just about people in front of the courthouse. if a husband and wife call each other and one of the spouses has a cell phone that is within range of one of these, not only have they found that couples conversation can be scooped up using this technology. it's not just about the demonstrating, it's about the privacy of all americans, and it is all being violated for the president's political purposes of trying to create a scene, create a reason, subvert attention from the covid situation. i think it's really very unfortunate, and a disservice to the american people. my time has expired. >> point of order -- >> mr. chairman, point of where to. >> the gentleman will state his point of order. >> can you ask those members who choose not to go to work to silence their cell phones on the

video? it's distracting to what we are doing today. >> that is not a point of order. i now recognize mr. cabot. >> mr. attorney general, would it be accurate to say that it's this administration's responsibility, and of course you are part of the administration, to see that federal laws are upheld and that the federal property is secure and safe and protected? is that correct? >> that's right, congressman. there are distinct emissions. those are to enforce federal law. by the way, the federal government is the sovereign of the united states. we have two sovereigns here in the united states, and we enforce the federal law all over the country. every square foot of the country, we enforce federal law. the other is federal property. specifically, u.s. court houses, the heart of federal property in all 93 jurisdictions the united states, we have the obligation to protect federal courts, and the u.s. marshals

specifically have been given that obligation. federal courts are under attack. since when is it okay to try to burn down a federal court? if someone went down the street to the court here, that beautiful courthouse we have right at the bottom of the hill, and started breaking windows and firing industrial grade fireworks in to start a fire, throwing kerosene balloons in, and starting fires in the court, is that okay? is that okay now? no, the u.s. marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse, and that's what we are doing in portland. we are at the courthouse defending the courthouse. we are not out looking for trouble. >> thank you, general. as far as weapons and devices that were utilized by the group of people, you mentioned trying to destroy the courthouse. they were literally trying to burn it down, and apparently didn't give a hoot about the people that were occupied in the building, as well. so, people were in danger?

>> that is absolutely right. >> as far as the lipids imagine, let me get this straight. my understanding is that the people attacking the building have come among other things, rifles, explosives, knives, saws, sledgehammers, tasers, slingshots, rocks, bricks, lasers. have i missed anything, or has that just about covered it? >> you have missed some things, but that's a good list. they have these powerful slingshots with ball bearings that they shoot. they use pellet guns, we believe. we have found those projectiles that have penetrated marshals to the bone. they use the lasers to blind the marshals. they do start fires, they start fires if they can get the fire inside or through the windows, and they start fires along the outside of the courthouse. when the marshals come out to try and deal with the fire, they

are assaulted. >> general, if local elected officials, mayors and city councils and governors, did their jobs and kept the peace, would it even be necessary for federal and law enforcement personnel to be there in the first place? >> no, and that's exactly the point. look around the country. even where there are these kinds of riots occurring, we haven't had to put in the kind of reinforcements that we have in portland, because the state and local law enforcement does their job, and won't allow rioters to come in and physically assault the courthouse. in portland, that's not the case. >> general, some have derisively referred to these law enforcement personnel as "stormtroopers," and worse. does that accurately describe them? would you like to set the record straight? >> they are obviously not stormtroopers. normally we have a group of

deputy marshals in the court that would be in business suits and ties, or regular civilian dress. those would be the deputy marshals, as the protective force for the court. after almost a month of rioting in portland, we send in -- i think it was around the fourth of july time frame, we sent in about 20 special operations marshals. those are tactical teams that are padded and protected so they can deal with this kind of thing. up until last week, i was told we had 29 marshals in the courthouse. until recently, i think there were 95, i was told. 95 dhs and federal protective service and other dhs officers trying to protect the courthouse, and three other buildings. that's what we are trying to do,

we are trying to protect federal functions and federal buildings, which are very small part of the city, but the rioters go at them and we have gradually increased our numbers there to try to protect those facilities. if the state would come in and keep peace on the streets in front of the courthouse, we wouldn't need additional people at the courthouse. >> thank you. my time has expired. speak of gentleman's time has expired. mrs. jackson lee? >> i would like to submit into the record a picture of lewis and clark history department chair at protests in portland. unanimous consent, please set into the record. john lewis, in 1963, said we are tired about being beat by police, we are tired about being put in jail. we want our freedom now. mr. attorney general, and your remarks you indicated we've made great progress since that time, and you indicated the killing of george floyd was shocking.

