[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND 
                             ABUSE OF POWER

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-46

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-890                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  
              
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking 
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
    Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
                               
                               ------                                
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Tuesday, September 17, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Georgia........................     4

                                WITNESS

Mr. Corey Lewandowski, Former Campaign Manager, Donald Trump 2016 
  Presidential Campaign
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Slides submitted by Democratic Members of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................   122

 
         PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ABUSE OF POWER

                              ----------                              

                      Tuesday, September 17, 2019

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:16 p.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, Cicilline, 
Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, 
Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, 
Escobar, Collins, Chabot, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, 
Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Cline, 
Armstrong, and Steube.
    Staff Present: Barry Berke, Consultant; Aaron Hiller, 
Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight 
Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior 
Advisor; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member 
Services and Outreach Advisor; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/
Senior Counsel; Sarah Istel, Oversight Counsel; Julian Gerson, 
Staff Assistant; Priyanka Mara, Professional Staff Member; 
Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel; 
Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian/General Counsel; Carlton 
Davis, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Ashley Callen, 
Minority Oversight Counsel; Danny Johnson, Minority Oversight 
Counsel; Jake Greenberg, Minority Oversight Counsel; and Erica 
Barker Minority Chief Legislative Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The Committee on the Judiciary will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recesses of the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone to 
today's hearing on Presidential Obstruction of Justice and 
Abuse of Power.
    Before we begin, I would remind all our Committee Members 
that we should refrain from making inappropriate references to 
protected parties: Namely, the President, Vice President, 
Members of the Senate, the Members of the House. This would 
include accusations of dishonesty, criminality, treason, or 
other unethical or improper motive. The critical issues we are 
addressing today which go to the very core of our 
constitutional democracy, understandably bring out strong 
passions in us as they do in the American people.
    I hope that in what should be a spirited discussion of 
these issues today, we will stay focused on the issues and take 
care to keep our comments from being directed personally toward 
the President.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Today's hearing is entitled Presidential Obstruction of 
Justice and Abuse of Power. This hearing is the first one 
formally designated under the Committee's procedures adopted 
last week in connection with our investigation to determine 
whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to 
President Trump.
    We subpoenaed three Witnesses to this hearing: Rick 
Dearborn, Robert Porter, and Corey Lewandowski. Unfortunately, 
we learned last night that the White House is blocking the 
first two from even showing up and tightly limiting the third. 
The White House has no authority, legal or otherwise, to give 
these orders. We had wanted these three individuals to testify 
before the Committee and the American people, because they are 
critical Witnesses to the incidence of obstruction of justice 
laid out in the Mueller report.
    In at least five of those episodes, evidence laid out in 
the special counsel's report established that all the elements 
of obstruction of justice were met. Today, despite the 
roadblocks the White House has thrown up, we will focus on one 
of the most concerning of those five episodes. It is the 
President ordering the Attorney General, through Mr. 
Lewandowski, to stop the special counsel's investigation into 
the President and his campaign. As the report detailed, Mr. 
Dearborn was enlisted as part of that effort as well. Mr. 
Porter has other critical evidence regarding obstruction.
    As our hearings with the special counsel and other outside 
experts established, anyone else involved in these episodes of 
obstruction would have been charged with a crime. Anyone else. 
Let that sink in. The President knows this, and the White House 
is intent on preventing the American people from hearing the 
details. So, it is no surprise that the White House blocked two 
of our Witnesses, Mr. Porter and Mr. Dearborn, from showing up 
today.
    On behalf of the President, the White House and the 
Department of Justice are advancing the same spurious legal 
doctrine they did when this Committee called on the most 
important obstruction Witness to testify, former White House 
counsel Don McGahn. They claim Porter and Dearborn, like 
McGahn, are absolutely immune from testifying before Congress. 
There is no such thing. The only court ever to consider this 
purported absolute immunity doctrine totally rejected it. That 
is why we have gone to court in the McGahn case to set it 
aside.
    What is happening today is more troubling than McGahn's 
failure to appear, because even if we apply DOJ's own made-up 
rules of absolute immunity, I question how Mr. Dearborn fits 
under those rules.
    According to DOJ opinions, absolute immunity applies to, 
quote, ``the President's immediate advisors who serve as the 
President's alter ego,'' closed quote. To extend this already 
dubious doctrine to someone like Mr. Dearborn, who is far more 
removed from the President that McGahn, is a dangerous new 
stretch. I think we should call this what it is: An absolute 
coverup by the White House. Mr. Lewandowski is here and has 
vital information about Presidential obstruction of justice. 
The White House wants to limit our and your ability to hear it 
all.
    Mr. Lewandowski is called alone, one-on-one, into the oval 
office on June 19, 2017, and again on July 19, 2017. The 
President did something I find startling. He dictated a speech 
to Mr. Lewandowski, a speech not for Mr. Lewandowski, but for 
Attorney General Sessions to deliver, then-Attorney General 
Sessions. He secretly told Mr. Lewandowski to put the following 
words in the AG's mouth, quote, ``I am going to meet with the 
special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair, and let the 
special prosecutor move forward with investigating election 
meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in 
future elections.'' That quote is from volume II, page 91 of 
the Mueller report.
    As the Mueller report found, limiting the investigation to 
future elections would have cut off the investigation of any 
past conduct, and struck at the heart of the special counsel's 
mandate. It would have ended the investigation of the 
President's conduct. The evidence found by the special counsel 
met all the elements of obstruction of justice.
    Mr. Lewandowski was nervous about this demand from his 
former boss, as he should have been. It raised serious 
questions about criminal conduct. The AG was recused, forbidden 
from doing anything regarding the Mueller investigation. He was 
certainly not allowed to curtail it.
    So, Mr. Lewandowski tried to surreptitiously meet with the 
AG. When that failed, he tried to pass the buck to Mr. 
Dearborn. Mr. Lewandowski gave Mr. Dearborn the script that had 
been dictated by the President all while telling the President 
that he would follow through on the President's order.
    So, that is what we want to try to learn more about today. 
As we learned with Special Counsel Mueller, Witness testimony 
is critical to any investigation. The White House does not want 
us or the American people to hear this story in full. Late 
yesterday, the White House sent us a lettering claiming that 
Mr. Lewandowksi's conversations with the President, quote, 
``are protected from disclosure by Executive Branch 
confidentiality interests,'' closed quote. They say he may 
testify about Presidential communications that are already 
disclosed in the Mueller report, but no more.
    They make that claim despite the fact that Mr. Lewandowski 
was, at all times, a private political operative, apparently 
was not offering advice of any kind, the usual prerequisite for 
Executive privilege, and was enlisted for apparent wrongdoing.
    No court has ever said that the President is entitled to 
confidentiality under these circumstances. Indeed, the 
Department of Justice has said Executive privilege should not 
be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing on the part of 
Executive officers.
    The White House is advancing a new and dangerous theory: 
The crony privilege. It makes absolute immunity look good by 
comparison. Where are the limits? This is a coverup, plain and 
simple. If it were to prevail, especially while the Judiciary 
Committee is considering whether to recommend articles of 
impeachment, it would upend the separation of powers as 
envisioned by our Founders.
    Today's coverup is part of a pattern of the White House 
blocking Congress. The President announced his desire to, 
quote, ``fight all the subpoenas,'' unquote. The White House's 
obstruction of Congress ranges across nearly every committee, 
and virtually every investigation of the Administration, 
whether related to children in cages, botched security 
clearances, or their failure to defend the country from ongoing 
attacks by a foreign adversary.
    Well, Mr. Lewandowski, you are here under subpoena. That 
means you are required to answer our questions, all our 
questions, completely and truthfully. Our investigation also 
extends beyond the four corners of the Mueller report. We are 
looking at corruption and abuse of power more broadly, so we 
will inquire about other subjects as well. We will not be 
daunted by the coverup. We intend to secure accountability for 
any wrongdoing, because no one is above the law, not even the 
President of the United States.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Collins. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for 
introducing this hearing, which is now, as you said, under the 
new rules. Sort of the old school, the old rules, or the new 
rules and the old rules. These were these rules all along. Yet, 
here we go again. We're going to say that they're new because 
we like the packaging. I've never seen a majority so amazed 
with packaging in all my life. You know why? Because they can't 
sell what's inside. They can't sell the product, so they just 
keep packaging it differently.
    I think we should--I agree with my Chair. I think we should 
call this for what it is. It's just another simple oversight 
hearing. In fact, no, I think it's actually become this. It has 
become, let's read the Mueller report for audio book. That's 
what we've become.
    We had Mr. Mueller here. Had a long day of it. Judging by 
all accounts, it didn't go really well for the purpose of what 
you've proclaimed for over 9 months and almost 2 years, that 
there's impeachable offenses, as my Chair has said, clearly in 
the Mueller report.
    Here's the problem: Seventeen of the Members of the 
Judiciary Committee have said that they think the President 
ought to be impeached. So, why are we still investigating it? 
Seventeen, you get some more, the problem is you don't have the 
votes. You don't have the numbers. Even if you have it from of 
this Committee, you don't have it on the floor. That's your 
problem.
    So, the thing that we're going to do is to drag this 
Committee through oversight hearings talking about things that 
have been talked about ad nauseam, ad nauseam, and ad nauseam. 
We're going to talk about it. We're going to put filters up, 
we're going say what it really is and really is not. While in 
all the things, we're going to try to imply that this President 
shouldn't be President.
    It is really interesting to me that we just heard just a 
moment ago, it was said that these made-up rules at DOJ. Well, 
it's interesting that now they're made-up rules. They weren't 
made-up rules when the Obama Administration used them. Were 
they made-up rules then? Just asking for a friend.
    This is amazing, as we come into this situation. The Chair 
also said that while we're doing this and stopping committees 
from searching into products like the immigration issue and 
foreign influence, I just want to remind everybody here 
watching and everybody here to see the show today, and also to 
remind the majority, that they have complete jurisdiction over 
immigration. We have complete and total jurisdiction over 
immigration, for the most part. All we have to do if you want 
to fix the border, put a bill up. You don't want to do that. 
You like this. You like having the press here. You like the 
cameras, because it makes it appear like something's happened 
that's not.
    The real thing that is coming out starting--the American 
people are starting to get it. They're starting to get it, that 
if you're just howling at the wind, you're not doing anything. 
You're making them think you are, but you're not.
    So, don't bring to me immigration anymore that you want to 
deal with it. You just want to bring Administration officials 
in here and yell at them because you don't like what's 
happening. I agree. We need to fix it. Bring us a bill. Bring 
my bill. Bring your bill. Do something about it. Quit talking 
about foreign influence. The only real thing we all agree on in 
the Mueller report was foreign influence from Russia, but, yet, 
where's the bill? Where's the bill? Where's Waldo? Where's the 
bill. We don't do anything about it. We like to talk about it, 
because we think it makes the President look bad, because 
that's the implication we've been given for 2 years.
    Unfortunately, we also don't really want information in 
this Committee either. If we did, we'd work like the Intel 
Committee had done. You know, we've had that issue before. That 
we have had to actually work with Witnesses to get them to come 
in. Mr. Lewandowski, I believe, said he would come without a 
subpoena, but we subpoenaed it anyway, because it looks--oh, as 
I was told earlier this year, from the Chair's perspective, a 
subpoena is a start of the dialogue. Not according to Blacks 
Law Dictionary, but who cares? We're just the Judiciary 
Committee. This is the problem we're having.
    This Committee does not want to interview Don McGahn behind 
closed doors. They want him in front of everybody. They want to 
do this out front. They don't try to actually get information. 
That's what real oversight is. Real oversight is trying to get 
information, but we don't do that.
    I understand it's tough making a promise and not keeping 
it. I understand. All of us in this room can relate to a time 
when we made a promise, and we couldn't keep it. My majority 
made a promise, we'll impeach him. We'll investigate him. For 
most of them, it happened in November 2016, because they 
couldn't believe that Donald Trump won. They still can't get 
over it today.
    So, what do we do? We have public hearings, lots of 
flashbulbs, embarrassing the President, not gathering facts, 
not investigating, and not doing oversight. This is certainly 
not being fair. We like to issue subpoenas. We're setting a 
world record at that, 40 times faster than the previous Chair. 
We don't want any answers because we're not willing to engage 
in dialogue to get information from folks. You know how I 
believe that this is more just wanting to get at here is 
because--it's not like Mr. Lewandowski has had silence on this 
issue. He's testified before Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence. He's testified before House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. Now, he's also voluntarily testified 
before the special counsel by way of Mr. Mueller. We've had 
access to all his summaries of his testimony. This is not new, 
but, it is new because it's another time to rehash an old 
story.
    This is the fall. This is when ABC and NBC and all the 
broadcast folks, they bring out their new shows. This isn't the 
summer rerun season. We should get in there something new.
    I just want to show you one last thing before I turn it 
back over and we'll get the popcorn and the show going. The 
Judiciary Committee is the Judiciary Committee for a reason. 
It's because we oversee the court system. For any person who 
has actually been here and actually has an attorney in this 
room who's actually appeared before a judge, a judge is a 
pretty stickler for rules.
    I just want to point out something. It may be trivial, and 
I know some will laugh and some won't care. For some of us, it 
does matter. It the subpoena today for Mr. Lewandowski and the 
others said 10:00 a.m. this morning. This just shows you how 
impulsive and poorly designed this entire sort of faux 
impeachment charade we're doing. The subpoena is not even 
properly. The subpoenas we here for all three to compel them 
all 10:00 this morning. Today's hearing's at 1:00, not 10:00. 
The Witnesses lack appropriate notice for the hearing today. 
That's a simple basic subpoena issue.
    We're the Judiciary Committee. I can understand this, and 
no offense, Natural Resources, I can understand if they get it 
wrong, or Transportation. I don't understand how Judiciary gets 
this wrong.
    The Chair wants to hold people in contempt for not showing 
up. Try to enforce this in court, because there's no extra 
letter, there's no clarification of time. When I was given a 
subpoena for my client to appear in court, what time do you 
appear in court? Whenever you feel like it? No. At the time it 
says, unless the court or the officer giving the subpoena says 
differently.
    The Chair is only offering for success here is to issue, 
well, we could do this because we've wasted enough time on 
other things. We will issue new subpoenas with a new date and 
new time and hold a new hearing. There's probably a date 
somewhere in October we haven't filled up with this mess 
somewhere.
    So, with this, here we go. Mr. Chair, there's so much that 
we could actually do together. There's so much. As long as we 
don't have time, we'll continue with rerun season. The popcorn 
still tastes good. I don't know why we do this, except maybe we 
just have a deficiency of flashbulbs, I don't know, because we 
just like the show. The show is going to get even more as it 
goes today, because the new rules are in effect. Oh, wait. 
They're not new, they're just old, but we're applying them 
today because we want it to look better.
    I have one more of those, and we'll talk about it later 
when we get to some other questions later.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
    I will now introduce today's Witness.
    Corey Lewandowski is a political consultant and 
commentator. He previously serves as the first campaign manager 
for Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign. Mr. Lewandowski 
received a bachelor's degree in political science from the 
University of Massachusetts, and a master's degree in political 
science from American University. He also attended the Naval 
War College.
    Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and 
former White House Staff Secretary Robert Porter have refused 
to appear today despite dually issued subpoenas from this 
Committee. As I discussed in my opening statement, I strongly 
disagree with the White House's assertion of absolute immunity. 
As to Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Porter, we are considering all 
available options to enforce these subpoenas.
    We welcome Mr. Lewandowski. We thank him for participating 
in today's hearing.
    If you will please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the Witness has answered in the 
affirmative.
    Thank you, and please be seated.
    Please note that your written statement will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you 
summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you stay within 
that time, there's a timing light on your table. When the light 
switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude 
your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your five 
minutes have expired.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you may begin.

                 TESTIMONY OF COREY LEWANDOWSKI

    Mr. Lewandowski. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and 
the Members of the Committee, good afternoon.
    I'd like to start off by expressing my hope that today's 
hearing will be productive in revealing the truth both to the 
Committee and to the American people.
    For the record, and as you likely know, I have already 
testified before Congress on three separate occasions. I sat at 
length with the staff of the special counsel's office. There, 
too, my time and answers were given freely and without 
hesitation. I think in one form or another, I've already 
answered questions for well over 20 hours.
    So, now, here I am before the House Judiciary Committee to 
answer the same questions again. Just last week, this 
Committee, over the objections of the minority, unilaterally 
changed the rules to make this an impeachment proceeding, which 
is very unfair. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I am 
prepared to move forward today.
    I'd like to start by recounting the events that brought us 
to this point. My story of joining the Trump campaign, working 
through a historic election, and continuing to have the 
privilege to be part of the greatest political movement in our 
Nation's history. I present this summary in the interest of 
truth and transparency to the American people, the very same 
reason and rationale that this Committee offers as the basis of 
today's hearing.
    Growing up in a blue collar single-parent family in Lowell, 
Massachusetts, I learned the value of hard work. That work 
ethic helped me to put myself through both college and graduate 
school, prior to becoming a congressional staffer, and 
ultimately a certified peace officer in the State of New 
Hampshire. However, the world of politics was always a passion. 
In January of 2015, Donald J. Trump, then a private citizen, 
hired me to help him explore a possible run for the presidency. 
It was an honor and a privilege to play a small part of such a 
historic campaign.
    The campaign started as a small group of individuals 
helping Mr. Trump to make the decision in June of 2015 to ride 
down a golden escalator and seek the Republican nomination for 
presidency of the United States.
    For more than a year, I served as campaign manager to then-
candidate Trump in his historic campaign where I led a lean and 
dedicated operation that succeeded in helping him capture the 
Republican nomination. My job was simple: Provide Mr. Trump 
with my best advice, spend his money like it was my own, and 
give him the support he needed to win.
    I also set long-term objects and managed day-to-day 
decisions. I had the privilege, and it was a privilege, of 
helping transform the Trump campaign from a dedicated but small 
makeshift organization to a historical and unprecedented 
political juggernaut. I am proud to say, Mr. Trump won 38 
primaries and caucuses, and received more votes than any 
candidate in the history of the Republican party all while 
being outspent most of the way.
    The historic campaign helped Mr. Trump secure the 
Republican nomination, and, ultimately, the Presidency of the 
United States. However, since Election Day, whether it was bad 
actors at the FBI, in the intelligence community, or lies 
coming from Members of the current House majority that there 
was evidence of collusion, the American people continue to be 
sold a false narrative with the purpose of undermining 
legitimacy of the 2016 election results. No matter the size, 
campaigns are not always the most efficient organizations. 
While you run in single congressional districts, just imagine 
what it's like to lead a national campaign that spans all 50 
States of the union.
    During my time as campaign manager, there were competing 
interests for the candidate's time, and a sea of ideas, some 
laudable, some sound, a few not so much, many of which were 
dismissed out of hand; others were passed on to staffers to be 
handled.
    I also received hundreds of thousands of emails, some days 
with as many as 1,000 emails. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I don't 
think I ever deleted any of those. Many of them were responded 
to with either one-word answers or forwarded to other staffers 
for additional follow-up.
    Throughout it all, and to the best of my recollection, I 
don't ever recall having any conversations with foreign 
entities, let alone any who were offering the help to 
manipulate the outcome of an election. As I have said publicly 
many times, anyone who attempted to illegally impact the 
outcome of an election should spend of rest of their life in 
jail.
    Let me stress this fact. During the 2016 election cycle, 
Mr. Trump held no elected position. He was not a government 
official. Rather, the Obama-Biden Administration and the 
intelligence community overseen by James Clapper, Jim Comey, 
and John Brennan, had the responsibility to the American people 
to ensure the integrity of the 2016 election. I will leave it 
to this Committee and the American public to decide how 
successful or not they were in doing their jobs.
    Regardless, as the special counsel determined, there was no 
conspiracy or collusion between the Trump campaign and any 
foreign governments, either on my watch or afterwards. Not 
surprisingly, after the Mueller report was made public, 
interest in the fake Russia collusion narrative has fallen 
apart.
    In conclusion, and it's sad to say, this country has spent 
over 3 years and $40 million taxpayer dollars on these 
investigations, and it's now clear that the investigation was 
populated by many Trump haters who had their own agenda, to 
take down a dually elected President of the United States. As 
for actual collusion or conspiracy, there was none. What there 
has been, however, is harassment of this President from the day 
he won the election.
    We as a Nation would be better served if elected officials 
like yourself concentrated your efforts to combat the true 
crises facing our country as opposed to going down rabbit holes 
like this hearing. Instead of focusing on petty and personal 
politics, the Committee focuses on solving the challenge of 
this generation. Imagine how many people we could help, or how 
many lives we could save.
    As I stated earlier, I have voluntarily appeared in front 
of Congress on three separate occasions and spoken to Members 
of the special counsel's office for multiple hours. I will 
continue to be forthright and cooperative, and I will be as 
sincere in my answers as this Committee is in its questions.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you for your testimony.
    We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions. 
At the completion of the Members' questions, pursuant to the 
Chair's September 12, 2019, resolution for investigative 
procedures, and pursuant to notice, this will be followed by 1 
hour of staff questioning equally divided by the majority and 
the minority.
    I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 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. The White House's instruction to you is based on 
bogus claim of Executive privilege, even though you did not 
work a single day for the Administration, let alone in the 
Executive branch. My colleagues are going to get into the 
specific events in detail, but I'm especially troubled by the 
President's attempt to obstruct Congress' investigation and 
prevent the American people from learning the truth about what 
he's done, and I want to ask you questions relevant to that 
issue.
    Mr. Lewandowski, is it correct that, as reported in the 
Mueller report on June 19, 2017, you met alone in the Oval 
Office with the President?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry. Is there a book and number you 
can reference me to, please? I don't have a copy of the report 
in front of me.
    Chair Nadler. Volume II, page 90.
    I simply ask you: Is it correct that, as reported in the 
Mueller report, on June 19, 2017, you met alone in the Oval 
Office with the President?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Could you read the exact language of the 
report, sir? I don't have it available to me.
    Chair Nadler. I don't think I need to do that, and I have 
limited time.
    Did you meet alone with the President on that date?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I'd like you to refresh my 
memory by providing a copy of the report so I can follow along.
    Chair Nadler. You don't have a copy with you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't have a copy of the report, 
Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. The clock will stop.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, I request that the clock be 
stopped while this charade is sorted out.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry, Congressman. What page was it?
    Chair Nadler. The clock should have been stopped and should 
remain stopped.
    Page 90, volume II.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. Which paragraph, sir?
    Chair Nadler. I don't have it in front of me.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'd like a reference, sir, so I can follow 
along on what you're asking.
    Chair Nadler. Do you not have an independent recollection 
of whether you met with the President on that date?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I'm just trying to find it in 
the Mueller report where it states that.
    Chair Nadler. Well, you have it in front you. I gave you 
the page number.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. Where on page 90 is it, sir?
    Voice. Mr. Chair, you got to start the clock.
    Chair Nadler. No, I don't have to start the clock when he's 
filibustering.
    Bottom of page 90.
    Mr. Collins. Filibustering is across the hall in the 
Senate. This is actual questions being done now.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, point of Parliamentary inquiry, 
Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Collins. That's not a--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his point of 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, is it appropriate for a Witness 
to refuse to answer a question, and instead demand that we 
reference and point him to--I'd ask that Mueller report be 
closed and the Witness be directed to answer the question.
    Chair Nadler. The answer is not appropriate, but it's on 
the bottom two lines of that page.
    Mr. Collins. The clock can start now. There's a question.
    Voice. Point of Order. When will the clock start, Mr. 
Chair.
    Mr. Collins. Once the question's asked, Mr. Chair, the 
clock should start.
    Chair Nadler. Right under overview, second line.
    Mr. Collins. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman--the Witness--
    Mr. Collins. Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. The Witness has the time--
    Mr. Collins. Point of Order.
    Mr. Nadler. The question--
    Mr. Collins. Point or Order overrides that. A Point of 
Order overrides that, Mr. Chair, and you know that.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Point of Order.
    Mr. Collins. The Point of Order is once the question has 
been asked and referenced properly to the Witness to answer the 
question, the clock should start. It cannot be held while you 
and your counsel go over notes.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is correct. The clock will 
start, and the Witness will answer the question without further 
delay.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, I see that in the report.
    Chair Nadler. 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''? Page 91.
    I asked you a question, sir.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm looking for that reference on page 91, 
Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. Do you not have an independent recollection?
    Mr. Lewandowski. 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. So, I'm 
trying to reference that report directly by your question, 
Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. Were you a White House employee at that time?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. If--did you have--okay.
    You did not hold any position in the government whatsoever, 
did you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Correct.
    Chair Nadler. Now, sitting behind you are counsels for the 
White House, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's my understanding.
    Chair Nadler. You understand those lawyers actually work 
for the President at the White House?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate.
    Chair Nadler. Nevertheless, the President's lawyers have 
told you not to answer any question by this Committee, other 
than what has already been disclosed in the special counsel's 
report; is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. 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?
    Chair Nadler. No. I'd like you to answer the question.
    Have you been directed--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I've never spoken to any 
Members of the White House counsel's office other than saying, 
``hello,'' about 15 seconds ago.
    Chair Nadler. You were directed by letter.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I was provided a letter that 
I believe this Committee was assigned. It says as explained 
below, ``Mr. Lewandowski's conversation with the President and 
with senior advisors to the President are protected from 
disclosure by long-standing--long settled principles protecting 
the Executive branch confidentiality interests. As a result, 
the White House is directing Mr. Lewandowski not to provide 
information about such communication as beyond the information 
provided in the portions of the report.''
    Chair Nadler. We'll take that as a yes.
    The basis for their direction is a claim of Executive 
privilege; is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can read again, Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. The answer is you're not answering the 
question.
    We've already established that you were never employed by 
the White House or the Executive branch. That is correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have never been employed by the 
Executive branch.
    Chair Nadler. Sir, did you ask the White House counsels to 
be here?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, as I just reiterated, I've 
never spoken to anyone in the White House counsel's office.
    Chair Nadler. The answer is no.
    Was it your idea for you not to answer questions based on 
the claim of Executive privilege?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can reiterate. I didn't ask--I've never 
had a conversation with someone from the White House counsel's 
office regarding this matter.
    Chair Nadler. So, it was not your--so it was your idea not 
to--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've never had a conversation with someone 
from the White House counsel's office--
    Chair Nadler. Was your idea not to answer these questions 
based on Executive privilege, yes or no?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I can only go by the letter 
that was provided. It was not my idea to provide this letter.
    Chair Nadler. Not your idea.
    Did you ever suggest to the President or anyone else that 
you thought your communications with him were official White 
House communications?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, the White House has directed 
not--I do not disclose the substance of any discussions with 
the President or his advisors to protect Executive branch 
confidentiality. I recognize this is not my privilege, but I am 
respecting the White House's decision.
    Chair Nadler. Let me ask you some questions about your 
relationship with the President after he assumed office.
    How many times has the President asked you to meet him in 
the White House?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The White House has directed me not to 
disclose the substance of any discussions.
    Chair Nadler. How many times did you meet with the 
President alone in the White House in 2017?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know the answer to that.
    Chair Nadler. How many times did he direct you to deliver a 
message to a Member of his cabinet?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The White House has directed I do not 
disclose the substance of any discussions with the President.
    Chair Nadler. Did he ever discuss with you any concerns 
that he may have committed a criminal offense?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The White House has directed not to 
disclose the substance of any discussions with the President or 
his advisers to protect Executive branch confidentiality.
    Chair Nadler. All right.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I recognize that is not my privilege.
    Mr. Nadler. You won't--
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, I want to make a Point of Order.
    Pursuant to clause 2(j)2(a) of Rule 111, that the gentleman 
is out of order. He has exceeded the time limit under the 5-
minute rule.
    Chair Nadler. I will enforce the time limit under the 5-
minute rule.
    Voice. I challenge the rule.
    Mr. Collins. I challenge the ruling of the Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The ruling of the Chair is challenged. All 
those in favor of overriding the rule of the Chair say aye. 
Opposed, no.
    Mr. Collins. Roll call.
    Chair Nadler. The noes have it.
    Roll call is asked. The clerk will call--where is the 
clerk?
    The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. Question is, the question is will the ruling 
of the Chair be overruled? My vote is no.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler?
    Chair Nadler. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cohen votes no.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no.
    Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Deutch votes no.
    Ms. Bass?
    Ms. Bass. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Bass votes no.
    Mr. Richmond?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jeffries votes no.
    Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Swalwell votes no.
    Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jayapal votes no.
    Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Demings votes no.
    Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Correa. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Correa votes no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Scanlon votes no.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Neguse votes no.
    Ms. McBath?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton votes no.
    Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Dean votes no.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Escobar?
    Mr. Collins?
    Mr. Collins. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan votes aye.
    Mr. Buck?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe?
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes.
    Ms. Roby?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz votes aye.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
    Ms. Lesko?
    Ms. Lesko. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Lesko votes aye.
    Mr. Reschenthaler?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline?
    Mr. Cline. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline votes aye.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Steube?
    Mr. Steube. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Steube votes yes.
    Chair Nadler. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote?
    Mr. Buck. Mr. Chair, how am I recorded?
    Mr. Nadler. Madame Clerk?
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Buck, you are not recorded.
    Mr. Buck. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Buck votes yes.
    Chair Nadler. Is anyone else?
    The clerk will report.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chair, there are 13 ayes and 19 noes.
    [The vote was as follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7809.020
    
