surveillance technique isn't just about the people, you know, in front of the courthouse. when a husband and wife call each other and one of the spouses has a cellphone that's within range of one of these technologies, not only the location but the actual content of that couple's conversation can be scooped up using this technology. so this really isn't just about the demonstrators. this is about the privacy of all americans and it's all being violated for the president's political purposes of trying to create a scene, create a reason, divert attention from the covid failings. i think it's really [ inaudible ] unfortunate and disservice to the american people. mr. chairman, my time has fired. >> point of order. >> the gentlelady yields back.

>> could you ask those members to choose not to come to work to silence their -- >> that is not a point of order. i now recognize -- >> mr. attorney general, would it be accurate to say it is this administration's responsibility, and of course you're part of the administration, to see that the federal laws are upheld and that the federal property is secure and safe and protected, is that right? >> that's correct, congressman. they're sort of distinct missions. one mission is 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 protecting federal property. and specifically u.s. courthouses, which are the heart of federal property in all 93 jurisdictions in the united states. and 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 prettyman court here, that beautiful court at the bottom of the hill and started breaking windows and firing industrial grade fireworks in to start a fire, throw kerosene balloons in and start 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're not out looking for trouble. >> thank you, general. and as far as weapons and devise utilized by the group of people, and 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. >> so as far as the weapons that you mentioned, let me get this straight, my understanding is that the people attacking the building had among other things rifles, explosive, knives, saws, sledgehammers, tasers, slings t slingshots, rocks, bricks, lasers. have i missed anything? >> you have missed some things but that's a good list. they have these powerful sling shots with ball bearings that they shoot, they've used pellet guns. we believe we've found those projectiles have penetrated marshals to the bone. and 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 to deal with the fire, they're 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 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 don't -- 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 and just physically assault the courthouse. in port lanland, that's not the case. >> general, some have derisively referred to these law enforcement personnel as storm troopers and worse. does that accurately describe them? would you like to set the record straight? >> no, they're obviously not

storm troopers. normally we would have a group of deputy marshals in a court who would be in business suits and ties or regular civilian dress. those would be the deputy marshals as the protective force for the court. but after almost a month of rioting in portland, we sent in, fourth of july time frame, we sent in about 20 special operations marshals, uh, and those are tactical teams that are -- you know, are padded and protected so they can deal with this kind of thing. up until last week, i was told we had our storm trooper from the department of justice amounted to 29 marshals in the courthouse, 29 marshals. as of -- until recently increased, i think there were 95, i was told, 95 dhs federal protective service and other dhs officers trying to protect the courthouse and three other

buildings. that's what we're trying to do, we're trying to protect federal functions and federal buildings which are a 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, general. my time has expired. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee. >> mr. chairman, before i begin, i would like to submit into the record a picture of lewis and clark. john lewis in 1963 said we're tired of being beat by police, we're tired of being put in jail, we want our freedom now. mr. attorney general, in your remarks you indicated that we made great progress since that time. and you indicated that 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 parent's 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, ahmaud arbery, michael brown, sean 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. and so i ask you this question. does the trump justice department seek to end systemic racism and racism in law enforcement? i just need a yes-or-no answer.

>> to the extent there is racism in any of our institutions in this country and the police, then obviously this administration will fully enforce the -- >> so you agree there may be systemic racism? >> where? >> let me continue my line of questioning. >> i don't agree there's systemic racism in the police department general department. generally in this country. >> reclaiming my time, do you understand the violent impact of racial profiling and do you support the racial and religious profiling in the george floyd bill including the removal of qualified immunity which would leave individuals like breonna taylor and george floyd without any relief at all? >> i'm opposed to eliminating qualified immunity and i don't agree it would leave the victims of police misconduct -- >> let me share with you -- >> -- without any remedy -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. let me share with you some aspects of profiling. after the death of george floyd

found that while black people make up 9% of its police, they are on the receiving end of 58% of the police use of force incidents. we've seen that black men are twice as likely to be stopped and searched, hispanic drivers 65% to receive a ticket, and native americans in arizona three times more likely to search and be stopped. let me ask you the questions of how we respond to that. the justice department has many tools at its disposal to reduce police violence, a practice to end bad policing and police violence. it addresses police violence at an institutional level rather than just focuses on acute cases. if you understand that, then why has your department only pursued one pattern or practice investigation since president trump took office that could stop systemic racism? >> the -- if you read my