i disagree. it was outright cold-blooded murder on the streets of america. unfortunately, by police misconduct. you seem to have a difficult time understanding systemic racism and institutional racism that has plagued so many. mr. attorney general, do you understand a black mother's or parents talk to their child, to their son? do you know what that is? >> i think i do. >> i don't know if you do, but trayvon martin trayvon martin, ahmaud arbery, tamir rice, michael bell, and george floyd. black mothers and fathers have had to talk to their sons about police violence. i take no back seat to the history of this committee that has stood for good policing, not misconduct. i ask you this question. does the trump justice department seek to end systemic racism and racism in law enforcement to mike i just need a "yes" or "no" answer. >> to the extent there is racism in any of our institutions in

this country, and police, obviously this administration will fully enforce -- >> so you agreed there is a systemic racism? >> where? >> let me continue my line of question. >> i don't agree there is systemic racism in this department. generally, in this country. >> i am reclaiming my time. you understand the impact of racial profiling, and do you support the end of racial and religious profiling in the george floyd bill, including the removal of the strict interpretation of qualified immunity, which would leave individuals like breonna taylor and george floyd without any relief at all? >> no, i am opposed to eliminating qualified immunity, and i don't agree it would leave the victims of police misconduct without any remedy. >> am reclaiming my time. let me share with you some aspects of profiling. after the death of george floyd, it was found that, while black

people make up 19% of the minneapolis publish in a 9% of police, they were on the receiving end of most use of force incidents. in addition, we have seen that lack men are twice as likely to be stopped and searched, hispanic drivers 65% more likely to receive a ticket, and native americans in arizona three times more likely to search and be stopped. let me ask you the question about how we respond to that. the justice department has many tools at its disposal to reduce police violence, a practiced and bad policing it addresses at an institution level rather than focusing on acute cases. if you understand that, why is your department only pursued one investigation since president trump took office that could stop systemic racism? >> if you read my statement or listened to my statement, i did

specifically acknowledge that there was a difficulty in this country with the african-american community -- >> mr. attorney general, i have a short time. can you tell me why you have not done any pattern and practice? what was the reason? >> and you asked me what i thought the response was, and i thought the response to this is, in fact, training of police. i think the police believe that is a response. i was talking to a black -- >> mr. attorney general, i want to respect you, but i have a short time. for example, 18 usc section 242, which makes unlawful the denial of rights. can you commend the fact that in the first months of fiscal year 2020 federal prosecutors filed only 242 charges in just 27 cases in the trump doj? were you aware that, in fy 2019, federal prosecutors charges in

just 49 cases in the united states? are you aware of how many cases we have had? 184,274, which means that, in fy 2019, only about 27 out of every 100,000 prosecutions was related to section 242 charges. do you have a reason for that? >> yes, i do. i will get to the numbers on it. i don't know them off the top of my head, but our criminal prosecution is under 241 and 242 are extremely strong, and they are comparable to, if not exceeding, prior administrations. at the beginning of this year, very few jurisdictions had grand juries that were open. no grand juries -- >> i think the reason is because it was not your focus. your focus was to let out friends like roger stone and paul manafort wild tamir rice, whose case has not been taken up, was playing with a toy gun and was killed by police at the age of 12. breonna taylor was sleeping in her apartment when she was killed by police at age 26.

rayshard brooks, 27, was killed just for sleeping in his car in a wendy's parking lot. george floyd, from houston, texas, known as a humble man, was murdered in the streets of minneapolis, crying "i can't breathe." i would hope that doj would focus on systemic institutional racism, because there is good policing. that's what we are trying to do in the judiciary committee, and that is what we need you to join us on, mr. attorney general. and to recognize that institutional racism does exist. until we accept that, we will not finish our job and reach the goals and aspirations of our late iconic john lewis. with that, i yield back. >> mr. gomer it? >> attorney general barr, we have been hearing about these peaceful protests in major cities around the country. controlled by democratic mayors and city councils. you have had a lot of experience. have you ever seen so many

people hurt, injured, and killed at peaceful protests in your life? >> i haven't seen it, no. not at a peaceful protest. obviously, as i've said from the beginning, these peaceful protests, in many places, are being hijacked b by a very hardo core of violent instigators. they have become violent, and their primary direction of violence is to injure police. police casualties far exceed anything on the civilian side. >> weren't there over 50 police injured in chicago just in recent days? and now i'm hearing this allegation that this administration is helping spread coronavirus, covid-19. and yet, these are some of the

same people that just castigated the president for shutting down travel from the location where the virus was coming from. and now they are more interested in defending the chinese communist party than they are our own country. what occurred to me, hearing this allegation about this administration helping spread covid, would it be a good idea then, perhaps, if that's the biggest concern here, that maybe the federal government should shut down the protests during this covid-19 spread, so that we can satisfy our colleagues that you're doing more to stop it? has that ever been a consideration? >> no, i've never considered that. >> [laughs] well, it would apparently stop some of the allegations being thrown, here. i know you know history.

going back to 1917, the bolshevik revolution, the mao revolution, some of these tactics were seen are not new. trying even to get david horowitz, who introduced one time as a former socialist, he said, "no, i was a full-blown communist." we has pointed out he started looking away from the group he was in, because he saw they were interested in trying to provoke the police to kill somebody so that they could really create mayhem. you are familiar with that tactic by marxists, are you not? >> yes. >> it is a dangerous time. well, let me ask you, i know you know that u.s. attorneys are supposed to serve at the pleasure of the president. you know bill clinton fired 93 u.s. attorneys on the same day. do you know what made u.s. attorney berman think that he was the exception who did not serve at the pleasure of the

president? what caused him to think he owned that position? >> i think part of it was that he seems to have had the view that, because he was court-appointed, and there is a provision in law for court appointment of u.s. attorneys, essentially as a placeholder until the administration get somebody, that he felt he could not be removed by the president. because he was court-appointed. that is not correct. >> and some judges failed to know what my constitutional law professor knew, and that is that all courts except federal courts -- except for one, hold their existence and continuation in jurisdiction to the u.s. congress. hopefully mr. berman will figure that out at some point. now, is bruce ohr still working for the fbi? >> he works for the department of justice.