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Point of Order. Mr. 
Chair, it says the Chair has refused--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is not recognized.
    Mr. Collins. I will be.
    Chair Nadler. The Point of Order is sustained.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Nadler. I am very troubled that the White House 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.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, I have a motion.
    Chair Nadler. Not only--
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, I have a motion.
    Mr. Nadler. You will wait for your motion until I finish 
this.
    Mr. Collins. Point of Order, then.
    Chair Nadler. Not only--
    Mr. Collins. Point of Order has got to be recognized.
    Chair Nadler. Not in the middle of--
    Mr. Collins. Yes, it does.
    The motion is--since the Chair is not following the House 
rules, I move to adjourn.
    Chair Nadler. The motion is to adjourn. The motion--
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Nadler. The motion to--
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of--if the Republicans on this 
Committee are successful in this motion to adjourn, does that 
mean there will be no hearing and the American people will not 
hear from Mr. Lewandowski about his efforts to obstruct 
justice?
    Chair Nadler. Yes, that's exactly what it means.
    Mr. Cicilline. Okay. That's what I want--
    Mr. Collins. It also could read they could read the--
    Mr. Gaetz. I have a point of Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The motion is not debatable. As many as are 
in favor, the motion to adjourn--
    Mr. Gaetz. I have a motion of Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. As many our favor--
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Cicilline gets recognized for his inquiry, 
but I'm not recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. The motion is not debatable. As many as are in 
favor, the motion to adjourn say aye. Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Collins. Roll call.
    Chair Nadler. Roll call is requested. The question is on 
the motion to adjourn.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler?
    Chair Nadler. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cohen votes no.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no.
    Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Deutch votes no.
    Ms. Bass?
    Ms. Bass. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Bass votes no.
    Mr. Richmond?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jeffries votes no.
    Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Swalwell votes no.
    Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jayapal votes no.
    Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Demings votes no.
    Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Correa. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Correa votes no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Scanlon votes no.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Neguse votes no.
    Ms. McBath?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton votes no.
    Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Dean votes no.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Escobar?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins?
    Mr. Collins. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan votes aye.
    Mr. Buck?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe?
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes.
    Ms. Roby?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz votes aye.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
    Ms. Lesko?
    Ms. Lesko. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Lesko votes aye.
    Mr. Reschenthaler?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline?
    Mr. Cline. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline votes aye.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Steube?
    Mr. Steube. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Steube votes yes.
    Mr. Chair, there are 12 ayes and 19 noes.
    [The vote was as follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7809.021
    
    Chair Nadler. 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 were you 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 
investigations by preventing 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 
questions.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This past few minutes was totally avoidable and also very 
frustrating in the sense it has also now raised, from our 
perspective, the question of the privilege 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. 
My concern is ethics violation as well. This has got to be run 
in a different way.
    So, at this point, Mr. Lewandowski, you have testified 
before Congress multiple times over the past couple years, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. Correct me if I'm wrong. You've already 
testified twice before the House Intel Committee, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. How long were those sessions?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think the first session was about 7 
hours, and the second session was maybe 4 hours.
    Mr. Collins. You've also testified before Senate Intel, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. About how long was that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It was about 8 hours.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. You've also testified before the special 
counsel's office, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. How many times?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Two separate occasions.
    Mr. Collins. For about how long?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Probably 15-16 hours.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. Those were voluntarily, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. So, there was really--and you agreed to 
come here voluntarily as well, correct, today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did.
    Mr. Collins. There was no need for a basically flawed 
subpoena to be issued to you, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Correct.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. I want you to know that our staff and 
many of our Members have read the full FBI summary of your 
testimony, because everyone on this Committee has access to 
your special counsel interview summary for months.
    Have you had the opportunity to review the FBI summaries in 
preparation for today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. Which goes to the point about why he 
wouldn't be able to remember so many details outside 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?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Collins. Yeah. Because, you know, that is a problem we 
seem to have here is basically what we want to say is overbroad 
subpoenas around here. There is--I mean, we could have talked 
today about your favorite football team.
    Mr. Lewandowski. The Patriots.
    Mr. Collins. The Patriots. So, you're pretty happy right 
now, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Tom's a winner.
    Mr. Collins. Again, the problem we have here is we don't 
follow procedures, 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 break House rules to do that as we go forward.
    In any of the times that you've had today, and especially 
not being questioned, you have stated in your opening statement 
that you plan to answer as best you possibly can; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Collins. You also, at a certain point in time, realize 
that having testified so many times in these various issues 
that we have, that there are certain things--does that concern 
you having to keep coming back and back again without having 
proper reference if somebody wants to, as you early, I want to 
know the reference in which you're speaking to. Would that be a 
problem to you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, sir, I think my memory, obviously, 
to events which transpired more than 2 years ago was clearer 
the first time I testified to it, because it was a year and a 
half ago on many occasions or longer. So, if I can have a 
specific reference to something, I'd be happy to have that.
    Mr. Collins. 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.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Collins. So, to imply otherwise is basically, in many 
ways, taking a shot at your testimony here, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It is.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. When you worked on the Trump campaign, 
you said this earlier, I just want it to be stated again, 
because we've had these hearings here in the Judiciary 
Committee, it didn't seem to take, but we'll try again. Did you 
engage in collusion, coordination, or conspiracy with the 
Russians?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Never.
    Mr. Collins. Did you observe anyone else doing that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. 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. The failed 
narrative has continued. 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.
    If you're following the premise of what the Chair says the 
majority is looking for is that they're finding a reason to try 
and impeach the President. 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 go any further, but they can't get 
the more on the floor to do this. So, this is dragging this 
out.
    So, Mr. Lewandowski, I'd encourage you to answer the 
questions fully, as you said you would do. You voluntarily come 
here, even though we decide to throw a flawed subpoena at you, 
and the others as well. I think as we go forward here, we'll 
see how this actually moves forward.
    This is concerning to me, Mr. Chair. I'm going to take this 
for the moment. It's okay to try and get your stuff out. It's 
okay to be frustrated. It's also not okay to overrun House 
rules. The 5-minute rule is a House rule. It's not a 
Committee's rule and it's not up for interpretation by the 
Chair, whatever he feels like. It wouldn't be if I was the 
Chair or you're the Chair. That's not debatable.
    You may not have got your last question in, but we've 
already discussed, and we're going to have a lot of more 
discussion here in a little while on staff questioning, but 
there's plenty of time to get that last little question that 
you didn't get asked to somebody else. Is it worth breaking the 
House rules? I know some in the audience don't care and some of 
the majority doesn't care, but at the end of the day, you're 
accusing a President of very high issues that we got to look 
at. You're accusing him and dragging it through in this 
Committee for 8 months we're doing this. So, I think following 
procedures is something that you actually have to look at 
because your idea is not really--
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of Order, Mr. Chair. The time has 
expired.
    Chair Nadler. I mean, if he wishes. He doesn't wish.
    The gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning, Mr. Lewandowski. I'm 
questioning you right now. Thank you.
    The President asked you, who had no role at all in the 
White House, to deliver that message to Attorney General 
Sessions. The President could have just picked up the phone 
himself at any time and called the Attorney General. The 
President also had a full staff of Executive employees right 
down the hall.
    So, this made me wonder. If the President thought what he 
was doing was legal, why didn't he just pick up the phone and 
call Attorney General Sessions, or why not ask any member of 
his staff who worked right down the hall to deliver a message. 
It is clear to me that the reason he went to you, Mr. 
Lewandowski, is because everyone said no.
    So, I want to ask you about that. Two days before meeting 
you, the President had called White House Counsel McGahn at 
home on a Saturday to fire the special counsel saying, and you 
can see that on the screen, Mueller has to go. Call me back 
when you do it, plain and simple. McGahn refused.
    When the President asked you to deliver that message, did 
he, the President, tell you that 2 days before your meeting, 
his White House counsel had refused to fire the special 
counsel? Volume 1186 is where you'll find that language in 
volume II.
    When the President asked you--did you hear the question?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, 
Congresswoman?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. When the President asked you to deliver 
that message, did he, the President, tell you that 2 days 
before your meeting, his White House counsel had refused to 
fire the special counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The White House has directed me that I do 
do not disclose the substance of any conversations with the 
President--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you are not allowed to answer whether 
the President told you he called his counsel at home on 
Saturday to remove, on a Saturday, remove the special counsel, 
and his counsel said no.
    The President had also personally called Sessions at home 
and asked him to unrecuse himself and oversee the special 
counsel's investigation, and Sessions said no.
    When the President asked you to deliver his message to 
Sessions, did the President tell you that Sessions had already 
said no? Volume II, page 107?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, Congresswoman, I recognize that the 
privilege is not mine. I've been asked by the White House to--
Congresswoman, I'd be happy to answer your question, or you can 
just have a conversation by yourself. If you'd like to ask me a 
question, I'd be happy to answer.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No. I'm going to continue. The reason is--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, then don't ask me a question if you 
don't want to hear my answer.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm reclaiming my time. This is a House 
Judiciary, not a house party.
    Mr. Lewandowski. So, if you ask me a question, give me the 
opportunity to answer your question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --the very campaign the special counsel's 
investigating--I'd like my time restored, please, of his 
interruption.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady controls the time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, he was a Witness to the special 
counsel's investigation. For that reason, Sessions said 
publicly that Federal law prohibited his involvement in the 
special counsel's investigation. Here's a quote from the report 
from volume II, pages 49-50, which is on the screen. You can 
read that.
    Yes or no. Did the President tell you that the Attorney 
General was legally not allowed to take any part in the special 
counsel's investigation when he asked you to deliver him a note 
about that very investigation? Did the President tell you that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. What you've just read is not on the 
screen, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You need to look at the screen.
    Yes or no? Read the screen.
    Mr. Lewandowski. You're welcome to read it, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You're welcome to be stalling. I'm not 
going to stall.
    You either answer the question yes or no.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congresswoman, I'll take the same 
privileges that you've asked other Members.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Did the President tell you that nobody at 
the White House was supposed to even contact the Attorney 
General about the investigation? That you can answer yes or no.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I will do not disclose any conversation 
I've had with the President, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Again, you are obviously here to block any 
reasonable inquiry into the truth or not of this 
Administration. The White House counsel, quote, ``Shortly after 
Sessions announced his recusal, directed that Sessions should 
not be contacted about the special counsel's investigation.'' 
In fact, the White House counsel's internal note states, ``no 
contact with Sessions and no communication serious about 
instruction.''
    Can you read that? I just said it. Can you read that? Did 
you hear me?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Is there a question?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Did the President tell you his White House counsel told him 
about no contact with Sessions because of serious concerns of 
obstruction when he asked you to deliver a message to Sessions?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I am respecting the Executive branch 
privilege of confidentiality, and I will recognize that at this 
time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just say that you know the 
President was putting you at risk when he asked you to deliver 
a message to the Attorney General.
    I want to be very clear. The President knew what he was 
doing was wrong because everyone else had already said no. He 
called his White House counsel to fire the special counsel. 
McGahn said no. He called the Attorney General to ask him to 
unrecuse himself from the special counsel's investigation. 
Sessions said no. His White House counsel said there should be 
no contact with Sessions because of his recusal. So, what does 
a President do? He calls you in to do what everyone else 
wouldn't do. He called you in to do his dirty work in secret 
because he knew it was wrong.
    Chair Nadler. The time--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, we will expose the truth. The 
President cannot hide behind you any longer. You should be here 
to be telling the truth.
    Mr. Collins. The gentlelady's time--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Truth will set you free and the American 
people.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 
Witness may answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe there was a question, 
Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. Very well.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, there was.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Could you repeat the question? I didn't 
hear it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd be happy to repeat the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. It's just a rant.
    Chair Nadler. Repeat the question.
    The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The gentleman from--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you know the Attorney General 
recused--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, thank you for appearing this afternoon to 
testify before this Committee. I understand that you've spent 
many hours testifying voluntarily before Congress over the last 
few years; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It is.
    Mr. Chabot. Have you had to hire and retain counsel to 
represent you for all the investigations that you've had to 
endure, simply because you served as the President's campaign 
manager?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Chabot. That's unfortunate, because you didn't solicit 
or receive assistance from the Russians, did you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Chabot. Are you an agent working on behalf of the 
Russian Government?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Chabot. As a close friend and adviser of the President, 
you don't believe that the President is working on behalf of 
the Russians, do you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Chabot. To your knowledge, there is no effort on the 
part of the President to intentionally obstruct justice, is 
there?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    Yet again, coming here to tell this Committee what we, 
Special Counsel Mueller, and the American public already know, 
that President Trump did not collude with the Russians, nor did 
he obstruct justice. That's not to say that the Russians 
weren't trying to interfere and influence our 2016 Presidential 
elections. It's clear that they were by sending fake texts and 
operating fake Facebook pages and holding fake rallies all in 
an effort to try to influence the outcome of the election. 
Democrats want to ignore all the real evidence of Russian 
interference and hold this fake impeachment because it happened 
under a different President's watch. This all happened under 
President Obama's watch; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Chabot. It was the Obama Administration that failed to 
protect us from the Russian interference and influence in our 
election. Isn't that also true?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Chabot. President Trump wasn't President. He wasn't the 
one that failed to protect the country. If anybody failed, it 
was the Obama Administration; is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Chabot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: 
We're wasting valuable Committee time engaging in this 
impeachment investigation. The fact of the matter is one thing 
this Committee could be doing is to question Inspector General 
Horowitz concerning the bias against the President at the 
origins of the Russian investigation. We could be questioning 
Horowitz about his recent report how then-FBI director Comey 
mishandled department memos.
    This Committee has such a rich history, has jurisdiction 
over a whole lot of very significant things. We're spending our 
time on this fake impeachment, but we could be focused on 
something that really matters, like immigration, asylum. We 
have hundreds and thousands of people that have entered our 
southern border. Generally, they're brought up either 
individually or in groups, caravans, usually oftentimes 
connected with cartels. Cartels make a lot of money when they 
come up here. They're told the magic words, come across the 
border. They say that they're in fear and come right into our 
country. We put them on a bus or on a plane, sent to 
communities all across the country. That's something this 
Committee should be working in a bipartisan manner to do 
something about.
    Opioids. We have about 70,000 Americans who lost their 
lives to opioids last year. That's something in the 
jurisdiction of this Committee, yet we do virtually nothing 
about it in this Committee. A balanced budget amendment. That's 
something I've introduced in this Congress. We got a $22 
trillion debt hanging over our head; yet we do nothing in this 
Committee about attempting to actually pass something that 
would make us balance the budget every year, like all our 
States have to do.
    So, finally, I just want to thank you again, Mr. 
Lewandowski, for appearing at today's hearing. Perhaps your 
testimony today will finally convince Democrats that there are 
much more important things that this Committee could be 
spending our time on rather than continuing to pursue this fake 
impeachment. A faux impeachment.
    The bottom line is, they don't have the votes in the House 
to move forward for the House to vote for this Committee to 
open an impeachment inquiry. They don't have the votes. Some of 
the Democrats want to vote for it. Some of the Democrats would 
vote against it. They don't have the votes. So, what they do is 
they spend valuable Committee time that we could be spending on 
other important things on this fake, faux impeachment. It's a 
shame, because this Committee could be doing so much more on 
behalf of the American people.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, point of Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Nadler. The gentleman will state his point of 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, the Witness just answered a long 
line of questions from the gentleman from Ohio about whether 
Donald Trump had colluded with the Russians and about the 
origins of the Mueller investigation and so on, but he never 
testified as to any of those things before Special Counsel 
Mueller. Can he now continue to invoke this White House 
rationale that he's confined to the four corners of the Mueller 
report when he's gone way beyond it in his responses to the 
questioning from the gentleman from Ohio?
    Chair Nadler. Regardless of whether he went beyond the four 
corners of the Mueller report in the answers that he gave to 
the last questioner, regardless of that, and I'm glad to hear 
he favors the Patriots even though that's not in the Mueller 
report, but regardless of the long series of answers that he 
gave irrelevant--that were to the Mueller report, the claim of 
privilege made by the Witness is improper for the reasons set 
forth in our letter today to the White House and to the 
Witness's counsel.
    That said, I will take the claim of privilege under 
advisement.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Collins. Did you actually answer his Parliamentary 
inquiry? Because it was a statement, not a Parliamentary 
inquiry. You just sort of skipped on to Executive privilege 
here.
    At least acknowledge that it was not a Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman stated a Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Collins. He did not. It was a statement.
    Chair Nadler. I answered his Parliamentary inquiry.
    The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, it's been made clear here you were not an 
employee, and you admitted that the White House, you had no W-
2. You had no card. You had nothing. You were not an employee. 
You were a policeman at one time, so you know something about 
the law, and about following the law.
    Didn't you think it was a little strange that the President 
would sit down with you one-on-one and ask you to do something 
that you knew was against the law? Did that strike you as 
strange?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I disagree with the premise of your 
question, Congressman.
    Mr. Cohen. You weren't a policeman?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I didn't think the President asked me to 
do anything illegal.
    Mr. Cohen. You didn't think it would have been illegal for 
you to ask Mr. Sessions to drop the investigation and to just 
go on to future Presidents and omit with everything with this 
President, and go Ollie Ollie in Free, we're going to start 
with the next one about colluding with Russia? You didn't think 
that was illegal to obstruct justice?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, the President didn't ask me 
to do anything illegal.
    Mr. Cohen. Obviously, you never been a judge and won't be 
one.
    All these people asked you, they gave you dictation. He 
dictated to you a message to give Sessions.
    Had you ever been a secretary for the President before and 
taken dictation or shorthand?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Many times.
    Mr. Cohen. Oh, so we got your qualifications now. You were 
a secretary.
    He asked you, outside of White House channels, and that's 
what Mueller wrote, that this was outside of White House 
channels. Could it have been he asked you to get the message to 
Sessions because he thought you would do whatever he asked, 
even if it was illegal or immoral. Just like your former boss 
Bob Ney, who said you were an implementer. News reports called 
you the President's, quote, ``enforcer.'' U.S. Today said 
Lewandowski's background is largely as a Trump guy, and not so 
much as a strategist, not a campaign manager, but as a right-
hand man, a body man, and an enforcer. Esquire went further and 
said the one-time campaign manager for Donald Trump has the 
traits of an enforcer, and the conflict resolution skills to 
match. You have even described yourself in your book, ``Let 
Trump Be Trump,'' you said, ``we were fine with whatever role 
the President wanted us to play.'' In Donald Trump's Army, 
there were only loyal soldiers. There is no more loyal 
soldiers.
    Your previous boss, Bob Ney, was convicted of corruption 
and lying to authorities in the Jack Abramoff scandal. You were 
fired from Americans for Prosperity after being accused of 
fraud, voter fraud. You are now involved in this.
    Either you were willing to break the law for politics and 
Mr. Trump or you're a Forrest Gump relating to corruption.
    So, maybe let me ask you this: Did the President pick you 
his enforcer? He thought you would play whatever role he wanted 
because it was illegal? Is that possibly why he chose you to 
take this message to Sessions?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That would be a question for the 
President, Congressman.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, Donald Trump was right, though. First the 
White House counsel, Don McGahn, refused to fire the special 
counsel. Mr. McGahn showed principle and character and refused 
to do what he knew would be an illegal act.
    Then, Attorney General Sessions, who had recused himself, 
was asked to unrecuse himself. Attorney General Sessions also 
did the right thing and he said, ``I'm not going to unrecuse 
myself because I have a conflict, because I did--was involved 
in the campaign and knew some things, can't do it.''
    Then, the White House counsel advised the President not 
even to contact. You, his loyal soldier, would do it. You were 
different that Sessions and McGahn. Trump could depend on you. 
You did not ask any questions; you were a loyal soldier. You 
just wrote down the message and agreed to deliver it. That's 
what he thought. You took the dictation; you gave it to Hope 
Hicks. You asked her to type it up for you--not that you 
couldn't have done it yourself, I'm sure--and then asked 
somebody else to deliver the message to Sessions when you 
decided not to.
    Donald Trump talked to you outside normal channels so 
there'd be no record or anything that he asked you to do to 
obstruct justice. Nothing to do with that at all. The President 
knew what he was doing was wrong. Mr. Sessions knew what he was 
doing was wrong. Mr. McGahn knew what he was doing was wrong. 
You seem to be the only person who didn't think it was wrong.
    Mr. Trump was wrong, because at the last minute you got 
cold feet, you chickened out. The President's trust was 
misplaced. You decided to do what you told the President you 
were going to do and you handed it off to somebody else.
    Did you realize at some point that Mr. Ney, your former 
boss, got involved in criminal problems and went to prison and 
maybe you were going to be the next one? Did that cross your 
mind? Did you ever think about Bob Ney's situation going to 
prison?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman Ney, Congressman, so we are 
clear, went to jail many years after I left his employment. I'm 
sure you're going to clarify that for the record.
    Mr. Cohen. You were his employee and you had great respect 
for him. You learned from that. I'm asking, did you learn from 
his experience and realize that what you were asked to do was 
illegal and you didn't want to follow the same trail as Bob Ney 
and end up in prison?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I wasn't asked to do anything illegal, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, the public will determine that.
    This has been more obstruction of Congress by this 
Administration, and you followed their instructions, and you're 
doing just exactly they thought you'd do. You were a loyal 
soldier, except you didn't follow Trump's instructions, you 
chickened out at the last minute, you got cold feet.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you ran President Trump's campaign between 
January 2015 and June 2016. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. You were at the helm of the campaign when 
President Trump's secured the Republican nomination?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Pretty good campaign you ran.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Thank you.
    Mr. Jordan. I mean you beat, what, 17-18 different 
opponents, senators, governors, and some good Senators. Of 
course, had you a pretty good candidate.
    Mr. Lewandowski. The best.
    Mr. Jordan. Pretty good candidate, who I think has done a 
great job as President of the United States.
    After you left the campaign--I think you left in June of 
2016--after you left the head of the campaign, were you still 
involved with the campaign throughout the rest of the election 
all the way up through November 8, 2016?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. That entire time.
    So, you were part of the campaign operation at some level 
or another from January 2015-November 8, 2016.
    During that entire time did you guys ever work with Russia 
to impact the election?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Jordan. You know what's interesting, Mr. Lewandowski? 
When Jim Comey was asked that same question, sitting at that 
same table, he gave the same answer. When Bob Mueller was asked 
that same question, sitting at that same table, he gave the 
same answer.
    Falsely accused, the President is falsely accused of 
colluding with a foreign State to impact the election. Jim 
Comey, when we deposed him at that very table, said after 10 
months of investigation we didn't have a thing. Bob Mueller 
gets named special counsel, he wastes $30 million of taxpayer 
money, 22-months investigation, he sits at that table just a 
few weeks ago and gives the same darn answer.
    These guys over here, they don't care. They don't care. 
They don't want to get to what Mr. Chabot said, they don't want 
to figure out how the false accusation happened. They just want 
to drag people in front of this Committee and keep trying to 
find some way they can go after the President.
    Let's go back to the process that the Ranking Member 
raised.
    Did you testify in front of the Senate Intel Committee in 
2017?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Did you testify in front of the House 
Intelligence Committee in 2017?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. You went before the Special Counsel and 
answered his questions in 2018. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It is.
    Mr. Jordan. You did that all voluntarily?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. No subpoena?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Said, I'm willing to comply, give answers, 
answer all the questions you got.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. I think in your opening statement you said 20-
some--how many hours did you sit in front of those various 
committees?
    Mr. Lewandowski. More than 20.
    Mr. Jordan. More than 20 hours.
    For this Committee, did you get a letter from this 
Committee back in March asking you to comply with certain 
document requests that Chair Nadler wanted to have.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Your legal team complied with that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Then, on June 24 you got another letter. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. June 24 of this year you got another letter 
asking you to do an interview, a transcribed interview in front 
of the Committee. Your lawyer contacted Chair Nadler and said, 
we'd be happy to do that. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Said, give us some dates, we'll come in, we'll 
be happy to sit for an interview.
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's right.
    Mr. Jordan. What happened next?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Next, about 5 weeks ago, the Committee 
issued a subpoena for my appearance.
    Mr. Jordan. So, you were willing to come voluntarily, just 
like you did with Senate Intel, House Intel, just like you did 
for Bob Mueller, for the special counsel, 20-some hours, you're 
willing to do that all. You complied with when they asked you 
for certain documents. Then, when they want you to come in for 
an interview said, all right, sure, we'll do it, they hit you 
with a subpoena.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Correct.
    Mr. Jordan. Then, they start calling you names, saying 
close up that book, answer the question, start treating you 
this way. Kind of interesting. They're the ones that started 
it. They're the ones that slapped you with a subpoena when you 
were willing to come here voluntarily.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I was.
    Mr. Jordan. Then, they questioned the demeanor you bring 
here today.
    I mean, first they changed the rules last week, in the 
middle of the Congress, changed the rules of the Committee in 
the middle of the game. Then, today they're not even going to 
follow the rules because the rules they changed last week talk 
about staff asking questions after Members are done. We got 
this whole issue with consultants.
    Maybe we would be better served if we did exactly what Mr. 
Chabot said. Maybe we would be better served as the House 
Judiciary Committee if we actually focused on how this whole 
false accusation started in the first place.
    What do you think, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think it would be a great idea.
    Mr. Jordan. Great idea. Maybe the American people would be 
better served than spending more time investigating something 
that's already had 32 months of investigation, from both Jim 
Comey and the FBI, and Bob Mueller and the special counsel, 
maybe we would do that.
    You know a great place to start, a great place to start, 
Mr. Chair? I asked you about this one week ago today. A great 
place to start would be the Inspector General's report that was 
issued just 3 weeks ago, the scathing report about Jim Comey. 
That would be a nice place to start.
    When I asked the Chair when we might have an opportunity to 
question Mr. Horowitz, he said, ``I don't know, I haven't 
thought about that.''
    Of course, you haven't thought about that. Too busy trying 
to impeach the President. Too busy slapping subpoenas on Corey 
Lewandowski. Of course, you haven't thought about that. That's 
what the Committee should be focused on.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you are about like a fish being cleaned 
with a spoon, it's very hard to get an answer out of you.
    Let me ask you this, sir. Based on the President's past 
statements, everybody knows that the President does not like 
for anybody to take notes when he's talking. In fact, he asks 
lawyers not to take official notes. You're aware of that, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm aware of the public accounts, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Fair enough. When the 
President met with you in the Oval Office one-on-one on June 
19, 2017, to dictate a message to Attorney General Jeff 
Sessions, he told you to, quote, ``Write this down.'' Isn't 
that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's accurate.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It was just you and the President 
in that meeting, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It was.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You knew that you needed to write 
down as fast as possible what the President was telling you so 
that you could make sure to capture the content of what he was 
telling you correctly, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know that speed of writing was a 
criterion, but I tried to capture it to the best of my ability, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, sir.
    He dictated to you exactly what he wanted you to put into 
the mouth of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe he asked me to deliver a message 
for Jeff to consider delivering himself.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It was a message that he intended 
for Jeff, meaning Jeff Sessions, to deliver out loud and 
publicly. He wanted the public to know what he was saying, but 
he wanted Jeff to say it, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe the Mueller report accurately 
depicts that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Lewandowski, we've projected on 
the screen the message that the President dictated to you that 
he wanted you to deliver to the Attorney General. It's on the 
screen and I'd like for you to read the first two sentences, if 
you would entertain that.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Oh, as Director Mueller stated, when asked 
to read from the report, and I quote, ``I would be happy to 
have you read it, Congressman.''
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No. Look on the--well, would you 
prefer for me to read it instead of you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Please.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. It says, ``I know that I 
recused myself from certain things having to do with specific 
areas. Our POTUS is being treated very unfairly.''
    That's what he told you to write down and that's what you 
wrote down. I'll continue.
    He said, ``he shouldn't have a special prosecutor counsel 
because he hasn't done anything wrong.''
    Now, that's what he wanted you to deliver to Attorney 
General Jeff Sessions, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's an accurate 
representation.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He wanted you to deliver it to Jeff 
so that Jeff could say it to the people, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe so.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You felt kind of squeamish, like 
that fish that you are trying to be right now being scaled, you 
felt a little squeamish about delivering that message, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, why didn't you--why did it 
take you so long and you never even delivered it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Correct, I never delivered the message.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah, you chickened out.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I went on vacation.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You went on vacation. So, you put 
the message in the safe, in your safe in your home for 
safekeeping, correct, before you went on vacation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I took my kids to the beach, Congressman. 
That was more of a priority.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. President Trump was hounding you 
about when are you going to deliver that message, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Completely inaccurate, Congressman.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, he asked you about it a few 
times, didn't he?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, he did not.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He never asked you whether or not 
you had delivered that message?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not on multiple occasions, no.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. One occasion, okay. He did mention 
it on one occasion to you.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know if that's in the report, sir, 
or not.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You told him that, yeah, I'm going 
to get around it, I'm going to deliver it, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'd have to see the reference to the 
Mueller report where that is, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It's in the report.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Would you direct me to the book and page 
so I can review that?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I don't need to waste any time with 
that.
    Let me tell you something. The next three sentences, after 
those first two, would you read those, please.
    Mr. Lewandowski. You're welcome to, Congressman.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. He said, ``he shouldn't have 
a special prosecutor or counsel because he hasn't done anything 
wrong. I was on the campaign with him for 9 months. There were 
no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact because I 
was there.''
    Now, the President wanted Attorney General to say that, but 
you didn't deliver the message. You knew that Attorney General 
Sessions had recused himself at that time. Since he had recused 
himself, you knew that it would have been against the law for 
him to comment in any way on that investigation. Isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did not know that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You did not know that? You did not 
know that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Correct.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from Colorado.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you for being here. Thank you for putting 
up with the harassment that you're putting up with right now.
    According to the Alliance for Securing Democracy, Russia 
interfered in the elections of Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, 
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, 
Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, 
Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the United States. They 
specifically targeted the Scottish independence vote, the 
Brexit vote, and Angela Merkel.
    Despite knowledge of these kinds of election threats, the 
Obama Administration sat idly by. Instead of warning the Trump 
campaign, Loretta Lynch's DOJ and James Comey's FBI used secret 
surveillance to spy on Members of the Trump campaign, all while 
allowing election interference to occur.
    Why isn't this hearing focused on holding DOJ and FBI 
leadership accountable for this kind of terrible malfeasance 
and lack of judgment?
    What was Putin's ultimate goal? Clint Watts, a former FBI 
agent and counterterrorism specialist, said it is to attack and 
undermine democracy. He said the goal is to leave voters 
feeling as if, quote, ``either the institutions are corrupt or 
you can't trust the vote,'' end of quote.
    This is the kind of classic disinformation campaign that 
the KGB runs. As we all know, Vladimir Putin was a former 
leader of the KGB.
    In 2016, Putin's goal could have been very simple: Divide 
the American electorate, sow seeds of distrust, make it 
impossible for whoever won our election to govern. With America 
weakened at home, we would be weakened on the international 
stage. Putin wins with a weakened America regardless of who won 
the election.
    This is the kind of approach that has been used by the 
communists in Russia for nearly a century. After overthrowing 
Russian Czar Nicholas II in 1917, Vladimir Putin--Vladimir 
Lenin--I'm sorry, a different Vladimir--and the communists 
utilized Western journalists as propaganda tools to defend 
communism. The New York Times journalist John Reed, for 
example, defended the Bolsheviks, advocating against American 
intervention. Lenin used even the term ``useful idiots'' to 
describe how leftist-leaning, communist-sympathizing Americans 
could be easily tricked and used to help the Russians.
    For the past 3 years, Democrats have focused on undermining 
America's President, instead of working with President Trump 
and Republicans in Congress to harden our election defenses. I 
think there would be broad bipartisan support that we need to 
prevent future election meddling. The Mueller report makes 
clear that President Trump wanted to focus on protecting our 
democracy from future attacks.
    So, I have one question, Mr. Lewandowski. It's clear that 
Putin attacked America with the goal of dividing the American 
people and today's hearing is being held for the sole purpose 
of attacking America's President, which will weaken our country 
on the international stage. Do you believe that Vladimir Putin 
is sitting in his office right now in the Kremlin laughing at 
what those on the other side of the aisle are doing and 
believing that those on the other side of the aisle are 
``useful idiots'' helping--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Objection. I have a Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady will state her Point of Order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have a Point of Order. According to the 
rules, and the rules of this Committee and the House rules, we 
cannot attribute derogatory names to our colleagues or motives 
to our colleagues. I believe the gentleman said those on the 
other side of the aisle are idiots.
    This is a very sacred and somber responsibility. I've taken 
an oath of office, my good friend, just like you did. I am 
concerned about the Constitution, just as you are. I would not 
engage in any behavior that could be described as idiot. Never 
in my life or my colleagues have we ever discussed behaving 
like idiots.
    Mr. Chair, that is an inappropriate terminology and 
description of the Members of this House or Republicans or 
Democrats no matter what position they are.
    Chair Nadler. I will overrule the Point of Order. The rules 
of decorum refer to motive. Calling someone an idiot is not 
flattering, but it does not go to motive.
    I believe we should have the most robust debate. I believe 
we should respect each other. I don't think we should--but I 
don't think that goes to motive, and, accordingly, I'm going to 
overrule the Point of Order.
    The gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Actually, I didn't call anybody an idiot, I said useful 
idiot. Secondly, I asked the Witness whether he believed that 
as part of Vladimir Putin's strategy, Vladimir Putin was being 
aided by useful idiots in America.
    Your answer, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I can't be sure to the 
motives of Vladimir Putin or the Russians who wanted to 
interfere with our election process in 2016.
    I can be certain of one thing: Donald Trump was a private 
citizen at the time and he had no more responsibility or 
authority to secure the integrity of the 2016 election cycle 
than I did. That responsibility fell to the intelligence 
community and the Obama-Biden Administration.
    They clearly failed. Never did they contact, under my 
tenure, me to inform me or anyone at the campaign at the time 
of any potential hacking which may have been transpiring. Never 
did they contact us to alert us of any potential security 
violations as it related to the election.
    So, I think Mr. Comey, Mr. Brennan, and Mr. Clapper 
ultimately own the responsibility as the head of intelligence 
community to understand why they did not do a better job of 
protecting the American electorate in 2016 to ensure we didn't 
have foreign interference.
    Mr. Buck. Mr. Lewandowski, had they contacted you, what 
would have been your response in terms of notifying others on 
the election in terms of their dealing with Russians?
    Mr. Lewandowski. We would have worked with them. I would 
have recommended working through counsel to work with them to 
notify them of any potential contacts, which I don't ever 
recall having, but if we would have had any, I would have made 
sure we notified the appropriate authorities immediately.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, I just want to follow up on Mr. Johnson. 
The Mueller report, volume II, page 90, says: One month later--
this is a month after your June 19 meeting, presumably after 
you returned from vacation--the President met again with 
Lewandowski, followed up on the request to have Sessions limit 
the scope of the Russia investigation just to clarify that he 
did do that.
    I want to go back to that meeting on June 19. The President 
asked you to write down word for word a script that he wanted 
the Attorney General of the United States to deliver. Isn't 
that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry, can you just give me the 
reference again, Congressman?
    Mr. Deutch. Well, let me do this. Previously you testified, 
because it's reported in the Mueller report, that the President 
asked Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions and write 
this down. This is page 91. This was the first time the 
President asked him to take dictation. He wrote as fast as 
possible.
    The notes that you took at that meeting are on the screen.
    If you could--I don't know that the notes are--I'm going to 
read the section of the notes that you took that were--again, 
this is what you were asked to deliver to the Attorney General 
of the United States to announce in public:

