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 around the country go into that database

and if police departments aren't reporting that information, they wouldn't be certified. so we do believe in one national point where you can go in and get determinations of excessive force on law enforcement candidates for jobs. >> good. thank you. and i do want to comment on part of your opening statement when you were saying that after the jim crow period that our justice system was equal. and i don't believe that -- >> i said the laws were made equal. >> the laws are made equal. they are not applied equally. we do have systemic problems in our law enforcement system, our criminal justice system on every level. the fact of the matter is 2.3 million people in the united states are incarcerated. we incarcerate 24% of the world's prisoners. 34% are black while african-americans are just 13% of the u.s. population. so justice is still not equal, nor are our laws, and i think when we look at how many people

are incarcerated or how many people are killed it is not the numbers. it is the percentage to the percentage of that group in the u.s. population. i yield back my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. gates? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, you've described the prosecution of roger stone as righteous. that's clearly something that the president and i disagree with you on. i would suggest that perhaps the prosecution of andrew mccabe who lied four times, thrice under penalty of perjury would be more righteous. uncovering the criminal conspiracy that existed where people in our own government were trying to convince intelligence agents and operatives around the world to destabilize our elections and discredit our president would perhaps be more righteous. but as we sit here today, i don't think that mr. stone or mr. mccabe or any of those other folks are killing anyone or burning down our buildings.

and so i'd like to focus our effort on the most acute need i believe our country has. you've recently said that you believe in antifato be a terrorist organization. what's your basis for that belief? >> i'm not sure i said terrorist organization. i said we're investigating it as domestic terrorism, but antifa, there are a number of violent extreme groups in the united states and across the spectrum. antifa is heavily represented in the recent riots. that's not to say they're the only group involved. and they have been identified as involved in a number of the violent mob actions that have taken place around the country. >> mr. attorney general, i saw the chairman of the judiciary committee recently say that antifais a myth. that their involvement in this violence isn't something that is real.

what's your reaction to the chairman? >> i don't think it's a myth. antifa is -- can be best thought of as a umbrella term for what is essentially a movement comprised of loosely organized groups around the country. and some of these -- some areas of the country there are a number of groups and centers of activity. the groups, as i say, are loosely organized but they're definitely organized. but as -- since they have an anarchic temperature. they tend to get organized for an event, and there's a lot of organization right before an event occurs, but we see a lot of the organization during the mob violence. >> and that is a really important distinction when determining how to apply

particularly our rico laws to an organization like this. if antifa is merely something that inspires people to go out and commit violence, that strikes me as legally distinct from antifa being an organizing influence to assist people in committeeing crimes. one question i get from my constituents as they watch the death and violence and disruption and chaos in seattle and in portland and in other places is whether or not there's a risk that that could metastasize to other areas of the country. have you given consideration to the risk that might befall other american communities if the department of justice were not to take action to protect and preserve federal property in places like portland? >> yes, absolutely. we are concerned about this problem metastasizing around the country. and so we feel that we have to, in a place like portland, even where we don't have the support of the state -- the local

government. we have to take a stand and defend this federal property. we can't get to a level where we're going to accept these kinds of violent attacks on federal courts. >> and if you did what my democrat colleagues were asking, if you merely abandon that federal property, allowed it to be overrun, allow the people inside to be harmed, is it your view then that antifaand other violent people engaged in these acts would simply stop and accept that as their sole victory or is it your expert opinion, having dealt with a number of law enforcement and criminal cases in your legal career that they wouldn't stop. that they'd go to the next town, to the next community and inspire more violence? >> there's no doubt in my mind it would spread. >> and what comfort can you give americans in my district and around the country that you will stop this. that you will stop the burning and destruction of federal property and that you will give confidence to regular americans that they can go out on the streets without the risk of this

terrorism? >> well, as you can see in portland, we have a relatively small number of federal officers who have been withstanding this for almost two months. it's a great strain, but we cannot just stand aside and allow the federal court to be destroyed. >> thank you for your service and for your great work. i yield back. >> mr. richmond? >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr, you started your testimony with eloquent words about the life and legacy of john lewis fighting systematic racism. voter intimidation. civil rights. the one thing that you have in common with your two predecessors, both attorney general sessions and attorney general whitaker is that when you all came here and brought your top staff, you brought no black people. that, sir, is systematic racism. that is exactly what john lewis spent his life fighting. and so i would just suggest that actions speak louder than words,

and you really should keep the name of the honorable john lewis out of the department of justice's mouth. let me also say, you mentioned bogus russiagate. in your opinion, as the attorney general of the united states of america, did russia interfere or attempt to interfere in the 2016 election? >> yes. >> in your position as attorney general of the united states, is russia attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election? >> i think we have to assume that they are. >> thank you, sir. now let's talk about the integrity of the election which is also something congressman lewis fought for. jared kushner implied the president could move the election date. can a sitting u.s. president move an election date? >> actually, i haven't looked into that question under the constitution. >> well, 2 u.s. code section 7