statement or listened to my statement, i did specifically acknowledge that, uh, there was a difficulty in this country, uh, with the african-american community -- >> mr. attorney general, i have a short time. can you tell me why you have not done a 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 betraying of police, uh, and i think the police believe that that's the response. i was talking to a black -- >> then let me continue, mr. attorney general, i want to respect you but i have a short time. you -- for example, 18 usc section 242 which makes unlawful the denial of rights under the color of law. in 2020 federal prosecutors filed only 242 charges in just 27 cases in the trump doj, and were you aware that in fy 2019

federal prosecutors brought charges in just 49 cases in the united states, and are you aware of how many cases we've 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? >> yeah. yes, i do. i will get to the numbers on it. i don't know them off the top of my head. but our prosecutions are extremely strong and comparable to if not exceeding prior administrations. at the beginning of this year, very few jurisdictions had grand juries that were open. >> i think the reason is because it was really skinny, it was not your focus, your focus was to let out friends like roger stone and paul manafort while tamir

rice who was playing with a toy gun was killed by police, rayshard brooks, 27, was killed for sleeping in his car in a wendy's parking lot and 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 the doj would focus on systemic institutional racism because there is good policing. that's what we're trying to do in the justice and judiciary committee and that's what we need you to join us on, mr. attorney general, and to recognize that institutional racism does exist and 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. >> the gentlelady yields back. mr. gohmert. >> attorney general barr, we've been hearing about these peaceful protests in major cities around the country controlled by democratic mayors and city councils. you've 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 by a federal hard core of instigators, violent instigators. and they've 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 some seem more interested in defending the chinese communist party than they are our own country. but, uh, what occurred to me, hearing this allegation about this administration helping spread covid, uh, would it be a good idea, then, perhaps, if that's the big 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 conversation? >> no, i've never considered that. >> well, it would apparently stop some of the allegations being thrown here. uh, now, i know you know

history, uh, going back to 1917, the bolshevik revolution, the mao revolution. some of these tactics we're seeing are not new, trying to get -- even david ha horowitz, introduced as a former socialist, he said, no, i was a full-blown communist. 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're familiar with that tactic by marxists, are you not? >> yes. >> it is a dangerous time. 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 he seems to have had the view that because he was court-appointed and there is a provision in law for court appointment of a u.s. attorney as essentially a placeholder until the administration gets somebody, that he felt he could not be removed by the president because he was court-appointed, and that's 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 owe their existence to the u.s. congress. hopefully mr. berman will figure that out at some point. is bruce orr still working for the fbi? >> he works for the department

of justice. >> we have heard so much information about his basically being the go-between between the dnc, clinton campaign, fusion gps, christopher steele, the russian propaganda incorporated into his dossier. i know klein smith, christopher wray indicated he had been given the chance to resign, go get a better job. i'm wondering how long bruce orr is going to be staying where he is. it's incredible to me that he's still there. >> i can't talk about individual personnel matters. >> well, thank you for your service. i'm sorry for the abuse you've 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 five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. barr, i'm the chairman of the subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties so this is a most pertinent hearing for me. firstly i would like to ask if you will work with us and allow the head of the civil rights division, isn't attorney general eric dryband, to testify before this committee this fall. >> i'll talk to him about it. >> will you encourage him? >> i'll talk to him about it. >> all right. i closely watched actions taken by the federal government in lafayette park in june and currently in portland, oregon. according to a doj document dated june 4 received by this committee, 1,500 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 our nation's capital, on the first day of june the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the

