32:05] amongst the American people [2:32:07] despite the fact [2:32:08] that it has been investigated [2:32:09] by investigators, lawyers, [2:32:12] FBI agents [2:32:13] for 22 months. [2:32:15] I would be happy [2:32:16] to yield to any other members [2:32:19] in my caucus [2:32:19] that would like to yield. [2:32:20] If not, [2:32:21] I'll yield back to the chair. [2:32:22] Thank you for your time. [2:32:23] Gentleman yields back, [2:32:24] the gentlelady from Florida. [2:32:28] Thank you so much, [2:32:29] Mr. Chairman. [2:32:30] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:32:31] just for the record, [2:32:32] I do love this country. [2:32:34] I spent 27 years [2:32:36] enforcing the law, [2:32:37] and now I have the honor [2:32:39] of writing of the law. [2:32:42] When special counsel visited us [2:32:45] and in his testimony, [2:32:46] he talked about [2:32:47] a spectrum of witnesses [2:32:48] who were either telling [2:32:51] half-truths [2:32:52] up to those [2:32:53] who were outright liars. [2:32:56] Today, I do have to wonder [2:32:58] how many untruths, [2:33:00] how many members of Congress [2:33:01] neglecting their duties [2:33:03] and their oath, [2:33:04] and how many [2:33:05] White House attorneys [2:33:06] does it take [2:33:07] to protect [2:33:08] one innocent president? [2:33:12] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:33:13] you started off [2:33:14] your testimony, [2:33:14] or during your opening statement, [2:33:15] you talked about being [2:33:16] a certified police officer [2:33:18] in New Hampshire. [2:33:19] Is that correct? [2:33:21] Yes. [2:33:22] Do you believe [2:33:23] that police officers [2:33:24] have a very tough job? [2:33:26] I do. [2:33:27] But even with all [2:33:29] of the stuff [2:33:30] that law enforcement officers [2:33:31] have to put up with, [2:33:33] not only enforcing the law [2:33:34] and patrolling [2:33:35] their communities, [2:33:36] but just working [2:33:38] horrible hours, [2:33:39] I'm sure you know about that. [2:33:40] With all of that stuff, [2:33:42] do you believe [2:33:43] that law enforcement officers, [2:33:44] when they engage [2:33:46] in wrongdoing, [2:33:47] that they should [2:33:48] be held accountable? [2:33:50] I do. [2:33:51] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:33:52] you said that if anyone [2:33:53] were trying to coordinate [2:33:55] with Russia, [2:33:55] they should be held accountable [2:33:57] to the fullest extent [2:33:58] of the law. [2:33:59] Is that correct? [2:34:01] I believe, [2:34:02] Congresswoman, [2:34:02] I said if anybody [2:34:03] attempted to impact [2:34:04] the outcome of the election [2:34:05] illegally, [2:34:06] they should spend [2:34:06] the rest of their lives [2:34:07] in jail. [2:34:07] So do you believe [2:34:08] that a person [2:34:09] coordinating with Russia [2:34:11] should not be held [2:34:13] accountable to the fullest [2:34:14] extent of the law? [2:34:15] I think anybody [2:34:16] who's attempting [2:34:16] to impact the outcome [2:34:17] of an election illegally, [2:34:18] whether it's with Russia [2:34:19] or any other foreign entity, [2:34:21] should spend the rest [2:34:22] of their life in jail. [2:34:24] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:34:25] I know you know, [2:34:26] and I believe, [2:34:27] I'm going to give you [2:34:28] the benefit of the doubt [2:34:29] that you care about [2:34:30] the special counsel's report [2:34:32] concluding that Russia [2:34:33] government interfered [2:34:34] in the 2016 presidential election [2:34:37] in a sweeping [2:34:37] and systematic fashion. [2:34:39] Do you agree [2:34:40] with that conclusion? [2:34:42] I believe Russia [2:34:43] attempted to influence [2:34:43] the election, yes. [2:34:44] In fact, [2:34:45] the report documents [2:34:46] over 100 contacts [2:34:48] between Russian nationals [2:34:50] or those acting [2:34:51] on their behalf [2:34:52] and the Trump campaign [2:34:53] or those advising [2:34:55] then-candidate Trump. [2:34:57] The report focused [2:34:58] that those contacts [2:34:59] with Russia included [2:35:01] offers of assistance [2:35:03] to the campaign, [2:35:04] invitations for candidate [2:35:05] Trump and Putin [2:35:06] to meet in person. [2:35:08] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:35:09] you said you knew [2:35:10] nothing about this. [2:35:11] Is that correct? [2:35:12] I don't believe [2:35:14] I had any conversation [2:35:15] with any Russian [2:35:16] or Russian contact. [2:35:17] You knew nothing [2:35:17] about them offering [2:35:18] assistance to the campaign [2:35:21] at all? [2:35:22] I don't believe [2:35:22] I have spoken to a Russian. [2:35:23] You said that [2:35:24] I never spoke to a Russian, [2:35:26] I never contacted a Russian, [2:35:27] I never coordinated [2:35:29] with the Russian, [2:35:30] I don't know anything [2:35:30] about Russia, okay? [2:35:32] I never spoke to them [2:35:33] and I was the campaign manager. [2:35:36] Do you remember saying [2:35:36] something similar to that? [2:35:38] I think that's [2:35:38] an accurate statement. [2:35:39] You also said, [2:35:41] and I quote, [2:35:41] you had sole control [2:35:43] over the campaign [2:35:44] other than the candidate himself. [2:35:46] I sat next to the candidate [2:35:48] Trump for thousands of hours [2:35:49] during the period of time. [2:35:51] Would that be pretty close [2:35:53] to what you remember saying? [2:35:55] It would depend on the time frame [2:35:57] of the campaign [2:35:58] we're speaking about. [2:36:00] When you served [2:36:00] as campaign manager [2:36:02] for the Trump campaign. [2:36:03] There were multiple [2:36:04] periods of time from... [2:36:06] Would you say [2:36:07] that you had sole control [2:36:09] over the campaign [2:36:11] other than the candidate himself? [2:36:14] Would that be enough? [2:36:14] Not on the day I was fired [2:36:15] I didn't have sole control. [2:36:16] Prior to that day. [2:36:18] Again, again, [2:36:19] not leading up to... [2:36:19] There is nothing funny. [2:36:20] Not leading up to that day. [2:36:22] There is absolutely... [2:36:23] You asked me a question, [2:36:25] I'm happy to give you an answer. [2:36:26] If you don't like my answer, [2:36:27] I could rephrase it. [2:36:29] Excuse me? [2:36:29] I said, if you don't like my answer, [2:36:30] I could rephrase it, [2:36:31] but no, I don't think [2:36:31] I had sole control of the campaign [2:36:33] the day preceding my firing [2:36:34] or the day I was fired [2:36:36] or multiple days leading up to that. [2:36:37] So if you have a specific time frame... [2:36:38] Let's forget the firing. [2:36:40] The first month [2:36:41] that you were the campaign manager, [2:36:43] would you say that [2:36:44] you had sole control [2:36:45] over the campaign [2:36:46] other than the candidate himself? [2:36:48] Are you talking about [2:36:49] in June of 2015? [2:36:50] So you talked to then-candidate Trump [2:36:53] pretty much on a regular basis, right? [2:36:55] You've established [2:36:55] that you talked to him [2:36:56] on a regular basis. [2:36:58] Is that correct? [2:36:59] Yes. [2:37:01] And out of being [2:37:02] the campaign manager, [2:37:04] being very close [2:37:05] to the candidate, [2:37:07] the campaign has [2:37:08] over 100 contacts [2:37:09] with Russia [2:37:10] and you didn't know [2:37:12] anything about that? [2:37:14] That's correct. [2:37:16] Did you ever ask... [2:37:17] I take the best of my knowledge. [2:37:18] Did you ever ask the president [2:37:20] if he knew [2:37:20] about his campaign's contacts [2:37:23] with Russia [2:37:24] after the reports came out, [2:37:25] that there were over 100 contacts? [2:37:27] Did you ever ask them [2:37:29] after that report, [2:37:30] those reports came out? [2:37:31] I'm sorry, [2:37:32] did I ask who, Congress, [2:37:32] when I missed that? [2:37:33] Did you ask Trump [2:37:36] if he had ever had... [2:37:39] Did he know [2:37:39] that the campaign [2:37:40] had regular contact [2:37:42] with Russians [2:37:43] after the report came out? [2:37:45] After you heard that report, [2:37:47] those reports, [2:37:48] did you ever ask them? [2:37:49] The gentleman's class expired, [2:37:49] but the witness may answer. [2:37:51] Congresswoman, [2:37:51] I couldn't disclose [2:37:52] a private conversation [2:37:53] I may or may not have had [2:37:54] with the president. [2:37:56] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:38:01] The chair recognizes [2:38:02] the gentleman from California. [2:38:06] I'm sorry. [2:38:06] I'm sorry, [2:38:10] the gentleman from Texas. [2:38:13] California. [2:38:14] I'm from Nevada. [2:38:15] No. [2:38:15] Georgia. [2:38:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:38:21] First of all, [2:38:22] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:38:22] I'm glad to hear [2:38:23] that both of us share [2:38:24] a deep love for this country [2:38:26] and that both of us [2:38:27] have a tremendous distaste [2:38:28] for any foreign agents [2:38:30] that may want to interfere [2:38:32] with our democracy [2:38:33] in this country. [2:38:34] I'm going to ask you [2:38:35] if you're familiar [2:38:36] with George Papadopoulos? [2:38:39] I am. [2:38:40] And you agree [2:38:41] that he was a foreign policy advisor [2:38:43] for the Trump administration [2:38:44] as of April 27, 2016? [2:38:48] To the campaign, Congressman. [2:38:49] To the campaign, correct? [2:38:51] To the campaign. [2:38:52] Yes. [2:38:53] As you know, [2:38:54] George pled guilty [2:38:55] to felony crimes [2:38:56] including lying [2:38:57] to federal investigators. [2:39:02] We've got his. [2:39:02] Indite me up on the screen. [2:39:04] And one of those things [2:39:05] he pled guilty to [2:39:06] was lying about [2:39:07] how often he was communicating [2:39:08] with Russians, [2:39:10] with Russia, [2:39:11] when he was an advisor [2:39:12] to the campaign. [2:39:14] Correct? [2:39:15] I don't know [2:39:15] if that's what he pled guilty [2:39:16] to, Your Honor, sir. [2:39:17] Okay. [2:39:17] It's in this slide. [2:39:18] In fact, [2:39:19] I'm quoting the Mueller report now. [2:39:21] Throughout April 2016, [2:39:23] Papadopoulos continue [2:39:24] to correspond [2:39:25] and meet with Russians [2:39:27] and seek Russian contacts. [2:39:29] And, of course, [2:39:30] that's up on volume one, [2:39:32] page 87, the slide. [2:39:35] The report also documents [2:39:38] Papadopoulos trying [2:39:39] to schedule [2:39:39] then-candidate Trump [2:39:41] to travel to Russia [2:39:42] to meet with Putin. [2:39:43] Is that correct? [2:39:45] I don't know [2:39:46] what's in the report, sir. [2:39:46] The report also documents [2:39:51] emails discussing [2:39:52] this potential Russian trip. [2:39:54] And I'll show them to you [2:39:56] in case you've not read them, [2:39:58] correct? [2:39:59] You can put those up, please. [2:40:02] On April 27th, [2:40:03] the Trump campaign [2:40:04] foreign policy advisor [2:40:05] Papadopoulos again [2:40:07] sent you, sir, [2:40:09] an email telling you [2:40:10] that he had, quote, [2:40:11] been receiving a lot of calls [2:40:13] over the last months [2:40:14] about Putin wanting to host [2:40:15] Trump and the team [2:40:18] when the time was right. [2:40:20] Do you know about that? [2:40:21] If that's what's in the report, [2:40:23] volume one, page 89. [2:40:26] Okay, that's the first [2:40:26] I've seen it. [2:40:32] On June 1st, [2:40:33] Papadopoulos forwarded you [2:40:34] another email [2:40:35] from a Russian official [2:40:36] raising the possibility [2:40:37] of meeting in Moscow [2:40:39] asking you [2:40:40] if that was something [2:40:42] that you wanted [2:40:43] to move forward with. [2:40:45] Is that accurate or not? [2:40:47] I don't know. [2:40:48] Volume one, page 89. [2:40:51] Slide, please. [2:40:53] I see the report, sir. [2:40:55] Okay. [2:40:57] So I would say [2:41:00] that this is just [2:41:03] was not about you [2:41:04] receiving information [2:41:06] by coordinating [2:41:08] potential meetings [2:41:08] with Russia, [2:41:09] but actually [2:41:10] you responded [2:41:12] to Papadopoulos [2:41:13] sending him [2:41:14] to connect [2:41:14] with Sam Clovis [2:41:16] because he was going [2:41:17] to be the running point man. [2:41:19] Is that correct? [2:41:22] I believe that [2:41:23] should be accurate. [2:41:24] Okay. [2:41:26] Did you tell [2:41:27] Papadopoulos to stop [2:41:28] communication with Russians? [2:41:30] I don't believe I did. [2:41:33] Okay. [2:41:33] You actually encouraged [2:41:35] that communication, correct? [2:41:37] By referring him [2:41:38] to a running point man, [2:41:39] which is Mr. Clovis. [2:41:41] Yes? [2:41:42] No, Congressman. [2:41:42] What I was attempting [2:41:43] to do with contact [2:41:45] from Mr. Papadopoulos, [2:41:46] who I had very limited [2:41:47] interaction with, [2:41:49] was to put him in touch [2:41:50] with a staff person [2:41:51] who could have a more articulate [2:41:54] and thorough conversation. [2:41:56] It wasn't... [2:41:57] While I ran the day-to-day [2:41:58] responsibility of the campaign, [2:41:59] a thousand emails a day [2:42:01] didn't allow me the privilege [2:42:03] of responding in detail [2:42:04] to each of them. [2:42:05] Candidate Trump has said [2:42:06] that you and he [2:42:06] were communicating [2:42:08] 10 to 12 to 14 hours a day. [2:42:11] Is that correct? [2:42:12] I'm not sure [2:42:12] if that's what the president said, sir. [2:42:14] He did. [2:42:15] Did you at all mention [2:42:17] to candidate Trump [2:42:18] these communications [2:42:19] that Russians were having [2:42:21] with the campaign? [2:42:23] Not to the best of my recollection. [2:42:24] Did you communicate [2:42:25] with the family [2:42:26] about these communications [2:42:27] that were going on? [2:42:30] Not to the best of my recollection. [2:42:31] You and I both have a distaste [2:42:33] for foreign agents [2:42:35] affecting our democratic process. [2:42:38] Did you report [2:42:39] these incidences to the FBI? [2:42:42] I did not. [2:42:43] Did you bring it up [2:42:43] to anybody's attention? [2:42:47] I think just Mr. Clovis [2:42:48] because I did not see [2:42:50] that outreach to me [2:42:52] as an offer to interfere [2:42:54] with the outcome of the election. [2:42:56] What did you see it as? [2:42:59] I saw an outreach [2:43:00] from a potential foreign agent [2:43:01] to a senior policy advisor [2:43:03] and that's why I asked him [2:43:05] to get in touch with Mr. Clovis. [2:43:07] And for the safety, [2:43:08] just to be on the safe side, [2:43:09] wouldn't you call the FBI [2:43:10] and say, hey, these guys [2:43:11] are calling us? [2:43:12] Please check it out? [2:43:14] You know, I think in hindsight, [2:43:16] it's something that Mr. Clovis [2:43:17] probably should have done. [2:43:18] So you got Russians [2:43:19] hacking our elections, [2:43:22] your campaign advisors [2:43:23] talking, [2:43:24] another campaign advisor [2:43:25] about Russians [2:43:26] interested in communicating [2:43:27] with the campaign. [2:43:33] Congressman, [2:43:34] I don't believe [2:43:34] I ever had a communication [2:43:36] of any Russians [2:43:37] trying to offer [2:43:38] to interfere [2:43:39] in the outcome [2:43:39] of the election. [2:43:40] But you did have knowledge, sir, [2:43:41] of people in your campaign [2:43:42] communicating with the Russians. [2:43:44] The time of the