the things that really stood out to you as we watched this play out over the last few hours? >> the only time you really saw the attorney general get defensive and you saw the questioning get under his skin is when it came to the accusations from democrats that he's essentially the lackey of the president. that he only is intervening in cases that really matter to the president, to the president's friends, roger stone, michael flynn. those are the things that frankly need a little bit more exploring, because eric swalwell i think is the representative who asked him, can you name a single other case in which you intervened. and i think, you know, you could ask that question a number of different ways and see what the attorney general's answer is. from talking to people inside this building, we hear repeatedly the appearance given by the attorney general is he's a micromanager, he gets involved. but he really gets involved when something has to do with the president. that's where these accusations

come from. i guess secondly, i'll just point out real quick again i think laura coates really talked well about the questioning of the attorney general about the lack of african-americans in this building. i think the leadership shows there is a lack of any such advice by the fact you see his opening remarks where he talks about black-on-black crime and the whole narrative that police reform should not be tackled right now because it's leading to increased crime. now, the last time we had a conversation about this after ferguson, you know, jim comey and other people went out and claimed there was something called a ferguson effect. research showed it was bogus. we're beginning to see that again this year. i think the attorney general could use some challenging on that line of -- on that thought process as well.

>> what would you like to hear him asked about regarding that? >> in his opening remarks he talks about how police are risk adverse and as a result they're essentially not doing their jobs. i got to tell you, you talk to police officers -- i talk to officers. i talk to federal agents. that's not what i'm hearing. you know, they realize that there's something that needs to change and what you are seeing is sometimes in certain places you have leaders trying to manage that change. people are clearly saying, you know, you can't do the type of policing that has been done for years. and i think the attorney general would be a good person to actually try to help that process happen around the country rather than just saying, no, we shouldn't try to do that. because it's leading to some increase in crime in certain places. i think that's one of the questions i would have for him is simply what data you have to

show they're not doing their jobs essentially and what do you plan to do about that? >> is it real or is it something he's just representing, right? i want to bring in anne milgram, one of our cnn analysts as we await this hearing to get back underway here. one of the big topics -- actually, let me listen in. >> sir, in your opening statement, you are continuing with your sustained effort to undermine the russian interference in our election. in 2019 you sent a letter discounting robert mueller's finding that vladimir putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeps and systematic fashion to benefit donald trump. mr. mueller sent you a letter calling you out for your mischaracterization, and you never corrected it. you delayed the release of the full report leaving the people stewing with your misleading

summary -- with the claims. you called it the russian gate scandal. but the justice department's own inspector general, your department's michael horowitz found that the investigation had been initiated properly and without political bias. isn't that correct? >> no. >> that was not mr. horowitz's finding? >> no. >> you're wrong. he found it had -- >> he said he found -- >> i'm reclaiming my time without political bias. reclaiming my time. in april of this year the republican-led senate intelligence committee unanimously found that russia interfered with our elections and attempted to undermine american democracy, correct? >> and i said so too. >> is it ever appropriate, sir, for the president to illicit or accept foreign assistance in an election? >> depends what kind of

assistance. >> is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit forr f foreign assistance of any kind in an election? >> no, it's not appropriate. >> sorry you had to struggle with that one, mr. attorney general. now let's turn to the first amendment. americans all across this country have been exercising their rights to peacefully protest police brutality against black people. i read your statement and listened to you this morning. we're aware of individuals engaged in violent acts. we agree that's wrong. but there was a lot missing from your statement. you've also seen vast majority of protesters are peaceful. and despite that, unidentified federal agents have attempted to prevent these mothers, veterans, and peaceful americans from exercising their first amendment rights. even using unmarked vehicles to grab protesters off the street and using tear gas ammunitions against them. you forcefully condemned

protesters this morning. why have you not condemned the federal office as you're sending it to cities without proper training for attempting to takeaway the constitutional rights of americans peacefully protesting. >> protesters are good. demonstrations are good. what i'm condemning are people who commit crimes. >> do you think it's ever appropriate for officers to use force against peaceful protesters? yes or no? >> not against peaceful protesters. >> so you also don't mention in your statement today or your testimony that federal officers have even teargassed elected representatives. sharon myron confirmed first hand last night i was teargassed by a federal occupying force. i saw them throw canisters of the poison into a nonviolent crowd including the elderly and vulnerable. ted wheeler was teargassed. he called the actions abhorrent. these are elected representatives with grave

concerns that officers are using abhorrent tactics including teargassing elderly non-violent americans. let me ask you, sir, do you think it's ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protesters? yes or no? >> the problem in these things sometimes occur because it's hard to separate people who -- >> my question is specific. do you think it's ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protesters? yes or no? >> it is appropriate to use tear gas when it's indicated to d disperse an unlawfully assembly. sometimes unfortunately peaceful protesters are affected by that. >> there's video evidence as well. i'm going to ask you to look at this video. just so you know -- >> this is the video that's capturing the nation's attention this weekend shot by tribune -- >> that video is of christopher

