INVESTIGATION THAT HE CONDUCTED INTO THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF INTO THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF PROCESS OF FLARING NATURAL GAS PROCESS OF FLARING NATURAL GAS IN TEXAS IN TEXAS YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE THIS. YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE THIS. >>> NOW, IF YOU READ THE EARLY >>> NOW, IF YOU READ THE EARLY REVIEWS OF TODAY’S HEARING IN REVIEWS OF TODAY’S HEARING IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BY WHICH I MEAN THE REVIEWS BY WHICH I MEAN THE REVIEWS WRITTEN ABOUT FOUR, FOUR AND A WRITTEN ABOUT FOUR, FOUR AND A HALF HOURS INTO THE HALF HOURS INTO THE FIVE-AND-A-HALF-HOUR HEARING, FIVE-AND-A-HALF-HOUR HEARING, THEN YOU WOULD THINK THE HEARING THEN YOU WOULD THINK THE HEARING WAS A MESS WAS A MESS "THE DAILY BEAST" HEADLINE AT "THE DAILY BEAST" HEADLINE AT 5:55 P.M. SAID, COREY 5:55 P.M. SAID, COREY LEWANDOWSKI’S HEARING QUICKLY LEWANDOWSKI’S HEARING QUICKLY DISSOLVES INTO A MESS. DISSOLVES INTO A MESS. A MINUTE LATER, LITERALLY A A MINUTE LATER, LITERALLY A MINUTE AFTER THAT WAS FILED, MINUTE AFTER THAT WAS FILED, EVERYTHING CHANGED EVERYTHING CHANGED THERE WAS A HALF HOUR LEFT IN THERE WAS A HALF HOUR LEFT IN THAT HEARING WHEN EVERYTHING THAT HEARING WHEN EVERYTHING CHANGED, AND CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI CHANGED, AND CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI CHAJD CHAJD CHANGED. CHANGED. CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI RAN OUT OF CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI RAN OUT OF WAYS OF AVOIDING QUESTIONS WHEN WAYS OF AVOIDING QUESTIONS WHEN HE FACED A FULL HALF HOUR BY A HE FACED A FULL HALF HOUR BY A LAWYER HIRED BY THE COMMITTEE TO LAWYER HIRED BY THE COMMITTEE TO QUESTION HIS IMPEACHMENT QUESTION HIS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. THEY WERE DETERMINED TO MAKE A THEY WERE DETERMINED TO MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE COMMITTEE PROCESS MOCKERY OF THE COMMITTEE PROCESS FROM THE START FROM THE START WE HAVE NEVER SEEN A MORE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN A MORE CHILDISH AND ABUSIVE USE OF CHILDISH AND ABUSIVE USE OF COMMITTEE PROCESS AND COMMITTEE COMMITTEE PROCESS AND COMMITTEE RULES THAN WHAT THE REPUBLICANS RULES THAN WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID TODAY. DID TODAY. THIS WAS THE LOW POINT IN THE THIS WAS THE LOW POINT IN THE HISTORY OF HOUSE HEARINGS HISTORY OF HOUSE HEARINGS PROCEDURALLY PROCEDURALLY THE REPUBLICANS MADE REPEATED THE REPUBLICANS MADE REPEATED MOTIONS TO SHUT DOWN THE MOTIONS TO SHUT DOWN THE HEARING, TO JUST ADJOURN THE HEARING, TO JUST ADJOURN THE HEARING, CLOSE IT DOWN HEARING, CLOSE IT DOWN AND WHEN THOSE MOTIONS WERE AND WHEN THOSE MOTIONS WERE DEFEATED INSTANTLY BY A VOICE DEFEATED INSTANTLY BY A VOICE VOTE, THE REPUBLICANS THEN VOTE, THE REPUBLICANS THEN CALLED FOR, AS IS THEIR RIGHT, CALLED FOR, AS IS THEIR RIGHT, ROLL CALL VOTES THAT THEY KNEW ROLL CALL VOTES THAT THEY KNEW WOULD TAKE TIME AND THEY KNEW WOULD TAKE TIME AND THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO LOSE, AND THEY WERE GOING TO LOSE, AND THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO WASTE THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO WASTE TIME AND ADD TO THE CIRCUS TIME AND ADD TO THE CIRCUS ATMOSPHERE THAT THEY CREATED ATMOSPHERE THAT THEY CREATED COREY LEWANDOWSKI WAS READY FOR COREY LEWANDOWSKI WAS READY FOR A CIRCUS A CIRCUS HE WAS NOT READY FOR SERIOUS HE WAS NOT READY FOR SERIOUS QUESTIONING. QUESTIONING. WHEN REPUBLICANS TOOK THEIR WHEN REPUBLICANS TOOK THEIR FIVE-MINUTE TURNS AT QUESTIONING FIVE-MINUTE TURNS AT QUESTIONING THE WITNESS, THEY IGNORED COREY THE WITNESS, THEY IGNORED COREY LEWANDOWSKI’S ROLE IN THE LEWANDOWSKI’S ROLE IN THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPT TO SHUT DOWN PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPT TO SHUT DOWN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, AS THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, AS DESCRIBED BY CORWIN DESCRIBED BY CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI’S OWN TESTIMONY IN LEWANDOWSKI’S OWN TESTIMONY IN THE MUELLER REPORT AND HIS OWN THE MUELLER REPORT AND HIS OWN NOTES THAT ARE REPRODUCED IN THE NOTES THAT ARE REPRODUCED IN THE MUELLER REPORT MUELLER REPORT THE REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING THE REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING DELIBERATELY DID NOT MAKE ANY DELIBERATELY DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. SENSE. BUT THE QUESTIONING ON THE BUT THE QUESTIONING ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE ALSO MOSTLY DEMOCRATIC SIDE ALSO MOSTLY DIDN’T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OF