i think i was selfish and i think i just took the money. >> i think i understand. >> i asked you a series of questions yesterday about -- at least relating one conversation you had with one of these clients, and i'm just going to ask you this one, do you remember looking tony satterfield in the eye and lying to him? >> i remember lying to tony satterfield and i remember looking him in the eye on many occasions. >> and lying to him? >> yeah. >> okay. lying to his family? >> i lied to his family. i don't know if i did it in person, but i know i had phone conversations with them where i lied to them. >> okay. let's talk a little bit about the pills, if we can.

>> okay. and you've already testified as have other people, that you were still able to function as a lawyer over the years despite the pills that you were using. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you were able, of course, during this period of time to engage in these relatively complicated thefts that increased over the years that we've just talked about despite the pill usage, is that correct? >> i was. >> hmm? >> i was. >> all right. and you were also able to during this time period convince your staff that nothing was amiss with all of these exhibits, despite your pill usage? >> i mean, most of those didn't

require convincing my staff, but just so we're on the same page, again, i acknowledge that i certainly allowed them to be misled. i certainly allowed them to do things that i shouldn't have done on my behalf knowing that they trusted me. >> how many -- how many pills were you using a day? >> depends on a number of items, most importantly how strong the pill was. >> okay. well, let's talk about -- let's start maybe in january of 2021 and move forward. can you describe to the jury what your daily pill intake was like? >> i think at that time most of what i was purchasing was 30

milligram pills instant release, oxycodone. probably mixed in with some oxycontin, which is made of oxycodone. it's just time release. i would have been taking anywhere from 1,500 milligrams maybe to maybe a thousand or -- maybe a thousand milligrams or 1,200 milligrams on a day i didn't take as much or didn't have as much up to, i mean, there are days, many days, a lot of days, most days were more

than that, and many days would be, you know, 20 -- more than 2,000 milligrams a day. >> how many pills is that? >> it depends on the strength of the pill. >> that you just mentioned. >> if i took 30 -- if i had 30 milligram pills, you figure 100 pills would be 3,000 milligrams. >> okay. 100? >> 100. >> so you're taking 60 a day or something like that? i mean -- >> there were days where i took more than that. there were days when i took less than that. >> and how would you take them during the course of the day? i mean, how many are you taking at one time, how frequent in this time period january to june? >> you know, there's a point in time -- and i'm not sure when it was -- that i think it was well before that where -- and you have to understand this, this is

something that i didn't -- i can still remember the first time i ever took an oxycontin. >> can i ask you to answer my question, and then i'll let you explain all you want. my question is how many were you taking a day during this time from january to june. answer that first, please, and if you want to explain i'm happy to let you do so. >> i'm not positive, and here's why is because over the years, as i was saying, the first oxycontin, one oxycontin made me -- literally made me sick. and that was when i was transitioning from hydrocodone to oxycodone. it made me sick because it was a really, really strong one, and so, you know, one oxycontin pill was like ten hydrocodone pills, so -- but anyway, as i took more and more and over the years it just- you know, you build up a tolerance to pain pills and so what might give me this

energy -- the reason -- one of the reasons i became so addicted is, you know, some people talk about pain pills and how they make them lethargic, and you know, where they can't do anything and they feel -- opiates gave me energy, i mean, whatever i was doing, it made it more interesting. you know, it made me want to do it longer, you know, to go on a drive, it made driving -- it just -- at the beginning it made everything better, i took so much -- it got to a point where i was taking so much just to not backslide or go into withdrawals or have all those symptoms, and so it got to the point where i was taking the amounts that i came to be taking in the time

period you're talking about january to june. it evolved over time. it wasn't like it just started, mr. waters. >> can you give me one example of a day during that time period? did you start at # 8:00 in the morning or whatever time you got up or take one every 30 minutes? i'm giving you a chance to explain. >> it would totally depend -- it would totally depend on any number of circumstances. starting a day, one of the main things that this would depend on was how late the day before i had taken pills and how many i had taken and did i take them during the night, did i wake up during the night and take them. let's just say that it had be a while since i took any and i slept and i woke up, all right? then i would immediately first

