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 southern district of new york.

the story that barr has tried to spin is that he just found another candidate to take that job. so they wanted to get jeffrey berman out of that job. but of course that's a process that takes several months. there is no reason that berman couldn't be left in that job until clayton was confirmed. the answer the attorney general tells basically it doesn't make any sense. i think it's always looked like he was trying to get berman out of that office and put an acting official in. we don't know what the underlying reason was. we don't know if it was a specific case he wanted to impact or if it was general unhappiness with the way berman was managing that office in relation to a larger number of cases. but i would like to hear more delving into the attorney general's explanations for that firing, including why he lied in his initial statement saying that jeffrey berman had agreed to step down when that, in fact, was not the case. >> joining me now is the host of

"meet the press," chuck todd, who will pick up our continuing coverage. i think there is another thing at play here, which is that one of the committee members is karen bass, on the short list apparently for vice president for joe biden who, while all of this was going on, was unveiling an economic plan. but from the political side of this, chuck, what is your take-away from this? >> well, it was the partisan whiplash i expected, as everybody who you were just talking to knows, house judiciary, unlike any other committee, is populated with the most ideological folks left or right. so you see this partisan whiplash when you watch it. i have been surprised at how comfortable bill barr is playing a partisan. i say it this way. he lets misstatements go if they're from allies. he corrects misstatements on the left. he had an odd view of testing, somehow blaming barack obama and the cdc.

it was sort of the type of answer you'd expect from a political pundit on a certain cable channel, not necessarily from the sitting attorney general. so i was surprised because during his confirmation hearing, chris, he went out of his way to at least -- look, he's ideological, everybody expected that, but he would try to create a professional side here. he's kind of let that blur more than i expected. chris? let's pick up the hearing right now. >> and chuck todd will join us on the other side. >> interference in our election. you sent a letter the committee mischaracterizing robert mueller's finding that vladimir putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion to benefit donald trump. mr. mueller probably sent you a letter calling you out for your mischaracterization and you never corrected it. you delayed the release leaving the american people stewing with your misleading bonus claims.

you repeat these claims today, that there was no basis for this investigation and it was politically motivated by calling it the russiagate scandal. the justice's department's own inspector general found that the investigation had been initiated properly and without political bias. isn't that correct? >> no. >> it's not correct? >> no. >> you are wrong. he's found the investigation was initiated properly. i'm reclaiming my time without political bias. >> he said in evidence -- >> reclaiming my time. the republican led senate intelligence committee unanimously found that russia interfered with our elections and attempted to undermine american democracy, correct? >> and i said so, too. >> is it ever appropriate for the president to solicit or

accept foreign assistance in an election? >> depends what kind of assistance. >> is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election? >> no, it's not appropriate. >> okay. i saw you had to struggle with that one, mr. attorney general. now let's turn to the first amendment. americans have been exercising their first amendment rights to peacefully protest police brutality against black people. i read your statement. we're aware of certain individuals who engaged in violent acts and we all agree that's wrong. there was a lot missing from your statement. for example, as i'm sure you have also seen, the vast majority of protesters are peaceful. despite, that unidentified federal agents have attempted to provent these mothers, veterans and peaceful americans from exercising their first amendment rights, even using unmarked vehicles to grab protesters off the street and using tear gas

ammunitions against them. you forcefully condemned protesters this morning. but let me ask you, sir, why have you not condemned the federal offices you are sending into cities without proper training or attempting to take away the constitutional rights of americans peacefully protesting? >> i haven't condemned protesters. protesters are good. demonstrations are good. they're part of the first amendment. what i'm condemning is people that commit crimes. >> we agree. do you think it is appropriate for officers to use force against peaceful protesters? >> not against peaceful protesters. >> you don't mention that federal officers have even tear gassed elected representatives, county commissioner confirmed last night i was tear gassed. i saw throw canisters of poison without warning into a nonviolent crowd including elders and the vulnerable. the mayor ted wheeler was tear gassed.

he called the tactics of the officers abhorrent. these are elected representatives are grave concerns that officers are using abhorrent tactics, including tear gassing elderly, nonviolent americans. let me ask you, sir, do you think it is ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protesters, yes or no? >> the problem in these things sometimes occur because it is hard to separate people who may -- >> mr. barr, my question is very specific. do you think it is ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protesters, yes or no? >> it is appropriate to use tear gas when it's indicated to disperse an unlawful assembly and sometimes unfortunately peaceful protesters are affected by that. >> i'm going to show you there is video evidence as well. i will ask you to look at this vid video. >> this is the video that's capturing the nation's attention this weekend.