>> well, we have heard so much information about his basically being the go-between between the dnc, the clinton campaign, fusion gps, christopher steele, the russian propaganda that were incorporated into his dossier, and i know kleinsmith, christopher wray indicated she e had been given a chance to resign and go get a better job. i'm wondering how long bruce ohr is going to be staying where he is. it's incredible to me that he is still there. >> well, i can't talk about individual personnel matters. >> well, thank you for your service. i am sorry for the abuse you have taken when you're just trying to do your job. i appreciate it very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for 5 minutes.

>> thank you, madam chair. mr. barr, i'm on the chair of the constitution of civil rights and this is pertinent to me. first, i would like to ask you if you would work with us and allow the head of the civil rights division, assistant attorney general eric drive van, to testify before this committee this fall. >> i'll talk to him about it. >> you will encourage him? >> i'll talk to him about it. >> all right. actions taken by the federal government at lafayette park in june, and currently in portland, oregon, according to a doj document dated june 4th received by this committee, 1500 federal agents from ten different agencies were deployed to confront protesters in washington, d.c. at lafayette park, which has long been honored and accepted as a place of protest in a nation's capital, on the first day of june, the world watched in horror on live television has federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling them to get

it done, used force to clear lafayette park so the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of st. john's church. this was an anathema and an affront to the constitution and the american people. giving the time and a coordinated attack against the peaceful demonstrators, it strains credulity this was not planned for use of political purposes. just yesterday, major demarco testify to another committee of congress that the protesters were peaceful, and that is what the majority of people have said, and the response was excessive. when did you first learned that the president planned to walk through the park and go to st. john's church? >> first, i like to respond to what you -- >> would you please answer my question? my time is limited. >> i learned sometime in the afternoon that the president might come out of the white house, and then later in the afternoon i heard he might

go over to the church. >> so, it was absolutely necessary the park be cleared? >> it has nothing to do with that. the plan to move -- >> wasn't necessary the park be cleared and it was done, and you said "get it done." in portland we've seen mothers and veterans who were peacefully protesting, not threatening the federal courthouse, beaten and gas. unidentified armed federal agents violently attacked demonstrators and a violation of the first amendment, freedom of assembly, interested citizens without individualized suspicion and a violation of the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and a warrant requirement. you've gone through the fifth amendment and due process and just negated it. the tenth amendment, which leaves general policing to the law enforcement to the state, has been forgotten. maybe what happened is your secret police were poorly trained, just like your bureau of prisons guards were poorly trained and allowed the most notorious inmate in our nation's

last several years, jeffrey epstein, to conveniently commit suicide. sad. you misled congress and the american people about special counsel mueller's findings, with your "summary," on quote of his report. it was issued a month before you issued the redacted portion of the mueller report, but you set the stage. you set the stage such that the special counsel objected to the accuracy of how it was reported by the press, and what you said. federal judge reggie walton, appointed by george w. bush, declared in a ruling that your summary was "distorted." and "misleading." and that the court could not trust you. further, judge walton stated that your report was "a calculated attempt to influence public disclosure about the mueller report in favor of president trump." this committee still does not have the unredacted mueller report. america has still not seen the unredacted mueller report. your excuses for not releasing it because it had to do with

ongoing cases no longer exists, because those ongoing cases have been completed or commuted or finished. other attorney general's work with this judiciary committee to see that the american public and the judiciary committee has unredacted copies of that report. you have not, you've gone to court to stop it. this report needs to be given to this committee. and michael cohen, you've treated him differently than michael flynn and roger stone. michael flynn, you have attempted to dismiss the charges. even after he twice pled guilty. with roger stone, you went further. mr. barr, john lewis said to us, "if not me, who? if not now, when?" that's why i introduced the resolution to require this community to investigate your conduct as attorney general and determine whether you should be impeached. that is my constitutional duty. i yield back the balance of my time.