says federal election day is the tuesday after the first monday in november. so if you take that as correct statute, is there any executive action by a president -- >> i've never been asked the question before. i've never looked into it. >> as attorney general of the united states, do you believe that this 2020 presidential election will be rigged? >> i have no reason to think it will be. >> president trump tweeted that the election will be rigged, but he also tweeted that when he was losing to hillary clinton and he tweeted that the day after fox showed he was losing to trump. but i don't want to be too political. do you believe as the attorney general of the united states that mail-in voting will lead to massive voter fraud. >> i think there's a high risk that it will. >> do you ever vote by mail-in ballot? >> apparently i did once at least. >> but you believe that other people voting by mail could lead

to massive fraud. >> no, what i've talked about and made very clear is that i'm not talking about accommodations to people who have to be out of the state or have some particular need not to -- inability to go and vote. what i'm talking about is the wholesale conversion of election to mail-in voting. >> you do understand that african-americans disproportionately do not survive covid-19 coronavirus. you are aware of that. >> i didn't hear the question. >> you are aware that african-americans, black people, disproportionately die from covid-19 coronavirus, correct? >> yes, i think that's right. >> and not that it would be the first time that african-americans would risk their lives to vote in this country to preserve its democracy, but the suggestion is that them having the ability to vote by mail would somehow lead to massive voter fraud. but i won't stick to that. >> i didn't say that.

i stated i think what is a reality which is that if you have wholesale mail-in voting, it substantially increases the risk of fraud. >> but it doesn't make it likely. >> that's all i said. >> i also saw on tv that the president said he's not sure that he'll accept the election results. can a president just protest because he lost an election? >> protest in what sense? >> can he contest an election just because he simply loses? >> gore vs. -- bush v. gore. >> i think that was over a slim voter margin. i'm talking about if it is very clear that the president has lost an election, does he have a remedy to contest the election? >> not that i'm aware of. >> let me go back to what representative bass mentioned. you mentioned a number that there were eight african-americans killed by the police and 11 white people killed by the police. >> so far this year. >> if you use those numbers, that's 85% of that population is

white. 15% of that population is black. but if you actually look at the deaths according to the numbers you just gave, 42% of the deaths are african-american and 58% are white. that is a glaring disparity in terms of population. and i just give you those numbers. >> well, not necessarily because i have to adjust it by the race of the criminal perpetrator. >> i just did that for you. i'm using your numbers and according to your numbers, african-americans are four or five times more likely than their percentage of the population to be killed by police than -- >> the actual -- >> i just want to give you that based on your numbers. >> the studies i've seen have suggested two things. one that, in fact, police are less likely to shoot at a black suspect, a little bit more likely to shoot at white.

however, that police are more inclined to use nonlethal force in a contact with african-american suspects. so those are the -- in terms of the statistics, that's what it looks like to me. >> any data that you have that shows that african-americans are less likely to die at the hands of police or be shot or shot at, to me, is a incorrect analysis. but i am interested in seeing it. so if you have it, please see it. i won't call it any names. but if that data exists, i would be more than happy to see it. since you're sending me that data, can you send me the data of african-americans within the department of justice, how many you have in leadership ranks all the way down, and i yield back. the gentleman yields back. i would remind mr. jordan, mr. biggs and mr. johnson to stop violating the rules of the committee. to stop violating the safety of the members of the committee.

to stop holding themselves out as not caring by refusing to wear their masks. >> is it permissible to sip coffee? >> not permissible. >> we can't drink coffee? >> mr. gates is recognized. >> no, no, no, he went. >> that's why i took off my mask, mr. chairman. >> i'm going to go. >> mr. jordan is recognized. >> mr. attorney general, let's clear up a few things. judge berman jackson agreed with your stone sentencing recommendations, is that right? >> yeah. she said i am concerned 7 to 9 years would be more than necessary. i've agreed with the second memorandum. couldn't be more clear they agreed with you. would st. john's church be standing today if you had not taken action? >> well, i think that was on sunday. that was on sunday night. and i think law enforcement did use tear gas. my understanding is that night to clear the way so the fire

trucks could get into save st. john's church. >> the church -- >> that was on sunday night. >> i understand the time frame. but would it be standing today if there had not been action taken by federal law enforcement and local law enforcement? >> right. >> 38 people unmasked michael flynn's name 49 times in a two-month time frame. seven people at the treasury department unmasked michael flynn's name. is this an issue that mr. durham is looking into? >> i have asked another u.s. attorney to look into the issue of unmasking because of, you know, the high number of unmaskings and some that do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business. >> i want to be clear. so there's another investigation on that issue specifically going on at the justice department right now? >> yes. >> wow. that's great. so mr. durham is looking at how the whole trump/russia thing started. you have another u.s. attorney.

