tv Corey Lewandowski To Testify Before House Judiciary Committee Part 3 CSPAN September 22, 2019 2:02pm-3:10pm EDT
the only way we can really moving nation forward is to work together. >> part of c-span's battleground states tour. >> president trump's friend -- former campaign manager went before the house judiciary ofmittee to answer questions the mold -- motor report. this includes questions by the attorney hired by the committee's democrats.
from the american people. is robthose witnesses porter, former white house staff secretary served by a subpoena from the secretary august 26. rob porter was prominently featured in robert mueller's report with a detailed description of efforts to obstruct justice. the report describes the president directing them white house counsel don mcgahn to fire the special counsel and then ordering him to lie about it. the committee has many questions but the president is not wants asking those questions. the president directed mr. porter not to they saw bogus claim of immunity. mr. dearborn is not here today either for the same reason. sphere of what we
and the american people could learn from their testimony. their absence will not stop the oversight. on january 25, 2018, the new york times reported the president had ordered mcgahn to have the department of justice fire the special counsel. the president went on tv and denied the story. the president pressured mcgahn to put out a statement denying fire theen asked to special counsel but mcgahn refused and to the attorney told the president's attorney at the times story was accurate in reporting that the president wanted the special counsel removed. did not draft the issue. the president told porter the article was "bullshit."
leakedsident said mcgahn to the media to make himself look good. we know what the president told porter was not true of the report proves the president did ask mcgahn fire the special counsel over and over again p or mcgahn refused. that is pretty bad but it gets worse. according to the report, the president then directed porter to tell mcgahn to create a record to make clear the president never again to rest to fire the special counsel. the president asked porter to tell mcgahn to create a false record to hide the president's conduct. desperateent was so to hide his misconduct that he even told porter to threaten mcgahn if he did not create the written denial. the president said, "if you
doesn't write a letter, then maybe i will have to get rid of him. " porter delivered that threat but mcgahn stood firm. this should ring a bell. it is like the threat the president asked you. now the president is attempting to bully witnesses and directed questions.answer our we will not let this cover-up stand. that is why we are pursuing this impeachment investigation. obstruction of congress, ignoring congressional subpoenas, is a serious offense. next and learned this, the third article of impeachment against nixon explained that he was "violating his constitutional duty by blocking evidence under duly authorized subpoenas issued by this committee." today, the president is doing
just that, willfully disobeying subpoenas in order to cover up his conduct. i will now yield the remainder of my time to our chairman. chairman nadler: thank you. mr. lindo ski, your behavior in this hearing has been completely unacceptable. that is part of a pattern by the white house desperate for the american people not to hear the truth. i have been asked several times whether the committee will hold you in contempt. that is certainly under consideration. but there is a more troubling level of contempt in display here today, and that is president trump's role in your refusal to answer the questions. you have shown the american public in real time that the trump administration will do anything and everything in its power to obstruct the work of congress. the president's lawyers are sitting behind you right now to make sure you do not answer us. well this committee is focused on the evidence of potential corruption, obstruction and abuse of power, exposing misconduct is our top priority. make no mistake, we will hold
president trump accountable. >> one parliamentary inquiry? chairman nadler: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> did you have that speech prepared before this hearing went downhill? chairman nadler: that is not a parliamentary inquiry, and the answer is no. [laughter] chairman nadler: pursuant to the resolution to investigate -- of investigative procedures, and pursuant to notice, we will now proceed to staff questioning. the majority has designated barry burke to conduct his questioning. >> mr. chairman, point of order. chairman nadler: gentlemen will state his point of order. >> it is limited to one hour of questioning by this committee. >> you are talking too fast. i cannot understand you. >> this gentleman is a private consultant. his contract explicitly states he is not an envoy of this committee. not a government employee the