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

in this country that americans who show up to peacefully protest should expect to be beaten, pepper sprayed and have their bones broken by federal officials. >> i don't think peaceful protesters should face that. >> isn't protecting the first amendment at least as important as protecting a building from vandalism. i have not posed a question. we fought for a democracy for the right to speak freely, and you are attempting to take that away to further the president's further agenda and generate footage for trump campaign officials. the justice department is not to serve as the president's personal bully. speaking of protesters, it is worth remembering, every person was a protester. protesters aren't chaos. they're deeply american examples of values, a desire for this

country to be at their best self. one of america's most beloved protesters john lewis lies in state 1,000 feet from here. your failure to respect the role of peaceful protesters is a disgrace, un-american and it is important to remember what these protests are about. black lives matter. abuse by the hands of police at black americans. i want you to see a video that fairly represents a peaceful protest happening all across america that you conveniently omitted from your testimony and your statement. >> there was a nine minute video shown by the other side. >> it's not all nine, only part of it.

♪ ♪ heads of police don't shoot me ♪ heads of police don't shoot me ♪ don't shoot me ♪ heads of police don't shoot me ♪ heads of police don't shoot me ♪ shoot me ♪ heads of police don't shoot me ♪ heads of police don't shoot

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

our country is safe. i encourage you to ignore the mob. these attacks from democrats and the left wing media. be strong and courageous. for the vast majority of the country supports you and supports you rooting out corruption in the fbi and keeping our country safe from rioters, looters and anarchists. i'm happy you are at the helm of the doj and supporting the rule of law. i want to support on something that mr. jordan spoke about in his opening remarks. i want to focus on the inspector general's december 9th report on the fbi's unlawful surveillance of carter page. the fbi found obama made 17 significant errors in fisa applicants? >> i think that's right. >> how many errors are acceptable when the fbi is targeting americans? >> well, none are acceptable.

>> then there was the complete woods files failures, the fbi operating under the obama administration. the inspector general found that 51 factual assertions in the fisa applications to surveil page, one, lack supporting documentation, two, the supporting document did not support the fbi's factual assertions or the supporting document showed the fbi's factual assertion was accurate. he found 51 errors. why is it so important for surveillance targeting americans to be error free? >> well, especially under fisa, which, you know, is a counter intelligence tool and doesn't have the same built-in protections that the criminal justice process would have. it is very important because you are going to be spying on americans that you have an -- you know, you have demonstrated an appropriate basis for doing

that. and, therefore, there is a special burden on the investigative agency, in this case the fbi, to have accurate information as to the basis of their surveillance. and, you know, i think the bureau has been working very hard to correct those problems and to put in place a much more effective system of guaranteeing that the information is accurate. >> isn't it true that the fbi under the obama administration cherry picked favorable evidence to obtain a fisa warrant and ignored facts that cut against probable cause? >> i don't want to characterize it. this is part of what's under review. exculpatory information was not passed along to the court. let me just put it that way. that's evident in the inspector general's report. >> i will yield the remainder of

my time to mr. jordan. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. attorney general, do you deploy federal law enforcement to enforce federal law? >> yes. >> to protect federal property? >> yes. >> would the federal building in portland be standing today if you had not deployed federal law enforcement? >> i don't think so. there had been multiple attempts to set it afire. i have to say, i don't understand why a small contingent of marshalls inside the court poses a threat to anybody's first amendment rights. they set up a fence on federal property, i am told, around the court and when people are arrested, it's because they're trying to come into the fence. these aren't peaceful protesters. they bring power tools to cut through the wire and so forth to get in. this is a strange occupation of a city when you have, you know, 100, 120 federal people behind the fence trying to protect the building and all these people