david a navy veteran being beaten and teargassed by the officers. do you think that was appropriate? >> i didn't see them tear gas. there seemed to be gas in the area. i don't know what kind of gas it was and i don't know whether it was directed at him. >> do you think what happened to mr. david was appropriate, mr. barr? >> the inspector general's reviewing that particular instance. >> well, do you think he deserved to get pepper sprayed and beaten to the point of broken bones? >> as i said, the inspector general is going to review the incident. >> so as the top law enforcement official in our country, do you think americans who show up to peacefully protest should expect to be beaten and pepper sprayed and have their bones broken by federal officers? >> well, i don't think that what was happening immediately around the courthouse was a peaceful protest. >> that's not my question. my question is do you think as the chief -- reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mr. barr, my question is do you think as the top law enforcement official in this country that

people should expect to be beaten, pepper sprayed, and have bones broken by officers? yes or no? >> i don't think peaceful protesters should face that. >> that's correct. and isn't protecting the first amendment freedom of americans as at least as important as protecting a building from vandalism? we fought -- i've not posed a question. we fought for a democracy for the right to speak freely and you are attempting to take that away. what's worse, you're doing it for the sole purpose of furthering the president's political agenda and generating footage for trump campaign commercials. the justice department is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of americans, not to serve as the president's personal bully or political director. and speaking of protesters, it's worth remembering every suffragette, everybody abolitionist, protesters aren't cha chaos. they're examples of american values. they're righteous and sometimes necessary. one of america's most beloved

and effective protesters john lewis lies in state a thousand feet from here in a deserved place of honor. and sir, your failure to respect the peaceful protests in this country is a disgrace. it's un-american, and it's important to remember what the protests are about. black lives matter. abuse at the hands of police to black americans. i want you now to see a video that fairly represents peaceful protests all across america that you omitted from your testimony and your statement. there was a nine-minute video shown by the other side. so -- >> it's not online. only part of it.

[ singing hands up please don't shoot me ]

>> mr. chairman, just real quick. i don't think we've ever had a hearing where the witness wasn't allowed to respond to points made, questions asked, and attacks made. not just in this hearing, not just in this committee, but every committee i've been on. particularly when you think about the fact we've got the attorney general of the united states here. >> gentleman does not have the time. >> i don't want the time. i just want the attorney general to be able to have enough time to respond to accusations and questions asked of him and you guys not cut him off. >> what you want is irrelevant. >> mr. chairman, am i going to get an additional two and a half minutes that mr. systoleni had? >> the gentleman is recognized. >> general barr, thank you for your service to our country to ensure our country is safe. i encourage you to ignore the

mob, these attacks from democrats, and the left wing biased mainstream media. be strong and courageous for the mass majority of the country supports you and supports you rooting out corruption in the fbi and keeping our country safe from rioters, looters, and anarchists. i am happy you're at the helm of the doj and actually supporting the rule of law and fighting for justice. i want to touch on something that mr. jordan spoke about in his opening remarks. i want to focus on the december 9th fisa report on carter page. isn't it true the inspector general found the fbi under the obama/biden administration made 17 significant errors in fisa applications to surveil candidate trump's campaign associate carter page? >> i think that's right. >> how many errors are acceptable when the fbi is targeting americans? >> well, none are acceptable. >> then there was the complete

woods files failures the fbi operated under the obama/biden administration. the inspector general found that 51 assertions in the fisa applications to surveil page, one supporting documentation, did not have the facts, and showed it was inaccurate. the inspector general testified this should not have been one error yet he found 51 errors. why is it important for surveillance targeting americans to be error-free? >> well, especially under fisa which, you know, is a counterintelligence tool and doesn't have the same built-in protections that the criminal justice process would have. it's very important because you're going to be spying on americans that you have -- you know, you've demonstrated an appropriate basis for doing that. and therefore there's a special

burden on the investigative agency in this case the fbi to have accurate information as to the basis of their surveillance. you know, i think the bureau has been working very hard to correct those problems and to put in place a much more effective system of guaranteeing that the information is accurate. >> isn't it true that fbi under the obama/biden administration cherry picked evidence to obtain a warrant to surveil carter page and ignore facts that cut across probable cause? >> i don't want to characterize it. this is part of what's under review. some exculpatory information was not passed on to the court. that's evident in the inspector general's report. >> i will yield the remainder of my time to mr. jordan. >> i thank the gentleman for