administration and with you present and telling them to "get it done," used force to clear lafayette park so that 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 is anathema to the bishop of the diocese and the director of the church. it was an affront to the constitution and the american people. given the timing and the coordinated attack against the peaceful demonstrators, it strains credulity that this was not planned for use for political purposes. just yesterday, major dimarco testified to another committee of congress that the protesters were peaceful and that's what the majority of people have said and the response was excessive. when did you first learn that the president planned to walk through the park and go to st. john's church? >> first i would like to respond to -- >> 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 for his -- >> that had nothing to do with that. the plan to -- >> mr. attorney general, it was necessary that the park be cleared and it was done and you said get it done. i have the time, thank you. in portland, we've seen mothers and we've seen veterans who were peacefully protesting, not threatening the federal courthouse, beaten and gassed, unidentified armed federal agents violently attack demonstrators in a violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly, and arrested citizens in a violation of the fourth amendment's protections against unlawful seizure. and the tenth amendment which leaves general policing and law enforcement to the states has been forgotten. maybe what happened was 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, quote, summary, unquote, of his report. it was issued about a month before you released 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. and federal judge reggie walton, appointed by george w. bush, declared in a ruling that your summary was, quote, distorted, unquote, and misleading, unquote, and that the court could not trust you. further, judge walton stated your report was, quote, a calculated attempt to influence public disclosure of the mueller report in favor of president trump, unquote. this commit 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 generals work with this judiciary committee to see that the american public and that the judiciary committee had unredacted copies of this report. you have not, you have gone to court to stall it. this report needs to be given to this committee. and michael cohen, you've treated him differently than michael flynn and roger stone. and michael flynn, you've attempted to dismiss the charges even after he twice pled guilty. roger stone, you went further. john lewis said to us, if not me, if not now, when. that's why i introduced h.res. 1032 to 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 -- >> the chair recognizes -- >> i seek recognition for unanimous consent requests. >> yes. >> thank you. i would like to introduce a slate article which describes the racial history of the state and portland police bureau and mary mccord who writes her words were twisted to justify the department's disingenuous position to drop charges against michael flynn after he had already pled guilty. an op-ed describing the political interference in the roger stone case and why he resigned from the department of justice. a statement from over 2,600 former doj officials 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 encouraging inquiries into a pattern of behavior by attorney general barr that frustrates administration of justice.

finally, a letter from prominent attorneys and law proffessors calling for an ethics investigation, last but not least, a letter from over 80% of the george washington university law school faculty, your alma mater, saying his actions continue to create a clear and present danger to the evenhanded administration of justice, civil liberties, and the constitution. >> okay. without objection. >> madam chair, one more unanimous consent request on this side. this is the article that says representative jerry nadler says antifa violence in portland is a myth. that's from politico and another -- >> without objection. mr. collins is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. welcome, attorney general barr. wow, i'm beginning to believe frankly you're probably -- this hasn't come out yet, you're probably the cause of the common cold and, uh, you know, and possibly even the covid-19, i'm not sure at this point because everything is being thrown at you including now your alma mater doesn't like you anymore.

the chairman said something earlier today that really made me think, he said, why all the drama. that's the most ironic statement coming from this committee in the last 18 months that i've ever heard of, the drama we're bringing up today, we're seeming to just contort ourselves to get to some way to show that you have a nefarious motive. i believe the biggest problem you have is telling the truth, i believe that's the problem they have, you'll tell the truth and take the responsibility for your actions and i think that's why you're being attacked. but i want to continue just on this, quote, peaceful protest for a second. you commented just a second ago, the courthouse is just down the street, what if they decided -- 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 this side would, this other side, i'm not so sure, it may be the peaceful protest to burn down the capitol, maybe we're back to 1812 again. the other question i have, you've heard it earlier today, the storm trooper comments by the speaker of the house, we

know that is a direct reference to the paramilitary wing to the nazi party, do you believe that puts our law enforcement community, as the son of a state trooper i want to know your opinion, don't you think it encourages the violence we're seeing, it encourages the participation against the police? >> i think that's possible. and i think it's irresponsible to call these federal law enforcement officers storm troopers. >> and we're seeing that thing played out over and over. let's switch back to something else, though, that is i think more relevant here. we've talked about the investigations and especially flynn. do you believe there was a basis to go after general flynn? i mean, what we've seen so far, what's been released, keeping an investigation open, peter strzok kept it open. do you think there was a basis for 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 in 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 been provided to the court that in fact there was no basis to investigate flynn. and 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 is another part of this as well that concerns what has been given to the courts and the interviews and that is the facts were not disclosed to flynn prior to the interview. that seems like a brady violation to me. >> 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 a lie. >> so it was entrapment. >> and therefore there was not a -- the interview was untethered to any legitimate investigation. >> so as the law enforcement officer of this country, it is