are trying to cut their way in. that is the occupation of a city? >> thank you. did the chicago fraternal order of police president ask for your help? >> did who ask for my help? >> the head of the fop in chicago, did they ask for your help? >> i think they did. i think they did. >> previous exchange, they talked about mr. horowitz's report. do you have anything else to add? >> my understanding of my recollection of the fact is they didn't find there was no bias. and he made that clear in subsequent testimony. what he said was he couldn't find no documentary or other evidence demonstrating bias. >> and it would be helpful if he could come in front of this committee and the individual who was raising that concern with you, mr. attorney general, could ask mr. horowitz himself what he

found in that report and subsequent report that we have not yet had a hearing on. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> did i hear you correctly that the unleashing of this assault on 2,000 nonviolent protesters in lafayette square was to secure and defend the st. john'? >> i said the purpose was to move the perimeter to i street which had been the perimeter as far as i'm aware all day. >> so it was legitimate in that case -- >> i'm talking about the june 1st. >> the june 1st assault on a lot of people, including my constituents. and i could bring them to your office to talk about it. >> i don't think it was an assault. they were told by loud speak their the park police were preparing to move a street. >> i think you said something that the church would have been overrun. >> on sunday night i believe.

>> are you aware the director of the church, the arch bishop of washington and the presiding bishop nationally along with the catholic bishop of the arch die dees of washington all denounced this assault? >> did they do that before or after the fire was put out? >> well, all that i know is they denounced what you did. and if you read what the arch bishop of washington wrote, said that using police force to clear non-violent protesters without notice in order to conduct this grow decembpro foe was awrong. >> we lead the world in covid-19 case count and death count. president trump promised the disease would disappear.

he advertised quake medical cures, he told his people to slow down all the testing and refused for months to wear a mask. last night he retreated a number of messaging claiming that dr. fauci misled the american people by dismissing hydroxychloroqine as a disease. we lose more than a thousand people a day. one american every 90 seconds. but you called his public health leadership superb and threw the weight of the justice system behind his campaign to shut down state public health orders in march and april. if you look at the screen, you will see two tweets from the president of united states. liberate michigan, liberate virginia. >> he retreated the slogans of right wing protesters blocking access to hospitals and trying to overthrow public health

orders in those states. and you snapped to attention on april 27th. you designated a prosecutor to try to bring down those very public health orders in michigan and virginia. two days later, armed right wing protesters and white supremacists disrupted the michigan legislature leveling death threats, forcing the legislature to force down as they brandished their long guns and shouted in the faces of police officers. but you didn't send in a secret military force to unleash tear gas, pepper spray, billy clubs and rubber bullets among these protesters storming the cape capital of michigan. no. you embraced their cause by joining litigation against the governors of michigan and virginia. now, of course, your side lost your motions for emergency injunction. but you got to spread trump's message that it was time to call off the stay-at-home orders, the

masks and social distancing. here is what you said on national tv, echoing the claim in april that the cure was worse than the disease. quote, you can't just keep feeding the patient chemotherapy and say, well, we're killing the cancer because we were getting to the point where we're killing the patient. do you remember saying that? >> yeah. >> what did you mean by that? >> exactly what it says. you have to balance the cure with the danger, which we leave to governors. you know, i know everyone likes to -- i know everyone likes to lay everything at the feet at the president, but this is a federal republic and the response has been largely led by governors. for someone that claims to be so concerned about executive overreach, i haven't heard anyone talk about just keeping an eye on what the governor is doing. >> mr. barr -- >> excuse me. time is expired. >> the area of religious liberty. >> the supreme court rejected your position 5-4 and said there