gentleman [2:43:45] has expired. [2:43:46] The witness may answer [2:43:46] the question. [2:43:47] Yes, sir. [2:43:47] Thank you. [2:43:48] The gentlelady from California. [2:43:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:43:53] You know, [2:43:53] one of the things [2:43:54] that has always [2:43:56] caught my attention [2:43:58] was the fact [2:44:01] that campaign chairman [2:44:03] Paul Manafort [2:44:04] shared with a Russian operative, [2:44:07] Mr. Kolemnik, [2:44:08] the campaigns, [2:44:09] and this is a quote [2:44:10] from the report, [2:44:12] strategy for winning [2:44:13] democratic votes [2:44:14] in Midwestern states. [2:44:15] That's in Volume 1, [2:44:17] pages 6 and 7. [2:44:18] and that he shared [2:44:20] with the Russian operative [2:44:22] internal polling data [2:44:24] on the campaign. [2:44:26] Now, [2:44:27] did you have any knowledge [2:44:29] that Mr. Manafort [2:44:31] was sharing [2:44:32] internal polling data [2:44:33] or the campaign's [2:44:35] Midwest strategy [2:44:36] with these Russian operatives? [2:44:38] Did you know about that? [2:44:39] I did not. [2:44:41] So, [2:44:41] although [2:44:42] it's been reported [2:44:44] that you continued [2:44:45] to advise the campaign [2:44:47] even after you're left [2:44:50] and had an enduring presence, [2:44:51] that was not something [2:44:52] you were aware of? [2:44:55] Correct. [2:44:55] I was not aware. [2:44:56] Well, [2:44:57] I'm just interested. [2:44:58] You know, [2:44:58] all of us here, [2:44:59] both Republicans [2:45:00] and Democrats, [2:45:01] have something in common. [2:45:02] We run for office [2:45:04] and we know a little bit [2:45:05] how to do that. [2:45:06] And one of the things [2:45:07] that I think we all know [2:45:10] is that internal polling data [2:45:12] is generally something [2:45:13] that you don't share broadly. [2:45:16] You use it [2:45:16] to base your campaign. [2:45:18] Wouldn't you say [2:45:19] that's correct [2:45:19] as a general rule? [2:45:21] I think it's a good general rule. [2:45:22] Yes, ma'am. [2:45:23] So, [2:45:23] I am, [2:45:24] I'm mystified [2:45:26] why [2:45:28] the manager [2:45:30] of the Trump campaign [2:45:32] would choose [2:45:33] the one thing [2:45:34] that would allow [2:45:35] the Russians, [2:45:37] who were, [2:45:37] we already know [2:45:38] from other evidence, [2:45:39] trying to influence [2:45:40] this campaign, [2:45:41] information [2:45:43] that would allow them [2:45:44] to guide their efforts, [2:45:45] this internal polling data. [2:45:47] Do you have any insight [2:45:48] into that, [2:45:49] why that would happen? [2:45:51] I don't know why [2:45:52] Mr. Manafort [2:45:52] would share that information. [2:45:54] It seems to me that, [2:45:56] do you know [2:45:56] whether the Russians [2:45:57] asked for it? [2:45:59] I don't know. [2:46:00] Don't know. [2:46:02] It seems to me that [2:46:03] of all the things [2:46:05] in the report, [2:46:06] and there are many [2:46:07] troubling things, [2:46:09] that the Russians, [2:46:11] and it's clear [2:46:13] that they were trying [2:46:14] to elect [2:46:15] Donald Trump president. [2:46:18] Actually, [2:46:18] Putin has said that [2:46:19] publicly since then. [2:46:21] They received [2:46:22] from the Trump campaign manager [2:46:24] the internal polling data [2:46:25] and the strategy [2:46:26] to win in the Midwest [2:46:29] with Democratic votes, [2:46:30] not once, [2:46:31] but repeatedly. [2:46:33] At the same time, [2:46:34] there were over [2:46:35] a hundred contacts [2:46:36] between Russians [2:46:37] and the campaign. [2:46:39] Can't you understand [2:46:39] that would raise [2:46:41] some anxiety, [2:46:42] those facts? [2:46:43] Just a point [2:46:44] of clarification, [2:46:45] Mr. Manafort [2:46:45] was never [2:46:46] the campaign manager. [2:46:49] Are you saying [2:46:49] he was not involved [2:46:50] in the campaign? [2:46:51] No, I'm saying [2:46:52] he was not [2:46:52] the campaign manager. [2:46:53] Just as a point [2:46:54] of clarification. [2:46:58] Chairman, manager, [2:47:00] a person in charge [2:47:01] of the campaign [2:47:02] for a period of time. [2:47:04] I just think [2:47:05] that when you add it up, [2:47:07] who would know [2:47:08] about this [2:47:08] other than Mr. Manafort? [2:47:10] Can you tell us [2:47:10] who else we need to call [2:47:11] who would have [2:47:12] the facts [2:47:13] of this information? [2:47:15] Well, we know [2:47:15] where Mr. Manafort is, [2:47:17] and he's currently [2:47:17] available for questioning, [2:47:18] I think, [2:47:18] if you're looking for him. [2:47:19] In addition to him, [2:47:20] Mr. Gates, potentially. [2:47:22] Mr. Gates might know [2:47:23] about who initiated, [2:47:25] whether the Russians [2:47:26] were asking for the polling [2:47:27] data or whether it was [2:47:28] the idea of the Trump campaign [2:47:31] itself to provide [2:47:32] the polling data. [2:47:33] That would be, [2:47:33] Mr. Gates would know that, [2:47:34] in addition to Mr. Manafort? [2:47:36] Yes. [2:47:37] Do you think [2:47:37] that the president [2:47:39] was advised [2:47:40] of the day-to-day details [2:47:42] of his campaign? [2:47:45] I don't think [2:47:46] the president [2:47:47] was advised [2:47:47] of the minutiae [2:47:49] of the day-to-day details [2:47:50] of the campaign, [2:47:52] as probably most candidates [2:47:53] are not advised [2:47:54] of the day-to-day minutiae. [2:47:56] What kind of, [2:47:57] what level of information [2:47:59] was the president [2:48:00] generally provided? [2:48:01] Would it be, [2:48:02] you know, [2:48:04] we've got a strategy [2:48:05] to win the Midwest, [2:48:06] or we're just hoping [2:48:08] for the best? [2:48:08] What would be the level [2:48:09] of information generally [2:48:11] that the president [2:48:12] as a candidate [2:48:13] would receive? [2:48:14] I can only speak [2:48:14] to my tenure there [2:48:15] and my conversation [2:48:16] with the candidate [2:48:17] at the time [2:48:18] about the information [2:48:18] I would have shared. [2:48:20] I would have basically [2:48:21] shared his travel calendar [2:48:22] for the next day or week [2:48:24] so he'd understand [2:48:25] where we'd be traveling to. [2:48:27] I would share with him [2:48:28] media opportunities [2:48:29] if he wanted to be on a, [2:48:31] or have the opportunity [2:48:32] to be on a specific [2:48:33] television show, [2:48:34] and then messaging points [2:48:36] of what we may want [2:48:38] to be discussing [2:48:39] during that tenure [2:48:40] or time of the campaign, [2:48:42] particularly if we're [2:48:43] going to be in a primary. [2:48:43] And I would assume, [2:48:44] like all other campaigns, [2:48:46] that the messaging [2:48:47] was informed [2:48:48] by the polling data [2:48:49] that you had. [2:48:50] Just as a point [2:48:51] of clarification, [2:48:52] Congresswoman, [2:48:52] we didn't do any polling data [2:48:54] for the first approximately [2:48:56] 15 months of the campaign. [2:48:58] My time is expired, [2:48:59] Mr. Chairman. [2:49:00] I yield back. [2:49:01] Time of the gentlelady [2:49:02] has expired. [2:49:02] The gentlelady [2:49:03] from Pennsylvania. [2:49:05] Thank you. [2:49:07] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:49:08] one of the major concerns [2:49:09] raised by the special counsel's report [2:49:12] is that the president [2:49:13] has had a pattern [2:49:14] of witness tampering conduct. [2:49:17] So let's look at some facts. [2:49:19] We know that [2:49:19] Attorney General Sessions [2:49:21] was a witness [2:49:22] in the special counsel's investigation [2:49:24] because of his role [2:49:25] on Trump's campaign, right? [2:49:28] If that's in the