mr. grossman is now recognized for questions. >> i will start with whitaker and anyone can jump in if they the degree of how this technology is being used in china today? first of all, i would like to thank mr. calmly for his comments. the major problem here is getting false information, i don't think it is the biggest concern, the biggest concern is that becomes more and more and better and better as the evil it is used for. so my colleague seemed to imply that as long as we are not getting any false information, the more information we have the better. i think the less information we have the better. whitaker, go ahead. >> thank you for the question. i want to preface my answer by saying i am an expert on artificial intelligence and i understand the tech industry very well. i am not a china expert however it is very clear that these technologies are being used in china to implement social control and the targeting of ethnic minorities. you have networks a facial recognition systems that are designed to recognize individuals as they go about their daily lives and issue things like tickets

mr. whitaker, if your opinion, with so many-- ms. whitaker, with so many variations of accuracy in the technology, what can we do that will say that we will take out these biases? we know that there have not beens algorithms. what can we do as a congress to ensure that we're stopping them? >> thank you for the question. i think, you know, when we talk about this technology racing forward, i think that we have had an industry that raced forward, selling these technologies, making these technologies, making claims to accuracy that end up not totally accurate for everyone. what we have not seen is validation race forward. we have not seen understanding and new mechanisms for real consent. not just notice. i think we need to pause the technology and let the rest of it catch up so that we don't allow corporate interest and corporate technology to race ahead to be built into our core infrastructure without having put the save guards in place. >> now, the police chief in detroit submitted a record and i said this to him face-to-face, and he

whitaker and capado. house managers say they have an overwhelming case. doesn't that assertion directly contradict their request for more witnesses? >> mr. chief justice and senators, thank you for the question. and i think it does directly contradict their claim now that they need more witnesses. they said for weeks that it was an overwhelming case. they came here and they have said 63 times that it's overwhelming or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. manager nadler said twice today based on what they have already shown you it's been proved beyond any doubt. all right? if that's their position, why do they need more witnesses or evidence? it is completely self-contradictory. i'd like to address a couple other points while i'm here and i have a time. i don't know why i have to say it again. for the house managers to keep coming up here and saying and acting as if if you mention ukraine in connection with election interference, you even mention it, you're a pawn of vladimir putin because only the russians interfered in the election, and there is not any evidence in the record they say that the ukrainians did anything. i read it before. i'l

mr. alexander. >> we are monitoring this, i'm not quite sure what's going on but matthew whitaker might. this is right after adam schiff's presentation here. what are we exactly seeing? >> while what we just saw was really the argument for and against witnesses. at the senate is moving on to considering, i'm sure several motions from the house, from the senate nor do leaders shoot where. it was a discussant about witnesses and the majority leader had suggested there was a forms of them were doing that fun little form call that stalls for time. what we just heard, neil, was really, i think, we all know who out this is gonna turn out. we talked about this before. if there's going to be a vote. we know that witnesses are going to go down 51 -- 49. there could be several senators on the democrat side joining that boat. this is a little bit of an anticlimactic finish, but at the same time, i don't know how we ended up with such a ultimately partisan process where a minority of the democrats in the house, the democrat party, voted for and now were going to see probably potentially 55 or 56 sen

whitaker. matt. [applause] >> thank you. how much do we love this president? [cheers and applause] and mr.dent, how much do we love the state of iowa? so much. [cheering] this is an incredibly special place. i met my husband here in des moines. i love being back in iowa. we are sorry you had so many crazy liberal democrats running around here the last year. but the good news is it will not matter. because at the end of the day, this guy will still be our president. [cheering] thank you very much. god bless you. pres. trump: thank you. very popular. she was a terrific person. great person. so thanks to republican leadership, america now has the hottest economy anywhere on the planet. not even close. every prime minister, president, king, queen, dictator, they all say, how do you do it? and the truth is, we have certain advantages. but we also have people advantage. we have the greatest people in the world. since the election, we have created 7 million new jobs. the average unemployment rate under my administration is lower than any previous administration in the history of our country. [che

mr. chief justice, i have a question for the president's counsel and it is co-sponsored by rounds, brown, whitakersally and all members of the armed services committee. >> the senator from south dakota. oklahoma, excuse me. >> the senators ask the following question of counsel for the president. mr. cipollone, as members of the senate armed services committee we have listened intently as manager crow was defending one of mr. schumer's amendments last week how he was denied military aid when he needed it during his service. as you know, david hale undersecretary of foreign affairs provided that the aid for ukraine was future aid. so which is the greater impact, president trump's temporary pause of 48 days on future aid that is now going to be delivered to aid or president obama's steadfast refusal to provide aid to ukraine for three years, more than 1,000 days while they attempted to push back russia's aggression and attempt to preserve its sovereignty. >> mr. chief justice and thank you, senators, for that question. it is far more serious and far more jeopardy for the ukrainians the decision of th