can you give us that name? is that something you're comfortable doing? >> john bash of texas. >> he's looking specifically at the fact -- >> at unmasking. >> 38 people, 49 times unmasked michael flynn's name and probably other unmaskings that took place in the final days of the obama/biden administration. is that accurate? >> actually, a much longer period of time. >> even before that? >> yes. >> thank you. i appreciate that. that's information that the committee did not know. are peaceful protests violent, mr. attorney general? >> no. >> do peaceful protests destroy businesses? >> no. >> do peaceful protests injure officers? >> no. >> do peaceful protests attack civilians? >> no. >> do peaceful protests burn down buildings? >> no. >> the video we played, it's hard to watch. it's really hard to watch to see that happening in our great country. but there was -- the start of it was almost laughable where you have the reporters saying, as a building is burning behind him, it's not generally speaking an unruly protest.

it's mostly just a protest. it's almost laughable when you have the reporter saying, i guess he is saying it's not a fire. it's just a burning building. i guess he's saying it's a peaceful burning building. a few weeks ago -- well, let me ask you this. i want to go right to this. is defunding the police a rational policy? >> no. i think if anything, a i'm more concerned the police be adequately funded today and get more resources. a lot of the things we need to do to address some of the concerns people have about what they saw in minneapolis are going to take some resources. some of the training that we have to do. and one of the difficulties in our country, it's not a difficulty, it's a fact. we have 18,000 law enforcement agencies. most of them are very, very small. and so we have to find a way of training, you know, making sure the training is pushed out. >> is it dangerous?

dangerous to defund the police? >> extremely dangerous. >> extremely dangerous. and some of the ordinances are dangerous. your familiar with the letter chief of police of seattle carmen best sent to business owners and residents in that city? >> yes, i am, saying that she cannot protect -- she can't do her job, her police force cannot do the job because -- >> that's exactly what she said. gives officers -- the policy they're trying to pass. a court stopped it. the policy they're trying to pass gives officers no ability. not unot you, mr. attorney, gives officers no ability to safely intercede to protect property in the midst of large, violent crowds. she also said in that letter. she's taken the leadership and responsibility to tell the business owners, the citizens that she's supposed to serve. she also tells them, i've done my due diligence on informing the council numerous times. i tried to tell them. these people won't listen to me and finally she says this. this is the scary part, why it's so dangerous. she says this. seattle police will have an

adjusted deployment. that's a nice way of saying, you're on your own. we can't help you. that is how scary this defund the police, and here's the kicker. here's the kicker. these same cities sent you a letter last week, the same week chief of police best does this to the residents and citizens of her city. her mayor sends you a letter blaming you. blaming the federal government for the violence that is happening in these cities. that is how ridiculous the left's position has become. i appreciate the work you're doing, mr. attorney general. i'm over time. i yield back. >> thank you. >> mr. jefferies. >> in barr, the job of the attorney general is to defend the best interests of the people and serve as the people's lawyer. but during your time as attorney general, you have consistently undermined democracy, undermined the constitution and undermined the health, safety and well-being of the american people. all to personally benefit donald

trump. now you just testified that there's no mechanism for a president to contest an election that has clearly been won by the opponent. mr. attorney general, what will you do if donald trump loses the election on november 3rd but refuses to leave office on january 20th? >> well, if the results are clear, i would leave office. >> do you believe that there is any basis or legitimacy to donald trump's recent claim that he can't provide an answer as to whether he would leave office? >> i really am not familiar with these comments or the context in which they occurred so i'm not going to give commentary on them. >> okay. thank you. he just stated that publicly about a week ago to fox news. mr. barr, during a radio interview this spring you praised president trump's

coronavirus response as superb. >> who did? >> you did. >> okay. >> over 150,000 americans have died. more than 4 million americans have been infected. more than 5 million americans have lost their health care. over 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed. more than 50 million americans are out of work. this is not the outcome of superb leadership. what we've gotten from donald trump is exactly the opposite. let's explore. >> i disagree with that. >> that was not a question. that was a statement. let's explore. in february, president trump falsely claimed that the number of coronavirus cases would go from 15 to zero in a few days. was that superb? yes or no. >> i'd have to see the context in which it was said. >> here's the context -- the number of cases didn't go down to zero. it's over 4 million. let's go to march. in that month, president trump said i take no responsibility at

all for the failure in testing. was that superb? yes or no? >> it was accurate. the problem with the testing system was a function of president obama's mishandling of the cdc and his efforts to centralize everything in the cdc when it -- >> thank you, mr. barr. that is inaccurate. that's a myth. >> it wasn't until this -- >> reclaiming my time. in april, president trump irresponsibly suggested that the american people inject themselves with bleach. was that superb? yes or no? >> that's not what i heard. >> that's exactly what he said. that's what the american people heard. and you know it and you can't defend it. let's move on to may. in that month, on national nurses day, president trump falsely called ppe shortages fake news. while nurses and other health

