# Transcribed Interview of Dustin Stockton/10:07am

Layout 2
​ Today is December 14, 2021. We are here for the deposition of Dustin Stockton by the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. My name is and I'm an investigative counsel designated by the select committee to conduct this deposition. Also with me is investigative counsel, and , researcher for the select committee.
We may be joined by members of the committee at various points during the deposition, and I will attempt to stop and acknowledge them when they join us for the record. Under House rules, members are authorized to ask questions at any point during the deposition.
Under deposition rules in the House, neither committee members nor staff may discuss the substance of your testimony today unless the committee approves the release of that testimony. You and your attorney, Mr. Stockton, will have the opportunity to review the transcript.
At this time, I'd ask that your counsel identify himself for the record.
Mr. Nass. Joshua Nass.
Thank you, Mr. Nass.
I'd note that under House rules, Mr. Stockton, you may have your attorney present, but counsel for other individuals may not be, and therefore, as you can see, are not present and the same goes for attorneys from other government agencies.
Before we get started, I'd like to just cover a few ground rules for the deposition today. First, as you can see, we have an official reporter transcribing our conversation. For that reason, I'd ask that you wait until I ask the question, and I will wait until you
​answer before I ask another question so that we're not overlapping each other. Relatedly, nonverbal responses can't be noted for the record, so if the response is a yes or a no, something along those lines, we'd ask that you do that as opposed to nodding or shaking your head.
For today's deposition, we'd ask that you give complete answers to the best of your recollection. If you don't know an answer, just say so. If you need clarification, just say so. And, finally, if you need to take a break for any reason or to speak with your attorney, just say so.
I should note that you may not refuse to answer a question unless that refusal is preserve—is to preserve a privilege that is recognized by the select committee. If you refuse to answer a question that is based on one of those privileges, the process is that we can either move on and come back to it later, or we can seek a ruling from the chairman of the committee on that objection. If the chairman overrules the objection, you'd be required to answer.
And, finally, I must remind you as we do to all witnesses, that it is unlawful to provide false or materially misleading testimony to Congress. Doing so could result in criminal penalties under 18 United States Code section 1001.
Mr. Stockton, do you understand everything I have said so far?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
All right. I would ask that the witness be sworn in.
Court Reporter. Do you solemnly declare and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The Witness. I do, so help me God.
EXAMINATION
Q Before we begin, I'd also note for the record that there are some binders with exhibits that have been previously marked. They're marked for organization and identification purposes. We may go out of order, but I'll do my best to note through the record which exhibits we're looking at, and the binders were here this morning based on documents provided by Mr. Stockton.
First, Mr. Stockton, could you just state your full name for the record.
A Dustin Alan Stockton.
Q And if you could look at Exhibit 1, which is behind tab one. This is the subpoena issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol on November 22nd. Are you the Dustin Stockton that's named in this subpoena?
A I am.
Q All right. I'd like to start by, if you flip to tab two, this is a printout of a Rolling Stone article that was published on or about October 25, 2021. And the title is, quote, "Exclusive: Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in 'Dozens' of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff," closed quote. It's not reflected from the face of the exhibit, but the public record reflects this article was written by a journalist named Hunter Walker.
Mr. Stockton, you were a source for this article. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And the article describes two planners who previously were anonymous, who provided information. Were you one of those anonymous sources?
A Yes, I was.
Q Okay. And, in fact, I believe there was an article published last night that ​identifies you as one of those anonymous sources, correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q So I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the information that's provided by the sources in this article to get us started. The article provides information about communications with Members of Congress. Did you communicate with Members of Congress between Election Day, 2020, and January 6, 2021?
A Yes, I did.
Q Who did you communicate with?
A Specifically, there were many members as a result of the three different rallies that we did in D.C., November, December, and January, and then also, traveling around the country. Those members in the House include Madison Cawthorn, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, Good from Virginia, Marjorie Taylor Greene and her staff. Who else spoke? There were many. Several freshmen. I would have to go back and refresh my memory for an exhaustive list.
Q So in the article, it refers to communications regarding January 6th specifically. Were you in communication with any of those members about January 6th?
A I want to go back just briefly. We also did communicate with Marsha Blackburn on the Senate side, and members of Rand Paul's staff, I believe members of Ted Cruz's staff as well.
Q When you say, "we communicated with," who are you referring to?