thing take pills because it's been a while, a lot of times if you slept and hadn't taken pills, you'd wake up and you could tell the beginnings of those, i wouldn't say there were really withdrawals, but the agitation you would feel. you would take it right away. first thing i would do is take pills. >> that's how strong the withdrawals are for opiates, correct? that you feel agitation until you can take another pill. >> yes, i mean, that's just agitation's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to withdrawals. opiate withdrawals. >> i think you said in your --

what's been played for the jury in the telephone conversation with special agent kelly that -- and you talked about withdrawals, just how strong they are, how you're willing to do anything to make them stop, correct? >> i think what i said is almost anything. >> almost anything. >> well, describe that, please. >> i mean, you're sick. i mean, you're physically -- you know, you are physically sick. it's like having the flu, when you ache and your joints hurt. you don't want to get up. you can't get up. that's after a while. it starts with what you're talking about agitation, and you know, fidgety, everybody talks about how fidgety i was. but it starts with that then it goes to, you know, you just --

you might be sitting here and just all of a sudden sweat's running down your face, all over your body, like you ran a marathon. you literally sweat that much. the next thing that comes on after about, i don't know, 12 hours is i call it jumpy legs, but i mean, you literally -- there's no way that you could sit right here in this chair. i mean, you couldn't -- you couldn't remain sitting. i mean, you would have to get up and move around. and i mean, it's like your legs don't want to work. and that lasts for about anywhere from 18 to 24 hours. during that period, the -- you know, the intestinal issues come in and i mean, you literally, you can't control yourself.

you have diarrhea like you have food poisoning. you throw up. you you're physically, physically sick. >> how many times did you try to self-detox? >> mr. waters, dozens, dozens, if not hundreds. you know, so many i can't tell you. >> and those symptoms you just described are extremely power. and made it very difficult to do that, is that correct? >> made it difficult to -- >> to try to self-detox. >> oh, extremely hard. >> you mentioned yesterday that you were paranoid. how long had that been going on? >> well, no i didn't say that i

was paranoid. what i said was as the addiction evolved, there would be situations where you would have these paranoid thoughts. >> and when did those first start? >> i can't tell you when they first started. >> i mean, how long before june of 2021, a week, a month. no, no, no, it was as my addiction got worse, it was a significant period of time. >> how long would you have these paranoid thoughts? >> usually a matter of seconds. i mean, it was something, again, my whole life you wouldn't see me where i didn't have pills on me, and that's where i kept them. i kept them on me because i was scared to put them somewhere for fear somebody would find them, so i kept them on me.

so if you saw me, i had pills on me. i had a pocket full of pills on june the 8th, on june the 8th when i was sitting in david owens' patrol car. so i always had them on me. might i turn -- i might be going to edisto and i'd turn on hampton street right out here and a police car pulls out. boom, i have pair thyroid -- paranoid thoughts, you know, just -- but i could always say -- you're not doing anything wrong, he's not following you, and i could get past it in a matter of seconds.

>> did anybody in your family ever see you having these severe withdrawals? >> absolutely. >> and who did? >> mags, pau-pau, bus, my dad, randy, john marvin, and just to be clear, randy and john marvin never saw me having withdrawals before september. >> and i thank you for clarifying that. prior to june of 2021, who in your family saw you having these withdrawals? >> bus, pau-pau, maggie, my dad. >> okay.