>> may i respond to these? >> i'm sorry, what did you -- >> i would like to seek recognition for unanimous consent requests. >> yes, your recognize. >> thank you. >> i would like to enter into the record this slate article, which describes the racial history of the portland police bureau. i would like to introduce an op-ed for mary mccord, who writes her words were twisted to justify the deferments disingenuous position to drop charges against michael flynn after he had already pled guilty. i would also like to introduce an op-ed from jonathan kramer describing the political interference in the roger stone case, and why he resigned from the departed justice. i would like to introduce a statement calling for attorney general barr's resignation, because of his assault on the rule of law. and a letter from the new york city bar to find certain of public -- and finally, a letter from 27 of the district of colombia's most prominent attorneys and law

professors, including four past presidents of the d.c. bar, conference ethics investigation into mr. barr's conduct. last but not least, a letter from over 80% of the george washington university law school faculty, your alma mater, saying "his actions have posed a continued clear and present danger to the evenhanded demonstration of justice, civil liberty, and the constitutional --" >> k, without objection. >> madam chair, one where unanimous consent requests. this is article that says represented jerry nadler says antifa violence in portland is a myth. that's from politico and a number of other -- >> mr. collins is recognized for 5 minutes. >> think you, madam chair. welcome, attorney general barr. i'm beginning to believe you are probably the cause of the common cold, and possibly even covid-19. i'm not sure at this point, because everything has been thrown at you, including now undoubtedly your alma mater doesn't like you anymore. the chairman said something earlier today that has really made me think.

he said, "why all the drama?" that's the most ironic statement coming from this committee and the last 18 months that i've ever heard of. the drama that we are bringing up today. we are seeming to just contort ourselves to get to someway to show you have a nefarious moti motive. i believe, like some on our site here, that the biggest problem we have is telling the truth. i think that's a problem they have with you. you will tell the truth and take responsibility for your actions. i think that's why you're being attacked. i want to continue on this "peaceful protest" for" for a second. you made a comment a second ago, talking about the courthouse down the street, do you think this body would rise up if they decided to go tonight and paint the capitol building? >> this body? i'm not sure. >> i think the side wood. the other side, i'm not sure. maybe the peaceful protests will burn down the capitol, maybe we are back to 1812 again. the other question i have, you heard earlier today, the stormtrooper comments by the speaker of the house. and we know this as a direct reference to the paramilitary

wing of the nazi party. "stormtroopers going at it." do you think that puts a lot for some community -- i want to know your opinion. don't you think it encourages the violence we are seeing and encourages the participation against the police? >> i think that's possible, and i think it's irresponsible to call these federal law enforcement officers "stormtroopers." >> and we are seeing that theme played out over and over paid let's switch back to something else, that i think is more relevant here. we've talked about the investigations, especially with cohen and flynn. do you think there was a basis to go after general flynn? what we've seen so far, what's been released, especially the investigation being open with peter strzok keeping open. you think there's a basis for the beginning of this investigation to start with? or continuing it? >> i would just say, i asked another u.s. attorney in st. louis who had ten years and the fbi and ten years in the department of justice as a career prosecutor to take a look at it, and he determined based on documents that had not been

provided to flynn's side and not provided to the court that, in fact, there was no basis to investigate flynn. furthermore, it was clearly established by the documents that the fbi agents who interviewed him did not believe that he thought he was lying. >> there's another part of this, as well, that concerns what has been given to the courts in the interviews, and that is that the facts were not disclosed to flynn prior to the interview. that seems like a brady violation to me. do you believe there was a brady violation there in this case? >> no, there wasn't a brady violation there, but i think what the counsel concluded was that the only purpose of the interview, the only purpose, was to try to catch him in saying something that they could then say was alive. >> so, it was entrapment? >> therefore there was not -- the interview was untethered to any legitimate investigation. >> so, as the law enforcement in this country, you have the opportunity to provide justice for both sides.

thcontinue on your own case. i know we're not talking specific about the derm investigation, which we are hopeful of pay to her knowledge, we are seeing some release documents in the last week or two that i've said kevin kleinsmith or anyone else at the doj who was previously are attempting to redeem themselves by cooperating with the investigation? it's been slow. >> i can't get into that. >> i understand that. i have another issue as we finish up and looking at this, between the rhetoric come between the investigation, i think the durham investigation is something most of us have waited for because we can't get this committee to believe the ig report is worth having about this committee. there's not a democrat or republican that can make it stomach allegedly claim why he has not been called to explain his reporting. that's what this committee has become all along. i have written to you about this problem, and that is the district attorney down in fulton county georgia making felony murder charges on an

officer, and the interesting part about this is what we do as prosecutors, were you aware that the district attorney failed to seek an indictment from a grand jury or even waited for a gbi investigation to finish pitch be bringing those charges? >> yes. >> the environment we have now with police counseling under attack from this community and others all over the country, especially from the speaker of the house, as an attorney at especially as a prosecutor, do you think it's appropriate to charge a law-enforcement officer with a crime severe as felony murder without giving the investigation more than a mere date and indictment from the grand jury? and why you announce the charges lay out a case that is full of falsehoods. >> i've said that i would have preferred that he had used the grand jury and had waited until the georgia bureau had completed its investigation. >> i appreciate your help in that. with that, yelled back. >> thank you. with that, the chair recognizes mr. johnson from georgia. >> thank you.