yielding. mr. attorney general, do you deploy federal law enforcement to enforce federal law? >> yes. >> do you delay federal law to protect federal property? >> yes. >> would the federal building in portland be standing today if you had not deployed federal law enforcement? >> i don't think so. there had been multiple attempts to set it afire. i have to say, i don't understand why a small contingent of marshals inside the court poses a threat to anybody's first amendment rights. they set up a fence on federal property, i am told, around the court. and when people are arrested, it's because they're trying to come into the fence. these aren't peaceful protesters. they bring power tools to cut through the wire and so forth to get in. this is a strange occupation of the state when you have, you know, a hundred, 120 federal people behind the fence trying to protect a building and all these people are trying to cut their way in. that is the occupation of the city?

>> thank you. did the chicago fraternal order of police president ask for your help? >> did who ask for my help? >> the head of the fop in chicago? >> i think he did. i think he did. previous exchange talked about mr. horowitz's report. is there anything you'd like to add? you didn't get a chance to respond to that. >> my understanding of my recollection of the report didn't find there was no bias. he made that clear in subsequent testimony. what he said was he couldn't find documentary or other evidence demonstrating bias. >> well, it'd be helpful if mr. horowitz could come in front of this committee and the individual who was raising that concern with you mr. attorney general could ask mr. horowitz himself about what he found in that report and subsequent reports that we've not had a hearing on.

>> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. raskind. >> thank you. did i hear you say the unleashing of this assault with rubber bullets and pepper spray on 2,000 peaceful protesters was to defend the st. john's episcopal church. >> i didn't understand ssay tha. it was to move the perimeter to i street. >> so it was legitimate in that case -- >> i'm not talking about the june 1st -- >> yeah, the june 1st assault on a lot of my constituents. >> well, i don't think it was an assault. they were told by loud speaker that the park police were preparing to clear the street and could they move. >> reclaiming my time. i think you said something to the effect of the st. john's episcopal church would have been overrun. >> that was sunday -- >> okay. are you aware that the presiding

bishop of the miepiscopal churc along with the archbishop of washington all denounced this police assault on the civil rights and civil liberties of the people? >> did they do that before or after the fire was put out? >> all that i know is that they denounced what you did and if you read what the archbishop, the episcopal archbishop of washington wrote, said that using police force to clear nonviolent protesters without notice in order to conduct this grotesque photo opportunity was antithetical to the principles of christianity. what i wanted to ask you about was covid-19. we now lead the world in covid-19 case count. and death count. president trump, of course, promised the disease would magically disappear. he advertised quack medical cures like injecting people with disinfectant. he told his people to slow down all the testing and refused for

months to wear a mask. last night he retweeted a number of messages claiming that dr. fauci misled the american people by dismissing hydroxychloroquine as a cure for the disease. now we have 150,000 dead americans, 4 million infected, 40 million jobless. we lose more than a thousand people every day. one american every 90 seconds. but you called his public health leadership superb. and you threw the weight of the justice department behind his campaign to shut down public health in march and april. you will see two tweets from the president of the united states. l liberate michigan, liberate virginia. he retweeted right wing protesters blocking access to hospitals and trying to overthrow public health orders in those states. and you snapped attention on april 27th.

you designated a prosecutor to try to bring down those very public health orders in michigan and virginia. two days later armed right wing protesters and white supremacists disrupted the michigan legislature confronting police, taunting lawmakers, forcing the legislature to shut down as they brandish their long guns and shouted in the faces of police officers. but you didn't send in a secret police force on horseback to unleeu unleash tear gas, rubber bullets against these protesters storming the state capitol in michigan. no. you embraced their cause by joining litigation against the governors of michigan and virginia. now, of course your side lost your motions for emergency injunctions, but you got to spread trump's message that it was time to call off the stay-at-home orders, masking, and social distancing. here's what you said on national

tv in april that the cure was worse than the disease. quote, you can't just keep on feeding the patient chemotherapy and say, well, we're killing the cancer because we were getting to the point where we're killing the patient. do you remember saying that? >> yeah. >> what'd you mean by that? >> exactly what it says. you have to balance the cure with the danger. which we leave to governors. you know, i know everyone likes to -- i know everyone likes to -- but this is a federal republic and the president respected that. and -- >> okay. reclaiming my time. mr. -- excuse me. >> -- largely run by governors. for someone who claims to be so worried about executive overreach, nobody had been keeping an eye on what the governor -- >> excuse me. the time is mine. >> -- including the area of religious liberty. >> the supreme court rejected your position on religious liberty 5-4 and said there was nothing wrong with applying