was nothing wrong with applying public health orders to churches. >> that was on an injunction. >> do you accept it? with no vaccine, no treatment, no cure in site, you work to disarm the states of the only weapon we have against this disease, public health measures. and now we pay the price of this policy in overrun intensive health care units and morgues, a shortage of coffins and refrigerated trucks, which makes us a paria state. do you know what dr. fauci was saying at the same time? here is what dr. fauci was warning us about three months ago, if only you had listened. he said i feel if that occurs there is a real risk you will trigger an outbreak and you may not be able to control it. >> you are not taking down

public health orders. we were making narrow -- >> will you restore my time because this witness is spoking over my time. >> you let over time. let the witness respond. >> the gentleman's time is expi expired. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. we do have a government in virginia engaged in overright, particularly regarding the civil rights of virginia. i want to give the attorney general the opportunity to respond to the gentleman from maryland. >> right. we adopted a very narrow approach of calling to the attention that, usually by letter, not by lawsuit of situations where they were treating religion worse than they were other kinds of organizations and gatherings and the constitution requires that it be treated the same. and we were calling those to the attention of the governors, and most of the governors we called attention to voluntarily changed their own orders. there are a few occasions where

we pointed out anomalies in the differential regulation of business and again mostly they were voluntarily changed by the governors. so this was not a wholesale attack on stay-at-home orders. these are very broad powers that have been seeded, basically telling anyone to stay at home and only work if you are an essential business and so forth. therefore, someone has to keep an eye on that and make sure there is no overreach. as time went by, there were times where, you know, you had these crazy rules in effect that were overly burdensome and raised constitutional problems. >> i want to thank you for raising those points early and particularly with regard to virginia and the church out on the eastern shore. i want to thank you, also, for being here and for returning to lead the department of justice and right the ship and root out the rank partisan ship and bias that had corrupted the administration of justice for many years. the democrats allege that attorney general barr has

politicized the justice department doing the personal bidding of president trump, but it's not only unfounded, it's especially hypocritical in light of the pollicization that occurred during the obama-biden administration led by attorney general eric holder that obama-biden department shut out career prosecutors and flouted congressional oversight. i want to ask particularly, even after president trump assumed office, fbi lawyers exhibited bias against trump while working were both mueller and the fbi's russian investigation. and the inspector general couldn't rule out political anonymo anonymous, correct? >> that's my understanding. the inspector general found an fbi lawyer altered evidence to surveil carter page. and criminally referred this lawyer to durham for federal

prosecution. the same lawyer who also worked on the investigations in the clinton's misuse classified misinformation expressed biassed against president trump and the inspector general testified back in december that he can't rule out bias. mr. attorney general, i'd ask what would the consequences be of one of your justice department lawyers if they doctored underlying documents submitted to a federal court? >> you know, in the abstract, talking generally, that lawyer would be fired. >> would they likely be disparred as well? >> yes. >> isn't it true they found an e-mail to support probably cause against candidate trump's campaign aid? >> i think that's right. >> and the same fbi lawyer worked on the russia investigation targeting candidate trump's campaign and was on the special counsel mueller president investigating president trump, correct? >> i'm not sure about that. >> the inspector general found

several texts showing that anonymous, correct? >> on that particular lawyer? i believe so. >> yes. >> i can't remember the time frame of the text. but i know there were other texts. >> i want to talk to you about the unmasking that occurred where it was released a list of 39 officials who submitted a request to unmask the identity of general flynn from november 8th, 2016 to january 31st, 2017. 49 requests were submitted. is that a normal number of requests for unmasking? >> historically, that seems to be a high number. and the other question you have to ask is why was this after the election? >> and seven treasury officials, including secretary, deputy secretary sara raskin. is that a normal appearance? >> there are times when high level officials can do it.