your opening statement reads like it was written by alex jones or roger stone. do you stand by that statement? >> yes. >> now, i'm sure that we can agree on some things. we disagree on a whole lot, but i'm sure we can agree on the fact that president trump is just a prolific tweeter. isn't that correct? >> he seems to be. >> and he tweeted many times about the roger stone sentencing, didn't he? >> i don't know how many times he tweeted about it. >> well, many times. and you are aware of them, because you said it hurts you from doing your job. and isn't it true that, when prosecutors in the roger stone case filed a memo with the court, recommending a sentence of 7-9 years in prison, a few hours later president trump tweeted that the sentence recommendation was "a disgrace?"

you are aware of that? >> yes. >> and, general barr, several hours after that, you filed a pleading with the court on the whole list stating the sentence or condition would be changed, and you would be asking for a lighter sentence for roger stone. isn't that correct? >> what is correct, on february 10th, monday, i gave instructions as to -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. >> i'm answering your question. >> you have to let them answer. >> reclaiming my time, you filed a sentencing recommendation hours after president trump tweeted his dissatisfaction with the stone recommendation. and you changed that -- speak of the night before, monday night -- >> i know your story, but -- >> i'm telling my story, that's what i'm here to do. i know it, that's why i'm here. i'm here to tell my story. on the night before -- >> you're going to answer my question. >> on the night before, the very

tense -- >> reclaiming my time, sir. reclaiming my time. i know you don't want to answer, but the facts are clear. sentencing recommendation made in the morning to meet, in the afternoon, you changed the sentencing recommendation -- >> the tweet was not in the afternoon, i think it was at 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning. >> the tweet was made before and after, he tweeted about that relentlessly. and you've agreed to that. when you filed your sentencing recommendation asking for a lower sentence -- >> i didn't ask for a lower sentence. >> well, you said you were going to recommend a lower sentence. >> no, i -- >> wasn't the sentence that was recommended by the line prosecutors, according to the sentencing guideline calculations? >> it was within the guidelines, but it was not within justice department policy. >> general barr, you are expecting the american people to believe that you did not do what

trump wanted you to do when you changed that sentencing recommendation and lowered it for roger stone? you think the american people don't understand that you were carrying out trump's -- > i had not discussed my sentencing recommendation with anyone at the white house. or anyone outside the department. >> what the president wanted you to do, that's what you did. >> no. >> attorney general barr -- >> let me ask you, do you think it is fair for a 67-year-old man to be sentenced to prison for 7-9 years? >> it was in accordance with the sentencing. >> no, it was not. >> you just said it was, and your prosecutors will testify that it was, also. i'm going to move on from that. in your time is attorney at -- >> it is not -- >> you never changed the sentencing recommendation for a friend of herbert walker bush, did you? >> no, as i recall --

>> no. and over the course of your time as -- >> nothing was ever elevated to me. >> over the course of your tenure with trump, you have changed to cosentencing recommendations. not one, but two. correct? michael flynn. >> i didn't change it. >> well, you indicated -- yeah, you changed it because the original flynn sentencing recommendation was for flynn to serve 0-6 months. under your authority, the justice department supplemented that recommendation with a pleading that stated the department of justice's agreement with flynn's lawyers that probation would be a reasonable sentence, and that the doj would not be sinking prison time for michael flynn. is that correct? >> i don't think that's what it

says. >> that's what it said, sir. go back and read it. >> i think both pleading said that -- >> reclaiming my time, prior -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> you can give a speech or you can ask questions. if you do the latter, we need to let the witness answer the questions. that is the chair's obligation, responsibility to allow that to happen. >> you are recognized for 5 minutes. >> general barr, thank you for appearing before the committee today. general barr, there is a disturbing pattern we've seen it with the totalitarian systems of government. they encourage goon squads to suppress opposing voices, and finally, once they have disarmed and silenced the opposition, these authoritarian leaders institute policies that reach out and crush freedom in every form. unfortunately, the american left has been infected with the same totalitarian desire to remove firearms and silence opposing views as part of a campaign to

achieve its political ends. we have seen this scenario play out in every major democratic-run city in america. progressive leaders pushed to disarm law-abiding americans to further their influence while watching as crime rates soared. we even saw failed presidential candidate beto o'rourke proudly tell americans, "hell yes, we are going to take your ar-15 and are ak-47. now the american left is actively cheering as its fascist militia antifa rages in the streets. antifa is the domestic terror organization that i dominic hijacks peaceful rallies, organizes armed riots, attacks peaceful protesters, burns building, lutes stories, and spreads hate. reports of antifa-linked attacks began circling in 2017. these thugs, often armed with sticks and pepper spray and other instruments, showed up to silence college republican groups at berkeley. the left was silent. then, in june, 2019, antifa

jumped into the national conversation after journalists andy ngo was brutally attacked in portland. the left was silent. "the wall street journal" ran an op-ed stating, "portland has to do something to deter political violence, or the city will get more of it." of course, the city's feckless leadership has only further encourage antifa's violent antics. as a result, we've seen 61 straight nights of violence in portland. antifa's fascist, totalitarian activities are now losing into other democrat-run cities. last sunday, antifa launched a violent assault on a peaceful pro-police demonstration in denver, colorado. conservative leaders in colorado, including a denver area lawyer and radio talk show host, organized a family-friendly event in honor of law enforcement appreciation day. the atmosphere was peaceful, and a counter protest was given plenty of space to advocate their message. as the afternoon wore on, a