report, [2:49:30] I don't know that to be accurate. [2:49:31] Well, that's why [2:49:31] Sessions recused himself. [2:49:33] So you've confirmed today [2:49:35] that the president [2:49:36] dictated a message [2:49:38] for you to give [2:49:39] to Attorney General Sessions [2:49:40] about what he should say [2:49:41] about Russian contacts [2:49:43] with the Trump campaign, [2:49:44] correct? [2:49:44] In general, [2:49:45] that's accurate, yes. [2:49:46] So you told the special counsel [2:49:48] that the president [2:49:49] scripted what he wants Sessions [2:49:50] to say in a public speech [2:49:52] as if it were Sessions' own words [2:49:55] about his knowledge [2:49:55] of the Russian contacts [2:49:57] with the campaign, right? [2:49:58] That seems to be [2:50:00] an accurate representation. [2:50:01] OK. [2:50:02] Now, that isn't the only time [2:50:04] that the president [2:50:05] tried to influence [2:50:06] witness testimony, [2:50:07] according to [2:50:08] the special counsel's report. [2:50:10] White House counsel [2:50:11] Don McGahn [2:50:12] told the special counsel, [2:50:13] and I think we have [2:50:14] a slide on this, [2:50:15] and I see you've found [2:50:16] your copy of the Mueller report, [2:50:17] so if you want to follow along, [2:50:19] it's volume two, [2:50:20] page one, two, three. [2:50:22] The president discussed [2:50:24] with aides [2:50:25] whether and in what way [2:50:26] former campaign chairman [2:50:28] or manager, [2:50:29] whatever he is, [2:50:29] Manafort, [2:50:30] might be cooperating [2:50:31] with the special counsel's [2:50:32] investigation [2:50:33] and whether Manafort [2:50:34] knew any information [2:50:36] that could be harmful [2:50:36] to the president. [2:50:38] The special counsel [2:50:39] concluded that, [2:50:40] and we have another quote, [2:50:41] and again, [2:50:42] if you want to follow along, [2:50:43] it's volume two, [2:50:44] page 132. [2:50:46] Evidence concerning [2:50:47] the president's conduct [2:50:48] toward Manafort [2:50:49] indicates that the president [2:50:51] intended to encourage Manafort [2:50:53] to not cooperate [2:50:55] with the government. [2:50:57] Did the president [2:50:57] ever try to discourage you [2:50:59] from cooperating [2:51:00] with the special counsel, [2:51:01] Mr. Lewandowski? [2:51:03] I can't speak to any [2:51:04] private conversation [2:51:05] I may or may not have had [2:51:06] with the president [2:51:06] other than to say [2:51:07] I've always been told [2:51:08] to tell the truth. [2:51:09] Okay, so you're not [2:51:10] going to tell us today [2:51:11] whether or not he encouraged [2:51:12] you not to cooperate [2:51:13] with the special counsel? [2:51:15] I've never been instructed [2:51:17] to do anything [2:51:18] but tell the truth. [2:51:20] Now, Congressman Ratcliffe [2:51:21] asked what you knew [2:51:23] about the president [2:51:24] dangling pardons [2:51:25] to some of his employees, [2:51:26] and you mentioned Manafort, [2:51:28] you mentioned Gates, [2:51:29] there's also Flynn and Cohen. [2:51:32] And the president [2:51:32] and his counsel [2:51:33] have suggested [2:51:34] that pardons might be forthcoming [2:51:36] for those folks. [2:51:39] One of the reasons [2:51:40] you're here today [2:51:41] is that the Mueller report [2:51:42] identified you [2:51:43] as a participant [2:51:45] in the president's attempts [2:51:46] to limit or shut down [2:51:47] the Department of Justice's [2:51:49] investigation [2:51:49] of Russia's sweeping interference [2:51:52] in our 2016 election. [2:51:54] Has the president [2:51:54] ever offered you a pardon? [2:51:56] Again, the White House [2:51:58] has directed [2:51:58] not to disclose [2:51:59] the substance [2:51:59] of any discussions [2:52:00] with the president [2:52:01] or his advisors [2:52:02] to protect executive branch [2:52:03] confidentiality. [2:52:03] Okay, we've seen the letters, [2:52:05] so you're not going to answer [2:52:05] whether or not the president [2:52:06] has offered you a pardon? [2:52:08] Ma'am, it's not my privilege [2:52:10] and that I'm respecting [2:52:11] the White House's direction. [2:52:12] You're not claiming my time. [2:52:13] Thank you. [2:52:14] On the same day [2:52:16] that you were subpoenaed [2:52:17] to appear before this committee, [2:52:18] August 15th, [2:52:19] the president did indicate [2:52:20] that he's going to support [2:52:21] your Senate campaign, [2:52:23] didn't he? [2:52:24] I'm not sure. [2:52:25] Okay. [2:52:26] Well, I just want to know [2:52:27] for the record [2:52:27] that when Mr. Lewandowski [2:52:29] asked for the committee [2:52:31] to give him a little break [2:52:32] about an hour and a half, [2:52:33] two hours ago, [2:52:34] he took the time [2:52:35] during that recess [2:52:36] to launch his Senate campaign [2:52:38] website with a tweet. [2:52:40] And I think that fact [2:52:42] says an awful lot [2:52:43] about the witnesses' motivation [2:52:45] to appear here today, [2:52:47] and I've heard enough. [2:52:48] I yield back. [2:52:50] The gentlelady from Texas. [2:52:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:52:57] And I, too, [2:52:58] want to clarify for the record [2:53:00] that I think earlier [2:53:02] you said that Democrats [2:53:04] in this committee, [2:53:05] perhaps the Democrats, [2:53:06] hate this president [2:53:08] more than they love their country. [2:53:09] That simply is not true. [2:53:11] You're looking at someone [2:53:12] that loves her country, [2:53:14] and more importantly, [2:53:15] as a judge, [2:53:17] I'm talking an oath of office [2:53:18] more than once [2:53:19] to uphold the Constitutional [2:53:21] laws of this country. [2:53:21] And I take this work [2:53:23] of this committee [2:53:24] very seriously, [2:53:26] and I would hope [2:53:26] that you, [2:53:27] as a former peace officer, [2:53:29] would do the same [2:53:30] and show more respect [2:53:31] to this committee [2:53:32] and the work [2:53:33] that we're undertaking. [2:53:34] Having said that, [2:53:36] Mr. Nversky, [2:53:37] you agree that if anyone [2:53:38] does try to meddle [2:53:39] with U.S. elections, [2:53:40] they should go to jail, right? [2:53:42] I do. [2:53:43] I know there's a clip [2:53:45] of you saying that. [2:53:46] We can run the clip. [2:53:48] Now, if other people [2:53:49] who are operating [2:53:51] outside the realm [2:53:52] of what their responsibilities [2:53:53] were, [2:53:53] we're trying to coordinate [2:53:54] to materially impact [2:53:56] the outcome of an election, [2:53:57] and if they did that, [2:53:58] I hope they go to jail [2:54:00] for the rest of their lives [2:54:01] because our democracy [2:54:02] is too important to play with. [2:54:05] I agree with that statement, [2:54:06] and I know that on July 27, 2016, [2:54:08] when you were still regularly [2:54:10] communicating with Trump [2:54:11] candidate Trump, [2:54:13] public a call for Russia [2:54:14] to find missing Clinton emails [2:54:17] by stating on July 27... [2:54:20] Russia, if you're listening, [2:54:21] I hope you're able to find [2:54:24] the 30,000 emails [2:54:26] that are missing. [2:54:30] So, Mr. Nversky, [2:54:31] let's be very clear. [2:54:32] In that speech, [2:54:33] the president was suggesting [2:54:35] publicly to the whole world [2:54:38] that Russia should hack [2:54:40] Hillary Clinton's emails. [2:54:42] And it got even worse. [2:54:43] After his statement, [2:54:45] Russia did hack his opponent's emails [2:54:47] as he asked them to. [2:54:50] And when Leaky Leaks released [2:54:51] those emails, [2:54:52] Mr. Trump tweeted how great it was. [2:54:55] He said at the campaign appearances [2:54:56] in October and November of 2016, [2:55:00] this just