A Specifically, myself; Jennifer Lawrence, my fiance; and Amy and Kylie Kremer for Women for America First.
Q Some of those communications, it sounds like, had to do with November and December rallies. Could you describe sort of—we can start in general terms and maybe ​get into some of the specifics.
A Sure.
Q Generally, what are the nature of those conversations?
A So it adapted through the process. Initially, it was inviting—mostly just inviting them and then coordinating with them to appear at various rallies on the bus tour, and it also eventually would lead to discussions about what the process inside the Capitol would be on January 6th. I believe it was—
Mr. Nass. May I? What he means is the legislative process.
Okay. Well, we can get to that, yeah.
Mr. Nass. I just want to—
The Witness. No, I appreciate that. And to be specific, I believe our—the first briefing call we got was with Nick Dyer and Marjorie Taylor Greene, where they describe to us what the process would look like procedurally inside the Capitol on January 6th, so the—that we needed a Senator to make an objection, and a Member of the House could then second that, which would then force the body to split off into their respective Chambers where there would be a debate held.
So specifically, beyond coordinating having them appear at the various rallies, there was—we both applied pressure and tried to persuade Members of the House and Senate to participate in the objections.
Q So when—you mentioned an organizing call going through what that procedural process was. When was that?
A I would have to go back and check my records specifically. I believe it's referenced in one of the text messages that I provided. It's—I believe it's specifically in the text chat between myself, Amy Kremer, and Kylie Kremer, where the text makes clear that she'd just spoke to Nick Dyer from Marjorie Taylor Greene's staff, and we had a call ​with her at 2:30. So I'd be able to find the exact date then.
This process happened at warp speed, planning two bus tours and three D.C. rallies. I think things happened very quickly, and so I'd prefer to try to stick to the records as best I can as far as specifics, because a lot of it blurs together, to be honest.
Q Sure. Well, and it's fine to say that you know something happened but give it a relative time period if you can.
A I believe it was after the December rally, but well before Christmas. So my guess is somewhere around the 13th to the 20th would be the—and I know, as I was going through the text messages, that's specifically referenced.
Q Okay. Did you, Mr. Stockton, have any direct communications yourself with any of the Members that you mentioned?
A I had direct contact with several of them at the event, although primarily, those calls were done as a group on the bus, and I believe it was usually Amy's phone that we were using to communicate with.
Q Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you did not have any phone calls directly with any Members?
A I don't believe my phone had any phone calls, if—I mean, we were on the bus, and we would be traveling from stop to stop, and we would be making these phone calls.
Q I guess, I'm trying to distinguish between a group call, like a conference call kind of setting, versus a one-to-one communication that you may have had with Members.
A Yeah. No, it was—it wouldn't be one to one. It would be particularly Amy and I and Members.
Q Okay. Now, in those conversations that you described with you and Amy ​Kremer and Members, are those conversations where that's the whole group for the call, or is it you and Amy are participating with a bunch of other organizers having a conference call with a Member?
A Mostly it was Amy and I. Sometimes there would be another member of our team like in the room with us, but there were never like a, to my recollection, I'd have to make sure, but I don't recall having, like, large conference calls with many different Members. I remember it as like calling them back to back to back to back to back individually, and then making individual arguments that we thought would be persuasive to each one.
Q Were these calls that you were making scheduled ahead of time with the Members, or were these like cold calls to Member offices?
A I think it was a mix, but I think mostly we were just calling them directly, like cold calling out of the blue, or Amy would have set those up, I think.
Q Now, you mentioned in general terms what Mr. Dyer from Marjorie Taylor Greene's staff explained in terms of the procedure. What guidance were you being given from the Member side on these calls?
A So the first thing that stood out in that call is it changed what our plan was. We even modified the route of the bus tour at this point. So the first thing that stood out was that we needed to get a Senator or multiple Senators to make the initial objection, that despite the fact that I believe we started with twelve Members of the House who had agreed to object, that they could not make the initial objection, and so we had to get Senators to make the objection. And so our most immediate concern coming from that call was to persuade members of the Senate to participate in the objections.
Secondarily, the conversation as we discussed like logistically what it would look ​like, turned towards how we would be—how evidence would be presented in the different Chambers and what that process would look like.
Q Okay. And so, you—that was—if I understood you correectly, those were the objectives coming out of the call with Nick Dyer?