congressional handbook says contractors contractor to work for standing committees are exquisitely not employees of the committee. any attempts to suggest that someone can simultaneously be on employee of the committee and not be an employee of the committee or committee staff defies logic. the majority use of private sector consultants to question the witness represent a violation of the rules. it would constitute an unprecedented privatization of impeachment. i have the employment contract year of the gentleman, of barry burke, and i also have the
letter -- i have the staff rolls, in which he is not listed as a consultant. point of order, he should not be allowed to question this witness. i believe last week, if your staff has questions, i will withdraw the point of order. but neither of them is a lot to ask questions under this rule. ms. lofgren's committee is here, and we have committee staff. chairman nadler: i am prepared to rule on the point of order. for the purposes of stiff questioning under the resolution adopted the committee on september 12, 2019, there is no
distinction between staff and consultants. first, the chair has discretion to determine who qualifies as staff for the purposes of the resolution. committee consultants in effect function as staff, they are paid from the committee's budget, the work at the chairman's discretion, and they are subject to all the same ethical and do go responsibilities as any house employee. second come at retention of consultants is consistent with drier practice. commitment -- with prior practice. they have assisted with significant investigations, including impeachment investigations, for example, david shippers, the consultant to the majority, and add below all to the minority, during the
clinton impeachment investigations. commitment consultants have questioned witness before. the republican majority of this committee hired consultants to assist with their investigation into former secretary of state clinton's emails, and irregularly asked questions during transcribed interviews and other matters connected to that investigation. they are here exquisitely to assist the committee on oversight with investigative functions, which is the purpose of this hearing. accordingly, i overrule the point of order. >>. >> let us continue this for a second0. chairman nadler: you wish to appeal the ruling of the chair. you can be heard on the point of order. >> thank you.
you are going down an interesting road though have already discussed. undoubtedly, you had a big misunderstanding of just a few minutes ago. we are not in an impeachment inquiry. you may think it is. if you would like to go to the floor i am sure you will be it would to bring the resolution for an impeachment inquiry. but you cannot just make it up on the fly. the chairman of the administration committee is here, and we have talked to our committee staff. . they would not ever agree that a contract employee is a staff member. . the folks you just named were after the impeachment inquiry was formed. they were hired for that specific purpose. if you want to continue this, this is a violation of house rules, we are party had the problematic issue of overstepping time, but this one, mr. chairman, is one that cannot go forward. it is one that you have great stuff members, who are legally staff, by any definition, and no contractor, including the chairman on this committee, can contract services to be provided by a consortium, that a regular normal -- to be provided by a consultant that are normally
provided by regular committee staff. no matter how you dress it up, it doesn't matter. this is not different. to continue down this path puts your entire line already in question by millions of people. it puts us in jeopardy because if it is win at all costs, mr. chairman, then we have got a problem. >> mr. chairman. i have a question for the chair. chairman nadler: who seeks to question. questions are not in order. we are discussing point of order. >> i have a question on the point of order. chairman nadler: you are recognized. >> if they are staff, what are they called the sultans in their employment contracts? chairman nadler: it is not a point of order. >> mr. chairman, let me ask about this. did the role change last week that the rule change last week, one week ago that you voted on and we voted against, didn't mention the word "consultants" in the rule? changes adopted by the committee? >> chairman, regular order. chairman nadler: i cannot hear what mr. jordan is saying because his counsel is talking to you. rep. jordan: the resolution adopted last week, with the word "consultant" mentioned when it came to the ability after after ask questions? chairman nadler: it was not. rep. jordan: so you changed the rules last week and this week, he will not follow the rules you changed? chairman nadler: i am going to rule on the point of order. it is not in order to have debate on a point of order. the gentleman made his point of order. >> they are not an employee of the committee. chairman nadler: you have made that point, it is your point of order. i am prepared to look on it. >> may find the point of personal. privilege since my name has been