        I know I recused myself from certain things having to do with 
        specific areas. But our POTUS . . . is being treated very 
        unfairly. He shouldn't have a special prosecutor counsel 
        because he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign 
        with him for 9 months. There were no Russians involved with 
        him, I know for a fact, because I was there. He didn't do 
        anything wrong except run the greatest campaign in American 
        history.

That's from page 91. That's, again, that's what President Trump 
wanted the Attorney General to say in public about the special 
counsel's investigation. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's an accurate 
representation.
    Mr. Deutch. So, this is in June of 2017. You said that you 
didn't know about the Attorney General being barred from 
participating, speaking out about the Russia investigation.
    The public didn't know about all these attempts to 
influence the investigation at that time. What we did know, 
what everyone knew, Mr. Lewandowski, was that the President's 
campaign was under investigation, and they knew the Attorney 
General couldn't touch it because he was a major part of the 
campaign, he advised on national security matters, and back in 
March he had recused himself from anything having to do with 
the investigation.
    You weren't aware of that at all, what he did in March and 
the fact that he had recused himself?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I was aware of the Attorney General's 
recusal.
    Mr. Deutch. So, when the President asked you to deliver a 
speech that he wanted the Attorney General, who could not 
participate in the investigation, couldn't talk about anything 
having to do with the investigation, he recused himself, when 
the President asked you to deliver that word for word speech 
for him, that there was no inconsistency with that and the fact 
that the Attorney General had recused himself, you knew that he 
had, and you knew that he couldn't participate in any way?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm not an attorney, Congressman.
    Mr. Deutch. I'm not asking you as an attorney. I am, but 
that's not why I'm asking you. I'm just asking you, if you knew 
that he had recused himself--you did, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm the aware of the public reports that 
Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation.
    Mr. Deutch. By recusing himself you're aware of the public 
reports and what was in his recusal statement on March 2, 2017, 
that he wasn't going to participate in any existing or future 
investigations of any matters relating to the campaign for 
President. You knew that was out there.
    So, when the President asked you to specifically go in 
there and ask him to deliver a speech which was contrary to 
that, forget about being a lawyer, did it strike you as off in 
any way or were you concerned in any way?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Deutch. Was it the right decision for Sessions to 
recuse himself?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, I can't comment on Jeff Sessions' 
decision-making process.
    Mr. Deutch. So, here's what he did. The script says a group 
of people want to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to meet 
with the special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and 
let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating 
election meddling for future elections so that nothing can 
happen in future elections.
    The President, you'll agree, was trying to force the 
investigation to focus only on the future so it didn't focus on 
him. Isn't that right, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't agree to that.
    Mr. Deutch. That's not, when you look only in the future 
and you're not allowed to look at the one investigation into 
the President, that's not how you interpret that? You interpret 
it differently?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think that could be your interpretation.
    Mr. Deutch. It is, I think it's an obvious interpretation. 
If we had more time, I'd ask what yours is.
    I'll just close with this. A month--he asked you to do 
this, he brought you in to talk to the Attorney General because 
the President was terrified, Mr. Lewandowski. A month before 
your meeting the special counsel was appointed and the 
President said, oh, my God, this is terrible.
    He wanted you to pressure the Attorney General, someone who 
wasn't even allowed to talk about the investigation, to block 
him from looking at his own conduct. Mr. Lewandowski, that's 
abuse of power.
    As we go on through this investigation, I hope you'll be 
able to further elaborate on how you could have seen this in 
any other light than the obvious way the President attempted to 
abuse his power.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The Witness 
may answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, welcome to what my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have alternatively described and argued over 
the past week is an impeachment inquiry, an impeachment 
investigation, an impeachment probe, and an impeachment 
proceeding.
    Now, if you're confused which one, I assure you, you're not 
alone. A lot of the folks that are watching today might be 
confused because they might be thinking that impeachment 
proceedings are supposed to be initiated after a vote by the 
full House of Representatives, and they'd be right. The 
Democrats, now the party of impeachment, tried three times and 
failed miserably three times, twice before the Mueller report 
and then once again after the Mueller report.
    So, last week the party of impeachment, which is in charge 
of this Committee, changed our rules so that they could get to 
impeachment in a different way. Mr. Lewandowski, you're lucky 
you're the first Witness for the party of impeachment's new 
impeachment procedure.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I feel very lucky. Thank you.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. You should.
    Now, I know that you've testified before the House, before 
the Senate, and before the special counsel. In fairness, Mr. 
Lewandowski, that's when my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle were promising the American people that there was going 
to be impeachment by collusion, or impeachment by conspiracy, 
which of course didn't exist, and the special counsel said it 
didn't exist.
    So, then they had to shift and say, well, now it's going to 
be impeachment by obstruction of justice. Remember that they 
promised, they promised that Special Counsel Mueller was going 
to breathe life into impeachment by objection of justice, but 
instead he put it to death. I don't know if you remember, but I 
asked him, can you give me an example other than Donald Trump 
where the Justice Department determined that an investigated 
person was not exonerated because their innocence was not 
conclusively determined? His answer was, I cannot. Do you 
remember that?
    So, as it turns out all 200, nearly 200 pages of the 
Mueller report and the analysis in volume II of obstruction of 
justice was done under a legal standard and legal burden of 
proof that is not recognized and ever been used before in 
American jurisprudence. The party of impeachment, they're going 
to gloss over that today.
    They're also going to gloss over the fact that the 
inspector general criminally referred the FBI Director who 
leaked the information to get the special counsel in the first 
place and the same inspector general who found that facts 
establishing that that same FBI Director was, in fact, 
targeting Donald Trump at the same time in an investigation 
where he said he wasn't investigating Donald Trump.
    Now, you might think that this Committee would be 
interested in hearing from that Inspector General for the first 
time rather than hearing from you for the fourth time.
    Maybe you can be helpful, because the party of impeachment, 
they don't care, Mr. Lewandowski, what kind of impeachment you 
can deliver for them. There are 135 Democrats and Socialists in 
the House of Representatives that that have publicly come out 
for impeachment. They're in agreement the President needs to be 
impeached.
    The problem is they have come up with more than a dozen 
different reasons that they're arguing about are the basis for 
that impeachment. We've talked about impeachment by collusion. 
We've talked about impeachment by conspiracy. We've talked 
about impeachment by obstruction of justice. Let's cover a few 
more. Impeachment under the Emoluments Clause.
    Did the first and only President rich enough to largely 
self-fund a successful Presidential campaign ever admit to you 
that he secretly ran for President to get rich?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
    Mr. Lewandowski. He's already very rich.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you have any information or evidence, Mr. 
Lewandowski, about crimes the President committed for ignoring 
congressional subpoenas as a basis of impeachment?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do not.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. How about dangling pardons? Do you know if 
the President, did he ever admit or say to you that he would 
pardon anybody in law enforcement who was trying to enforce or 
protect our territorial borders?
    Mr. Lewandowski. At the request of the White House, I can't 
discuss private conversations that may or may not occur with 
the President.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, how about this one? How about 
impeachment by using a Sharpie on a hurricane weather map? Did 
the President ever admit or say to you that he intentionally 
committed an impeachable high crime by magic marker as some of 
my Democratic colleagues are contending?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, Congressman, I can't discuss any 
private conversation I may have had with the President.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm sorry, you're, frankly, not being 
helpful at all, Mr. Lewandowski. Maybe you don't understand 
that the party of impeachment, they're not picky at all. They 
don't even care if you don't have impeachment--if you've got 
anything on Donald Trump.
    How about on Justice Kavanaugh? Because this morning now 
they say they want to impeach Justice Kavanaugh. Have you got 
anything that supports impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh?
    Mr. Lewandowski. He's a good man.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, listen, I know you're disappointed 
that you've only been here four times, but don't you think that 
there isn't going to be another opportunity, because this 
Committee has become the search party for impeachment, and they 
are going to bring back anybody, as much as they have to find 
something, anything, to keep this impeachment hoax alive.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back 15 seconds over 
time.
    The gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, I want to follow up from my colleague 
here, Mr. Deutch.
    It's clear that the President was desperate for you to 
deliver the message to Sessions. Everyone else had said no, and 
he went to great lengths to make sure that you'd be effective 
in delivering it. After the President dictated the message, he 
told you to tell the Attorney General that he would be the most 
popular guy in the country if he delivered that message to 
limit the investigation to the future. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Could you reference me to that in the 
report, please?
    Ms. Bass. Yes, it's in volume II, page 92. So, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'd like to reference that.
    Ms. Bass. While you're looking, I'm going to move on.
    So, the President is telling you how to convince Sessions 
to do it--it's page 92, first paragraph--to tell Sessions that 
he'd be the most popular guy in the country if he did what the 
President ordered. The President picked you for a reason, 
because he knew that you had the traits of an enforcer and 
described yourself as his, quote, ``loyal soldier.'' This was 
no exception.
    Did you find it now?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have it here, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Bass. Ninty-two.
    Okay, so the Attorney General, that he would be the most 
popular guy in the country if he delivered that message. Do you 
see that on page 92?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do.
    Ms. Bass. So, is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe it's accurate.
    Ms. Bass. You told the President that you understood what 
he wanted Session to do. Is that what you told the special 
counsel? Same page. You did understand what the President 
wanted. He knew not to create a trail.
    So, looking at the slide, ``Lewandowski wanted to pass the 
message to Sessions in person rather than on the phone.'' Where 
is that? After you left the Oval Office, you didn't schedule an 
official meeting with Sessions. Instead, you called the 
Attorney General at home, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's what's in the report?
    Ms. Bass. You told Sessions you wanted to meet in person 
rather than on the phone. You could have just read the message 
from the President over the phone, but you knew that it would 
make it harder to persuade Sessions to do what you wanted. So, 
you wanted to meet with him in person, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's what the report states, yes.
    Ms. Bass. So, the Attorney General works at the Department 
of Justice, but you told the special counsel that you didn't 
want to meet in the Department of Justice because you knew that 
if you went into a government building that there is a public 
log of the visit, and you specifically told the special counsel 
that you did not want to, quote, ``a public log of your 
visit.'' Isn't that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's accurate.
    Ms. Bass. So, why is that? Why didn't you want to leave a 
paper trial for your visit?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, Jeff and I are friends socially, and 
I wanted to have the opportunity to have a meal with Jeff and 
relay the conversation which the President asked me to ask Jeff 
to consider giving.
    Ms. Bass. So, if that was the case, then why was there a 
problem with you having to do it in secret, essentially? I 
mean, it was a very important message you were delivering from 
the President, and it was a message that could certainly be 
viewed as completely inappropriate considering that you were 
not even an employee of the White House.
    You're a private citizen. You're delivering a message to 
the Attorney General to limit the investigation. So, if you 
didn't think you were doing anything wrong, then why would it 
matter that there was a public log?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I wanted to have the opportunity to speak 
with Jeff in a more relaxed atmosphere and have a meal with him 
to have the conversation.
    Ms. Bass. Well, you said that another reason for not 
meeting at the DOJ was because you, quote, ``did not want 
Sessions to have an advantage over you by meeting on Sessions' 
turf.'' Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's right. I wanted to have a private 
conversation in a more relaxed atmosphere.
    Ms. Bass. So, again, if this was an appropriate message to 
deliver and if it was just about that, why would it matter 
whose turf it was on? Why couldn't you go to his office, you're 
his friend, why couldn't you go to his office and meet with him 
there?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I suppose I could have, but I chose to--I 
wanted to have a discussion with Jeff as we have had so many 
occasions before that.
    Ms. Bass. Exactly. I mean, I believe--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Never inside the Department of Justice.
    Ms. Bass. I believe that Sessions knew that it was wrong, 
and that Sessions canceled his meeting with you. If you guys 
were good friends, why would he have bothered to cancel it? Did 
he call you up to reschedule it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That would be a question for Jeff 
Sessions.
    Ms. Bass. Well, after you testified--and you testified 
earlier that after the inauguration you didn't communicate with 
the Attorney General often, your good friend that you have 
dinner with. So, when you said that you had a message to 
deliver, isn't it fair to say that Sessions knew you were 
calling on behalf of the President and that message was from 
him?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have no idea what was in Jeff Sessions' 
mind.
    Ms. Bass. Well, to be clear, the Attorney General knew it 
was a message from the President and he still refused to meet 
with you.
    Mr. Lewandowski, it's clear to me that Sessions knew what 
we all know sitting here today, that what you were doing was 
wrong. He wanted nothing to do with your secret messages 
because he knew it was entirely improper for a private citizen 
to go behind the backs of the White House counsel and secretly 
meet with him somewhere, without any record of your meeting, on 
your turf, to try to persuade the Attorney General to protect 
the President from investigation into his own misconduct.
    Well, you can't protect anymore. I'm glad that this 
misconduct can finally be brought to public attention so that 
the President can be held accountable.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Witness has requested a short recess. The Committee 
will resume in 5 minutes. The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will reconvene.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, is recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Well, the Mueller report was supposed to be the end all, be 
all, the great groundswell of support for impeachment, ensuring 
that Americans would want to tar and feather the President, run 
him out of Washington on a rail, deprive the American people of 
the President that they duly elected.
    Well, that didn't turn out to be the case. So, then it was 
all about bringing the Attorney General Bill Barr. He was 
certainly going to point out the inconsistencies and flaws in 
the analysis.
    Well, that didn't happen, because the majority wanted to 
insist that their unelected staff ask questions of the Attorney 
General of the United States. No, they said, we'll go to court, 
we'll win, we'll force Bill Barr and Don McGahn to come and 
testify.
    They're not winning in court. They're not here. It's a 
joke.
    For the last 4 months, the path the majority has taken us 
on has rambled from disorganized to just downright dizzying. In 
June, Speaker Pelosi said the House Democratic Caucus was, and 
I'm quoting, ``not even close to an impeachment inquiry.'' That 
was to CNN.
    In July, House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler said, quote, 
``An impeachment inquiry is when you consider only impeachment. 
That's not what we're doing. We're investigating all of this.''
    Then, in August, in a CNN interview, Nadler said, ``this is 
a formal impeachment proceeding.''
    Then, in September, when asked if the Democrats are engaged 
in an impeachment inquiry, the House Majority Leader, Steny 
Hoyer, answered, no.
    It was the gentlelady from Washington who said just 
recently, Ms. Jayapal, we have been in the midst of an 
impeachment investigation. She said that to Politico. Then, in 
the very same story, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Himes, 
said, ``no, we're not in an impeachment investigation.''
    Then, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gregory Meeks said, 
when asked if the House was investigating impeachment, he said, 
``well, maybe there's--we don't know whether an impeachment 
investigation has begun.''
    It's just dizzying.
    Last week, it was the Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry 
Nadler who said, ``what we're doing is very clear, it's been 
very clear, it continues to be very clear. The Speaker has 
backed us at every point along the way.''
    This process has been about as clear as Joe Biden's last 
answer to race relations that involved turning on the record 
player. We don't know where we are or what we're doing.
    Now, Mr. Lewandowski, I am not allowed by House rules to 
impugn the motives of my colleagues or to speculate as to what 
might be animating this bizarre circumstance. Those rules don't 
apply to you.
    So, Mr. Lewandowski, do you have a thought as to why we 
continue to engage in a charade that is overwhelmingly opposed 
by the American people and fundamentally misunderstood by my 
Democrat colleagues?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No Congressman, I think they hate this 
President more than they love their country.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Lewandowski, you were the campaign manager 
for the President's campaign when the Obama-Biden 
Administration was notified that there might be efforts by the 
Russians to interfere with our election. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Can you describe for us the briefing you got as 
the campaign manager to ensure that our system was resilient 
and American democracy was protected?
    Mr. Lewandowski. There was no briefing provided by anybody 
from the Obama-Biden Administration, members of the 
intelligence community, or the FBI to our campaign when I was 
present or during my tenure as the campaign manager.
    Mr. Gaetz. That's just baffling to me. I mean, our 
democracy is so precious, we have to cherish it, we have to 
protect it. Yet, when the Obama-Biden Administration knew that 
there might be nefarious efforts to interfere or co-opt or in 
any way disturb or democracy they didn't say anything to you.
    Now, as you sit here today, having watched these facts 
unfold, do you have any rationale as to why maybe the Clapper, 
Brennan, Comey, Obama-Biden team didn't want to give the Trump 
campaign a fair defensive briefing about the threats that we 
were facing?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It's actually unfathomable to me that they 
didn't contact a major political nominee for President of the 
United States and inform them of potential threats against the 
election process in 2016.
    Mr. Gaetz. We could be finding that out now. I mean, we 
could have those people before our Committee to figure out what 
in the world happened that didn't allow us to get those 
answers.
    One final question for you, Mr. Lewandowski. Has an 
inspector general employed by the United States Government ever 
accused you of breaking the law?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. No. They have done that with James Comey. Yet, 
the leadership of this Committee will not bring James Comey 
before even though the inspector general said that his work 
impaired the credibility and efforts of over 35,000 FBI agents 
and the brave people fighting for our country.
    It's a shame that you're here, Mr. Lewandowski. Jim Comey 
should be sitting in that chair. He should be answering 
questions about why he did so much damage to the FBI and our 
country, including not giving you the briefing that you were 
entitled to.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
    Before I begin, let me remind you, Mr. Lewandowski, that 
this is not a Republican primary campaign. You are not on the 
campaign trail yet. This is the House Judiciary Committee. Act 
like you know the difference.
    You've never worked for the Trump White House in any 
official capacity, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's right.
    Mr. Jeffries. You do speak with President Trump with some 
regularity, true?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think that's a fair statement.
    Mr. Jeffries. In fact, during the summer of 2017, according 
to testimony to the special counsel, you were summoned to the 
White House by President Trump on at least two occasions, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe the report says that, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Well, you meet with the President one-
on-one on June 19, 2017, and then again on July 19, 2017, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, I believe that's accurate.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Let's try to get some clarity on what 
exactly you do for Donald Trump since you're not a government 
employee.
    You stated during the 2016 Republican National Convention 
that, I got the reputation as a tough guy, that's my 
reputation. Do you recall making that statement, Mr. 
Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. It's in the public record.
    Your job is to be Donald Trump's political enforcer, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, I don't believe so.
    Mr. Jeffries. Let me ask the question another way. Are you 
the hit man, the bag man, the lookout, or all the above?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think, I'm the good-looking man, 
actually.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
    President Trump told you on June 19, 2017, to personally 
deliver a message to Attorney General Sessions that would have 
ended the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe that's what the Mueller 
report states, no.
    Mr. Jeffries. President Trump wanted Attorney General 
Sessions to limit the special counsel's investigation to future 
incidents of election foreign interference, true?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Which page is that on, Congressman?
    Mr. Jeffries. That's in the public record. It's in this 
hearing. It's in the Mueller report.
    Now, the White House has a legal protocol for Presidential 
statements. Under the Presidential Records Act they must 
preserve all memos, letters, emails, papers, like the note he 
dictated to you.
    So, you wrote down the President's message, which you then 
stored in a safe in your home. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. You told the special counsel that was 
your standard procedure with sensitive items, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Where is that referenced in the report--
    Mr. Jeffries. Volume II, page 92, a matter of public 
record.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Let me just reference that. One second, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Jeffries. You don't have to reference it.
    The President asked you--
    Mr. Lewandowski. You said page 90, Congressman?
    Mr. Jeffries. The President asked you to--reclaiming my 
time--the President asked you to record a message from him on 
June 19, because he wanted to hide his message from eventual 
disclosure. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. You never delivered the message to Jeff 
Sessions after that June 19 meeting, true?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's accurate.
    Mr. Jeffries. Instead, you testified that you went on 
vacation, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did.
    Mr. Jeffries. How long pass your vacation, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Oh, it was lengthy. I think at least 2 
weeks.
    Mr. Jeffries. At least 2 weeks. You were summoned again to 
the White House on July 19, 30 days after the original June 19 
meeting, true?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate, yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. So, you weren't on vacation the entire time, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Oh, I didn't say I was on vacation the 
entire time. I was on vacation for 2 weeks, Congressman.
    Mr. Jeffries. Right. You still failed to deliver the 
message and it had nothing do, at least in part, to your so-
called vacation.
    Now, the July 19 meeting occurred just a few days after new 
information came to light about Russian operatives meeting with 
high-level Trump campaign officials.
    When you're summoned to the White House after that July 19 
meeting, by that time you still hadn't delivered the message to 
Jeff Sessions. You said to the President you would you do it 
soon, according to volume II, page 93, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's what the report says, that's 
accurate.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. President Trump also asked you to 
deliver a message to Attorney General Sessions that if he 
didn't do what was requested, he would be fired, correct? 
Volume II, page 93.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think that's what was reported, yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. President Trump wanted you to 
intimidate Attorney General Sessions, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. You'd have to President Trump that.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. You stated earlier today that President 
Trump asked you to take down dictation, quote, ``many times.'' 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It is.
    Mr. Jeffries. On page 91, volume II of the Mueller report 
it states, quote, ``The President then asked Lewandowski to 
deliver a message to Sessions,'' and said, quote, ``write this 
down,'' close quote. This was the first time the President had 
asked Lewandowski to take direct dictation.'' The first time.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Those are not my words, Congressman. Those 
are the investigators' words.
    Mr. Jeffries. Right. Did you lie to Bob Mueller or are you 
lying to us?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I didn't lie.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. You're not really here to tell the 
truth. You are here to participate in a continuing coverup. 
Russia interfered with this election in sweeping and systematic 
fashion. The Trump campaign welcomed that assistance at the 
highest level. There were subsequent acts of obstruction of 
justice with respect to the investigation.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Jeffries. The American people deserve to know the 
truth.
    Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman--
    Mr. Collins. I think that was 19 seconds over, to help you, 
Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, my colleague Mr. Jeffries just started 
that last lining of question with sort of an admonition to you. 
He said this is the House Judiciary Committee and not a 
political forum and it would be nice if you recognized that.
    I think it would be nice if all the Members of this 
Committee would recognize that, because that's the reason that 
this has turned into such a farce.
    It's been said so many times today this Committee is so 
important to the country. It has one of the broadest 
jurisdictions over so many critical issues that are facing the 
country. You referenced some of this in your opening statement. 
I, among many of my colleagues, are ready to get to that work 
for the American people.
    We're here today. There haven't been any fireworks. Oh, 
there's a lot of disappointed people around, operatives around 
the country who were really hoping that there'd be fireworks. 
We're not surprised at all.
    I have a couple of questions just for clarification for the 
record. First, is there anything that's been said here, any 
question that you've been asked about or something that you 
would like to provide further comment on, just to clarify the 
record?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. In questioning today, 
is the majority investigating any new allegation or issue or 
fact not already investigated by the House and Senate Intel 
Committees or the special counsel's office?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you have any more information 
on any other matter related to either collusion or obstruction 
that you can offer to this Committee that you have not already 
shared with Congress or the special counsel's office?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe I have any new 
information.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In your prior testimony to the 
special counsel, is it true that you answered every question 
asked of you truthfully and to the best of your ability and 
your recollection?
    Mr. Lewandowski. To the best of my recollection, I did 
answer truthfully, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A couple of things just for 
further clarification. We're afraid that some of this record 
will be obscured today, so let me just--these will be just 
quick, rapid fire.
    Do you agree there is no evidence the President intended to 
obstruct justice?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you agree that the President 
has been harassed politically since the day he took office?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you agree that the President's 
supporters have received vastly different treatment than the 
supporters of Hillary Clinton?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Unequivocally.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You've called this a witch hunt, 
and I wonder if you'd like to elaborate on that any further.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think that this fake Russia collusion 
narrative is the greatest crime committed against the American 
people in our generation, if not ever.
    This is a President who was duly elected by the American 
people, and Members of certain bodies refuse to accept those 
election results. If this were done by a different President, 
to a different party, the same way it was done to Donald Trump, 
that person would already be thrown out of office and people 
would be in jail.
    When you support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama there is 
a different set of rules. I think the American people find it 
very unfair. There's been no accountability at the highest 
levels of the government for the FISA abuse applications which 
transpired, the spying on Americans clearly in violation of the 
Fourth Amendment, or the lives that were ruined because they 
simply wanted to support a candidate for President of the 
United States, and I think it's shameful.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We do as well, and that's a 
pretty good recitation of some of the issues that are keeping 
us up at night.
    Part of thing that we're greatly concerned about is the 
American people's distrust now of our institutions. When people 
begin to doubt that the rule of law actually applies equally, 
that justice really is blind in this country, then we reach 
somewhat of a tipping point. It's very difficult to put that 
genie back in the bottle.
    We're concerned, I know the Republicans and the 
conservatives on this Committee are deeply concerned about the 
eroding faith in our institutions.
    I'm thankful that you've come to take the hostile fire 
today. I commend you for that. I commend you for your story, 
being self-made. One of the things I'm also concerned about is 
young people who are watching this who may have a disincentive 
to get into politics and to serve their country in this way 
because of this abuse that they've suffered.
    I yield to Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Real quick, Mr. Lewandowski. Do you know why you didn't get 
a defensive briefing from the FBI?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do not.
    Mr. Jordan. I got a good idea. I think they were trying to 
trap the President.
    Page 17 of the inspector general's report points this out. 
January 6, 2017, they go up to the Trump Tower when it's 
President-elect Trump and they're trying to set him up about a 
pending investigation. All the while Mr. Comey's been telling 
the President, you're not under investigation.
    Of course, they didn't give you a defensive briefing during 
the campaign or even up until that date because they were 
trying to set him up. We can't ask about that, because Mr. 
Nadler hasn't even thought about when he's going to bring Mr. 
Horowitz in to answer our questions. He'd rather subpoena you 
even though you're willing to come voluntarily. That's the 
problem.
    I thank the gentleman for his good line of questions. I 
thank him for yielding. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, 
and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Rhode Island.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, in between your first meeting on June 19 
and your second meeting with the President on July 19 you went 
on vacation. Also, during that time there was public reporting 
about the Trump Tower meeting, correct? This is on page 92.
    Mr. Lewandowski. If it's in the report, I believe it to be 
accurate.
    Mr. Cicilline. On July 19 when the President, for a second 
time, asked you to deliver the message to Sessions you said, 
and I quote, ``The message would be delivered soon.'' Page 93. 
Correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Page 93?
    Mr. Cicilline. You didn't. You didn't call Jeff Sessions, 
you didn't try to meet with him.
    So, the President asked you twice in the Oval Office to 
deliver a secret message to the Attorney General of the United 
States, a message that you quickly wrote down word for word at 
the President's direction, correct? Sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe I wrote it down.
    Mr. Cicilline. When you worked for the President during his 
campaign, did you ever ignore or disobey directions from 
candidate Trump?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I didn't believe it to be an order.
    Mr. Cicilline. Just to be clear, although you were not 
working for the President in any capacity, you wanted to give 
the President the impression that you were going to follow his 
orders, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Cicilline. Well, you said, ``I'm going to take care of 
it.''
    Mr. Lewandowski. Is that referenced in the report?
    Mr. Cicilline. Did you tell the President you were going to 
deliver the message?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't comment on private conversations 
with the President--
    Mr. Cicilline. Okay. Sir, it's on page--
    Mr. Lewandowski. --to preserve Executive privilege.
    Mr. Cicilline. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I could read you the exact statement 
again, if you'd like me to.
    Mr. Cicilline. So, you're in the Oval Office--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I said, the White House has directed that 
I do not disclose the substance of any discussions with the 
President or his advisers to protect Executive branch 
confidentiality.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Lewandowski, reclaiming my time. You're 
not going to stonewall me in my questioning.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Would you like me to answer your question?
    Mr. Cicilline. Your head must have been spinning. You're 
here with the President of the United States in the Oval 
Office, he's directing you to deliver a message to the chief 
law enforcement officer in the United States which you 
understood would effectively end the ongoing investigation into 
this President and his campaign.
    So, you told the President that the message would be 
delivered soon. This is on page 93--you immediately following 
the meeting with the President, you gave Dearborn the message 
the President had dictated to be delivered to Sessions, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's what the report says.
    Mr. Cicilline. You didn't tell the President that you'd 
already asked Dearborn to deliver the message. You just said it 
would be delivered soon. This is on page 92, correct? It's on 
page 92.
    You didn't want to tell the President that you were passing 
off his message to someone else, did you? You knew he wanted 
you, someone he had described as his enforcer, a loyal soldier, 
to do it, because the President trusted you. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a question for the President, sir.
    Mr. Cicilline. Then, why didn't you then deliver this 
message to Mr. Dearborn--to Jeff Sessions directly? Why did you 
give it to Mr. Dearborn to do?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think I have testified I was out of 
town.
    Mr. Cicilline. For 2 weeks?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't live in town, Congressman.
    Mr. Cicilline. Okay. Did you, Mr. Lewandowski--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Unlike you, sir, I don't live in town.
    Mr. Cicilline. During your second meeting in the Oval 
Office, the President told you that if Sessions wouldn't meet 
with you, to tell him he was fired.
    Did you, Mr. Lewandowski, ever threaten the Attorney 
General that if he didn't meet with you, he would be fired?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Cicilline. Did you tell Mr. Dearborn to tell Sessions 
that he would be fired if he didn't take this meeting as the 
President directed?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, the White House has directed 
I do not disclose the substance of any discussions with the 
President or his advisers to protect Executive branch 
confidentiality.
    Mr. Cicilline. You reason you didn't tell the President 
that was because you know that it was wrong. The President--
isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Cicilline. Well, the President wasn't aware that you 
ignored his directive to tell Jeff Sessions he was fired if he 
didn't meet with you, was he?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry, what was the question?
    Mr. Cicilline. I'll move on.
    In fact, to prove to the Attorney General that the threat 
was real, 4 days later, on July 22, the President directed 
Priebus, his chief of staff, to obtain Sessions' resignation. 
That's on the slide in front of you. The President told Priebus 
that he had to get Sessions to resign immediately. Did you know 
that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Cicilline. This evidence as a whole strongly suggests 
that the President was reinforcing to Sessions that his job was 
on the line, at the same time as the President believed you 
were delivering the message to end the investigation into the 
2016 campaign.
    All of this made everyone very uncomfortable, including Mr. 
Dearborn, which is on page 93, and he told you that he was 
uncomfortable being a messenger to Sessions, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Cicilline. Well, were you aware when you asked Rick 
Dearborn to deliver this message to the Attorney General on 
behalf of the President of the United States it created the 
same legal culpability for you as had you delivered the message 
yourself? Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, the President didn't ask me 
to do anything illegal and he never asked me to keep anything a 
secret.
    Mr. Cicilline. Are you aware that when you asked Mr. 
Dearborn to deliver this message to end the investigation and 
just focus on future investigations, you thought you were 
protecting yourself, but you were, in fact, committing a crime?
    Rick Dearborn knew delivering the message was wrong, you 
knew it was wrong. That's why even after being asked to deliver 
it and saying you'd handle it soon you passed it off to him and 
you never followed up.
    Guess what, I'd also think it's very, very wrong. In fact, 
I think the President asking a private citizen to try to scare 
his Attorney General into ending the investigation into the 
President's conduct is obstruction of justice, plain and 
simple.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired. The 
Witness may answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe there was a question.
    Chair Nadler. Very well.
    The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, thank you for being here today. You've 
come voluntarily. You've heard slanderous attacks on you. You 
had people refer to you as a gutted fish. You've had people 
refer to you as a chicken. You've had people imply that you're 
here to lie. That's unfortunate, and it's beneath this 
Committee, quite frankly. We're here--ostensibly, they tell me 
they want to hear the truth.
    You're here to tell the truth today, right, Mr. 
Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. In fact, you've given lots of testimony. You've 
told the truth repeatedly. I see a list of 302s when you were 
talking to the FBI, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Those 302s, they didn't record that. Those are 
afterward, after notes, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's right.
    Mr. Biggs. You gave testimony to the Intelligence 
Committees of both Houses, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did, yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah. So, here you sit here today. You gave 
testimony to--and you gave interviews, I think, roughly 20 
hours worth of interviews to the Mueller team, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. If we look at this Mueller report, we see your 
name in various places throughout the Mueller report, right? 
Fair enough?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've never read the report, but I think 
that's accurate, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. You're not unwise to not have read the report.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Nobody's actually read the report, but 
that's okay.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah, I've read the report.
    Mr. Lewandowski. You are the one. We've been looking for 
you.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah, I'm the one. Your name is all over this 
report. Oddly enough, when you were asked by a Member of the 
other side to look at volume II, page 86, and they wanted you 
to testify to it, you might be surprised, your name's not even 
mentioned on that page. Did you know that? You're not even 
mentioned there. They were asking you questions to comment 
about things where your name is not even there. Did you know 
that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. That same person then asked you to talk about 
pages 49-50 of volume II. Guess what? Guess whose names don't 
appear there? Yours. Did you know that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, I did not.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah, it's odd, isn't it? Odd, isn't it, that 
they would be asking you to comment on pages that you weren't 
even there.
    So, let's talk a little bit more about some of what Members 
of Congress have done. They've spent 2 years claiming, without 
evidence, that then-candidate Trump and the Trump campaign 
colluded with Russia.
    As a member of the campaign, you've responded today. How do 
you respond? Would you like to expand on that again today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. During my tenure at the campaign, 
Congressman, as I said in my opening statement, never do I 
believe I had any interaction with any foreign agents, foreign 
agencies, or foreign governments who were attempting to impact 
the outcome of the election.
    I've said very publicly, if anybody did attempt to impact 
the outcome of the election in an illegal manner, I hope they 
spend the rest of their lives in jail.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah. So, we know that on January 2019 on The 
Chris Matthews Show, a Member of this Committee was asked: Do 
you believe the President right now has been an agent of the 
Russians?
    Mr. Swalwell. That was me.
    Mr. Biggs. That Member said, yes. Chris Matthews followed 
up and said, an agent like in the 1940s working for a foreign 
power? That individual responded, he's working on behalf of the 