public health orders to churches. >> that was on an injunction. >> did you accept that or not? we'll talk about it later. mr. barr, with no vaccine, no treatment, no cure in sight, you work to disarm the states of the only weapon we have against this disease. public health measures. and now we pay the price of this policy in overrun intensive care units and morgues, a shortage of coffins and refrigerated trucks. which makes us a global pariah state who cannot enter other countries. do you know what dr. fauci was saying at the same time you were moving to take down those public health orders? here's what dr. fauci was warning us about three months ago about the premature abandonment. if only you had listened. he said, i feel if that occurs there is a real risk you will trigger an outbreak and you may not be able to control it which in fact -- >> we were not taking down public health orders -- >> the gentleman's time is

expired. >> we were -- >> will you restore my time? because this witness is speaking over -- >> you went over time. let me witness respond. >> he's trying to answer. >> gentleman's time is expired. gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we do have a governor in virginia who is engaged in overreach particularly regarding the civil rights of virginians and their expression of their religious faith. so i want to give the attorney general the opportunity to respond to the gentleman from maryland. >> we adopted a very narrow approach of calling to the attention usually by letter, not by lawsuit, of situations where they were treating religion worse than they were other kinds of organizations and gatherings and the constitution requires that it be treated the same. and we were calling those to the attention of the governors. and most of the governors that we called attention to voluntarily changed their own orders. there are few occasions where we pointed out anomalies in the differential regulation of business. and again, mostly they were

voluntarily changed by the governors. so this was not a wholesale attack on stay-at-home orders. it was just that these are very broad powers that have been seated. basically telling everyone to stay at home and only work if you're an essential business and so forth. and therefore someone has to keep an eye on that and make sure there's no overreach. as time went by, there were times where, you know, that you had these crazy rules in effect that were overly burdensome and raised constitutional problems. >> i want to thank you for raising those points early and particularly with regard to virginia and the church out on the eastern shore. i want to thank you, also, for being here and for returning to lead the department of justice and right the ship and root out the rank partisanship and bias that had corrupted the administration of justice for many years. the democrats allege that attorney general barr has politicized the justice department doing the personal bidding of president trump, but

it's not only unfounded, it's especially hypocritical in light of the politicization that occurred during the obama/biden administration and led by president obama self-described wingman attorney general eric holder. the journalists shut out career -- and flouted oversight. want to ask particularly even after president trump assumed office, fbi lawyers exhibited bias against trump while working for both mueller and the fbi's russia investigation. and the inspector general couldn't rule out political animus against candidate trump as influencing fbi abuse, correct? >> that's my understanding. >> the inspector general found an fbi lawyer altered evidence to surveil carter page. and criminally referred this lawyer to durham for federal prosecution. the same lawyer who worked on investigations in the clintons'

misuse of russia collusion expressed bias against president trump. and the inspector general testified back in december he can't rule out bias. mr. attorney general, what would the consequences be to one of your lawyers if they doctored documents to support evidence to a federal court? >> you know, in the abstract, talking generally, that lawyer would be fired. >> would they likely be disbarred as well? >> yes. >> and isn't it true that the ig found an email to support probable cause against candidate trump's campaign aid? >> i think that's right. >> and the same fbi lawyer worked on the russia investigation targeting candidate trump's campaign and was on a special counsel mueller team investigating president trump, correct? >> i'm not sure about that. >> and while working on those investigations, the inspector general found several texts showing that animus, correct?

>> on that particular lawyer? i believe so. >> yes. >> i can't remember the time frame of the text, but i know there were other texts. >> talk to you about the unmasking that occurred where mr. grinnell released a list of 39 officials who submitted a request to unmask -- 49 requests were submitted. is that a normal amount of requests for unmasking? >> historically that seems to be a high number. and the other question you have to ask is why was this after the election. >> and seven treasury officials including the secretary, is that a normal occurrence? >> you know, there are times when high-level officials can do it. i don't know enough about the specifics. >> yield the remainder of my

time to mr. jordan. >> mr. attorney general, what's more important? going to church or going to a protest? >> depends on the individual. >> what's more important going to work or to a protest? >> again, it depends on the individual. we're all free. we can all make our choices. >> i'm talking about government limits on those activities. what's more important? government putting limits on protesting or putting limits on attending church? >> they're both first amendment. >> exactly. exactly. we should treat them the same, shouldn't we? >> yes. >> time has expired. ms. jayapal. >> mr. barr, on june 1st there were protests against the murder of george floyd and police brutality in lafayette park. let us not be distracted by you or my gop colleagues as to what

these protests were actually about. they were about the persistent killing of black bodies by law enforcement and finally, finally an awakening in america of the conscience of our country. and yet your response was to direct federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons, and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op. so i do want to ask you, do you think that your response -- do you think the response at lafayette square to tear gas, pepper spray, and beat protesters and injure american citizens who were just simply exercising their first amendment rights was appropriate? >> well, first it's my understanding that no tear gas was used on monday, june 1st.