invoked, the committee has not been solicited for his information. >> i did not ask the staff director. because -- >> i yield back. chairman nadler: the issue was stated by you, you don't have to repeat it. >> be careful going down this road. be careful, mr. chairman, be very careful. chairman nadler: we are in an impeachment investigation. but that is -- whether or not we are is not relevant to this question. so we will not debate whether -- it is. chairman nadler: it is not. >> is it an investigation or an impeachment inquiry? which is might. chairman nadler: that is not relevant. this is consistent with prior committee practice. the consultants have been retained to question witnesses at hearings and other proceedings, not only in impeachment hearings. this is consistent with past practice. i overrule the point of order. >> mr. chairman. chairman nadler: the point of order is overruled. >> mr. chairman. chairman nadler: do you wish to vote? >> no, i want to talk. i want to ask you a question. chairman nadler: regular order -- [gavel bangs]
chairman nadler: you raised a point of order, i rolled on it, you wish to appeal the ruling, yes or no? >> yes. >> i moved to table the appeal. chairman nadler: this ruling of the chair is appealed. >> it is a sad day for this committee. chairman nadler:. chairman nadler: the gentlelady moves to table the appeal. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> mr. nadler votes aye. ms. lofgren votes yes. miss jackson lee votes aye. mr. cohen mr. johnson of georgia votes aye mr. george votes aye. ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. cicilline votes aye. mr. swallwell. mr. votes ayelieu. mr. raskin votes aye. miss jayapal votes aye. miss deming's votes aye. mr. corea votes aye. miss scanlan votes aye. miss garcia votes aye. mr. neguse votes aye. ms. mcbath. mr. stanton aye. misdeed votes aye.
miss parcel powell votes aye. miss escobar votes aye. mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner. mr. chavis. mr. gomert. mr. jordan votes no. mr. radcliffe. miss robie. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock votes no. ms. lesko. mr. rehsenthaler. mr. votes noklein. mr. armstrong votes no. mr. steubie. [indiscernible] mr. cohen votes aye. chairman nadler: has everyone voted who wishes to vote?
chairman nadler: the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair is agreed to. the majority have directed mr. barry burke to proceed with questioning. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary point of inquiry. >> i have one, too. chairman nadler:. chairman nadler: the gentleman will state's parliamentary inquiry. >> you mentioned earlier that there were consultants used to question witnesses. so i will just ask as a parliamentary inquiry, what were the parliamentary occurrences. >> point of order mr. chairman,
that is not a parliamentary inquiry. chairman nadler: the gentleman is correct, that is not a parliamentary inquiry. who else has a parliamentary inquiry? esther jordan? rep. jordan: was today's witness, when he was subpoenaed, was he notified. chairman nadler: that is not a parliamentary inquiry either. >>. >> it is a procedural, unimportant procedural question. >> mr. chairman. chairman nadler: mr. burke is recognized for 30 minutes. >>. >> mr. chairman, i move to adjourn. >>.
>> motion to adjourn is not debatable. chairman nadler: the clark will call the role. -- will call the roll. clerk: mr. nadler? chairman nadler: no. clerk: mr. lofgren votes no. miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen votes no. mr. votes no. ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. cicilline votes no. mr.wallwell. mr. lieu votes no. mr. raskin votes no.
mr. collins -- [indiscernible] >> motion to adjourn. mr. collins votes aye. mr. sensenbrenner. mr. chavis. mr. gomert. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck. mr. radcliffe. ms. robie. mr. gates. mr. johnson of louisiana votes yes. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko. mr. rpsenthaler. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. steubie.
mr. gates, you are not recorded. mr. gates votes aye. clerk: mr. chairman, there are eight ayes and 20 nos. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. chairman nadler: who has a point of parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman will state his point of for the mentor inquiry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. migrate relates to the rule we change last week where we mentioned staff conducting questioning it has been expanded to include consultants today. we contemplated the distinction between independent contractors such as a consultant. chairman nadler: sorry, disney quantum -- did we contemplate what?
>> independent contractors, vis-a-vis, employees and staff being a part of the distinction. when the rule was change last week. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, the advice i received from the top staffers and the house of the of mr. zhang committee is that staff can be comprised of -- house of the administrative committee is that staff can be comprised of contractors. staff and employee are not equivalent terms. i yield back.