i don't know enough about the specifics. >> i yield the remiainder of my time to mr. jordan. >> what is more important, going to a church or going to a protest? >> it depends on the individual. >> what is more important, going to work or going to a protest? >> again, it depends on the individual. you know, we're all free. we can all make our choices. >> i'm talking about government limits on those activities. what's more important, government putting limits on protesting or governments putting limits on attending church? >> they're both first amendments. >> exactly, exactly. and we should treat them the same. >> right. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. barr, on june 1st, there were protests against the murder of george floyd and police brutality in lafayette park. let us not be distracted by you

or my gop colleagues as to what these powerful and massive protests were actually about. they were about the persistent killing of black bodies by law enforcement and finally, finally an awakening in america of the conscious of our country. but your direction was to direct federal officers to dissend on the protesters and to use weapons, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op. so i do want to ask you, do you think that your response, do you think the response at lafayette square to tear gas, pepper spray and beat protesters was appropriate?

>> well, first, to my understanding that no tear gas was used on monday, june 1st. >> mr. barr, that is a semantic distinction that has been proven false by many fact checkers. >> how is it semantic? tear gas is a particular compou compound. >> you talked about chemical irritants and it has been proven false by reports. so just answer the question. do you think that was appropriate at lafayette park to pepper spray tear gas and beat protesters and injure american citizens? >> well, i don't accept your characterization of what happened. but as i explained, the effort there was -- >> mr. barr, just answer yes or no. so let me just tell you, i'm starting to lose my temper. according to sworn testimony before the house natural resources committee by adam demarco who was there, this was, quote, an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters, numerous media reports.

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

on two separate occasions after president trump tweeted liberate michigan to subvert stay home orders to protect the public health of people in michigan, protesters swarmed the michigan capital carrying guns. some with swastikas, and a dark haired doll with a noose around its neck. are you aware they called for the governor to be lynched, shot and beheaded? >> no. >> you're not aware of that? >> i was not aware of that. >> major protests in michigan. you are the attorney general and you didn't know that the p protesters called for the governor to be lynched and beheaded. >> well, there are a lot of protests around the united states. and on june 1st, i was worried about the district of columbia, which is federal. >> in certain parts of the country, you are very aware with those, but when protesters with

guns and swas taties. >> i am aware of -- >> excuse me. this is my time and i control it. but in michigan when protesters carried guns and confederate flags and swastikas and called for the governor of michigan to be beheaded and shot and lynched, somehow you are not aware of that. somehow you didn't know about it so you didn't send federal agents in to do to the president's supporters what you did to the president's protesters. in fact, you didn't put pepper balls on those protesters. so the point i'm trying to make here, mr. barr, that i think is important for the country to understand is there is a real discrepancy in how you react as attorney general when white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns. there is no need for the president so, quote, activate you because they're getting the president's personal agenda done. but when black people and people

of color protest police brutality, systemic racism and the president's very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers, pepper bombs because they are considered terrorists by the president. you take an aggressive approach to black lives matter protests, but not to right wing extremists threatening to lynch the governor if it's for the president's benefit. did i get it right, mr. barr? >> i have responsible for the federal government in the white house as the seat of the executive branch. the michigan authorities can handle -- the michigan authorities can handle. >> you should not violate people's first amendments rights. you are supposed to up yield democracy and secure equal justice under the law, not violently dismantle certain protesters based on the president's personal agenda. >> the gentle lady's time has

expired. >> i would like to ask consent to introduce into the record a report from the mit election data and science lab which says that over the past 20 years more than 240 million ballots have been cast by mail, and the fraud rate is 0.0006%. >> that objection? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, ag barr for being here today. i'm s i'm sincere when i say it's an honor. >> can i ask you for one minute, though? >> to respond? yeah. >> as i made clear moving out the perimeter was a decision made the day before. it was justified by the extreme rioting that was going on around the white house. i don't remember captain demarco, cwho ran as a democratc