>> mr. barr, that is a semantic distinction that has been proven false. >> how is it semantic? tear gas is a particular -- >> you talked about chemical irritants and it has been proven false by reports. so just answer the question. >> well, i think -- >> do you think it was appropriate at lafayette park to pepper spray, tear gas, and beat protesters and injure american citizens? >> well, i don't accept your characterization of what happened, but as i explained, the effort there was -- >> mr. barr, i just asked for a yes or no. so let me just tell you -- i'm starting to lose my temper. according to sworn testimony before the house natural resources committee by army national guard officer adam demarco who was there, this was, quote, an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters. u.s. media reports have confirmed -- mr. barr. excuse me. this is my time. sir. sir.

the president told governors on a telephone call the way to deal with police brutality and systemic racism like in lafayette square is that, quote, you have to get much tougher. you have to dominate. if you don't dominate, you're wasting your time. these are terrorists. and he also talked about you on that call, sir. here's what he said. he said the attorney general is here. bill barr. and we will activate bill barr and activate him strongly. do you remember that call, mr. barr? >> y, i do. but he wasn't talking about protesters. he was talking about rioters. >> apparently the president believes that you can be activated to implement the president's agenda and dominate american people exercising first amendment rights if they're protesting against him. but let's look at how you respond when the protesters are supporters of the president. on two separate occasions after

president trump tweeted liberate michigan to subvert stay home orders to protect the health of people in michigan, protesters swarmed the michigan capitol carrying guns, some with swastikas, confederate flags, and one even with a dark haired doll with a noose around its neck. are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot, and beheaded? >> no. >> you're not aworare of that? >> i was not aware of that. >> you're the attorney general and you didn't know that the protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot, and beheaded. so obviously you couldn't be concerned about that. >> well, there are a lot of protests around the united states, and on june 1st, i was worried about the district of columbia which is federal. >> in certain parts of the country, you're aware of those. but when protesters with guns -- >> i am aware of protests -- >> excuse me, mr. barr. this is my time. and i control it.

you are aware of certain kinds of protesters, but in michigan when protesters carry guns and confederate flags and swastikas and call for the governor of michigan to be beheaded and shot and lynched, somehow you're not aware of that. somehow you didn't know about it, so you didn't send federal agents in to do to the president's supporters what you did to the president's protesters. in fact, you didn't -- you didn't put pepper balls on those protesters. so the point i'm trying to make here mr. barr which i think is important for the country to understand is that there is a real discrepancy in how you react as the attorney general, the top cop in this country when white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns, there is no need for the president to, quote, activate you. because they're getting the president's personal agenda done. but when black people and people of color protest police brutality, systemic racism, and

the president's very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers, pepper bombs because they are considered terrorists by the president. you take an aggressive approach to black lives matter protests but not to right wing extremists threatening to lynch a governor if it's for the president's benefit. did i get it right, mr. barr? >> i have responsibility for the federal government and the white house is the seat of -- >> mr. barr, let me make it clear. you are supposed to represent the people of the united states. >> michigan authorities can handle -- >> but not violate. people's first amendment rights. you are supposed to uphold democracy and secure equal justice under the law, not violently dismantle certain protesters based on the president's personal agenda. >> gentle lady's time is expired. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to also introduce into the record a report from the m.i.t. election

data and science lab which says that over the past 20 years more than 250 million ballots have been cast by mail and the fraud rate is 0.00006%. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, a.g. barr for being here today. i'm sincere when i say it's an honor. >> could i just ask you for one minute though? >> to respond? yes. >> as i made clear moving h street out to i street was a decision made the day before. it was justified by the extreme rioting going on around the white house. the same who ran as a democratic candidate for congress in maryland. even being close to the discussions as to what was going on.

now, the fact is that the movement was not geared to the behavior of that particular crowd. it was geared to the fact that we were moving the perimeter out so we could put a fence up on h street, by h street. so -- but it is a fact that the park police reported and i saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd. so i did not consider them peaceful at all peaceful protesters. but i'm sorry. thank you for giving me that opportunity. >> you're welcome, a.g. barr. i'd also like to talk about the violent protests that are being seen in seattle specifically chaz and also portland, oregon. as you know over the course of june and early july, several shootings occurred inside seattle's police-free zone including the tragic murders of a 16-year-old own a 19-year-old. there were numerous reports of robberies, assaults, and property destruction as well.