A Yeah, and kind of directed the rest of the calls, especially with Members' staffs. Because we had been touring the country, and especially focused on the battleground States in the initial touring of the country, and especially focused on the battleground States in the initial tour, we had provided sworn depositions or statistical analysis, and we had the opportunity to make a judgment on which was strongest, who came across as credible, and who didn't come across as credible. And so, we would provide guidance to Members and their staffs about who those people were and then also make introductions where it was appropriate.
Q Now, when you say battleground States, what are you referring to?
A Specifically Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona. Did I say Georgia already?
Mr. Nass. Yes.
The Witness. Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada to a lesser degree. I'm missing one or two. It'll come to me.
    BY
Q But is it—why those States as battleground States?
A Because the vote totals were very close.
Q So there was no sense of trying to identify voter fraud in cases that had clearly gone for one candidate over another?
A We definitely were paying attention to everything we could see, but the States that I identified—and there's a couple I'm missing. It's driving me crazy. But ​the States that we had identified as being especially susceptible towards manipulation because of the close vote totals was definitely where our primary emphasis was.
Q So you've gone into some detail here on a call with Mr. Dyer from Representative Green's staff. Do you remember other specific phone calls you had with members during this time period?
A I remember speaking to Dr. Gosar and Tom Van Flein from his staff. I remember speaking with—I mean, Kim Paxton. I believe Louie Gohmert was on that call. I had spoken with—I remember calls with Marsha Blackburn. She actually provided a video for us before the December event, and was one of the primary people that we were trying to persuade to become an objector.
Q Okay. Let's start with Senator Blackburn and move backward then from that. When you say you were trying to persuade her, can you tell me specifically what steps you were talking to try to persuade Senator Blackburn to object?
A So, one, we shared the energy and enthusiasm that we were witnessing as we were touring. We also applied pressure in that—actually, so there's a better explanation that I remember more clearly with another Senator, which is Senator Kennedy from Louisiana.
Q Okay.
A We had rerouted the tour to add Louisiana, and the call we had—or the correspondence, I think it was a call, I'd have to double-check, but it could've been—I'm almost certain it was a call. His voice is pretty memorable. What we had said to both him and Senator Hawley's staff was that we were coming with a bus to their State, and we could either have a rally to—that they were the bad guy, or we could hold a thank you for doing the right thing rally.
Q And that was, rough timeframe?
​A Second bus tour, which would be post December 12th, I believe. I'd have to double-check, but between December 12th and January 6th.
Q Okay. And in that, were there direct conversations that you had with either Senator Kennedy or Senator Hawley?
A Senator Hawley, it was his staff, and, again, Amy Kremer was the one who facilitated that call. And Senator Kennedy, I believe that was direct.
Q And so then with Senator Blackburn, was that a direct conversations with the Senator, or was that with her staff?
A So that was direct, and that was—I didn't speak on that call, but was listening to it between Amy and Senator Blackburn.
Q So this raises the question for me, generally speaking, how is it that your group is able to get a direct audience, or line in to speak on the phone with a United States Senator?
A So going back to the Tea Party movement in 2010, we have been instrumental in many cases as early supporters. Senator Cruz, for example, I believe Tea Party Express, which both Amy and I were a part of, had made an endorsement of him when he was at like 2 percent in the polls and way behind. So we've developed these relationships with the principals over the course of 10 years of political activism.
Q Okay. And so then, though, is it you who is making direct calls and getting Senators on the phone? Is it Ms. Kremer?
A Amy's much better at maintaining those relationships than I am. I kind of—I come in and out. I don't participate in as many of the social functions as Amy does. I'm more of a logistical guy. But Amy has a rock-solid Rolodex of everyone who any of our groups have ever endorsed and participated. She really does an exceptional job making sure that she maintains those contracts.
​Q Okay. So with respect to the communications with Members of the House on these objections, who is it that's initiating that set of objectives you talked about?
A So we would speak with—so we had the first call with Nick Dyer. And we have, for Jen and I, are probably—the Member of Congress that we are closest with is Dr. Gosar and his chief of staff, Tom Van Flein. And in many instances, Tom would direct us to who was looking for an introduction somewhere and help facilitate that. And Amy, primarily, was handling that aspect of it.
As we're doing these bus tours with multiple stops a day, I was managing the stage show, if you will, like the production from that side, and then would join Amy on the bus for many of the calls when we were between stops. So I have a somewhat disjointed participation, because I would be both emceeing the event that was happening outside, and trying to duck in and help make these calls.
