the subsidiaries of those companies are not on that list. what do you make of these moves this week from thees c s cp? ccp? yes, the ccp is serious. the moves that you described this past week are serious. there was actions that we saudis closed about how they continue the to cover up for the virus as well. we ve seen the work they re doing with genetics. they re doing testing on mothers who are pregnant. they re collecting dna samples. this is a machine. this is a machine that is intent on dominating the world in technology and commerce and militarily. the responses have to be equally serious. i saw the blacklist take you re referring to. it s technical, hard to tell what s in it and what s not. in the end if it doesn t impact the chinese communist party, doesn t impact the capacity to put americans at risk then putting their name on a piece of paper is not any value. the administration needs to do o more than just respond to the genocide that we declared. they need to begin to
message in a bottle. of reportehe story r: thiiss er b henry. growing up in minnesot they have been inseparable since the start. will is at getting married to his fiance a.j., and he thought he d ask his brother to be his best man through a message in a bottle. will had buried it out back. you hit something. what is that? old bottle. you can see henry lift the bottle, and he notices the message. it says, henry joe reporter: he and his brother read it. you are already the best bro, and also thees friend. friend. so will eaplu ay sse my best man? love, will.
whatever can benefit him. gentleman yields back. for purposes recognition. move to strike the last word. the gentleman is recognized. thank you, mr. chairman. last night and today weave heard many times my colleagues on the other side saying thees facts o this aree not contested. but they really are. an example is one pointed out and highlighted by my colleague from luiz an in a moment ago. on the telephone call of the 17 witnesses that came in, only three actually listened in on the phone call. but eachon one of them have contradictory testimony. so even the three witnesses that heard the call, conflicted. why is that important? why dois i bring that up? i bring it up because of this. many of my colleagues, in fact most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take every inference in the light most negative to the president
when you were last here before theen committee. and when i asked questions of you at that time, i talked about your findings then with regard to bias. the specific focus that i recall there was peter strzok and lisa page. and the information that s already been well-presented here about thees what i consider be the undeniable bias that they had against the president president trump. at that time, you made similar statements to those you made today. which is that youma did not fin bias in the decisions that you were evaluating in that report. but as i went through that with you, i think that you also confirmed that you were not saying that there was no bias by those who were involved in making decisions. other rather, you were saying you could not prove that that bias was a factor in their management of the activities they engaged in on behalf of the fbi. as i understood it, you said
his call notes weren t being referenced by thees president. and a lot of the interagency officials i think became very sad that the presidentca didn t revere their policy making apparatus. is it safe to say there s another reason the president s skeptical ofas relying on some these individuals to carry out his foreign policy goals, like rooting out corruption in ukraine? i think the president is is skeptical of the interagency bureaucracy. is that maybe why he instead reliedhy on secretary perry, ambassador volker, ambassador sondland and others? correct. and by the way,nd all three of those officials are not that far outside of the chain of the u.s. government. would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in ukraine to exempt or remove, say, a political supporter? certainly, would be. would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent? that s correct. yeah. would it be t inappropriate