care professionals resorted to wearing trash bags and ski goggles to protect themselves. fake news. was that superb? yes or no? >> i think the administration did a good job of mustering ppe and the national supply of ppe was run down during the obama administration and never replaced. >> thank you, mr. barr. the answer is no, it was not superb. by june, president trump irresponsibly continued to refuse to wear a mask, despite the public health guidance from his own experts. was that superb? yes or no? >> which guidance? the earlier guidance that the masks wouldn't work? >> you know exactly the guidance that we're talking about. the cdc and dr. fauci in april recommended that the american people wear a mask, but donald trump has become the poster boy for the anti-mask movement.

>> donald trump is probably tested more than any other human being on the face of the earth. >> the answer is the refusal to wear a mask is not superb. last question, in july, president trump falsely claimed that 99% of covid-19 cases are, quote, totally harmless. was that superb? yes or no? >> i think essentially what he was saying is that the fatality rate, relatively, is very low. very low. >> the answer is, 150,000 americans are dead. it has been a failure of epic proportions. in fact, donald trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic has been the worst failure of any president in american history. and the american people have paid the price. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? >> i guess i do. i think it's my turn to speak

and ask questions. is that correct, mr. chairman? then i seek recognition, sir. >> gentleman is recognized. >> bless your heart. thank you. attorney general barr, chairman nadler opened up his statement by saying you can no longer hide behind a legal fiction. that caused me some consternation. do you have any idea what he's talking about? >> i don't recall that phrase. in what context? >> who knows what context. he was just kind of rattling on there but he was attacking you and your performance in virtually everything he could and said you can no longer hide behind legal fiction. and i didn't see any connection with anything else he had been saying. so i wondered if you had seen anything. apparently you didn't see anything either. the next person to ask questions is the gentle lady from california who consistently referred to civilian federal

agents as federal troops. and intimating, if you will, that portland was peaceable until federal civilian agents arrived on the scene. essentially, it's kind of analogous to blaming a fire department for showing up to put out a fire and then being blamed for starting the fire. attorney general barr, let's just have it on the record. was there violence and attempts to burn down, vandalize the building and attack civilian employees of the federal government prior to any other federal agents or reinforcements being sent in of federal agents? >> yes, my recollection is our mann effort to reinforce was around the fourth of july period and it had been going on for quite a while before that. >> let's talk about lafayette square for a second. the -- leading up to june 1st, you had violent mobs disobeying the 11:00 p.m. curfew.

they intentionally set fire to st. john's episcopal church near lafayette square. secret service and park police appropriate use of safe restorative force actually cleared that up. in total, however, 51 u.s. park police officers were injured during the weekend leading up to the perimeter expansion. do you want to expand on the actions with lafayette park? >> for the 29th, 30th and 31st there was unprecedented rioting right around the white house. very violent. during that time, as you say, about 50 park police and a comparable number of secret service. so we had about -- i think around 90 officers injured. i'm talking about things like concussions. one was operated on and so forth. we had the president -- it was so bad that it's been reported the secret service recommended the president go down to the shelter. we had a breach of the treasury

department. the historical building on lafayette park was burned down, the lodge. st. john's was set on fire. bricks were thrown at the police repeatedly. they took crow bars and pried up the pavers on lafayette park and threw those at the police. balloons of costic liquid were thrown on the police. and it was clear when i arrived at the white house on monday, it was total consensus that the -- we couldn't allow that to happen so close to the white house. that kind of rioting. and, therefore, we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward i street. and there was already a plan in being at that point that the park police and the secret service had worked out the night before which was to put the perimeter further away and give them time to put a nonscalable fence across the northern part

of the park. during the day -- during monday, the factors that led to the timing of it were that that movement was going to be made as soon as there were enough units in place to actually perform it. and units were very slow in getting into place throughout the day. much to my frustration because i wanted it moved before there was a big build-up of demonstrators. and also the fencing had to be delivered. and when those things were accomplished, the tactical commander in charge of the park police proceeded with the movement of pushing the perimeter. so this was something conceived of long before and didn't turn on the nature of the crowd although i would say the crowd was very unruly. and while the tactical considerations were made by the park police, you know, they tried to respond to the situation. to say this had to do with the

photo op -- and i don't mean to analogize this to a military operation, but it's akin to saying we invaded the philippines in world war ii so douglas macarthur could walk through the surf on the beach. one follows the other but we did not invade the philippines so macarthur could walk to the beach. >> thank you. yield. >> gentleman yields back. mr. swalwell. >> mr. barr, have you ever intervened other than to help the president's friend get a reduced sentence where they have filed sentencing recommendations for the court. >> a sentencing recommendation? >> yes, other than that case with the president's friend. >> not that i recall. >> is that something you'd -- >> if you let me finish the question. 30 years ago i was attorney general. >> as attorney general now. >> no, i didn't, but that's because issues come up to the attorney general in a dispute and i'd never heard of a dispute in the department where lying