>> do you remember calling paul a little detective? >> i don't know that i ever called him a little detective, but i think maggie did. i may have. i mean, he was very intuitive. i heard miriam call him a little detective. i know maggie used to call him that. >> did that have anything to do with the pills? it had something to do with it, paul was always that way, but that -- what led him to be called a little detective, certainly there were times when paul found pills. >> including just a month before the murders, is that correct? >> no, sir. >> do you recall 6/5/23 that was

entered into evidence that was a text are from paul to you. >> i did. >> in which he said that maggie found pills your nor bag. >> right. >> you asked me about paul finding them, but it was maggie that found them. >> fair enough so it was maggie who found them? >> yes, sir. >> but paul was the one who reached out to you, correct? >> on that occasion, yes, sir. >> and what was the discussion after that? >> i can't remember exactly what it was, but it was about that i had eye surgery the -- i don't know what day it was. days before that. the day maggie found them, maggie drove me to the doctor to have my cataract removed, whatever they call that surgery, i can't remember, but i had a cataract taken out, outpatient. you go in for a couple of hours,

and then you come out. and it was during covid, and so maggie wasn't allowed to come into the doctor's office, and so she sat in the car, and i had left pills in the computer bag and sitting out there bored i guess she started looking at my computer and found them in the computer bag, so she found those pills. >> so she obviously told paul and paul texted you about finding those pills. that's correct. >> in may of 2021. that's correct. >> and you've heard your sister-in-law testify that maggie called him the little detective about the pills. you heard that in this courtroom? >> i did hear that. >> so did they start to watch you like a hawk and get on you about your pill usage during the month of may? >> no. >> they did not?

>> no. mr. waters, this battle that i had with addiction, it had been going on for years, years, so they had been watching me like a hawk for years before may. may was just one occurrence where i let them down. again. >> they'd been watching you like a hawk for years, is that correct? >> about my pill addiction, yes, sir. that is correct. >> that wasn't the only time that paul found pills or maggie

found pills, is that correct? >> there were a number of times where mags found pills, pau-pau found pills, bus found pills. i mean, it was an ongoing -- it was just an ongoing battle for me. >> and after they found those pills in may, that being maggie and paul, were they trying to get you to self-detox? >> no, sir, not at that point in time. >> they just let it go? >> no, they didn't let it go. but at that point in time pau-pau and i had already had a discussion based on, i can't remember exactly when it was, but there had been a previous occasion a good while back

where -- there had been a previous occasion where either maggie or paul had found pills, and paul had come to me and asked me, and i told him, you know, i was back on the pills. and. >> when was this occasion? >> we had had a long talk. as i said, i don't remember exactly when it was before that.

paul and i had had a long talk, and we'd agreed -- i'd agreed and i detoxed so many times. i'd been to detox. i detoxed at home with maggie's help. i detoxed at home with doctor's help. i detoxed on my own, tried to. and it just -- just detoxing just didn't work. it just -- you couldn't -- you could detox, but you couldn't -- not you -- i couldn't. i couldn't stay off of them, and so i promised paul that as soon

as -- as soon as we finished with his criminal case that i would go to rehab and -- and on this particular occasion paul knew that his mom worried about me so much with pills that on this particular occasion i think that pau-pau convinced maggie that i got those pills in anticipation of the eye surgery but that i never took them so that she would not worry that i

was once again -- >> so you're talking about -- now you're pointing out about the time in may that paul talked about maggie -- or are you talking about a different time? >> i'm not claiming that. that's a fact that happened. >> we're hearing that now, correct? >> what you just said. >> you just asked me this. mr. waters you keep making issue about the first time you're hearing these things. when i got arrested and i went to jail, we began reaching out to you to talk to you about all of these things to try to tell you everything that i've done to give you all these details to help you all go through these financial things and up until the time that y'all charged me with murdering my wife and child, you would never give jim griffin a response to our invitations to sit down and meet with you. >> so you're telling me i never