your obligation to provide law enforcement for both sides. continuing the durham case, we're not talking specifically about the durham investigators which we're hopeful of, we're seeing documents in the last week or two, has -- it's been slow and -- >> i can't get into that. >> i understand that. i have another issue as we finish up in looking at this, between the rhetoric, between the investigation, i think durham investigation is something most of us have waited for because we can't seem to get this committee to believe that the ig's report is worth having something about this committee and there's not a democrat or a republican on this side that can make a legitimate claim why the inspector general has not been called before this committee to explain his report except politics and that's what this committee has become all along but i have another problem and i've talked to you, i've written to you about this, that's with the district attorney in fulton county, georgia, actually making

felony murder charges on an officer and the interesting part of this is this is what prosecutors do but are you aware that the district attorney waited for a gbi investigation to finish before bringing those charges, are you aware of that? >> yes, i was. >> in the environment we have now, with police officers constantly under attack from this committee and others all over the country, especially from the speaker of the house, as an attorney, as a prosecutor, do you think it's appropriate to charge a law enforcement order with a crime as severe as felony murder without obtaining an indictment from the grand jury and while 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 and with that i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. johnson from georgia.

>> thank you. attorney general, 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. 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. >> 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 seven to nine years in prison, a few hours later president trump tweeted that the sentence

recommendation was, quote, a disgrace? you're aware of that? >> yes. >> and general barr, several hours after that, you filed a pleading with the court stating that the sentence recommendation would be changed and that you would be asking for a lighter sentence for roger stone; isn't that correct? >> no. what is correct is that -- >> well -- >> what is correct is that on february 10, monday -- >> no, no. reclaiming my time. >> i'm answering your question. >> you have to let him answer. >> reclaiming my time, you filed a sentencing recommendation hours after president trump tweeted his dissatisfaction with the stone recommendation. and you changed that recommendation. >> no, i -- the night before, the night before, that is, monday night -- >> i know your story. but i'm asking -- >> i'm telling my story. that's what i'm here to do. that's why i'm here. >> you're here to answer my question. >> i'm here to tell my story.

>> i couldn't answer you didn't question. reclaiming my time, sir, i know you don't want to answer, but the facts are clear. sentencing recommendation made in the morning. tweet in the afternoon. you changed the sentencing recommendation that -- >> the tweet was not in the afternoon. the tweet was made i think at 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning. >> the tweet was made before and after, tweeted about that relentlessly, and you've agreed to that. now, when you filed your sentencing recommendation asking for a lower sentence -- >> i didn't ask for a lower sentence. >> 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 guidelines calculations? >> it was within the guidelines but it was not within justice department policy in my view.

>> general barr, you're 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 was not discussed my sentencing recommendation with anyone at the white house or -- >> the president -- >> or anyone outside the -- >> you did what the president wanted you to do and that's what you did. >> no. let me ask you, do you think it's fair, do you think it is fair for a 67-year-old man -- >> reclaiming my time. it was in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. >> no, it was not. >> you just said that it was. and your line prosecutors will testify it was also. i'm going to move on from that. >> the department -- >> your time as attorney general -- >> it is not the department's -- >> you never changed the sentencing recommendation for a

friend of herbert walker bush, did you? >> no, as i recall -- >> all right. the answer is no. and over the course of your time -- >> nothing was he ever elevated to me. >> he ever tover the course of tenure with trump, you've changed two sentencing recommendations, not one but two? >> which were they? >> michael flynn. >> i didn't change it. >> well, you said -- well, you indicated that -- you changed it because the original flynn sentencing recommendation was for flynn to serve zero to six months. but 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 seeking prison time for michael flynn. isn't that correct?

>> i don't think that's what it said. >> that's what it said, sir. go back and read it. >> i think both -- i think both pleadings -- >> reclaiming my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam chair? you can give a speech or you can ask questions. if you do the later, you need to let the witness answer the questions. that's the chair's obligation and responsibility to allow that to happen. >> mr. buck is recognized for five minutes. >> attorney general barr, thank you for appearing before the committee today. general barr, there is a disturbing pattern we've seen throughout history with totalitarian systems of government. the leaders first seek to disarm the population, then they encourage goon squads to suppress opposing voices and finally, once they have disarmed and silenced opposition they crush freedom in every form. unfortunately the american left has been infected with this same totalitarian desire to remove

firearms and silence opposing views as part of a campaign to achieve its political ends. we've seen this scenario play out in every major democrat-run city in america, to push law abiding americans to affirm their influence. we saw a failed presidential candidate, beto o'rourke, tell americans, hell yes, we're going to take your ak-47. now the american left is cheering as the fascist antifa rages in the streets. antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that attacks peaceful protesters, burns buildings, lots stores, and spreads hate. reports of antifa-linked attacks began circulating in 2017. these thugs, often armed with sticks, pepper spray and other instruments, showed up to silence college republican group at berkeley. the left was silent.