>> sexual assaults as well. >> yes. and despite all this, all this chaos, all this violence, it took the seattle mayor weeks to declare this an unlawful gathering and police to clear the area. in similar circumstances let's talk about portland, oregon. it's been going through eight weeks of violent rioting in the streets as well. rioters continue, in fact, to fire projectiles and mortar style fireworks at federal officers and are using dangerous lasers which have permanently blinded three federal officers. yet our own chairman jerry nadler told a reporter on sunday that the anarchy and violence in portland and i quote the chairman, is a myth that is spread only in washington, d.c., end quote. attorney general barr, is it, in fact, a myth there is anarchy and groups engaging in violence in portland?

>> i think there are anarchists and far left groups that are involved in the violence in portland. i actually think that the chairman's content was about ana antifa. i don't know what he was referring to but i think it was antifa. >> would you believe that it's a myth for antifa being involved in that? >> no. i think antifa is involved in portland. >> so either way the chairman's comments were not correct? >> i didn't consider them accurate. congresswoman jayapal has said, quote, it's a peaceful protest zone? is it a peaceful protest zone? >> no. as i already said, it's outrageous that people set themselves up over a piece of territory where the people in there have not selected them as the government and try to exercise sovereign authority. that's an outrage. and, you know, we saw people handing out guns to people to,

quote, keep the peace and so forth. it was anarchy there. >> your office has charged many with federal crimes. can you just briefly elaborate on those crimes. >> well, the whole gamut. i think we've had 224. they run the gamut from throwing molotov cocktails to, you know, assaulting a police officer. that kind of thing. >> thank you, a.g. barr. i just want to say that i think and i don't know if you agree that chaz in portland are really like political experiments. they really show us what would happen if we fully embraced the radical ideology of the social justice democrats. now, according to democrats, it's the summer of love. according to the representative of seattle, it's a peaceful

protest zone. in reality these cities are experiencing violence, chaos, and frankly just anarchy. so i think this political experiment has showed us that the liberal social justice democrat style government has failed. would you like to comment on that, attorney general barr? >> well, when i was first being -- going through confirmation, i expressed concern about violence getting into our political system. and we'd seen some -- this intolerance in attacking people. i was very worried about that. and now we've seen it sweeping through the country like this. and i hope the democratic party takes a stand against the violence. >> thank you and i yield my time. >> gentleman yields back. ms. demings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. mr. barr, during your -- over here. >> i'm sorry. >> over here in the corner. earlier in your testimony you talked about gun violence and asked the question what about those lives.

and yes, mr. barr, those lives do matter. but did you believe that police officers should be held or are held to a higher standard? >> yes. and, you know, someone mentioned my comment about we shouldn't permit resistance. we shouldn't take that as a matter of course. but i never suggest that just because someone resists that that justifies whatever is done. >> thank you so much for that. >> by no means does it. >> good police officers also believe they're held to a higher standard. so i'm glad to hear you say that. as a former police detective, i have solved many cases based on patterns of behavior. and there is an alarming passengpattern developing. every time a u.s. attorney investigates the president or chose close to him, he or she is removed and replaced by one of your friends. you have removed u.s. attorneys in the eastern district of new york and the eastern district of texas. on june 19th, you announced mr. bergman would be stepping down.

and let me just be clear. when you told america that mr. berman was stepping down, did mr. berman tell you he was stepping down? >> no. but stepping down is the language that i am told. >> okay. he did not tell you that? >> no, no. but it's language we usually use to leave flexibility as to whether the person is doing it on -- >> on june 20th when asked about the basis for mr. berman's removal on the very day you announced he was being fired, stepping down, the president's personal attorney mr. giuliani suggested that. and i quote, the reason may lie in the fact that berman's office got involved with baseless investigations. sir, if that wasn't true, if you didn't remove mr. berman because he was overseeing investigations of the president and those close to him, why would the president's personal attorney think that? >> i'm sorry. what did he say and when? i didn't hear the quote. >> mr. giuliani suggests --

>> when? >> june 20th. june 20th. that he may have been fired because he was investigating baseless investigations. >> well, if he said that, that's nonsense. number one, anyone familiar with the department of justice would say they'at removing a componen head is not going to have an impact on a pending investigation. >> and i know you're aware of reports that berman's office was, in fact, investigating the president's former attorney mr. cohen, his current attorney mr. giuliani, his current attorney's associates, and his presidential inauguration. mr. barr -- >> i don't mean to suggest this by my silence that i'm confirming that. that seems to be your opinion. >> okay. all right. have you in any way attempted to influence or interfere with any investigation in the southern district including the investigations i just mentioned? >> i have not interfered in any investigation. i've raised questions on