prosecutors threatened to quit because -- >> mr. barr -- >> because of discussion over sentencing. >> in donald trump's america, there's two systems of justice. one for mr. trump and his cronies and another for the rest of us. but that can only happen if you enable it. at your confirmation hearing, you were asked, do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him? you said -- >> not to what? >> that would be a crime. you were asked, could a president issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him and you responded, no, that would be a crime, is that right? >> yes, i said that. >> you said a crime. you didn't say unlawful. you said it would be a crime. and when you said that, that a president swapping a pardon to silence a witness would be a crime, you were promising the american people that if you saw that, you would do something about it. is that right? >> that's right. >> now mr. barr, are you investigating donald trump for commuting the prison sentence of

his longtime friend and political adviser roger stone? >> no. >> why not? >> why should i? >> well, let's talk about that. mr. stone was convicted by a jury on seven counts of lying in the russia investigation. he bragged that he lied to save trump's butt. but why would he lie? your prosecutors told a jury that stone lied because the truth looked bad for donald trump. and what truth is that? well, donald trump denied in written answers to the russia investigators that he talked to roger stone during the time roger stone was in contact with agents of a russian influence operation. there's evidence that trump and stone indeed did talk during that time. you would agree that it's a federal crime to lie under oath. is that right? >> yes. >> it's a crime for you. it's a crime for me and it's certainly a crime for the president of the united states. is that right? >> yes. >> so if donald trump lied to the mueller investigators, which you agree would be a crime, then roger stone was in a position to expose donald trump's lies.

are you familiar with the december 3rd, 2018, tweet where donald trump said roger stone had shown guts by not testifying against him? >> no, i'm not familiar with that. >> you don't read the president's tweets? >> no. >> well, there's a lot of evidence in the president's tweets, mr. attorney general. i think you should start reading them. because he said mr. stone showed guts but on july 10 of this year, roger stone declared to a reporter, i had 29 or 30 conversations with trump during the campaign period. trump knows i was under enormous pressure to turn on him. it would have eased my situation considerably but i didn't. the prosecutors wanted me to play judas. i refused. are you familiar with that stone statement? >> actually, i'm not. >> how can you sit here and tell us why should i investigate the president of the united states if you're not even aware of the facts concerning the president using the pardoning or commutation power to swap the silence of a witness? >> because we require, you know, a reliable predicate before we

open a criminal investigation. >> and i just gave you, sir -- >> i don't consider it. i consider it a very goldberg theory that you have. >> it sounds like you're hearing this -- >> by the way, if i applied this standard, there would be a lot more people under investigation. >> mr. attorney general, the very same day that roger stone said that, donald trump -- >> that's one of the -- the two standards of justice were really during the tail end of the obama administration. >> let's turn to the michael cohen case. are you aware that michael cohen, after being released from prison, was asked not to engage with the media, including to write a book. were you aware that was going to be asked of him? >> was i aware? >> yes. >> no. >> were you aware if anyone nels your department was aware? >> maybe i should tell you what happened. >> tell us what happened. >> he was furloughed from the bureau of prisons. >> telluous he was asked -- >> i was telling you. because something that people don't seem to understand is that his home confinement was not

being supervised by the bureau of prisons. it was being supervised by the probation office which is part of the u.s. court system. it was the u.s. court system that had the requirements about -- >> yes, the u.s. court system called your actions retaliatory. do you agree with that? >> all i know is what has been said in court before the judge and in the record which is that the individual was then called by the u.s. court system saying this guy cohen is uncooperative. he's not agreeing to the conditions. and at that point, the bureau of prisons person made the decision that he was no longer eligible for home confinement. >> conditions that a federal judge said no other inmate had ever been asked of in his experience. mr. barr, you told abc news the president's tweets sometimes make your job impossible. but, sir, your job is only impossible if you enable the president's schemes. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. attorney general, the constitution says the president shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united states except in cases of impeachment. do you note any other limitations in the constitution on the president's power to pardon? >> no. >> has the president exceeded that power? >> no. >> my colleague from georgia, mr. johnson, implied that in challenging the sentencing recommendation of roger stone, you were doing the bidding of the president. he didn't want to hear your response. i would. >> well, no, i was -- roger stone, i never discussed our sentencing recommendation with anyone outside the department of justice. it was a very condensed period of time. i first heard -- i made the decision we shouldn't take a position as to the precise sentence but should leave it up to the judge, and we should not affirmatively advocate for seven to nine years. and i made that on monday the 10th, and that that night, we filed the department filed and

