mrs. mueller.the dog is looking totally off in another direction. >> to the defense, it was clear. fred's story was entirely plausible and the prosecutions was not. >> why would he do this? why would a guy who was married for 27 years, with no history of violence, no history of any sort of domestic dispute, all of a sudden decide on his vacation that he was going to murder his wife with his bare hands? it just seems that part of the case seem so farfetched. friend >> friend after friend arrive from texas to support fred. even his in laws took the stand. leslie's own mother, jenny, vouch for her son former son-in-law's character. >> all those years, any signs of fred being abusive or violent? >> no, i never saw a sign in frayed being violent. to anyone. >> and each of fred's children also face the jury to tell them about their parents long and happy marriage. ariel described one nightly routine. >> mom and dad walk walk to the pond that was in front of our house about 200 yards. holding hands and th

mr. mueller, thank you so much for joining us. we look forward to your testimony. >> chair cantwell, ranking member wicker, and distinguished members of the committee, beth of information technology industry council, or iti, , thik the opportunity to testify today on information supply chain resiliency. as a current culture of the information and communications technology supply chain risk management task force, the united states prima supply chain public-private partnership, i look in the committee's interest on this important topic. i iti brevis expedia the world's leading i.t. eyecup is big industry respects the as governments obligation to address the resiliency of global supply chains including the semiconductor and broader ict supply chains. we believe in a government and industry must work together along with international partners and allies to achieve the trusted secure and grizzly global supply chains need to protect national security in which are an indispensable building block for competitors, innovation and economic g

mr. mueller deng, now we're sure the whole world will someday be there's. what investment have we made? we thinking of making? to see to it, that future might not -- is this the investment in miami florida. and this is a cuban exiles who find themselves the alliance for liberation. these people have one burning ambition today, and that burning ambition but this time, free from castro. . there are all kinds of cuban groups like these, most of them disunited, disorganized but intensely. fully committed to counter revolution against castro. i was command i'm not much, i then realize that he was a communist, i had to go on the ground and took a refuge and the brazilian embassy and havana. after three months, i was transported i came to the united states as a member of the anti communist christian fronts and the alliance for a revelation. i'm ready -- fighting castro. >> this is doctor antonio, he was speaker of cuban senate. then it was prime minister. today, he is an exile and a counter revolutionary. and his group is called the awesome pickle party. then there is dr. korea, with this man

mrs. mueller floating face up. >> ally falling

mr. mueller. is there anything you heard from either of these witnesses? is there anything you would like to comment on? >> it is a privilege to work with both of them. there is something a little bit curious about that contention that we heard from professor mueller, that we should not count on the ability to appeal the 23rd amendment. this does not happen by itself. main members of the united states senate -- many numbers of the instant -- of the united states senate are committed to this. one of the supremacy is is that these are binding because if we don't like what what it means -- like what it means, we cannot just change it. the whole theory is based on the premise that the constitution can be amended. and they should take the view that the 23rd amendment could not be amended. it is very unrealistic to think that that would happen. this is essentially to say that the theory of originalism started with justice scalia. that is wrong. that is not something that everybody in the u.s. senate wants to endorse. i should also say something to dr. peons poin

. >> given what we know from the mueller investigation from the four years of the trump presidency, over phenomenon that select committee said mrormer president, we'd like to hear from you, is there any expectation the answer would be sure? >> i think president trump will avoid sitting down, having to testify before any type of committee at all costs. he does not really want to be there reliving the moments of the insurrection, but democrats have really also made clear that they want answers and they want people to be held accountable. and i think also one thing to think about when you think about the former president in this current white house, what you see them doing is really keeping their head down and doing the work. when biden was asked the other day about this case, it was almost like he was saying allen weisselberg who? they really are trying to keep off of this message and just focus on their work at hand. >> biden white house let other people deal with trump, see how long they can sustain it. >> the summer race to vaccinate and an eye popping number about recent covid deaths. when you have metastatic breast cancer, w