DIDN’T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OF REPUBLICAN INTERFERENCE WITH REPUBLICAN INTERFERENCE WITH THAT QUESTIONING, AND THE SIMPLE THAT QUESTIONING, AND THE SIMPLE FACT WHICH SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY FACT WHICH SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY NOW, THAT MOST MEMBERS OF NOW, THAT MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AREN’T VERY GOOD AT CONGRESS AREN’T VERY GOOD AT THIS THIS THEY DID NOT RUN FOR DISTRICT THEY DID NOT RUN FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THEY RAN FOR THE HOUSE ATTORNEY, THEY RAN FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF REPRESENTATIVES AND EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE THEY AND EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE THEY HAVE TO PLAY DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAVE TO PLAY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS, AND IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS, AND GENERALLY FOR MOST OF THEM, IT GENERALLY FOR MOST OF THEM, IT DOESN’T GO VERY WELL DOESN’T GO VERY WELL EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PROSECUTORS. ACTUALLY BEEN PROSECUTORS. AND SO FOR HOURS ON END, IT WAS AND SO FOR HOURS ON END, IT WAS A CHAOTIC HEARING WITH COREY A CHAOTIC HEARING WITH COREY LEWANDOWSKI BECOMING LEWANDOWSKI BECOMING INCREASINGLY EMBOLDENED WITH HIS INCREASINGLY EMBOLDENED WITH HIS REFUSAL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION REFUSAL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION FOR WHICH THE ANSWER WAS NOT FOR WHICH THE ANSWER WAS NOT ALREADY CONTAINED IN THE MUELLER ALREADY CONTAINED IN THE MUELLER REPORT REPORT HE WAS ASKED BY SEVERAL HE WAS ASKED BY SEVERAL DEMOCRATS TO READ PASSAGES OF DEMOCRATS TO READ PASSAGES OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND HE THE MUELLER REPORT AND HE REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO DO SO. REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO DO SO. HE ZEROED IN ON A SPEECH THAT HE ZEROED IN ON A SPEECH THAT WAS DICTATED TO HIM ABOUT THE WAS DICTATED TO HIM ABOUT THE MUELLER ORGANIZATION WHILE JEFF MUELLER ORGANIZATION WHILE JEFF SESSIONS WAS RECUSED FROM SESSIONS WAS RECUSED FROM SUPERVISING OR COMMENTING ON THE SUPERVISING OR COMMENTING ON THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. MUELLER INVESTIGATION. IN THE TRUMP-WRITTEN SPEECH, IN THE TRUMP-WRITTEN SPEECH, JEFF SESSIONS WOULD ANNOUNCE JEFF SESSIONS WOULD ANNOUNCE THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT IS UNFAIR, AND THE SPECIAL IS UNFAIR, AND THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WOULD ONLY BE PROSECUTOR WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED, FROM THIS POINT ALLOWED, FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, TO INVESTIGATE THE FORWARD, TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF, QUOTE, ELECTION POSSIBILITY OF, QUOTE, ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS SO MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS SO THAT NOTHING CAN HAPPEN IN THAT NOTHING CAN HAPPEN IN FUTURE ELECTIONS FUTURE ELECTIONS CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL ASKED CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL ASKED CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI TO READ HIS CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI TO READ HIS NOTES OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH NOTES OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AS PRODUCED IN THE THE PRESIDENT AS PRODUCED IN THE MUELLER REPORT, AND LEWANDOWSKI MUELLER REPORT, AND LEWANDOWSKI REFUSED TO READ HIS WORDS ALOUD. REFUSED TO READ HIS WORDS ALOUD. >> YOU WERE ASHAMED TO READ THEM >> YOU WERE ASHAMED TO READ THEM OUT LOUD AND YOU DIDN’T DELIVER OUT LOUD AND YOU DIDN’T DELIVER THOSE WORDS TO THE PERSON THE THOSE WORDS TO THE PERSON THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO, DID YOU PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO, DID YOU HAVE A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT? HAVE A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT? >> I HAVE NOTHING TO BE GUILTY >> I HAVE NOTHING TO BE GUILTY OF, CONGRESSMAN. OF, CONGRESSMAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> DO YOU STILL FEEL GUILTY >> DO YOU STILL FEEL GUILTY TODAY AND THAT’S WHY YOU CAN’T TODAY AND THAT’S WHY YOU CAN’T READ IT OUT LOUD READ IT OUT LOUD >> CONGRESSMAN, YOU CAN READ IT >> CONGRESSMAN, YOU CAN READ IT IF YOU’D LIKE. IF YOU’D LIKE. >> WHEN THE MEMBERS OF THE >> WHEN THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FINALLY FINISHED THEIR COMMITTEE FINALLY FINISHED THEIR QUESTIONING, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES QUESTIONING, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE HEARING BEGAN, IT WAS AFTER THE HEARING BEGAN, IT WAS FINALLY TIME FOR 30 MINUTES OF FINALLY TIME FOR 30 MINUTES OF QUESTIONING RESERVED BY GARY QUESTIONING RESERVED BY GARY BURKE WHO WAS SERVING AS BURKE WHO WAS SERVING AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE HIRED CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE HIRED BY JERRY NADLER. BY JERRY NADLER. CHAOS BROKE OUT ONCE AGAIN AS CHAOS BROKE OUT ONCE AGAIN AS THE REPUBLICANS PRETENDED THERE THE REPUBLICANS PRETENDED THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HAVING WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HAVING COUNSEL ASK QUESTIONS EVEN COUNSEL ASK QUESTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE THOUGH THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE THAT MANY, MANY TIMES BEFORE, THAT MANY, MANY TIMES BEFORE, ESPECIALLY IN THE INVESTIGATION ESPECIALLY IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A PRESIDENT OF A PRESIDENT AND AFTER ANOTHER ROUND OF VOTES AND AFTER ANOTHER ROUND OF VOTES TRYING AND FAILING TO CLOSE DOWN TRYING AND FAILING TO CLOSE DOWN THE HEARING COMPLETELY, FINALLY, THE HEARING COMPLETELY, FINALLY, FINALLY BARRY BURKE CLOSED IN ON FINALLY BARRY BURKE CLOSED IN ON CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI FOR WHAT WAS CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI FOR WHAT WAS THE WORST PUBLIC HALF HOUR OF THE WORST PUBLIC HALF HOUR OF COREY LEWANDOWSKI’S LIFE COREY LEWANDOWSKI’S LIFE >> MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS >> MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, DID YOU ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, DID YOU LIE ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH LIE ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND WHETHER THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND WHETHER THEY SOUGHT YOUR INTERVIEW THEY SOUGHT YOUR INTERVIEW >> I DON’T KNOW. >> I DON’T KNOW. >> PRIOR TO THE MUELLER REPORT >> PRIOR TO THE MUELLER REPORT BEING PUBLISHED IN REDACTED BEING PUBLISHED IN REDACTED FORM, DID YOU EVER MISREPRESENT FORM, DID YOU EVER MISREPRESENT WHAT YOU DID ON BEHALF OF THE WHAT YOU DID ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT? PRESIDENT? >> I CAN’T THINK OF AN INSTANCE >> I CAN’T THINK OF AN INSTANCE WHERE THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED WHERE THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED >> LET ME SHOW YOU AN INTERVIEW >> LET ME SHOW YOU AN INTERVIEW THAT YOU DID ON MAY 14, 2019 THAT YOU DID ON MAY 14, 2019 EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. I’M GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU FROM I’M GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU FROM FEBRUARY 22nd, 2019. FEBRUARY 22nd, 2019. LET ME SHOW IT TO YOU. LET ME SHOW IT TO YOU. >> EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME, MAY >> EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME, MAY 14 -- 14 -- >> MAY 14, 2019. >> MAY 14, 2019. >> I DON’T REMEMBER THE >> I DON’T REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT EVER ASKING ME TO GET PRESIDENT EVER ASKING ME TO GET INVOLVED WITH JEFF SESSIONS OR INVOLVED WITH JEFF SESSIONS OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN ANY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM EVER. WAY, SHAPE OR FORM EVER. >> DID YOU HEAR THAT, SIR? >> DID YOU HEAR THAT, SIR? THAT WAS YOU SAYING ON MSNBC YOU THAT WAS YOU SAYING ON MSNBC YOU DON’T EVER REMEMBER THE DON’T EVER REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT EVER ASKING YOU TO GET PRESIDENT EVER ASKING YOU TO GET INVOLVED WITH JEFF SESSIONS OR INVOLVED WITH JEFF SESSIONS OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN ANY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THAT WASN’T TRUE, WAS T SIR?IT, THAT WASN’T TRUE, WAS T SIR?IT, >> I HEARD THAT. >> I HEARD THAT. >> AND THAT WASN’T TRUE? >> AND THAT WASN’T TRUE? >> I HAVE NO IDEA WITH THE MEDIA >> I HAVE NO IDEA WITH THE MEDIA BECAUSE THEY’RE AS UNTRUTHFUL AS BECAUSE THEY’RE AS UNTRUTHFUL AS EVERYBODY ELSE EVERYBODY ELSE >> SO YOU ADMIT YOU WEREN’T >> SO YOU ADMIT YOU WEREN’T BEING TRUTHFUL, RIGHT? BEING TRUTHFUL, RIGHT? >> MY INTERVIEW WITH ARI MELBER >> MY INTERVIEW WITH ARI MELBER CAN BE INTERPRETED ANY WAY YOU CAN BE INTERPRETED ANY WAY YOU LIKE LIKE >> WHY WEREN’T YOU HONEST ABOUT >> WHY WEREN’T YOU HONEST ABOUT THE FBI ASKING YOU ABOUT A THE FBI ASKING YOU ABOUT A PERSONAL INVESTIGATION PERSONAL INVESTIGATION >> HE TOLD THEM HE DIDN’T WANT >> HE TOLD THEM HE DIDN’T WANT THEM TO DELIVER A LETTER TO JEFF THEM TO DELIVER A LETTER TO JEFF SESSIONS AT THE JUSTICE SESSIONS AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AT JEFF SESSIONS’ DEPARTMENT AT JEFF SESSIONS’ OFFICE BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT OFFICE BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT JEFF SESSIONS’ LOGS TO SHOW HE JEFF SESSIONS’ LOGS TO SHOW HE WAS THERE. WAS THERE. HE WAS ASKED WHY HE DIDN’T WANT HE WAS ASKED WHY HE DIDN’T WANT A PUBLIC RECORD OF HIM ENTERING A PUBLIC RECORD OF HIM ENTERING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT >> ISN’T IT A FACT YOU DIDN’T >> ISN’T IT A FACT YOU DIDN’T WANT A PUBLIC LOG BECAUSE YOU WANT A PUBLIC LOG BECAUSE YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS WRONG. WRONG. SO JUST AS THE PRESIDENT WENT TO SO JUST AS THE PRESIDENT WENT TO AN UNOFFICIAL NON-GOVERNMENT AN UNOFFICIAL NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, YOU WANTED TO MAKE EMPLOYEE, YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO RECORD OF IT SURE THERE WAS NO RECORD OF IT ISN’T THAT RIGHT, SIR? ISN’T THAT RIGHT, SIR? >> NO. >> NO. >> DO YOU AGREE THAT A LOG WOULD >> DO YOU AGREE THAT A LOG WOULD CREATE A RECORD OF A VISIT WITH CREATE A RECORD OF A VISIT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL >> I WOULD THINK SO, YES >> I WOULD THINK SO, YES >> AND YOU TOLD THE ATTORNEY >> AND YOU TOLD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL YOU DID NOT WANT A GENERAL YOU DID NOT WANT A PUBLIC LOG OF YOUR VISIT, AND PUBLIC LOG OF YOUR VISIT, AND THAT’S ONE REASON YOU DIDN’T GO THAT’S ONE REASON YOU DIDN’T GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T WANT A PUBLIC BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T WANT A PUBLIC LOG, CORRECT LOG, CORRECT >> I DON’T GO TO THE DEPARTMENT >> I DON’T GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF JUSTICE I’VE NEVER BEEN TO THE I’VE NEVER BEEN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. I DON’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING I DON’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING BASED ON WHAT HAPPENS AT THE BASED ON WHAT HAPPENS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO BE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. HONEST WITH YOU. >> GARY BURKE INSISTED THAT THE >> GARY BURKE INSISTED THAT THE REASON CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI DIDN’T REASON CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI DIDN’T DELIVER THAT MESSAGE IS BECAUSE DELIVER THAT MESSAGE IS BECAUSE COREY LEWANDOWSKI KNEW THAT COREY LEWANDOWSKI KNEW THAT WOULDN’T BE LEGAL. WOULDN’T BE LEGAL. >> YOU SAID SO, SIR, BECAUSE YOU >> YOU SAID SO, SIR, BECAUSE YOU KNEW IF YOU DELIVERED THAT KNEW IF YOU DELIVERED THAT MESSAGE THAT TOLD THE ATTORNEY MESSAGE THAT TOLD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTRUCT THE SPECIAL GENERAL TO INSTRUCT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO LIMIT THE COUNSEL TO LIMIT THE INVESTIGATION TO EXCLUDE THE INVESTIGATION TO EXCLUDE THE PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL. LEGAL. ISN’T THAT CORRECT, SIR? ISN’T THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> MR. BURKE, I DIDN’T HAVE THE >> MR. BURKE, I DIDN’T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF GOING TO HARVARD PRIVILEGE OF GOING TO HARVARD LAW COOL AND I’M NOT AN LAW COOL AND I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY ATTORNEY SO WHAT I KNOW IS I DIDN’T THINK SO WHAT I KNOW IS I DIDN’T THINK AT THE TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO DELIVER A MESSAGE, ASKED ME TO DELIVER A MESSAGE, THAT ANYTHING WAS ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT ANYTHING WAS ILLEGAL ABOUT IT IT I DIDN’T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO I DIDN’T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO GO TO HARVARD LAW. GO TO HARVARD LAW. SO IF YOU’RE TELLING ME THAT IN SO IF YOU’RE TELLING ME THAT IN YOUR OPINION THAT WOULD HAVE YOUR OPINION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL, THAT’S YOUR BEEN ILLEGAL, THAT’S YOUR OPINION, TOO, BUT I NEVER OPINION, TOO, BUT I NEVER ASSUMED THAT, DIDN’T THINK ABOUT ASSUMED THAT, DIDN’T THINK ABOUT IT AT THE TIME AND HAVEN’T IT AT THE TIME AND HAVEN’T THOUGHT ABOUT NOW. THOUGHT ABOUT NOW. >> WHY DIDN’T YOU DELIVER THE >> WHY DIDN’T YOU DELIVER THE MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO DELIVER UNLESS YOU DIDN’T TO DELIVER UNLESS YOU DIDN’T DELIVER IT BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT DELIVER IT BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT WAS IMPROPER TO DELIVER? WAS IMPROPER TO DELIVER? >> MR. BURKE, IT WASN’T A >> MR. BURKE, IT WASN’T A PRIORITY PRIORITY >> IT SURE READS LIKE A PRIORITY >> IT SURE READS LIKE A PRIORITY IN THE MUELLER REPORT. IN THE MUELLER REPORT. THROUGHOUT THE DAY CORWIN THROUGHOUT THE DAY CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI REFUSED TO ANSWER LEWANDOWSKI REFUSED TO ANSWER MULTIPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS MULTIPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE WORKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WORKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE BARRY BURKE SHOWED THAT THIS WAS BARRY BURKE SHOWED THAT THIS WAS NOT EXACTLY A SACRED PRINCIPLE NOT EXACTLY A SACRED PRINCIPLE TO CORBIN LEWANDOWSKI. TO CORBIN LEWANDOWSKI. >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO CONVERSATION >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO CONVERSATION I MAYOR OR MAY NOT HAVE WITH A I MAYOR OR MAY NOT HAVE WITH A SENIOR STAFFPERSON TO HONOR THE SENIOR STAFFPERSON TO HONOR THE PRIVILEGE THEY INVOKED PRIVILEGE THEY INVOKED THEY TOLD ME NOT TO DISCUSS THEY TOLD ME NOT TO DISCUSS CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OF THE PRESIDENT’S ADVISERS PRESIDENT’S ADVISERS I AM RESPECTING THE DECISION OF I AM RESPECTING THE DECISION OF THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WHITE HOUSE. >> DIDN’T YOU PUBLISH A BOOK IN >> DIDN’T YOU PUBLISH A BOOK IN WHICH YOU DISCLOSED THESE VERY WHICH YOU DISCLOSED THESE VERY CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS >> WHICH BOOK ARE YOU REFERRING >> WHICH BOOK ARE YOU REFERRING TO TO I’VE WRITTEN TWO IN THE LAST I’VE WRITTEN TWO IN THE LAST YEAR, SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH YEAR, SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH ONE? ONE? >> I’M TALKING ABOUT THE >> I’M TALKING ABOUT THE BEST-SELLER "LET TRUMP BE BEST-SELLER "LET TRUMP BE TRUMP. TRUMP. >>> HE’S ONE OF THE ABLE >>> HE’S ONE OF THE ABLE QUESTIONERS OF THE HOUSE QUESTIONERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BECAUSE HE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BECAUSE HE IS A FORMER DEPUTY DISTRICT IS A FORMER DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY HIMSELF ATTORNEY HIMSELF ALSO JOINING ME, ALICE ROKA, AN ALSO JOINING ME, ALICE ROKA, AN MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR. MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID TO NADLER, AND YOU CAN TELL SAID TO NADLER, AND YOU CAN TELL US IF THIS WAS COORDINATED WITH US IF THIS WAS COORDINATED WITH THE CHAIRMAN OR NOT. THE CHAIRMAN OR NOT. YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID -- YOU YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID -- YOU ASKED THEM TO HOLD CORWIN ASKED THEM TO HOLD CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI LEWANDOWSKI LEWANDOWSKI IN CONTEMPT WITH THE LEWANDOWSKI IN CONTEMPT WITH THE WAY HE WAS ANSWERING QUESTIONS, WAY HE WAS ANSWERING QUESTIONS, AND I HAVE TO SAY, WITH ANY AND I HAVE TO SAY, WITH ANY PREVIOUS CONGRESS, HE WOULD HAVE PREVIOUS CONGRESS, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT WITH BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT WITH CONGRESS IN THE FIRST FIVE CONGRESS IN THE FIRST FIVE MINUTES, BASED ON WHAT WE SAW. MINUTES, BASED ON WHAT WE SAW. WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD CONTEMPT FOR ATTEMPT TO HOLD CONTEMPT FOR CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI IT STILL COULD HAPPEN. IT STILL COULD HAPPEN. EMPTY CHAIRS MEAN EMPTY POCKETS, EMPTY CHAIRS MEAN EMPTY POCKETS, AND THE OTHER TWO WITNESSES NEED AND THE OTHER TWO WITNESSES NEED TO BE FINED. TO BE FINED. I COULD LISTEN TO BARRY BURKE I COULD LISTEN TO BARRY BURKE ALL DAY. ALL DAY. HE’S JUST MASTERFUL AND FINALLY HE’S JUST MASTERFUL AND FINALLY THE TRUTH CAME OUT THE TRUTH CAME OUT THAT’S NOT HOW AN INNOCENT THAT’S NOT HOW AN INNOCENT PERSON CONDUCTS THEMSELVES PERSON CONDUCTS THEMSELVES THAT’S NOT HOW SOMEONE WHO WANTS THAT’S NOT HOW SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO HELP THE CONGRESS UNDERSTAND TO HELP THE CONGRESS UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT DID WOULD DEFEND THE PRESIDENT DID WOULD DEFEND THEMSELVES THEMSELVES THE CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO THE CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO CONSIDER CONTEMPT, AND WE’RE NOT CONSIDER CONTEMPT, AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO STOP IT GOING TO STOP IT AND LAWRENCE, I SAW JUST LIKE AND LAWRENCE, I SAW JUST LIKE YOU DID, THE TWITTER, YOU KNOW, YOU DID, THE TWITTER, YOU KNOW, HOT TAKES ON WHAT ALL THIS HOT TAKES ON WHAT ALL THIS MEANT, AND PEOPLE SAID IT WAS MEANT, AND PEOPLE SAID IT WAS MESSY, IT WAS FRUSTRATING, AND MESSY, IT WAS FRUSTRATING, AND THAT’S ALL TRUE. THAT’S ALL TRUE. BUT IF THE OPPOSITE OF THIS IS BUT IF THE OPPOSITE OF THIS IS TO DO NOTHING AND LET THE TO DO NOTHING AND LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH FURTHER PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH FURTHER OBSTRUCTION, WE’RE NOT GOING TO OBSTRUCTION, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, EITHER. DO