came out. [2:55:01] WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks. [2:55:04] He said that in Pennsylvania [2:55:05] in 2016, October. [2:55:07] This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove. [2:55:09] He said that in Minnesota [2:55:11] in October of 2016. [2:55:14] He had said in Ohio, [2:55:17] boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks. [2:55:22] And I believe all those quotes [2:55:23] were also there for you to see. [2:55:27] So, again, let's be clear. [2:55:28] This is then candidate Trump [2:55:30] tweeting congratulations to Russia [2:55:33] and WikiLeaks [2:55:34] for stealing documents [2:55:36] from U.S. citizens. [2:55:37] And I think, you know, [2:55:39] if it could get worse, it did. [2:55:41] Multiple individuals [2:55:42] have testified under oath [2:55:43] that Mr. Trump, in fact, [2:55:45] knew about the release [2:55:47] of these stolen emails [2:55:48] prior to the release. [2:55:50] I'm going to read you these quotes. [2:55:52] Witnesses testified under oath [2:55:54] that, quote, [2:55:55] Trump privately sought information [2:55:57] about future weak releases. [2:55:59] That's in the Mueller report, [2:56:01] volume 2, page 77. [2:56:03] This slide's up there for you to see. [2:56:05] Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates [2:56:07] told the special counsel [2:56:09] that he, quote, [2:56:10] was with Trump on a trip to an airport. [2:56:13] And you can't read too much of it [2:56:15] because it's redacted. [2:56:16] But it said, [2:56:17] and shortly after the call ended, [2:56:18] Trump told Gates [2:56:19] that more releases [2:56:20] of damaging information [2:56:21] would be coming. [2:56:23] He knew it. [2:56:24] He said it'll be coming, [2:56:25] which turned out to be true. [2:56:27] That's in volume 2, page 18. [2:56:30] So, if the screen is up, [2:56:32] the shot is up there. [2:56:34] So, in fact, [2:56:35] the White House redacted [2:56:37] some of the information [2:56:37] to the report [2:56:38] and you saw those redactions [2:56:39] on the screen. [2:56:40] So, there could actually be more [2:56:42] in those redactions. [2:56:44] The president's personal attorney, [2:56:46] Michael Cohen, [2:56:46] testified to Congress [2:56:47] this past February [2:56:48] under oath that, quote, [2:56:51] Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone [2:56:53] in advance about the WikiLeaks. [2:56:56] And you've got the slide there [2:56:57] showing us exactly [2:56:59] what the testimony reflects. [2:57:01] Roger Stone has been charged [2:57:02] with serious federal crimes [2:57:04] for his conduct during the campaign. [2:57:06] In his indictment, [2:57:07] it also says that, quote, [2:57:09] Stone was contacted [2:57:10] by senior Trump campaign officials [2:57:12] to inquire about future releases [2:57:14] by WikiLeaks. [2:57:15] Stone thereafter told Trump campaign [2:57:17] about potential future releases. [2:57:19] And that's in the indictment, [2:57:21] and I have a copy here [2:57:22] if you wish to see it. [2:57:23] So, again, to be clear, [2:57:25] Roger Stone has known [2:57:27] the president for years. [2:57:29] They've been longtime friends. [2:57:30] Didn't you say, quote, [2:57:33] and here's the screenshot from CNN, [2:57:36] Roger Stone's history [2:57:37] with Donald Trump [2:57:38] goes back, he's 20 years, [2:57:40] he's been someone [2:57:41] who has known then Mr. Trump [2:57:43] and worked with him [2:57:43] through business dealings [2:57:44] long before we ever started [2:57:46] a political campaign. [2:57:47] So, the fact is [2:57:48] that he stole materials, [2:57:51] he encouraged the hacking, [2:57:53] and don't you think [2:57:55] that's doing what you said [2:57:57] that no one should do? [2:57:58] And if they do, [2:58:00] that they should go to jail [2:58:01] for the rest of their lives? [2:58:04] I stand by my statement [2:58:05] that anybody who attempted [2:58:06] to materially impact [2:58:07] the outcome of an election [2:58:08] should go to jail [2:58:09] for the rest of their lives. [2:58:10] The president should go to jail [2:58:11] for doing what I just reiterated [2:58:13] in line in my statement. [2:58:15] I didn't say that, ma'am. [2:58:17] Well, it seems to me [2:58:19] that even this president [2:58:20] needs to be held accountable [2:58:22] because no one is above the law. [2:58:24] And I agree with you [2:58:25] that if someone does interfere [2:58:27] with our elections, [2:58:28] they should go to jail, [2:58:29] including this president, [2:58:30] if necessary. [2:58:32] The gentlelady yields back. [2:58:34] The... [2:58:34] Yield back. [2:58:35] The gentleman from Colorado. [2:58:38] Mr. Lewandowski, [2:58:39] I'd like to get back [2:58:41] to something that, [2:58:41] an exchange that you had [2:58:42] with Mr. Cicilline [2:58:43] and Mr. Jeffries. [2:58:46] We've talked a great deal today [2:58:47] about the message [2:58:48] that the president asked you [2:58:49] to deliver [2:58:50] to then-Attorney General [2:58:51] Jeff Sessions. [2:58:53] And as you've testified today, [2:58:55] and you've informed [2:58:56] the special counsel as well [2:58:57] during the special prosecutor's [2:58:58] investigation, [2:58:59] you, quote, [2:59:00] stored the notes [2:59:01] in a safe, right? [2:59:03] And as you'll see [2:59:04] on the slide there, [2:59:05] quoting directly [2:59:05] from the special counsel's report, [2:59:07] which you described [2:59:09] to the special counsel [2:59:09] as the standard procedure [2:59:11] for sensitive items. [2:59:13] But that was [2:59:14] your standard procedure. [2:59:15] That is not normal protocol [2:59:17] for official White House documents. [2:59:19] My colleague mentioned [2:59:20] this earlier, [2:59:21] but since you're not [2:59:21] a White House employee [2:59:22] and have not been, [2:59:24] as you've testified, [2:59:24] I'll remind you again [2:59:25] that the White House [2:59:26] has a legal protocol [2:59:27] to follow for official documents. [2:59:29] As you'll see [2:59:29] on this next slide, [2:59:31] this screen is a memo [2:59:33] from this White House, [2:59:35] Donald Trump's White House, [2:59:36] about the Presidential Records Act. [2:59:39] So the president [2:59:40] is well-informed [2:59:41] about the record requirements [2:59:43] for our commander-in-chief. [2:59:45] And as you'll see [2:59:45] on this slide, [2:59:46] under the PRA, [2:59:47] the White House [2:59:48] must preserve [2:59:49] and maintain [2:59:50] all memos, letters, [2:59:51] notes, emails, [2:59:52] and written communications [2:59:53] from the president, [2:59:54] just like the note [2:59:55] that he dictated to you. [2:59:58] And of course, [2:59:59] those notes are not [2:59:59] supposed to be kept [3:00:00] in a secret safe [3:00:02] in his former [3:00:03] campaign manager's house. [3:00:04] And so it's clear, [3:00:06] I think, [3:00:06] to folks who read [3:00:07] the special counsel's report [3:00:08] that that is why [3:00:09] the president asked you. [3:00:10] He wanted this message [3:00:12] to be hidden [3:00:12] and he knew [3:00:13] you wouldn't keep a record. [3:00:14] In fact, [3:00:15] you took it out [3:00:16] of the White House [3:00:16] after Ms. Hicks [3:00:17] typed it up [3:00:18] and stored it [3:00:19] in your personal safe. [3:00:20] Now, [3:00:21] I want to give you [3:00:22] an opportunity [3:00:23] to just confirm this. [3:00:24] in your exchange [3:00:25] with Mr. Swalwell, [3:00:27] you talked a bit [3:00:28] about the notes [3:00:29] that you dictated [3:00:31] from the president. [3:00:32] And in the special counsel's report, [3:00:35] it makes clear [3:00:36] on page 91, [3:00:37] the second, [3:00:38] excuse me, [3:00:38] the