Russians, yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Still believe that.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will--the gentleman from--
    Mr. Biggs. Arizona's got the time.
    Chair Nadler. --Arizona has the time.
    Mr. Biggs. I'd like 10 seconds added back on if he's going 
to interrupt.
    Chair Nadler. You can have 10 seconds, in any event.
    Mr. Biggs. So, as a close friend, personal, and adviser of 
the President and member of the Trump campaign, how do you 
respond to that accusation by a Member of this Committee made 
months and months ago even before the Mueller report came out 
and said there was no collusion or coordination?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I find it beneath the dignity 
of the President of the United States to accuse somebody of 
that. While I didn't support President Obama when he was the 
President, didn't vote for him, I still wanted my country to be 
successful, so I wanted him to be successful. I think those 
faceless, baseless accusations against our President are 
unfounded and unwarranted.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I want to just cover the last little bit of 
this. We hear today lots of questions about a meeting you had 
with the President regarding Jeff Sessions and some note that 
was dictated to you. That was after Special Counsel Mueller was 
appointed, wasn't it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe it was, yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Did the President ask you to stop Mr. Mueller or 
to encourage Mr. Sessions to stop the Mueller investigation at 
any point?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I can't speak to or disclose 
the substance of discussions with the President or his 
advisers, to protect the Executive branch confidentiality.
    Mr. Biggs. I appreciate that, but I will tell you, in going 
through this report, there is no evidence, no indicia that the 
President ever asked that you or Mr. Sessions stop the Mueller 
investigation. In fact, the Mueller investigation went on 
unimpeded. Thousands of interviews, millions of documents.
    With that, my time is expired, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, I'm going to put a slide up, 
and it's the words that President Trump dictated to you on July 
19. Can you read what you wrote down?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm happy to have you read it, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Swalwell. Well, why don't you want to read it, Mr. 
Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think you should afford me the same 
privilege you afforded Director Mueller.
    Mr. Swalwell. Would you like to read it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No. You're welcome to read it.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are you ashamed of the words that you wrote 
down?
    Mr. Lewandowski. President Swalwell, I'm very happy of what 
I've written, but you're to read it if you'd like.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are you ashamed to read it out loud?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm not ashamed of anything in my life, 
Congressman. Are you?
    Mr. Swalwell. Then, why don't you read the words?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I've asked and answered your 
question.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, why won't you read the words 
aloud?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've asked and answered your question, 
Congressman. If you'd like to read the words, you're welcome 
to.
    Mr. Swalwell. Well, you were ashamed to read them out loud 
and you didn't deliver those words to the person the President 
asked you to. Did you have a consciousness of guilt?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have nothing to be guilty of, 
Congressman. Thank you.
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you still feel guilty today and that's why 
you can't read it out loud?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, you're welcome to read the 
words if you'd like.
    Mr. Swalwell. I just wonder why you can't.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have the capacity to, Congressman. I'll 
give you the privilege.
    Mr. Swalwell. You said the President did nothing wrong. Why 
can't you read those words right now? Why can't you read them 
aloud?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, tell me why you hold me to a 
different standard than previous Witnesses who sat here.
    Mr. Swalwell. I want to give you one more opportunity to 
clear up something you said earlier. You've said a number of 
times if it was in the Mueller report, it was accurate, except 
as it relates to you stating that this was the only time the 
President ever asked you to write something down. Are you 
saying that part is not accurate?
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    Mr. Swalwell. I'd ask to stop the clock while he confers 
with his lawyer.
    Chair Nadler. The clock will be stopped for 5 seconds.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Could I ask you the page and reference 
number on that, Congressman?
    Mr. Swalwell. Sure. It's page 91, lines 7 and 8. I will 
read it to you, ``This was the first time the President had 
asked Lewandowski to take dictation.''
    Are you saying that is not accurate?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm saying those aren't my words, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Swalwell. I'm asking you, was that the first time the 
President asked you to take dictation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've testified it's not the first time.
    Mr. Swalwell. So, this part would be inaccurate?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm saying I've taken dictation by the 
candidate and the President in the past.
    Mr. Swalwell. Have you ever put any words that the 
President asked to you write down before in a safe or was this 
the first time you had done that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe it's my standard operating 
procedure when taking notes, Congressman.
    Mr. Swalwell. So, every note that you take of the President 
you put in a safe? How big is the safe?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It's a big safe, Congressman. There are a 
lot of guns in there.
    Mr. Swalwell. Is this the first time you've ever put a 
secret message from the President that he wanted you to deliver 
to someone else in the safe?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe there's anything secret 
about the message. I was never told to keep the message secret.
    Mr. Swalwell. Is this the first time you ever put a message 
that the President asked you to deliver to someone else in the 
safe?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Swalwell. I want to go back to that day. Later, after 
the President asked you to deliver this message, he was 
interviewed by the New York Times. The next slide shows that he 
said: ``Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he 
was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he 
took the job; I would have picked someone else.''
    That's not what the President said to you during that 
meeting one-on-one in the Oval Office. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The White House has directed that I do not 
disclose the substance of any discussions with the President or 
his advisers, to protect Executive branch confidentiality.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chair, I'd like to stop the clock for a 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry. The clock will be stopped.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chair, I would like to request a ruling 
on the Witness' refusal to answer.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Lewandowski, when you refuse to answer 
these questions, you are obstructing the work of our Committee. 
You are also proving our point for the American people to see. 
The President is intent on obstructing our legitimate 
oversight. You are aiding him in that obstruction. I will 
remind you that article III of the impeachment against 
President Nixon was based on obstruction of Congress. You are 
instructed to answer the question.
    The clock will start again.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The clock will stop again. The gentleman will 
state his Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Collins. Is it correct--and I can repeat or you can let 
me see your little sheet there--that reference you made to 
Nixon was after a formal inquiry was put to the House and then 
brought back to the Judiciary Committee? Your statement is a 
little bit different than this. Just wanted to point out truth 
for the record.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Gaetz. I have a Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. First, that was not a Parliamentary inquiry. 
You didn't even ask anything.
    The gentleman will state his Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, did you just threaten to impeach Mr. 
Lewandowski, a private citizen?
    Chair Nadler. No. The plain import of what I said was that 
he is violating the law by refusing to answer these questions. 
The President is violating the law by instructing him and 
others not to answer these questions. Article III of the Nixon 
impeachment was based on this kind of obstruction of Congress 
by President Nixon.
    Mr. Gaetz. One further inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, does that mean then, 
pursuant to your statement, that this is an official 
impeachment that we're in?
    Chair Nadler. I have stated repeatedly that this Committee 
is--and we amended our rules to empower the Chair to designate 
specific hearings, which I did for this hearing--is pursuant to 
finding out--to determining whether we should vote Articles of 
Impeachment against the President. That's exactly what this is.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from California will continue.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, I'll ask you again. This, 
what's displayed on the slide is not what the President told 
you in that one-on-one meeting. Is that correct?
    Are you refusing to answer, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, Congressman. As I've explained in a 
letter from the White House dated September 16, 2019, to my 
attorney--
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, that letter--
    Mr. Lewandowski. --Mr. Lewandowski's conversations with the 
President and with senior advisers to the President are 
protected from disclosure--
    Mr. Swalwell. Can we stop the clock again for this 
obstructive behavior?
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, Point of Order, and I would ask 
the clock be stopped.
    Chair Nadler. The clock will be stopped, and the gentleman 
will state his Point of Order.
    Mr. Cicilline. My Point of Order, Mr. Chair, this Witness 
continues to obstruct the work of this Committee by refusing to 
answer questions. He's been ordered to do so by you. I ask that 
you adjudge him in contempt in these proceedings.
    Mr. Gaetz. Point of Order. That's not a proper 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Cicilline. It was a Point of Order. It wasn't a 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. I will take that under advisement.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will continue.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are you refusing to answer, yes or no?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I'm happy to answer your 
question, so let me have the privilege to do so.
    As explained below, Mr. Lewandowski's conversations with 
the President and with senior advisers to the President are 
protected from disclosure by long-settled principles protecting 
Executive branch confidentiality.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, that's not an answer.
    Mr. Chair--
    Mr. Lewandowski. As a result, the White House is directing 
Mr. Lewandowski not to provide information about such 
communications beyond the information provided in the portions 
of the report that have already been disclosed to the 
Committee.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has the time, not the Witness.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, I'm just asking, if you're 
not going to answer, just say it's a refusal to answer. We 
don't need to be read the instructions from the White House. 
So, I'm going to move on.
    In that New York Times interview hours after the President 
spoke to you, he never said, in fact, I just enlisted Mr. 
Lewandowski to deliver a secret message to the Attorney General 
for him to direct the special counsel to limit the 
investigation. He said to you something that he did not say 
just hours publicly. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have no idea what he said to the New 
York Times.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lewandowski, would you agree that 
delivering a secret message in the way that this President did, 
as a former law enforcement officer who's probably investigated 
gangs and mob-like behavior, that this is consistent with that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I take exception to your premise of the 
question it was a secret message.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Well, Mr. Lewandowski, welcome to the Judiciary Committee. 
You and the President are accused by the majority of a coverup 
of foreign collusion, but the Mueller team of partisans, try 
though they did, couldn't find any evidence of collusion. So, 
since you stand accused of this crime, I'm just kind of 
curious, how do you cover up a crime that never happened?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a great question, Congressman. I 
don't know the answer.
    Mr. McClintock. You've been watching the crux of the 
majority's case; is that the President asked you to suggest to 
the Attorney General that he should say the President is being 
treated unfairly and had done nothing wrong. Is that 
essentially the accusation against you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It seems to be, yes, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, I think the record is pretty clear. 
The President was being treated unfairly and he had done 
nothing wrong, yet it's upon this pretext the Democrats feel 
justified to invoke impeachment, the solemn power reserved to 
the Congress for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors. It is the power to nullify the constitutional 
election of the President of the United States, a decision made 
by the American people.
    Does that sound like an abuse of power in this case to you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It does.
    Mr. McClintock. Certainly, does to me too. For more than 3 
years now, our Nation has been torn apart by this monstrous lie 
that the President of the United States was a willing agent of 
a hostile foreign power.
    I'd like to ask you, where do you think this whole lie of 
Russian collusion started?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I don't have the facts on it, 
but I think when Inspector General Horowitz has the privilege 
of coming here and testifying, he'll testify that this began at 
the highest levels of the government and was perpetrated 
through the intelligence community to come up with a narrative 
of why Hillary Clinton lost the campaign as opposed to the real 
narrative of why Donald Trump won the campaign.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, this actually began before the 
election. Do you believe the U.S. Government, through its 
Justice and intelligence agencies, deliberately interfered with 
the 2016 Presidential election?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe there are Members of the 
Intelligence Community who have been referred for criminal 
referral for perjury and other crimes should be held 
accountable for using their badges and their guns to try and 
influence the election, spy on American citizens, in a clear 
violation of the Fourth Amendment, and falsifying FISA 
applications for the explicit purpose of trying to prevent an 
individual from being elected President of the United States.
    Mr. McClintock. If we're serious about protecting the 
American political process from unwarranted interference, 
either by foreign governments or by our own government, where 
should we be looking?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I would recommend Inspector General 
Horowitz, U.S. Attorney Durham, who's in the middle of an 
investigation. I would also, if it were me and I were Chair or 
maybe someday in the upper chamber, would bring before us James 
Comey, Clapper, and Brennan and have them answer the questions 
under oath that seems to elude them so many times when they sit 
before these committees.
    Mr. McClintock. By the way, we have suggested to the 
majority that we need to do precisely that, and so far, all 
those requests have fallen on deaf ears.
    Here's the picture that seems to be slowly taking shape as 
more and more information comes to light: We have a phony 
dossier produced by the Clinton campaign and we have 
disinformation channeled to George Papadopoulos through Joseph 
Mifsud, who it turns out has a long history of involvement with 
Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA. That was then 
used to justify a sham investigation. That investigation was 
then leaked to the press to give credence to this false 
narrative.
    Is that what you see taking shape here with the evidence 
that's slowly coming out?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think that's exactly right. You look at 
the role that Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr played at 
Fusion GPS, the culpability they have. The fact that they at 
least notified the FBI of the lack of credibility of 
Christopher Steele and the information that he was providing, 
should give us great pause that such a small group of 
individuals at the FBI, who comprised Crossfire Hurricane, had 
the opportunity to set in motion a plan to try and prevent a 
person from being elected President of the United States with 
no evidence whatsoever.
    Mr. McClintock. I think the importance of this cannot be 
overstated. We entrust the most terrifying powers that the 
government possesses to these agencies, literally the power to 
ruin lives, to spy on you, to incarcerate you, to launch 
predawn raids on your home.
    The abuse of these powers for political purposes would be a 
direct threat to the most fundamental freedoms that we have as 
Americans and the most fundamental institutions of our 
democracy. I should think that would be of some passing 
interest to every Member of this Committee.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, earlier in your testimony, you questioned 
the love that Democrats have for our country. I served on 
Active Duty in the United States military. Do not question my 
love of our country. I'm not going to question yours. We're all 
Americans.
    Now, earlier in your testimony, you had made a pretty 
stunning concession, which is that you had not read the Mueller 
report. That explains a lot about your testimony. I'm thinking 
maybe you don't know what the special counsel actually found, 
so I'm going to tell you.
    Volume I of the Mueller report, found that the Russians 
attacked American elections in a sweeping and systematic 
manner. It also found that the Trump campaign knew about the 
attack, that they gave internal polling data to the Russians, 
that they planned their campaign strategy around this attack. 
It's not just in the Mueller report; it's also in Robert 
Mueller's testimony under oath in front of the Intel Committee 
as well as this Committee.
    The reason we are here today is because volume II finds 
that the President tried to obstruct that investigation into 
the Russian attack on at least 10 instances, 5 of which Robert 
Mueller found there was substantial evidence. So, I'm going to 
put up a slide about what the special counsel found about this 
particular incident in which you're involved.
    He found substantial evidence that the President's effort 
to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's 
investigation to future election interference was intended to 
prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and 
his campaign's conduct.
    So, that's why we are all here today, and I think it's 
important to look at the timeline to understand how this all 
unfolded. You previously testified that in March 2017--that you 
were aware that Attorney General Sessions recused himself. He 
did that in March 2017.
    I'm going to put up a slide about what the White House 
Counsel's Office had directed about communications with 
Sessions. It said that Sessions should not be contacted, no 
contact with Sessions and no comms/serious concerns about that 
instruction.
    Did you ever get that instruction from anyone not to 
contact Sessions at all?
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    Chair Nadler. The clock is stopped.
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. Thank you.
    A few months later, on June 14, 2017, the media reports 
that the obstruction investigation--well, actually, that the 
Russia investigation turns into an obstruction investigation 
into the President himself. Then, when Donald Trump learns 
about this, he goes nuts. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know that to be accurate.
    Mr. Lieu. The President launched over 10 tweets very 
shortly thereafter, calling the investigation a witch hunt. 
That's correct, isn't it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know that to be accurate.
    Mr. Lieu. He did. All right. So, then he calls Don McGahn 
at home and says that, Mueller has to go, call me back when you 
do it. Were you aware of that, that he called Don McGahn at 
home to tell him to fire Mueller?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. Two days after that phone call, the 
President calls you into his office. You admitted that he 
dictated a message for you to carry to Jeff Sessions. You said 
that you didn't give it to Jeff Sessions because you went on 
vacation. The Mueller report actually says that the Attorney 
General canceled that meeting. That's correct, isn't it? The 
Attorney General, in fact, canceled the meeting that you tried 
to give the note to?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't--where is that referenced in the 
report, Congressman?
    Mr. Lieu. Sure. It's on page 92. I'm going to give you the 
courtesy, I'm just going to read it for you. It says, 
``Lewandowski called Sessions and arranged a meeting for the 
following evening at Lewandowski's office, but Sessions had to 
cancel due to a last-minute conflict.''
    Do you remember that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay, all right. Then, a little bit later on July 
8, the media writes additional negative information about the 
President and his campaign, including that his senior advisers 
and his son met with Russian operatives who had dirt on Hillary 
Clinton as part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. 
Trump.
    Donald Trump then calls you back into his office again, 
alone, for a meeting, and this time he tells you that Sessions 
is going to be fired if he doesn't meet with you. Do you recall 
that conversation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I took that as a joke.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay, you took that as a joke. After that, the 
President goes on TV and he says: ``Sessions should have never 
recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he 
should have told me before he took the job, and I would have 
picked somebody else.''
    Do you think the President was joking when he said that on 
TV?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know whether the President was 
joking or not.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. When the President met with you alone to 
ask if you delivered the note to Sessions, do you believe any 
of that was a joke?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't discuss a private conversation 
with the President. It's in the report, sir.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Arizona.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. 
Lewandowski, for being here today voluntarily.
    First, we had the Steele dossier, which turned out to be a 
false opposition report funded by the Clinton campaign and the 
Democrat National Committee and apparently was used to spy on 
the Trump campaign and initiate the special counsel 
investigation. Then, for 2 years, we've heard from Democrats on 
TV, I heard it over and over again from some on this Committee, 
that they had proof, proof that the President had colluded with 
Russia. Then, guess what? The Mueller report comes out, and 
they lied. It was totally false. There was no collusion, no 
conspiracy.
    So, then my Democratic colleagues had to switch gears 
because they knew that one failed. So, they said, oh, now it's 
obstruction of justice. So, they brought in Robert Mueller, and 
they tried to question him. They did everything they could. 
That one flopped, too.
    So, now here we are today. They're hauling you in, and who 
knows who they're going to haul in next. They're trying 
everything and anything. I just don't know when it's going to 
end.
    I want to read a quote from--on April 19, 2019, shortly 
after the release of the Mueller report, Emmet Flood, special 
counsel to the President, wrote about the abuses by Executive 
branch employees. He said, ``In the partisan commotion 
surrounding the released report, it would be well to remember 
that what can be done to the President can be done to any one 
of us.''
    Do you agree with this statement?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do.
    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Lewandowski, I have to tell you, I'm scared 
for our country. I'm scared when I read this Mueller report, 
when I read what's been going on with a false dossier that was 
apparently used to spy on Americans. If that can be done to the 
President of the United States, this can be done to anyone.
    So, I ask you, Mr. Lewandowski, do you think that the 
Democrats will go to any length to undermine the President of 
the United States and influence the 2020 election?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congresswoman, I believe in this democracy 
of the United States, and I love this country. I think while 
partisan politics is so important, I think the fact that we're 
the greatest, freest country in the world is paramount to 
everything that we do.
    While we may disagree in this Committee, and I believe that 
this President has been treated exceptionally unfairly, I think 
at the end of the day, we all believe that a free and fair 
election is the best way and the best method for ensuring the 
safety and security of our democracy.
    Do I have concerns, based on the 2016 election, seeing the 
abuses of a small minority that have impacted so many? You bet 
I do. I concerned that as our children and grandchildren grow 
up, we look back on this time in our Nation's history and we 
say, that never should have been allowed, not to a Republican 
and never to a Democrat? You bet I do.
    I think at the end of the day, partisan politics aside, and 
to Mr. Lieu's point, we all love our country. We may have 
disagreements, but I don't think anybody wants to see someone 
not elected properly or the interference of foreign agents or 
individuals in this country to negatively impact the outcome of 
an election, because we are better than that.
    This country is the greatest country in the history of our 
planet, and we should never forget that. Sometimes, maybe just 
sometimes, partisan politics can take a backseat to doing 
what's right for our country.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Lewandowski.
    I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank 
the gentleman for his well-stated answer to the last question.
    So, Mr. Lewandowski, the Obama Administration spied on two 
American citizens associated with the campaign that you ran and 
were involved with: George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. We've 
heard from Mr. McClintock and Ms. Lesko about Carter Page and 
the dossier and how they did that. With Mr. Papadopoulos, it 
was done overseas with foreigners.
    FBI spies on a major party's nominee for the highest office 
in the land spies on two American citizens. Just for the 
record, were you, as the campaign manager, ever notified or was 
anyone at the campaign ever notified that was going on when it 
was happening?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. I yield back. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, some of our GOP colleagues have 
suggested that our time would be better spent today working on 
protecting the 2020 election, so we must charitably assume that 
they've just completely forgotten about the House of 
Representatives passing, on June 27, 2019, the Securing 
America's Federal Elections Act, which authorizes $600 million 
to modernize and secure our election infrastructure, mandates 
the use of voter-verified paper ballots and postelection risk-
limiting audit, and bans internet accessibility and 
connectivity for devices on which ballots are marked or 
counted.
    Now, perhaps they forgot about it because all them voted 
against it, except for one Republican, and the entire 
Democratic Caucus voted to support it. We are still hoping that 
Mitch McConnell decides to take up that legislation.
    So, who are the useful idiots? I suppose we can have an 
interesting conversation about that later.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you told Mr. McClintock some of the things 
you might want to investigate about the deep state when you 
become a U.S. Senator. Let me ask you something else about your 
upcoming service as a Senator. Will you accept this view of the 
so-called confidentiality interest Executive privilege, which 
you have been invoking today, on behalf of the President's 
ability to prevent Congress from collecting testimony from 
private citizens? Will you accept that in your service if 
you're elected to the Senate?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I appreciate your confidence 
in my ability to win in New Hampshire, and I'm sure many people 
in New Hampshire have that same confidence in me. That being 
said--
    Mr. Raskin. I wasn't concerning on your representation to 
the--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, I appreciate that, thank you. That 
being said, it's not my privilege to waive, Congressman. It's 
the Executive office's privilege. I'm not an attorney, and so I 
can't speak to--
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I am one, so let me ask you a question: 
Are you representing that the White House has told you that 
they are invoking the Executive privilege on your behalf today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe it's an Executive 
privilege, sir. Again, I think we've submitted the letter for 
your clarification of what the White House has said.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, let me ask you--
    Mr. Lewandowski. It's not my privilege to waive.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I don't think it's anyone's privilege to 
waive, because I don't think it exists, Mr. Lewandowski. I 
think the whole thing is imaginary. It's like the tooth fairy.
    You didn't work for the President in the White House?
    Mr. Lewandowski. My children are watching. Thank you, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Raskin. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Lewandowski. My children were watching, so thank you 
for that.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I hope the President's not on then.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you didn't work for President Trump, did 
you? You never worked in the White House?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I never worked in the White House, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, you were a private citizen when you 
met with the President in the circumstances we're discussing 
today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. The White House says you shouldn't have 
to answer any questions today because the President's 
communications seeking advice or information in connection with 
the discharge of his duties are highly confidential. This 
pushes White House obstructionism to a surreal new extreme--
let's make this clear--because I see no evidence at all that 
the President was seeking your advice or that you were helping 
him discharge his official duties.
    First, I just want to make sure we have this on the record. 
When you went to the White House in June and July of 2017 to 
meet with the President, you were not a White House employee, 
were you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I was not a White House employee.
    Mr. Raskin. You have never been a White House employee?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's correct.
    Mr. Raskin. There were no other White House employees 
present for that meeting, no secretary, no staff assistant, no 
other Executive branch employee. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. While you claim that you were advising 
him during those meetings, the President didn't seem to be 
seeking your advice at all. In fact, you never testified to the 
special counsel that President Trump once asked for your 
advice.
    Here's what you told the special counsel about your meeting 
on page 91, volume II. Please put it up on the slide, if you 
would.
    During the June 19 meeting, Lewandowski recalled that after 
some small talk, the President brought up Sessions and 
criticized his recusal from the Russia investigation. The 
President told Lewandowski that Sessions was weak and that if 
the President had known about the likelihood of recusal in 
advance, he would not have appointed Sessions. The President 
then asked Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions and 
said, write this down.
    So, I'm assuming you told the truth and the whole truth 
about your discussion when you testified to the special 
counsel. There's nothing in there about him asking your advice 
on anything, is there?
    Mr. Lewandowski. There's nothing in the report that says 
that, correct.
    Mr. Raskin. You were not helping him perform his official 
duties in office, were you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't discuss my private conversations 
with the President.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I'm just going based on what's up on the 
screen. Did you help him implement any of his duties of office 
at that point?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, I can't discuss the substance of 
the discussion outside what's in the report.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, no one has told us what duty you were 
performing, if you were performing one, or what public policy 
you were advising on. All of America is reading the same text. 
We don't see him asking you for your advice about anything.
    Did he ask your advice about anything? Did he ask your 
advice about national security, for example, which is the only 
context I know about an Executive privilege, but now it seems 
as if that's not even being waved around?
    Look, one can only regard with amazement the logic of this 
argument. The President tweets out that various FOX News 
anchors advise him. Are they covered by this privilege too?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired. The Witness 
may answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. That'd be a question that you should 
direct to the White House, sir.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank Mr. Lewandowski for being here today, after 
testifying three other times willingly, for you to be here, 
again, voluntarily. I doubt the others had as much political 
theater as this one has had, but I appreciate you being here 
today.
    This hearing is yet another grand display of political 
theater that we have seen from this Committee over the last 
several months. The majority should be focused on sound 
congressional oversight, in particular, the IG report about 
abuse in the FBI, and we should be having a hearing here soon 
with the inspector general in front of us to question, but all 
we've seen for months is desperate attempts to keep this 
impeach at all costs narrative alive.
    I don't know what they're calling it today. Is it an 
inquiry? Is it an investigation? Is it a proceeding? Whatever 
word that Google Thesaurus throws back at them when they type 
it in, that's what we're at. It's embarrassing, as a Member of 
the Judiciary Committee, to have you here to have to go through 
this.
    The majority is propping up this Mueller report like a bad 
remake of Weekend at Bernie's. Impeachment based on the Mueller 
report is dead, and everybody seems to know it except the Chair 
and several Members of the party conference, the majority. We 
should be hearing from the IG report about the FBI abuse. We 
are now hearing about the President's mood when he's talking to 
you in the Oval Office. There was collusion with Russia, but 
not by President Trump.
    I want to go back to questions by the gentleman from 
Florida, not the gentleman from Florida who's still standing by 
the belief, proven false by volume I of the Mueller report, 
that President Trump is a Russian agent, but the gentleman from 
Florida--or the gentleman from California who was asking you 
about the Steele dossier.
    You've heard of the Steele dossier, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cline. It was an opposition research document created 
by a man named Christopher Steele and paid for by the Clinton 
campaign and the DNC.
    Have you ever met Christopher Steele?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have not.
    Mr. Cline. You're familiar with who he is?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I am.
    Mr. Cline. Christopher Steele was hired by a firm called 
Fusion GPS to produce the Steele dossier.
    Have you heard of Fusion GPS?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cline. Well, that's one more than we had from Mr. 
Mueller during his testimony, because he didn't know what 
Fusion GPS was.
    Do you know who hired Fusion GPS to produce the Steele 
dossier?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe it was a law firm, Perkins Coie.
    Mr. Cline. Do you know who Christopher Steele's sources 
were for the information he put in the dossier?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't have--I couldn't speak to it 
directly, sir.
    Mr. Cline. They were Russian sources, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's the public reports, yes.
    Mr. Cline. The FBI and intelligence leaders did not verify 
the truthfulness of the allegations in the Steele dossier about 
Donald Trump, did they?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's my understanding, sir.
    Mr. Cline. Even though the information was never verified, 
and most of it has been proven to be false, the intelligence 
community relied on it to get a FISA application to spy on the 
Trump campaign, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's correct, yes.
    Mr. Cline. All of this was laid bare in volume I--or should 
have been laid bare, but volume I clearly indicated that there 
was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian 
Government.
    That Mueller report that we are still propping up and 
hashing over week after week after week, you wrote an op-ed 
about back on March 29, when you clarified that you thought the 
report was comprehensive. You clarified that it found no 
wrongdoing by the President or his advisers, but that it is 
being used--it was being used back in March and it is still 
being used by conspiracy-minded Democrats and a hostile media 
for their own political purposes, thwarting the President's 
reelection and pursuing further investigations.
    Do you stand by that op-ed and do you still believe that it 
is being misused in that way today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do believe it, sir.
    Mr. Cline. Is there anything else you'd like to add to the 
questions that have been answered or asked?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Cline. All right. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Washington.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewandowski, what we're seeing here is a pattern of the 
President doing anything and everything to hide his misconduct 
from Congress and from the American people. The President tried 
to get you to deliver a secret message to the Attorney General, 
all in an attempt to prevent the special counsel from exposing 
the President's own misconduct. As soon as the special counsel 
published his report and the President's misconduct was 
exposed, the President tried to cover that up, too.
    Isn't it true that the President has repeatedly tried to 
discredit your and other Witnesses' testimony to the special 
counsel in the published report?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to my knowledge.
    Ms. Jayapal. You follow the President on Twitter, Mr. 
Lewan-dowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a good question.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have to check, but I think it's--I may 
be the only one who doesn't, but I'll fix that immediately. I'm 
sorry.
    Ms. Jayapal. Excellent. You've probably seen his tweets, I 
imagine. Didn't the President say--and I'll put up the slide 
for you--statements are made about me by certain people in the 
crazy Mueller report, in itself written by 18 angry Democrat 
Trump haters, which are fabricated and totally untrue.
    That is a Trump tweet from April 19, 2019. That's the 
President saying that all the statements given by Witnesses in 
the investigation, all those statements are untrue.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you were a Witness in the investigation. 
You sat for interviews with the special counsel as part of the 
Federal investigation. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did sit, yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. The special counsel's report includes 
statements that you made to the special counsel during the 
Federal investigation. Did you lie at any point to the special 
counsel during those interviews?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection, no.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, your statements to the special counsel in 
the Mueller report, those are not, quote, ``fabricated and 
totally untrue.'' You didn't lie to the special counsel, did 
you, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection, no.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, the President is wrong that the report is 
fabricated and totally untrue. That's just the President trying 
to discredit all the Witnesses who said that he obstructed 
justice. Isn't that correct, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a question for the President.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, which is it? I mean, did you lie, Mr. 
Lewandowski, or is the President wrong when he says that all 
the statements in the report are fabricated?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe it says certain people. 
Statements made about me by certain people. It doesn't say all, 
unless I'm misreading it.
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Lewandowski, did you lie to the President, 
and is the President correct that everything in the report is 
fabricated?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I won't comment on private conversations, 
but I don't appreciate the insinuation that I lied about 
anything. I've answered it multiple times. I've answered your 
question multiple times about my truthfulness to the Committee 
and the Special Counsel's Office.
    Ms. Jayapal. I appreciate that, Mr. Lewandowski, but--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, 
lied to the special counsel.
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Lewandowski, this is my time. You are not 
yet in the Senate. You are a Witness before the Judiciary 
Committee. Please act like it. This is my time; I control it.
    The President also said--and please put up the slide, 
``watch out for the people that take so-called notes when the 
notes never existed until needed,'' referring to the Mueller 
report referencing people taking notes of meetings with the 
President, notes that documented the President's obstruction.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you have notes from your meeting with the 
President. You've testified to that before us, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. You were dictated those notes by the 
President, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's in the report.
    Ms. Jayapal. You told the special counsel the President 
dictated a message to you and you said, ``write this down.'' 
This is volume II, page 91. You gave those notes to the special 
counsel, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't speak to the way the special 
counsel's conducted their investigation or what information 
they have.
    Ms. Jayapal. Did you give the notes to the special counsel? 
This is not about how the special counsel conducted its 
investigation; it's about whether you gave the notes to the 
special counsel.
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a question for Special Counsel 
Mueller.
    Ms. Jayapal. Those were your notes, Mr. Lewandowski. They 
were in your safe. They were dictated to you and written down 
by you. Did you give them to the special counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I complied with all legal and lawful 
requests of the special counsel.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, obviously, you are once again 
obstructing our investigation by refusing to answer questions 
that--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've just answered your question. I said, 
I complied with all requests by the special counsel.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, you gave the notes to the special counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've asked and answered your question.
    Ms. Jayapal. Did you make up that the President told you to 
write down that note, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't speak to private conversation I 
might or might not have had with the President of the United 
States.
    Ms. Jayapal. Did you lie about the President telling you to 
write down the note?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe--
    Ms. Jayapal. That's not a private conversation.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe what is in the report is an 
accurate description.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay. So, to be clear, you also gave the 
special counsel notes from your meeting with the President that 
are not fabricated and totally untrue, as per the President's 
tweet.
    So, when the President said all those notes never existed 
until needed--that was his quote--that's just another instance 
of the President trying to discredit anyone who actually tried 
to document his misconduct.
    Now, the President is going further, isn't he? You have 
said previously that you have nothing to hide and that you 
would answer all questions. Here's what you said. Can I play 
that clip?