>> i was under the impression -- >> that is not pertinent to this proceeding. i am happy to go through it, but this was signed off by the committee itself that met all of our requirements. >> the time is mr. burks. mr. burke is 30 minutes. >> mr. chairman, i need about 30 seconds for a formal protest. chairman nadler: you are not a witness and you should not be seated at that table. >> i understand that. based upon the debate i just heard, the seem to be unauthorized questions. i believe it to mr. lewandowski to decide. it is my view that he should not answer. >> we are not interested in your views. we have a hearing to conduct. chairman nadler: mr. lewandowski will answer all questions if he has a legitimate privilege to assert. he may assert the legitimate privilege. other than that he is under subpoena and will answer all questions. this is being done pursuant of the committee's rules. if this counsel does not like it you don't interpret our rules. >> these are unauthorized questions. >> mr. lewandowski, did you ever become concerned that the president had asked you to do something that could expose you to criminal liability? did you ever become concerned that the president of the united
states had asked you to do something that could expose you to criminal liability? mr. lewandowski: was i concerned that the president asked me to do something? not to the best of my knowledge. >> were you ever concerned that the president had asked you to do something that had put you in harm's way? made you feel that you were in trouble? mr. lewandowski: i think i have answered that question. >> i would like to show you a video of an interview you did on fox news. this was in january 16, 2018. [video clip] mr. lewandowski: you take the
fifth when you are in trouble. i have no reason to take the fifth. i will answer every question. [end of video clip] >> you were answering that with regard to your appearance for the house intelligence committee. you take the fifth when you are in trouble. you did not do anything, you said he would testify. it was the fifth before that committee with regards to questions about the campaign. were you concerned, sir, that you had done something with regard to delivering, or agreeing to delivering the
president's message, therefore you could get in trouble based on what you agreed to do and attempted to do? mr. lewandowski: i have no concerns. >> is it a fact that contrary to your testimony you a. in front of the special counsel when you were called to provide answers to the special counsel, you asserted your right under the fifth amendment not to self incriminate? is that true? mr. lewandowski: not to the best of my recollection.
>> isn't it true that you refuse to testify without receiving immunity? mr. lewandowski: i do not believe that is accurate. i would happy to answer it if it is in the report. >> it is your testimony under oath that you never received immunity prior to answering questions of the special counsel? mr. lewandowski: that is a question for special counsel mueller and i will not be answering mechanics of the investigation. >> my question is, did you
refuse to answer the special counsel's questions without getting a grant of immunity protecting you from having your words use against you in a criminal prosecution? mr. lewandowski: i have answered your question. >> are you denying that you refuse to answer questions and asserted your rights under the fifth amendment not to self incriminate unless the special counsel gave you immunity? mr. lewandowski: i have answered
i was not under oath at any time during that discussion. i had been very forthright today. >> is it still your testimony that you made under oath earlier that you appeared voluntarily before the special counsel and not under a grant of immunity? mr. lewandowski: to the best in my recollection i appeared in front of the special counsel voluntarily. >> did you receive immunity? mr. lewandowski: as director mueller stated when asked about the special counsel, his intent and the fifth amendment right, director mueller said, i am not going to answer that. if you want to direct that to director mueller, you are able to do that. i have asked and answered your
question. >> have you ever been untruthful about being asked to answer questions of the special counselor? mr. lewandowski: i have been honest to the best of my ability. >> let me show you another clip from march 25, 2018. from meet the press. [video clip] >> i know you have testified before the senate and house, what about the special counsel? mr. lewandowski: i have said very candidly i would be happy to speak with the special counsel.