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

19-year-old. there are numerous reports of robberies, assaults and property destruction as well. >> sexual assaults as well. >> yes. and despite all this, all this chaos, all this violence, it took the seattle mayor weeks to declare this an unlawful gathering and took weeks before the police were allowed to clear that area. in similar circumstances, let's talk about portland oregon. it's been going through eight weeks of violent rioting in the streets as well. rioters continue, in fact, to fire projectiles and fireworks at federal law enforcement officers and are using dangerous lasers which have permanently blinded at least three federal officers. yet, our own chairman told a reporter on sunday that the anarchy and violence going on in o oregon, and i quote, is a myth that is spread only in washington, d.c., end quote. is it in fact a myth that there

is anarchy and anarchists groups in portland, oregon? >> i think there are anarchists and far left groups involved in the violence in portland. i actually think that the chairman's comment was about antifa. i don't know exactly what he said, but i thought he was referring to antifa. >> do you think it is a myth that antifa is involved in this anarchy? >> no. i think antifa is involved in portla portland. >> what about the autonomous zone in seattle? the congresswoman has said that it is a peaceful protest zone. it is a peaceful protest zone? >> no. as i already said, it is outrageous that, you know, people set themselves up over a peace of territory where the people in there have not selected them as the government and tried to exercise sovereign

authority. that's an outrage. and, you know, we saw people handing out guns to people to, quote, keep the peace and so forth. it was anarchy there. >> your office has already charged several violence protesters with federal crimes. can you just briefly elaborate on those crimes? >> well, the whole gamet, i think we have had 224. they run the gamet from throwing molotov cocktails to, you know, assaulting a police officer, that kind of thing. >> thank you, ag barr. i just want to say that i think, and i don't know if you agree, that chaz and portland are like political experiments. they really show us what would happen if we fully embrace the radical ideology of the social justice democrats. according to the democrats, it

is the summer of love. according to the congresswoman that represents seattle, it is a peaceful protest zone. these cities are experiencing violence, chaos and frankly just anarchy. so i think this political experiment has showed us the liberal social justice democrat style government has failed. would you like to comment on that, attorney general barr? >> well, when i was first being -- going through a confirmation, i expressed concern about violence getting into our political system? we had seen this intolerance and attacking people and i was very worried about that and how we have seen it sweeping through the country like this. and i hope the democratic party takes a stand against the violence. >> thank you. and i yield my time. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. demmings. >> over here? >> i'm sorry. >> over here in the corner. earlier during your testimony you talked about gun violence

and you asked the question, what about those lives? and, yes, mr. barr, those lives do matter. but did you believe that police officers should be held or held to a higher standard? >> yes. and, you know, someone mentioned my comment about we shouldn't permit resistance. we shouldn't take that as a matter of course. but i never suggest that just because someone resists that that justifies whatever is done. >> thank you so much for that because good police officers also believe that they are held to a higher standard. so i'm glad to hear you say that. as a former police detective, i have solved many cases based on patterns of behavior, and there is an alarming pattern i believe that's developing. it appears mr. barr every time a u.s. attorney investigating the president, he or she is removed and replaced by one of your friends. you have removed u.s. attorneys in the eastern district of new york, the district of columbia and the eastern district of texas.

on june 19th, you announced mr. berman would be stepping down. now let me just be clear. when you told america that mr. berman was stepping down, did mr. berman tell you he was stepping down? >> no. >> okay. >> but stepping down is the language that i am told. >> okay. he did not tell you that? >> no, no. but it is the language we usually use to leave flexibility as to whether the person is doing it on their own. >> on june 20th when asked about the basis for mr. berman's removal on the very day you announced he was being fired, stepping down, the president's personal attorney, mr. giuliani, suggested that, and i quote, the reason may lie in the fact that berman's office got involved in what giuliani described as baseless investigations. sir, if that wasn't true, if you didn't remove mr. berman because he was over seeing investigations of the president and those close to him, why would the president's personal attorney think that? >> i'm sorry. what did he say and when?