last sentence [3:00:39] of the second paragraph, [3:00:41] that when you met [3:00:43] with the president, [3:00:44] this was, quote, [3:00:46] the first time [3:00:46] the president [3:00:47] had asked Lewandowski [3:00:48] to take dictation. [3:00:50] And Lewandowski [3:00:51] wrote as fast as possible [3:00:52] to make sure [3:00:53] he captured [3:00:54] the content correctly. [3:00:55] That sentence [3:00:56] cites your interview [3:00:58] with the special counsel. [3:01:00] In your exchange [3:01:01] with Mr. Swalwell, [3:01:03] you contradicted that. [3:01:06] And so, [3:01:06] I'm trying to figure out [3:01:08] that discrepancy. [3:01:10] Was this, in fact, [3:01:11] the first time [3:01:12] that you [3:01:13] had been asked [3:01:15] by the president [3:01:15] to take dictation? [3:01:16] To be clear, [3:01:20] the words that are written [3:01:20] in this report [3:01:21] are not my words. [3:01:23] That's the representation [3:01:24] of the summary [3:01:25] of my conversation [3:01:26] with the special counsel. [3:01:28] And I can say [3:01:29] that I have, [3:01:30] on numerous occasions, [3:01:31] been directed [3:01:32] by the president [3:01:33] to write specific information [3:01:34] down and deliver that. [3:01:36] So, to that end, [3:01:38] Mr. Lewandowski, [3:01:38] have you turned over [3:01:39] those notes? [3:01:40] Were those notes [3:01:41] turned over [3:01:42] to the special prosecutor? [3:01:44] I've complied [3:01:45] with all requirements [3:01:46] of the special counsel. [3:01:46] I appreciate you saying that. [3:01:48] I'll ask the question again. [3:01:49] Did you turn over [3:01:51] any other notes [3:01:53] that had been dictated [3:01:54] to you by the president [3:01:55] to the special prosecutor [3:01:57] outside of this note [3:01:59] that's referenced [3:02:00] in the report? [3:02:01] I've complied [3:02:02] with all requirements [3:02:03] of the special counsel. [3:02:03] So, the record will affect [3:02:04] that you won't answer [3:02:05] that particular question. [3:02:06] And I think that's [3:02:07] an important one [3:02:07] for this committee [3:02:08] to get to the bottom two. [3:02:09] Because ultimately, [3:02:11] what you are saying [3:02:11] is that the special counsel's [3:02:13] statement in this report [3:02:14] is incorrect. [3:02:16] And if that is the case, [3:02:18] this committee has [3:02:19] an obligation [3:02:19] to ascertain [3:02:21] the contents [3:02:22] of those other notes [3:02:23] that you've described. [3:02:24] I just want to go back [3:02:25] to the message [3:02:27] that was delivered [3:02:29] to you [3:02:29] by the president [3:02:30] to tell [3:02:32] the attorney general [3:02:33] that if he did not [3:02:34] meet with you, [3:02:35] you should tell him [3:02:36] that he was fired. [3:02:37] That's on volume, [3:02:38] in volume two, [3:02:39] page 93. [3:02:40] You're aware, [3:02:41] I believe there's a slide [3:02:42] that will pop up here. [3:02:43] You can see it [3:02:44] in front of you. [3:02:45] I know that you're aware [3:02:46] that the attorney general [3:02:47] is a cabinet level position. [3:02:48] Correct? [3:02:51] Yes, I'm aware of that. [3:02:52] And he is, in fact, [3:02:52] the head of the [3:02:53] Department of Justice. [3:02:54] He's the chief [3:02:55] law enforcement officer [3:02:57] in the United States. [3:02:58] You knew that you [3:02:58] couldn't fire [3:02:59] the attorney general. [3:03:00] Correct? [3:03:02] Yeah, I can't fire anybody. [3:03:04] Yeah, and as you [3:03:05] told Mr. Pribis, [3:03:07] as the next slide [3:03:08] attests, [3:03:09] you told the chief [3:03:10] of staff [3:03:10] at that time, [3:03:12] what can I do? [3:03:14] I'm not an employee [3:03:14] of the administration. [3:03:16] I'm a nobody. [3:03:17] So if that's the case, [3:03:19] it again is pretty clear [3:03:20] to anyone who reads [3:03:20] the special counsel's report [3:03:21] that the reason the president [3:03:23] was delivering this message [3:03:24] to you was so that you [3:03:25] could scare the attorney general [3:03:27] into complying with the directive [3:03:30] that he had given you. [3:03:32] He enlisted you to dictate [3:03:33] a secret message [3:03:34] which you store [3:03:35] in your personal safe [3:03:36] at home for the attorney general. [3:03:38] And then he tells you [3:03:39] to tell the chief law enforcement [3:03:41] officer of the United States [3:03:43] that if he won't meet with you, [3:03:45] a private citizen, [3:03:46] that he would be fired. [3:03:48] At the end of the day, [3:03:49] we know it's because the president [3:03:51] didn't want anyone [3:03:52] investigating him. [3:03:53] The special counsel's report [3:03:54] certainly supports that. [3:03:56] And I will leave the last slide [3:03:57] as I see my time has expired. [3:03:59] But the special counsel's words [3:04:01] speak for themselves [3:04:02] with respect to his conclusion [3:04:03] in this exchange. [3:04:04] With that, I yield back. [3:04:05] The gentleman yields back. [3:04:06] The gentlelady from Georgia. [3:04:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:04:10] Mr. Lewandowski, [3:04:12] I want to just pause here [3:04:13] for just a moment. [3:04:14] We just heard facts [3:04:15] about a foreign government [3:04:16] attacking our elections. [3:04:18] We've heard that quite a bit [3:04:19] this afternoon. [3:04:20] And we know that's a serious crime. [3:04:22] You even said so. [3:04:23] And I definitely agree with you. [3:04:25] In fact, the special counsel's [3:04:26] investigation resulted [3:04:27] in criminal indictments [3:04:28] of more than a dozen defendants. [3:04:31] That included guilty pleas [3:04:32] and indictments [3:04:33] of top Trump official [3:04:35] campaign officials. [3:04:37] And these guilty pleas [3:04:38] include multiple charges [3:04:40] of conspiracy [3:04:41] against the United States [3:04:42] and lying [3:04:44] and misrepresenting statements [3:04:46] to the Department [3:04:47] of Justice officials. [3:04:49] But it also included [3:04:50] indictments of criminal charges [3:04:52] against 13 individual [3:04:54] Russian nationals [3:04:55] and three Russian entities, [3:04:58] primarily for conspiracy [3:04:59] to defraud the United States. [3:05:02] Is that correct, Mr. Lewandowski? [3:05:05] I believe that's what [3:05:05] that says, yes. [3:05:06] Thank you. [3:05:07] You agree, [3:05:10] and you've actually said so today, [3:05:12] that anyone, [3:05:14] whether it's a Trump campaign official [3:05:16] or Russian individuals [3:05:18] and entities, [3:05:18] anyone who attacks our elections [3:05:20] should be held accountable [3:05:22] to the fullest extent [3:05:23] of the law, correct? [3:05:24] I do agree with that. [3:05:25] Thank you. [3:05:26] I agree, too. [3:05:27] So, to be very clear, [3:05:30] the special counsel [3:05:31] uncovered serious crimes [3:05:32] by over a dozen individuals, [3:05:35] including Russian nationals, [3:05:37] for conspiracy [3:05:38] against the United States. [3:05:41] I'm a representative of Georgia, [3:05:43] and I'm very concerned [3:05:45] with protecting our elections. [3:05:47] Georgia has actually [3:05:48] actively been targeted [3:05:50] for election interference [3:05:52] by the Russians. [3:05:54] Unsealed indictments [3:05:56] from the Mueller investigation [3:05:57] showed that Russian operatives [3:05:59] visited websites [3:06:01] for Cobb and Fulton counties. [3:06:03] Both of those reside [3:06:04] within my own district, [3:06:06] looking for vulnerabilities [3:06:07] that they might be able [3:06:08] to exploit. [3:06:10] And you have said, [3:06:12] not once, [3:06:13] but several times, [3:06:15] and I quote, [3:06:17] trying