then in june 2019, antifa jumped into the national conversation after journalist andy noe was brutally attacked in portland. no arrests were made. the left was silent. one year ago today "the wall street journal" ran an op-ed saying, portland has to do something about violence or the city will get more of it. of course the city's feckless leadership has only encouraged antifa's antics. as a result we've seen 61 straight nights of violence in portland. antifa's fascist, totalitarian activities are oozing into other democrat-run cities. last sunday they launched a violent assault on a peaceful pro-police demonstration in denver, colorado. a denver area lawyer and talk show host organized a family-friendly event in honor of law enforcement appreciation day. the atmosphere was peaceful and

counterprotesters were given plenty of space to advocate their message. as the afternoon wore on, antifa thugs infiltrated peaceful black lives matter protesters and began assaulting pro-police americans. these are 20 and 30-year-old thugs assaulting 60, 70, 80-year-old americans who only wanted to show their support for law enforcement. what's worse, denver's cowardly liberal leadership ordered police to retreat once they saw members of antifa entering the fray. a denver police detective, nick rodgers, apologized for this terrible decision. detective rodgers summed it up best in a recent radio interview, quote, i'm sorry on behalf of the rank and file, that's not us, that's not who we are, it just kills me we let good people down. he continued, found out a retreat order was given by the incident commander and we had one lieutenant step up and say, we aren't leading. 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, end of quote. these are sad times in america. free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are 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 statues 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 were involved in these activities and one of the tools obviously we would use is rico, which can be used against an organization. that doesn't mean that we currently have a rico case pending. >> okay. i thank the gentleman. and do you have anything you want to say in response to these speeches that have been given by the other side and then you've been cut off? >> on lafayette, on lafayette -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> can i ask for a brief recess? >> madam chair, the witness would like a break. >> mr. barr, ten minutes? >> five. >> okay. the committee will stand in recess for five minutes. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. you have been watching a

contentious hearing. democrats on the house judiciary committee trying to grill attorney general bill barr after more than a year of his refusing to appear before them on big issues like his characterization, they say inaccurate, of the russia probe, the mueller probe, his order of federal agents into portland and lafayette square and whether he's independent of political influence from president trump, after ranking republican jim jordan showed a graphic, selectively edited nearly eight-minute montage of protests around the country which he claimed were anything but peaceful including sound bites from democrats biden and obama, clearly very political and highly edited. our team is in place, msnbc's garrett haake on capitol hill, former federal prosecutor and house intelligence committee council daniel goldman, former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, maya wiley, former assistant u.s. attorney and chairwoman of new york city's civilian complaint

review board, and matt miller, former assistant toer ri er rii. an all-star cast. a lot of criticism, garrett haake, of the democratic questioning being nonwe wenot w organized. >> reporter: these hearings tend to generate more heat than light. this is not how you get in-depth oversight. in a five-minute increment you get maybe one or two questions answered or an opportunity to make your point. and no committee in either house of congress, no matter who is in charge of it at any given time, this is not a partisan statement, is more political than the judiciary committee. it's just the way that congress works. so you do see more of an emphasis being placed sometimes on making points than on eliciting information. to that end we've seen a focus on the democratic side, it's been somewhat scattered, going across a number of different issues. on the republican side, the focus is pretty clear here, it's

showing what -- in the way they paint it, as though antifa is out burning down every american city and that that is probably the largest single threat to american democracy right now. they are at least sort of somewhat united around an image they are trying to present here of american cities under attack and bill barr and the justice department defending them. we'll see if in this short break perhaps things get a little bit more organized and we see more of an effort to follow up on any of these individual threads that are being pulled from time to time by democratic lawmakers. >> pete williams, who covers the justice department, of course, a lot of partisanship at congressional hearings, but this is one of the most political that i've seen on both sides. >> reporter: i don't know, andrea, they always tend to be a little bit this way. i think this is my eighth or ninth attorney general -- >> let me just say, let me just say, pete, that presenting -- for jim jordan, the ranking

republican, to present that video when the committee rules are there should be 48 hours of warning and the selective editing of that video with former vice president biden, president obama, susan rice, and others, all talking about peaceful protests out of context and then showing the most violent viral video that anyone has seen all in one seven-minute and 44-second spurt was pretty extraordinary. >> reporter: yeah, the republicans are focusing a lot on the mueller investigation as we expected them to. the democrats are focusing in on what we expected them to. the point where there's the largest disagreement that i've seen is on the federal presence in portland. what the democrats are saying is, this is the president's wanting to use deployment i force to build an election case that democrats are not protecting cities and you need republicans to maintain order.