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

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

>> i have explained why i removed him. >> okay. sitting here today under penalty of perjury, do you still maintain as you stated in a february 13th interview that the president has never asked you to do anything in a criminal case, yes or no, please? >> yeah. no. i mean, will icon firm it? is that the question? >> no. do you stand by your testimony? >> he has never acted me, directed me, pressured me to do anything in a criminal case. >> okay. all right. you are aware, and i think you had this conversation earlier with my colleagues that mr. cohen was released early from prison because of concerns with covid-19. >> yes. >> okay. why did you support the decision to send mr. cohen back to prison? >> i didn't even know the decision to send him back to prison. >> did you support it? >> i haven't looked into it enough but my understanding of why it happened was -- >> mr. barr, mr. barr, as a

former -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the president has made a mockery of the department of justice. i believe as the nation's top cop no one should care more about that than you. >> the bureau of prisons -- >> thank you, madam chair. ten years ago this summer in july, my hometown, it was a beautiful day. people were golfing, kids were swimming, everybody was playing baseball. just a perfect, gorgeous day. in the span of eight minutes a tornado came through and caused unbelievable economic devastation. i don't think anybody woke up the next morning and said it was a mostly peaceful day. i want to talk specifically about what's going on in portland with you, mr. attorney general because for 61 nights the federal courthouse is under siege. not just the courthouse, federal agents are under siege. you have men and women there protecting that courthouse. i have no doubt if they weren't there that courthouse would not be standing right now.

would you agree with that? >> absolutely. what is actually going on every single night in portland at that courthouse. can you explain what your officers and your agents are going through over there? >> yes. i'm talking about the u.s. marshalls who were in the courthouse. they have initially tried to contain themselves in the courthouse. there have been efforts to push in the main door when people have succeeded in breaching the courthouse, they have thrown kerosene and fireworks and started fires. there still have been breaches into the courthouse. but basically, they try to remain in there and starting after the 4th they tried to arrest the people who were directing fireworks. they would climb up on to the side of the court, break windows, shoot fireworks in. and whenever the marshalls came out to try to put an end to

that, they were shot at with slingshots, lasers were constantly being put into their eyes even when they're inside the courthouse. there is a good description of it. >> i was going to quote that. we don't have to take your word. i watched as injured officers were hauled inside. the commercial fire work came over so fast the officer didn't have time to respond. it burned through his sleeve and he had bloody gashes on both forearms. another was hit in the head with a mortar. >> right. that's right. >> and, you know, we have had a lot of injuries out there. and these are people who this congress has charged with protecting federal courts. they're directed to protect federal courts and the u.s. code, and they are under attack and getting injured and it's been constant for 60 days. >> the violent mobs are publishing personal information of federal officers,

jeopardizing not only them but their families. why is that so dangerous and are you concerned about it? >> well, it's dangerous because people can take retaliation against their homes, families or them, you know, when they're by themselves. you know, i see some of these latin american countries in central america where the police are very, very brave because the gangs are trying to go to their houses and kill their families and, you know, you never think that could happen here but you could never think some of the stuff we're seeing today could ever happen here. >> is being burned by essentialessential essentially imp vised explosive devices typically happen? >> no. >> how is this going for recruitment or moral? how are they doing, i generally

want to know? >> i think that i.p. story gives you a feel. they feel that is their duty and that the where they have to be. a number of them are from that area. they are extremely tired. we had to rotate in more or put in more people because they're very, very tired and you make mistakes when you're tired. >> i think that's an important part. one of the most amazing parts, it started with under 30 agents there and now still under 100, 61 nights in a row they defend against a siege, fires, you know what is most amazing? they get up every morning and the courthouse still runs. they are conducting the federal government's business. i'll say something i think should be said more often. tell them thank you. tell the courthouse personnel thank you. tell the clerks thank you. tell the prosecutors thank you. tell the judges thank you. and if you can handle it, can you tell the public defenders thank you, too? they are still conducting the business. they do this every night. are they getting sleep?