i have been very open, i volunteered to testify for 12 hours and i have testified in front of the city just in front of the senate committee. i was there at the beginning of the campaign. >> have they asked? mr. lewandowski: not yet. >> they have not subpoenaed? mr. lewandowski: not yet. [end of video clip] >> was that truth will what you said on march 25th, 2018 that the special counsel had not asked to speak to you at that date? mr. lewandowski: i don't know. >> you know your interview was on april 6, 2018? mr. lewandowski: is that
accurate? the day of the interview? if that is what the report says that i will take it to be accurate. >> you made public statements denying you have been asked to give answers to the special counsel when you had. you were untruthful about that. isn't that true? mr. lewandowski: are we talking about this discussion with the media? >> i am talking about your public statements to the american public. mr. lewandowski: nobody in front of congress has ever lied to the public. >> did you lie, sir, in television interviews denying that you had been asked to give answers to the special counsel? mr. lewandowski: i don't believe so. >> so you deny that you ever lied in public statements? mr. lewandowski: when under oath i have always told the truth, whether before special counsel, whether before the house judiciary committee, the house
intelligence committee or before the senate intelligence committee. every time i raise my right hand to got i sworn and told the truth. >> my question to you is on national television. did you lie about your relationship and whether they saw your interview? >> i don't know. >> did you lie because you do not want the world to find out you would be exposed and would only appear as the certain issues with the grant of immunity protecting your words from being used against you in a criminal prosecution? mr. lewandowski: i am not going to allow you to use me as a backdoor into his methods. if you want to question director mueller about the investigation techniques, you have had the opportunity to do so, but clearly you did not. take them back here, those questions are not for me. >> prior to the mueller report being published and redacted, did you ever misrepresent what you did on behalf of the president? mr. lewandowski: i cannot think of an instance when that would have occurred.
>> let me show you an interview you did on may 14 of 2019. excuse me. i will show it to you from february 22, 2019. >> may 14, 2019, thank you. [video clip] i don't ever a member the president ever asking me to get involved with jeff sessions or the department of justice. [end of video clip] >> did you share that, that was you saying on msnbc, you don't ever remember the president ever asking you to get involved with
jeff sessions or the department of justice in any way, shape or form. that was not true, was it? mr. lewandowski: i heard that. >> and that was not true. mr. lewandowski: i have no obligation to the media. >> so you are admitting you were not being truthful in that clip, correct? mr. lewandowski: my interview can be interpreted anyway you like.
>> would you like me to play it again. mr. lewandowski: you are welcome too, please. >> i will play it one more time. [video clip] mr. lewandowski: i don't ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with jeff sessions or the department of justice in any way shape or form. [end of video clip] >> so it is true in may of 2019 you absolutely remembered when the president asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general of a speech for him to give related to the special counsel investigation. isn't that correct? mr. lewandowski: i have to think about it. >> are you claiming, sir, that you had been interviewed by the
special counsel about those very events that you discussed and you said was accurately reported in the report one year earlier. are you saying you may have forgotten it by the time you were interviewed before the report was publicly released? mr. lewandowski: my memory was much fresher when i did that. >> you said you did not remember the president ever asking you to get involved with jeff sessions of the department of justice, you were saying you were being truthful? i don't believe there is any reason to consult with your counsel. the question is, are you a truth teller? mr. lewandowski: i am a true
>> you are admitting that you were lying there? mr. lewandowski: i am saying they have been inaccurate on many occasions and perhaps i was inaccurate. >> i want to remind you you are under oath. the reason why you did not admit that the president had asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general about investigations is because you knew it was wrong, and you are concerned about your own exposure, and you did not have immunity. isn't that correct correct? mr. lewandowski: which interview. >> the one we just watched where you lied about the president asking you to deliver a message. mr. lewandowski: i did not know i could get immunity from the media outlet. >> the date of that interview is february 22, 2019. let me ask you a question. mr. lewandowski: what was the inaccuracy earlier? >> did you say that because you wanted to protect the president? mr. lewandowski: not to the best of my recollection. >> did you deny it because you wanted to protect yourself?
