counsel in August. The indication was that perhaps you would come in for a voluntary interview. And, when that ultimately was not something to which you agreed, the committee issued you a subpoena with a legal obligation.
You changed counsel, and we gave your new counsel a brief indulgence because he had just been retained. And, as a matter of professional courtesy to Mr. MacDougald, we gave you an extra week.
But, with all due respect, we have been willing to talk with you, work with you, wanted to do this voluntarily since this summer. So this is not a last-minute attempt to force you without ample notice of our interest to answer questions on the record. Our efforts in good faith to engage with you extend 4 months.
The Witness. So, as the letter indicates, I had been reviewing various things, studying legal doctrines, conferring with counsel, so we have similarly proceeded in good faith, and we continue to want to proceed in good faith.
But, for today, you know, sitting here to have the same questions be asked and for attempts to, you know, respectfully, to be made toe mischaracterize our position, that's not something that it seems to be prudent to continue to do.
The Rules of the House provide that the chair will rule on objections or assertions of privilege. The chair has not yet had an opportunity to rule. Part of the reason for a brief recess and discussion with the chairman is to get—again, this is all part of completing our record such that the committee can consider other options.
So we can stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. We're not concluding the deposition. But the Rules of the House provide a recess subject to the call of the chair as we consult with him and seek his potential ruling on your executive privilege assertion.
The Witness. That involves procedures that you will decide haw to invoke, and, you know—but, in terms of our presence, thaugh, we're going to depart. We've made
