EQUALLY DIVIDED IN THE MAJORITY AND MINORITIES
AND MINORITIES I WILL BEGIN BY RECOGNIZING
MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. LEWANDOWSKI, WE RECEIVED A
LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE JUST
YESTERDAY THAT THEY WILL NOT LET
YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BEYOND
WHAT YOU TOLD THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL AND WAS PUBLICLY
RELEASED
RELEASED THE WHITE HOUSE’S INSTRUCTION TO
YOU IS BASED ON A BOGUS CLAIM OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EVEN THOUGH
DID YOU NOT WORK A SINGLE DAY
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, LET
ALONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO GET
INTO THE SPECIFIC EVENTS AND
DETAILS, AND I’M ESPECIALLY
TROUBLED BY THE PRESIDENT’S
ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCTION THE
INVESTIGATION AND PREVENT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING
THE TRIETH ABOUTUTH ABOUT WHAT H
AND I WANT TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS
RELATIVE TO THAT ISSUE
MR. LEWANDOWSKI, IS IT CORRECT
AS REPORTED IN THE MUELLER
REPORT ON JUNE 19th, 2017, YOU
MET ALONE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
WITH THE PRESIDENT
IS THERE A BOOK AND PAGE
I DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME
>> 290
>> 290 I JUST SAID, AS REPORTED ON THE
MUELLER JULY 19th, 2017, YOU MET
ALONE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
>> COULD YOU READ THAT, BECAUSE
I DON’T HAVE IT WITH ME.
>> I DON’T THINK I NEED TO DO
THAT
THAT >> CONGRESSMAN I’D LIKE TO YOU
REFRESH MY MEMORY SO I CAN
FOLLOW ALONG
FOLLOW ALONG >> YOU DON’T HAVE A COPY OF THE
REPORT
REPORT >> I DON’T HAVE A COPY,
CONGRESSMAN.
CONGRESSMAN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I REQUEST THAT
THE CLOCK BE STOPPED BY THIS
CHARADE IS SORTED OUT.
>> I’M SORRY, CONGRESSMAN, WHAT
PAGE WAS IT?
>> THE CLOCK SHOULD BE STOPPED
PAGE 90, VOLUME 2.
>> WHICH PAGE, SIR
>> I DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF
ME
ME >> I’D LIKE TO REFERENCE SO I
CAN FOLLOW ALONG WITH WHAT
YOU’RE ASKING.
YOU’RE ASKING. >> YOU DON’T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT
RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER YOU MET
WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THAT DATE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I’M JUST TRYING
TO FIND IN THE MUELLER REPORT
WHERE IT STATES THAT
>> YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU,
I GAVE YOU THE PAGE NUMBER
>> WHERE ON PAGE 90 IS IT, SIR
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU HAVE TO START THE CLOCK.
>> NO, I DON’T HAVE TO START THE
CLOCK.
CLOCK. HE’S FILIBUSTERING ME.
>> FILIBUSTER IS ACROSS THE
HAUL
HAUL THIS IS ACTUAL QUESTIONS BEING
DONE NOW
DONE NOW >> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF
INQUIRY --
INQUIRY -- >> POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IS IT
APPROPRIATE FOR A WITNESS TO
REFUSE TO ANSWER A QUESTION,
INSTEAD DEMAND THAT WE REFERENCE
AND POINT HIM TO -- I’D ASK THAT
THE MUELLER REPORT BE CLOSED AND
THE WITNESS BE DIRECTED TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> THE ANSWER IS NOT
APPROPRIATE.
APPROPRIATE. BUT IT’S ON THE BOTTOM TWO LINES
OF THAT PAGE
>> POINT OF ORDER, WHEN WILL THE
CLOCK START, MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> THE CLOCK SHOULD START.
>> SECOND LINE
>> PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY,
MR. CHAIRMAN
MR. CHAIRMAN POINT OF ORDER
>> MR. CHAIRMAN --
>> POINT OF ORDER OVERRIDES
THAT
THAT A POINT OF ORDER OVERRIDES THAT,
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW THAT.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
POINT OF ORDER
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS ONCE
THE QUESTION ABOUT ASKED, THE
CLOCK SHOULD START
IT CANNOT BE HELD WHILE YOU AND
YOUR COUNSEL GO OVER NOTES
>> THE GENTLEMAN’S CORRECT
THE CLOCK WILL START
AND THE WITNESS WILL ANSWER THE
QUESTION WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY
>> YES, I SEE THAT IN THE
REPORT
REPORT >> THANK YOU
DURING THAT MEETING, DID YOU
TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT
THE PRESIDENT, QUOTE, ASKED YOU
TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO
SESSIONS, WHO WAS THEN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES
STATES PAGE 91.
PAGE 91. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR.
>> I’M LOOKING FOR THAT
REFERENCE ON PAGE 91,
CONGRESSMAN.