mr. lewandowski: not to the best of my recollection. >> why did you lie on national television about the president giving you a message to the attorney general about the special counsel to investigation? mr. lewandowski: i don't recall that particular day, so i cannot answer that. >> can you offer any extra nation for why you would buy on tv other than concern about protecting yourself in the president? mr. lewandowski: i know the chairman asked witnesses not to guess, so i prefer not to guess. >> so you cannot give me any explanation except you are concerned that you were the president could be criminally exposed based on what you attempted to do on his behalf, is that correct? mr. lewandowski: if you would like me to take a desk, which the chairman asked previous witnesses that he did not want guessing, i would be happy to take a guess and say i do not recall that particular interview. i am not sure where i was at the time it transpired. i do not remember that particular day and what was transpiring in my life. i do not recall. >> a few minutes ago you said you are truthful when you take an oath. i would like to put up a slide that you are asked about earlier. this is the statement you made to the special counsel that you said was accurate. that is a direct quote from the report on page 92. it says lewandowski did not -- to the department of justice because he did not want a public log of his visit. do you deny that you told the special counsel you did not want a public log with the attorney general? mr. lewandowski: i have answered that question, but i don't deny that is an accurate representation. >> i did not quite follow, you did not want a public log of your visit because he wanted to have a casual visit with the special counsel. that is why you didn't want a record of your visit. is that your testimony today? mr. lewandowski: no sir. are you clarifying the question? >> you agree that the law creates a record of you with the attorney general? do you agree you admitted you did not want a record of your visit and that is one of the reasons why you did not go to the department of justice, because you did not want a public log of your visit? mr. lewandowski: i have never been to the department of justice and i don't want to find out what happens at the department of justice based on what has happened to other people. >> you said you did not go
because you do not want a public log of your visit. mr. lewandowski: are you asking me to same question i just answered? stipulated to the fact that what is in them all a report about a public log is accurate to the best of my recollection. >> that is because you do not want a public record, correct? mr. lewandowski: i believe i have set my quote is, i did not want to meet at the department of justice because he did not want a public log. that is a quote that somebody in the special counsel clearly referenced is something i said. i do not think i would have spoken about myself in the third party. >> you also said you did not want the attorney general to have an advantage over you. is that correct? mr. lewandowski: i think that is also an accurate representation, but i would have to be made aware of where that is. >> on page 92 it is quoted right in front of you. i you again, if you do not think you were doing anything and were being brought into pressure and bully the attorney general, why did you not want him to have an advantage over you? >> we are friends and have been friends. seeing him in a social environment where we can down and have a meal at his house, my house or a restaurant to have a conversation, was something i thought was better for the both of us. >> that has nothing to do with the question. >> did you try to see mr. sessions again? did you call him to see if he would meet with you? you know what the president said was wrong and you do not want to
get in trouble, that's why you did not do it. mr. lewandowski: i have asked an answer that question, i am not a lawyer. he was asking me to do something unlawful at the time and that's the case. >> mr. dearborn tell you he deliver the message? mr. lewandowski: i don't recall that conversation. >> mr. dearborn told do he had handled the situation but had not followed through. do you recall that, sir? mr. lewandowski: i don't know if i recall that. >> let me ask you why the president thought you might be prepared to deliver a message that everyone in the administration he has has to deliver. in my correct that in a few weeks when he met with the president in june, 2017, you had a conversation with the senior staff about joining the administration in a very senior role.
mr. lewandowski: the question is what. >> you had discussions with the senior staff about joining the administration in a senior role. mr. lewandowski: i cannot speak to conversations i may or may not have had with senior staff members of the administration to preserve the privilege they have invoked. >> if it is such a sacred privilege you would not disclose private communications because that would be wrong? is that what you are saying? mr. lewandowski: no, i cannot disclose anything i have had with the president to protect confidentiality. that is not my privilege, but i'm respecting the decision of the white house. >> didn't you publish a book in which you disclose these very conversations you had with senior white house officials. mr. lewandowski: which book, i have written to bestsellers. >> i am asking about the bestseller, "let trump be trump." >> point of order, mr. chairman. i request that they order the
witness to answer the question. mr. lewandowski: i said it's available to bookstores. >> let me show you some things you wrote in your book. you met at the white house in late may of 2017. i do recall meeting with mr. trump in the oval office in late may of 2017. >> here is what you wrote. that was after his first trip abroad as president. mr. lewandowski: i don't know his travel schedule as well as you do, but it's possible. >> multiple times during his trip abroad, the boss talked about bringing them into restore order to the west wing you recall that before you met with the president, his chief of staff and senior advisor describe what kind of role you were being considered for. do you remember that? mr. lewandowski: i cannot discuss private conversation with the senior staff.