it didn't reflect what i had decided. so that night, i told people we had to fix it first thing in the morning. so we did. as soon as i got in, we went forward with a plan to file. at that point, i learned about the president's tweet because i don't monitor the president's tweets. and i hesitated because i knew that i would be attacked for doing it. people would make -- argue that i did it because of the tweet. but i felt at the end of the day, i really had to go forward with our filing because it was the right thing to do, and i'm glad the judge agreed with it. >> we're learning more and more about the targeting and prosecution and extortion of michael flynn by partisan officials at the fbi. no one has been held accountable for this grotesque abuse of power. knowing that agents with a political agenda can take anything that someone says, edit it, misrepresent it, prosecute

it and then extort confessions by threatening family members and do so with impunity, why would anyone want to talk to an fbi agent again? >> well, i haven't reached judgments and i'm not suggesting that all those facts you set forth are true. and we have not, at this point, challenged the actions of -- i defended the actions of the prosecutors in this case in court. my -- the order of business right now is knowing what we know now, we don't think any of the u.s. attorneys in the department would have prosecuted this case. partly because of the behavior of the fbi but also because the evidence is not there to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. and part of what i'm trying to establish is that we will use the same standards for everybody before we indict anybody. and this goes for both sides.

we won't prosecute anybody unless there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime. and not some esoteric crime but a meat and potatoes crime. >> the most powerful agencies in our government took information fabricated by agents of a political campaign they knew was fraudulent, used it as justification to launch an investigation, alleging treason against a presidential candidate. then leaked the existence of that investigation in a manner that was clearly calculated to affect the outcome of the election. then failing that used in a largely successful attempt to obstruct the duly elected president. are you going to be able to right this wrong before it becomes precedent for future election interference by corrupt officials in our justice and intelligence agencies? >> you know, i really can't predict that. as you know, john durham is looking at all these matters. covid did delay that action for

a while. but he's working very diligently, and justice is not something you order up on a schedule like you are ordering a pizza. >> there are many of us who are concerned if you are succeeded by someone like keith ellison as attorney general, that this will become an institutionalized practice and the investigation of mr. durham will simply go away. >> i understand your concern. >> one more thing. the term we keep hearing from the left is these are mostly peaceful protests. mostly peaceful. it seems you either are or you're not. calling what's happening in our societies mostly peaceful protests is a lot like calling scott peterson a mostly faithful husband or al capone a mostly law-abiding businessman. there is a constitutional right to peaceably assemble. where does that right stop? >> when it becomes violence, criminal activity. and that's the challenge here. you have a lot of people who are out protesting and

demonstrating, and that's important first amendment activity that we believe strongly in trying to protect. and the particular violent opportunists involved here get into those crowds and then start engaging in very violent activity and hijack it. and a lot of protesters have been telling law enforcement and providing information to us about these people who are not with them. they're not demonstrators but they're coming in and a lot of demonstrators leave when that happens because they see what's happening themselves. >> would you call that violence a myth? >> no. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. liu. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. barr for being here today. i'd like to ask you some questions about the legal standard for seizing and arresting protesters. under the fourth amendment, it requires probable cause before

you can seize and arrest a protester, correct? >> yes. yes. >> okay. and the probable cause has been particularized to a particular person. so if a protester was merely standing around in a crowd and the vicinity of someone else, suspect or criminal activity, you cannot arrest that peaceful protester. in other words, there's no such thing as probable cause by mere association, correct? >> well, not strictly, but i'll say that you do need particularized probable cause. >> okay. and if there's no probable cause, then -- >> if someone jumps into a getaway car and there are three or four people in there, that may be enough to give you probable cause. just those circumstances. you don't need it on each individual -- >> reclaiming my time mr. attorney general. if there's no probable cause, you can't arrest a protester, correct? >> i said at the beginning, arrest has to be predicated on probable cause.

>> all right. now an arrest can also occur whether or not the federal official says it's an arrest. so, for example, if a federal officer takes a protester into custody, transport them to a federal building, detained a person for questioning, that will constitute an arrest whether or not the federal official says the person is under arrest, correct? >> that would require very intensive review of all the specifics involved. >> actually, it wouldn't. in the case of dunnaway versus new york, black letter law for 40 years, the question is whether the police violated the 14th and 15th amendments when without probable cause for arrest they took petitioners into custody, transported him to police station and detained him for questioning. the answer is, yes, that would constitute -- >> no, the answer is that fourth amendment is ultimately governed by reasonableness and there can be circumstances. the question sometimes is when does something actually