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/v7ro7ud2g67b0vc/
Video%201%20-%20Jayapal.mp4?dl=0]

    Ms. Jayapal. It's interesting, Mr. Lewandowski, because, 
obviously, the President does have something to hide, because 
the White House is directing you not to answer the questions in 
front of the Judiciary Committee. That is a tremendously 
shameful thing, Mr. Lewandowski. The American people deserve to 
know the truth, and I think they deserve to have you answer our 
questions.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady is expired.
    The gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The American people know the truth, if they've read the 
Mueller report, and have come to their own conclusions.
    Sir, you and the Trump campaign fully cooperated with the 
Mueller investigation. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Steube. Multiple times that you have been asked to 
testify, voluntarily, before numerous different congressional 
committees, you've complied in that request, even voluntarily, 
not even needing to be subpoenaed.
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's right. To the best of my 
recollection, yes.
    Mr. Steube. After 22 months, 18 lawyers, 500 subpoenas, 500 
search warrants, the Mueller report concluded that there was no 
evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I haven't read the report, but I believe 
that's the final conclusion.
    Mr. Steube. So, now that we have established that the 
Mueller report itself doesn't find that there's any collusion 
between the Trump campaign and Russia, this whole contention 
about the President firing or not firing or directing people to 
fire, is it your understanding--and you may not be able to 
answer this because it's outside the scope--but is it your 
understanding, in article II of the Constitution, that the 
President could fire the Attorney General, without cause, for 
any reason whatsoever?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Let me preface it by saying I'm not an 
attorney, but it's my understanding that the President has 
broad authority over Members who serve in the Executive branch 
and has broad latitude to hire and fire at his discretion.
    Mr. Steube. Also, under that constitutional authority 
obligated to him under article II, he could fire the FBI 
Director, without reason, for any reason whatsoever at any 
time?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, I'm not an attorney, but that could 
be a very realistic interpretation of the article II powers 
provided to the President in the Constitution, yes.
    Mr. Steube. He could have also had Mr. Mueller fired during 
the course of the investigation if he wanted to, under his 
powers under article II?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, I think that would be a question 
for the Attorney General or White House Counsel, but I believe 
that would be his prerogative if he so chose, yes.
    Mr. Steube. So, given all that, he did not choose to 
exercise any of that authority. In fact, he allowed for the 
campaign and the Members like yourselves to coordinate with 
them, cooperate with them, and until now that we have gone 
through a 22-month investigation where the American people have 
been sold a lie of Russian collusion, now we're going to just 
try to rehash this narrative amongst the American people, 
despite the fact that it has been investigated by 
investigators, lawyers, FBI agents for 22 months.
    I would be happy to yield to any other Members of my caucus 
that would like to yield. If not, I'll yield back to the Chair. 
Thank you for your time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Florida.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, just for the record, I do love this 
country. I spent 27 years enforcing the law, and now I have the 
honor of writing of the law.
    When special counsel visited us and in his testimony, he 
talked about a spectrum of Witnesses who were either telling 
half-truths up to those who were outright liars, today, I do 
have to wonder how many untruths, how many Members of Congress 
neglecting their duties and their oath, and how many White 
House attorneys does it take to protect one innocent President.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you started off your testimony--or during 
your opening statement, you talked about being a certified 
police officer in New Hampshire. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Ms. Demings. Do you believe that police officers have a 
very tough job?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do.
    Ms. Demings. Even with all the stuff that law enforcement 
officers have to put up with, not only enforcing the law and 
patrolling their communities, but just working horrible hours, 
I'm sure you know about that, with all that stuff, do you 
believe that law enforcement officers, when they engage in 
wrongdoing, that they should be held accountable?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do.
    Ms. Demings. Mr. Lewandowski, you said that if anyone were 
trying to coordinate with Russia, they should be held 
accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe, Congresswoman, I said if 
anybody attempted to impact the outcome of the election 
illegally, they should spend the rest of their lives in jail.
    Ms. Demings. So, do you believe that a person coordinating 
with Russia should not be held accountable to the fullest 
extent of the law?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think anybody who's attempting to impact 
the outcome of an election illegally, whether it's with Russia 
or any other foreign entity, should spend the rest of their 
life in jail.
    Ms. Demings. Mr. Lewandowski, I know you know, and I 
believe--I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt--that 
you care about the special counsel's report concluding that 
Russia Government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election 
in a sweeping and systematic fashion. Do you agree with that 
conclusion?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe Russia attempted to influence 
the election, yes.
    Ms. Demings. In fact, the report documents over 100 
contacts between Russian nationals or those acting on their 
behalf and the Trump campaign or those advising then-candidate 
Trump. The report focused that those contacts with Russia 
included offers of assistance to the campaign, invitations for 
candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person.
    Mr. Lewandowski, you said you knew nothing about this. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe I had any conversation 
with any Russian or Russian contact.
    Ms. Demings. You knew nothing about them offering 
assistance to the campaign at all?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe I have ever spoken to a 
Russian.
    Ms. Demings. Okay. You said that: I never spoke to a 
Russian, I never contacted a Russian, I never coordinated with 
a Russian. I don't know anything about Russia, okay? I never 
spoke to them, and I was the campaign manager.
    Do you remember saying something similar to that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think it's an accurate statement.
    Ms. Demings. You also said, and I quote, ``you had sole 
control over the campaign, other than the candidate himself. I 
sat next to candidate Trump for thousands of hours during the 
period of time.''
    Would that be pretty close to what you remember saying?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It would depend on the timeframe of the 
campaign we're speaking about.
    Ms. Demings. When you served as campaign manager to the 
Trump campaign.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Right. There were multiple periods of time 
from--
    Ms. Demings. Would you say that you had sole control over 
the campaign other than the candidate himself? Would that be 
an--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not on the day I was fired, I didn't have 
sole control.
    Ms. Demings. Prior to that day.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, not leading up to--
    Ms. Demings. There is nothing funny about--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not leading up to that day. 
Congresswoman--
    Ms. Demings. There is absolutely nothing funny about this 
whole thing.
    Mr. Lewandowski. If you ask me a question, I'm happy to 
give you an answer.
    If you don't like my answer, I could rephrase it.
    Ms. Demings. Excuse me?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I said if you don't like my answer, I 
could rephrase it. No, I don't think I had sole control of the 
campaign the day preceding my firing or the day I was fired or 
multiple days leading up to that. So, if you have a specific 
timeframe--
    Ms. Demings. Let's forget the firing. The first month that 
you were the campaign manager, would you say that you had sole 
control over the campaign, other than the candidate himself?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Are you talking about in June of 2015?
    Ms. Demings. So, you talked to then-candidate Trump pretty 
much on a regular basis, right? You have established that you 
talked to him on a regular basis. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Ms. Demings. Out of being the campaign manager, being very 
close to the candidate, the campaign has over 100 contacts with 
Russia, and you didn't know anything about that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's correct to the best of my 
knowledge.
    Ms. Demings. Did you ever ask the President if he knew 
about his campaign's contacts with Russia after the reports 
came out that there were over 100 contacts? Did you ever ask 
him after that report, those reports came out?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry. Did I ask who, Congresswoman? I 
missed that.
    Ms. Demings. Did you ask Trump if he had ever had--did he 
know that the campaign had regular contact with Russians after 
the report came out? After you heard that report, those 
reports, did you ever ask him?
    Ms. Scanlon. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time has 
expired, but the Witness may answer.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congresswoman, I couldn't disclose a 
private conversation I may or may not have had with the 
President.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Scanlon. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California--I'm sorry. I'm sorry, the gentleman from Texas. 
California, okay.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    First, Mr. Lewandowski, I'm glad to hear that both of us 
share a deep love for this country and that both of us have a 
tremendous distaste for any foreign agents that may want to 
interfere with our democracy in this country.
    I'm going to ask you if you're familiar with George 
Papadopoulos?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I am.
    Mr. Correa. You agree that he was a foreign policy adviser 
for the Trump Administration as of April 27, 2016?
    Mr. Lewandowski. To the campaign, Congressman.
    Mr. Correa. To the campaign, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. To the campaign.
    Mr. Correa. Yes. As you know, George pled guilty to felony 
crimes, including lying to Federal investigators. We've got his 
indictment up on the screen. One of those things he pled guilty 
to was lying about how often he was communicating with 
Russians, with Russia, when he was an adviser to the campaign, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know if that's what he pled guilty 
to, Your Honor--sir.
    Mr. Correa. It's on the slide. In fact, I'm quoting the 
Mueller report now: ``Throughout April 2016, Papadopoulos 
continued to correspond and meet with Russians and seek Russian 
contacts.'' Of course, that's up on volume I, page 87, the 
slide.
    The report also documents Papadopoulos trying to schedule 
then-candidate Trump to travel to Russia to meet with Putin. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know what's in the report, sir.
    Mr. Correa. The report also documents emails discussing 
this potential Russian trip--and I'll show them to you in case 
you have not read them--correct?
    If you can put those up, please.
    On April 27, the Trump campaign foreign policy adviser 
Papadopoulos again sent you, sir, an email telling you that he 
had, quote, ``been receiving a lot of calls over the last 
months about Putin wanting to host Trump and the team when the 
time was right.''
    Do you know about that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's what is in the report.
    Mr. Correa. Volume I, page 89.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. That's the first I've seen it.
    Mr. Correa. On June 1, Papadopoulos forwarded you another 
email from a Russian official raising the possibility of 
meeting in Moscow, asking you if that was something that you 
wanted to move forward with. Is that accurate or not?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know.
    Mr. Correa. Volume I, page 89. Slide, please.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I see the report, sir.
    Mr. Correa. Okay. So, I would say that this just was not 
about you receiving information about coordinating potential 
meetings with Russia, but actually, you responded to 
Papadopoulos, telling him to connect with Sam Clovis, because 
he was going to be the running point man. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that to be accurate.
    Mr. Correa. Okay. Did you tell Papadopoulos to stop 
communication with Russians?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe I did.
    Mr. Correa. Okay. You actually encouraged that 
communication, correct, by referring him to a running point 
man, which is Mr. Clovis, Yes?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, Congressman, what I was attempting to 
do with contact from Mr. Papadopoulos, who I had very limited 
interaction with, was to put him in touch with a staff person 
who could have a more articulate and thorough conversation. It 
wasn't--while I ran the day-to-day responsibility of the 
campaign, a thousand emails a day didn't allow me the privilege 
of responding in detail to each of them.
    Mr. Correa. Candidate Trump has said that you and he were 
communicating 10-14 hours a day. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm not sure if that's what the President 
said, sir.
    Mr. Correa. He did.
    Did you at all mention to candidate Trump these 
communications that Russians were having with the campaign?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Correa. Did you communicate with the family about these 
communications that were going on?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Correa. You and I both have a distaste for foreign 
agents affecting our democratic process. Did you report these 
incidences to the FBI?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did not.
    Mr. Correa. Did you bring it up to anybody's attention?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think just Mr. Clovis, because I did not 
see that outreach to me as an offer to interfere with the 
outcome of the election.
    Mr. Correa. What did you see it as?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I saw an outreach from a potential foreign 
agent to a senior--to a policy adviser, and that's why I asked 
him to get in touch with Mr. Clovis.
    Mr. Correa. For the safety--just to be on the safe side, 
wouldn't you call the FBI and say, hey, these guys are calling 
us, please check it out?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think, in hindsight, it's something that 
Mr. Clovis probably should have done.
    Mr. Correa. So, you got Russians hacking our elections. 
Your campaign adviser is talking to another campaign adviser 
about Russians interested in communicating with the campaign.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congressman, I don't believe I ever had a 
communication of any Russians trying to offer to interfere in 
the outcome of the election.
    Mr. Correa. You did have knowledge, sir, of people in your 
campaign communicating with Russians.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Witness may answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    One of the things that has always caught my attention was 
the fact that Campaign Chair Paul Manafort shared with a 
Russian operative, Mr. Kilimnik, the campaign's--and this is a 
quote from the report, ``strategy for winning Democratic votes 
in Midwestern States,''--that's in volume I, pages 6-7, and 
that he shared with the Russian operative internal polling data 
on the campaign.
    Now, did you have a knowledge that Mr. Manafort was sharing 
internal polling data or the campaign's Midwest strategy with 
these Russian operatives? Did you know about that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did not.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, although it's been reported that you 
continued to advise the campaign even after you left and had an 
enduring presence, that's not something you were aware of?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Correct. I was not aware.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I'm just interested--all of us here, 
both Republicans and Democrats, have something in common: We 
run for office, and we know a little bit how to do that. One of 
the things that we all know is that internal polling data is 
generally something that you don't share broadly. You use it to 
base your campaign. Wouldn't you say that's correct, as a 
general rule?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think it's a good general rule, yes, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, I'm mystified why the manager of the Trump 
campaign would choose the one thing that would allow the 
Russians--who were, we already know from other evidence, trying 
to influence this campaign--information that would allow them 
to guide their efforts, this internal polling data.
    Do you have any insight into that, why that would happen?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know why Mr. Manafort would share 
that information.
    Ms. Lofgren. It seems to me that--do you know whether the 
Russians asked for it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know.
    Ms. Lofgren. Don't know.
    It seems to me that of all the things in the report, and 
there are many troubling things, that the Russians, and it's 
clear that they were trying to elect Donald Trump President--
actually Putin has said that publicly since then--they received 
from the Trump campaign manager the internal polling data and 
the strategy to win in the Midwest with Democratic votes not 
once, but repeatedly. At the same time there were over 100 
contacts between Russians and the campaign.
    Can't you understand that would raise some anxiety, those 
facts?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Just a point of clarification. Mr. 
Manafort was never the campaign manager.
    Ms. Lofgren. Are you saying he was not involved in the 
campaign?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No. I'm saying he was not the campaign 
manager. Just as a point of clarification.
    Ms. Lofgren. Chair, manager, a person in charge of the 
campaign for a period of time.
    I just think that when you add it up--who would know about 
this other than Mr. Manafort? Can you tell us who else we need 
to call who would have the facts of this information?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, we know where Mr. Manafort is, and 
he's currently available for questioning, I think, if you're 
looking for him.
    Ms. Lofgren. In addition to him, who--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Gates, potentially.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Gates might know about who initiated, 
whether the Russians were asking for the polling data or 
whether it was the idea of the Trump campaign itself to provide 
the polling data, that would be Mr. Gates would know that, in 
addition to Mr. Manafort?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Do you think that the President was advised of 
the day-to-day details of his campaign?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't think the President was advised of 
the minutia of the day-to-day details of the campaign, as 
probably most candidates are not advised of the day-to-day 
minutia.
    Ms. Lofgren. What level of information was the President 
generally provided? Would it be, you know, we've got a strategy 
to win the Midwest, or we're just hoping for the best? What 
would be the level of information generally that the President 
as a candidate would receive?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can only speak to my tenure there and my 
conversation with the candidate at the time about the 
information I would have shared. I would have basically shared 
his travel calendar for the next day or week, so he'd 
understand where were we traveling to. I would share with him 
media opportunities if he wanted to be on a--or have the 
opportunity to be on a specific television show. Then, 
messaging points of what we may want to be discussing during 
that tenure or time of the campaign, particularly if we're 
going to be in a primary State.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would assume, like all other campaigns, that 
the messaging was informed by the polling data that you had.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Just as a point of clarification, 
Congresswoman, we didn't do any polling data for the first 
approximately 15 months of the campaign.
    Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewandowski, one of the major concerns raised by the 
special counsel's report is that the President has had a 
pattern of witness tampering conduct.
    So, let's look at some facts. We know that Attorney General 
Sessions was a Witness in the special counsel's investigation 
because of his role on Trump's campaign, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's in the report. I don't know that 
to be accurate.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, that's why Sessions recused himself.
    So, you've confirmed today that the President dictated a 
message for you to give to Attorney General Sessions about what 
he should say about Russian contacts with the Trump campaign, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. In general, that's accurate, yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, you told the special counsel that the 
President scripted what he wants Sessions to say in a public 
speech as if it were Sessions' own words about his knowledge of 
the Russian contacts with the campaign, right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That seems to be an accurate 
representation.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Now, that isn't the only time that the 
President tried to influence witness testimony, according to 
the special counsel's report.
    White House counsel Don McGahn told the special counsel--
and I think we have a slide on this. I see you've found your 
copy of the Mueller report, so if you want to follow along. 
It's volume II, page 123.
    The President discussed with aides whether and in what way 
former campaign chair, or manager, whatever he is, Manafort 
might be cooperating with the special counsel's investigation 
and whether Manafort knew any information that could be harmful 
to the President. The special counsel concluded that, and we 
have another quote--and, again, if you want to follow along, 
it's volume II, page 132, ``evidence concerning the President's 
conduct toward Manafort indicates that the President intended 
to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government.''
    Did the President ever try to discourage you from 
cooperating with the special counsel, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't speak to any private conversation 
I may or may not have had with the President, other than to say 
I've always been told to tell the truth.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, you're not going to tell us today 
whether or not he encouraged you not to cooperate with the 
special counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've never been instructed to do anything 
but tell the truth.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Now, Congressman Ratcliffe asked what 
you knew about the President dangling pardons to some of his 
employees, and you mentioned Manafort, you mentioned Gates. 
There's also Flynn and Cohen. The President and his counsel 
have suggested that pardons might be forthcoming for those 
folks.
    One of the reasons you're here today is that the Mueller 
report identified you as a participant in the President's 
attempts to limit or shut down the Department of Justice's 
investigation of Russia's sweeping interference in our 2016 
election. Has the President ever offered you a pardon?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, the White House has directed not to 
close the substance of any discussions with the President or 
his advisers to protect Executive branch confidentiality.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. We've seen the letter. So, you're not 
going to answer whether or not the President has offered you a 
pardon?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Ma'am, it's not my privilege. I'm 
respecting the White House's direction.
    Ms. Scanlon. Reclaiming my time. Thank you.
    On the same day that you were subpoenaed to appear before 
this Committee, August 15, the President did indicate that he's 
going to support your Senate campaign, didn't he?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm not sure.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Well, I just want to note for the record 
that when Mr. Lewandowski asked for the Committee to give him a 
little break about an hour and a half, 2 hours ago, he took the 
time during that recess to launch his Senate campaign website 
with a tweet. I think that fact says an awful lot about the 
Witness' motivation to appear here today, and I've heard 
enough.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I, too, want to clarify for the record that I think earlier 
you said that Democrats and this Committee perhaps, that 
Democrats hate this President more than they love their 
country. That simply is not true. You're looking at someone 
that loves her country. More importantly, as a judge, I've 
taken an oath of office more than once to uphold the 
constitutional laws of this country.
    I take this work of this Committee very seriously. I would 
hope that you, as a former peace officer, would do the same and 
show more respect to this Committee and the work that we're 
undertaking.
    Having said that, Mr. Lewandowski, you agree that if anyone 
does try to meddle with U.S. elections they should go to jail, 
right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do.
    Ms. Garcia. I know there's a clip of you saying that. We 
can run the clip.
    [Audio recording played.]