responded to jim griffin, is that what you're telling me today? >> are you saying you never before yesterday reached out to anyone in law enforcement and prosecution and told them the story about the kennels, are you telling me that? >> answer my question first, please, did you ever reach out to anyone in law enforcement or the prosecution and tell that story that you told this jury yesterday about the kennels before yesterday? >> did i ever reach out to law enforcement to say i want to tell you about the kennels? no, sir, i did not. >> fifth amendment line. >> pardon? >> this questioning about him volunteering information on these charges violates his fifth amendment rights, and we strongly object. any more we'll have to make a motion. >> he brought it up, your honor. >> objection's overruled. >> what i did was -- >> answer my question first. >> he did not bring -- he was

talking about financial stuff -- >> sit down mr. dixon. >> yes or no question. before yesterday did you ever bring up what you told this jury about the kennels to anybody in the prosecution or anybody in law enforcement? >> no, i didn't have the opportunity to, mr. waters, because you would not respond to my invitations to reach out and tell you about all the things that i'd done wrong. and to talk about bringing this to a head, to talk about bringing this to closure. i understand how many people i hurt. i understand how angry my partners are and how hurt they are, and i understand how hurt these people that i stole money

from are and i understand how hurt they are. one of the things i believe is getting past this may help them get some closure, and so since at least january i've been trying to sit down with y'all to talk to y'all, and never, never, ever got a response to the multiple requests. >> multiple requests? >> yes, sir, multiple requests. i would ask about this -- >> let's ask this, sir. >> sir. >> did mark ball ever hear your story to the jury about the kennels until yesterday? your buddy and law partner? >> i haven't spoken to mark baugh since i went to rehab. >> and these were the same law partners that you were listening to the night of. is that what you testified to this jury earlier? you testified to that earlier, did you not? >> i don't understand your question. >> didn't you testify earlier that you were listening to your law partners on the night of the

incident? >> was i listening to them? >> yeah, you testified to that. it's a simple question, sir. >> i'm sure i was. when are you talking about? >> on june 8th in the early morning hours. you testified to this jury that you were listening to them, but you never told them the kennel story either, and they heard it for the first time yesterday as well, isn't that correct? >> yes, that's the first time they heard it. >> first time that ronny crosby ever heard that would have been yesterday. >> if he was listening that would have been the first time he heard it. >> first time johnny carper heard that was yesterday? >> yes. >> first time danny henderson who is representing you in the boat case ever heard that was yesterday? >> yes, yesterday is the first time that i have said that openly. but that's not what you were asking me, mr. waters, but you go ahead. >> first time your brother randy heard that was yesterday.

>> if he was listening. and mr. water, just to be clear, i was begging for a meeting with y'all to brink this to a close to talk to you all about everything up until the time that y'all charged me with hurting maggie and paul. now, after that point in time, i stopped, obviously. >> you were begging for a meeting but you admit the information was never conveyed that you wanted to change your story after multiple interviews with law enforcement about what happened that night, including the most important fact of all, which is when the last time you supposedly saw your wife and son alive was. >> i don't know exactly what was

conveyed or not because -- to you because i wasn't part of that. all i know is what i was trying to do was to sit down. i understood to bring all this to a close that y'all would want me to sit down and go through all of these financial things, all of these things that i'd done wrong and to try to bring that to a close, i was repeatedly trying to sit down with y'all. >> the reality is, mr. murdaugh, the reason why no one's ever heard that before is because you had to sit in this courtroom and hear your family and your friends one after the other come in and testify that you were on that kennel video so you, like you've done so many times over the course of your life had to back up and make a new story that kind of fit with the facts that can't be denied, isn't that true, sir? >> no, sir, that's not true. >> okay. you've done that over and over again over the years with all of this that we've been talking about. >> i've done what over and over

again? >> the second that you're confronted with facts that you can't deny, you immediately come up with a new lie, isn't that correct? >> mr. waters. we've established i have lied many times, but i can't sit here and tell you, what are you talking about facts that i didn't deny. i would disagree with that proposition that you're putting out that that's what i did all the time, but in doing that, i admit, again, that i have lied to people that trusted me. >> so we can agree the prosecution and law enforcement and so many of your friends and family heard for the first time your story about the kennels yesterday after all these weeks of testimony. can we agree on that?