Q So let me ask this a different way: Before the election season in 2020, did you know personally about this objection process that takes place on January 6th every election cycle?
A I knew roughly of it. I remember the Democrats in 2016 blustering about it, but I don't think I'd ever witnessed it before and had no idea of the like details of it until the call with Nick Dyer.
Q Okay. So if I understand you correctly then, the first you can remember hearing about there being this opportunity to object to the elector college on January 6th was through this conference call with Nick Dyer?
A I believe so, yes. And I want to say it was December 18th or 19th specifically, because I thought that the next natural—my personal thinking was after we did the December rally we were looking at when we would come back and do another event in D.C. My assumption was that we'd do it at the inauguration, which seemed to ​be like the next major point to me. And I believe Amy broached it in one of the text messages that we should do this on—the next time we should do it is on January 6th. And I think we directed Cindy Chafian to secure the permits for surrounding those days.
Q So who, if you recall, initiated that phone call with Nick Dyer?
A Amy Kremer.
Q Okay. So it was her reaching out and—I'm trying to understand—
A I'm not sure if Nick reached out to Amy or Amy reached out to Nick. I just—and it's reflected in the text messages. I'm out doing something or another, and you have to be available 2:30 for this call with Nick Dyer. So I don't know what led to that initial—I believe they had an initial conversation, but I have no idea who initiated it.
Q And, so, on the House side, did you participate in any attempts to persuade Members of the House to object?
A That was—not so much with the Members of the House, because we had lots of objectors. I mean, we started with twelve and it quickly grew. And, so, it was less that most of the communication was around—like I remember specifically—and I can't remember which Member, but Matt Seely had done a presentation in Michigan that was—that we found very compelling, and we were doing our best to connect him with Members of Congress so that they would be aware of what he was providing.
Q And who is Matt Seely?
A Matt Seely, I'd have to go back and refresh. He—I believe he was an election worker in Michigan. He's from Michigan and had presented—had done a video presentation that we'd found compelling, and they'd we'd invited him to speak and found him to be well-spoken and credible.
Q So if I understand correctly, some of the conversations you had with Members of the House may have been about this objected process; some may have been ​about just the logistics of recruiting them or asking them to come speak at the various events, and we'll go back in time and talk about those?
A Sure.
Q I want to just mention the names you have mentioned, and also the names you have mentioned, and also the names in this article and then you can tell me—
A Where they fall in that.
Q —just generally—
A Sure.
Q —what kind of communications, and if there's other communications I haven't characterized, what those communications might be?
So Madison Cawthorn is one you mentioned.
A So Madison Cawthorn spoke at the—our Supreme Court rally in December, and those communications, I believe Jen initiated through Instagram, and primarily logistical.
Q All right. Ms. Boebert?
A Ms. Boebert also spoke at several of our events, so those were also logistical.
Q Representative Good?
A Representative Good spoke at both the November and December rallies, and I had—he had been—we were running way late on time in the November rally, and I had asked him to only speak for like a minute and felt kind of guilty about it, but he'd been very gracious about it. So I'd communicated with him and his staff about making sure that they got a really good speaking spot at the December rally.
Q The article also mentions Mo Brooks.
A Mo Brooks would be logistical, surrounding—like we'd invited him to come speak. I also believe that he was—I don't specifically recall the conversations, but my ​recollection is that he was more involved with the—like the coordinating of introducing people we had met along the way with other Members of Congress. He seemed like he was more of a—had more of a coordination role.
Q Okay.
A But I don't remember that—any of the calls specifically. It's just, if I'm remembering it, right, it seems like he was more involved in the objection process.
Q The Rolling Stone article also mentions Representative Biggs.
A So Representative Biggs, logistical to speak. I believe we also specifically reached out to Representative Biggs to question his involvement with Stop the Steal and Ali Alexander.
Q And when you say, "question his involvement," what do you mean by that?
A To be frank, what the hell are you doing working with this guy?
Q Okay. And we'll get into that a little bit later. You mentioned Representative Gohmert as well, I think.
A I love Louie. Representative Gohmert, logistical. He spoke at the December rally—or the November rally. I don't know if he spoke at the December rally. But he was also involved in a confrontation over control of the stage at the November rally with Alex Jones, that after we filed—after Kylie had filed a police report over an incident on December 11th, I believe we'd reached back out to Congressman Gohmert about his recollection of what happened on the stage in November.