        Now if other people who were operating outside the realm of 
        what their responsibilities were, were trying to coordinate to 
        materially impact the outcome of an election and if they did 
        that, I hope they go to jail for the rest of their lives 
        because our democracy is too important to play with.

    Ms. Garcia. I agree with that statement. I know that on 
July 27, 2016, when you were still regularly communicating with 
Trump, candidate Trump publicly called for Russia to find 
missing Clinton emails by stating on July 27.

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/t77kg803q26c7rc/
Garcia%20Video.mp4?dl=0]

    Ms. Garcia. So, Mr. Lewandowski, let's be very clear. In 
that speech, the President was suggesting publicly to the whole 
world that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's emails.
    It got even worse. After his statement, Russia did hack his 
opponent's emails, as he asked them to. When WikiLeaks released 
those emails, Mr. Trump tweeted how great it was. He said at 
campaign appearances in October and November of 2016, ``This 
just came out. WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.'' He said that in 
Pennsylvania in 2016, October. ``This WikiLeaks is like a 
treasure trove,'' he said that in Minnesota in October of 2016. 
He had said in Ohio, ``boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.''
    I believe all those quotes were also there for the whole--
for you to see.
    So, again, let's be clear, this is then candidate Trump 
tweeting congratulations to Russia and WikiLeaks for stealing 
documents from U.S. citizens.
    I think, if it could get worse, it did. Multiple 
individuals have testified under oath that Mr. Trump, in fact, 
knew about the release of these stolen emails prior to the 
release.
    I'm going to read you these quotes. Witnesses testified 
under oath that, quote, ``Trump privately sought information 
about future leak releases.'' That's in the Mueller report, 
volume II, page 77. The slide's up there for you to see.
    Deputy campaign manager Rick Gates told the special counsel 
that he, quote, ``was with Trump on a trip to an airport''--and 
you can't read too much of it because it's redacted. It said, 
and shortly after the call ended, ``Trump told Gates that more 
releases of damaging information would be coming.'' He knew it. 
He said it'll be coming. Which turned out to be true. That's in 
volume II, page 18. The screen is up, the shot is up there.
    So, in fact, the White House redacted some of the 
information in the report, and you saw those redactions on the 
screen, so there could actually be more in those redactions.
    The President's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified 
to Congress this past February under oath that, quote, ``Mr. 
Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks.'' 
You've got the slide there showing us exactly what the 
testimony reflects.
    Roger Stone has been charged with serious Federal crimes 
for his conduct during the campaign. His indictment also says 
that, quote, ``Stone was contacted by senior Trump campaign 
officials to inquire about future releases by WikiLeaks.'' 
Stone, thereafter, told Trump campaign about potential future 
releases.
    That's in the indictment, and I have a copy here if you 
wish to see it.
    So, again, to be clear, Roger Stone has known the President 
for years. They have been long-time friends. Didn't you say, 
quote, and here's the screen shot from CNN, ``Roger Stone's 
history with Donald Trump goes back 20 years. He's been someone 
who has known then Mr. Trump and worked with him through 
business dealings long before we ever started a political 
campaign.''
    So, the fact is that he stole materials, he encouraged the 
hacking. Don't you think that's doing what you said no one 
should do, and if they do, that they should go to jail for the 
rest of their lives?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I stand by my statement that anybody who 
attempted to materially impact the outcome of an election 
should go to jail for the rest of their lives.
    Ms. Garcia. Do you agree the President should go to jail 
for doing what I just reiterated in a line in my statement?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I didn't say that, ma'am.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, it seems to me that even this President 
needs to be held accountable, because no one is above the law. 
I agree with you that if someone does interfere with our 
elections they should go to jail, including this President, if 
necessary.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Garcia. Yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Colorado.
    Mr. Neguse. Mr. Lewandowski, I'd like to get back to 
something that--an exchange that you had with Mr. Cicilline and 
Mr. Jeffries.
    We've talked a great deal today about the message that the 
President asked you to deliver to then Attorney General Jeff 
Sessions. As you've testified today, and you've informed the 
special counsel as well during the special prosecutor's 
investigation, you, quote, ``stored the notes in a safe,'' 
right, as you'll see on the slide there quoting directly from 
the special counsel's report, which you described to the 
special counsel as the standard procedure for sensitive items.
    That was your standard procedure. That is not normal 
protocol for official White House documents. My colleague 
mentioned this earlier, but since you're not a White House 
employee, and have not been, as you've testified, I'll remind 
you again that the White House has a legal protocol to follow 
for official documents.
    As you'll see on this next slide, this screen is a memo 
from this White House, Donald Trump's White House, about the 
Presidential Records Act. So, the President is well-informed 
about the record requirements for our Commander in Chief.
    As you'll see on this slide, under the PRA the White House 
must preserve and maintain all memos, letters, notes, emails, 
and written communications from the President, just like the 
note that he dictated to you. Of course, those notes are not 
supposed to be kept in a secret safe in his former campaign 
manager's house.
    So, it's clear, I think, to folks who read the special 
counsel's report that is why the President asked you, he wanted 
this message to be hidden, and he knew you wouldn't keep a 
record. In fact, you took it out of the White House after Ms. 
Hicks typed it up and stored it in your personal safe.
    Now, I want to give you an opportunity to just confirm 
this. In your exchange with Mr. Swalwell, you talked a bit 
about the notes that you dictated from the President. In the 
special counsel's report it makes clear, on page 91, the last 
sentence of the second paragraph, that when you met with the 
President, this was, quote, ``The first time the President had 
asked Lewandowski to take dictation, and Lewandowski wrote as 
fast as possible to make sure he captured the content 
correctly.'' That sentence cites your interview with the 
special counsel.
    In your exchange with Mr. Swalwell, you contradicted that, 
and so I'm trying to figure out that discrepancy. Was this, in 
fact, the first time that you had been asked by the President 
to take dictation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. To be clear, the words that are written in 
this report are not my words. That's the representation of the 
summary of my conversation with the special counsel. I can say 
that I have on numerous occasions been directed by the 
President to write specific information down and deliver that.
    Mr. Neguse. So, to that end, Mr. Lewandowski, have you 
turned over those notes? Were those notes turned over to the 
special prosecutor?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've complied with all requirements of the 
special counsel.
    Mr. Neguse. I appreciate you saying that. I'll ask the 
question again. Did you turn over any other notes that have 
been dictated to you by the President to the special prosecutor 
outside of this note that's referenced in the report?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've complied with all requirements of the 
special counsel.
    Mr. Neguse. So, the record will reflect that you won't 
answer that particular question. I think it's important one for 
this Committee to get to the bottom to, because ultimately what 
you are saying is that the special counsel's statement in this 
report is incorrect. If that is the case, this Committee has an 
obligation to ascertain the contents of those other notes that 
you've described.
    I just want to go back to the message that was delivered to 
you by the President to tell the Attorney General that if he 
did not meet with you, you should tell him that he was fired. 
That's in volume II, page 93.
    You're aware--I believe there's a slide that will pop up 
here, you can see it in front of you--I know that you're aware 
that the Attorney General is a Cabinet-level position, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, I'm aware of that.
    Mr. Neguse. He is, in fact, the head of the Department of 
Justice. He's the chief law enforcement officer in the United 
States. You knew that you couldn't fire the Attorney General, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yeah. I can't fire anybody.
    Mr. Neguse. Yeah. As you told Mr. Priebus, as the next 
slide attests, you told the Chief of Staff at that time, what 
can I do? I'm not an employee of the Administration. I'm a 
nobody.
    So, if that's the case, it again is pretty clear to anyone 
who reads the special counsel's report that the reason the 
President was delivering this message to you was so that you 
could scare the Attorney General into complying with the 
directive that he had given you. He enlisted you to dictate a 
secret message, which you stored in your personal safe at home, 
for the Attorney General, and then he tells you to tell the 
Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States that if he 
won't meet with you, a private citizen, that he would be fired.
    At the end of the day, we know it's because the President 
didn't want anyone investigating him. The special counsel's 
report certainly supports that. I will leave the last slide as 
I see my time has expired. The special counsel's words speak 
for themselves with respect to his conclusion in this exchange.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Georgia.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowksi, I want to just pause here for just a 
moment. We just heard facts about a foreign government 
attacking our elections. We've heard that quite a bit this 
afternoon. We know that's a serious crime. You even said so, 
and I definitely agree with you.
    In fact, the special counsel's investigation resulted in 
criminal indictments of more than a dozen defendants. That 
included guilty pleas and indictments of top Trump official--
campaign officials. These guilty pleas include multiple charges 
of conspiracy against the United States and lying and 
misrepresenting statements to the Department of Justice 
officials. It also included indictments of criminal charges 
against 13 individual Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities, 
primarily for conspiracy to defraud the United States. Is that 
correct, Mr. Lewandowski?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's what that says, yes.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    You agree, and you've actually said so today, that anyone, 
whether it's a Trump campaign official or Russian individuals 
and entities, anyone who attacks our elections should be held 
accountable to the fullest extent of the law, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do agree with that.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you. I agree, too.
    So, to be very clear, the special counsel uncovered serious 
crimes by over a dozen individuals, including Russian 
nationals, for conspiracy against the United States.
    I'm a representative of Georgia, and I'm very concerned 
with protecting our elections. Georgia has actually actively 
been targeted for election interference by the Russians. 
Unsealed indictments from the Mueller investigation show that 
Russian operatives visited websites for Cobb and Fulton 
Counties, both of those reside within my own district, looking 
for vulnerabilities that they might be able to exploit.
    You have said, not once but several times, and I quote, 
``trying to coordinate to materially impact the outcome of the 
election, that if they did that, I hope they go to jail for the 
rest of their lives, because our democracy is too important to 
play with.''
    Mr. Lewandowski, those are your words. You've continued to 
stand by that. As I've said today earlier, I agree. Our 
democracy is simply too important to play with. So, I'm glad 
that we're investigating. I'm glad that we are holding 
accountable anyone who will attack our elections.
    That's why Special Counsel Mueller's investigation was so 
vitally important. It exposed people attacking our elections in 
Georgia and throughout the country. That is an issue that 
should never divide us among partisan lines.
    So, we have to make sure that we are protecting our 2020 
elections at all costs. Every American deserves the right to 
vote, and we must protect that right at all costs, because 
democracy is, as you have said today, too important to play 
with.
    I will yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
    I want to thank Mr. Lewandowski for being here today and 
answering these questions for many hours.
    With respect to Mr. Michael Cohen, he communicated 
regularly with Mr. Trump during the campaign. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. There was regular communication, yes.
    Mr. Stanton. I want to read from paragraph 7B of Mr. 
Cohen's Federal indictment which states: ``Cohen asked 
individual 1 about the possibility of individual 1 traveling to 
Russia in connection with the Moscow project and to ask a 
senior campaign official about potential business travel to 
Russia.''
    The senior campaign official Mr. Cohen references are 
yourself. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Could be.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Cohen testified before the House Oversight 
Committee on February 27, it's on the screen in front of you, 
he testified specifically that that senior adviser was 
yourself. I'll skip to the end. Congressman DeSaulnier asked, 
who was the campaign official? Mr. Cohen responded, quote, 
``Corey Lewandowski.''
    Now, more importantly, Mr. Cohen said to the special 
counsel that he discussed with candidate Trump the subject of 
traveling to Russia during the campaign and that Trump, quote, 
``indicated a willingness to travel to Russia,'' unquote. 
That's volume I, page 78.
    Mr. Cohen then testified before Congress that Trump was 
individual 1. It's on the screen in front of you. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's what Mr. Cohen testified to.
    Mr. Stanton. Looking at the indictment again, we can now 
fill in the blanks. Mr. Cohen asked individual 1, candidate 
Trump, and a senior campaign official, you, about traveling to 
Russia.
    Mr. Chair, can I take my regular 5 minutes at this time?
    Chair Nadler. Yeah. The gentleman is recognized--the 
gentlelady yields back. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    During your time as campaign manager, you communicated 
regularly with the President. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. With then candidate Trump, yes, sir.
    Mr. Stanton. Yeah. In fact, you said you sat next to him 
for, quote, ``thousands of hours while you were campaign 
chairman.''
    During your time as campaign manager, did you ever have a 
conversation with candidate Trump about his campaign team 
having contact with Russians?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection, no.
    Mr. Stanton. The special counsel's report includes emails 
from George Papadopoulos he sent to you asking about Mr. Trump 
traveling to Russia. Mr. Cohen also asked you about traveling 
to Russia per his indictment. Carter Page emailed you about 
Trump speaking at an event in Russia. In your thousands of 
hours speaking with the President, you never mentioned any of 
these people emailing you, asking you about Trump traveling to 
Russia? Is that your testimony here today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't recall ever having a conversation 
with Mr. Trump about traveling to Russia.
    Mr. Stanton. What about after the time that Trump was 
elected, did you ever discuss with the President his knowledge 
of his campaign's interactions with Russians?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, at the advice of White House 
counsel, I can't answer questions. That would be privileged, 
and I respect that privilege.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Lewandowski, of course, was never a White 
House employee. I know it's been asked before, but I'm going to 
ask again, Mr. Chair. I have a Parliamentary inquiry. Is this 
an appropriate assertion of privilege?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Stanton. Is this an appropriate assertion of privilege?
    Chair Nadler. This is most certainly not an appropriate 
assertion of privilege for the reasons I stated before. 
Certainly, there's no conceivable privilege for any time period 
before the President was President.
    Mr. Stanton. To be clear, the White House apparently is 
directing you not to answer whether the President knew about 
his campaign communicating with Russia just after Russia had 
attacked our elections. I think the American people want to 
know and are frustrated today what, in fact, are you hiding?
    In Mr. Cohen's Federal indictment, it named Mr. Trump as 
knowing about campaign communications with Russia. Again, did 
you ever discuss this fact with Mr. Trump?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, to the best of my knowledge, during 
our campaign, I never had a conversation with Mr. Trump about 
any contacts with Russia.
    Mr. Stanton. The President is named as individual 1 in a 
criminal case by his former personal attorney. You're asking us 
to believe that you never discussed with the President this 
fact in all your thousands of hours of conversations?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, Congressman, to the best of my 
knowledge, I don't recall ever having a conversation with 
candidate Trump about any interaction with Russia.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Cohen's indictment also states that 
candidate Trump directed Mr. Cohen to make payments to certain 
individuals beginning in October of 2016, to prevent those 
individuals from telling negative stories about candidate 
Trump. During the fall of 2016, at the time of these payments, 
did you ever discuss with candidate Trump these payments?
    Mr. Lewandowski. To the best of my knowledge, I never had a 
conversation about those payments.
    Mr. Stanton. What about after the time that Mr. Trump was 
elected? Did you ever have a conversation with him about those 
payments?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The White House has directed that I do not 
disclose any conversations or the substance of those 
discussions with the President or his advisers to protect 
Executive branch privilege.
    Mr. Stanton. To be clear, you're being told that you're not 
allowed to answer whether the President told you that he 
directed his personal lawyer to make illegal payments?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm simply going at the direction of the 
White House. It's not my privilege to waive, Congressman.
    Mr. Stanton. To be clear, the White House is telling you 
not to answer whether you discussed potential crimes with the 
President of the United States?
    Mr. Lewandowski, it's clear to me that the President--
    Chair Nadler. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
    Mr. Stanton. Please.
    Chair Nadler. I believe the Nixon case established the very 
ironclad principle that discussions regarding criminal acts are 
not privileged, so there's no possibility of a privilege with 
respect to the question of whether you were asked about 
criminal activities.
    I yield.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Lewandowski, it's clear to me that the 
President, the campaign, and yourself did not want the American 
people to know about any campaign contact with Russia. You lied 
to cover it up. You lied when you publicly said you knew, 
quote, ``nothing about Russia.''
    Multiple senior campaign Members were regularly 
communicating with you about traveling to Russia, meeting with 
Russians, and even Mr. Trump possibly going to Russia. There's 
documentation that contradicts your denials, including emails 
with you personally.
    This Committee, our Committee, will not let anyone, not the 
President of the United States, not anyone, to hide the truth 
to the American people any longer. No one is above the law.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Deutch. Point of Order, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman will state his Point of Order.
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chair, the refusal by Mr. Lewandowski to 
answer the questions about whether he had discussions with the 
President about payments from personal lawyer to--those 
payments from the personal lawyer or whether he had discussions 
with the President about knowledge of the campaign's 
interactions with Russia are not protected.
    I would ask, as the Chair reconsiders whether to hold Mr. 
Lewandowski in contempt as he goes forward from this hearing, 
it's important to note that the White House directed Mr. 
Lewandowski not to discuss the substance of conversations about 
official government matters.
    The White House counsel is here. If the Chair would like to 
ask them whether they assert that those discussions about 
Russia or personal payments are official government business, 
they can be asked. Otherwise, certainly as you consider and you 
weigh whether to hold Mr. Lewandowski in contempt, you should 
consider those.
    Chair Nadler. Yeah. It is certainly the case--I'm not going 
to ask White House counsel--it is certainly the case that 
conversations about criminal actions are not official White 
House business, without question. I will give Mr. Lewandowski, 
in light of this ruling, the opportunity to answer that 
question again.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, while he's doing that, I have a 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I'm not 
an attorney, and I have to continue, at the advice of White 
House counsel, and you're welcome to take this matter up with 
them, but I've drawn the line of having private conversations 
with the President of the United States during the transition 
or his time as President.
    I've been very candid and open about answering all 
questions about the campaign, and I will continue to do so. At 
the direction of the counsel, they have exerted Executive 
privilege of which is not mine to waive.
    Chair Nadler. I will then simply observe on the record that 
the White House has claimed privilege for--with respect to the 
question of possible criminal activity or instructions for 
criminal activity by the President of the United States.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Collins. In light of the discussion just now, and the 
gentleman from Florida's long question, was there ever a doubt 
in this Committee that we were not trying to find a way hold 
him in contempt?
    Chair Nadler. Was there what?
    Mr. Collins. Was there ever a doubt today from the start of 
this that we were ever trying not to hold him in contempt?
    Chair Nadler. That's not a proper Parliamentary inquiry. 
It's not a Parliamentary inquiry.
    The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Witness has requested a brief recess. Accordingly, the 
Committee will take a 5-minute recess.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will come to order. We'll 
reconvene. When we left, we were about to have the gentlelady 
from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, America learned today that no one else 
would do what the President asked of you. Not McGahn, not 
Sessions, and not Dearborn. To the President's disappointment, 
not even you. Yet, it was very important that you maintain a 
good relationship with the President, because after you left 
Trump campaign in December of 2016, you co-founded Avenue 
Strategies. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Dean. I'm reading from their website. Avenue Strategies 
describes itself as having, quote, ``a core focus on government 
affairs, public affairs, strategic consulting, public 
relations, and crisis management to engage policymakers in our 
clients' behalf.''
    That's what Avenue's website said. Am I right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know. I haven't worked there in 2 
years.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. That was the pitch when you did work there?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yeah, I couldn't speak to that.
    Ms. Dean. You were pitching clients on your ability to 
engage policymakers. That means government access was important 
to you. Yes or no?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. You couldn't engage policymakers without 
having access.
    You did have access to the President. You acknowledged, 
and, in fact, I would say you boasted you were very close with 
the President. Isn't that so?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think it's a fair assessment that I'm 
close to the President, yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Dean. You visited him many times in the Oval Office. 
You called him on the phone. You had access that others didn't. 
It was important to you, wasn't it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. What was important to me? Speaking to the 
President?
    Ms. Dean. Your access.
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. Yet, you did use that access to pitch 
clients. As I said, in December of 2016, you co-founded Avenue 
Strategies. On December 17 of that same year, you took a 
business trip to Mexico to meet with Mexican billionaire Carlos 
Slim. Is that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It is.
    Ms. Dean. Politico reported you traveled to Mexico on a 
business development trip with Slim. When you met with Slim, 
you pitched consulting services with him, yes?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, that's fake news.
    Ms. Dean. Oh, you met with Slim. You didn't pitch your 
brand-new endeavor, your new enterprise.
    Did you tell him you could get a meeting at that time with 
then President-elect Trump?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not that I recall, no.
    Ms. Dean. I'm showing you a slide.
    Isn't it a fact that just 3 days later, on December 20, 
Trump tweeted a Presidential statement, a quote, ``yes, it's 
true, Carlos Slim, the great businessman from Mexico, called me 
about getting together for a meeting.'' We met, all caps. He's 
a great guy, exclamation point.
    Slim did actually meet with the President-elect, Trump, a 
few days later. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm not certain.
    Ms. Dean. This is all a coincidence, I suppose.
    In fact, his spokesperson explained that Slim's quote, 
``sit-down at Trump Mar-a-Lago resort came days after 
Lewandowski had traveled to Mexico on a business development 
trip and met with Slim.''
    You also proposed to do work for a payday lender, Community 
Choice Financial. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think the previous company I was working 
with did that work.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. You met or had some engagement with that 
client. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm not sure.
    Ms. Dean. Well, I'll try to refresh your recollection.
    A source from that meeting said you pledged that you, 
quote, ``would get Trump to fire that company's arch nemesis, 
the Consumer National Protection Bureau head, Richard 
Cordray,'' I think you'll see the slide reveals that, if they 
hired you and your firm, Avenue. Is that source accurate?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Ms. Dean. Oh, they're lying, too?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No. It's called fake news, Congresswoman. 
I'm sure you've never been misquoted.
    Ms. Dean. Well, isn't it true, Mr. Lewandowski, that a few 
months later, in a live Meet the Press interview, you called 
for President Trump to oust CFPB Director Richard Cordray?
    Let me play you that clip now.
    [Video shown.]

        It's my recommendation to the President of the United States to 
        fire Richard Cordray.