>> i know you cannot discuss it, but you can write about it. mr. lewandowski: you should buy the book, it's very good. >> corey lewandowski, this is the plans they shared with you. oversee political operations, presidential appointments in the rnc as well as handling of russian meddling in the 2016 election. is it true what they said about you joining the position and playing that role? mr. lewandowski: the book is accurate. >> if we could go it you met with the president and the resident said you do not want to do it right now, because of the place is not working in the next 45 weeks, i am firing them. is that correct? mr. lewandowski: i believe the book is accurate. >> you thought this was an incredible opportunity, as he wrote to play in the world series? mr. lewandowski: having the privilege to speak to the president of the united states and not attending harvard and graduating from do, yes a pretty amazing opportunity.
>> you knew for donald trump as president, you wrote, loyalty is the currency of the realm, and nothing hurts and deeper than when someone he trusts is disloyal. >> i believe that is in the book. >> when he asked you a few weeks after this meeting to deliver this message as a nongovernment employee to the attorney general, you knew that you were being considered for senior position on the same level as juror kirschner. you also knew how the president of values loyalty. that was weeks before you met with the president. mr. lewandowski: you also read the rest of the paragraph which said we don't want you to commit at the time because if it does not work out i will fire everybody.
>> he said now that he is dangling the position of the most senior level for you, isn't that correct. he knew everyone in his government who he asked to deliver would not do it, isn't that correct? mr. lewandowski: no sir. let me ask you about the role you would have. if we could show you another quote you wrote about how this role was described, part of your duties, if we could go to the next slide. reince priebus said corey will come in and run the rush investigation. is it true that you were being told you were considered to come in to run the investigation of
russia's influence of the 2016 presidential campaign just weeks before you were asked to tell the attorney general to limit the special counsel's investigation to future elections. is it true you are being told to come in and run the rush investigation? mr. lewandowski: that is true that is what mr. priebus wanted. >> winning a role be that the president wanted to bring in his former campaign manager to run the investigation of whether russia influence the 2016 campaign, and did something improper with the trump campaign. you were brought in to run the very investigation of the 2016 campaign and russian
interference that you had previously been involved in. isn't that correct, sir? mr. lewandowski: not to the best of my knowledge. >> it was not raised with you that you would be considered to run the rush investigation. mr. lewandowski: that was mr. priebus idea. >> and mr. bannon? mr. lewandowski: i don't know of mr. bannon was involved. >> and the president discuss with you how much you want you to join the administration prior to that meeting as he was on his trip. isn't that what you said? mr. lewandowski: i did not speak to him while he was overseas. >> that is what you wrote, on his way back. mr. lewandowski: i don't believe i said i spoke to the president while he traveled back from overseas. i have spoken to the president
and president-elect multiple times about opportunities, but i cannot that cultural's conversations. >> you already did in your book, he said those conversations happened and were true. mr. lewandowski: i said that was mr. priebus is idea. >> you also wrote that multiple times during his trips abroad and during his plane rides home, he talked about bringing in to restore order to the white house. mr. lewandowski: if that is what the book says. i would like to see that so i can verify the validity of it. >> let's put the flight back up. we will not take the time. we saw the slight earlier. let me ask you a question, and you knew that the special counsel report found systematic interference by russians in the election, correct? mr. lewandowski: i would like to restate i never read the special counsel's report. >> do you take the report lightly? do you think it is not a serious matter what the special counsel did? mr. lewandowski: you are putting words in my mouth. >> you know you were mentioned in their 129 times, correct?
mr. lewandowski: is that accurate? >> do you know? mr. lewandowski: i do not know, do you? >> when you appeared at an event to autograph copies of the special counsel report and you said you cannot sign every page because you were mentioned in it so much? did you go to an event where you signed copies of the special counsel report? mr. lewandowski: i did, but i never read the report. >> do you make light of the special counsel's finding of russia's role in trying to interfere with the 2016 election? mr. lewandowski: i am outraged at your characterizations of my statements. never have i said that, never have a called into the question the mueller report, or eluded the fact that i wanted to see the russians interfere. my testimony has been the opposite of that. for you to say that is what my statement is about is grossly out of line.