Q And that conflict, does that relate to Alex Jones?
A Yes.
Q Okay. We'll talk about that, too. You mentioned Attorney General Paxton, I think, from Texas?
A Yes.
​Q What were those communications about?
A That was about recruiting other attorneys general to sign on to the Texas lawsuit, and Pat specifically—Pastor Gibson connected us directly to General Paxton, and myself and Matt Couch and—it was the secondary bus, right. We had the leadership team bus, then we had a secondary bus at that point with, like, speakers and influencers and bloggers. I remember Matt Couch and I sitting, and he was dialing attorneys general directly to ask them to sign on to the Texas lawsuit by Paxton.
Q Now, with any of these Members, were there communications initiated by them to you? or to Ms. Kremer, trying to give guidance for what you should be doing?
A Not to me directly, and I don't think—I can't recall, or I don't know whether or not—who initiated what with Amy, but that we were communicating regularly with lots of Members.
Q And I guess, I think it's clear, I'm trying to distinguish between what might be seen as lobbying or trying to persuade, or trying to inform Members who otherwise aren't going to hear from you if you don't reach out, versus people who you're trying to include as part of your strategy decision-making process if that makes sense. Are there people of the Members you've mentioned that really you would have considered like they're helping to provide us guidance about what we should be doing?
A I recollect Mo Brooks being in that category. Tom Van Flein and Dr. Gosar would definitely be in that category. Louie to a lesser extent. Congressman Gohmert has always been a gem at helping us provide like procedural Roberts' rules of orders stuff as far as what the legislative process looks like. So if we had questions like that, he would kind of be our go-to there.
I would say those, if—I guess, your question comes across somewhat as like maybe who we were looking at as leaders, or people that we were looking to take ​guidance from. I would say, specifically, Congressman Gosar. I recollect Mo Brooks to a lesser extent. And on the Senate side, I would add Senator Blackburn to that list.
Q Okay. You also, before I forget, mentioned the staff of Senator Paul and the staff of Senator Cruz. How would you characterize those communications?
A Senator Paul's staff was frankly incredulous that we would even bring it up, and we quickly checked Senator Paul off the potential—like the list of people that could be persuaded. Senator Cruz, Amy—I was not there for that call, but I remember Amy characterizing it as—right, because I remember her specifically using the "We endorsed him at 2 percent" line, and I believe that she had been successful at getting him on board.
Q Let's talk about the communications with Congressman Gosar's office, and you mentioned having the relationship with his—with Tom Van Flein. That's his—at least was at the time his chief of staff, correct?
A I believe so, yes.
Q So can you describe sort of what your relationship has been like—you mentioned, I think earlier, you and your fiance, Ms. Lawrence, sort of having a closer relationship with Representative Gosar. How did that relationship form?
A I believe the—going back many years, I—we had worked elections in Arizona, being from Nevada. It's a neighboring State that's very competitive. We had seen Dr. Gosar at many events that I was speaking at, or where we were endorsing candidates.
I remember specifically, I asked Congressman Gosar and Congressman Gohmert at one point to help my daughter with her fourth-grade video project, and they both gave her interviews. And Congressman Gosar has been our best resource inside the Congress for when we were doing a variety of activist campaigns.
Over the years, I used a program, that has since been taken offline, but called Rally ​Congress, to help connect Members of Congress with their constituents of their constituents contact their Members of Congress, and over the years have sent—have helped facilitate sending more than 5 million individual messages from constituents to Members of Congress.
And so, Congressman Gosar and Tom would be kind of our first point of contact as we would set those things up to both get an idea of what they thought was possible as far as what we could really get accomplished so that we could try to tailor those campaigns to be effective.
Q Okay. And so, then, how did that relationship come into play for the work you were doing between Election Day 2020 and January 6th?
A So Congressman Gosar was, obviously, one of the first people that we looked to to kind of direct us on where to go. We also knew that, right, he was one of the most outspoken Members of Congress out of the gate. So primarily, he's somebody that we looked to for guidance on legislative matters, or political matters in general, and so that's kind of how, I guess, I'd characterize it.
Q Okay. And what particular guidance did he provide to you about what you should be doing during that time period?