>> that law enforcement, my partners, and my friends heard me say that for the first time, yes, i agree with that. >> would you agree with me that your own lawyer was repeating your story that you were at home napping as late as november of '22 on national television? >> i don't know. >> you don't know that. >> no. in jail we don't get newspapers,

and the tv we have is limited so. >> so your own lawyers at least as late as november 22 didn't know this story that you've told to this jury after five weeks of your family and friends saying, yeah, that's him. >> attorney/client privilege, totally improper. >> yes, sirrings response. >> he has brought up his communications with counsel and now that is fair game, your honor. his communications or alleged communications with the prosecution. >> there's no attorney/client privilege to national television interviews. the objection's overruled.

>> are you waiting for me to answer, mr. waters, or did i answer? >> i think the point's made. >> all right. >> you said you were unaware of that national television interview. is that what you said? >> unaware of what national television interview? >> the one where your lawyer repeated that story as late as november of 2022, the story that you were actually home asleep at the house during the -- >> the only national tv ad that i'm aware of is -- not ad, program is one that mr. griffin was involved in was a -- are you referring to like a "dateline" something? >> i'm talking about hbo. >> okay. hbo, so yeah, i am aware of that, and what i believe the case to be is that i believe that when that was in its works that mr. griffin made those statements sometime

substantially before november of '22, as early as around the very beginning of 2021. >> well, let's talk. at least what i understand to be the case. >> let's talk more about your testimony yesterday, you're telling this jury, even on something as clear as this kennel video, that your story doesn't change when you have to make them fit the facts that no longer can be denied. is that what you're telling this jury? >> i don't understand that question. say that again. >> i said you're telling this jury that you don't change your story to make the facts fit evidence you can no longer tennessee, like what's been going on in this courtroom. >> i'm not telling the jury anything about that. >> okay. all right. good. >> let's move on. let's talk so more about that issue. let's talk about the

confrontation on june the 7th. which you said was no big deal. isn't that what you testified, words to that effect? >> i think what i testified to is that to me it certainly didn't seem like a confrontation. jeannie came to me and was almost apologetic, and this is what i believe, mr. waters, is i believe that what jeannie seccing jer and my partners have had to go through since september has been hard. i know they -- i mean, i could see it -- i could see the hurt that i caused them, and i know that they're betrayed, and i know that they're angry, and i know that they're hurt, and i want to make clear to this that

while i disagree with what jeannie said as to it being a confrontation -- because i don't believe that it was, i don't think that she was lying. i think that she feels it. i think that, you know, she believes that's the case after all this time that she's had to deal with this. but on june the 7th when she came to me, she was almost apologetic. you heard her say that she said that she wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't do this, and it was made clear to me that someone had said this, that i had to make sure that income came through the firm, that i couldn't structure money. in other words, i had the impression that there was concern that maybe like mark baugh and ronny crosby said like maybe i was hiding fees because

of the civil boat case, but that conversation was so quick, mr. waters, that you keep using the term confrontation. i didn't take it as a confrontation. >> and you're telling this jury you're not making that issue fit -- make a story fit with those facts by saying, it wasn't a big deal, and jeannie, she's hurt so she's overreacting now. what i'm saying is exactly what i just testified to that to me on that day that was not a confrontation. it ended almost as quickly as it began, and i didn't think about it again for a period of time until after everything happened. >> you testified earlier you get paranoid if a police officer turns out behind you, but you're not getting paranoid when jeannie comes in here and says i need an answer about these fees?