name rings a vague bell he was a member of robert mueller's russia, russia, russia investigation and managed to parlay that into a book deal and cnn gig. mrweissman thinks that tucker of all people, should know when you discover that big brother is reading your emails the appropriate response is to fill in a ministry of truth comment card and set up an appointment to come in and see the come sar general so he can explain to you all the safeguards that are in place but if you are still not totally reassured, he will ask for a budget increase so he can put some safeguards on some of the safeguards. >> you know, what i'm concerned about here is not that there was incidental collection when i am calling a foreigner, including, of course, if you try to reach out to vladimir putin, can you pretty much be sure that your going to be high risk of being intercepted, he could have said, look, there is a first amendment issue here and i want to make sure that there are safeguards at the department of justice. but he didn't take that route. he did, as you said, and as frank pointed out, he wanted to use this really for his own purposes and to sow dist

mr. barrack? >> reporter: well, first, aaron, up until a few years ago they were rather rare. with the work of the muellerm and the special counsel's office, we seen it a little more. to your other question, is this a serious charge? so let me give you on the one hand, on the other hand answer to that. it's not the lindbergh kidnapping. tha it is a felony. they come with it jail time. it's not the crime of the century, it's a serious felony, as pete explained, also the fact that he lied to fbi agents within they interviewed him about the underlying offense, it's a serious matter and he ought to take it seriously, because he could end up both as a convicted felon and in jail. >> pete referenced a part of the speech, a concrete example that barrack influenced then candidate trump. listen to this. >> we'll work with our gulf allies to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy. >> so prosecutors say that barrack got that language, the gulf allies inserted into that particular speech. according to indictment, we know donald trump was among the betrayed by barrack's hidden al

. >> after he spoke with the mueller investigators himself, he spoke with the fbi again in june of 2019. four of the felony counts against mr. barrack are for him lying to investigators during that second round of questioning. the indictment until today say that he lied to investigators when he told them he was never asked to do anything on behalf of the united arab emirates. he lied when he denied that he got a special phone and especially encrypted apps to communicate with officials from the uae. the indictment says he lied when he denied putting then-president elect trump in contact with government officials from the uae. and again tom barrack has pled not guilty to all of it. the for lying to investigators, the conspiracy counts, he's pled not guilty to any of it. here is one thing i want to know about, what's the indictment of trump's inaugural chairman, tom barrack, makes clear -- and again, while, a lot of people from the trump administration have been arrested, and wow, a lot of them are ledge our confessed secret agents. that remains unsettling, right? that could happen once, it can presumably happen again, but wha

after tom barrack spoke with the mueller investigators himself, we know that he spoke with the fbi again in june of 2019. four of the felony counts against mr. barrack are for him allegedly lying to investigators during that second round of questioning. the indictment unsealed today says he lied to investigators when he told them he was never asked to do anything on behalf of the united arab emirates. the indictment says he lied to investigators when he testified he got a phone and a specially encrypted app to communicate with officials in the united arab emirates. the indictment says he lied when he denied putting then-president-elect trump and other u.s. officials in contacts with officials from the united arab emirates. again, tom barrack has pled not guilty to all of it, the four lying to investigators count, the conspiracy count, the obstruction of justice, he has pled not guilty to all. i want to know what the indictment of tom barrack makes clear is, again, first, wow! a lot of people from the trump administration and the trump campaign have been arrested and, wow, a lot of them are either alleged or confessed secret foreign agents.

doctor mueller, we appreciate you coming. >> thank you very much mr. comer, mr. scalia see, i appreciate you doing this. it is very important having just listened to doctor quakes comments. i think that we need to recognize the power of science. and previous speakers have said that we may never know the origins, i think that that is incorrect. i think when you bring the power of science to this, we can reach conclusions that are very powerful. dr. quay has covered most of the signs that is most relevant. i'd like to emphasize five points. each of which is capable of separating and distinguishing between a natural origin, and a zoonic origin, and a lab origin. the first one is the absence of a pre-pandemic infection. you mentioned that. and with over 9000 samples taken in wuhan, no prepaid debit infections -- that is unprecedented. they never happened with stars, it doesn't happen with other viruses. it's unprecedented. it is very difficult to explain. papers are being written trying to explain it. those papers are not evidence. they are what you do when you are s