what barr is saying is that the federal force was sent there to defend and protect the courthouse and that there is a nightly -- it's not the peaceful protests that they're concerned about, it's the nightly violent attacks on the courthouse and on federal agents. and he said for the first time here today that three agents were injured over the weekend and may have been blinded by the use of lasers. so i think that's where the largest focus has been. and i think, andrea, it's been frustrating for everybody that they haven't allowed a better exchange on the use of force at lafayette square, because there's a lot of unanswered questions about that. and i think that's where the frustration, that the questions haven't had much of a give and take, we really haven't learned anything there. >> we're going to go back to the hearing. the attorney general is back in the chair. democrats are picking up the questions. >> the conviction came in under

the former u.s. attorney, and the time that timothy shea started? >> i think shea may have had conversation with people. >> did you ever have conversations with the former u.s. attorney about this case? about the sentencing of stone? >> i don't recall any discussion about stone. >> right. so timothy shea, you've 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? >> yes. >> what was his job for you? >> when i was attorney general 30 years ago -- >> no, now, just now. >> he was on my staff. >> he advised you on criminal justice policy and law enforcement, right? >> correct. >> and you named him 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? >> not before. >> it wasn't monday, actually, just to rush your recollection, you said he came in the week before, he came in to see some senior staff. >> that's what i said, he may

have -- he may have had discussions with people in 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 in stone until that monday when he came in in the morning. >> i'm sorry, mr. attorney general, the week before, when he came in to see the senior staff that he had worked with the week before when he was working -- >> no, i said he think he had raised it with people in the deputy's office, that's senior staff too. >> right, i understand. >> but i was not involved -- >> he started on july 31. the first week he was there, he came to raise this issue. >> i think he started february 1. >> right. the first week he was there, he came into your office to raise the issue of sentencing. in the interview with abc, you said -- >> no, i don't think he -- >> that's what you told abc news. you said that he talked to senior staff, not you, perhaps, but he talked to senior staff. >> i don't know what -- you know, i think i speak english. i said that before he came in to see me, i believe he had some

conversation -- >> conversations with senior staff, that's right, before he came to see you. we're saying the same thing. >> the first it was raised with me -- >> was on monday. >> was on monday. >> did you talk with senior staff before you talked to him? >> i think at a 9:00 meeting they said that, uh, he was trying to work something out on sentencing are and he was actually optimistic that something could be worked out. so i didn't think of it as an issue until that monday when he told me that -- >> right, so then -- >> -- prosecutors -- >> so then he filed the sentencing memo and the sentencing memo called for seven to nine years. it's the policy of the u.s. attorney's office to suggest a specific guideline range which they did. and then you overruled the line prosecutors and asked for a lower sentence. and you gave some reasons. you talked about health. health is to be considered only for an extraordinary physical impairment. did that apply to roger stone, mr. attorney general? that's what the guidelines say. >> actually i can't -- you know, i can't reveal all -- >> i'm not asking what his health was. but did that apply? >> no.

>> okay. and -- >> did what apply? >> his health. >> health is a reason -- >> i know. is that the reason for roger stone? that you were asking for a lower sentence. let me go on. >> i stated why i -- >> hold on a second. age can be a consideration, it says, only if it creates conditions that are of an unusual degree and distinguish the case from typical cases. he was 67, is that right? >> the judge agreed with me, congressman. >> i'm not asking you that. >> i know you're not asking it. i'm saying. >> the issue is whether roger stone was treated differently because he was friends with the president. when you asked to reduce the sentence, 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 were mere technicalities? can you think of even one?