because i believe you took them is this. >> no, things like that wouldn't cause -- the paranoid thought and the paranoid thinking, it was always related to pills. it was always, okay, that reaction that somebody just gave me -- >> it was always related to pills, right? >> do they know something, did something said, it was -- i mean, the time, that's when i had to deal with paranoid thinking that, you know, if a judge confronted me in the courtroom about a piece of evidence or if jeannie asked me about that, those are not things that gave me paranoid thinking. >> okay. and you testified the same thing about the boat hearing on june 10th, not worried about it. no big deal, correct? >> no i didn't say that it was

no big deal, but i said that my main concern about those motions coming up on june the 10th dealt more with the venue motion than they did with the motion to compel, i believe is what i said. >> are you saying on this jury you didn't testify that you weren't concerned about it? >> i wasn't overly concerned about it. and i'm sure i had some level of concern because the venue motion was -- it was a big issue in the case. >> were you concerned enough about it to bow up on mark tinsly at the trial lawrence conference and say what are you doing,? >> no, absolutely unequivocally never happened.

>> if the farris fee issue comes to light on june 7th, you're not going to be able to borrow money from johnny farker anymore? >> hypothetically if it came to light on june the 7th? any point in time farris fee came to light johnny parker would not loan me money. if johnny knew i had taken fees, i would not have been able to borrow money from johnny parker. >> you testified earlier about going to the gamecock baseball game on the weekend prior to

monday, june 7th, 2021, correct? >> correct. >> hold on for me real quick. >> sir? >> hold on for me real quick. >> i'm going to show you what's been marked as state's 572 for the trial. you got your readers with you or your glasses. have you first -- i want you to look through the document and answer the question do you generally know what that is?

>> mr. waters, someone wants something, so if you'll stand for a moment. everybody stand for a moment.

>> all right, everybody, we are listening in to the alex murdaugh trial. right now there's a little bit of a pause. we may have to jump in at any second. the judge letting everybody stretch their legs a little bit. we're going to continue to listen in. i do have danny cevallos, criminal defense attorney and msnbc legal analyst we're going to listen in again. >> i do. >> what are they? >> texts between maggie and i.

>> what day do they take place? >> june the 6th. >> june the 6th, 2021. is that correct? >> that's correct, yes, sir. >> at this time, the state would offer state's 572 into evidence. >> no objection. >> admitted without objection. >> all right. tell the jury where were you when these texts were taking place? >> i was in a hotel. >> and where -- what city were you in? >> columbia, south carolina. >> all right. and where -- >> i'm not exactly sure where they were when they first started, but they would have been somewhere between the hotel, a restaurant, and the ball field. >> all right. but when you sent this text on june 6th at 11:41, you say y'all

in seat already, correct? >> yes, that's what i did say. >> and maggie said, yes, we like these seats. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. at that point in time they are in the ballpark. >> all right. and then you respond better than last night, they extended check checkout to 1. going to come then. is that correct? >> that's what that text says, yes, sir. >> so you're back at the room, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> later on you text after she asks you to bring a charger and says i'm dreading it, see you in a little bit. is that correct? >> that's what i said, yes, sir. >> she responds don't come, but then asks about the charger and says it's hot. is that correct? >> mr. waters, yes, i assume you

were reading it exactly, so yes, sir. >> all right. she eventually responds not crowded, but not the place to come if you don't feel well. very hot and muggy. we are inside sitting at the bar, very nice indoors. is that correct? >> that's what it says, yes, sir. >> and then you respond by accident they are making me leave, so i'll see y'all in a few. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and who was making you leave where? >> it was past checkout time at the hotel. >> after you'd gotten an extended checkout, correct? >> it appears so. >> and the reality is is that you were in that hotel suffering

from withdrawals when that's going on, is that correct? >> i was beginning to, yes, sir. >> all right. and the reality is is that your wife and your son were on you at that time period because they had found pills just a few weeks prior? >> no, sir, that's not correct. >> let's talk about june the 7th, okay? you got up that morning or what