>> let me show you something in the mullah report you agree to sign at an event. if we could go to the next fight, please. mr. lewandowski: i have not read the report. >> let me go to the next fight. >> the special counsel concluded that taken together, the president campaigned in the purpose of the message was to tell the attorney general to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections. you have every basis to dispute that about your conduct? mr. lewandowski: i have asked and answered the question. chairman nadler: gentlemen what answer the question. mr. lewandowski: i have stated
to the best of my knowledge. chairman nadler: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the minority will designate a staff member to conduct its question during the allotted time for staff. >> i am staff. chairman nadler: you are not staff. >> yes i am. chairman nadler: you are not staff. >> interns, i am staff. chairman nadler: you are not staff, you are a member. justice, we are not permitting any memory of the majority to go beyond the five minute rule. i will not permit half an hour now for a minority members under the five minute rule. if you have a staff member, you will designate him or her, that is what the rules call for. and if not, we will adjourn. >> mr. chairman, with everything rolling, you are going to deny a member of congress, the ranking
member of this committee, this time. i know you have willing accomplices in the majority, that's fine, because you have the most votes. >> are we really coming to this point, mr. chairman? 30 minutes. chairman nadler: the rules of the committee provide for question witnesses under the five-minute rule. we have done that. the rule is committed by the procedures adopted last week. the majority and the minority each designate a staff member to examine the witness for 30 minutes. if you wish to designate a staff member, you may do so. a member of the house is not a staff member.
>> give me a moment, i am thinking about my designation. but you will hopefully give me a moment. chairman nadler: the house will stand in recess for one minute as the gentleman considers his appointments. >> i did not ask for the recess. chairman nadler: you wanted a minute. >> i set i am thinking about it as i talk to you. i can make a guy walk across my intern and they are staff. you said intern, they are not paid. this is amazing. i will take my minute and i may take three minutes. chairman nadler: just so everybody is clear, we are in a one minute recess.
[pounds gavel] chairman nadler: committee will reconvene. the staff member will allow for the allotted time for staff. >> after deliberation and looking at this, i cannot go along with the chairman sham and majority sham. this is not an impeachment inquiry, this is not something that should have happened. i refuse to go along with the chairman's full impeachment process. so we are not going to designate. we will continue to litigate this. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? chairman nadler: we think our witness for participating.
>> mr. chairman? can you hear me? can you hear me now? i just want to be sure i understand the rules for inquiry? parliamentary inquiry. chairman nadler: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. talk into the microphone. say again? >> as duly elected members of this committee, and is elected members of house of representatives, each of us is limited to five minutes. an unelected consultant's allotted 30 minutes an open hearing, is this correct? chairman nadler: rules of the committee provide that members of the committee have five minutes for the question. it also provides half an hour
pure witness and counts 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. >> so members of the house are now subordinate to higher consult? chairman nadler: that is not a parliamentary inquiry. this completes the questioning of mr. lewandowski for today. we think our witness for participating. i will take the matters under advisement and we will recess the hearing subject to the call of the chair until a later date. we now stand in recess. >> mr. chairman, we will be submitting a letter to the chair with a couple of areas of clarification when the hearing is done.
>> you can find the entire hearing on c-span.org. type lewandowski into the search bar. here's a look at our live coverage on monday. a.m. eastern11:30 we will have president's remarks at a religious freedom event in new york city. later at 7:00, a discussion on first amendment rights when it comes to social media. public health officials from major cities will discuss how ongoing measles outbreak and the senate will gavel and to discuss the undersecretary for legislative affairs. trump administration officials went before a congressional committee to answer questions about mental health mean of -- means of migrant children custody.