consequently, we—
The Witness. I—
Mr. Raskin. I have two follow-up—
The Witness. I would say that we've not reached an impasse, and there have been repeated attempts to characterize the position as absolutist. It's not. We're inviting a dialogue in the letter. But, for today, I think that we're done.
Mr. MacDougald. We're done.
The Witness. Yeah.
Mr. MacDougald. We're done for the day.
Mr. Raskin, go ahead.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I just want to follow up on your question about the attorney-client privilege.
Who is the attorney, and who is the client that are covered by the attorney-client privilege being invoked in the letter?
Mr. MacDougald. It's asked and answered. The privilege is set forth in the letter.
Mr. Raskin. Well, forgive me, because I'm not in the room right now. The letter arrived late, thank you for your apology about that, but one way to make that apology meaningful might be to restate the point of your own letter. Who is the attorney, and who is the client in the attorney-client privilege being asserted in your letter?
Mr. MacDougald. We're happy to engage in that dialogue in correspondence with committee counsel, but we're not going to da it in the deposition, Congressman.
Mr. Raskin. Wow. Okay.
I yield back to you, Thanks.
Okay. Well, I can tell you, Mr. MacDougald, that we're not going to