time do you think you got up and left that day? >> after having the benefit of looking at all these records, i don't know what time i got up. in looking at the records, obviously i'd been up for a while, but it appears i left shortly after noon. >> okay. and you went to work? >> i did, yes, sir. >> and what were you working on at work? >> i was working on dominion energy case, it was primarily what i was working on that we had motions coming up later in that week. as i said earlier, i believed at the time that it was the biggest case that i had ever been involved in, and there were motions coming up in that. i was -- danny had been, danny

henderson my partner that was helping me with the civil case from the boat wreck had been on me about getting a financial statement, and i finished doing that so that it could be given to danny. it's primary -- is what i remember doing. obviously i talked to jeannie. >> all right, everybody, we have been listening right now to the defense trial of alex murdaugh. right now we want to go to the u.n. where secretary of state aptny blinken. >> send a message that they can invade countries and get away it. president zelenskyy has put forth a ten-point plan for peace. president putin by contrast has made clear that there's nothing to talk about until ukraine accepts and, i quote, the new territorial realities while doubling down on his brutal tactics.

members of this council have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that any peace is just and durable. council members should not be fooled by calls for a temporary or unconditional cease fire. russia will use any pause in fighting to consolidate control over the territory that illegally seized and replenish its forces for further attacks. that's what happened when russia's first assault on ukraine froze in 2018, look at when followed. and members of this council should not fall into the false equivalency of calling on both sides to stop fighting or calling on other nations to stop supporting ukraine in the name of peace. no member of this council shoul russia's war on ukraine and on the u.n. charter. in this war, there is an aggressor and there is a victim. russia fights for conquest. ukraine fights for its freedom. if russia stops fighting and

leaves ukraine, the war ends. if ukraine stops fighting, ukraine ends. the fact remains, one man, vladimir putin, started this war. one man can end it. second, even as we were to end russia's war against ukraine, members of this council must continue to address other challenges to international peace and security. we hear the concerns of countries who are worried that standing with ukraine and holding russia accountable is diverting focus and resources from others in need. to those countries i would say simply look at our actions. and when you hear russia and its defenders accuse the countries who support ukraine of ignoring the rest of the world, i say look at moscow's actions. compare the numbers. in addition to the $13.5 billion in food aid that the united states contributed to fight hunger over the last year, we also fund more than 40% of the

world food program's budget. russia contributes less than 1% of that budget. that's not an outlier. based on the latest u.n. figures, the united states donates over nine times as much as russia to u.n. peacekeeping. we donate 390 times as much as russia to unicef. we give nearly a thousand times as much as russia to the u.n. refugee agency. third, we must reaffirm our commitment to upholding what the u.n. charter calls and i quote, the dignity and worth of the human person. we must continue to compile evidence of russia's ongoing and widespread atrocities including executions, torture, rape and sexual violence, the deportation of thousands of ukrainian civilians to russia. we must continue to document russia's war crimes and crimes against humanity and share the evidence with investigators and prosecutors so that one day the perpetrators can be held

accountable. day after day of russia's atrocities, it is easy to become numb to the horror, to lose our ability to feel shock and outrage. but we can never let the crimes russia's committing become our new normal. mariupol is not normal. irpin is not normal. bombing schools and hospitals and apartment buildings to rubble is not normal. stealing ukrainian children from their families and giving them to people in russia is not normal. we must not let president putin's callous and indifference to human life become our own. we must force ourselves to remember that behind every atrocity in this wretched war, in conflicts around the world, is a human being. i recently visited an exhibit of artwork made by ukrainian children affected by the war.