>> the judge agreed with our -- >> can you think -- i'm not asking about the judge. i'm asking about what you did to reduce the sentence of roger stone. can you think -- mr. attorney general, he threatened the life ofwitness. >> and the witness -- >> you used that as a technicality. is there -- >> can i answer the question? can i have a few seconds to answer? >> sure. i'm asking if there's another time -- >> in this case, the judge agreed -- >> you won't answer my question. and it's unfortunate and the appearance is that, as you said earlier, 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's. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> mr. attorney general, thank you so much for being here with us today. i am a member of both this committee as well as the appropriations committee, and i've 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. and i witnessed the importance and the value of various justice department grant programs and the resources to state and local governments. 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 these federal grants. and the alabama fusion center is also responsible for the alabama center for missing and exploited children and has done a great job in 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. but if i could just have a moment of your time to respond to these questions here -- >> sure. >> -- that we're being asked about the roger stone sentencing. the u.s. attorney came to me and said that the four aligned prosecutors were threatening to resign unless they could recommend 7 to 9 years. but there was no comparable case to support that. it would have been very disparate sentence. all the cases were clustered around three-year sentence for that. and the way they had gotten to the 7 to 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 welcome a particular enhancement applies or doesn't apply. and those are usually worked out or solved. but here they were saying that they were taking an enhancement that's traditionally been applied to famioso and things like that, because he had a phone call at night where he told a witness if you want to get it on, let's get it on, and i'll take your dog. and we felt that that technically could apply but in this case, it didn't really reflect the underlying conduct and the overarching requirement at the department of justice is that we do not presume an 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 and these individuals were trying to force the u.s. attorney who was new in the office to adopt seven to nine. and 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. so that's the sequence of events. but the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. the judge said she would not have gone along with the first recommendation because the enhancement artificially inflated the exposure of the defendant. and she came out exactly where i had come out. at the end of the day, the question is fairness to the individual and even though i was going to get a lot of criticism, at the end of the -- 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 and the

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

they groom these young children, once it becomes encrypted, it will be very hard for us to police it. >> right. thank you so much. i yield back. thank you. >> the gentle lady yields back. ms. bass. >> attorney general barr, when it comes to police engagement accident last august when speaking to the national fraternal order of police you shared your views on police engagement with the public you stated, underscore the need to comply first and if warranted complain later. this will make everyone safe. the police, suspects and the community at large. and those who resist must be prosecuted. i repeat, zero tolerance for resisting police. this will save lives. do you stand by that? >> yes, i think it's very important that -- >> a zero tolerance attitude is costing lives, not saving them, especially in communities of -- >> i'm not saying that -- >> i reclaim my time. here are a few examples 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 choeld for 15 minutes. then injected him with catamene, 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 it's used by law enforcement to subdue civilians, especially people of color? >> no. >> did you know if police departments have been documented as directing paramedics and emts to inject ketamine during arrests? >> no. >> have you -- well, then, i guess you haven't evaluated the use of force tactics by -- since 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, chokeholds 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 -- >> thank you. and especially -- >> use of force and working with police departments. >> especially the ketamine. that's pretty outrageous. george floyd was killed by a police officer via a chokehold. for 8:46, a police officer knelt on his neck as he begged for his life. he was suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill. that's 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, he couldn't breathe. now consider james holms who murdered 12 people and injured 70 others in a movie theater in aurora, colorado. the same town as elijah mcclain, where he was arrested. james wore body armor, had a knife, semiautomatic weapons and an ar-15. yet he was calmly arrested by the same police department as

elijah mcclain without a chokehold or an injection of ketamine. dylann roof used a gun to murder nine people and injured another at emmanuel african meth dift episcopal church. when he arrested, no chokeholds, no injections. he was treated so well that officers brought dylann roof burger king after arresting him. are you familiar with that case? >> yes. >> i raise those two examples to follow up on what my colleague from texas highlighted earlier that the department is not doing enough to address issues of racism, bias and brutality in law enforcement. when someone who commits mass murder is calmly arrested and served burger king while a young man walking down the street is placed in a chokehold and injected with ketamine, then di dies. you said that under the executive order, the administration is looking at

chokeholds. what have you determined so far? >> well, we're setting up the 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 chokeholds. >> so in the george floyd justice and policing act, part of it called for a registry of law enforcement officers as a resource for police chiefs to determine who are the best candidates for jobs. as you may or may not be aware, tamir rice might be alive today if police -- if the police chief who hired him had known 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