>> the marshalls are having a difficult time because their demonstrators go to the hotel and go from hotel to hotel because the demonstrators try to disrupt their sleep at the hotel. >> and there's a difference between a protest and riot and every night at some point in time it turns into a riot. eventually you wake up the next morning you know what will happen again. one last question, why would we have to negotiate a seize fire with a peaceful protest? >> you know, correct. why would -- that's right. we don't want -- what we would like to see and all we would like is what we see in the rest of the country, which is state and local law enforcement taking care of their own city and taking care of streets around the courthouse. >> the gentleman's time has expire

expired. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. barr welcome. let talk about the census, if we can. that's the process where everything decides how many congressional seat each state gets, how much funding for schools, health care, other issues each region gets. let talk about the president's memo directing the commerce secretary to exclude undocumented immigrants from the portion in count of the 2020 census count. mr. barr, president essentially is saying something, trying to do something that's unconstitutional and illegal. the 14th amendment shall be a portion of every state according to the respective numbers, counting whole numbers of person in each state and then federal law, as you know, to usc subsecti

subsection 2 a and i quote the president shall transmit to the congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each state. did read those correctly, sir, more or less? >> yes. >> do you agree that the president's memo essentially violates the constitution? >> no. >> are undocumented people unwhole individuals? >> what? >> are undocumented individuals in this country not whole people? >> they are, obviously, people but the legal issue there was the terminology of the constitution -- >> if i may. >> it reflects the decision at the time of the constitution that they count in half -- >> my time, sir -- >> well -- >> you used to work for the department of justice in 1989. there was a letter written to

senator jeff bingham at the doj. if there is a slide or letter and i would ask to admit that to the record. i quote in the past the department of justice has taken the position that section 2 of the 14th amendment that the original apportionment and sense sustained clause in article one requires that inhabits of states who are illegal aliens be included in the census count. and in our view, this issue today we have found no basis for reversing that position. are you reversing that position now? >> i think what the department advised is that -- this came up because alabama claims you cannot count illegal adrians in the census under the constitution. the department looked at it and advised that congress can determine a meaning of inhas been tablet for this purpose,

that it is not a self-defining term -- >> only got two minutes, sir. >> that they recognize. >> mr. barr -- >> this is a hearing and i thought i'm the one that's supposed to be heard. >> i'm going to get there. the current dispute, you talked back when the supreme court struck down the president's attempt to put in citizenship question on the census. at that time, the president announced an executive order to collect citizen ship information by other means and at that time, you made reference to a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included in the purposes. >> i could have been referring to the alabama case. i can't remember -- >> so is the doj studying this issue? >> yes. >> can you provide this committee with discussions, any research, any concluding memos on that issue? >> i'll look into it. we've considered it and our

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

we want to make sure that our representation is equal, individual, individual, in orange county as it is in other parts of the country. all we ask for is respect, sir. i ask you please tell the president stop tweeting things, stop writing memos that are clearly, clearly unconstitutional. thank you very much. i yield. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. tiffany. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr will you send a thank you to the law enforcement people that work for you for the work that they're doing here across the quite oun states of america? >> sure. >> i want to thank the law enforcement in our country. we're an imperfect country but law enforcement does a good job across our country and they should be recognized for that. i'm going to ask you a question about mr. burnell trammell from

milwaukee here in a minute. he was the one who was shot to death at the end of last week. he's the african american man who is wearing a sign regularly known for carrying a trump for president sign. i want to show you what is happening in madison, wisconsin so we understand this is not a myth about antifa. when i riots hit minneapolis and around the country, they hit madison, wisconsin, also. i don't know if you've ever visited madison, wisconsin. there is an iconic street there called state street that starts at the capitol and runs down to the university of wisconsin madison and that street if you go there now, 75 businesses are boarded up as a result of a mayor and city counsel who would not protect those people. those people went to the city counsel last week and they asked for some assistance, the city

counsel who would not protect their business, they said no, we're not going to provide you for assistance. shortly after state street was destroyed and by the way, it disappointing by some of the film that i've seen that the police cruiser that went flaming down state street was not included in that, shortly after that about a week afterwards, two monuments at the state capital that i used to walk by all the time were torn down. one was of hans christian hague who was the abolitionist, norwegian immigrant who died defending the union and providing for the end of slavery. fighting for the end of slavery here in the united states. the other monument that was torn down, by the way, they took a tow truck and tore it down was