one painting i saw was made by a 10-year-old girl named veronica. last april russian forces shelled her home, killing her whole family. when first responders dug her from the rubble, a piece of shrapnel was lodged in her scalp. her left thumb had been ripped off. doctors saved her life. but the attack left her right hand mostly paralyzed and she can't see out of her left eye. in her painting, veronica drew herself in a bright pink and orange dress, holding a bouquet of flowers. a building stands next to her. when asked who lived there, she said it was a place where all the people she knew who had been killed in the war could be safe. we, the peoples of the united nations, determined to save

succeeding generations from the scores of war, that's how the u.n. charter begins. fellow members of this council, now is the time to meet that promise. there are so many people in ukraine who want the same thing as that little girl veronica, a world where they can live in peace, in their own country, and keep the people they love safe. we have the power, we have the responsibility to create that world today and for generations to come. we cannot and we will not let one country destroy it. >> all right, everybody. we have been listening to secretary of state antony blinken speaking at the u.n. on this one-year mark of the war in ukraine. we are going to take you back to a courtroom in walterboro, south carolina, this is cross examination, talking about the day of the murders june 7th. let's listen.

>> overruled. >> so, yes, i did not tell law enforcement. actually, i don't think law enforcement asked me what i did when we first went to the house, but i clearly lied to law enforcement about what i said yesterday. >> okay. and all of this, the last time you saw your supposedly saw your wife and child, all of this detail, you as a lawyer and a prosecutor didn't think that was important to offer on your own? >> i think it is important. >> you told this jury how cooperative you have been and how much information you wanted to provide, but you left out the most important parts, didn't you? >> i left out -- i left out that, i sure did. >> you don't consider that one of the most important parts? >> i think it is important.

>> all right, tell me about what happens next. tell me about how maggie and paul end up down at the kennels. >> i'm not -- i'm still not absolutely certain exactly how they ended up at the kennel, but in looking at the time frames, and looking at the gps points, i think i pretty well know, because i wasn't sure if maggie had walked to the kennels or ridden to the kennels and i wasn't exactly sure how paw paw got there, but i'm all but certain that maggie and paul went to the kennel together. >> all right. and what was the discussion? you said that they were going down there, but you didn't want to go, is that right? >> maggie. what i said is maggie asked me to go to the kennels with her, and i wasn't going to go. i said i'm not going to go.

>> and how long after she left did you supposedly go down there? >> it was very quickly. >> and what did you tell this jury and all these new facts as to the reason you changed your mind? why did you change your mind? >> i just had a shower. when you go to the kennel, you always end up getting shocked, the dogs are running around, you always end up doing more work. it is hot. i already had a shower. i didn't want to go to the kennel. >> i understand that. so why did you change your mind? >> because maggie wanted me to. >> all right. so you thought about it for a few minutes and then decided to go down there? >> i don't think i sat and contemplated am i going to go, am i going to go. i think that, like many things maggie wanted me to do, if i didn't want to do it at first i ended up doing. >> and you took the golf cart

down to the kennels? >> that's correct. >> how long did it take to drive from the house down to the kennels in a golf cart? >> in looking at the records from onstar and all of that, it seems to take about a minute in the -- >> golf cart? >> nope. in the suburban. so i would think it is probably in looking at the speeds, about 20, 24 miles an hour, it takes double that, it takes a couple of minutes. >> you'll concede a couple of minutes to drive down there, correct? >> yes. >> in a golf cart? >> that's correct. >> when the kennel video was going on, had you arrived before that? >> i believe that i had. >> okay. >> how long do you think you had been there before that was going on? >> not long. because when i got there, in looking at the kennel video, you can see paw paw standing in the

kennel. when i got there, paw paw wasn't standing in the kennel. >> he wasn't in the kennel anymore? >> he wasn't in the kennel, like he is in the video. >> right. >> he's probably -- i don't know exactly, but i know he wasn't in the kennel. he was, like in the driveway, he was fooling with cash, he was in the driveway, but, like, close to the kennel, but not in the kennel, like he is in the video. >> so the video happened after that? according to you? >> video happened after i got -- >> when you first saw paul, you say you weren't in the kennel, when did the video happen? >> i believe that to be the case. >> after you arrived, correct? >> yes. >> and -- >> very shortly after i arrived, but after i arrived. >> and did you tell maggie at that time that you were going to go to alameda? >> i did not.