THAT, EITHER. WE HAVE COURT BATTLES THAT ARE WE HAVE COURT BATTLES THAT ARE ONGOING RIGHT NOW, SO THE ONGOING RIGHT NOW, SO THE PRESIDENT MAY BENEFIT IN THE PRESIDENT MAY BENEFIT IN THE SHORT TERM FROM CONFUSING PEOPLE SHORT TERM FROM CONFUSING PEOPLE AND TELLING PEOPLE TO OBSTRUCT, AND TELLING PEOPLE TO OBSTRUCT, BUT IN THE LONG TERM, THERE’S BUT IN THE LONG TERM, THERE’S GOING TO BE A CASCADE OF COURT GOING TO BE A CASCADE OF COURT DECISIONS IN OUR FAVOR AND IT’S DECISIONS IN OUR FAVOR AND IT’S NOT GOING TO BE VERY GOOD FOR NOT GOING TO BE VERY GOOD FOR THE TRUMP TEAM THE TRUMP TEAM >> CARSON, THERE IS ANOTHERAL >> CARSON, THERE IS ANOTHERAL ALTERNATE TIFR FOR THE MESSINESS ALTERNATE TIFR FOR THE MESSINESS OF IT, AND THAT IS LETTING BARRY OF IT, AND THAT IS LETTING BARRY BURKE DO EITHER ALL THE BURKE DO EITHER ALL THE QUESTIONING OR LET BARRY BURKE QUESTIONING OR LET BARRY BURKE HAVE THE FIRST HALF HOUR AND HAVE THE FIRST HALF HOUR AND THEN LET THE MESS FOLLOW THAT. THEN LET THE MESS FOLLOW THAT. >> IT ALSO JUST DEPENDS AS WELL >> IT ALSO JUST DEPENDS AS WELL ON THE WITNESSES ON THE WITNESSES WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT MOST WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT MOST WITNESSES ARE GOING TO BE LIKE WITNESSES ARE GOING TO BE LIKE MR. LEWANDOWSKI. MR. LEWANDOWSKI. THAT’S JUST THE TRUMP STYLE. THAT’S JUST THE TRUMP STYLE. THEY HAVEN’T HAD TO HAVE ANY THEY HAVEN’T HAD TO HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT AS OF CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT AS OF LATE, AND YES, I THINK, YOU LATE, AND YES, I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE YOU WANT MORE KNOW, JUST LIKE YOU WANT MORE COW BELL, GIVE US MORE BURKE COW BELL, GIVE US MORE BURKE HE WAS VERY, VERY GOOD HE WAS VERY, VERY GOOD >> MIMI ROKA, ONE OF THE THINGS >> MIMI ROKA, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU DON’T HAVE IN A COURTROOM IS YOU DON’T HAVE IN A COURTROOM IS THE OTHER SIDE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OTHER SIDE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR QUESTIONING JUMPING UP IN YOUR QUESTIONING JUMPING UP IN ALL SORTS OF HISTRIONIC WAYS ALL SORTS OF HISTRIONIC WAYS IF YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO IF YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO SOMETHING IN A COURTROOM, YOU SOMETHING IN A COURTROOM, YOU BETTER BE DOING IT BASED ON THE BETTER BE DOING IT BASED ON THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. RULES OF EVIDENCE. THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT JUST A THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT JUST A WITNESS PROBLEM, BUT THEY HAD WITNESS PROBLEM, BUT THEY HAD THESE OTHER -- THESE REPUBLICAN THESE OTHER -- THESE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WERE WILLING TO PLAY GAMES AT WERE WILLING TO PLAY GAMES AT EVERY MOMENT OF THIS HEARING AND EVERY MOMENT OF THIS HEARING AND INTERRUPT IN ANY WAY THEY FELT INTERRUPT IN ANY WAY THEY FELT LIKE AT ANY TIME LIKE AT ANY TIME >> RIGHT, THAT’S ABSOLUTELY >> RIGHT, THAT’S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. RIGHT. IN A COURTROOM YOU HAVE A JUDGE IN A COURTROOM YOU HAVE A JUDGE POLICING IT IN THE MOMENT. POLICING IT IN THE MOMENT. HERE REPUBLICANS -- AS LONG AS HERE REPUBLICANS -- AS LONG AS THEY’RE WILLING TO SORT OF GIVE THEY’RE WILLING TO SORT OF GIVE UP PRIDE, BASICALLY, AND LOOK UP PRIDE, BASICALLY, AND LOOK FOOLISH, THEY CAN OBJECT ON ANY FOOLISH, THEY CAN OBJECT ON ANY BASIS FOR AS LONG AS THEY WANT BASIS FOR AS LONG AS THEY WANT IT BROKE THE FLOW, AND IT BROKE THE FLOW, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE FIRST PART PARTICULARLY IN THE FIRST PART OF THE HEARING, IT REALLY, I OF THE HEARING, IT REALLY, I THINK, MADE IT HARD FOR THINK, MADE IT HARD FOR DEMOCRATS TO GET INFORMATION DEMOCRATS TO GET INFORMATION OUT. OUT. AS TIME WENT ON, I THINK THEY AS TIME WENT ON, I THINK THEY BECAME MORE ACCUSTOMED TO IT AND BECAME MORE ACCUSTOMED TO IT AND WERE ABLE TO USE THEIR TIME. WERE ABLE TO USE THEIR TIME. >> I’M JUST IMAGINING YOU >> I’M JUST IMAGINING YOU WATCHING THIS, OKAY, AS AN WATCHING THIS, OKAY, AS AN EXPERIENCED FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, EXPERIENCED FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND, LOOK, THERE IS BAD AND, LOOK, THERE IS BAD QUESTIONING ON BOTH SIDES. QUESTIONING ON BOTH SIDES. WE KNOW THE REPUBLICANS ARE JUST WE KNOW THE REPUBLICANS ARE JUST PLAYING A GAME PLAYING A GAME BUT ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, BUT ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, THERE WAS A LOT OF BAD THERE WAS A LOT OF BAD QUESTIONING, INEFFECTIVE QUESTIONING, INEFFECTIVE QUESTIONING, LOST POINTS, NOT QUESTIONING, LOST POINTS, NOT HOLDING TO A CONSISTENT LINE