    Ms. Dean. Another coincidence that you are pitching what 
your client wants you to pitch. Coincidence?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Congresswoman, how is this relevant to the 
hearing?
    Ms. Dean. I'll ask the questions.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Lewandowski, you met with representatives 
from Facebook and Blackstone to pitch them on Avenue services 
as well. Am I correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, I don't recall that.
    Ms. Dean. You don't recall that?
    Do you recall actually saying that you had access to the 
President's Twitter account?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Those words never came out of my mouth, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Dean. Did you ever claim to have access?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my knowledge, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Dean. Did you ever have access to the President's 
Twitter account?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't recall.
    Ms. Dean. You don't recall if you had access to the 
President's Twitter account?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe I've ever had access.
    Ms. Dean. Unbelievable to me.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, his Twitter followers are large, but 
I don't believe I've ever had access to his Twitter account.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. I have just a few seconds left.
    Mr. Lewandowski, your role as the President's enforcer has 
evaporated. You can protect him no longer.
    Mr. Chair, on this 223rd Constitution Day we could not be 
in a more important place in this Judiciary Committee proving 
to the American people that their Constitution, our 
Constitution, is stronger than a President in search of 
corruption and coverup.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Florida.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Lewandowski, my colleagues have gone through some 
unbelievable acts by the President attempting to obstruct an 
investigation into his conduct and then to cover it up. That 
coverup has extended to preventing Witnesses from coming to 
talk to this Committee without any lawful basis of doing so.
    Let me just be very clear. We are right now in the United 
States of America, and we have a President who is obstructing 
our congressional investigation into his misconduct. We know 
why he's doing this. The President wants to prevent Witnesses 
from testifying to Congress and the American people because he 
wants to hide his misconduct.
    We've heard the name Rick Dearborn a lot today, the former 
deputy chief of staff.
    Mr. Collins. Point of Order, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. On August--
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady will suspend.
    The gentleman will state his Point of Order.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just ask, 
without follow-up, is the gentlelady accusing the President of 
a crime?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I can--
    Mr. Collins. If she can reword, I'll be happy to withdraw.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I am not accusing anyone of anything.
    Can I continue? Can I reclaim my time?
    Mr. Collins. Not if you continue in the vein, you're 
continuing with the question saying that he committed a crime.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Mr. Collins, this is not a reality TV 
show.
    Mr. Collins. Not for you either.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. This is a serious Judiciary Committee 
hearing.
    Mr. Collins. Then, ask--
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. We are trying to investigate 
misconduct by the President.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has--
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. May I continue, Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has stated his Point of Order.
    The gentlelady may continue with her time.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
    On August 26, the Committee served a subpoena on Rick 
Dearborn to appear here today. You testified that you gave 
Dearborn the message dictated to him by the President. We went 
over that message today. It asked the Attorney General to 
direct the special counsel not to investigate the President.
    That's not all. Mr. Dearborn was also Jeff Sessions' chief 
of staff during the Trump campaign. In that role, Dearborn 
coordinated meetings for candidate Trump and the Trump 
campaign, meetings that were organized by Russian 
organizations. Dearborn himself communicated with Russian 
officials. Once again the President is trying to prevent us 
from learning the truth about his conduct.
    Let's be honest here. Mr. Dearborn is not here today 
because the President is afraid of what he would tell us and 
the American people. The President directed him not to appear 
based on a fake claim of absolute immunity. Even though we 
can't hear from this important Witness about the President's 
potential obstruction of justice, I will share some of the 
subjects that I would have asked Mr. Dearborn if he were here 
today.
    Mr. Lewandowski, we heard that the President directed you 
to deliver a message to the Attorney General. You asked 
Dearborn to deliver the message dictated to you by the 
President, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Can you remind me what page that's in the 
Mueller report?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Volume II, page 92, right in the 
middle of the page.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Right under point 2.
    Following his June meeting with the President--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, and you gave Dearborn that 
message and asked him to deliver it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate, yes.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
    Well, what we know is that Dearborn did not deliver your 
secret message. In fact, he told the special counsel, quote, 
and you can see it on the screen, ``being asked to serve as a 
messenger to Sessions made Dearborn uncomfortable.'' It 
definitely raised an eyebrow. Dearborn recalled not wanting to 
ask where it came from or think further about doing anything 
with it. As soon as the President learned that Dearborn knew 
and told the special counsel how bad it was, he's directed him 
now not to come in front of this Committee to testify.
    So, it's no wonder the President wants to prevent Dearborn 
from testifying because we would be able to ask him why he 
wanted nothing further to do with the President's conduct, why 
he was so uncomfortable he didn't deliver that message.
    In fact, Dearborn, as an actual government employee, was 
familiar with the Presidential Records Act. He knew that any 
official business must be documented. He did not keep the 
notes. The President doesn't want us to know why Dearborn 
didn't even want to keep that message.
    Dearborn also knew the White House policy that any messages 
to the Attorney General were supposed to go through the White 
House counsel. The President doesn't want us to ask Dearborn 
why it was so wrong for the President to call in his private 
enforcer instead of the White House counsel.
    So, again, let's make something very clear here today. 
Presidents of the United States cannot ignore congressional 
subpoenas. Richard Nixon learned this. His impeachment 
proceedings had an article of impeachment based on doing 
exactly that.
    No President can be allowed to violate his or her 
constitutional duties, nor can any President be allowed to 
obstruct a congressional investigation or hide crimes. We will 
not sit back and let this President continue to obstruct 
justice any longer. Let me remind everyone that in this country 
no one is above the law.
    Mr. Collins. Point of Order, Mr. Chair. I move to take down 
the gentlelady's words.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Collins. I still wanted to take down her words.
    Chair Nadler. Which words do you want taken down?
    Mr. Collins. That she can no longer allow this President to 
obstruct justice. She cannot do that.
    Chair Nadler. I will rule that she can do that.
    Mr. Collins. I will appeal the ruling of the Chair, then.
    Chair Nadler. Fine. The ruling of the--the gentleman--we 
will suspend for a moment.
    In the interest of time, I would ask the gentlelady if she 
would withdraw that characterization?
    Mr. Collins. It is against the House rules.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Can I say no President can be allowed 
to obstruct?
    Chair Nadler. You certainly can.
    Mr. Collins. That, you can.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. We won't allow any President to 
continue to obstruct justice. Is that okay?
    Chair Nadler. Yes.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Representative Collins.
    Chair Nadler. You want to say that?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Let's say that.
    Chair Nadler. Okay. Does she have any time left?
    The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Today's hearing and those we've held previously have 
outlined serious evidence of obstruction of justice. The 
President didn't just attempt to obstruct the special counsel's 
investigation, but he is also obstructing our congressional 
investigation into his conduct. The President has instructed a 
number of Witnesses to ignore our subpoenas to hide his 
wrongdoing from the American people.
    One of those Witnesses is Rob Porter, the former White 
House staff secretary who was served with a subpoena by this 
Committee on August 26. Rob Porter was prominently featured in 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report with a detailed 
description of efforts to obstruct justice. The report 
describes the President directing then White House Counsel Don 
McGahn to fire the special counsel and then ordering him to lie 
about it.
    The Committee has many questions for Mr. Porter, but the 
President doesn't want us asking those questions. So, the 
President directed Mr. Porter not to appear based on a bogus 
claim of absolute immunity, a pattern by this President to 
cover up his obstruction efforts.
    Let me be clear. Mr. Dearborn is not here today either for 
the same reason, the President's fear of what we and the 
American people could learn from their testimony. Their absence 
won't stop our oversight, and I will still go through items I 
would have covered with Mr. Porter.
    On January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported, and it's 
up on the slide, quote, ``the President had ordered McGahn to 
have the Department of Justice fire the special counsel.'' 
After the news broke, the President went on TV and denied the 
story. This is all public.
    Following the article, the President pressured McGahn to 
put out a statement denying he had been asked to fire the 
special counsel, but McGahn refused. McGahn's attorney told the 
President's attorney that, quote, ``the Times story was 
accurate in reporting that the President wanted the special 
counsel removed.''
    The President didn't drop the issue. He then used Rob 
Porter to convince McGahn to make a false denial. The President 
told Porter that the article was, quote, ``bullshit, that he 
never tried to terminate the special counsel.'' The President 
said that McGahn leaked to the media to make himself look good.
    We know from the special counsel's report that what the 
President told Porter was not true. In fact, the report proves 
that the President did ask McGahn to fire the special counsel 
over and over again, and McGahn refused.
    That's pretty bad, but it gets worse. According to the 
special counsel's report, quote, ``the President then directed 
Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the 
President never directed McGahn to fire the special counsel.''
    To be clear, the President asked Porter to tell McGahn to 
create a false record to hide the President's conduct. The 
President was so desperate to hide his misconduct that he even 
told Porter to threaten McGahn if he did not create the written 
denial. In fact, the President said, quote, ``if he doesn't 
write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him.''
    Porter delivered that threat, but McGahn stood firm and 
refused to assist the President's misconduct. This should ring 
a bell. It's like the threat the President asked you, Mr. 
Lewandowski, to deliver to Jeff Sessions. Now, the President is 
attempting to bully his Witnesses and directed you, Mr. 
Lewandowski, not to answer our questions under our subpoena.
    We will not let this coverup stand. That is why we are 
pursuing this impeachment investigation. Obstruction of 
Congress, ignoring congressional subpoenas is a serious 
offense. Nixon learned this. The third article of impeachment 
against Nixon explained that he was, quote, ``violating his 
Constitution duty by blocking evidence under duly authorized 
subpoenas issued by this Committee.''
    Today, the President is doing just that, willfully 
disobeying subpoenas to cover up his conduct.
    I will now yield the remainder of my time to our Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewandowski, your behavior in this hearing room has 
been completely unacceptable, and it is part of a pattern by a 
White House desperate for the American people not to hear the 
truth.
    I've been asked several times today whether the Committee 
will hold you in contempt. That is certainly under 
consideration. There is a far more troubling level of contempt 
on display here today, and that is President Trump's role in 
your refusal to answer questions.
    The pattern of obstruction laid out in the Mueller report 
has not stopped. You showed the American public in real time 
that the Trump Administration will do anything and everything 
in its power to obstruct the work of the Congress. The 
President's lawyers are sitting behind you right now to make 
sure that you do not answer us.
    Well, this Committee is focused on the evidence of 
potential corruption, obstruction and abuse of power, and 
exposing that misconduct is our top priority. Make no mistake, 
we will hold President Trump accountable.
    Mr. Gaetz. Point of Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, did you have that little speech 
prepared before this hearing went downhill--
    Chair Nadler. That is not a proper Parliamentary inquiry. 
The answer is no.
    Pursuant to the resolution for investigative procedures 
adopted by this Committee last year--last week rather--and 
pursuant to notice, we will now proceed to staff questioning.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. The majority has designated Barry Berke to 
conduct its questioning.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, Point of Order. Clause, Clause 
2(j)--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Point of Order.
    Mr. Collins. Clause 2(j)(2)(C) of Rule XI permits up to 1 
hour of questioning by staff of this Committee. This gentleman 
is a private consultant--
    Chair Nadler. You're talking too fast. I can't understand 
you. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Collins. This gentleman is a private consultant whose 
very consultant contract explicitly states that he is not an 
employee of this Committee, not a government employee. The 
Congressional Handbook states in explicit terms consultants' 
contracts, consultants contracted to work for standing 
committees, 2 U.S.C. 4301, are explicitly not employees of the 
Committee.
    House Admin Committee will not even approve a contract for 
a consultant that will be performing regular or normal duties 
of the Committee staff. Any attempt to suggest that someone can 
simultaneously be an employee of the Committee and not be an 
employee of the Committee and the Committee staff defies even 
the most attenuated logic.
    The majority's use of private sector consultants to 
question Witnesses constitutes an egregious violation of House 
rules under any circumstances. Under the circumstances of the 
current so-called impeachment inquiry, it would constitute an 
unprecedented privatization of impeachment.
    I have the employment contract here of the gentleman, Mr. 
Barry Berke, and I also have the letter in which you are asking 
a question. Also, have the staff roll, which he is not listed 
as a staff member. He is a private consultant.
    The Point of Order is he should not be able to allow 
questioning of this Witness. I have no problem because you have 
already run through and bullied through last week a staff 
questioning. Since you have fine staff, if your staff asks 
questions, I will withdraw the Point of Order. Mr. Berke or Mr. 
Norman is neither one allowed to ask questions under this rule.
    Ms. Lofgren's Committee is here, and we do have the 
Committee staff from House Admin who agrees with this 
interpretation.
    Chair Nadler. I am prepared to rule on the Point of Order.
    For the purposes of staff questioning under the resolution 
adopted by the Committee on September 12, 2019, there is no 
distinction between staff and consultants.
    First, the Chair has significant discretion to determine 
who qualifies as staff for the purposes of the resolution. 
Committee consultants in effect function as staff for all 
intents and purposes. They are paid out of the Committee's 
budget, they work at the Chair's discretion, and they are 
subject to all the same ethical and legal responsibilities as 
any other House employee.
    Second, the Committee's retention of consultants is 
consistent with prior Committee practice. Committee consultants 
have been retained to question Witnesses at hearings and other 
proceedings. They've assisted with investigations, including 
impeachment investigations.
    For example, David Shippers was the consultant to the 
majority and Abbe Lowell to the minority during the Clinton 
impeachment investigation. Committee consultants have 
questioned Witnesses without objection from Members.
    In fact, just last Congress, the Republican majority of 
this Committee hired consultants to assist with their 
investigation into former Secretary of State Clinton's emails, 
and they regularly asked questions during transcribed 
interviews and other matters connected with that investigation.
    Our consultants were retained specifically to assist the 
Committee perform its oversight and investigative functions, 
which is the purpose of today's hearing.
    Accordingly, I overrule the Point of Order.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, let's continue this for a second, 
because this is an important point. Before I ask--
    Chair Nadler. Do you wish to appeal the ruling of the 
Chair?
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair--
    Chair Nadler. I'm sorry. You can be heard on the Point of 
Order.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Because, Mr. Chair, you're going down a very interesting 
road here, and this is an interesting road that we've already 
discussed and undoubtedly you've had a very big 
misunderstanding of just a few minutes ago.
    We are not in an impeachment inquiry. We're not. You may 
want to it be. You may think it is. If you want to go to the 
floor right now, I'm sure they'll clear floor time for us and 
you can bring your privileged resolution for an impeachment 
inquiry. You can, but you don't have the votes.
    You can't just make it up on the fly. The Chair of the 
Administration Committee is here, that we have talked to our 
Committee staff on that part. They would not ever agree that a 
contract employee is a staff member. The folks that you just 
named were after an impeachment inquiry was formed. They were 
hired for that specific purpose.
    Now, if you want to continue this, this is a violation of 
the House rules. There is a privileged resolution for the House 
rules.
    We've already had today the problematic issue of 
overstepping time. This one, Mr. Chair, is one that cannot go 
forward. This is one that you have great staff members, they 
are legally staff. They fit every definition. No contract 
approved by the House Admin Committee, including the Chair who 
is on this Committee, can actually contract services to be 
provided by a consultant that are regular, normal business of 
the Committee staff.
    This is regular, normal Committee oversight, if you want to 
have it. Even how you dress it up, it doesn't matter. This is 
not anything different. To continue down this path puts your 
entire line, already in question by millions of people, but a 
question in Committee to this House puts us in jeopardy, 
because if it's win at all costs, Mr. Chair, then we've got a 
problem.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair--
    Mr. Collins. If it's win at all costs, we've got a problem.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, I just have a question for the 
Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Who seeks--
    Mr. Jordan. I just have a question.
    Chair Nadler. No. Questions are not in order. We're 
discussing a Point of Order.
    Mr. Jordan. I have a question on the Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. Then, you're recognized.
    Mr. Jordan. If they're staff, why were they called 
consultants in their employment contract?
    Chair Nadler. That's not a Point of Order.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, then let me ask, Mr. Chair, let me ask 
about this. Did the rule change last week, 1 week ago today 
that we voted on, that you voted for, we voted against, did it 
mention the word consultants in the rule changes that were 
adopted by the Committee?
    Chair Nadler. I can't hear he's saying because you're 
talking.
    Voice. Chair, regular order.
    Chair Nadler. Yes. I cannot hear what Mr. Jordan is saying 
because Mr. Collins is talking too.
    Mr. Jordan. The resolution that the majority adopted last 
week, was the word consultant mentioned in there when it came, 
relative to the ability of staff to ask questions?
    Chair Nadler. It was not.
    Mr. Jordan. It was not.
    So, let me get this straight. You changed the rules last 
week, and now this week you're not going to follow the rules 
you changed?
    Chair Nadler. We are--all right. I am going to rule--
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. No, I'm going to rule on the Point of Order.
    Mr. Biggs. I'd like to speak towards the Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. It is not to have a debate on a Point of 
Order.
    The gentleman made his Point of Order.
    Mr. Collins. They're not an employee of the Committee, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chair Nadler. You've made that point. That's your Point of 
Order. I am prepared to rule on it.
    Ms. Lofgren. May I be heard on a point of personal 
privilege?
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady.
    Ms. Lofgren. Since my name has been invoked.
    I have ascertained that, in fact, the staff director for 
the House Administration Committee has not been solicited for 
his information.
    Mr. Collins. I did not ask your staff director. I asked 
ours.
    Chair Nadler. Okay.
    Ms. Lofgren. Fine.
    Mr. Collins. Because you're--at this point--
    Ms. Lofgren. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Collins. The issue here, though--
    Chair Nadler. The issue here was stated already by you. You 
don't have to repeat it.
    Mr. Collins. No. Be careful going down this road, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chair Nadler. You made your point, and I'm going to rule on 
it.
    Mr. Collins. Be careful, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. I'm going to be very careful.
    Number one, we are in an impeachment investigation, but 
that is--whether or not we are--is not relevant to this 
question, so we're not going to debate whether--
    Mr. Collins. Yes, it is.
    Chair Nadler. It is not relevant to that question.
    Mr. Collins. Now, you [inaudible] investigation inquiry. I 
mean, which is it?
    Chair Nadler. That is not relevant to this question. The 
Committee's retention of consultants is consistent with prior 
Committee practice. Consultants have been retained to question 
Witnesses at hearings and at other proceedings, not only in an 
impeachment hearing. This is consistent with past practice. I 
so rule. I overrule the Point of Order.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The Point of Order is overruled, unless 
someone wants to ask for a vote on the Point of Order.
    Mr. Collins. Now, Mr. Chair--
    Chair Nadler. Do you wish to ask--do you wish to vote--
    Mr. Collins. Yes. No, I want to talk. I want to ask you a 
question here, because--
    Chair Nadler. No. The Point of Order--
    Voice. Regular order. Regular order, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The Point of Order--you raised a point of--
you were recognized for the purpose of raising a Point of 
Order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have a question.
    Chair Nadler. You raised it. I ruled on it. Do you wish to 
appeal the ruling of the Chair, yes or no?
    Mr. Collins. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to table, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. What?
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to table the appeal of the ruling.
    Mr. Collins. This is a sad day. This is a sad day for the 
Committee.
    Chair Nadler. The ruling of the Chair is appealed. The 
gentlelady moves to table the appeal of the ruling of the 
Chair.
    The clerk will call the roll. The clerk will call the roll 
on the question of approving the motion to table the appeal of 
the ruling of the Chair.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Lofgren, aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Cohen?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.
    Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
    Ms. Bass?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Richmond?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jeffries?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jayapal votes aye.
    Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Demings votes aye.
    Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Correa. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Correa votes aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Scanlon votes aye.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Neguse votes aye.
    Ms. McBath?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton votes aye.
    Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Dean votes aye.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye.
    Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Escobar votes aye.
    Mr. Collins?
    Mr. Collins. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan votes no.
    Mr. Buck?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Roby?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz votes no.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. McClintock votes no.
    Ms. Lesko?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Reschenthaler?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline?
    Mr. Cline. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Steube?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cohen votes aye.
    Chair Nadler. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote?
    The clerk will report--no, no, wait, wait. We're still 
waiting for someone.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Arizona? How many--has the 
gentleman from Arizona been recorded?
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton, you voted aye.
    Chair Nadler. Is everyone in agreement? Anybody else?
    The clerk will report.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chair, there are 19 ayes and 8 noes.
    [The vote was as follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7809.022
    
    Chair Nadler. The motion to--the Point of Order--the motion 
to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair is agreed to. 
The majority has designated Barry Berke to conduct his 
questioning.
    Mr. Berke, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I have a Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, you mentioned 
earlier that there were consultants who had been used to 
question Witnesses. So, I'm just going to ask as a 
Parliamentary inquiry, what were the parliamentary occurrences 
where a--
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of Order, Mr. Chair. That's not a 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is correct. That is not a 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Who else has a Parliamentary inquiry?
    Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, was today's Witness, Mr. 
Lewandowski, when he was subpoenaed, was he notified that 
consultants would be questioning him?
    Chair Nadler. That is not a Parliamentary inquiry. That is 
not a Parliamentary inquiry either.
    Mr. Jordan. That's a procedural--it's an important 
procedural question.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Berke is recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn.
    Chair Nadler. A motion to adjourn is in order and is not 
debatable. The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler?
    Chair Nadler. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cohen votes no.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no.
    Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Deutch votes no.
    Ms. Bass?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Richmond?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jeffries?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jayapal votes no.
    Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Demings votes no.
    Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Correa. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Correa votes no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Scanlon votes no.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Neguse votes no.
    Ms. McBath?
    Ms. McBath. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. McBath votes no.
    Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton votes no.
    Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Dean votes no.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. No
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes no.
    Ms. Escobar?
    Ms. Escobar. No.
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Escobar votes no.
    Mr. Collins?
    Chair Nadler. To adjourn.
    Ms. Strasser. Motion to adjourn.
    Mr. Collins. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
    Mr. Buck?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Ms. Roby?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes yes.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
    Ms. Lesko?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Reschenthaler?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline?
    Mr. Cline. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline votes aye.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Steube?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. Are there any Members who wish to--the 
gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Gaetz. Am I recorded?
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz, you are not recorded.
    Mr. Gaetz. Aye.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz votes aye.
    Chair Nadler. Are there any other Members who wish to be 
recorded?
    The clerk will report.
    Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chair, there are 8 ayes and 20 noes.
    [The vote was as follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7809.023
    
    Chair Nadler. The motion to adjourn is not agreed to.
    Mr. Berke is recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Point of Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Who has the point of Parliamentary inquiry?
    The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary--
    Mr. Biggs. My Parliamentary inquiry--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his point of 
Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    My inquiry is this, it relates to the rule that we changed 
last week where we mention staff would conduct questioning, and 
it has been expanded to include consultants today. My question 
is, did we contemplate that--the distinction between 
independent contractor such as a consultant?
    Chair Nadler. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Did we 
contemplate what?
    Mr. Biggs. Did we contemplate independent contractors, such 
as a consultant, would be vis-a-vis employees, which is what 
the staff would be, as being part of the distinction when that 
rule was changed last?
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady from--
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chair, the advice I have received from the 
top staff person at the House Administration Committee is that 
staff can be comprised of employees, interns, detailees, 
fellows, contractors, et cetera. Staff and employee are not 
equivalent terms.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. So, would the gentlelady yield to a question?
    Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
    Mr. Biggs. So, my question would be, as the Committee on 
House Administration has indicated, to me anyway, that it will 
not approve a contract if the services to be provided by the 
consultant are the regular and normal duties of Committee 
staff. Are you saying that this--I mean, I was under the 
impression that this was not extraordinary--
    Ms. Lofgren. That's not pertinent to this proceeding. I'd 
be happy, after the meeting, to go through it. This was signed 
off by the Committee itself. It met all our requirements.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has not stated a Parliamentary 
inquiry. The time is Mr. Berke's. Mr. Berke has 30 minutes.
    Mr. Chavkin. Mr. Chair, as you know, I'm counsel for Mr. 
Lewandowski. I need about 30 seconds to register a formal 
protest.
    Chair Nadler. You are not a Witness, and you should not be 
seated at that table.
    Mr. Chavkin. I understand that. I'm going to leave as soon 
as I can register this formal protest based upon the debate 
that I've just heard. These seem to be unauthorized questions. 
I know you choose your words carefully.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will--
    Mr. Chavkin. I will leave it to Mr. Lewandowski to decide, 
but it is my view that he should not answer unauthorized 
questions.
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of Order, Mr. Chair.
    We're not interested in your views. We have a hearing to 
conduct.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's point is well taken.
    Mr. Chavkin. As his legal counsel--
    Chair Nadler. We are having a hearing to conduct--
    Mr. Gaetz. Point of Order. I don't believe Mr. Cicilline 
stated a rule.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Lewandowski will answer all questions. If 
he has a legitimate privilege to assert, you may of course 
assert the legitimate privilege. Other than that, he's under 
subpoena, he will answer all questions.
    This is being done pursuant to the Committee's rules. If 
his counsel doesn't like it, you don't interpret our rules, 
with all due respect.
    Mr. Chavkin. Right. What my point is, Mr. Chair, these are 
unauthorized questions.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Berke is recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. Berke. Mr. Lewandowski, did you ever become concerned 
that the President had asked you to do something that could 
expose you to criminal liability?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry, what was the question?
    Mr. Berke. Did you ever become concerned that the President 
of the United States had asked you to do something that could 
expose you to criminal liability?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Was I concerned that the President asked 
me to do something? Not to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Berke. Were you ever concerned that the President had 
asked you to do something that put you in harm's way, made you 
feel that you were in trouble?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think I've asked and answered that 
question.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, I'd like to show you a video of an 
interview you did on FOX News. This was on January 16, 2018.

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/0aojgaln6w49cjj/
Video%202%20-%20Berke.mp4?dl=0]

    Mr. Berke. Sir, you were answering that with regard to your 
appearance before the House Intelligence Committee. You say you 
take the Fifth when you are in trouble. You didn't do anything, 
so you were going to testify. You weren't going to take the 
Fifth before that Committee with regard to questions about the 
campaign.
    Were you concerned, sir, that you had done something with 
regard to delivering or agreeing to deliver the President's 
message and, therefore, you could get in trouble based on what 
you agreed to do and attempted to do?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have no concerns.
    Mr. Berke. Isn't it a fact, sir, that contrary to your 
testimony that you voluntarily appeared in front of the special 
counsel, when you were called to provide answers to the special 
counsel, you indicated your intent to assert your rights under 
the Fifth amendment not to self-incriminate? Is that true?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection. Is 
that in the report, sir?
    Mr. Berke. Isn't it true, sir, that you refused to testify 
without receiving immunity?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe that's accurate. I'd be 
happy if you could show me that. If it's in the report, I'll be 
happy to answer if.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, is it your testimony under oath that you 
never received immunity prior to answering questions of the 
special counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a question for Special Counsel 
Mueller, and I won't be answering mechanics of the 
investigation.
    Mr. Berke. My question to you, sir, is did you refuse to 
answer the special counsel's questions without getting a grant 
of immunity protecting you from having your words used against 
you in a criminal prosecution?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've asked and answered your question.
    Mr. Berke. Are you denying, sir, that you refused to answer 
questions and asserted your rights under the Fifth amendment 
not to self-incriminate unless the special counsel gave you 
immunity?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've asked and answered your question, 
sir.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, do you agree with your statement that you 
would, ``assert the Fifth amendment if you believed you were in 
trouble,'' to quote your words, to FOX News?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't think I was under any obligation 
when speaking to FOX News to not engage in hyperbole if I so 
chose. I was not under oath at any time during that discussion. 
I have been very forthright today.
    Mr. Berke. Is it still your testimony, sir, that you made 
under oath earlier, that you appeared voluntarily before the 
special counsel and not under a grant of immunity?
    Mr. Lewandowski. To the best of my recollection, I appeared 
in front of the special counsel voluntarily.
    Mr. Berke. Did you receive immunity, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. As Director Mueller stated when asked 
about Don Jr.'s communication to special counsel, his intent to 
invoke the Fifth amendment right, Director Mueller said, and I 
quote, ``I'm not going to answer that.'' So, if you want to 
direct that question to Director Mueller, it's on page 77 of 
the report, you're welcome to do so.
    Mr. Berke. Did you receive immunity, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've asked and answered your question.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me ask you, have you ever been 
untruthful about being asked to give--answer questions of the 
special counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've already testified I've been honest to 
the best of my ability.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me show you another clip. This one was 
from March 25, 2018, from Meet the Press, March 25, 2018.

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0uego0d8lb9lir/
Video%203%20-%20Berke.mp4?dl=0]

    Mr. Berke. Sir, was that truthful what you said on national 
television on March 25, 2018, that the special counsel had not 
asked to speak to you at that date?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know if they asked to speak to me 
by that date.
    Mr. Berke. So, you know your interview that's reported in 
the special counsel report was on April 6, 2018?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Berke. Yes.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Is that the date of the interview?
    Mr. Berke. Yes.
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's what the report says, I'll take 
it to be accurate.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, you made public statements denying that you 
had been asked to give answers to the special counsel when you 
actually had. You had been untruthful about that. Isn't that 
true, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Are we talking about a discussion with the 
media or in front of a Committee of jurisdiction where I'd been 
sworn to testify?
    Mr. Berke. I'm talking about your public statements to the 
American public--
    Mr. Lewandowski. Oh, I'm sorry, nobody in front of Congress 
has ever lied to the public before. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, is that an admission that you did lie?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Berke. Did you lie, sir, in television interviews 
denying that you had been asked to give answers to the special 
counsel?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Berke. So, you deny that you ever lied in public 
statements about whether you--
    Mr. Lewandowski. What I'm saying is, when under oath, I've 
always told the truth, whether it was before special counsel, 
whether it was before the House Judiciary Committee, whether it 
was before the House Intelligence Committee on two separate 
occasions, or before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Every 
time I've raised my right hand to God, I've sworn and told the 
truth.
    Mr. Berke. That's not my question to you, sir. We'll get to 
that. My question to you, sir, is, on national television, did 
you lie about your relationship with the special counsel and 
whether they sought your interview?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, did you lie about it because you didn't 
want the world to find out that you were afraid you could be 
exposed to criminal liability and you were only going to appear 
as to certain issues with a grant of immunity protecting your 
words from being used against you in a criminal prosecution?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm going to go back to what Director 
Mueller stated, ``he's not going to answer that question.'' I'm 
not going to allow you to use me as a back door into his 
methods. If you'd like to question Director Mueller about the 
way of the investigation techniques of the Justice Department, 
you've had that opportunity to do so, but clearly you didn't. 
So, take him back here, bring him before the Committee so he 
can answer those questions. Those questions are not for me.
    Mr. Berke. Let me ask you this, sir, prior to the Mueller 
report being published in redacted form, did you ever 
misrepresent what you did on behalf of the President?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't think of an instance where that 
would have occurred.
    Mr. Berke. Let me show you an interview that you did on May 
14, 2019. Excuse me, I'm going to show it you from February 22, 
2019. Let me show it to you. Excuse me, May 14, 2019.