become -- >> reclaiming my time. this is not a trick question, mr. barr. i'm just citing what the supreme court said. under this standard black letter law, which has been in effect for over 40 years, what the federal forces in portland did was unconstitutional. federal forces in full combat gear in the dark of night grab a protester who was peacefully standing there, forced him into an unmarked van, drove him to a separate location, searched him, detained him and questioned him. that is what police states do. that's what authoritarian -- >> i don't think those were the facts. >> i haven't asks you a question yet, mr. barr. what federal officials did was illegal because they didn't have probable cause. how do we know that? because deputy director of the federal protector service chris klein admitted it on national tv. deputy director said the individual they were questioning

was in a crowd and in the area where another individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers. that's guilt by association. that's what the fourth amendment prohibits. deputy director klein said he was released after federal officials concluded, quote, they did not have what they needed, unquote, which again shows no probable cause. and it appears that federal deputy director klein appears to have said there was no probable cause because he essentially justifies that action as saying it wasn't an arrest. he calls it, quote, a simple engagement, unquote. i'm a former prosecutor. i've never heard that term, a simple engagement, because it's a made-up excuse. what these federal officials did was an arrest. they grabbed a peaceful protester. they force him into a van. drove him to another location. questioned him. that's exactly what the supreme court prohibited over 40 years ago. >> so i, obviously, don't know the -- >> i haven't asked you a

question yet. in a "washington post" article on july 24th, federal agents told reporters that there's no basis for these arrests. they said, quote, at times they have grabbed an individual and taken him inside the courthouse for questioning before determining that they have no probable cause to charge him with any crime, unquote. deputy director klein said that they coordinate with the u.s. attorneys office on all of these arrests. i urge you to instruct your federal officials to comply with the constitution. and i ask you to investigate these arrests and as many of them are in violation of the fourth amendment. we do not live in a police state. we are better than that. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chair. since representative lieu didn't allow you any time to answer his allegations, would you care to answer any of his allegations? >> yes. obviously, i don't know all the particulars of any individual case out there, but based on my

general understanding what had happened was that when they tried to effectuate arrests of the ringleaders or the people engaged in violence or that they saw with lasers and so forth and they went out, they were immediately swarmed by people in black and there was a lot of violence. they couldn't effectuate the arrest. so the modus operandi was changed and based on specific information as to individuals who were seen doing things, and identified, they later tried to pick them up when there was less of a risk of this kind of mob response. the fact that you -- if you have information that someone has a laser and is using it and later pick them up and he has it, it doesn't mean there was probably cause. it means he doesn't have the laser. the question is, was it reasonable for you to rely on the information that you had and the identification of that individual? and in some cases, it could be a misidentification.

in other cases, it could be the person, you know, ditched the laser. so there is a distinction between whether the person ultimately can be shown to have violated the law and whether there was probable cause for the police to make the inquiry and take them and interrogate them or ask them questions at least. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. you know, i think -- i have to tell you, you probably know this. my constituents are scared. americans are scared. i mean, they watch the tv. they see all those rioting, looting going on, statues being torn down. in arizona, where i'm from, more guns are being sold than ever. i think there's more new gun owners than ever. and this has to stop. and i think that it's really important, as the saying goes, that in order to solve a problem, the first step is to realize there's a problem.

and so it -- i find it very disturbing, should i say, that chairman nadler denies that antifa even exists. he said it to a reporter. he said on the floor of the united states house of representatives that it was a fantasy. a made-up fantasy. and then in this very room, just recently, congresswoman jayapal who represents the seattle area said, when i was talking about the autonomous zone and the takeover, she said, the area is just a few miles from where i sit right now, and there is no takeover. there is no takeover. she also said lies are being spread by my colleagues in this committees. this area is perfectly peaceful. she also said, my republican colleagues keep saying the seattle police precinct was

taken over by protesters. this is incorrect. incorrect. no one has taken over that building. mr. attorney general, is that your your understanding of what happened there? do you agree with her that there was no takeover? >> if you are going to say my name, please say it right. >> do you agree with that? and also in answer, why do you think these autonomous zones in democrat-led cities are dangerous to america? >> well, starting with they're dangerous because they are purporting to keep on the outside duly constituted authority of the government.

autonomous zone haven't selected the government. they have selected the duly authorized government of the city and the state, so it's quite an outrage that people would use force to take over an area. what makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the democratic party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts. why can't we just say, you know, the violence against federal courts has to stop? could we hear something like that? >> mr. attorney general, i totally agree. i support what you are doing, and i support what president trump is doing for law and order in our country and i yield back. >> the committee will stand in recess for five minutes.