CONGRESSMAN. >> DO YOU NOT HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION
INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION >> NO, I’M LOOKING --
MR. CONGRESSMAN, I’M TRYING TO
ADHERE TO THE WHITE HOUSE’S
REQUEST I ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT
ARE PROVIDED IN THE MUELLER
REPORT ONLY.
REPORT ONLY. SO I’M TRYING TO REFERENCE THAT
REPORT DIRECTLY ABOUT YOUR
QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN.
QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN. >> WERE YOU A WHITE HOUSE
EMPLOYEE AT THAT TIME?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN
>> AND IF -- OKAY.
YOU DID NOT HOLD ANY POSITION IN
THE GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER, DID
YOU?
YOU? >> CORRECT
>> CORRECT >> NOW, SITTING BEHIND YOU IS
COUNCIL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE,
CORRECT?
CORRECT? >> THAT’S MY UNDERSTAND.
>> YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE LAWYERS
ACTUALLY WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
>> I BELIEVE THAT’S ACCURATE
>> NEVERTHELESS, THE PRESIDENT’S
LAWYERS HAVE TOLD YOU NEWT
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
COMMITTEE OTHER THAN WHAT’S
ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT, IS
THAT CORRECT
THAT CORRECT >> CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE TO READ
FROM THE LETTER THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE IF
THAT WOULD HELP CLARIFY.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT
CONGRESSMAN?
CONGRESSMAN? >> NO, I’D LIKE YOU TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION, HAVE YOU BEEN
DIRECTED --
DIRECTED -- >> CONGRESSMAN, I’VE NEVER
SPOKEN TO ANY MEMBERS OF THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OTHER THAN
THEM SAYING HELLO 15 SECONDS
AGO.
AGO. >> HAVE YOU BEEN DIRECTED BY
LETTER
LETTER >> I WAS PROVIDED A LETTER AS
EXPLAINED BELOW.
EXPLAINED BELOW. MR. LEWANDOWSKI’S CONVERSATION
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR
ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT ARE
PROTECTED BY DISCLOSURE BY
LONG-SETTLED PRINCIPLES PROVNGT
PROTECTED IN CONFIDENTIALITY
AS A RESULT, IT’S WHITE HOUSE IS
DIRECTING WILLMR. LEWANDOWSKI NO
PROVIDE INFORMATION OTHER THAN
WHAT’S PROVIDED IN THE REPORT.
>> I’LL TAKE THAT AS A YES
THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM IS
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IS THAT
CORRECT?
CORRECT? >> I CAN READ IT AGAIN,
CONGRESSMAN.
CONGRESSMAN. >> THE ANSWER IS YOU’RE NOT
ANSWERING THE QUESTION
YOU WERE NEVER EMPLOYED BY THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE WHITE
HOUSE, THAT IS CORRECT
>> I’VE NEVER BEEN EMPLOYED BY
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
>> WERE YOU NOT YOUR IDEA NOT TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS BASED ON
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? >> I CAN REITERATE
I’VE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION
FROM SOMEONE FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE.
HOUSE. >> SO, IT WAS YOUR IDEA NOT TO
ANSWER
ANSWER >> I’VE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION
WITH --
WITH -- >> WAS IT YOUR IDEA NOT TO
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BASED ON
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, YES OR NO
>> I CAN ONLY GO BY THE LETTER
PROVIDED
PROVIDED IT WAS NOT MY IDEA TO PROVIDE
THE LETTER
THE LETTER >> DID YOU EVER ADDRESS THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE --
>> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED
THAT I NOT DISCLOSE ANY
SUBSTANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT OR
ADVISERS TO PROTECT THE
CONFIDENTIALITY.
CONFIDENTIALITY. AND I RECOGNIZE THIS IS NOT MY
PRIVILEGE BUT I AM RESPECTING
THE WHITE HOUSE’S DECISION
>> LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTION
ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
PRESIDENT AFTER HE ASSUMED
OFFICE
OFFICE HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE PRESIDENT
ASKED YOU TO MEET HIM IN THE
WHITE HOUSE?
WHITE HOUSE? >> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED
THAT I NOT --
>> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET
WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE
HOUSE IN 2017.
>> I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT
THAT >> HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE
DIRECTED YOU -
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED I
NOT DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF
ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> DID HE EVER DISCUSS ANY
CONCERNS THAT HE MAY HAVE
COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
>> WHITE HOUSE HAS DIRECTED THAT
I NOT -- WITH THE PRESIDENT OR
ADVISERS TO PROTECT COUGH DESCH.
CONFIDENTIALITY
CONFIDENTIALITY CONFIDENTIALITY.
CONFIDENTIALITY. >> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2A, THE
GENTLEMAN IS OUT OF ORDER.
HE’S EXCEEDED THE TIME LIMIT
UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE
>> I CHALLENGE THE RULE OF THE
CHAIR.
CHAIR. >> RULING OF THE CHAIR IS
CHALLENGED
CHALLENGED ALL THOSE IN FAVOR WILL SAY AYE.