swarm of violent antifa thugs influenced dominic infiltrated the black lives matter counter protesters and began assaulting pro-police americans. these are 20 and 30-year-old suggs assaulting 50, 60, 70, and even 80-year-old americans who only wanted to show their support for law enforcement. what is worse, denver's cowardly liberal leadership ordered police to retreat once they saw members of antifa entering the fray. a denver police detective, nick rogers, apologized for this terrible decision. detective rogers summed it up best in a recent radio interview. "i'm sorry on behalf of the rank and file. that's not us. that's not who we are. it just kills me that we let good people down." he continued, "i found out that a retreat order was given by the commander, and we had one lieutenant step up and say we aren't leaving. this lieutenant said these people are going to get killed if we don't stay, so he kept his

people there. that's the reason this thing didn't get worse." these are sad times in america. free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are both being threatened by violent anarchists, and the best our chairman can do is call antifa a myth. general barr, this has to stop. we can't let antifa continue terrorizing our country. can you please tell us about the appropriate use of civil and criminal rico statutes to address violent criminal groups like antifa? >> in the wake of the beginning of these riots, i asked our joint terrorism task force, the fbi's joint terrorism task forces around the country, to be our principal means of developing evidence and prosecuting violent extremist terrorists who are involved in these activities.

one of the tools, obviously, that we use, is rico, which can be used against an organization. but that doesn't mean we currently have a rico case pending. >> okay. i thank the gentleman. do you have anything you want to say in response to the speeches that have been given by the other side, and that you've been cut off? >> on lafayette -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> can ask for a brief recess? >> madam chair -- >> mr. barr -- >> can ask for a brief recess? 5. >> the committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes.

>> [inaudible] >> melissa: you've been listening to attorney general barr testifying before the house judiciary committee, and there have been fireworks from the start. you will remember this here and got underway a bit late, because chairman nadler, on his way there, was involved in a car accident. as soon as this thing got underway, there were a lot of verbal shots fired from both sides. ag barr, on roger stone, saying he was prosecuted under me. "i said all along he should go to jail. the line prosecute as were advocating for twice what any other person had served." that's part of the testimony there. they have talked a lot about the riots in portland and elsewhere. in fact, republicans at the beginning just played some video of what was going on in portland, and led to the chaos and violence speak for itself. at that point, chairman nadler said they didn't appropriately

ask for that video to be played ahead of time, and objected. we have heard very pointed questions from both sides of the aisle. i want to bring in the rest of the group that is with us today. josh holmes is standing by. as i pull up the exact quote that i thought was very interesting from ag barr at the very beginning, he said, "the threat to black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater then any threat posed by police misconduct. the leading cause of death for young black males as homicide. every year, approximately 7500 black americans are victims of homicide. the vast majority of them, around 90%, are killed by other blacks, mainly by gunfire. each of those lives matter." josh, your reaction to what you've seen so far? >> josh: well, look, i think we are all grateful when we can hear directly from the attorney general and not from sort of the media filter that parses out the

fact that he is referring to. these are all incredibly depressing statistics that are happening across the cities, across america. frankly, you wouldn't be able to read much or hear much about it if it wasn't for hearings like this, where you can hear directly from the attorney general. i thought he has comported himself very well here this morning. it's an incredible mismatch between congressional democrats who are basically forced to just sort of try and shout over him. they are asking questions, but not really. they are more like statements. any time he tries to interject, they basically reclaim their time and don't allow him to speak. i can only imagine that's because what he's about to say would refute most of what their question was. so, i think he has done really well this morning. i think it's an important conversation for the american public to hear about. i obviously wish that the demeanor of some of the members of congress would be a little bit more befitting of the institution that they are representing, but, beyond that, i think this is an important hearing. >> melissa: marie, that's been

really frustrating, as a dinner listener. democrats have asked questions and they don't let him answer. i thought the whole point was to bring a beer to "answer" for a lot of things that have happened , and i want to hear what his response was. why do they think -- why did they not let him answer? >> marie: melissa, unfortunately this is what televised house hearings have become. i've sat through many of these when the obama administration was in office, where the same thing happened to us from the other side. unfortunately, both sides of the aisle play to the cameras in these hearings. that's why closed hearings actually are often much more productive in terms of getting information. i actually would like them to let him answer on some occasions. there are some times i was on the edge of my seat saying, "just hear what he has to say!" so, actually agree with you in many respects. the one issue he has sidestepp sidestepped, on portland, it's

like two different realities here. he keeps talking about the violent rioters, of which there are some, but he hasn't directly answered the photos we have seen of these dhs forces pointing guns at peaceful mothers and veterans protesting. he has tried to focus on one and not the other. >> melissa: yeah. we are going to jump back in here as we listen -- yep, they are back in session. let's listen. >> there is a process in place, and escalation system, with the responsibility to resolve it. how is this elevated to you, the case of roger stone? >> on monday, february 10th, the u.s. attorney was with me, and he raised the issue with me. >> timothy shea? >> yes. >> had it been elevated during the two months between the time the conviction came in under the former u.s. attorney, and the

