and information from mr. parnas, then we want to make sure we have the benefit of that information as well. so the long and short of it is we re leaving no stone unturned. but we want to make sure that what we do doesn t prejudice what the department of justice is doing properly through the southern district to bring people to justice. and presumably that s a matter of course, professional discussion that you have with law enforcement authorities and that kind of thing comes up regularly over the course of your work. yes, and we ve had these discussions in the course of the mueller investigation, indeed involving michael cohen where there were similar concerns that what we might do might interfere with what they re doing. and we don t always see eye to eye with either southern justice or the southern district. we have competing concerns but we try to at least be mindful and make decisions if we are going to interfere with the prosecution, it has to be for a darn good reason. you
would he would like to give to you, that he would like to convey to your committee and congress for use in the impeachment investigation. i have to ask what that means and what you know about that? well, i can t go into many of the particulars here. we are in touch with mr. parnas s counsel. there is certainly information that he has that s relevant to our inquiry. at the same time, we want to be careful and respectful of what the southern district of new york is doing, so we are in discussions with the southern district of new york. we don t want anything that we might do to interfere with our ability to bring people to justice. at the same time, if mr. parnas has valuable information to offer and we are already in the process of receiving documents and information from mr. parnas, then we want to make sure we have the benefit of that information as well. so the long and short of it is we re leaving no stone unturned. we want to make sure that what we do doesn t prejudice what the