to coordinate [3:06:18] to materially impact [3:06:19] the outcome of the election, [3:06:22] that if they did that, [3:06:23] I hope they go to jail [3:06:24] for the rest of their lives [3:06:25] because our democracy [3:06:27] is too important to play with. [3:06:30] Mr. Lewandowski, [3:06:31] those are your words. [3:06:32] You've continued [3:06:33] to stand by that, [3:06:34] and as I said today, [3:06:35] earlier, I agree. [3:06:37] Our democracy [3:06:37] is simply too important [3:06:39] to play with, [3:06:40] so I'm glad [3:06:40] that we're investigating, [3:06:42] and I'm glad [3:06:43] that we are holding accountable [3:06:44] anyone who will attack [3:06:46] our elections. [3:06:48] And that's why [3:06:48] Special Counsel Mueller's [3:06:50] investigation [3:06:50] was so vitally important. [3:06:52] It exposes people [3:06:53] attacking our elections [3:06:55] in Georgia [3:06:56] and throughout the country. [3:06:58] And that is an issue [3:06:59] that should never divide us [3:07:02] among partisan lines. [3:07:04] So we have to make sure [3:07:06] that we are protecting [3:07:07] our 2020 elections [3:07:08] at all costs. [3:07:10] Every American deserves [3:07:11] the right to vote, [3:07:12] and we must protect [3:07:13] that right at all costs [3:07:15] because democracy is, [3:07:17] as you have said today, [3:07:19] too important to play with. [3:07:20] And I will yield [3:07:21] the balance of my time [3:07:22] to Mr. Stanton. [3:07:24] Thank you very much, [3:07:24] Congresswoman. [3:07:25] I want to thank Mr. Lewandowski [3:07:26] for being here today [3:07:28] and answering these questions [3:07:30] for many hours. [3:07:31] With respect to Mr. Michael Cohen, [3:07:32] he communicated regularly [3:07:34] with Mr. Trump [3:07:35] during the campaign. [3:07:36] Is that correct? [3:07:38] There was regular communication, yes. [3:07:40] And I want to read [3:07:41] from paragraph 7B [3:07:42] of Mr. Cohen's [3:07:43] federal indictment, [3:07:44] which states, [3:07:45] Cohen asked Individual 1 [3:07:46] about the possibility [3:07:47] of Individual 1 [3:07:48] traveling to Russia [3:07:50] in connection [3:07:51] with the Moscow project [3:07:52] and asked a senior campaign official [3:07:55] about potential [3:07:56] business travel to Russia. [3:07:59] The senior campaign official, [3:08:01] Mr. Cohen references, [3:08:02] is yourself. [3:08:03] Is that correct? [3:08:05] Could be. [3:08:07] Mr. Cohen testified [3:08:08] before the House Oversight Committee [3:08:09] on February 27th. [3:08:10] It's on the screen [3:08:11] in front of you. [3:08:14] He testified specifically [3:08:15] that that senior advisor [3:08:16] was yourself. [3:08:18] I'll skip to the end. [3:08:20] Mr. Congressman Desanje [3:08:21] asked who was the campaign official [3:08:23] and Mr. Cohen responded, [3:08:25] quote, [3:08:26] Corey Lewandowski. [3:08:28] Now, more importantly, [3:08:30] Mr. Cohen said [3:08:31] to the special counsel [3:08:32] that he discussed [3:08:33] with candidate Trump [3:08:34] the subject of traveling [3:08:36] to Russia [3:08:36] during the campaign [3:08:37] and that Trump, quote, [3:08:39] indicated a willingness [3:08:40] to travel to Russia. [3:08:42] Unquote. [3:08:43] That's volume 1, page 78. [3:08:45] Mr. Cohen then testified [3:08:46] before Congress [3:08:48] that Trump was individual 1. [3:08:51] It's on the screen [3:08:52] in front of you. [3:08:53] Is that correct? [3:08:55] That's what Mr. Cohen testified to. [3:08:57] Looking at the indictment, [3:08:59] again, we can now fill in the blanks. [3:09:01] Mr. Cohen asked individual 1, [3:09:03] candidate Trump, [3:09:04] and a senior campaign official, [3:09:06] you, [3:09:07] about traveling to Russia. [3:09:10] Mr. Chairman, [3:09:12] may I take my regular [3:09:15] five minutes at this time? [3:09:21] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. [3:09:24] During your time [3:09:25] as campaign manager, [3:09:26] you communicated regularly [3:09:27] with the president. [3:09:28] Is that correct? [3:09:29] Within candidate Trump, [3:09:30] yes, sir. [3:09:31] In fact, you said [3:09:32] you sat next to him [3:09:33] for, quote, [3:09:33] thousands of hours [3:09:34] while you were campaign chairman. [3:09:38] During your time [3:09:39] as campaign manager, [3:09:40] did you ever have [3:09:41] a conversation [3:09:42] with candidate Trump [3:09:43] about his campaign team [3:09:44] having contact [3:09:46] with Russians? [3:09:52] Not to the best [3:09:52] of my recollection, no. [3:09:56] The special counsel's report [3:09:58] includes emails [3:09:59] from George Papadopoulos. [3:10:00] He sent to you [3:10:02] asking about Mr. Trump [3:10:03] traveling to Russia. [3:10:04] Mr. Cohen also asked you [3:10:05] about traveling to Russia [3:10:07] per his indictment. [3:10:08] Carter Page emailed you [3:10:10] about Trump speaking [3:10:12] at an event in Russia. [3:10:13] And in your thousands [3:10:14] of hours speaking [3:10:16] with the president, [3:10:17] you never mentioned [3:10:18] any of these people [3:10:19] emailing you, [3:10:21] asking you about [3:10:21] Trump traveling to Russia. [3:10:23] Is that your testimony [3:10:23] here today? [3:10:27] I don't recall [3:10:27] having a conversation [3:10:28] with Mr. Trump [3:10:29] about traveling to Russia. [3:10:30] What about after the time [3:10:32] that Trump was elected? [3:10:33] Did you ever discuss [3:10:34] with the president [3:10:35] his knowledge [3:10:36] of his campaign's [3:10:37] interactions [3:10:38] with Russians? [3:10:40] Again, at the advice [3:10:41] of White House counsel, [3:10:42] I can't answer questions. [3:10:43] That would be privileged, [3:10:44] and I respect that privilege. [3:10:47] Mr. Lewandowski, of course, [3:10:48] was never a White House employee. [3:10:50] I know it's been asked before, [3:10:51] but I'm going to ask again, [3:10:52] Mr. Chairman, [3:10:53] I have a parliamentary inquiry. [3:10:55] Is this an appropriate [3:10:55] assertion? [3:10:56] The gentleman will state [3:10:57] his parliamentary inquiry. [3:10:58] Is this an appropriate [3:10:59] assertion of privilege? [3:11:00] This is most certainly [3:11:01] not an appropriate [3:11:03] assertion of privilege [3:11:04] for the reasons [3:11:05] I stated before. [3:11:07] The president, [3:11:07] certainly there's [3:11:09] no conceivable privilege [3:11:11] for any time period [3:11:12] before the president [3:11:13] was the president. [3:11:15] To be clear, [3:11:16] the White House [3:11:17] apparently is directing [3:11:18] you not to answer [3:11:19] whether the president [3:11:19] knew about his campaign [3:11:21] communicating with Russia [3:11:22] just after Russia [3:11:23] had attacked our elections. [3:11:25] I think the American people [3:11:26] want to know [3:11:27] and are frustrated today. [3:11:28] What, in fact, [3:11:29] are you hiding? [3:11:30] In Mr. Cohen's [3:11:32] federal indictment, [3:11:34] it named Mr. Trump [3:11:35] as knowing about [3:11:36] campaign communications [3:11:37] with Russia. [3:11:39] Again, did you ever [3:11:39] discuss this fact [3:11:40] with Mr. Trump? [3:11:43] Again, to the best [3:11:43] of my knowledge, [3:11:44] during our campaign, [3:11:45] I never had a conversation [3:11:46] with Mr. Trump [3:11:47] about any contacts [3:11:49] with Russia. [3:11:49] The president is named [3:11:51] as individual one [3:11:52] in a criminal case [3:11:53] by his former [3:11:54] personal attorney. [3:11:56] You're asking us [3:11:57] to believe [3:11:57] that you never discussed [3:11:59] with the president [3:11:59] this fact [3:12:01] in all of your [3:12:02] thousands of hours [3:12:03] of