time that deputy shea started? >> i think he may have had conversations with people -- >> did you have conversations with the former u.s. attorney about this case? about the sentencing? >> i don't recall any discussion about stone. >> timothy shea, you said in the interview that he was new, he had just started. he was new, but he worked for you for a long time, didn't he? >> when i was attorney general 30 years ago, he worked -- >> no, now. just now. >> he was on my staff. >> he advise you on criminal justice policy and law enforcement, right? >> correct. >> you name tim acting u.s. attorney. had you discussed the stone case with him before you named him acting u.s. attorney? >> no. >> did you discuss sentencing with him? >> no. >> just to refresh your recollection, in a prior interview you said he came in the week before, he came in to see some senior staff. >> that's what i said, he may have had discussion with other people and the deputy's office.

i was not involved in those discussions. basically, i didn't -- as far as i can recall, i had no substantive involvement on stone until that monday when he came in in the morning. >> i'm sorry, the week before when he came in to see the senior staff that he had worked with a week before, when he was working -- >> i said i think he had raised it with people in the deputy's office. that is senior staff, is also. >> right, i understand. >> but i was not involved -- >> he started july 31st. the first week he was there, he came to raise this issue. >> i think he started february 1st. >> right, the first week he was there, he came to your office to raise the issue of sentencing. his interview with abc -- >> no, i don't think -- >> that's what you told "abc news." not you, perhaps, but he talked to senior staff. >> i think i speak english, i said that before he came in to see me, i believe he had some conversation -- >> the conversations with senior staff. right, we are saying the same

thing. >> but the first it was raised with me -- >> was on monday. >> was on monday. >> did you talk to the senior staff after they spoke with him? >> i think at the 9:00 meeting they said he was trying to work something out on sentencing and he was optimistic something could be worked out. so, i didn't think of it as an issue until that monday when he told me that the prosecutors -- >> so then he filed sentencing memo, and the sentencing memo called for 7-9 years. it's a policy of the u.s. attorney's office to suggest a specific guideline range, which they did. and then he overruled the line prosecutors and ask for a lower sentence. you give some reasons, he talked about health. health is to be considered only for an extra in a physical impairment. did that apply to roger stone, mr. attorney general? >> actually, i can't review all the information. >> i'm not asking what his health was. but did that apply? >> no.

did what apply? >> his health. was that a reason? >> health is a reason -- >> i know. is that the case for roger stone? for you are asking for a lower sentence? let me go on. >> i stated why it -- >> hold on one second. age can be a consideration. it said only if it creates considerations -- he was 67. >> the judge agreed with me, congressman paid the judge agreed with me. >> i'm not asking you that. >> the judge agreed with me. i know you're not asking me that. >> the issue here is whether roger stone was treated differently because he was friends with the president. when you asked to reduce the sentence, you said enhancements were "technically applicable." mr. attorney general, can you think of any other cases where the defendant threatened to kill a witness, threatened a judge, lied to a judge, where the department of justice claimed that those we are mere technicalities? can you think of you in one? >> the judge agreed -- >> i'm not asking about the

judge, i'm asking about what you did to reduce the sentence of roger stone. >> yes. >> mr. attorney general, he threatens the life of a witness. >> and the witness said he didn't feel threatened. >> do you view that as a technicality, mr. attorney general? >> can answer the question? can i have just a few chickens to answer the question can back >> i'm asking you if there's another -- >> the judge agreed with -- >> you're not answering my question. it's unfortunate. this is exactly what you want. the essence of rule of law is that we have one rule for everybody, and we don't in this case, because he's a friend of the president. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. attorney general, thank you so much for being here with us today. i am a member of this committee, as well as the appropriations committee, and i have been able to see firsthand both the funding and the operation of the

department. additionally, before i was elected to congress, i served on the city council in my hometown of montgomery, alabama. i have witnessed the importance and the value of various justice department grant programs in the resources to state and local government. for example, the alabama fusion center, which is designed to combine information between federal, state, and local government, private sector entities, and the intelligence community, has been a recipient of the federal grants. the alabama fusion center is also responsible for the alabama center for missing and exploited children, and has done a great job and work in combating child exploitation. do you believe that congress is adequately funding programs that provide state and local agencies with the tools that they need to

be effective in preventing and pursuing crimes such as child exploitation and human trafficking, particularly over the internet? >> i think we can always use more resources for that, congresswoman. if i can just have a moment of your time to respond to these questions here that were being asked about the roger stone sentencing, the u.s. attorney came to me and said that the four prosecutors were threatening to resign unless they could recommend 7-9 years. but there was no comparable case to support that. it would have been very disparate to sentence. all the cases were clustered around a 3-year sentence for that. the way they had gotten to the 7-9 was by applying an enhancement. and there are debates all the time within the department of justice about the proper calculations under the guidelines, and whether a particular enhancement applies