occasion about certain matters, but as far as i'm aware, the office was satisfied with the resolution. >> -- efforts to remove him bypass the normal operation of law. now we know the -- >> no, they didn't. no, they didn't. >> -- a sitting president cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted. because you made sure president trump understood that. in your 19-page or however long application, job application. however, you are aware the special counsel confirmed a sitting president can be investigated. you did read that in the special counsel's report. is that correct? >> yes. >> given mr. trump's residence and former business location in southern district, berman's office would have decision making authority over whether to investigate the president himself. and you removed him. >> i've explained why i removed him. >> okay. sitting here today under penalty

of perjury, do you still maintain as you stated in a february 13th interview that the president has never asked you to do anything in a criminal case. yes or no, please. >> yes -- no. i mean, will i confirm it? is that the question? >> do you stand by your testimony -- >> he's never asked me, directed me, pressured me to do anything in a criminal case. >> okay. all right. you are aware and i think you had this conversation earlier with one of my colleagues that the president's former attorney mr. cohen was released early from prison due to concerns of covid-19. >> yes. >> okay. and why did you support the decision to send mr. cohen back to prison? >> i didn't even know the decision to send him back. >> did you support it after you -- >> i hadn't looked into it enough -- >> mr. barr, as a former -- >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> the president has made a

mockery of the department of justice and i believe as the nation's top cop, no one should care more act that than you. >> -- recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. ten years ago this summer in july, my hometown, it was a beautiful day. people were golfing. kids were swimming. everybody was playing baseball. just a perfect, gorgeous summer day in north dakota. in the span of eight minutes a tornado came through and caused unbelievable economic devastation. i don't think anybody woke up the next morning and said it was a peaceful day. i want to talk specifically about what's going on in portland with you, mr. attorney general. for 61 nights the federal courthouse is under siege. not just the courthouse. federal agents are under siege. you have men and women there protecting that courthouse. now, i have no doubt if they were there, that courthouse would not be standing right now. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> and i think one of our problems is how we talk about this and how it's covered versus what is actually going on every

single night in portland at that courthouse. can you explain what your officers and your agents are going through over there? >> yes. i'm talking about the u.s. martials who were in the courthouse. they initially tried to contain themselves in the courthouse. there'd been efforts to push through the main door. when people succeeded in breaching the door, they threw kerosene and fireworks and started fires. the effort was to make sure they cannot breach. there still have been breaches into the courthouse. but basically they try to remain in there and starting after the fourth, they tried to arrest the people who were directing fireworks. they would climb up onto the side of the court, break windows, shoot fireworks in. and whenever the marshals came out to try to put an end to that, you know, they were shot at with slingshots, lasers were

constantly being put into their eyes even when they were inside the courthouse. there's a good description of it in an ap story. >> i was going to quote that. i watched as injured officers were hauled inside. the commercial firework came over so fast the officer didn't have time to respond. it burned through his sleeve and he had bloody gashes on both forearms. another had a concussion from being hit in the head with a mort mortar. >> that's right. we've had a lot of juinjuries o there. these are people who this congress has charged with protecting federal courts. they're directed to protect federal courts and the u.s. code and they are under attack. they're being injured and it's been constant for 60 days. >> acting secretary wolf has said the violent mobs are jeopardizing not only them but their families. why is doxing federal it's dange

can take retaliation against their homes, their families or when they're by themselves. i see some of these latin american countries in central america where the police are very, very brave because the gangs are trying to deal with go to their houses and kill their families. and, you know, you never think that could happen here. but you could never think some of the stuff we're seeing today could ever happen here. >> is being burned by essentially improvised explosive device and blinded by lasers, is this something that happens with federal marshals in federal courthouses. >> no, not at all. >> how is this going for recruitment and how are they doing? >> i think that a.p. story gives

you a feel. they feel that is their duty and that is where they have to be and a number of them are from that area. and they're extremely tired and we've had to rotate and put in some more people and they are very, very tired and you make mistakes when your tired. >> and one of the most amazing parts of this whole thing, it starts with under 30 agents and still under 100 and 60 nights in a row they defend against a siege. what is the most amazing thing, i get up every morning and that clous is still running so i'm going to say something that i think should be said more often. tell them thank you. tell the courthouse and the clerks thank you, tell the prosecutors thank you, tell the judges thank you. and if you can handle it, could you tell the public defenders thank you, too. because they're still conducting the business. are they getting sleep? >> the marshals are having a difficult time because the demonstrators go to the hotel,