OF HOLDING TO A CONSISTENT LINE OF INQUIRY FROM ONE MEMBER TO INQUIRY FROM ONE MEMBER TO ANOTHER. ANOTHER. THERE WERE VERY FEW MEMBERS, THERE WERE VERY FEW MEMBERS, EVEN ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, WHO EVEN ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, WHO YOU COULD EVEN SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU COULD EVEN SUMMARIZE WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO THEY WERE TRYING TO DO CARSON SWALWELL IS ONE THAT CARSON SWALWELL IS ONE THAT COULD DO IT. COULD DO IT. HOW HARD WAS IT FOR YOU TO WATCH HOW HARD WAS IT FOR YOU TO WATCH THAT THAT >> IT WAS VERY HARD. >> IT WAS VERY HARD. WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO WASN’T WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO WASN’T EVEN ABOUT THE STYLE OF THEIR EVEN ABOUT THE STYLE OF THEIR QUESTIONING AS MUCH AS THEY LET QUESTIONING AS MUCH AS THEY LET THE WITNESS CONTROL, AND THAT THE WITNESS CONTROL, AND THAT WAS ALSO BECAUSE OF WHAT THE WAS ALSO BECAUSE OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING. REPUBLICANS ARE DOING. THEY NEEDED TO TAKE CONTROL THEY NEEDED TO TAKE CONTROL BACK BACK THAT’S WHY WHEN BARRY BURKE HAD THAT’S WHY WHEN BARRY BURKE HAD A FULL 30 MINUTES AND IS JUST, A FULL 30 MINUTES AND IS JUST, AS EVERYONE HAS SAID, SUCH A AS EVERYONE HAS SAID, SUCH A SKILLED QUESTIONER, HE WAS ABLE SKILLED QUESTIONER, HE WAS ABLE TO TAKE CONTROL AGAIN. TO TAKE CONTROL AGAIN. HE WAS ABLE TO TAKE THE HE WAS ABLE TO TAKE THE NARRATIVE AND GET OUT WHERE HE NARRATIVE AND GET OUT WHERE HE WANTED, AND SHOWED LEWANDOWSKI WANTED, AND SHOWED LEWANDOWSKI TO JUST BE A COMPLETE LIAR TO JUST BE A COMPLETE LIAR IT WAS SO OBVIOUS TO ANYONE IT WAS SO OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WATCHING THAT. WATCHING THAT. THERE WERE SOME GOOD POINTS, THERE WERE SOME GOOD POINTS, THOUGH, EVEN BEFORE BURKE. THOUGH, EVEN BEFORE BURKE. I THINK THIS POINT ABOUT I THINK THIS POINT ABOUT LEWANDOWSKI, YOU KNOW, HAVE SAID LEWANDOWSKI, YOU KNOW, HAVE SAID TO MUELLER THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO MUELLER THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO MEET WITH SESSIONS AT THE DOJ TO MEET WITH SESSIONS AT THE DOJ BECAUSE OF THE LOG, AND NOW HE’S BECAUSE OF THE LOG, AND NOW HE’S TOTALLY TRYING TO DISCLAIM THAT. TOTALLY TRYING TO DISCLAIM THAT. THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT, THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT, AND FRANKLY, HE MAY HAVE AND FRANKLY, HE MAY HAVE PERJURED HIMSELF ABOUT THAT PERJURED HIMSELF ABOUT THAT TODAY BECAUSE HE COMPLETELY TODAY BECAUSE HE COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED WHAT HE SAID TO CONTRADICTED WHAT HE SAID TO MUELLER. MUELLER. >> AND MR. SWALWELL, YOU >> AND MR. SWALWELL, YOU COMPLETELY FOUND HIM ANSWERING COMPLETELY FOUND HIM ANSWERING COMPLETELY OPPOSITE TODAY. COMPLETELY OPPOSITE TODAY. >> THERE WERE OTHER WITNESSES >> THERE WERE OTHER WITNESSES THAT KNEW WHAT HAD HAPPENED, BUT THAT KNEW WHAT HAD HAPPENED, BUT HE TOLD THE MUELLER TEAM THIS HE TOLD THE MUELLER TEAM THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME HE HAD EVER WAS THE ONLY TIME HE HAD EVER WRITTEN DOWN SOMETHING THE WRITTEN DOWN SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO DO PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO DO THAT’S HOW IMPORTANT THIS THAT’S HOW IMPORTANT THIS MESSAGE WAS. MESSAGE WAS. THEN HE TOLD US, NO, I TOOK THEN HE TOLD US, NO, I TOOK NOTES ALL THE TIME NOTES ALL THE TIME I KEPT EVERY NOTE HE GAIFRVE ME I KEPT EVERY NOTE HE GAIFRVE ME MY SAFE. MY SAFE. WE SHOWED THAT INCONSISTENCY WE SHOWED THAT INCONSISTENCY AGAIN TO SHOW HE WAS TRYING TO AGAIN TO SHOW HE WAS TRYING TO REDUCE HIS CRIMINAL CULPABILITY REDUCE HIS CRIMINAL CULPABILITY WITH US AND MINIMIZE IT. WITH US AND MINIMIZE IT. LAWRENCE, JUST TO DEFEND MY LAWRENCE, JUST TO DEFEND MY COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE BONDED IN COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE BONDED IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS OVER THIS, THE LAST FEW MONTHS OVER THIS, AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO BE AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO BE PREPARED PREPARED AND YOU’RE RIGHT, THE AND YOU’RE RIGHT, THE OBSTRUCTION FROM THE REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION FROM THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES OF OURS AND FROM THE COLLEAGUES OF OURS AND FROM THE WITNESSES MAKES IT VERY HARD WITNESSES MAKES IT VERY HARD BUT I THINK THIS NEW STYLE OF BUT I THINK THIS NEW STYLE OF HAVING A CLEANUP AT THE END BY A HAVING A CLEANUP AT THE END BY A SKILLED LITIGATOR LIKE MR. BURKE SKILLED LITIGATOR LIKE MR. BURKE WILL HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER UNDERSTAND. BETTER UNDERSTAND. >> AND MIMI, ONE OF THE THINGS >> AND MIMI, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THESE CONGRESSIONAL ABOUT THESE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS IS IT’S EXTREMELY HARD HEARINGS IS IT’S EXTREMELY HARD TO ANTICIPATE THE KIND OF TO ANTICIPATE THE KIND OF INTERFERENCE THAT THE INTERFERENCE THAT THE REPUBLICANS LAUNCH, BECAUSE THEY REPUBLICANS LAUNCH, BECAUSE THEY ARE VIOLATING EVERY NORM OF ARE VIOLATING EVERY NORM OF COMMITTEE PROCESS THAT EXISTED COMMITTEE PROCESS THAT EXISTED IN THE INSTITUTION IN THE INSTITUTION AND SO WHEN I’M WATCHING THIS, I AND SO WHEN I’M WATCHING THIS, I DON’T HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR DON’T HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR CHAIRMAN NADLER ABOUT HERE’S HOW CHAIRMAN NADLER ABOUT HERE’S HOW TO FIGHT THESE GUYS, BECAUSE TO FIGHT THESE GUYS, BECAUSE I’VE NEVER SEEN ANY CONDUCT LIKE I’VE NEVER SEEN ANY CONDUCT LIKE THIS BEFORE IN THESE HEARINGS. THIS BEFORE IN THESE HEARINGS. AND WHAT THEY DON’T HAVE ARE THE AND WHAT THEY DON’T HAVE ARE THE RULES THAT YOU HAVE IN A RULES THAT YOU HAVE IN A COURTROOM THAT YOU CAN RELY ON A COURTROOM THAT YOU CAN RELY ON A JUDGE TO SMACK DOWN A LAWYER WHO JUDGE TO SMACK DOWN A LAWYER WHO IS GETTING OUT OF ORDER. IS GETTING OUT OF ORDER. THERE IS NO -- WE’RE DISCOVERING THERE IS NO -- WE’RE DISCOVERING THE LIMITS OF WHAT WE THOUGHT THE LIMITS OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE THE POWERS OF CHAIRMEN IN WERE THE POWERS OF CHAIRMEN IN THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY ARE THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY ARE ABUSING THIS HEARING PROCESS AND ABUSING THIS HEARING PROCESS AND THERE REALLY ISN’T A WAY TO GET THERE REALLY ISN’T A WAY TO GET THEM TO BEHAVE THE WAY THEY’RE THEM TO BEHAVE THE WAY THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO IN THESE HEARINGS. SUPPOSED TO IN THESE HEARINGS. >> WELL, I THINK TO THE EXTENT >> WELL, I THINK TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, AND I REALIZE UNDER POSSIBLE, AND I REALIZE UNDER THE PROCEDURAL RULES YOU CAN’T THE PROCEDURAL RULES YOU CAN’T COMPLETELY DO THIS, THEY HAVE TO COMPLETELY DO THIS, THEY HAVE TO NOT ENGAGE NOT ENGAGE THEY HAVE TO TRY TO SHUT IT DOWN THEY HAVE TO TRY TO SHUT IT DOWN AS QUICKLY AND AS EARLY AS AS QUICKLY AND AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE POSSIBLE THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF DEBATE GOING ON RIGHT THERE IN DEBATE GOING ON RIGHT THERE IN THE MOMENT ABOUT PRIVILEGE THE MOMENT ABOUT PRIVILEGE I MEAN, THIS IS A BOGUS I MEAN, THIS IS A BOGUS PRIVILEGE THAT’S BEING ASSERTED. PRIVILEGE THAT’S BEING ASSERTED. SO EITHER THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID SO EITHER THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY’RE FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY’RE JUST GOING TO LET HIM MAKE THESE JUST GOING TO LET HIM MAKE THESE BOGUS PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS, OR BOGUS PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS, OR THEY’RE GOING TO HOLD HIM IN THEY’RE GOING TO HOLD HIM IN CONTEMPT, ONE OR THE OTHER CONTEMPT, ONE OR THE OTHER THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF DEBATE HAPPENING IN THE MOMENT DEBATE HAPPENING IN THE MOMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS, IN FACT, A ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS, IN FACT, A VALID PRIVILEGE OR NOT VALID PRIVILEGE OR NOT IT’S NOT, AND FRANKLY I THINK IT’S NOT, AND FRANKLY I THINK THEY SHOULD HOLD HIM IN CONTEMPT THEY SHOULD HOLD HIM IN CONTEMPT BECAUSE OTHERWISE EVERYONE IS BECAUSE OTHERWISE EVERYONE IS GOING TO KEEP ASSERTING THIS GOING TO KEEP ASSERTING THIS THIS IS A GOOD TEST CASE THIS IS A GOOD TEST CASE >> THE PROBLEM WITH CONTEMPT AND >> THE PROBLEM WITH CONTEMPT AND A PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT IN A PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT IN CONGRESS IS CONDUCTED BY WILLIAM CONGRESS IS CONDUCTED BY WILLIAM BARR BARR ANDSO THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT, IN ANDSO THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT, IN EFFECT, THE BEHAVIOR IN TA ROOM EFFECT, THE BEHAVIOR IN TA ROOM UNENFORCIBLE UNENFORCIBLE CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI KNOWS HE CAN CORWIN LEWANDOWSKI KNOWS HE CAN BE AS MUCH IN CONTEMPT AS HE BE AS MUCH IN CONTEMPT AS HE WANTS, AND THEY WILL NEVER WANTS, AND THEY WILL NEVER PROSECUTE HIM FOR IT PROSECUTE HIM FOR IT >> I THINK ALL THE GUYS ON THE >> I THINK ALL THE GUYS ON THE TRUMP TEAM, ALL THEY UNDERSTAND TRUMP TEAM, ALL THEY UNDERSTAND IS MONEY AND FIREOR A LOT OF IS MONEY AND FIREOR A LOT OF REASONS THEY’RE CONDUCT WAS REASONS THEY’RE CONDUCT WAS ABOUT GREED.