or doesn't apply. those are usually worked out and solved. but here, they were saying that they were taking an enhancement that has traditionally been applied to mafioso and things like that, threatening a witness. they were applying it to him because he had a phone call at night where he told a witness that, "if you want to get it on, let's get it on, and i'll take your dog." we felt that, technically, it could apply, but in this case it really didn't reflect the underlying conduct. the overarching requirement at the department of justice is that we do not presume and automatically apply the guidelines. we make individual assessments of the defendant, and what is really just under the case, and nothing that is excessive. these individuals were trying to force the u.s. attorney, who was new in the office, to adopt 7-9. i made the decision, no, we are going to leave it up to the

judge, and later when that was not done that evening i told people we had to go back and correct that the next morning. that is the sequence of events. at the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. the judge said she would not have done it, gone with the first recommendation, because the enhancement artificially inflated the exposure of the defendant. she came out exactly where i had come out. at the end of the day, the question is fairness to the individual. even though i was going to get a lot of criticism, for doing that, i think at the end of the day my obligation is to be fair to the individual. thank you for permitting me -- >> i'm happy to have yielded you time to respond. that being said, mr. attorney general, as i am a departing member of congress and have just a few short moments left, i just want to express to you in the department how

important this issue is that i originally asked you about. it is important to me both as a member of congress representing my constituents in alabama but also as a mother of two beautiful children. i am increasingly alarmed about the way that children are just one click away from being on a website, a forum where a chat room or social media site, where bad actors may be working, and i only have a few short seconds left, so i would just ask you come in the time i have left in congress, that we could continue to work together to combat child exploitation, and human trafficking. i appreciate all the work that you are doing on this. >> absolutely, congresswoman. as you know, one of the most difficult issues coming up is encryption. as this material gets encrypted in the chat rooms and areas

where they groom these young children, once it becomes encrypted it'll be very hard for us to police it. >> thank you so much. i yelled back. >> the gentle lady yields back. ms. bass? >> attorney general barr, when it comes to police engagement, last august when speaking to the national fraternal order of police, you shared your views with the public. you stated, and i quote, "underneath th underscore the nd to reply for us this those who resist must be prosecuted." i repeat, zero tolerance for resisting police. this will save lives." do you stand by this statement? >> i think it's very important. >> a zero tolerance attitude is costing lives, not saving them, especially in communities of color. i reclaim my time. a movement and protests have arisen in response to police brutality. here are a few example of who bears the cost of zero tolerance. elijah mcclain was walking home from a convenience store when he was approached by police.

he had not committed a crime. police held him in a choke hold for 15 minutes. they injected him with ketamine, not under a doctor's supervision, but at the direction of nonmedically trained and unlicensed police officers. are you familiar with that case? >> no. >> do you know how frequently ketamine is used by law enforcement to subdue civilians, especially people of color? >> no. >> did your no, if police have been >> i guess you haven't evaluated the use of force tactics by becoming ag, and especially this particular tactic of subduing suspects with ketamine. >> not with respect to ketamine, no. >> will you commit to directing the department to evaluate the protocols around the use of ketamine, choke hold, and other methods used by federal law enforcement officials when

making arrests or detaining subjects? >> absolutely, under the president's executive order we are reviewing -- >> think you. >> use of force, we are working with police departments. >> especially with ketamine. that is pretty outrageous. >> i look into that. >> george floyd was killed by a police officer be a choke hold for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, a police officer knelt on his neck as he begged for his life. he was suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill. that is how zero-tolerance can amount to a death sentence for black men when used in communities of color. with george floyd screaming, as we all know, that he couldn't breathe. now, consider james holmes, who murdered 12 people and injured 70 others in a movie theater in aurora, colorado. the same town as elijah mclean, where he was arrested. james wore body armor, had a knife, a symbioti semiautomatic, and an ar-15. yet, he was calmly arrested by the same police abutment as elijah mclean without a

choke hold or an injection of kellan dome at ketamine. dylan ruth used a gun to murder nine people and injured another and the episcopal church in south carolina. when he was arrested, no choke hold, no objections. he was treated so well that officers brought him burger king after arresting him. are you familiar with that case? >> yes. >> i raise those two examples to follow up on what might colleague from texas highlighted earlier, that that the permit is not doing enough to address issues of racism, bias, and brutality in law enforcement. when someone who commits a mass murderer is, he arrested and served burger king while young man walking down the street is placed in a choke hold and injected with ketamine, and then dies. he said that, under the executive order, the administration is looking at choke hold. what have you determined so far?

>> well, we are setting up a system of certification of police departments, and part of what our charter is is to come up with criteria that will be used for certification, including limitations on use of force, specifically including st sent policing act, part of it called for a national registry of law enforcement officers as a resource for police chiefs to determine who the best candidates are for jobs. as you may or may not be aware, tamir rice might be alive today if the police chief who hired him had known that that police officer had been fired from another department. what is your view of a national registry of law enforcement officers? >> the second aspect of the president's executive order is to set up a database like that, so that all determinations of excessive force around the country go into that database.