good afternoon. you have been watching attorney general william barr testify before the house judiciary committee. they're taking a five minute break, so let's bring in former federal prosecutor daniel goldman, matt miller, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg and mia wiley former assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. mia, let's start with you. what is your take-away? >> my take-away is that this was as we predicted. there is a lot of back and forth. barr is making sure he's sticking to his talking points. but, you know, i think what we have, it is more what we haven't heard. we have heard republicans really use this antifa is the problem, this problem of violence that we have had this explosion and that they -- we must protect federal

courthouses. and, yet, we haven't yet heard the democrats come hard on the fact that the department of justice actually hid data from congress last year about domestic terror being primarily driven by white supremacists, that they collapsed categories so that it actually reduced the appearance of white supremacy in domestic terrorism and that funding got cut for addressing domestic terror. so in effect, we're hearing all this reporting about all these questions about antifa and we have yet to hear a counter from the democratic side about just how big a red herring that is in terms of data. but also how big barr has effectively blocked congress from effective oversight about public safety and about whether and how it's keeping all people in the united states safe and appropriately based on the data

that it should have. i would hope that that would come up more later, but right now it is just a tennis match. >> matt miller, do you think that there is something to take away from this, obviously? all of you who are on my panel who are great members of my msnbc family, you are familiar with all these issues. but for the average american citizen, trying to watch this, trying to follow it, maybe they're not familiar with congressional hearings but now have a chance to watch because they're home, what should they know about what they saw already today? >> you know, i think you're right, chris. i think the question has been uneven, which is not uncommon for commercial hearings. on this panel some of the more junior members ask some of the better questions. i think the biggest take-away so far was from representative

swalwel where he got the attorney general to admit that he could not remember where ther of the attorney general's matter to insist on a lower sentence for roger stone than recommended. the sentence that has always been before the table, does the attorney general only interfere when it comes to the president's allies and the president's friends or can he give us any other examples to show that this was a regular course of business for him? what he saw today was he can't provide a single other example. i think that shows what we always suspected all along, which this is a unique intervention by the attorney general and one that was entirely inappropriate. >> yeah. there is another issue that came out, daniel goldman, about voter fraud where he questioned whether or not it was such a great idea to have people voting by mail. he was pressed pretty hard about people voting during the coronavirus. that obviously we all know.

although, he seemed to sort of waiver back and he said, i think that's true when it was pointed out to him that americans of color have suffered in far greater numbers than others in this pandemic. how do you feel this has gone both for barr and for those who are doing the questioning? yeah. we don't have any audio, to chuck rosenberg, i'm going to let you pick up that question while we get daniel's microphone fixed. >> sure, chris. i again corrgenerally agree. the questioning has been scattered. barr has held his own. whatever you may think of him, and i'm not a fan, he's a very smart man. so cornering him is an exceptionally hard thing to do. i think congressman swalwell did

it. the blind spot he has is that even if he could defend each action in some way, what barr misses over and over again is the perception of his conduct, the way that it is perceived by many of us is favoring allies of the president over others or intervening only when the president wants him to intervene. he can't even seem to acknowledge that the perception is so far off, chris. and i think that's what makes this whole hearing unfortunate. the questioning barr has largely hold his own form listically and legally but he's completely missing the perception. and perception is so important to the rule of law on how the department of justice does its business. and i wish barr could see that. that is his blind spot, chris. >> daniel goldman, what is your take-away? >> i tend to agree. it is very hard in these

five-minute increments to get into detailed policy discussions. i think the democratic members were far more effective when they were really pinpointing bill barr on very specific questions related to very specific incidences. and it's clear that bill barr is a little bit triggered by the whole roger stone sentencing, and i do agree that eric swalwell did a nice job quest n questioning job questioning him. but the thing i would want to hear a little bit more of and you raised the issue of voter fraud, chris, is a follow-up question. mr. barr, what is your evidence that there is potential voter fraud from widespread mail-in voting? what is your evidence that there is antifa representatives are the ones who are leading the riots in various cities? ask him what his evidence is and what the data is that he is relying on because what ends up

happening here is barr makes a statement without explaining the backup and all too often the congressmen are responding with statements of their own. but what we're really here to hear is bill barr. and i think that's something that's important to remember. >> and bill barr is returning to the table right now. there was a brief break. they have not had a lunch break so far. there was one other issue that came up during this, and we probably have 30 seconds left, matt miller, if he doesn't start, which is he seems to defer on a couple of issues. he says he never sees the president's tweets. he seemed to be unfamiliar with ketamine. >> yeah. that was a very odd exchange where he said he wasn't aware of the president's tweets, specifically it was a reference to a tweet that the president

said roger stone had guts in not turning against him. that was a rare thing for two reasons. number one, barr has said that the president's tweets make it difficult for him to do his job. but number two, that showed up in the mueller report, which the attorney general has presumably read. you expect the attorney general to be familiar with the facts of that report with the facts that the department uncovered in its investigation of the president. that was a very important part of the report examining whether the president had obstructed justice. so the attorney general coming to congress and claiming he's not aware of that tweet, you know, maybe he just doesn't remember it, but that to me seems highly disingenuous. >> so as we wait for him to start maybe in just a few seconds, matt miller, what is the question you would like to ask the attorney general? >> there is still a question that i think needs to be asked about the removal of the u.s. attorney for the