they also go from hotel to hotel because the demonstrators try to disrupt their sleep at the hotel. >> and there is a difference between the protest and a riot. every night at some point in time it turns into a riot and when you wake up the next morning and you know it is going to happen again, we need to figure out a way to stop it. one last question, why would we have to negotiate a cease-fire with a peaceful protest. >> correct. that's right. what we would like to see, and all we would like, is what we see in the rest of the country, which is state and local law enforcement taking care of their own cities and the streets around the courthouse. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> mr. cray is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. barr, welcome. let's talk about the census, if we could. that is the process where everything here we decide how many congressional seats and how much funding for schools an health care and other issues each region gets. let's talk about the president's momento directing the commerce secretary to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count of the 2020 census count. mr. barr, the president essentially is saying something, trying to do something that unconstitutional and illegal. 14th amendment and i quote, representative shelby apportioned among several states according to their respective numbers counting whole numbers of person in each state and then federal law as you know, 2 usc subsection 2-a and i quote the presidential transmit to the

congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each state. did i read those correctly, sir, more or less? >> yes. >> do you agree that the president's memo essentially violates the constitution? >> no. >> are undocumented people not whole individuals? >> they're not what? >> are undocumented individuals in this country not whole people? >> um, they are obviously people. but the legal issue there was the terminology of the constitution -- >> well if i may -- >> it reflects the decision at the time of the constitution that they count in half -- >> i reclaim my time, sir. you used to work for the department of justice back in 1971 1989. there was a letter written to senator jeff bingham by the doj on point, there is a slide and a

letter and i would ask unanimous consent to admit that to the record. >> without objection. >> and i quote, in the past the department of justice has taken the position that section 2 of the 14th amendment, that the original apportionment and census clause of article one section two of the constitution requires that inhabitants of states who are illegal aliens be included in the census count and in our view this issue today we have found no basis for reversing that position. are you reversing that position now? >> well, i think what the department advised is that -- this came up because alabama claims you cannot count illegal aliens in the census under the constitution. the department looked at it and advised that congress can determine a meaning of inhabitant for this purpose. that it is not a self-defining term -- >> i've only got two minutes,

sir. >> that they recognize -- >> but this is a hearing. i thought i was the one that was supposed to be heard. >> i'm going to get there. the current dispute, you talk back when the supreme court struck down the president's attempt to put a citizenship question on the census. at that time the president announced an executive order to collect citizenship information by other means and at that time you made reference to a current dispute over whether illegal aliens could be included in the apportionment purposes. is that what you're referring to now, sir. >> i could have been referring to the alabama case. i can't remember. >> is the doj studying this issue? yes. >> have you concluded -- >> you could provide this committee with discussions, any concluding memos on that issue? >> i'll look into it. but we have considered it and as i said, our advice is -- has been that congress does have the power to define the term

inhabitant, to either include or exclude -- >> we're talking about the president's executive order. >> well congress has delegated pa power to the commerce secretary so as the law stands now we think the commerce secretary has the delegate of congressional power could define that term. that is a reasonable argument to make. >> mr. attorney general, in the last few seconds i have, president has to be within the law. nobody is above the lou in this country including the president of the united states. my concern is he goes around doing tweets, memos, dictums, that are clearly unconstitutional. my district, sir, is a working class, hard-working community. immigrants. the greatest generation. all we want is equity. based on the census. we want to make sure we get our federal dollars like everybody else around the country. we want to make sure that our representation is equal and

individual and individual and in orange county as it is in other parts of the country. all we ask for is respect. please tell the president to stop tweeting things an writing memos that are clearly unconstitutional. thank you very much. and i yield. >> the gentleman yields back. miss tiffany. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr, will you send a thank you to the law enforcement people that work for you for the work that they're doing here across the united states of america. >> sure. >> and i want to thank the law enforcement across our country. we are an imperfect country but law enforcement is done -- they do a good job across our country and they should be recognized for that. i'm going to ask you a question about mr. burnell trammel from milwaukee here in just a minute. he was the man who was shot to death at the end of last week.

he's the african-american man who was wearing a sign he's regularly known around milwaukee for carrying a trump for president sign. but i want to share with you what happened in madison, wisconsin, so we all understand that this is not a myth about antifa. so when the riots hit minneapolis and then extended around the country, they hit madison, wisconsin, also. if you have visited -- >> yes. >> there is an iconic street called state street and starts at capitol and runs down to the university of wisconsin, madison, and if you go there now, 75 businesses are boarded up. as a result of a mayor and city council who would not protect those people. those people went to the city council last week and asked for some assistance. the city council who would not protect them business, they said

no. we're not going to provide you assistance. shortly after state street was destroyed, and by the way it is disappointing in some of the film that i've seen that the police cruiser that went flaming down state street was not included in that. but shortly after that, about a week afterwards, two monuments at the state capitol that i used to walk by all of the time, were torn down. one was of hans christian hague the abolitionist norwegian instrument who died at chica blogga defending the union and providing for the end of slavery, fighting for the end of slavery here in the united states. the other monument that was torn down, by the way they took a tow truck and tore it down, was laidy forward. lady forward is there because of women's