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/wue98tbmdydn nhn/
Video%204%20-%20Berke.mp4?dl=0]

    Mr. Berke. Did you hear that, sir? That was you saying on 
MSNBC you don't ever remember the President ever asking you to 
get involved with Jeff Sessions or the Department of Justice in 
any, way, shape or form. That wasn't true, was it, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I heard that.
    Mr. Berke. That was not true, was it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have no obligation to be honest with the 
media because they're just as dishonest as anybody else.
    Mr. Berke. So, you're admitting, sir, you were not being 
truthful in that clip, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. My interview with Ari Melber can be 
interpreted any way you like.
    Mr. Berke. Yes. Would you like me to play it again?
    Mr. Lewandowski. You're welcome to, please.
    Mr. Berke. Play it one more time.

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/wue98tbmdydn nhn/
Video%204%20-%20Berke.mp4?dl=0]

    Mr. Berke. Sir, it is true in May 2019, you absolutely 
remembered when the President asked you to deliver a message to 
the Attorney General of a speech for him to give related to the 
special counsel investigation. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'd have to think about it.
    Mr. Berke. Are you claiming, sir, that--and you had been 
interviewed by the special counsel about those very events in 
which you discussed and you said it was accurately reported in 
the report a year earlier? Are you saying, sir, you may have 
forgotten it by the time you were interviewed just before the 
report was publicly released?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm saying my memory was clearly much 
fresher when I actually gave the interview with the special 
counsel's report.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, is it your testimony before this Committee 
that when you said you did not remember the President ever 
asking you to get involved with Jeff Sessions of the Department 
of Justice, you were saying you were being truthful?
    Sir, I don't believe there's any reason to consult with 
your counsel. The question is are you a truth teller in that 
interview?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm a truth teller every time I stand 
before Congress or a Committee of jurisdiction and raise my 
hand and swear to God under oath.
    Mr. Berke. My question, sir, is when you said the President 
never asked you to get involved with Mr. Sessions--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have no obligation to have a candid 
conversation with the media whatsoever, just like they have no 
obligation to cover me honestly. They do it inaccurately all 
the time.
    Mr. Berke. So, you're admitting that on national television 
you were lying there?
    Mr. Lewandowski. What I'm saying is they have been 
inaccurate on many occasions, and perhaps I was inaccurate that 
time.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, I want to remind you you're under oath. Am 
I right, sir, that the reason why you didn't admit that the 
President had asked you to deliver a message to the Attorney 
General about investigations is because you knew it was wrong 
and you were concerned about your own exposure, and you didn't 
have immunity in that interview. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Which interview?
    Mr. Berke. The one we just watched where you lied about the 
President asking you to deliver a message.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I didn't know I could get immunity from a 
media outlet.
    Mr. Berke. I want to clarify, the date of that interview 
was February 22, 2019, just to be clear. The date is February 
22, as I originally stated, 2019.
    Sir, let me ask you a question--
    Mr. Lewandowski. So, what was the inaccuracy earlier, 
because I missed that?
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me ask you, did you say that because 
you wanted to protect the President?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, did you deny it because you wanted to 
protect yourself?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection, Mr. 
Berke.
    Mr. Berke. Then, why did you lie on national television, 
sir, about the President giving you a message to the Attorney 
General about the special counsel's investigation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't recall that particular day and my 
mind-set at the time, so I couldn't answer that.
    Mr. Berke. Can you offer any explanation for why you would 
lie on national TV other than concern about protecting yourself 
and the President?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Well, I know previously the Chair asked 
Witnesses not to guess, so I'd prefer not to guess, unless the 
Chair has changed his tune on that.
    Mr. Berke. So, you can't give me any other explanation 
except your concern that you or the President could be 
criminally exposed based on what you attempted to do on his 
behalf. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I didn't say that.
    Mr. Berke. Can you give me any explanation other than that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If you'd like me to take a guess, which 
the Chair has asked previous Witnesses that he didn't want 
guessing--if we're changing the rules of the Committee once 
again, I'll be happy to try and take a guess, with the caveat 
that I don't recall that particular interview. I'm not exactly 
sure where I was the time it transpired. I don't exactly 
remember that particular day and what was transpiring in my 
life. I'd be happy to take that caveat. With that said, I don't 
recall it.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me ask you about your earlier testimony 
a few minutes ago that you're truthful when you take an oath, 
as you did earlier today before this Committee. I'd like to put 
up a slide that you were asked about earlier, if I may. This is 
the actual statement that you made to the special counsel that 
you said was accurate. I'm quoting, ``that's a direct quote.'' 
It's right in front of you, sir, on the screen. That's a direct 
quote from the report on page 92. It said: ``Lewandowski did 
not want to meet at the Department of Justice because he did 
not want a public log of his visit.''
    You were asked about that. Now, sir, do you deny that you 
told the special counsel you did not want to public log of your 
visit with the Attorney General?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe I've answered that question, but 
I don't deny that is an accurate representation of what I told 
the special counsel.
    Mr. Berke. Okay. Is it an accurate representation of what 
you said before, which I didn't quite follow, that you did not 
want a public log of your visit because you wanted to have a 
casual dinner with the special counsel, and that's why you 
didn't want there to be a record of your visit? Was that your 
testimony earlier today, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I had no interest in having a casual 
dinner with the special counsel, no, sir.
    Mr. Berke. I'm sorry. With the Attorney General, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Are you clarifying the question?
    Mr. Berke. I am, sir.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. Could you repeat it, please?
    Mr. Berke. Yes, sir. Your earlier testimony was that the 
reason you didn't want a public log is because you wanted to 
have the casual dinner with the Attorney General. Was that your 
earlier testimony?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That seems to be accurate.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, having a casual dinner with the Attorney 
General has nothing to do with why you wouldn't want a public 
log of your visit with the Attorney General, does it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It does.
    Mr. Berke. So, isn't it a fact you didn't want a public log 
because you knew what you were doing was wrong? So just as the 
President went to an unofficial nongovernment employee, you 
wanted to make sure there was not a record of it. Isn't that 
right, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No.
    Mr. Berke. So, do you agree that a log creates a record of 
your visiting with the Attorney General?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I would think a log would create a record, 
yes.
    Mr. Berke. Do you agree, sir, that you admitted to the 
special counsel you didn't want to have a record of your visit, 
and that's one of the reasons why you didn't go to the 
Department of Justice, because you did not want a public log of 
your visit, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've never been to the Department of 
Justice. I don't know what goes on in the Department of 
Justice. I don't really want to find out what happens in the 
Department of Justice based on what's happened to other people 
involving the Department of Justice, to be honest with you.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, my question to you is, you say you didn't 
go because you didn't want a public log of your visit?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Are you asking me the same question I've 
just answered? Yeah, I have stipulated to the fact that what is 
in the Mueller report about a public log is accurate to the 
best of my recollection. I'll be happy to answer it again, but 
it's still accurate to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Berke. That's because you didn't want a public record 
of it, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe I've said, my quote is, ``did 
not want to meet at the Department of Justice because he did 
not want a public log.'' That is a quote that somebody in the 
special counsel's team clearly referenced as something I've 
said, although, I don't think I would have spoken about myself 
in the third party.
    Mr. Berke. You also said, sir, that you didn't want the 
Attorney General to have an advantage over you. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I think that's also an accurate 
representation of the report, but I'd have to be made aware of 
where that is again.
    Mr. Berke. It's on page 92. It's quoted right in front of 
you. So, I ask you, sir, again, if you didn't think you were 
doing anything wrong and you weren't being brought in to 
pressure and bully the Attorney General, why did you not want 
him to have an advantage over you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Jeff and I were friends and have been 
friends. Seeing him in a social environment where we could sit 
down and have a meal, whether at his house, my house, or a 
Washington, DC restaurant to have a conversation was something 
I thought was better for the both of us.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, isn't it true that has nothing to do with 
the question whether you wanted a public--that you didn't want 
him to have an advantage over you? That was because you were 
trying to assert leverage as the President wanted you to give 
him a message about what he should say about the special 
counsel's investigation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, Mr. Berke.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me show you another statement that you 
made in a FOX News interview on April 19, 2019.

[Video available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/yd4im0o3gr2n6aq /
Video%205%20-%20Berke.mp4?dl=0]

    Mr. Berke. Now, sir, that was April 19. I'll represent to 
you that was the day after the redacted Mueller report came out 
on April 18. Sir, you said, you never delivered a message to 
Jeff Sessions, that's what you said in there, right? You were 
asked to deliver that message. Isn't that correct, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's accurate. Compared--as 
comprised in the report, yes, but the meeting never transpired.
    Mr. Berke. You said, sir, you never did anything other than 
what was completely legal. You said that, sir, because you knew 
if you delivered that message that told the Attorney General to 
instruct the special counsel to limit the investigation to 
exclude the President, that would not be legal. Isn't that 
correct, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Berke, I didn't have the privilege of 
going to Harvard Law School and I'm not an attorney. So, what I 
know is I didn't think at the time that the President asked me 
to deliver a message that anything was illegal about it. I 
didn't have the privilege to go to Harvard Law. So, if you're 
telling me that, in your opinion, that would have been illegal, 
then that's your opinion to it. I never assumed that, never 
thought about it at the time, and haven't thought about it now.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, you did think about it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. What else have I thought about, Mr. Berke?
    Mr. Berke. So, let me ask you this question, sir.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Berke, what else have I thought about 
if you just told me that?
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of Order, Mr. Chair. The Witness 
doesn't get to ask questions; he gets to answer them.
    Mr. Berke. Let me ask you, sir, you were asked about why 
you didn't deliver the message, you said you went on vacation 
for 2 weeks. Over a month after the President directed you to 
deliver that message to Attorney General Sessions, you didn't 
deliver it, right, because you met with the President a month 
later on July 17. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's what the report says.
    Mr. Berke. Okay. So, you've been back from vacation for 2 
weeks. You even went to Washington to meet with the President. 
Why didn't you deliver the message that the President asked you 
to deliver, unless you didn't deliver it because you knew it 
was improper to deliver?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Berke, it wasn't a priority.
    Mr. Berke. For who?
    Mr. Lewandowski. For me.
    Mr. Berke. It was a priority for the President. Isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Lewandowski. You'd have to ask the President that 
question.
    Mr. Berke. Didn't the President tell you it was a priority? 
Didn't he ask you at your second meeting in July, did you 
deliver the message yet to the Attorney General? Didn't he ask 
you that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Berke, I can't disclose any 
conversations that aren't in the Mueller report.
    Mr. Berke. That is in the Mueller report.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. Where is that, please?
    Mr. Berke. You recall you testified--
    Mr. Lewandowski. What page is that on, sir, to refresh my 
memory?
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me ask you a question, do you remember 
the President asking you that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Could you please reference me the page 
number so I can review it?
    Mr. Berke. Sir, did the President ask you--do you remember 
testifying earlier that you said the President said if Mr. 
Sessions will not meet with you for you to deliver that 
message, you should tell him he's fired? Correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, if there's a reference to the 
report, I'd like to refresh my memory. It's been a long day. 
I'm sure you can appreciate that.
    Mr. Berke. How about if I reference you to your testimony. 
Do you recall testifying to that earlier today?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, it's been a long day. I believe to 
the best of my knowledge that's what I've said. If there's a 
reference to the Mueller report, I ask you to point it to me.
    Mr. Berke. So, let me ask you, sir, if it wasn't a priority 
for you to deliver the message, why did you enlist Mr. Dearborn 
to deliver the message for the President?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, I can't speak to a private 
conversation I would have had with Mr. Dearborn at the advice 
of counsel.
    Mr. Berke. I'm not asking private conversations. The fact 
that you did it is already disclosed in the report. I'm asking 
you why did do you it. Why? What's going on--
    Mr. Lewandowski. I knew Mr. Dearborn--
    Mr. Berke. Why did do you it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Can I answer now?
    Mr. Berke. Please.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. I've known Mr. Dearborn since his 
tenure as a Chief of Staff to Senator Sessions. He was my 
primary point of contact for Jeff Sessions during the Trump 
campaign. I also knew that Mr. Dearborn had continued, like I 
did, to have a long-standing relationship with Jeff. If I 
wasn't going to be seeing Jeff, I figured Rick would be able to 
deliver that message.
    Mr. Berke. Well, sir, did you try to see Mr. Sessions 
again? Did you call him after the President told you to do it 
and see if he would meet with you this time?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to--
    Mr. Berke. Did you call once? Please answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, is the reason you personally didn't call on 
someone who you said you were friendly with was because you 
knew what the President asked you to do was wrong and you, sir, 
didn't want to get in trouble, that's why you didn't do it?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Berke, I've asked and answered that 
question. I'm not a lawyer, but I didn't think that he was 
asking me to do something that was unlawful at the time, and I 
don't think that was the case now.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, didn't Mr. Dearborn tell you that he 
actually had handled the situation and had delivered the 
message?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't recall that conversation. It's 
possible.
    Mr. Berke. Let me show you what Mr. Dearborn told the 
special counsel. He said that he had told you that he had 
handled the situation, but he had not actually followed 
through. Do you recall that, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know if I recall that conversation 
with Mr. Dearborn.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me now ask you why the President 
thought you might be prepared to deliver a message that 
everyone in his Administration that he asked refused to 
deliver. Sir, am I correct that a few weeks before you met with 
the President in June of 2017, you had a conversation with his 
senior staff about joining the Administration in a very senior 
role?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm sorry, the question was in which 
timeframe?
    Mr. Berke. A few weeks before you met with the President 
the first time in June of 2017, and he asked you to deliver a 
message to the Attorney General.
    Mr. Lewandowski. The question is what, sir?
    Mr. Berke. That you had discussions with the President's 
senior staff about joining the Administration in a senior role.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't speak to conversations I may or 
may not have with senior staff members of the Administration to 
preserve the privilege which they've invoked.
    Mr. Berke. So, it's such a sacred privilege you would do 
not disclose private communications because that would be 
wrong. Is that your testimony, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No. My testimony is that the White House 
has directed that I do not disclose the substance of any 
discussions with the President or his advisers to protect 
Executive branch confidentiality. I recognize that's not my 
privilege, but I am respecting the decision of the White House.
    Mr. Berke. Well, sir, didn't you publish a book in which 
you disclose these very conversations you had with senior White 
House officials?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Which book do you reference? I've written 
two New York Times best sellers in a year, so could you refresh 
my memory which one?
    Mr. Berke. I'm asking you about the best seller ``Let Trump 
Be Trump.''
    Mr. Lewandowski. That was a hell of a book, by the way. 
Yes, I did write that book.
    Mr. Berke. You disclosed--
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of Order, Mr. Chair. I request that 
the Chair order the Witness to answer the question.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did answer the question. I wrote ``Let 
Trump Be Trump,'' available at fine bookstores everywhere, is 
my guess.
    Mr. Berke. Let me ask you about--and do you recall, sir--
let me show you some things you wrote in your book. Do you 
recall you met at the White House, right, in late May 2017? Do 
you recall that?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do recall meeting then with Mr. Trump in 
the Oval Office in late May of 2017. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Berke. Let me show you, sir, here's what you wrote. You 
wrote--and that was before--that was just after his first trip 
abroad as President, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know his travel schedule as well 
as you do, but it's possible.
    Mr. Berke. Let me show you what you wrote, sir.

        Multiple times during his trip abroad and even during the plane 
        ride home, the boss talked about bringing us in to restore 
        order to the west wing.

Is that what you wrote, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I mean, it looks like I wrote it.
    Mr. Berke. Okay. You recall, sir, that before you met with 
the President, his Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and his Senior 
Advisor Steve Bannon described what kind of role you were being 
considered for. Do you remember that, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I can't discuss private conversations with 
the senior staff. Mr. Berke, I've answered that many times.
    Mr. Berke. I know you can't discuss it, but you can write 
about it. So, let's look at what you wrote about it, sir.
    Mr. Lewandowski. You should buy the book; it's very good.
    Mr. Berke. Let's look at it. So, Corey Lewandowski, per 
their plans, you wrote--and this was the plans Mr. Priebus and 
Bannon shared with you--is going to oversee political 
operations, Presidential appointments, and the RNC, as well as 
the campaign's handling of Russian meddling in the 2016 
election. You would be on the same level as Jared, a senior 
advisor.
    Was that true, sir, what you wrote there that they were 
talking about you in late May joining the position and playing 
that role?
    Mr. Lewandowski. The book is accurate.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, if you keep going on, if we could go with--
you met with the President and the President said he didn't 
want to do it right now, meaning when you met with him, because 
if the place isn't working better in the next 4 or 5 weeks, I'm 
firing everyone. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, I believe the book is accurate.
    Mr. Berke. Now, and you thought this was an incredible 
opportunity, as you wrote, right? Like a little kid in Little 
League getting to play in the World Series. Correct? That's 
what you wrote?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Yes, having the privilege to be inside the 
Oval Office speaking to the President of the United States, 
after growing up poor in Lowell, Massachusetts, not attending 
Harvard or graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Duke, yeah, it's 
pretty amazing opportunity.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, and you knew for Donald Trump as 
Presidential candidate, that, as you wrote next, ``loyalty is 
the currency of the realm, and nothing hurts him deeper than 
when someone he trusts is disloyal.'' Is that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I believe that's in the book.
    Mr. Berke. Okay. So, when he asked you a few weeks after 
this meeting to deliver this message as a nongovernment employ 
to the Attorney General, you knew that you were being 
considered for a senior position on the same level as Jared 
Kushner, and you also knew how the President values loyalty. 
Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Berke. You deny that those conversations happened that 
you just talked about?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Berke. That was weeks before you met with the 
President, correct, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I met with the President in late May, as 
the book detailed accurately.
    Mr. Berke. Sir--
    Mr. Lewandowski. You also read the rest of the paragraph, 
which said, ``we don't want you to come in at this time because 
if it doesn't work out, I'm going to fire everybody.''
    Mr. Berke. He said now, but he was dangling the position of 
the most senior level for you. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a question for the President of the 
United States, sir.
    Mr. Berke. He would know that he dangled it. Therefore, you 
would do his bidding in delivering a secret message to the 
Attorney General that everyone in his government who he asked 
to deliver wouldn't do it. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Berke. All right, sir. Well, let me ask you--let me ask 
you about this role you were going to have, because--if we 
could show you another quote that you wrote of how this role 
was described, part of your duties--if we could go to the next 
slide, please--part of the duties, as Reince Preibus said, 
``Corey is going to come in and run the Russia investigation.''
    So, is it true, sir, that you were being told you were 
considered to come in to run the investigation of Russia's 
influence of the 2016 Presidential campaign just weeks before 
you were asked to tell the Attorney General to limit the 
special counsel's investigation to future elections? Is that 
true, sir, that you were asked to come in--you were being 
considered to come in and run the Russia investigation? Is that 
a true fact, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. It's true that's what Mr. Priebus wanted, 
yes.
    Mr. Berke. So, what did you understand your role would be, 
that the President was going to bring in his former campaign 
manager, until June of 2016 when he fired you, to run the 
investigation of whether Russia influenced the 2016 campaign 
and did something improper with the Trump campaign? Is that 
what your understanding was, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That's a question for what Mr. Priebus' 
understanding was.
    Mr. Berke. What I want to know, sir, is the President would 
know, when he asked you to deliver the message to the Attorney 
General to tell the special counsel not to investigate the 2016 
campaign, that you, sir, were under consideration yourself to 
be brought in by the President to run the very investigation of 
the 2016 campaign and Russian interference that you had 
previously been involved in. Isn't that correct, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, you were not--it was not raised with you 
that you were going to be considered to run the Russia 
investigation?
    Mr. Lewandowski. That was Mr. Priebus' idea, not the 
President's idea.
    Mr. Berke. Mr. Bannon, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't know if Mr. Bannon was involved in 
that. It's possible.
    Mr. Lewandowski. The President, prior to your meeting, had 
discussed with you how much he wanted you to come join the 
Administration, just part of that meeting as he was on his trip 
on his way back. Isn't that what you said, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, I didn't speak to him while he was 
overseas.
    Mr. Berke. On his way back he raised that issue. Isn't that 
the truth, sir? That's what you wrote.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I don't believe I said that I spoke to the 
President while he traveled back from overseas.
    Mr. Berke. Did he raise with you joining the Administration 
before that meeting, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I've spoken to the President and 
President-elect multiple times about opportunities, but I can't 
divulge those conversation. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Berke. Well, you already did in your book, sir. You've 
already said that those conversations happened and were true, 
Correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. What I stated was that was Mr. Priebus' 
idea, not the President's idea.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, you also wrote, and we just read it, that 
multiple times during his trip abroad and even during his plane 
ride home, the boss talked about bringing us in to restore 
order to the White House. Didn't you write that, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If that's what the book says. I don't have 
it in front of me.
    Mr. Berke. Yes, it does.
    Mr. Lewandowski. Okay. I'd like to see that so I can verify 
the validity of it.
    Mr. Berke. All right. Let's put the slide back.
    You know, we're not going to take the time. We saw the 
slide earlier.
    Let me continue, sir. Sir, let me ask you a question. You 
were asked about--you knew that the special counsel report 
found systematic interference by Russians in the election, 
correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'd like to restate I've never read the 
special counsel's report.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, do you take the report lightly? Do you 
think it's not a serious matter what the special counsel did?
    Mr. Lewandowski. If you're putting words in my mouth, those 
are inaccurate. Never have I stated that.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, did you know--you knew you were mentioned 
in there like 129 times, correct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Is that accurate, 129 times, sir?
    Mr. Berke. Do you know how many times?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I do not know. Do you?
    Mr. Berke. Sir, isn't it true that just last week, you were 
appearing at an event to autograph copies of the special 
counsel report, and you said you couldn't sign every page 
because you were mentioned in it so much?
    Mr. Lewandowski. No, I think that's a misrepresentation of 
what someone else said.
    Mr. Berke. Did you go to an event where you signed copies 
of the special counsel report, sir?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I did attend a book signing where the 
report was available, but I never read the report.
    Mr. Berke. I ask you again, sir, you made light of the 
special counsel's finding of Russia's role, an attempt to try 
to interfere with the 2016 election?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I'm outraged at your characterization of 
my statements. Never have I said that. Never have I called into 
question the validity of the Mueller report or alluded to the 
fact that I want to see Russia interfere with the election. As 
a matter of fact, my testimony here today has been completely 
the opposite of that. So, for you to intimate that's what my 
statement is about the Mueller report is grossly out of line.
    Mr. Berke. Sir, let me show you something in the Mueller 
report that you had agreed to sign at an event. If we could go 
to the next slide, please.
    Sir, so you asked about that, this is the findings. You 
don't have any reason to dispute the findings that Mr. Sessions 
was recused from the investigation and wasn't allowed to 
participate, do you?
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have no idea what the findings of the 
report were. I have not read the report, as I've testified to 
now on dozens of occasions here today.
    Mr. Berke. Let me go to the next slide. You see where this 
says you were asked about it, the special counsel concluded 
that, taken together, the President's campaign, the purpose of 
the message was to have you tell the Attorney General to move 
forward with investigating election meddling for future 
elections.
    Do you have any basis to dispute that conclusion by the 
special counsel in his report, sir, about your conduct?
    Mr. Lewandowski. Again, I've answered this question, asked 
and answered.
    Mr. Berke. I would ask you to answer it, sir.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will answer the question, 
whether he's answered it before or not.
    Mr. Lewandowski. I have stated, to the best of my 
knowledge, most of the information in the Mueller report is 
accurate.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Without objection the minority will designate a staff 
member to conduct its questioning during the allotted time from 
staff.
    Mr. Collins. That's me. Adjoining to your wild range and 
definition of staff, I'm staff.
    Chair Nadler. You are not staff.
    Mr. Collins. Yes, I am.
    Chair Nadler. You are not staff, just like--
    Mr. Collins. Ms. Lofgren's own definition, interns--I'm 
staff.
    Chair Nadler. You are not staff. You're a Member. Just as 
we are not permitting any Member of the majority to--
    Mr. Collins. So you're--
    Chair Nadler. --the 5 minute rule--
    Mr. Collins. Okay. I'm not going to interrupt.
    Chair Nadler. We will not--I'm not going to permit \1/2\ 
hour now for minority Members beyond what they had under the 5-
minute rule. If you have a staff member, you'll designate him 
or her. That's what the rules call for. If not, we'll adjourn.
    Mr. Collins. I wish that you had actually designated a 
staff member; that would have been nice.
    Chair Nadler. We did.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, you're really, right now with 
everything rolling, cameras rolling, you're going to deny a 
Member of Congress, the Ranking Member of this Committee, this 
time. I know you've got willing accomplices in the majority, 
that's fine, because you have the most votes.
    Mr. Cohen. Move to adjourn.
    Chair Nadler. Stop.
    Mr. Collins. Are we really coming to this point, Mr. Chair? 
Thirty minutes.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend.
    The rules of the Committee provide for Members of the 
House--or Members of the Committee, I should say--for Members 
of Committee to question Witnesses under the 5-minute rule. 
We've done that. The rules of the Committee, as amended by the 
procedures adopted last week, permit the majority and the 
minority each to designate a staff member to examine the 
Witness for 30 minutes.
    If you wish to designate a staff member, you may do so. A 
Member of the House is not a staff member.
    Mr. Collins. Give me just a moment. I am thinking about my 
designation, but you will possibly, hopefully give me a moment 
after we have been--
    Chair Nadler. The House will stand in recess for 1 minute 
while the gentleman considers his appointment.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, I did not ask for a recess.
    Chair Nadler. You wanted a minute.
    Mr. Collins. No, I did not. I said I'm thinking about it as 
I talk to you. I mean, because your definition of staff, 
anybody walking along--according to Zoe Lofgren's statement, I 
could make a guy walking across my intern and they're staff. 
You said interns. They're not paid.
    Here's to folks, take the picture, you do see this 
railroad. This is amazing. I'll take my minute and I may take 3 
minutes to figure out.
    [audio off]
    Chair Nadler. Just so everybody is clear, we are in a 1-
minute recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will reconvene. Without 
objection, the minority will designate the staff member to 
conduct its questioning during the allotted time for staff.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, after deliberation and looking at 
this, I cannot go along with the Chair's sham and the 
majority's sham in this hearing in designating a staff member. 
We have said all along this is not an impeachment inquiry. This 
is not something that should have happened to start with. I 
refuse to go along with the Chair's faux impeachment process. 
So, we're not going to designate. We'll continue to litigate 
this on other fronts. Mr. Chair, you have made a shame of this 
Committee today.
    Chair Nadler. Very well. Very well.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chair, a Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. This completes the questioning of Mr. Lewan-
dowski for today.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. We thank our Witness for participating.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chair, can you hear me? Can you hear me 
now?
    Chair Nadler. All right. I'll recognize the Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Parliamentary--
    Chair Nadler. For what purpose--
    Mr. McClintock. I just want to be sure--
    Chair Nadler. For what purpose--
    Mr. McClintock. --I understand the rules--
    Chair Nadler. Just a minute. For what purpose does the 
gentleman seek recognition?
    Mr. McClintock. A Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will state his Parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. McClintock. So, I understand the rules correctly, as an 
elected Member of the House of Representatives--
    Chair Nadler. You have to talk into your mike. I can't hear 
you. Say again.
    Mr. McClintock. As dually elected Members of this Committee 
and as elected Members of the House of Representatives, each of 
us is limited to 5 minutes.
    Chair Nadler. That's correct.
    Mr. McClintock. An unelected consultant is allotted 30 
minutes in open hearing. Is this correct?
    Chair Nadler. The rules of the Committee, as amended by the 
Committee vote last week, provide that Members of the House--of 
the Committee, that is, have 5 minutes a piece to question 
Witnesses--
    Mr. McClintock. So, Members of the House--
    Chair Nadler. The rules of the Committee, as amended last 
week, also provide a \1/2\ hour per Witness for counsel--for 
staff questioning of the Witness, 30 minutes for the majority 
and 30 minutes for the minority staff. Those are the rules of 
the Committee.
    Mr. McClintock. So, Members of the House are now 
subordinate to hired consultants.
    Chair Nadler. That's not a Parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Collins. That is true.
    Chair Nadler. This completes the questioning of Mr. 
Lewandowski for today. We thank our Witness for participating. 
In light of his repeated assertions of privilege, I will take 
those matters under advisement. We will recess the hearing, 
subject to the call of the Chair, until a later date.
    The hearing will now stand in recess, subject to the call 
of the Chair.
    Mr. Chavkin. Mr. Chair, we're going to be submitting a 
letter to the Chair with a couple of areas of clarification 
once the hearing is done.
    [Whereupon, at 6:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]


                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

    The slides are available at the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7rw7lheovgzx5br/Slides.pdf?dl=0.
      

                                 [all]