conversations. [3:12:03] Again, Congressman, [3:12:05] to the best of my knowledge, [3:12:07] I don't recall [3:12:07] ever having a conversation [3:12:08] with candidate Trump [3:12:09] about any interaction [3:12:11] with Russia. [3:12:12] Mr. Cohen's indictment [3:12:13] also states [3:12:14] that candidate Trump [3:12:15] directed Mr. Cohen [3:12:16] to make payments [3:12:17] to certain individuals [3:12:18] beginning in October [3:12:19] of 2016 [3:12:20] in order to prevent [3:12:22] those individuals [3:12:22] from telling negative stories [3:12:24] about candidate Trump. [3:12:26] During the fall of 2016, [3:12:29] at the time [3:12:30] of these payments, [3:12:31] did you ever discuss [3:12:32] with candidate Trump [3:12:33] these payments? [3:12:36] To the best of my knowledge, [3:12:37] I never had a conversation [3:12:38] about those payments. [3:12:40] And what about [3:12:40] after the time [3:12:42] that Mr. Trump [3:12:42] was elected? [3:12:43] Did you ever [3:12:44] have a conversation [3:12:45] with him [3:12:45] about those payments? [3:12:48] The White House [3:12:49] has directed [3:12:49] that I not disclose [3:12:50] any conversations [3:12:51] or the substance [3:12:52] of those discussions [3:12:53] with the president [3:12:54] or his advisors [3:12:55] to protect executive branch privilege. [3:12:57] To be clear, [3:12:58] you're being told [3:12:59] that you're not allowed [3:13:00] to answer [3:13:00] whether the president [3:13:01] told you [3:13:01] that he directed [3:13:02] his personal lawyer [3:13:04] to make illegal payments. [3:13:07] I'm simply going [3:13:08] at the direction [3:13:09] of the White House. [3:13:09] It's not my privilege [3:13:10] to waive, Congressman. [3:13:11] To be clear, [3:13:12] the White House [3:13:12] is telling you [3:13:13] not to answer [3:13:14] whether you discussed [3:13:14] potential crimes [3:13:16] with the president [3:13:16] of the United States. [3:13:18] Mr. Lewandowski, [3:13:18] it's clear to me [3:13:19] that the president... [3:13:20] Gentleman, [3:13:20] can you yield for a moment? [3:13:21] Please. [3:13:22] I believe the Nixon case [3:13:24] established [3:13:25] the very ironclad principle [3:13:27] that discussions [3:13:29] regarding criminal acts [3:13:31] are not privileged, [3:13:33] so there's no possibility [3:13:34] of a privilege [3:13:35] with respect [3:13:36] to the question [3:13:36] of whether you were asked [3:13:37] about criminal activities. [3:13:40] Mr. Lewandowski, [3:13:42] it's clear to me [3:13:43] that the president, [3:13:44] the campaign, [3:13:44] and yourself [3:13:45] did not want [3:13:46] the American people [3:13:47] to know [3:13:47] about any campaign [3:13:48] contact with Russia. [3:13:50] You lied to cover it up. [3:13:51] You lied when you publicly [3:13:52] said you knew, [3:13:53] quote, [3:13:53] nothing about Russia. [3:13:55] Multiple senior campaign members [3:13:57] were regularly communicating [3:13:58] with you about traveling [3:13:59] to Russia, [3:13:59] meeting with Russians, [3:14:01] and even Mr. Trump [3:14:02] possibly going [3:14:03] to Russia. [3:14:04] There's documentation [3:14:04] that contradicts your denials, [3:14:06] including emails [3:14:07] with you personally. [3:14:09] This committee, [3:14:09] our committee, [3:14:10] will not let anyone, [3:14:11] not the president of the United States, [3:14:12] not anyone, [3:14:14] to hide the truth [3:14:14] of the American people [3:14:15] any longer. [3:14:16] No one is above the law. [3:14:18] I yield back. [3:14:19] Point of order, [3:14:19] Mr. Chairman. [3:14:20] The gentleman yields back. [3:14:23] The gentleman will state [3:14:24] his point of order. [3:14:25] Mr. Chairman, [3:14:27] the refusal [3:14:29] counsel by Mr. Lewandowski [3:14:30] to answer the questions [3:14:32] about whether he had discussions [3:14:34] with the president [3:14:35] about payments [3:14:35] from a personal lawyer [3:14:37] to those payments [3:14:39] from a personal lawyer [3:14:40] or whether he had discussions [3:14:41] with the president [3:14:41] about knowledge [3:14:42] of the campaign's interactions [3:14:43] with Russia [3:14:43] are not protected. [3:14:46] And I would ask, [3:14:47] as the chairman [3:14:48] reconsiders [3:14:49] whether to hold [3:14:51] Mr. Lewandowski [3:14:51] in contempt [3:14:52] as he goes forward [3:14:53] from this hearing, [3:14:55] it's important [3:14:56] to note [3:14:56] that the White House [3:14:57] directed Mr. Lewandowski [3:14:58] not to discuss [3:14:59] the substance [3:15:00] of conversations [3:15:00] about official [3:15:02] government matters. [3:15:03] The White House counsel [3:15:04] is here. [3:15:05] If the chairman [3:15:06] would like to ask them [3:15:07] whether they assert [3:15:07] that those discussions [3:15:09] about Russia [3:15:09] or personal payments [3:15:10] are official [3:15:11] government business, [3:15:13] they can be asked. [3:15:13] Otherwise, [3:15:14] certainly as you consider [3:15:15] and you weigh [3:15:16] whether to hold [3:15:17] Mr. Lewandowski [3:15:17] in contempt, [3:15:19] you should consider those. [3:15:21] It is certainly the case. [3:15:23] I'm not going to ask [3:15:23] White House counsel. [3:15:25] It is certainly the case [3:15:26] that conversations [3:15:26] about criminal actions [3:15:29] are not official [3:15:30] White House business [3:15:31] without question. [3:15:32] And I will give Mr. [3:15:33] Hi, everyone. [3:15:34] I'm Elaine Kejano. [3:15:35] You have been watching [3:15:36] former Trump campaign manager [3:15:37] Corey Lewandowski [3:15:38] testify [3:15:39] before the House [3:15:40] Judiciary Committee. [3:15:42] Democrats are calling it [3:15:43] their first impeachment hearing [3:15:44] against President Trump. [3:15:46] It started about [3:15:47] four hours ago. [3:15:48] Lewandowski said [3:15:49] he was instructed [3:15:50] by the White House [3:15:51] not to answer questions [3:15:52] about conversations [3:15:53] he had with President Trump. [3:15:56] You can continue watching it [3:15:58] at cbsnews.com slash hearing [3:16:00] and we'll have more coverage [3:16:02] on this in just a few minutes. [3:16:05] But first, [3:16:06] there is new evidence [3:16:07] that suggests Iran [3:16:08] was behind the attack [3:16:09] on Saudi oil facilities. [3:16:11] CBS News national security [3:16:13] correspondent David Martin [3:16:14] is at the Pentagon [3:16:15] with new details. [3:16:17] David, [3:16:17] what have you learned? [3:16:18] Well, [3:16:20] a couple things [3:16:21] have been determined [3:16:22] over the past couple days [3:16:25] since the attack. [3:16:26] One is that [3:16:27] U.S. [3:16:29] experts are now [3:16:30] on the ground [3:16:31] in Saudi Arabia [3:16:32] and have examined [3:16:33] the wreckage [3:16:35] of these weapons [3:16:36] that were fired [3:16:37] at the Saudi oil facility. [3:16:40] And they have identified [3:16:41] the specific type of drone [3:16:43] and the specific type [3:16:45] of cruise missile [3:16:46] that were fired [3:16:48] and determined [3:16:49] that these weapons [3:16:50] are of Iranian manufacture. [3:16:53] On top of that, [3:16:55] other analysts [3:16:56] have traced the track [3:16:58] of those missiles [3:17:00] and drones [3:17:01] backwards in time [3:17:04] to their point of origin, [3:17:06] which was in southwestern Iran, [3:17:09] which is located [3:17:11] at just the northern head [3:17:13] of the Persian Gulf. [3:17:16] All right. [3:17:17] David Martin [3:17:17] at the Pentagon for us. [3:17:19] David, thank you very much [3:17:20] for that new information. [3:17:22] Sure thing. [3:17:23] And joining me now [3:17:24] are Ben Tracy [3:17:25] and Ann Geeran. [3:17:27] Ben is...