A We really didn't need too much guidance. It was more encouragement, I would say. He also—it also—I mean, we'll just dive right into it. The call that really stood out to Jen and I was, it was a call, I believe, that Tom and Dr. Gosar were calling from their office, that Tom had said that they had just left the Oval Office where they were talking to the President about possible pardons, and our names specifically had come up and We Build the Wall, and that they would be submitting paperwork to facilitate a blanket pardon for We Build the Wall.
Now, it was a—I remember we spoke at—it was somewhat confusing, because ​neither my fiancee or I have ever been charged with anything in that matter, but it was still hanging over our heads. And we were concerned about, most specifically, Brian Kolfage, the triple amputee who had started the project, because when we designed that project, he was not a lawyer, he was not an activist in any way.
And so when I put that project together and the plan together and the staff together, we had built it to protect him specifically, and that the bylaws went out of the way to make sure that he didn't incur any of that kind of risk. And so we were elated more specifically for Brian, but also for us, that if the legal case went away, a lot of our problems went away. So it was a very encouraging thing to hear.
Q And that was something—
A I also want to add that specifically he said that they were going to go to other Members of the House Freedom Caucus, which I have lots of relationships with, and that they would rally them to also sign a letter backing that pardon.
Q Okay. And do you have a ballpark recollection of when that phone conversation happened?
A I believe it was when we were in Louisiana, so I—I'm not 100 percent sure of that. I imagine if I go through my texts, there's texts of Jen and I telling people, like, Hey, I think—like sounds like a pardon is coming for We Build the Wall. We were excited about it. But I believe it was between like mid-December, after the December 12th rally.
Q And you—I think you said that that—those comments made about the Oval Office meeting were made by Tom Van Flein?
A Tom, yes, I believe so.
Q Okay. Did Congressman Gosar say anything specifically on that phone call about the pardon?
​A I can't remember which of them said what, but it was clear that as of, right, as a team, as a staff, like as an office that that's what had happened.
Q Right.
A So—
Q The reason I'm asking is, I think you know—
A Sure.
Q —that Congressman Gosar, in response to that article mentioning that, has issued a denial about blanket pardons.
A But I will say that we had—well, it's funny, because he tweeted about it shortly thereafter. Like shortly after our conversation with him, he had put a tweet out talking about a pardon for We Build the Wall. And so, that denial seemed like it was a knee-jerk response to, like, how they respond to the media in general.
Q And I think—I don't have this as an exhibit, but I can just tell you that part of the denial, I think, from October 31st or 2021 from a bulletin issued by Congressman Gosar's office, mentions this Rolling Stone article, and suggests that the blanket pardon was related to January 6th events. But I understand you to be saying that the blanket pardon discussion was about—
A We Build the Wall.
Q —We Build the Wall, not about January 6th?
A Absolutely not.
Q Now, did they say anything about the relationship between this potential pardon and the work you were doing at the time with this post-election dispute stuff?
A Not directly. I mean, again, there was a sense that we'd gotten the President's attention with what we were doing, right, that he was watching, which we interpreted with the—we were in the Oval Office and your name specifically came up, ​and then after we talked about the pardon it was keep up the great work.
And to us, we interpreted that to mean that we'd gotten the President's attention, and he was aware of what we were doing and it wasn't hurting our case to land a pardon for We Build the Wall.
Q Right. And certainly, it's—I don't think, controversial to say, it's in your interest to hopefully see that President Trump would remain in office if this is something that could potentially happen?
A Absolutely. Well, there was a—there was another meeting I've tried to find. I can help produce this in the coming—like going forward. There was a conversation we had with another member of the administration late at night outside the Willard, I believe, in the December rally, where Jen and I were outside smoking and a member, I believe he was from the Vice President's office, I'd have to double-check, but had kind of pulled us aside, showed up like a—it was like 1:00 in the morning.
He had—he explained that he was going on an overseas trip, and that the boss was planning to make—no matter how things went, was planning to make sure that people were taken care of, specifically in regards to We Build the Wall.
So there was another incident that it's—I've been trying to find his card. I'd never interacted with him before or after, but there was that secondary, and, I believe, I provided the business card to Lyndon Brentnall at RMS Security to look the guy up to make sure that he was legitimate.
Q And you don't—
Mr. Nass. Pardon me. Can we take a 5-minute break, please, Dustin and I?
Sure. Let's go off the record.